WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/94
22 July 1998
(98-2913)
Committee on Trade and Environment Original:  English
STATEMENT BY THE  UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (UNEP)
TO THE WTO COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
Communication from the Secretariat of UNEP
The following statement will be made by the Secretariat of UNEP at the CTE's Information
Session with Secretariats of MEAs on 23 July 1998.
_______________
Mr. Chairman, it is a honour to meet with this Committee.  We are grateful to you, and to the
Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to  discuss the relationship between MEAs and the
WTO.
UNEP places the utmost importance in ensuring stronger coherence among international
environmental agreements, and in making concrete progress in integrating trade and environment
policies.  To that end, this statement is made after close consultation and in close liaison with the
following UNEP-administered Conventions and institutions: the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes; the Convention on Biodiversity;  the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the Vienna Convention;
the Montreal Protocol on the Control of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; the MultilateralFund; the Convention on Migratory Species; the 12 UNEP-administered Conventions and
programmes on regional seas
1, and UNEP Chemicals, which supports the work of governments
towards the recently completed Convention on Prior Informed Consent, as well as supporting the
recently initiated negotiations towards a Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
I. DEFINING CORE ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
The challenge of building environmental policies is highly complex.  It involves the
continuous improvement in environmental sciences - in chemistry, biology, physics, mathematical
modelling, satellite imagery, as well as in improving methods to test, evaluate and respond to
ecological change.  Calibrating environmental data with effective policy responses remains a key
challenge.  Several countries - for example India - are models of how to calibrate environmental
monitoring, environmental assessments and the building of appropriate policy responses at the
national level.
Moving to the international policy is even more complex, given the highly dynamic nature of
ecosystems, as well as the complexity in linking the symptoms of environmental degradation - of
pollution effects or signs of resource depletion - with their underlying  causes.  Nevertheless, two
                                                     
1Examples of regional seas programmes for which UNEP provides secretariat functions include the
Mediterranean Action Plan, the West and Central African Action Plan, the Caribbean Action Plan, the Black Sea
Action Plan and the North-West Pacific Action Plan.WT/CTE/W/94
Page 2
general observations can be made.  First, more often than not, underlying causes of environmental
degradation are linked to economic activities, including the persistence of market and pricing failures.
And two, our scientific knowledge of  environmental change is incomplete.  At the same time, given
current scientific evidence, imperfect knowledge cannot be an excuse for policy inaction.
In looking at international environmental policy , there has been a tendency in several arenas
to regard Multilateral Environmental Agreements , or MEAs, as fragmented and disjointed.  The
opposite is true.  In practical ways, MEAs continuously build upon the experience and real-life policy
lessons of their predecessors.  MEAs closely follow one another’s work.  They share scientific
research.  And, they are built upon a coherent set of  policy approaches.
This coherence is reflected in a core set of environmental principles which lie at the heart of
MEAs.  Time does not allow me to outline all of thes e principles this morning.  They are most readily
found in the UNCED Rio Principles .
At the centre is an on-going commitment to scientific integrity and the continuous
improvement in the environmental sciences.  UNEP coordinates several international scientific andtechnical bodies supporting MEAs, including to  the Montreal Protocol and the Convention on
Biodiversity, as well as the scientific assessment panel to the Global Environmental Facility, or GEF.
The triennial budget of the GEF is approximately  $2 billion, and provides financial assistance to
developing countries to lower the incremental costs involved in strengthening environmental
management.  Other examples include our partnership with the WMO in initiating and supporting theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, work in improving aggregated environmental indicators,
in strengthening chemical risk assessment, and many other areas.
These activities are reflected in such core environmental principles as international
cooperation in scientific research, environmental impact assessments, and the precautionary principle.
Common principles are also found in the integrated pollution control and integrated life-cycle
approaches, based on cradle-to-grave management approaches, and in the use of different prior
informed consent procedures to better coordinate and distribute domestic environmental management
capacities internationally.  Different forms of such procedures are applied in different MEAs,
including CITES, the Basel Convention, the draft PIC Convention and the Montreal Protocol.  They
bear a close resemblance to notification procedures used in international trade policy.
Core environmental principles also include efforts to translate common but differentiated
responsibility into action, so as to ensure equitabl e and fair burden sharing to address the real needs of
developing countries in strengthening environmental protection.  The GEF is one example of this
principle.  There are many others.  Common principles also include translating the polluter paysprinciple into practical efforts to internalise environmental costs.
Common principles also include a commitment to public participation.  The 30-year history
of the environmental agenda demonstrates that the push to launch and strengthen environmental
policies has often originated from the dedication of non-governmental organizations and concernedcitizens in developing and developed countries alike.  The record also shows that the effective
implementation of such policies on the ground relies on close partnerships between governments,
NGOs, industries, scientists and the public.
Finally, our principles are founded upon an over-arching objective of sustainable
development.  This term has entered the policy vernacular in a way few terms ever have.  It has
become a central focus of many efforts.  Unfortunately, since it has become so widely used, it runs the
risk of becoming all things to all people, and very little by way of practical, operational commitments.
Yet our work with MEAs, as well as with different industries and sectors in such areas as cleanerWT/CTE/W/94
Page 3
production and eco-efficiency, demonstrates that sustainable development remains our best strategy to
integrate economic and environmental policies.
II. BOTTOM-UP POLICY APPROACHES
In looking at MEA coherence, it is important  not to confuse the absence of centralized,
top-down decision-making with the absence of policy coherence or institutional coordination.
Environmental policies seldom rely solely on top-down approaches, for several reasons.  First, the
nature of scientific enquiry and more importantly scientific consensus has never relied on yes-or-no
type of hierarchical arbitration.  Instead, consensus on the implications of scientific evidence for
policy formulation has been based on the best judgme nt of scientists, engineers, technical and legal
experts from developing and developed countries, all working together.
This emphasis on consensus-based decisions helps explain a relative absence of formal
dispute arbitration in many MEAs.  The record of several agreements, for example the Montreal
Protocol, shows that responses to non-compliance are based on informal, cooperative solutions as
opposed to more formal, punitive-type arbitration.  MEAs in general do not work on the assumption
that punitive actions are the best response to non-compliance, since the very nature of ecologicalinterdependence demands that cooperative efforts must form the basis of international policies.
Second, given the multidisciplinary nature of environment policy, such policies as noted do
not rely on government action alone, but on effective partnerships with many actors - with scientists,
governments, industries, NGOs, research centres, and international organizations.  The emphasis onmarket-based instruments is one example of how environmental policies are working effectively
through decentralized actions, built increasingly around international frameworks or clusters which
together address related environmental problems.
III. INTERNATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORKS
By way of illustration, the purpose of CITES is to tackle trade-induced species loss.
International trade in wild species is an important cause of species risk and biodiversity loss.  It is not,
however, the only cause or even the lead cause of species extinction.  Other pressures - including loss
of habitats, change in land use, urban expansion and pollution - all explain biodiversity loss.
Therefore, to understand the effectiveness which CITES has on species conservation, one
needs to understand the place of CITES within a larger framework of international, national and localactors.  That network includes partnerships with IUCN, with national customs authorities, with local
NGOs and communities, with work to coordinate international policing to halt the estimated $5 billion
annual trade in illegal traffic of wild species.  The international framework also includes cooperating
with other international efforts including the Convention on Biodiversity - which will speak later
today - the Convention on Migratory Species, the RAMSAR Convention,  commitments undertaken
by governments through the approximately 16 regional seas accords related to such areas as the
conservation of marine mammals, efforts of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests - which will also
speak today - as well as the impacts of efforts under the Convention to Combat Desertification and
many other initiatives.
Similar international frameworks have emerged and are working in the field of chemicals and
hazardous wastes, in the protection of marine resources, in the protection of the atmosphere and other
areas.WT/CTE/W/94
Page 4
IV. BALANCED POLICY APPROACHES
One point we would wish to stress to this Committee is the importance of understanding the
context of individual MEAs in relation to these broader international frameworks.
Another point is the need to remember the context in which individual measures are applied
within particular MEAs.  MEAs comprise a carefully balanced package or menu of policy approaches
intended to reduce and eliminate specifically-delineated environmental risks.  That policy package,
and the context in which policies are applied,  has been carefully designed.  It is reviewed and
amended by governments - often each year - to ensure that the overall package strikes a balance
between effectiveness, scientific integrity, cost efficiency and international equity.
One example of this type of balanced package is found in the Montreal Protocol.  Since 1991
the Multilateral Fund of the Protocol has financed over 2,000 projects in 111 developing countries, for
a total of over $750 million, to eliminate the equi valent of almost 100,000 tonnes of ozone depleting
substances in developing countries.
Other examples include notification procedures  - including export and import permits under
CITES, export and import licenses under the Montreal Protocol, and prior informed consent
procedures under the Basel Convention - to distribute fairly comparative management capabilities and
responsibilities between importing and exporting countries to control trade in a clearly-defined group
of such products as hazardous wastes, wild specie s and ozone destroying substances.  Examples also
include the development of national legislative capacities in developing countries; strengtheningcooperation with national customs authorities when it is needed; and building technical cooperation,
training and capacity building.
MEAs also contain what this Committee refers to as trade measures.  MEAs and international
environmental policy generally do not use this terminology.  From our understanding of your use ofthe term, it is important to stress that different meas ures - such as quotas or the prohibition in trade
with non-Parties in a clearly defined group of products regulated through the MEA - are designed for
specific purposes, to address clearly defined environmental problems.  They are used sparingly, as a
proportional response to mitigate a clearly defined environmental risk identified in a particular MEA.
Not all MEAs contain trade measures.  However, those that do have adopted such measures through a
process of multilateral and transparent decision-making.
In addressing this question, we have noted with some concern that this Committee tends to
divide MEAs into two halves: trade measures on the one hand, and so-called positive measures on the
other hand.  Although this terminology might be useful to your discussions, it bears almost no
resemblance to the actual way in which MEAs are designed, implemented or amended.  Indeed, we
regard this classification as somewhat regressive;  it distorts the policy context of MEAs.
The use of this terminology also reflects a more general concern.  I have briefly noted some
of the variables which together shape environmental policy.  This process is highly complex.
Although the mandate of this Committee is to discuss one specific aspect of MEAs - that is the legal
implications of trade measures - we have rarely felt that these discussions have been guided by asufficiently clear scientific and technical understanding of how MEAs are designed and actually
function.
2
                                                     
2In the spirit of building understanding, UNEP will issue next month a report of the policy
effectiveness of three MEAs: the Basel Convention, CITES and the Montreal Protocol, within the context of the
trade-environment discussions.WT/CTE/W/94
Page 5
As a result, questions and some doubts have been raised about specific approaches applied in
MEAs.  A practical result is that Secretariats of MEAs sometimes find themselves being asked
informally by the same governments that represent the WTO to second-guess what the reactions of
this Committee might be regarding the use of different measures.  This happened just two weeks ago
during an informal, open-ended meeting of the Montreal Protocol in response to a proposal by somedeveloping countries to prohibit the transfer of obsolete CFC-producing technologies from developed
to developing countries.  There are other examples in which similar policy ambiguity has arisen and
remains unresolved.
Let us be very clear.  UNEP and the Conventions it administers are committed to building
better coordination with international trade policy.  We are convinced that a practical result of the
trade-environment debate has been better coordination at the national level involving trade andenvironment officials.  Better coordination leads to better environmental policies, and stronger
environmental policies.  We will continue to invite the WTO Secretariat to MEA negotiations.  We
will continue to respond to invitations by this Committee to provide an informal overview of our
recent work.  Yet, we raise the question as to whether this format of providing informal briefings is
the  optimal one.
V. THE NEED FOR ACTION
Before looking at this question, let me reiterate that science tells us that we need more
resolve, and more action to address growing environmental problems.  We do not need policy, legal or
institutional ambiguity.  Clearly, science cannot form the answer to all environmental questions.International policies are the result of complex trade-offs between what science demands, and what
governments and the public are willing to accept based on political and economic feasibility.
At the same time, science leaves no doubt that we need to find more innovative ways to
strengthen existing policies, and to craft new approaches which coordinate in a concrete, tangible wayinternational trade and environmental policies.
For science leaves no doubt that we are facing a growing list of acute, unprecedented and
accelerating environmental problems that have assumed planetary dimensions.
These problems range from an alarming loss of productive lands because of desertification
and soil degradation, to the highest rates of species extinction ever recorded.  Conservative estimatessuggest that one in five of all animals are threatened, together with 10 per cent of all birds and plants.
Science tells us that an alarming jump in rates of cancer, birth defects, a weakened human-immunity
systems and other environmentally-related human health effects are linked to the long-term, low-dose
exposure to chemicals, pesticides, pollution and other environmental risks.  Science tells us that
almost 70 per cent of the world’s fisheries are on the verge of collapse or in serious decline, thatclimate change is a reality, that deforestation and the decline in marine resources continues
world-wide.
Science also tells us that when countries cooperate through MEAs, advances can be made.  To
illustrate,
• Last month, the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol reported that the
(quote) “Montreal Protocol is working”.  Because of the Protocol, the level chlorine and
bromine-containing ozone-depleting substances in the lower atmosphere has peaked in 1994,
and now has begun to decline.  Without the Protocol, ozone-layer depletion in mid-latitudesin the Northern Hemisphere would be at least 50 percent higher than today, and 70 per cent
higher at mid-latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere.  Without the Protocol, rates of skin
cancer would be four times higher than today, while economic damages to the fisheries,WT/CTE/W/94
Page 6
agricultural and other sectors would be several billions of dollars because of reduced plant
photosynthesis and a disruption of aquatic food chains.
• At the last Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, new criteria based on objective
scientific and biological indicators were adopted by governments to better assess the status,risk and sustainability of individual species which are proposed for inclusion, change or
removal from CITES Appendices.  These biological criteria mark an important advance in
CITES in ensuring that decisions are science-based.
• In the area of hazardous wastes and chemicals, progress continues in identifying direct and
indirect human health and environmental risks linked to a specific categories of wastes and
chemicals.  For example, in 1997 the Technical Working Group of the Basel Conventionhelped clarify - based in part on scientific criteria - two categories of wastes - hazardous and
non-hazardous.  These categories have important operational implications for the
implementation of the Convention.  Three weeks ago in Montreal, governments began work
towards an international convention on persistent organic pollutants for 12 toxic chemicals
and pesticides.  Scientific data shows that these and other chemicals increase rates of cancer,cause damage to the central nervous system, weaken the human immunity system, increase
birth defects, cause birth disorders, and interfere with childhood development.
VI. OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD
I noted at the outset that UNEP places the greatest importance in building coherence among
MEAs, and in moving forward on trade-environment.   To that end, in the coming months we will
work on three fronts:  One, to elaborate how core environmental principles actually function, and how
they create policy coherence among MEAs.  Two,  to improve the application of environmental
indicators to MEAs, in order to show more cl early how and why MEAs are working.  We will work
with the Convention Secretariats on these two questi ons.  Indeed, we believe that these two areas -
principles and indicators - are concrete examples of how issues raised in trade-environment
discussions can lead to better environmental policies.
And three , there is a need for governments to better understand the qualitative and
quantitative  environmental effects of trade policies, and in particular, to understand the effects which
trade liberalization may have in relation to environmental objectives established in different MEAs.
The question of environmental reviews of international trade is highly complex.  UNEP will beginthis work by identifying methodologies which migh t usefully correlate data between trade-induced
economic growth and different types of environmental change.  A proposed outline of UNEP’s work
in the three areas I have noted will be available to governments next month.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we wish to benefit fr om our participation today by asking this
Committee four questions:
(1) After following your work, we remain somewhat unclear as to what exactly is implied by the
term trade measures, and what the term means precisely in the context of MEAs.  It would be
helpful if this term were clarified more precisely;
(2) We also seek clarification from this Committee as to what it views as measures in MEAs
which are consistent with trade rules;
(3) In light of the welcome emphasis which this Committee places on sustainable development,
we seek its guidance on what it views in practical terms as sustainable trade policies, and how
these policies can help strengthen MEAs;WT/CTE/W/94
Page 7
(4) And finally, we have long felt that the absence of any formal legal disputes between MEAs
and the WTO was a minimum sign of progress in securing real policy coherence between
these two international legal regimes.  To move from conflict avoidance to coordination, we
refer to the statement made by the WTO Director-General in March 1998 on the need for a
“framework” to clarify the relationship between MEAs and the WTO.  We welcome this idea.We are committed to work with governments to examine whether such a framework is
needed, what it might resemble, and how it might work.  Today, the UNEP Executive
Director has written to the WTO Director-General to explore the idea of a framework.  We
seek the guidance of the Members of this Committee, as well as the Parties to the different
Conventions we administer, on the possibility of such a framework.
Let me conclude by again thanking you Mr. Chairman and thanking the Committee for this
opportunity to meet with you.
__________