WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/W/5
6 June 2002
(02-3140)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special SessionOriginal:  English
CONTRIBUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ON PARAGRAPH 31(ii)
OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
Paragraph 31(ii)
I. THE CASE FOR IMPROVEMENT IN WTO-MEA COOPERATION UNDER
PARAGRAPH 31(II)
1. Since the very inception of the WTO, largely through work in the Committee on Trade and
Environment (CTE), Members have sought to identify means by which cooperation betweensecretariats of multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) and the WTO could be improved.  Much
progress has been made during this period to increase dialogue among secretariats, formalize relations
through observer status and contribute to the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment in
intergovernmental organizations (IOs).  This prog ress has increased awareness of how international
trade rules under the WTO already accommodate actions taken under a variety of MEAs and hascontributed to better coordination by trade and environment officials at international and, critically,
national levels.  Whereas, at the conclusion of negotiations in the Uruguay Round, many
constituencies expressed concerns that WTO and MEA provisions would inevitably generate
conflicts, improved communication and greater awareness on the part of trade and environment
officials, at national and international levels, have helped to ensure that the two sets of international
obligations are compatible and mutually supportive.
2. Paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha Declaration provides for negotiations on “procedures for regular
information exchange between MEA secretariats and the relevant WTO committees, and the criteria
for the granting of observer status.”  Procedurally, cooperation and coordination between MEA bodies
and WTO bodies have increased in recent years and contributed to better mutual understanding.
While this may have taken place primarily through contacts between and among secretariats, it has
encouraged more frequent and direct contacts between trade and environment officials at nationallevels, which is the most important means for ensuring continued compatibility between WTO
agreements and those negotiated in other fora.  The United States believes that efforts to enhance
information exchange at the multilateral level -- both through continuation of existing mechanisms
and through exploration of additional means pursuant to paragraph 31(ii) -- will provide incentives for
trade and environment officials to increase coordination of policy development at the national level,and for some countries, to initiate this kind of coordination.
3. Trade and environment officials represent the same government in any one country and have
a mutual responsibility to ensure that positions presented in a variety of international fora are
internally consistent and reinforcing.  These same officials have responsibility for implementing
relevant obligations negotiated in international fo ra and ensuring that implementation is accomplished
in a way that is consistent with other international obligations.  Further efforts to increase
communication and coordination between trade and environment officials can only enhance
coherence in policy-making at national levels in ways that promote the mutual supportiveness of
negotiation and implementation of trade and environment policies at the international level.TN/TE/W/5
Page 2
4. For example, coordination between trade and environment officials at national levels have
provided opportunities in recent MEA negotiations for addressing the intended environmental
objectives in light of built-in flexibility in WTO agreements (e.g., the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the Ro tterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
(PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade).  Similarly,governments pursuing negotiations under the Doha mandate should ensure that their trade and
environment officials coordinate and consult on any environmental implications that may arise.
5. More also can be done to assist developing countries in their efforts to build institutional
mechanisms for policy coordination in the area of trade and environment.  Already, collaboration
between the WTO Secretariat and UNEP has led to increased participation of both trade and
environment officials from developing countries in events organized in the last several years (e.g., the
recent UNEP workshops on fish subsidies and capacity building).  Negotiations under paragraph31(ii) of the Doha Declaration, coupled with work to be undertaken under paragraph 33 of the
Declaration, should generate more opportunities for trade and environment officials from developing
countries to work together and with their counterparts in other countries, both developed and
developing, in international fora.  The results should also facilitate greater coordination and coherence
among IOs, particularly the WTO, UNEP, UNCTAD and MEA secretariats, in identifying developing
country needs in the area of capacity-building and ensuring delivery of more targeted technical
assistance.
6. The United States offers this communication with the objective of identifying preliminarily
some concrete actions that could be taken under the mandate in paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha
Declaration.  In the view of the United States, rapid progress under this mandate to improvecooperation between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO bodies could have positive spillover effects
for examining the relationship between existing WT O rules and specific trade obligations in MEAs
under paragraph 31(i).  The initial suggestions described below cover three areas – information
sessions, document exchange and observer status – with the expectation that the results from the
negotiations should increase contacts at multiple levels and create more integrated and dynamicrelationships overall.
II. INFORMATION SESSIONS
7. Since the CTE organized its first information session involving MEA secretariats in
September 1997, six such events have taken place under the auspices of the CTE.  As ad hoc events
organized to bring together trade and environment officials, they have been quite successful.  In
particular, these information sessions have provided an opportunity for representatives of MEA
secretariats to inform and update WTO delegations regarding developments in their respectiveagreements.
8. On the basis of experience gained through CTE information sessions over the last five years,
it could be relatively simple to create a more regu lar, institutionalized structure for conducting future
information sessions.
• Such a structure could ensure that information sessions take place at least annually
and frequently enough that all relevant MEA secretariats have the opportunity to
participate.
• Adequate opportunity should be provided for exchanges of information involving
national government officials, both trade and environment, MEA secretariats andWTO representatives.TN/TE/W/5
Page 3
• To ensure that these sessions are not repetitive, they could be organized around
specific themes, as was done in 2001 on the issues of compliance and disputeresolution in MEAs.
• Also, more attention could be given to tw o-way information flow.  For example, the
CTE and one or more MEA secretariats might explore the potential for jointly
sponsoring a meeting on a relevant theme to include government officials and expertsfamiliar with both the WTO and the MEAs involved.  Recent UNEP events on fish
subsidies and capacity building are examples of further opportunities for informal
dialogue among a variety of stakeholders.
9. In addition to dedicated events, such as information sessions, the CTE in Special Session
might also explore other mechanisms for collaboration.  The WTO Secretariat is already coordinating
its technical assistance activities to allow for participation by relevant MEA secretariats.  Otherpractical collaborative projects could include development of mutual data bases and maintenance of
joint contact lists, particularly for purposes of targeting specific technical assistance needs.
III. DOCUMENT EXCHANGE
10. An increasing number of WTO documents are submitted and circulated on an unrestricted
basis and made accessible to MEA secretariats, as is true for the general public, through the WTO’spublic Document Dissemination Facility (DDF).  We look forward to continuing improvements in
WTO transparency and welcome the recent decision by the General Council to improve document
derestriction practices and extend the category of unrestricted documents.
11. In the first instance, document exchange between trade and environment officials should
occur at the national level.  To complement this process, these negotiations could provide for better
document exchange between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO bodies.
• In addition to the access to WTO documents that is already available to MEA
secretariats that are observers to specific WTO bodies, there could be opportunities
for furthering access by addressing situations in which a secretariat is not seeking
observer status or in which its request for such status is pending.  For these situations,
Members might consider providing access to restricted documents to MEAsecretariats on the basis of specific requests and on condition of providing equivalent
reciprocal access to the WTO secretariat.
• Normally the coverage of this special access should be all official documentation
circulated to the WTO membership or observers, although the scope of relevant
documentation could be more limited.  In any event, provision should be made forensuring the protection of the restricted status of documentation.  Additionally, each
secretariat could be expected to index documentation it has obtained from the WTO
for the information of its parties and in the interests of promoting improved domestic
coordination between environment and trade officials.
• In the same vein, MEA secretariats could transmit to the WTO secretariat relevant
reports submitted by parties to these agreements.  Examples could include partyreports under Article 10(2) of the PIC Convention (i.e., import responses to proposed
exports of chemicals) and reports on certifications received from importing
non-parties under the POPs Convention.  The WTO secretariat could similarly index
documentation it has received from MEAs for the information of WTO Members.TN/TE/W/5
Page 4
12. While these procedures would offer some improvements in existing access to documentation
between organizations, document exchange at the inte rnational level is not a substitute for the kind of
exchange of information that should take place at national levels between trade and environment
officials.
IV. OBSERVER STATUS
13. The final phrase of the mandate in paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha Declaration refers to the
“criteria for granting observer status.”  This mandate is limited to the question of observer status for
relevant MEA secretariats and does not extend to the more generic issue of IO observer status in the
WTO.  This latter responsibility clearly rests with the General Council and is not specific to
consideration of the means by which the relationship between trade and the environment can be
mutually supportive.  Additionally, this paper does not address a more immediate question of observer
status in the negotiations provided for in the Doha Declaration, although the United States hopes thatthis question can be resolved at an early stage of negotiations.  While not the subject of this paper, this
question is of particular importance for MEA secretariats since the Doha mandate in paragraphs 31(i)
and (ii) provides for negotiations of direct interest to them.
14. In considering procedures to improve the granting of observership to MEA secretariats,
thereby promoting understanding between trade a nd environment officials at international and
national levels, the present context remains those procedures set forth in Annex 3 of the Rules of
Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council
(WT/L/161).  Any supplemental procedures or criteria for considering observer requests from MEA
secretariats should be consistent with the objectives and criteria set forth in Annex 3, particularly that
decisions on observer status should be made on a case-by-case basis by each WTO body to whichrequests have been addressed and that they should take account of the nature of the work of the IO
concerned and its membership.
15. Within the parameters of Annex 3, it may be possible to specify certain characteristics of
MEAs that could constitute a basis for deeming that these organizations have a “direct interest” in
matters before particular WTO bodies and creating a presumption that their requests for observerstatus should be granted.
• On this basis, WTO bodies could be directed to look for certain indicators when
examining requests for observer status from MEA secretariats.
• Subject to confirmation that reciprocal observer status will be provided to the WTO
Secretariat in the relevant proceedings of a requesting MEA, those requests that
contain the relevant indicators would normally be granted observer status.  (TheWTO Secretariat has not faced significant restrictions to date in its efforts to observe
particular MEA sessions, such as relevant conferences of parties (COPs)).
• This approach for streamlining MEA requests would be without prejudice to requests
that do not necessarily contain the specified indicators but that otherwise demonstrate
a direct interest in the WTO body concerned.
16. The United States suggests that the CTE in Special Session consider whether it may be
appropriate to develop specific guidelines that set forth the pertinent characteristics to be taken into
account when a request for observer status is under examination.  At the present, a number of MEA
secretariats already have observer status in the CTE and several have observer status in other WTO
bodies.  Nevertheless, it could be useful to develop a general approach for MEAs, including those that
may be negotiated in the future, to ensure that observer status is a meaningful tool that contributes togreater coordination and communication in the administration of international trade andTN/TE/W/5
Page 5
environmental obligations.  Additionally, the CTE in Special Session might consider other specific
roles that relevant MEAs could play in WTO proceedings to ensure that their perspective is available
on questions involving potential interplay of WTO and MEA provisions.
V. CONCLUSION
17. As noted at the outset of this communication, the United States is convinced that opening
more avenues for information exchange and dialogue between the WTO and MEA secretariats will
provide a substantial pay-off in terms of allaying concerns that these bodies of international
obligations might ever collide.  Practical steps to enhance cooperation and increase mutual
understanding have proven effective in the past to avoid potential conflicts.  Since the ideas offered in
this communication are preliminary, the United States encourages other Members to develop creative
approaches for fostering institutional cooperation on trade and environment issues.  At the same time,
these ideas are offered with the conviction that such approaches will only be successful when thesecretariats involved represent the expressed interests of their respective members, and if member
governments participate with the full understanding that it is WTO Members and MEA parties who
bear responsibility for negotiating and implemen ting relevant international obligations and for
developing authoritative legal interpretations of these instruments.
__________