WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/213
12 June 2002
(02-3278)
Committee on Trade and Environment Original:  English
ENHANCING SYNERGIES AND MUTUAL SUPPORTIVENESS
OF MEAs AND THE WTO
A Synthesis Report
Contribution by UNEP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This paper explores how to enhance synergies and mutual supportiveness  among trade and
environmental policies, rules and institutions.  Five meetings between June 1999 and June 2001 have
brought together the Secretariats of the World Tr ade Organization (WTO), multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) and UNEP, in most cases also with governments and NGOs.  The
Chairmans' Summaries and reports from this “MEA-WTO process”, organized by UNEP's Economics
and Trade Unit, and the associated analytical work and informal meetings between secretariats andexperts provide the basis for this paper.  This work relates to formal UNEP mandates on trade and
environment and international environmental governance.
2. The five meetings have focused on unrealised opportunities to make MEAs and the
WTO Agreements work together more effectively in pursuit of sustainable development.  Discussions
and analysis have taken into account the needs and constraints of developing countries, including their
requirement for technical assistance and capacity building.  UNEP has secured additional finance to
enhance the participation of developing country environment officials and MEA negotiators in theprocess.  The organization of these meetings back-to-back with meetings of the WTO's Committee on
Trade and Environment (CTE) has enhanced the direct contribution that this MEA-WTO process has
made to CTE discussions.
3. Participants in this multistakeholder process have explored concrete examples of synergies
and potential tensions, with a view to identifying cost effective and cooperative means by whichimplementation of WTO Agreements  might better support that of MEAs, and vice versa.  A broad
recognition emerged that greater coordination and cooperation between these institutions at the
international level, must be underpinned by greater coordination between trade and environment
ministries at the national level.
4. The importance of securing observer status for MEAs in relevant WTO bodies, and vice
versa, was emphasized.  More complementary and harmonized capacity building activities by the
MEA and WTO Secretariats, in some cases conducted jointly, can facilitate the development of
synergies.  Differences in the approach of MEAs  and the WTO to compliance and dispute settlement
were noted, and in particular the MEAs emphasis on dispute avoidance and the use of supportive
measures for compliance.  The importance of policy tools such as economic instruments that couldenhance synergies between MEAs and the WTO was also underlined.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 2
5. From these discussions a list of next steps for enhancing synergies were identified, including:
greater participation of MEA Secretariats in WTO regional seminars on trade and environment;
developing synergies between technology transfer provisions in MEAs and the
WTO TRIPS Agreement; more regular meetings between trade, environment and development
(cooperation) ministries at national level, including prior to international meetings and negotiations;additional consultation and cooperation with civil society on these issues; greater cooperation between
the WTO and MEAs in the context of potential trade and environment disputes, with the aim of
avoiding formal disputes; using environmental assessment of trade-related policies to strengthen
implementation of MEAs; identifying trade measur es that can contribute to MEA implementation
while enhancing synergies and minimising potential tensions with WTO rules.
6. Actions drawn from this list of next step s can enhance synergies between the governance
structures established at the global level fo r the environment, trade and finance.  This
MEA-WTO process is therefore of relevance to preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) that will take place in September 2002, and the discussions on international
environmental governance taking place in that context.
7. This synthesis paper is intended to provide a basis for trade and environment officials, and
other stakeholders in this process, to provide inputs  for its further development.   The next meeting in
this MEA-WTO process will take place in late 2001 or early 2002.
II. INTRODUCTION
8. The purpose of this paper is to summarize and synthesize the output of a series of
UNEP-sponsored meetings, which have explored how to realize synergies and reduce potentialtensions among trade and environmental policies, rules and institutions.  Five meetings have taken
place between June 1999 and June 2001 bringing together the Secretariats of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and UNEP, in most cases also
with governments and NGOs.  This synthesis is used to generate proposed next steps for this
"MEA-WTO process" in the final section of this paper.
9. The Secretariats of the following MEAs have been represented at some or all of these
meetings:  the Convention on Biological Diversity  (CBD), the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal (SBC), the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), the Montreal Protocol on
Substances which Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Migrator y Species (CMS), the Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and theUN Fish Stocks Agreement.  The Interim Secretariats of the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed
Consent and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants were also represented at
most of these meetings
1 Two regional seas agreements, namely the Barcelona and
Cartagena Conventions, have been present at some of the meetings  The WTO and
UNCTAD Secretariats have participated in all these meetings, which have been structured to provide
a constructive, open and informal dialogue on concrete issues on the interface between MEAs and the
WTO.
10. The process initially focused on the relationship between the WTO and UNEP administered
MEAs.  However, the Secretariats of some non-UN EP administered MEAs have chosen to become
                                                     
1 Almost all these MEA Secretariats, and the WTO Secretariat, have commented on this paper.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 3
involved.  The process remains open to all interested MEA Secretariats, whether UNEP administered
or not.
11. This series of meetings stem from formal UNEP mandates, as well as decisions taken and
statements made in other international fora, including the WTO.  As part of an overall mandate on
trade and environment, the 21st Governing Council of UNEP requested the Economics and TradeUnit of UNEP to promote understanding and dialogue about multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs), inter alia , to develop capacity to ensure that trade and environment policies are mutually
supportive (GC 21/14).  This request built on that of the 20th session of the Governing Council which
mandated analytical studies on the relationship between trade measures contained in MEAs and
international trade policy (GC 20/29).
12. The cooperation fostered between the WTO, MEA and UNEP Secretariats is also intended to
respond to and complement insights gained from the work of the WTO's Committee on Trade andEnvironment (CTE).   The CTE’s Report delivered on the occasion of the Singapore WTO Ministerial
Conference in 1996, noted that:
"WTO Agreements and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are representative of
efforts of the international community to pursu e shared goals, and in the development of a
mutually supportive relationship between them  due respect must be afforded to both"
2   
13. The discussions, joint analysis and close collaboration between the WTO, MEA and
UNEP Secretariats embody that mutual respect.  The Elements of Cooperation agreed between the
WTO and UNEP in November 1999 have facilitated this process.  Arranging the meetings referred to
in this paper back-to-back with CTE meetings has also enhanced the direct contribution that this
MEA-WTO process has made to related discussions in the WTO.   This synthesis paper will alsocontribute to the further development of the MEA-WTO process, discussions in the CTE, and is being
released immediately prior to the WTO's Mini sterial Conference in Doha in November 2001.
14. Outputs from this MEA-WTO process are also of relevance to preparations for the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) that will take place in September 2002 in
Johannesburg, South Africa.  Environment ministers at the Global Ministerial Environment Forum inMalmö, Sweden pointed to the need to strengthen en vironmental institutions, and also of ensuring that
the environmental perspective is taken into account in macroeconomic policy-making.  They noted
that the WSSD should:
"review requirements for a greatly strengthened institutional structure for international
environmental governance …….that has the capacity to effectively address wide-ranging
environmental threats in a globalizing world.
3
15. Outputs from this MEA-WTO process, and th is synthesis paper in particular, may thus
provide a useful contribution to the fulfilment of those two mandates, and to decisions taken at the
WSSD.  This paper also provides governments, other international organizations and NGOs with an
opportunity to comment on the next steps in this process, prior to the next meeting.
                                                     
2 Report of the Committee on Trade and Environment (1996),  (WT/CTE/1), 12 November 1996,
para. 171, Section VII of the Report of the General Council to the 1996 Ministerial Conference,(WT/MIN(96)/2), 26 November 1996.
3 Para 24, Malmö Ministerial Declaration from the first Global Ministerial Environment Forum in
Malmö, Sweden, 29-31 May 2000.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 4
III. CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MEA-WTO PROCESS
16. Two simple assumptions underlie this paper, and the process out of which it has been
developed.  The first is that international cooperation is the key to sustainable development, and that
MEAs and the WTO are important instruments to achieve that cooperation.  The second is that there
are unrealised opportunities to make these institutions and their policies and legal frameworks worktogether more effectively in pursuit of sustainable development.  This is because these institutions and
frameworks have been developed separately from each other, and also tend to operate in isolation
from each other, notwithstanding the fact that their governmental memberships are broadly the same.
This situation has been created in part by a lack of coordination between economic, trade and
environmental policy makers at national level, albeit a situation that is beginning to be addressed.
17. This process has therefore identified existing and potential synergies between the
MEAs' system contributing to global environmenta l governance, and the WTO's system contributing
to global economic governance.  This takes place in the context of preparations for the WSSD,
including UNEP's ongoing initiative aimed at strengthening International Environmental Governance
(IEG), mandated by its 21st Governing Council.  While the policy-oriented assessment of IEG being
undertaken in accordance with Decision 21/21
4 focuses largely on enhancing cooperation and
potential synergies between MEAs, there are issues, which go beyond the mandate of EnvironmentMinistries alone
5   These relate to the need to integrate environmental considerations into economic
and social decision-making at all levels, which is also reflected in Chapter 8 of Agenda 21.
18. In seeking to enhance synergies between MEAs and the WTO it is necessary to take into
account the needs and constraints of developing countries, and their need for technical assistance and
capacity building.  This has implications for bot h the process of exploring the MEA-WTO interface,
and the selection of foci within that interface.  Thus, for example, UNEP has made a sustained effort
to maximise developing countries' participation in this MEA-WTO process, including by scheduling
meetings back-to-back with other related intergovernmental meetings and by providing financial
support for participation.  With regard to coherence, enhancing synergies between MEA and
WTO provisions relating to capacity building and technology transfer have been cited as importantpotential foci for the process by many participants, and those themes are currently being developed.
19. These objectives and considerations are reflected in the following synthesis of the outputs
from the five meetings held between June 1999 and June 2001.  The meetings referred to are the
following:
• "WTO/MEAs Meeting" , Geneva, 28 June 1999 (secretariats of MEAs, WTO,
UNCTAD, ILO and the Center for International Environmental Law, an NGO);
• "High Level Panel Discussion on MEAs and the WTO" , New York, 27 April 2000,
during the Eighth Session of the Co mmission on Sustainable Development
(secretariats of MEAs, WTO, UNCTAD, CSD, governments and NGOs);
• "Enhancing Synergies and Mutual Supportiveness of MEAs and the WTO" , Geneva,
23 October 2000 (secretariats of MEAs, WTO, UNCTAD, governments and NGOs);
                                                     
4 Decision 21/21 on International Environmental Governance, taken at the UNEP Governing Council,
5-9 February 2001 (UNEP/GC.21/9).
5 Proposals of the President of the UNEP Govern ing Council for consideration of the Open-ended
Intergovernmental Group of Ministers on International Environmental Governance, UNEP/IGM/3/CRP.1, para
4 (d), 8 September 2001.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 5
• "High Level Meeting on Environment,  Sustainable Development and Trade" , Berlin,
20-22 March 2001 (secretariats of MEAs, WTO, UNCTAD, governments andNGOs);
• "Compliance, Enforcement and Dispute Settlement in MEAs and the WTO" , Geneva,
26 June 2001 (secretariats of MEAs, WTO, UNCTAD, governments and NGOs).
20. The last three meetings have concluded with Chairmans’ Summaries which were each
finalised after circulation of at least one draft to meeting participants.  Each of those summaries
provided an overview of the main issues raised by participants and a list of future activities that were
suggested by meeting participants.  These summaries did not represent consensus documents by
Governments attending the meetings.  Those summaries and the UNEP reports of the first two
meetings provide the basis for the following synthesis.  The full versions of all five documents can be
found on the website of UNEP's Economics and Trade Unit at www.unep.ch/etu .
A. CONTEXT
21. The discussion has been set in the overall context of the need to achieve sustainable
development.  Poverty can be an important cause  of environmental degradation, which must be
addressed in developing policy solutions that fully integrate trade, environment and development
concerns.
22. There has been broad agreement among participants on the following points.
• The WTO and MEAs are on the same legal footing, a fact which is reflected in the
preamble of the Biosafety Protocol adopted in Montreal, in January 2001.
• There remains a considerable gap in the understanding of trade and environment
officials of multilateral agreements in the other policy sector, and the relationship
between them, and there is an urgent need to develop better mutual understanding.
• Discussions on this issue in the WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment have
deepened the analysis but are not making progress towards policy solutions to
potential tensions.
• There is an urgent need for confidence-building on trade and environment,
particularly as between developed and developing countries, so as to make progress
on these issues.
23. Closer examination of the implications of trade and trade liberalization for MEAs, and of
MEA obligations for trade and the economic gains it can bring, are likely to be keys to developing
that better understanding and building confidence.  In undertaking those examinations the objective ofensuring equitable relations between developed and developing countries, and the principle of
common but differentiated responsibility must be borne in mind.
B. O
BJECTIVES
24. With regard to the objectives of this MEA-WTO process, some participants in the discussions
have remarked that actual conflicts between provisions of MEAs and the WTO have yet to occur, andsince they have not there is little value in trying to anticipate them.  Other participants wish to avoid
any possibility of such conflicts occurring, because of the legal and political problems they could
create, and so are urgently seeking a clarification of the MEA-WTO relationship.  What the discussionWT/CTE/W/213
Page 6
and analysis that have taken place has clearly shown is that there are many potential synergies
between MEA and WTO provisions, which discussions in other fora such as the CTE tend not to have
focused on.
25. Increased policy coherence should lead to more effective policies and accomplishment of
their intended goals; increased rule coherence may smooth national implementation; and increased
institutional coherence – for example in the area of capacity building – may augment the effectiveness
of Secretariats in supporting parties ’ implementation of their respective agreements.
26. Discussions during the meetings have revealed a broad agreement that this
MEA-WTO process could contribute to two other important objectives.
• The scale and pace of environmental degradation underlines the need for effective
MEAs – realising synergies with the WTO could enhance that effectiveness.
• The exchange of views and analysis and deeper cooperation facilitated through this
process should help the MEA, WTO and UNEP Secretariats to better serve their
memberships, and strengthen implementation of the relevant agreements.
27. From UNEP's perspective, the growing interdep endencies, both economic and environmental,
increase the need for policy coherence and coordination at all levels, and demand renewed efforts to
build mutually supportive relationships between MEAs and the WTO.  Strengthening the mutualsupportiveness and coherence of trade and environment policies, rules and institutions is required to
maximize their joint contribution to sustainable development, and are likely to yield significant
benefits for MEA parties and WTO Members, particularly developing countries.
28. Building mutually supportive relationships will require policy-makers to identify areas of
intersection between MEAs and the WTO, to maximize synergies, and to minimize areas of potentialtension.  While each is significant, so far the discussions of MEA-WTO linkages have, in the view of
many environmental policy-makers, focused disproportionately on potential tensions (e.g. potential
for MEA measures to create “trade distortions”, or  their theoretical incompatibility with WTO rules).
This perspective does not necessarily reflect the priorities of MEAs.
29. UNEP and many MEA Secretariats have identified the need to broaden the debate to explore
the numerous available synergies, believing that a more practical approach focusing in greater detail
on concrete examples is desirable.  This could provide the basis for a more positive and pro-active
engagement among the trade and environment commun ities, particularly in relation to implementation
issues such as technical assistance and capacity building.
30. Consequently, rather than seeking to provide a theoretical examination of
MEA-WTO linkages, this process has been exploring concrete examples of synergies and potential
tensions that have been identified by the particip ants.  The synthesis of the meetings which follows,
identifies specific, concrete issues on which greater mutual supportiveness can be built between
MEAs and the WTO, as well as providing procedural indications for how this might be done.  The
focus is on existing provisions of MEAs and the WTO, and cost effective and cooperative means by
which implementation of WTO Agreements might better support that of MEAs, and vice versa.
31. The list of potential synergies identified is not exhaustive, nor may all of them ultimately
yield opportunities for joint action.  Nevertheless, it is a starting point for dialogue and cooperation to
build a stronger, more mutually supportive relationship between MEAs and the WTO.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 7
IV. SYNTHESIS OF THE MEETINGS
32. Participants in these meetings have recognized a number of characteristics of and
requirements for enhancing the mutual supportivenes s of the international governance frameworks for
trade and the environment.  In particular, many have noted that a multistakeholder, participatory
process, engaging all the relevant international organizations, governments and civil society isrequired to identify and build synergies between MEAs and the WTO.  This was a primary aim of this
UNEP-coordinated process, which has been structured and resourced accordingly.
33. Participants in the process made the following additional points.
• That there is value in increasing opportunities for and generally enhancing dialogue at
national and international levels, between trade and environment officials, UNEP,
MEAs and WTO Secretariats.
• There is a need to increase the participation of developing country representatives
from both trade and environment ministries in meetings such as these, including those
of the WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment.
• Involvement of government officials, and particularly those of developing countries,
in trade and environment discussions and negotiations is hampered by the dispersedlocations of environmental institutions and the multiplicity of meetings.
34. There was a very broad recognition that trade and environment policy makers need to work
together more, both to build synergies and ensure coherence of the two legal regimes.  The WTO and
MEA Secretariats need to ensure their respective participation in key meetings of the other institutions
which are of relevance to implementation of their own agreements.  While this point related to
meetings held at the international level, such coordination and cooperation, must be underpinned by astrengthening of the coordination between trade a nd environment ministries at the national level.
Increasing opportunities and expertise for greater coherence and coordination of environmental with
trade and other economic policies could well imply a need for additional budgetary resources in the
relevant ministries.
35. Discussions and analysis conducted during this process ranged over issues of institutional
cooperation, capacity building, decision-making processes, compliance and dispute settlement
processes and a number of policy tools that are important with regard to enhancing synergies.  These
are laid out below, under each of these headings.
A. I
NSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPING SYNERGIES
36. The need for more regular informal contacts and cooperation, and also more formal
interaction between the MEAs and the WTO, was a theme that was referred to repeatedly during these
meetings.  Such contacts serve to raise awareness of officials in the different institutions about the
objectives, implementation tools and decision-making processes in the respective agreements.  By
transferring information during negotiations and implementation of the agreements, contacts and
cooperation also contribute to coherence, can prevent conflicts before they arise, and build synergies
during implementation.  The following specific points were made during the meetings.
• More cooperation and information exchange between MEAs and the WTO, and more
meetings, will contribute to enhanced coordination between these agreements.
• The value of securing observer status for MEAs in WTO bodies, and vice versa, in
enhancing information exchange and cooperation was emphasized.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 8
• Greater information exchange in the area of compliance and dispute settlement may
assist both MEA and WTO officials in understanding the objectives of their differentagreements.
B. R
ESOURCES AND CAPACITY BUILDING FOR DEVELOPING SYNERGIES
• It was recognized that for many developing countries lack of capacity and limited
technical, technological and financial resources were all important factors limiting
compliance with and implementation of MEAs.  These needs can be addressed in the
context of the MEAs themselves, but also through the activities of other international
organizations.  Participants made the following specific points.
• There is a need for more supportive measures in MEAs, such as capacity building and
technology transfer, financial transfers, and the use of market incentives to achieve
sustainable development.
• Enhanced trade flows or investment provisions in MEAs could generate additional
financial resources for the implementation of these agreements.
• More capacity building on trade, environment and development, by such mechanisms
as the UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force, will be a crucial part of anysolutions.
• Joint capacity building activities by the MEA and WTO Secretariats could facilitate
the development of synergies between these agreements.
C. D
ECISION -MAKING FOR DEVELOPING SYNERGIES
37. There was general recognition that the MEA and WTO regimes have developed differing
approaches to implementation and decision-making related to it.  Intensifying communication anddialogue between developing and developed countries, outside formal negotiating fora, was also
recognized as a valuable approach to identifyin g areas of common interest.  The following specific
points were made during discussions in the meetings.
• Achieving greater coherence and coordination on trade and environment policies at
the national level will contribute to enhancing coherence at the international level.
• Greater policy coordination at the national level is important to ensure that all
relevant rights and obligations in international agreements have been consideredduring the implementation of existing agreements and the negotiation of new ones –
this also reduces the potential for conflicts between MEA and WTO provisions.
• Civil society participation in decision-making processes is an important prerequisite
for sustainable and coherent policies.
D. C
OMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT FOR DEVELOPING SYNERGIES
38. One of the potential next steps identified in the Chairman's Summary of the meeting on
23 October 2000, was that UNEP and WTO could elaborate a paper contrasting dispute settlement
and compliance practices in the two regimes.  This  joint paper was developed ahead of the meeting on
26th June 2001, and served as the main input for that meeting and the subsequent MEA InformationWT/CTE/W/213
Page 9
Session that took place in the WTO CTE on 27 June.6   A number of governments and
intergovernmental organizations commented on the clarity and utility of the paper in informing these
discussions.
39. During those discussions the following points and suggestions were raised.
• MEAs and the WTO agreements share many common elements in their compliance
systems.   For example, WTO agreements contain notification requirements, and
provide for monitoring and transparency as well as review mechanisms by
WTO collective bodies.
• With the exception of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, MEA dispute settlement
provisions generally follow a progression including negotiation, good offices,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judici al settlement.  The approach is generally
one of dispute avoidance, with judicial dispute settlement as a last resort.
• In contrast, the WTO dispute settlement system is compulsory in nature, and has
exclusive jurisdiction and binding effects.  These characteristics could lead to theWTO attracting disputes it was not properly equipped to resolve.
• Strengthening compliance and dispute settlement mechanisms could, in the case of
some MEAs, enhance both the effective implementation of MEAs, and reduce any
potential for tension with WTO provisions.
40. Appropriate solutions to building synergies will depend to a considerable extent on the nature
of the individual MEAs.  More specifically, broad policy-making conventions such as the CBD
generally aim at assisting Parties in the implementation of the agreement through a supportive and
non-confrontational approach, thereby preventing disputes from arising.  The need for capacitybuilding, financial and technical assistance to support implementation of these agreements was
stressed in this regard, rather than the need to strengthen dispute settlement mechanisms.  However,
this situation is quite different when dealing with  MEAs which have a more narrow focus, and deal
with trade, or the prohibition or control of trade in certain products, such as the Biosafety Protocol,
the Basel Convention and CITES.
41. A number of participants suggested that potential tensions between trade and environmental
regimes could be reduced through better communication and understanding of the compliance and
dispute settlement systems in MEAs and the WTO, and by dissemination of Appellate Body
decisions.  Sharing expertise in respective areas of competence may also help reduce the potential for
formal disputes.
E. P
OLICY TOOLS FOR DEVELOPING SYNERGIES
42. An array of policy tools were mentioned by participants in the meetings as having the
potential to enhance synergies between MEAs and the WTO.  These will be of differing importance
and utility in the context of individual MEAs, and parties to them according to their implementation
needs and priorities.  These include:
• policies that internalize environmental costs should be developed and applied in order
to capture the real value of producing and consuming products.  Such measures can
                                                     
6 "Compliance and Dispute Settlement Provisions in the WTO and in Multilateral Environmental
Agreements", Note by the WTO and UNEP Secretariats, WT/CTE/W/191, 6 June 2001.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 10
direct economic activities to contribute to MEA implementation and would not be in
contradiction with WTO rules;
• identification and reform or reduction of environmentally adverse and trade distortive
subsidies would be a valuable step toward s resolving potential tensions between trade
and environment policies, generally;
• enhancing market opportunities for environmentally friendly products, particularly
those from developing countries, would contribute to sustainable development; and
• economic instruments which can provide effective tools for enhancing the benefits of
trade liberalization policies, as well as for implementing MEAs, and can contribute to
the mutual supportiveness of those agreements and the WTO.
43. A number of participants emphasized that assessment of the impacts of trade liberalization on
the environment, as well as the economic and trade impacts of MEAs, are areas requiring further
attention.  Some others noted that trade measures have played an important role in enforcement and
compliance, and ensuring broad membership in MEAs, and preventing free-riding.
V. NEXT STEPS IN THE MEA-WTO PROCESS
44. The next steps in this process will share the same characteristics as the preceding ones,
namely that they will:
• focus on concrete issues and options for enhancing synergies between MEAs and the
WTO;
• be informal and participatory, securing the input of all stakeholders including
governments, secretariats of intergovernmental organizations, affected communities
and NGOs;  and
• be conducted in a constructive atmosphere with a view to increasing opportunities for
collaboration between MEA and WTO Secretariats, so as to more effectively
implement these agreements and meet the needs of their respective memberships.
45. These discussions will prioritise the identification of actions and activities that can be
facilitated jointly by secretariats, in a cost efficient manner.
46. Each of the meetings in the process so far concluded with the development of a list of
potential next steps in the process.  These lists have been compared with the key points that arose
from the combination of the meetings, as set out in the preceding sections.  A list of next steps is
offered below with reference to the mandates, individual activities and current cooperation betweenthe MEAs, WTO and UNEP.
A. I
NSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
47. Cooperation between UNEP, MEA Secretariats and the WTO (including communication
between staff, exchange of documents, and participation in each other’s meetings) has already
improved understanding of each other's respective frameworks.  The Elements of Cooperation agreed
between the WTO and UNEP secretariats in November 1999 have been instrumental in facilitating the
exchanges in this MEA-WTO process.  This process, coordinated by the Economics and Trade Unit,
has helped operationalize that agreement between the Secretariats.  A number of MEAs have alsoWT/CTE/W/213
Page 11
participated in the WTO’s “information sessions” and offered statements to the Committee on Trade
and Environment.  While existing cooperation has been beneficial, more creative and innovative
interactions between trade and environment institutions could further enhance synergies.
48. Increased cooperation between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the WTO, for
instance, would help both organizations to identify linkages, and to work cooperatively on commonissues.
• The CBD Secretariat, in its July 1998 communication to the CTE, noted that each of
the 10 items of the agenda discussed at the CTE raise biodiversity-related issues. In
addition, the CBD’s Conference of the Parties has discussed a number of issues that
touch on trade.
7
49. The CBD’s Executive Secretary has requested observer status in the WTO’s Committee on
Agriculture and the TRIPS Council.  Similarly, UNEP has requested observer status in theWTO General Council and the TRIPs Council.  These requests are still pending.  WTO members
should explore how the requests might be granted, to facilitate joint work in on these policy issues of
concern to both themselves, parties to the CBD, and the membership of UNEP.
B. C
APACITY BUILDING AND RESOURCES
50. Capacity building and technical cooperation were identified in all of the last three meetings as
areas that would benefit from enhanced and conc erted efforts of UNEP, MEAs and the WTO.  The
following specific steps were identified as offering useful opportunities for enhanced understanding
and coherence between MEAs and the WTO, and trade, environment and development policies at
national and regional levels too.
• Joint capacity building efforts by the MEA and WTO Secretariats, and also in
collaboration with relevant organizations such as UNCTAD, should be developed to
assist the implementation of MEAs and WTO agreements.
• Regional workshops provide a useful way to bring together trade and environmental
officials to explore synergies, and to discuss concrete issues of concern to them.
• WTO regional seminars on trade and environment and the UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity
Building Task Force on trade, environment and development provide valuable
capacity building services, which can contribute to building synergies between MEAs
and the WTO.8
                                                     
7 These include decisions on: 1) access and benefit-sharing arrangements (V/8); 2) alien species that
threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (V/15); 3) in centive measures for the conservation and sustainable use
of components of biological diversity (V/16); 4) Article 8(j) and related provisions on the knowledge,innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities (V/18); 5) impact assessment, liability and
redress (V/24); 6) sustainable use (V/26A); 7) agricultural biological diversity (V/5); and 8) the relationship
between intellectual property rights and the relevant provisions of the CBD and the WTO TRIPS Agreement(V/26B).  See, www.biodiv.org .
8 The participation of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in the WTO regional seminar, which took
place in Malta in May 2000, illustrates the potential of such collabor ation to meet pressing trade and
environment policy integration needs in a cost-effective manner.  Greater use should also be made of other
existing capacity building mechanisms at the regional level, such as the Basel Convention Regional Centres.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 12
51. There are significant synergies to be realized in the implementation of technology transfer and
technical assistance measures in MEAs and the WTO.  Increased access to environmentally sound
technologies and enhancing the capacities of developing countries to develop and adapt technologies
to meet their own requirements and development priorities will strengthen their implementation of
MEAs and help expand their trading opportunities.  For example:
• the relationship between Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) (e.g. Arts. 7, 8 and 66.2) and the provisions in MEAs for the transfer ofenvironmentally sound technology should be further explored by UNEP, MEAs and
the WTO.
52. Transfer of environmentally sound technology has strong potential for integrating trade and
environmental objectives and policies as it promotes greater production efficiency while helping to
reduce environmental harm.
9  MEAs such as the Basel Convention include provisions on  the transfer
of technology.10   The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol was
specifically established in part to finance the transfer of technology.  Closer examination of potential
synergies with the relevant provisions of th e TRIPS Agreement could initiate more mutually
supportive implementation of these agreements.
53. Trade itself can provide resources both for poverty alleviation and for the conservation and
sustainable management of natural resources, when that trade is structured in on a sound and
sustainable basis.  For example, there are a large number of wildlife species listed in the
CITES Appendices, whose products and derivatives have a great potential for sustainable
exploitation.  This includes live animals (tortoises, reptiles, parrots, butterflies, insects, frogs,
ornamental fishes, etc); products and derivatives of fauna species (reptile skins, wool, shells, eggs,meat, hunting trophies); flora species (plants artificially propagated (Orchids), dry plants, medicinal
plants); tourist souvenirs (rain-sticks); etc. The potential economic value of these species can be
translated into tangible economic benefits for populations whose livelihood depends on wildlife.
11
                                                     
9 See, WTO Special Series 4, Trade and Environment, (Nordström & Vaughan) (noting “Economic
growth requiring ever more inputs of natural resources is obviously not as harmless as economic growth drivenby technological progress that saves inputs and reduces the emissions per unit of output. That kind of growth
will not emerge spontaneously, but may require economic incentives to steer development in a sustainabledirection.  Trade could play a positive role in this process by facilitating the diffusion of environmentally
friendly technology in the world. ” p58).
10 Article 10(2)(d) of the Basel Convention requires parties to “cooperate actively, subject to their
national laws, regulations and policies, in the transfer of technology and management systems related to the
environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes ”.  See, also, Basel Ministerial
Declaration on Environmentally Sound Management, http://www.basel.int/COP5/ministerfinal.htm  p 3 of 8.  At
COP V, parties reaffirmed technology transfer as a fundamental aim of the convention, and recognized the
importance of “the transfer of environmentally sound technologies, especially for developing countries and
countries with economies in transition. ”  They also noted the importance of strengthening regional training and
technology transfer centres, building new partnerships with stakeholders, including the private sector, and
pursuing cooperation with other international organizations active in areas relevant to implementation of theBasel Convention.
11 Initiatives like BIOTRADE, launched by UNCTAD in November 1996, are designed to identify
commercial processes that (1) benefit the conservation of wildlife, (2) do not result in an unsustainable pressure
for the survival of the species and (3) generate tangible economic benefits for local communities. The mission of
BIOTRADE is to stimulate trade and investment in bi ological resources to create economic incentives for
sustainable trade. In the case of CITES, this could resu lt in a conversion of the current illegal over-exploitation
of several wildlife species into a legal and sustainable commercial processes beneficial for those species.Sustainable commercial trade could act as a key means for reducing illegal wildlife trade and shifting economicbenefits from illegal chains and networks (poachers, sm ugglers, traffickers, dealers)  to local communities, the
private sector and public finance.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 13
54. Closer cooperation between the Secretariats of CITES and the WTO could advance the
realisation of such synergies, which can maximise the contribution of natural resource management to
sustainable development.
C. DECISION -MAKING
55. There are significant opportunities to strengthen channels of communication between trade
and environment institutions.  The need to improve the exchange of information with the WTO has
been noted by environmental officials including those representing the Convention on Biological
Diversity12, the Montreal Protocol13, CITES and UNEP.  Improving the flow of information – both to
and from trade and environment institutions – could be further examined by UNEP, MEAs, the
WTO and other institutions as they seek to further develop a mutually supportive relationship.
Specific actions that might be taken include:
• environmental policymakers could seek to increase their comprehension of
WTO rules, the economic dimensions of environmental policy, and the potential
negative effects of more liberalized trade on the environment;
• trade policymakers could increase  their knowledge of the economic value of
environmental resources and of existing economic practices and policies(e.g. concessions and subsidies)  that negatively impact on the environment and
natural resources;
• ensuring that observers from MEA and WTO Secretariats are present in the
respective negotiations of these bodies which have a legal interface with each other.
56. More informed decision-making on trade and environment issues also requires enhanced
cooperation at the national level between relevant officials.  Cooperation is required to promoteintegrated and cost-effective policy-making, to implement legal obligations in a way that ensures
consistency among the competencies of different institutions, and to ensure that the negotiation of
new rules advances a unified vision of the international architecture necessary to promote sustainable
development.
Coordination at the national level could be improved by:
• more regular meetings between trade, environment and development (or development
cooperation) ministries, inter-ministerial meetings prior to major internationalmeetings on trade and environment, and harmonizing national environmental
reporting requirements.
                                                     
12 See, CBD secretariat: Submission to the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment
(WT/CTE/W/149) para 56 (stating, … the most important conclusion about any relationship is that the potential
for conflict and synergy highlights the importance of continuing direct cooperation between the Convention and
the WTO ….  The level of cooperation … could be improved.  From the perspective of the Convention, the most
important issue for the immediate future is its application for observer status in the TRIPS Council and theCommittee on Agriculture).
13 Montreal Protocol secretariat: Submission to the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment
(WT/CTE/W/57) para 25 (noting, under the heading  Need for Responsiveness by the WTO, that “It must be
stated … that it has not been possible to obtain a formal  opinio n from the WTO on any contemplated trade
measures in the Protocol with reasonable notice. Unless the WTO is in a position to respond quickly to queries,
the Parties to the Protocol may not be able to consult the WTO before taking trade measures considered by them
to be essential ”).WT/CTE/W/213
Page 14
57. Additional cooperation with civil society could al so help ensure that the creativity, views and
interests of the non-governmental sector are fully taken into consideration, and their support secured
for implementation of multilateral agreements.
D. COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
58. The following specific suggestions were made during the meeting on 26th June to enhance
information exchange and synergies between the compliance and dispute settlement systems of MEAs
and the WTO.
• The WTO and MEAs could explore cooperation in the context of potential disputes,
with the aim of avoiding formal disputes, and/or enhancing exchange of relevantinformation by competent bodies.
• Some participants thought that parties to WTO disputes could usefully select, and
may have already selected, dispute panellists with environmental experience in the
case of environment-related disputes in the WTO.
• The potential for MEA Secretariats, and/or MEA provisions, to inform WTO dispute
settlement processes was discussed.  The possibility of doing this under Article 13 of
the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, which allows panels to seek information
from any relevant sources, was mentioned by some participants.
59. Taking additional measures to increase the capacity of developing countries to implement
MEAs could both enhance compliance and reduce the potential for formal disputes.  Work is also
underway within a number of MEAs to explain and elaborate compliance regimes (notably CITES,
the Basel Convention and the UNFCCC), and UNEP, with the full cooperation of MEA Secretariats,
is currently elaborating Guidelines on Compliance and Enforcement, in accordance withGC decision 21/27.
14
E. POLICY TOOLS FOR MUTUAL SUPPORTIVENESS
60. Among the range of policy tools that could be used to enhance the mutual supportiveness of
MEAs and the WTO, the use of economic instruments and environmental assessments stand out as
being potentially valuable.  The conference of the parties of a number of MEAs have recognized theimportance of such instruments in achieving their objectives.   Trade measures are also important tools
for the implementation of some MEAs, and insofar as these are the source of potential tension
between implementation of MEA and WTO provisions, they should also be the focus of efforts to
enhance mutual supportiveness.
61. In order to promote the use and application of economic instruments and advance work in this
area, it was proposed at the Berlin meeting in March 2001 that UNEP establish a Working Group
under the UNEP/UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force on Economic Instruments.  This Working
Group met for the first time in June 2001 and will assist in the identification and design of economic
instruments, and promote awareness and understanding of their use to achieve sustainable
                                                     
14 Governing Council Decision 21/27, taken in February 2001, requests the Executive Director to
continue preparation of the draft guidelines on compliance with MEAs and on the capacity-strengthening,effective national environmental enforcement, in support of ongoing developments of compliance regimeswithin the framework of international agreements, in consultation with governments and relevant internationalorganizations.  The draft guidelines will be submitted to the Governing Council for its consideration at its
seventh special session in February 2002.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 15
development objectives.  In this context, the Secretariats of MEAs and the WTO may wish to request
this Group:
• to identify policy tools which could be applied to strengthen implementation of
MEAs while also minimising or avoiding trade-distorting effects.
62. Identification and design of economic instruments for specific sectors by the working group
will also address the constraints and impediments to employing these policy tools at the national level.
Policy instruments to enable countries to become self-sufficient in environmental management might
also be explored – for example, the design of policy tools for the more accurate pricing of natural
resource use and for the management of trade so that a higher proportion of profits are returned to the
local communities from which they originate.  Such redistribution of the financial returns from trade
could both alleviate poverty and contribute directly to the sustainable management of natural
resources on which that trade depends.
63. A recent workshop on incentive measures for the conservation of biodiversity, convened by
the CBD Secretariat, created father opportunities for inter-agency cooperation on the design of policy
instruments.15  The workshop elaborated proposals for the design and implementation of incentive
measures, including environmental taxes, market creation, removal of perverse incentives and
environmental funds.  The importance of exploring linkages with international organizations focused
on economic policies, "in particular trade policies under the WTO", was noted, and a recommendation
was made to establish an inter-agency coordination committee for activities at the international level
was made.
64. Methodologies for environmental and "integrated" assessments of trade-related policies are
currently under development by a number of governments and intergovernmental organizations,including UNEP.  These assessment methodologies can be used to enhance the net gains of trade and
trade liberalization policies by addressing negative environmental impacts and enhancing positive
ones.  UNEP can play a key role in enhancing awareness and dissemination of best practices and
experiences on assessment. Actions that could be taken include:
• exploring assessment as a tool to increase policy coherence at the national level, and
to realize win-win opportunities between MEAs and the WTO, for example in the
context of the Convention to Combat Desertification, the CBD and CITES;
• in the context of the CBD, assessing the impact of liberalization of the agricultural
sector on biodiversity, in conformity with a decision passed at its Fourth Conference
of the Parties.
65. Assessments should be country led, and the selection of assessment methodologies should be
determined by countries at the national level.  A transparent and participatory assessment process
involving all stakeholders will generally enhance the information on which the assessment is based,
and build support for appropriate policy responses.
66. It was noted that MEAs use trade measures as part of balanced packages of instruments to
address environmental problems of concern to the international community.  Effective MEAs help to
prevent disputes from arising in the WTO’s dispute settlement system, and thus provide an important
source of mutual supportiveness for the trading sy stem.  UNEP, together with WTO and MEAs, could
usefully examine the use of trade measures pursuant to MEAs, and the rules of the multilateral trading
                                                     
15 "Workshop on Incentive Measures for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological
Diversity", Montreal, Canada, 10-12 October 2001.  Report of the meeting: UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/11/Add.1,
15 October 2001.WT/CTE/W/213
Page 16
system, with a view to enhancing synergies and reducing tensions with the trading system.  The
following specific suggestions were made.
• UNEP, together with WTO and MEAs, could examine the elaboration of a tool (e.g. a
checklist) to provide MEA negotiators with guidance on the use of trade measures in
order to maximise synergies between the two regimes.
• Increasing the number of parties to MEAs could decrease the likelihood of
MEA-related disputes arising in the WTO, especially those involving a non-party toan MEA.
• Discussions and analysis related to the elaboration of the checklist could provide a
more detailed understanding of the variety of trade-related measures that are providedfor and in some cases applied in MEAs.
VI. GOVERNANCE AND COOPERATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
67. The relationship between provisions and the implementation of MEAs and the WTO should
be seen in the broader context of securing sustainable development.  At an international level,
enhancing synergies between the governance structures established for the environment, trade and
finance will be a key to shaping a sustainable global economy.  Preparations for the World Summit onSustainable Development, and the summit itself in Johannesburg in September 2002, provide
important opportunities to review the coherence of these structures and identify actions to enhance
that coherence.
68. Outputs from this MEA-WTO process could cont ribute to this objective through discussions
of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers on International Environmental Governance(IEG).  That group will report to the Globa l Ministerial Environmental Forum (GMEF) in
February 2002, with a view to providing input to the WSSD on the future requirements for
international environmental governance, in the broa der context of multilateral efforts for sustainable
development.  Analysis and preliminary recommendations on ways in which to enhance synergies
between implementation of MEAs and the WTO would be of relevance to this objective.  The
recommendations for next steps outlined in section 4 above are therefore of relevance both to the
IEG process and discussions on the interface between global economic and environmental governancethat may take place at the GMEF in Colombia and Prep Comm III of the WSSD in New York.
69. The responses from governments and other participants in the MEA-WTO process will
inform the decision on the next steps to be taken.  It is envisaged that the Secretariats of the MEAs,
the WTO and UNEP will discuss those steps in January 2002, with a view to identifying those which
offer most potential for enhancing synergies between the agreements.  Inputs and comments on thispaper provided by governments and other stakeholders will also inform the development of this
MEA-WTO process.
70. The priority now for this process is to initiate action on some of the more valuable ideas and
suggestions for developing synergies.  In some cases this may be done directly by Secretariats or by
members of the respective agreements.  In other cases it may require that these proposals are firstdiscussed and elaborated in decision-making fora in the relevant intergovernmental body or bodies.
Maintaining effective communication and informal cooperation between the MEA, WTO and
UNEP Secretariats will continue to play an impor tant role in facilitating the move from ideas to
actions.  The open, constructive and informal nature of the discussions and analysis so far has also
been a key to the progress so far.  UNEP recognizes that and intends to preserve those characteristicsof the MEA-WTO process, while moving forward on concrete, collaborative actions with its partner
institutions.
__________