WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/W/12
3 October 2002
(02-5326)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special SessionOriginal:  English
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER PARAGRAPH 31(I) OF THE
DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
Submission from New Zealand1
Paragraph 31(i)
I. SUMMARY
1. This paper compiles existing information on trade provisions in the Basel Convention, the
Montreal Protocol and CITES, as well as existing information regarding WTO rules that have been
suggested as being relevant to these Agreements.  In assembling this material on specific agreements
the aim is to offer a more practical focus for di scussion on the relationship between WTO rules and
specific trade obligations in MEAs and on the applicability of those rules as among parties to the
MEA in question.
II. INTRODUCTION
2. Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration calls for negotiations on the relationship
between existing WTO rules and specific trade ob ligations set out in multilateral environmental
agreements.  The negotiations are limited in scope to the applicability of such existing WTO rules as
among parties to the MEA in question.
3. In initial meetings of the Committee in Special Session a range of ideas have been put
forward on how the negotiations might proceed.  Ther e now appears to be a widely held view that an
examination of individual MEAs, identification of specific trade obligations in those MEAs and
identification of the relevant WTO rules would provide a useful building block for the process, thoughdifferences exist on how terms such as “multilateral environmental agreement” and “specific trade
obligation” should be defined for these purposes.
III. EXAMINATION
4. The Committee already has material available in the form of the Secretariat’s Matrix of Trade
Measures Pursuant to MEAs (WT/CTE/W/160.Rev.1).  That paper includes summary information on
trade provisions in 14 MEAs and provides a useful starting point for an examination of the “specific
trade obligations” contained within various MEAs.  The Secretariat paper was, however, originally
produced in a different context and for a different purpose (it does not seek, for example, to identify
relevant WTO rules) and fuller informa tion on some aspects would be useful.
                                                     
1 This submission is without prejudice to New Zealand's rights and obligations under the
WTO Agreement.TN/TE/W/12
Page 2
5. Some additional material is available from past discussion papers that have addressed the
question of relevant WTO principles and rules.  This paper compiles information in respect of three of
the MEAs examined in the WTO Secretariat matrix that  have also been the subject of analysis by the
OECD.  For each agreement it seeks to assemble in a single document available factual information
relevant to the paragraph 31(i) negotiation, as well as information on WTO rules identified in theOECD analyses as potentially relevant to the trade provisions in the MEA.  In addition information on
membership criteria has been included.  In su mmary, for each MEA covered here the following
material compiled from the Secretariat matrix and the OECD studies is provided:
• Title of the agreement and its objective.  Details of any subsidiary instruments
(additional protocols etc).
• Status of the main agreement and of any subsidiary instruments (date of adoption,
whether or not the instrument has entered into force, date of entry into force,
requirements for entry into force).
• Membership criteria.
• Membership of the main agreement and any subsidiary instruments, including details
of (a) parties (b) states which have signed but not yet ratified.
• Trade-related provisions within the MEA.
Note: “trade-related provisions” is a broader term than “specific trade obligations”.
The particular provisions included under this heading are taken directly from the
listing of “trade-related measures” in the Secretariat’s matrix and the inclusion of a
provision should not be taken as indicating a New Zealand view on whether it is a
“specific trade obligation” as that term is used in paragraph 31(i) of the Dohadeclaration.
• WTO rules.  Identification of existing WTO rules that may be relevant to application
of trade measures provided for in MEA.
Note: For the sake of simplicity this section simply reproduces relevant information
from OECD studies undertaken on specific MEAs in recent years.  Although those
studies were undertaken in a broader context than the current negotiation (theyaddress non-party issues and non-specific trade measures, for example), their
identification of certain WTO principles and provisions potentially relevant to MEA
trade measures may nevertheless provide a useful focus for discussion at the Special
Session.  With this in mind, this section of the annexed MEA summaries quotes
portions of the OECD analyses for Members’ reference.  The inclusion of aparticular WTO rule in this section or any accompanying quoted observations should
not be taken as indicating a New Zealand position on its relevance to measures taken
under the MEA at issue.
IV. CONCLUSION
6. A number of delegations have expressed interest in using an examination of the type outlined
in paragraph 3 as the basis for subsequent work aimed at identifying any issues or problems in the
application of specific trade obligations .  Future elements in this work could include comment from
Members on experience with the implementation of trade provisions in MEAs and input from MEA
secretariats on the same question .TN/TE/W/12
Page 3
I. BASEL CONVENTION
FULL TITLE
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal
DATE OF ADOPTION
22 March 1989, Basel
ENTRY INTO FORCE
5 May 1992
OBJECTIVE
This treaty strictly regulates the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes .  Parties are
obliged to ensure that such wastes are managed and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.
MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
The Convention is open to membership by all States and by political and/or economic
integration organisations (Articles 21 and 22).
ANY SUBSIDIARY INSTRUMENTS
Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal: the ‘Ban Amendment’ is a decision made at COP 2 to ban
movement of hazardous waste headed for final disposal and for recovery from Annex VII countries
(Parties and other States which are me mbers of the OECD, EC, Liechtenstein).
22 September 1995, Geneva Not yet in force
Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal:  the Protocol has been adopted and opened for
signature .  The Protocol will enter into force once 20 Parties ratify it .  This Protocol is to provide for a
comprehensive regime for liability, as well as adequate and prompt compensation for damage
resulting from the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes, including incidents
occurring because of illegal traffic.
10 December 1999, Basel Not yet in force
MEMBERSHIP
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal
Parties: 152 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Albania France Nigeria
Algeria Gambia Norway
Andorra Georgia Oman
Antigua and Barbuda Germany Pakistan
Argentina Greece PanamaTN/TE/W/12
Page 4
Armenia Guatemala Papua New Guinea
Australia Guinea Paraguay
Austria Guyana Peru
Azerbaijan Honduras Philippines
Bahamas Hungary Poland
Bahrain Iceland Portugal
Bangladesh India Qatar
Barbados Indonesia Republic of Korea
Belarus Iran (Islamic Republic of) Republic of Moldova
Belgium Ireland Romania
Belize Israel Russian Federation
Benin Italy Saint Kitts and Nevis
Bhutan Japan Saint Lucia
Bolivia Jordan Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Bosnia and Herzegovina Kenya Samoa
Botswana Kiribati Saudi Arabia
Brazil Kuwait Senegal
Bulgaria Kyrgyzstan Seychelles
Burkina Faso Latvia Singapore
Burundi Lebanon Slovakia
Cambodia Lesotho Slovenia
Cameroon Libyan Arab Jamahiriya South Africa
Canada Liechtenstein Spain
Cape Verde Lithuania Sri Lanka
Chile Luxembourg Sweden
China Madagascar Switzerland
Colombia Malawi Syrian Arab Republic
Comoros Malaysia Thailand
Costa Rica Maldives The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Cote d’Ivoire Mali Trinidad and Tobago
Croatia Malta Tunisia
Cuba Mauritania Turkey
Cyprus Mauritius Turkmenistan
Czech Republic Mexico Uganda
Democratic Republic of theCongoMicronesia (Federated States of) Ukraine
Denmark Monaco United Arab Emirates
Djibouti Mongolia United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Dominica Morocco United Republic of Tanzania
Dominican Republic Mozambique Uruguay
Ecuador Namibia Uzbekistan
Egypt Nauru Venezuela
El Salvador Nepal Viet Nam
Estonia Netherlands Yemen
Ethiopia New Zealand Yugoslavia
European Community Nicaragua Zambia
Finland Niger
States which have signed but not yet ratified: 3 (as listed on the UN Treaties website –
http://untreaty.un.org ):
Afghanistan United States of America HaitiTN/TE/W/12
Page 5
Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
Parties: 32 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Andorra Gambia Saint Lucia
Austria Germany Slovakia
Bulgaria Luxembourg Spain
China Malaysia Sri Lanka
Cyprus Netherlands Sweden
Czech Republic Norway Trinidad and Tobago
Denmark Panama Tunisia
Ecuador Paraguay United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Estonia Portugal United Republic of Tanzania
European Community Qatar Uruguay
Finland Romania
Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
Signatories: 13 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Chile France Switzerland
Colombia Hungary The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Costa Rica Luxembourg United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Denmark Monaco
Finland Sweden
TRADE-RELATED PROVISIONS  (as taken from the Convention only; any trade provision
from subsidiary instruments have not been included )
Article 4
Article 4.1(a): Parties can exercise their right to ban import of hazardous waste;Article 4.1(b): Parties are obliged to prohibit export of covered waste to
Parties that have banned such imports;
Article 4.1(c): for wastes not specifically prohibited by the importing state, Parties will
prohibit export of wastes if importing country has not consented in writing to
the specific import;
Article 4.2(e) a Party shall prevent the export of hazardous waste if it has reason to believe
that the waste will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner;
Article 4.5: prohibits trade in covered waste with non-parties
(no imports/exports); exception Article 11 - non-parties can trade in
hazardous waste if transboundary movements are subject to another
appropriate bilateral/multilateral or regional agreement;
Article 4.6: exports of hazardous waste prohibited for disposal in the area of 60° south
latitude (Antarctica);
Article 4.7: packaging, labelling and transport requirements for hazardous wastes;TN/TE/W/12
Page 6
Article 6: The state of export must obtain prior informed consent from the importer;
Article 8: There is a duty to re-import if waste cannot be disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner.
WTO RULES
The OECD in 1998 completed a study under the title Trade Measures in the Basel Convention
on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.  In a
discussion on the relationship between the Basel Convention and the multilateral trading system the
study identifies and discusses ‘some relevant WT O principles’ (pages 36-39), excerpts of which are
quoted below .  For the full text of the OECD study Members should refer to document
COM/ENV/TD(97)41/FINAL (available on the OECD website at http://www.oecd.org )2.
GATT Article 1 – General Most Favoured Nation Treatment
“Article 1 of GATT 1994 requires that with respect to (inter alia) all rules and
formalities in connection with importation and exportation, any advantage, favour,
privilege or immunity granted by any WTO member to any product originating in ordestined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to
the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other WTO
members.
The question would therefore arise as to whether a country, in implementing its
obligations under the Basel Convention, could find itself denying another WTOmember Most Favoured Nation treatment .  The restriction on trade with non-Parties,
and the proposed Annex VII/non-Annex export ban, could give rise to this situation.
…
If a measure taken under the Basel Convention was considered to be inconsistent with
the MFN principle, the question would then arise as to whether the trade restriction
would nevertheless be justified in the WTO under a relevant exception …”
GATT Article XI – General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions
“GATT Article XI states that no prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or
other charges shall be applied to imported or exported products … In effect, export
and import bans are prohibited.
Therefore, the question could arise as to whether the provisions in the Basel
Convention that concern an export or an import ban would be consistent with GATT
Article XI .  It is essential that this Article, as others, be considered in conjunction
with the general exceptions to the basic principles.”
GATT Article XIII – Non-discriminatory Administration of Quantitative
Restrictions
“This Article concerns import and export licensing, prohibitions and quotas, and
requires that like products coming from, or going to, all countries be treated in the
same way .  Would the prior informed consent procedures be considered as import and
export licensing under this Article? Similar issues concerning non-discriminationcould arise under this Article as arise under Article I with respect to the distinctions
                                                     
2 Full reference is http://www.oecd.org/EN/documents/0,,EN-documents-358-nodirectorate-no-4-no-
24-no-no-2,00.htmlTN/TE/W/12
Page 7
made between Annex VII and non-Annex VII countries, and the distinction made
between Parties and non-Parties.”
GATT Article XX – General Exceptions
“The GATT provisions accommodate trade restrictions in the pursuit of
environmental protection under certain circumstances .
…
To fall under Article XX, an action taken needs to satisfy the conditions laid down in
the chapeau and one of the paragraphs of Article XX .  Paragraph (b) and (g) above
would seem to be the most relevant with respect to the Basel Convention.
A preliminary question of approach however would arise .  Given that the Basel
Convention is also a reflection of the views of the international community, it is not
clear how far a WTO Panel would inquire into the specific requirements of Article
XX in the case of a trade measure taken under the Convention.”
II. MONTREAL PROTOCOL
FULL TITLE
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
DATE OF ADOPTION
16 September 1987, Montreal
ENTRY INTO FORCE
1 January 1989
OBJECTIVE
The Montreal Protocol develops a regime that limits the release of ozone-depleting substances
(ODS) into the atmosphere.
MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
The Protocol is open to membership by all States and by regional economic integration
organisations (Articles 16 and 17).
ANY SUBSIDIARY INSTRUMENTS
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: the ‘London
Amendment’ established a Multilateral Fund for incremental costs.
Date of Adoption: 29 June 1990, London
Entry into Force: 10 August 1992TN/TE/W/12
Page 8
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: the ‘Copenhagen
Amendment’
Date of Adoption: 25 November 1992, Copenhagen
Entry into Force: 14 June 1994
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer adopted by the
Ninth Meeting of the Parties: the ‘Montreal Amendment’
Date of Adoption: 17 September 1997, Montreal
Entry into Force: 10 November 1999
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: Under the
Protocol, HCFCs are to be phased out in devel oped countries by 2030 and in developing countries
by 2040 .  The ‘Beijing Amendment’ to the Protocol will also ban trade in HCFCs with countries that
have not yet ratified the Copenhagen Amendmen t (1992), which introduced the HCFC phase out .
The Beijing Amendment also requires developed countries to freeze the production of HCFCs in2004 at 1989 levels (measured as the average of c onsumption and production levels) and developing
countries to do so in 2016 with a similar baseline of 2015 .  Production of 15 per cent above baseline
will be permitted to meet the "basic domestic needs" of developing countries .  In addition, the
production of a recently developed ozone-depleting chemical, (bromochloromethane, which is a
controlled substance in a newly created Group III of Annex C) is to be completely phased out in allcountries by1 January 2002.
Date of Adoption: 3 December 1999, Beijing
Entry into Force: 25 February 2002
MEMBERSHIP
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
Parties: 183 
(as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Albania Ghana Panama
Algeria Greece Papua New Guinea
Angola Grenada Paraguay
Antigua and Barbuda Guatemala Peru
Argentina Guinea Philippines
Armenia Guyana Poland
Australia Haiti Portugal
Austria Honduras Qatar
Azerbaijan Hungary Republic of Korea
Bahamas Iceland Republic of Moldova
Bahrain India Romania
Bangladesh Indonesia Russian Federation
Barbados Iran (Islamic Republic of) Rwanda
Belarus Ireland Saint Kitts and Nevis
Belgium Israel Saint Lucia
Belize Italy Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Benin Jamaica Samoa
Bolivia Japan Sao Tome and Principe
Bosnia and Herzegovina Jordan Saudi Arabia
Botswana Kazakhstan Senegal
Brazil Kenya SeychellesTN/TE/W/12
Page 9
Brunei Darussalam Kiribati Sierra Leone
Bulgaria Kuwait Singapore
Burkina Faso Kyrgyzstan Slovakia
Burundi Lao People’s Democratic
RepublicSlovenia
Cambodia Latvia Solomon Islands
Cameroon Lebanon Somalia
Canada Lesotho South Africa
Cape Verde Liberia Spain
Central African Republic Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Sri Lanka
Chad Liechtenstein Sudan
Chile Lithuania Suriname
China Luxembourg Swaziland
Colombia Madagascar Sweden
Comoros Malawi Switzerland
Congo Malaysia Syrian Arab Republic
Costa Rica Maldives Tajikistan
Cote d’Ivoire Mali Thailand
Croatia Malta The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Cuba Marshall Islands Togo
Cyprus Mauritania Tonga
Czech Republic Mauritius Trinidad and Tobago
Democratic People’s Republic ofKoreaMexico Tunisia
Democratic Republic of the
CongoMicronesia (Federated States of) Turkey
Denmark Monaco Turkmenistan
Djibouti Mongolia Tuvalu
Dominica Morocco Uganda
Dominican Republic Mozambique Ukraine
Ecuador Myanmar United Arab Emirates
Egypt Namibia United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
El Salvador Nauru United Republic of Tanzania
Estonia Nepal United States of America
Ethiopia Netherlands Uruguay
European Community New Zealand Uzbekistan
Fiji Nicaragua Vanuatu
Finland Niger Venezuela
France Nigeria Viet Nam
Gabon Norway Yemen
Gambia Oman Yugoslavia
Georgia Pakistan Zambia
Germany Palau Zimbabwe
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: the ‘London
Amendment’
Parties: 163 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Algeria Grenada Paraguay
Antigua and Barbuda Guatemala Peru
Argentina Guinea Philippines
Australia Guyana PolandTN/TE/W/12
Page 10
Austria Haiti Portugal
Azerbaijan Honduras Qatar
Bahamas Hungary Republic of Korea
Bahrain Iceland Republic of Moldova
Bangladesh India Romania
Barbados Indonesia Russian Federation
Belarus Iran (Islamic Republic of) Saint Kitts and Nevis
Belgium Ireland Saint Lucia
Belize Israel Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Benin Italy Samoa
Bolivia Jamaica Sao Tome and Principe
Botswana Japan Saudi Arabia
Brazil Jordan Senegal
Bulgaria Kazakhstan Seychelles
Burkina Faso Kenya Sierra Leone
Burundi Kuwait Singapore
Cameroon Latvia Slovakia
Canada Lebanon Slovenia
Cape Verde Liberia Solomon Islands
Chad Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Somalia
Chile Liechtenstein South Africa
China Lithuania Spain
Colombia Luxembourg Sri Lanka
Comoros Madagascar Sudan
Congo Malawi Sweden
Costa Rica Malaysia Switzerland
Cote d’Ivoire Maldives Syrian Arab Republic
Croatia Mali Tajikistan
Cuba Malta Thailand
Cyprus Marshall Islands The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Czech Republic Mauritius Togo
Democratic People’s Republic ofKoreaMexico Trinidad and Tobago
Democratic Republic of the
CongoMicronesia (Federated States of) Tunisia
Denmark Monaco Turkey
Djibouti Mongolia Turkmenistan
Dominica Morocco Tuvalu
Dominican Republic Mozambique Uganda
Ecuador Myanmar Ukraine
Egypt Namibia United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
El Salvador Nepal United Republic of Tanzania
Estonia Netherlands United States of America
European Community New Zealand Uruguay
Fiji Nicaragua Uzbekistan
Finland Niger Vanuatu
France Nigeria Venezuela
Gabon Norway Viet Nam
Gambia Oman Yemen
Georgia Pakistan Zambia
Germany Palau Zimbabwe
Ghana Panama
Greece Papua New GuineaTN/TE/W/12
Page 11
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: the
‘Copenhagen Amendment’
Parties: 141 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Algeria Greece Peru
Antigua and Barbuda Grenada Philippines
Argentina Guatemala Poland
Australia Guyana Portugal
Austria Haiti Qatar
Azerbaijan Honduras Republic of Korea
Bahamas Hungary Republic of Moldova
Bahrain Iceland Romania
Bangladesh Indonesia Saint Kitts and Nevis
Barbados Iran (Islamic Republic of) Saint Lucia
Belgium Ireland Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Belize Israel Samoa
Benin Italy Sao Tome and Principe
Bolivia Jamaica Saudi Arabia
Botswana Japan Senegal
Brazil Jordan Seychelles
Bulgaria Kenya Sierra Leone
Burkina Faso Kuwait Singapore
Burundi Latvia Slovakia
Cameroon Lebanon Slovenia
Canada Liberia Solomon Islands
Cape Verde Liechtenstein Somalia
Chad Lithuania South Africa
Chile Luxembourg Spain
Colombia Madagascar Sri Lanka
Congo Malawi Sudan
Costa Rica Malaysia Sweden
Croatia Maldives Switzerland
Cuba Marshall Islands Syrian Arab Republic
Czech Republic Mauritius Thailand
Democratic People’s Republic of
KoreaMexico The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Democratic Republic of theCongoMicronesia (Federated States of) Togo
Denmark Monaco Trinidad and Tobago
Djibouti Mongolia Tunisia
Dominican Republic Morocco Turkey
Ecuador Mozambique Tuvalu
Egypt Netherlands Uganda
El Salvador New Zealand Ukraine
Estonia Nicaragua United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
European Community Niger United States of America
Fiji Nigeria Uruguay
Finland Norway Uzbekistan
France Oman Vanuatu
Gabon Pakistan Venezuela
Georgia Palau Viet Nam
Germany Panama Yemen
Ghana Paraguay ZimbabweTN/TE/W/12
Page 12
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer adopted by
the Ninth Meeting of the Parties: the ‘Montreal Amendment’
Parties: 84 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Antigua and Barbuda Guyana Romania
Argentina Haiti Saint Kitts and Nevis
Australia Hungary Saint Lucia
Austria Iceland Samoa
Azerbaijan Iran (Islamic Republic of) Sao Tome and Principe
Bahrain Italy Senegal
Bangladesh Japan Seychelles
Bolivia Jordan Sierra Leone
Bulgaria Kenya Singapore
Burundi Latvia Slovakia
Canada Lebanon Slovenia
Cape Verde Luxembourg Solomon Islands
Chad Madagascar Somalia
Chile Malaysia Spain
Congo Maldives Sri Lanka
Croatia Micronesia (Federated States of) Sweden
Czech Republic Monaco Switzerland
Democratic People’s Republic of
KoreaMongolia Syrian Arab Republic
Djibouti Netherlands The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Egypt New Zealand Togo
El Salvador Niger Trinidad and Tobago
European Community Nigeria Tunisia
Finland Norway Tuvalu
Gabon Palau Uganda
Georgia Panama United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Germany Paraguay Uruguay
Grenada Poland Venezuela
Guatemala Republic of Korea Yemen
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: the ‘Beijing
Amendment’
Parties: 38 (as listed on the UN Treaties website – http://untreaty.un.org )
Bulgaria Japan Samoa
Burundi Jordan Sao Tome and Principe
Canada Luxembourg Seychelles
Chile Madagascar Sierra Leone
Congo Malaysia Slovakia
Croatia Maldives Somalia
Czech Republic Micronesia (Federated States of) Spain
Democratic People’s Republic of
KoreaNetherlands Sweden
European Community New Zealand Switzerland
Finland Norway The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Gabon Palau TogoTN/TE/W/12
Page 13
Guatemala Panama United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Hungary Saint Lucia
TRADE-RELATED PROVISIONS
Article 4:
The measures are directed against non-parties .  These include3:
(a) Control of trade in ODS with non-parties:
(i) Annex A substances: import from non-parties banned from January 1990, export
banned from January 1993;
(ii) Annex B substances: import and export banned from August 1993 for non-parties to
the London Amendment;
(iii) Annex C – Group II - HBFCs: import and export banned from June 1995 for non-
parties to the Copenhagen Amendment .
(iv) Annex C Group I hydrochl orofluorocarbons (HCFCs): import and export ban with
non-parties to the Beijing Amendment from 1 January 2004.
(v) Annex C Group III: Import and export ban with non-parties to the Beijing
Amendment within one year from the date of entry into force of the Beijing
Amendment.
WTO RULES
The OECD in 1997 completed a study under the title Experience with the Use of Trade
Measures in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.  In a discussion on
the relationship between the Montreal Protocol and the multilateral trading system the study identifies
and discusses ‘some relevant WTO principles’ (pages 29-32) excerpts of which are quoted below .
For the full text of the OECD study Members sh ould refer to document OCDE/GD(97)230 (available
on the OECD website at http://www.oecd.org ).
GATT Article 1 – General Most-favoured-nation treatment
“Article 1 of GATT 1994 requires that with respect to (inter alia) all rules and
formalities in connection with importation and exportation, any advantage, favour,
privilege or immunity granted by any WTO member to any product originating in ordestined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to
the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other WTO
members.
…The question may arise as to whether a country, in implementing its obligations under
the Montreal Protocol, could find itself denying another WTO member Most
Favoured Nation treatment .  The restriction on trade with non-Parties could
theoretically give rise to this situation …
                                                     
3 A full summary is contained in the Secretariat’s Matrix at pages 20-23.TN/TE/W/12
Page 14
If a measure taken under the Protocol was considered to be inconsistent with the
MFN principle, the question would then arise as to whether the trade restriction
would nevertheless be justified in the WTO under a relevant exception …”
GATT Article III – National Treatment
“Once imported products have crossed the border, Article III of the GATT requires
imported and domestic ‘like products’ to be treated the same way with respect to
internal regulations and taxes .  Various forms of regulations and taxes on ODS have
been used by Parties to help meet the consumption and production phase-out
commitments .  If they applied differently to imported than to domestic products, there
could be a violation of Article III .  There is no evidence that this has been the case so
far.  Again, as with Article I even if this was the case, Article XX would then need to
be considered …”
GATT Article XI – General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions
“GATT Article XI states that no prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or
other charges shall be applied to imported or exported products … In effect, export
and import bans are prohibited.
Therefore the question could arise as to whether the Montreal Protocol Article 4
import and export bans, or import or export bans instituted by national Governments
as part of their policy measures to meet the consumption and production limits, would
be consistent with GATT Article XI .  It is essential that this Article, as others, be
considered taking into account the general exceptions….”
GATT Article XIII - Non-discriminatory Administration of Quantitative
Restrictions
“This Article concerns import and export licensing, prohibitions and quotas, and
requires that like products coming from, or going to, all countries be treated in the
same way .  Similar issues concerning discriminatory import prohibitions could arise
under this Article as arise under Article I with respect to the distinctions madebetween Parties and non-Parties.”
WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement
“One of the WTO Agreements, the TBT Agreement may also apply to technical
regulations used by national governments to implement the Montreal Protocol
obligations … Paragraph 2.2 of the Agreement requires that technical regulations
shall not be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective .
Environmental protection is listed in this paragraph as a legitimate objective.”
GATT Article XX – General Exceptions
“The GATT provisions accommodate trade restrictions in the pursuit of
environmental protection under certain circumstances .
To fall under Article XX, an action taken needs to satisfy the conditions laid down in
the chapeau and one of the paragraphs of Article XX .  Paragraphs (b), (d) and (g) …
would seem to be the most relevant.”TN/TE/W/12
Page 15
III. CITES
FULL TITLE
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
DATE OF ADOPTION
3 March 1973, Washington
ENTRY INTO FORCE
1 July 1975
OBJECTIVE
An international treaty to protect wildlife against over-exploitation and to prevent
international trade from threatening species with extinction.
MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
The Convention is open to membership by all States (Articles 19 and 20).
ANY SUBSIDIARY INSTRUMENTS
Amendment to Article XI of the Convention
Date of Adoption: 22 June, 1979, Bonn
Entry into Force: 13 April 1987
Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention
Date of Adoption: 30 April 1983, Gaborone
Not yet in force
MEMBERSHIP
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Parties: 160 (as listed on the CITES website – http://www.cites.org)
Afghanistan Gambia Paraguay
Algeria Georgia Peru
Antigua and Barbuda Germany Philippines
Argentina Ghana Poland
Australia Greece Portugal
Austria Grenada Qatar
Azerbaijan Guatemala Republic of Korea
Bahamas Guinea-Bissau Republic of Moldova
Bangladesh Guinea Romania
Barbados Guyana Russian Federation
Belarus Honduras Rwanda
Belgium Hungary Saint Kitts and NevisTN/TE/W/12
Page 16
Belize Iceland Saint Lucia
Benin India Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Bhutan Indonesia Sao Tome and Principe
Bolivia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Saudi Arabia
Botswana Ireland Senegal
Brazil Israel Seychelles
Brunei Darussalam Italy Sierra Leone
Bulgaria Jamaica Singapore
Burkina Faso Japan Slovakia
Burundi Jordan Slovenia
Cambodia Kazakhstan Somalia
Cameroon Kenya South Africa
Canada Kuwait Spain
Central African Republic Latvia Sri Lanka
Chad Liberia Sudan
Chile Liechtenstein Suriname
China Lithuania Swaziland
Colombia Luxembourg Sweden
Comoros Madagascar Switzerland
Congo Malawi Thailand
Costa Rica Malaysia The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Cote d’Ivoire Mali Togo
Croatia Malta Trinidad and Tobago
Cuba Mauritania Tunisia
Cyprus Mauritius Turkey
Czech Republic Mexico Uganda
Democratic Republic of theCongoMonaco Ukraine
Denmark Mongolia United Arab Emirates
Djibouti Morocco United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Dominica Mozambique United Republic of Tanzania
Dominican Republic Myanmar United States of America
Ecuador Namibia Uruguay
Egypt Nepal Uzbekistan
El Salvador Netherlands Vanuatu
Equatorial Guinea New Zealand Venezuela
Eritrea Nicaragua Viet Nam
Estonia Niger Yemen
Ethiopia Nigeria Yugoslavia
Fiji Norway Zambia
Finland Pakistan Zimbabwe
France Panama
Gabon Papua New Guinea
States which have signed but not yet ratified: 1 (as listed on the CITES website – http://www.cites.org ):
LesothoTN/TE/W/12
Page 17
Amendment to Article XI of the Convention
Parties: 124 (as listed on the CITES website – http://www.cites.org)
Antigua and Barbuda Germany Paraguay
Argentina Greece Peru
Australia Grenada Poland
Austria Guinea-Bissau Qatar
Azerbaijan Guyana Republic of Korea
Barbados Iceland Republic of Moldova
Belarus India Romania
Belgium Indonesia Russian Federation
Belize Iran (Islamic Republic of) Rwanda
Bhutan Ireland Saint Kitts and Nevis
Botswana Italy Saint Lucia
Brazil Jamaica Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Brunei Darussalam Japan Sao Tome and Principe
Bulgaria Jordan Saudi Arabia
Burkina Faso Kazakhstan Senegal
Burundi Kenya Seychelles
Cambodia Kuwait Sierra Leone
Canada Latvia Slovakia
Chad Liechtenstein Slovenia
Chile Lithuania South Africa
China Luxembourg Suriname
Comoros Madagascar Swaziland
Cote d’Ivoire Mali Sweden
Croatia Malta Switzerland
Cuba Mauritania The Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Cyprus Mauritius Togo
Czech Republic Mexico Trinidad and Tobago
Denmark Monaco Tunisia
Djibouti Mongolia Turkey
Dominica Morocco Uganda
Ecuador Myanmar Ukraine
Egypt Namibia United Arab Emirates
El Salvador Nepal United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Equatorial Guinea Netherlands United States of America
Eritrea New Zealand Uruguay
Estonia Niger Uzbekistan
Ethiopia Nigeria Vanuatu
Fiji Norway Viet Nam
Finland Pakistan Yemen
France Panama Yugoslavia
Gabon Papua New Guinea Zimbabwe
GeorgiaTN/TE/W/12
Page 18
Amendment to Article XXI of the Convention
Parties: 66 (as listed on the CITES website – http://www.cites.org)
Antigua and Barbuda Fiji Peru
Argentina Finland Philippines
Australia France Portugal
Austria Germany Rwanda
Barbados Ghana Saint Kitts and Nevis
Belgium Grenada Saint Lucia
Belize Iceland Senegal
Bhutan India Seychelles
Bolivia Ireland Slovakia
Botswana Italy Slovenia
Brazil Liechtenstein Spain
Brunei Darussalam Luxembourg Sri Lanka
Burkina Faso Malawi Sweden
Canada Mali Switzerland
Chile Mauritius Togo
China Monaco Trinidad and Tobago
Congo Morocco Uganda
Croatia Netherlands United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Cyprus New Zealand Uruguay
Denmark Niger Uzbekistan
Eritrea Norway Venezuela
Estonia Paraguay Zimbabwe
TRADE-RELATED PROVISIONS
Article II: CITES regulates trade in endangered species by defining conditions under which
import and export permits may be issued .  The conditions are differentiated
according to a classification system based on three appendices of protected species.
Article III: Appendix I includes all species threatened with extinction which are or may be
affected by trade .  Trade in these species is subject to particularly strict regulation
through both import and export permits which may be issued only in exceptional
circumstances.
Article IV: Species in Appendix II may become threatened with extinction unless their trade and
the trade in species that resemble them is subject to strict regulation; trade in
Appendix II species is regulated by the issue of export permits which are subject to
both a finding of non-detriment and legal acquisition .  In Appendix II, the granting of
import permits is not a condition (except for some countries with stricter measures
under Article XVI).
Article V: Appendix III covers species identified by an individual Party as being subject to
regulation within its jurisdiction and for which it requests the cooperation of other
Parties in the control of trade.
Article VI: Regulates permits and certificates for import and export permits required under
Articles III, IV and V.TN/TE/W/12
Page 19
Article VII: Lists the Exemptions and Other Special Provisions Relating to Trade .  This Article
provides all the exceptions to the prohibitions of trade in endangered species listed in
the three appendices.
Article VIII: Parties shall take appropriate measures to enforce the provisions of the present
Convention and to prohibit trade in spec imens in violation of the Convention.
Article XIV: Allows for Parties to take stricter domestic measures .  Appendix II does not require
an import permit but many OECD countries have instituted a system of import
permits for trade in certain species and in  some instances, with species listed in
Appendix III.
WTO RULES
The OECD in 1997 completed a study under the title Experience with the use of trade
measures in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).  In a discussion
on the relationship between CITES and the multilateral trading system the study identifies anddiscusses ‘Key provisions under GATT 1994’ (pages 50-51), excerpts of which are quoted below .
For the full text of the OECD study Members sh ould refer to document OCDE/GD(97)106 (available
on the OECD website at http://www.oecd.org )
4.
GATT Article XI - Obligations relating to quantitative restrictions
“It would appear that, in the case of import and export permits and re-export
certificates to regulate trade in Appendix I-III species, including the prohibition or
restriction of trade for ‘primarily commercial purposes” in Appendix I species, as
required by relevant CITES Articles, these are measures for which the obligations of
GATT Article XI.1 concerning quantitative restrictions may be relevant .  The same
would appear to be the case for measures considered to be enforcement measures
taken pursuant to Article VII.1 or ‘stricter domestic measures’ referred to in Article
XIV, irrespective of whether the measures were applied to Parties or non-Parties.”
GATT Articles I and XIII - Non-discrimination obligations
“Articles I and XIII of the GATT could be relevant also to measures taken to
implement CITES .  Pursuant to these Articles, there are obligations to treat ‘like’
products in the same way, no matter what their country of origin .  For instance,
Article XII permits application of (otherwise legitimate) quantitative import
restrictions to the product of one Party only if the restriction is applied also to the
‘like products’ of other parties.”
GATT Article XX - General Exceptions
“The preceding provisions may also be considered in conjunction with Article XX .
Under this ‘General Exceptions’ Article, trade measures that would otherwise be
inconsistent with the GATT may be applied in defined circumstances .  This is subject
also to the general requirement that the measures are not applied in a manner that
would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction oninternational trade.
                                                     
4 Full reference is http://www.oecd.org/EN/documents/0,,EN-documents-358-nodirectorate-no-4-no-
24-no-no-2,00.htmlTN/TE/W/12
Page 20
….
It would appear that at least XX(b) (regarding measures necessary to protect human,
animal or plant life or health), and XX(g) (covering measures relating to the
conservation of exhaustible natural resources) would be potentially relevant.
…
There would seem to be little purpose in speculating further on how these provisions
would apply in relation to hypothetical situations .  This is all the more so given that,
as a practical matter, CITES has been ratified by most WTO members.”
__________