WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/W/24
20 February 2003
(03-1092)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special SessionOriginal:  English
STATEMENT BY HONG KONG, CHINA
Statement by Hong Kong, China at the meeting of the Special Session of the
Committee on Trade and Environment of 12-13 February 2003
Paragraph 31(i)
1. The four papers from the United States, Switzerland, Canada and India all, to some extent,
discuss how negotiations should proceed.  Instead of commenting on the four papers individually, my
delegation would like to set out Hong Kong, China’s view on how we should organize our work in the
next phase.
2. Hong Kong, China shares Members’ views that the CTESS had conducted useful exchanges
of views on a host of issues on paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Declaration last year.  Members should by
now have a better understanding of the issues in ques tion.  In this connection, I would like, first of all,
to join others in thanking the Secretariat for compiling a useful reference on Members’ submissions
(TN/TE/S/3).  The Secretariat paper serves as a handy reference in understanding Members’ positions.
We support the Secretariat updating the paper regularly to take into account Members’ submissions asthe negotiation progresses.
3. Hong Kong, China fully endorses the views of previous speakers that the CTESS has entered
into a new stage of work.  In particular, we very much share the views of the United States that: "the
existence of the compilation in WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1 makes it unnecessary to debate in the abstract
the meaning of such terms as "MEA", "obligation", "trade", etc.  The sense of delegations regarding
these terms will come to the surface through a concrete review of the examples they identify in the
document".
1  Hong Kong, China strongly believes that it would bring us nowhere if we were to
continue to dwell on those definitional issues.  Time  has come for us to proceed with discussions on
paragraph 31(i) in a "more concrete, analytical manner", a phrase used by the United States.  We
support starting practical and pragmatic discussions now.
4. The last informal consultation agreed that we should "focus on STOs in relevant MEAs,
without precluding Members from addressing definitional or other issues".  In its paper(TN/TE/W/20), the United States has made a few useful suggestions to take forward the discussions.
Hong Kong, China supports this approach, especially the idea of identifying concrete examples of
STOs, and experience sharing of the negotiation and implementation of these STOs.  As a further
suggestion to make our discussions more structured and focused, Hong Kong, China proposes that
Members may start examining the MEAs identified in  the Secretariat Matrix and the STOs therein one
by one, perhaps beginning with those MEAs which have entered into force, with a more universal
membership and global application.  We believe Members would benefit more if we are to examine
those MEAs which have been in existence for a longer time.  It should however be emphasized that
we are not suggesting a new modality of discussion.  Our suggestion is meant to facilitate the
discussions and help Members better understand the STOs in individual MEA through a concrete
                                                     
1 TN/TE/W/20, 10 February 2003, Submission by the United States, Paragraph 31(i).TN/TE/W/24
Page 2
review of actual examples and experience.  Ou r suggestion is based on a few considerations.
5. First, it is a more structured approach as Members could make reference to the Secretariat
Matrix which usefully provides a snapshot of pertinent information such as MEA status, membership,
trade-related measures, provisions for disputes and non-parties, etc.  It is also a more efficient
approach to facilitate Members’ deliberations and helps make the discussions more focused.  This isparticularly the case for small delegations which do not necessarily have the resources to undertake
their own analysis of individual MEA provisions and come up with examples of STOs identified.
6. Second, a sequential examination of MEAs will allow Members to share their implementation
experience of the STOs therein in a more structured and efficient manner.  It also helps identify and
isolate current problems associated with their implementation.  A more structured way of discussion
may also provide some insights on possible means to address potential conflicts between WTO rules
and MEA provisions, if any.  In this respect, we note that quite a number of Members have alreadycommented that given the diversity of approaches to tackle environment concerns in MEAs, it might
not be feasible, and indeed dangerous, to find a one-size-fits-all solution to the question of
WTO/MEA relationship.  Hong Kong, China fully subs cribes to this view.  Canada for example raises
a number of valid and soul-searching questions in its paper (TN/TE/W/22).  We believe Members
would not be able to find answers to those ques tions without examining and discussing respective
MEAs one by one in detail.
7. Third, Members would be able to better involve respective MEA Secretariats and tap their
expertise if the discussion is conducted sequentially one MEA by another.  In this respect, we support
the Chair’s suggestion of inviting MEA Secretariats to participate in relevant discussion of the CTESS
on an ad hoc , meeting-by-meeting basis.  We consider it a pragmatic suggestion, without prejudice to
the outcome of the horizontal discussion of the observership issue at the General Council.
8. The Secretariat has identified 14 MEAs with trade-related measures.  According to the
compilation of Members’ submissions prepared by the Secretariat (TN/TE/S/3), the same 14 MEAs
are also referred to in Members’ submissions so far.  The United States mentions in its paper that
STOs are set out in only six MEAs listed in the Secretariat Matrix.  Since the number is notprohibitive, without prejudice to the number of MEAs Members may wish to examine, a sequential
examination starting with the more representative ones may appear to be a manageable way forward.
9. In deliberating the sequence of examination of MEAs and the STOs therein, Members may
wish to make reference to aspects like the status of implementation, membership and scope of
application, etc.  We note that the US paper has listed STOs in the six MEAs identified.  Of the six
MEAs identified, we note that only three have ente red into force, i.e. the CITES, Montreal Protocol
and Basel Convention.  On membership of these MEAs, Members may wish to note that according to
the Secretariat Matrix, there are at present 154 parties to the CITES and 10 WTO Members are not
parties.  The corresponding numbers for the Montreal Protocol and Basel Convention are 175/3 and
146/22.  On products affected by these MEAs, Me mbers may agree that the products in question are
relatively easier to identify cross borders, e.g. endangered species in the CITES appendices, controlled
ozone depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, and hazardous wastes under the BaselConvention.  Given the longer time of existence of these MEAs, Members should have more
experience on the implementation of the STOs therein, such as import and export bans, restrictions,
notifications and licensing, etc.  A sequential examination of MEAs may allow a more systematic
sharing of experience.  In this respect, Hong Kong, China notes that Canada has already attempted to
examine some STOs in these MEAs in its paper.  To help structure and focus our discussions,Hong Kong, China proposes that Members should, as a start, conduct detailed examination of these
three MEAs sequentially.TN/TE/W/24
Page 3
10. Some might argue that a horizontal approach of discussing STOs in relevant MEAs might be
more efficient as some STOs are similar.  Hong Kong, China does not believe it is easy to generalize a
set of common criteria from the MEAs.  Nor do we think it is feasible to find a one-size-fits-all
solution.  Some Members have mentioned that we migh t need to categorize the STOs identified in the
MEAs in a few baskets at some stage with a view to  finding tailor-made solutions to only those which
Members accept as STOs in the end.  Hong Kong, China considers it a sensible way forward.  We
strongly think that a sequential examination of in dividual MEA is prudent and would help thrash out
all the implications of the STOs therein throug h sharing of actual implementation experience.
Meanwhile, it does not preclude some generalization at a later stage if some sort of commonalities
could be drawn through in-depth examinati on and discussions of the MEAs sequentially.
__________