WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/W/20
10 February 2003
(03-0867)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special SessionOriginal:  English
SUB-PARAGRAPH 31(I) OF THE DOHA DECLARATION
Submission by the United States
I. INTRODUCTION
1. During the course of 2002, the CTE in Special Session conducted a useful exchange of views
on the scope of the mandate in sub-paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Declaration and provided anopportunity for delegations to communicate how they w ould like to see the negotiations proceed.  It is
now embarking on a phase of negotiation that will be increasingly concerned with discussion of
specific examples of provisions in MEAs that are within the terms of the mandate.  The United States
(U.S.) welcomes this development and is prepared to engage in more in-depth analysis of the
relationship between specific trade obligations set out in MEAs and WTO rules.  The purpose of thisU.S. submission is to contribute to the commencement of this phase of work in order to promote the
development of a firm factual and analytical foundation for any eventual results under the 31(i)
mandate.  This phase should include efforts to understand the experience of individual Members in
negotiating specific trade obligations in MEAs and implementing them.
2. While this submission provides U.S. views on examples of specific trade obligations in the
agreements enumerated in WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1, it is  without prejudice to U.S. views on any other
provisions contained in MEAs that are not specifically referenced in this submission.  The
United States also submits this paper without prejudice to U.S. views on the applicability of WTO
rules, which presumably will be discussed at a later stage in the negotiations.  Finally, the inclusion of
particular MEA provisions and exclusion of others is intended to further a constructive discussion in
the CTE and is not an indication of the importance or environmental significance of any particular
MEA provision in relation to any other.
II. LIMITS IN THE MANDATE
3. In reviewing WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1, the United States was mindful of the parameters set
forth in the mandate in sub-paragraph 31(i).  In particular, the United States focused on those
provisions that could be categorized as "specific trade obligations."
• First, a specific trade obligation is one that requires an MEA party to take, or refrain from
taking, a particular action.  Such action must be mandatory and not simply permitted or
allowed by a provision in an MEA.  In other words, it cannot be discretionary.
• Additionally, a specific trade obligation must be "set out" in an MEA.
• For purposes of the immediate inquiry into examples of specific trade obligations, a further
limit in the mandate is relevant.  That is, the mandate only covers trade obligations among
parties.  Thus, it would include only those provisions in which parties to an MEA agree to bindthemselves to trade obligations vis-à-vis each other.  It would not include obligations requiring
parties to take particular trade action in relation to non-parties.TN/TE/W/20
Page 2
III. REVIEW OF U.S. VIEWS IN C TE SPECIAL SESSION DISCUSSIONS
4. The United States has previously communicated its perspective in discussions in the CTE in
Special Session under sub-paragraph 31(i).  First and foremost, the United States is interested in
ensuring that any result in this negotiation mainta ins the integrity and mutual supportiveness of both
sets of international obligations – those in MEAs on the one hand and those in the WTO on the other.We must be careful not to create any reluctance on the part of individual countries to join MEAs for
fear that they are simultaneously agreeing to prejudice their WTO rights.  Furthermore, ministers at
Doha, in paragraph 32 of the Declaration, already directed that the negotiations must not add to or
diminish the rights and obligations of Members under existing WTO agreements.
5. In the U.S. view, the MEA/WTO relationship has worked and is working quite well.  WTO
rules have not interfered with trade obligations among MEA parties and have not had a stifling effect
on MEA negotiators’ willingness to include trade obligations in MEAs where deemed important forenvironmental purposes.  For their part, MEA negotiators have generally sought to tailor their trade
provisions to meet particular environmental purposes, particularly among parties, in a way that takes
account of WTO implications.
6. The United States has also stressed the critical importance of enhanced domestic coordination
between MEA and WTO policy-makers and negotiators.  Fundamentally, there is no substitute for thissince it continues to be the most direct and effective means of maintaining compatibility between
MEA trade obligations and WTO disciplines.  In this regard, the United States believes that progress
to enhance communication and cooperation between MEAs and the WTO under sub-paragraph 31(ii)
could also offer dividends in promoting increased coordination between environment and trade
officials at national levels.
IV. CATEGORIES OF SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN MEAS
7. It is interesting to note that, even among specific trade obligations set out in MEAs, there
appears to be a wide variety in terms of form and content.  Variations include:
• Obligations, whether regulating exports or imports, that seek to:
• Help conserve something in the party of export (e.g., specimens of
endangered species);
• help protect an importing party from something potentially harmful
(e.g., hazardous wastes or hazardous chemicals);  and
• avoid harm to a global resource (e.g., the ozone layer);
• for the sub-set of export obligations intended to protect an importing party from something
harmful, those that require:
• notifying an importing party of action taken by the exporting party;
• notifying an importing party of a proposed export;
• restricting export if an importing party does not want it;
• restricting export if the exporting party believes it cannot be handled in an
environmentally sound manner in an importing party;
• restricting export altogether;TN/TE/W/20
Page 3
• obligations that vary according to their role in an agreement, including:
• core obligations that directly regulate trade (e.g., certain provisions of
CITES);
• obligations that support core ones by establishing substantive standards to
control production and/or use of particular substances (e.g., certain provisionsin the Montreal Protocol);
• obligations that address ancillary aspects of import or export restrictions (e.g.,
designation of an import or export authority);
• obligations that apply independently of any particular decision on the part of a party and
obligations that depend upon a party’s prior decision to restrict imports or exports;
• obligations that specify procedures for modifying the scope of a trade obligation (e.g., for adding
new species to the appendices of CITES or new chemicals to Annex III in the
Rotterdam Convention).
8. Additionally, procedures differ among agreements on modifying the scope of a trade
obligation.  Some can require consensus of all parties, whereas others permit modifications upon the
agreement of a certain number of parties less than consensus.
9. While the preceding examples provide some picture of the variety of potential specific trade
obligations in MEAs, they are by no means definitive in terms of categorizing kinds of obligations.
V. IDENTIFICATION OF EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS
COVERED UNDER THE MANDATE
10. In reviewing the compilation of agreements in  WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1, the United States has
not limited its consideration to MEAs that are alread y in force.  In the U.S. view, the important factor
is whether there is a specific trade obligation that warrants analysis, rather than whether the MEA in
question is in force.  Further, some of the MEAs th at are not yet in force could enter into force during
the course of these negotiations.  The United States also believes that the existence of the compilation
in WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1 makes it unnecessary to debate  in the abstract the meaning of such terms as
"MEA", "obligation", "trade", etc.  The sense of delegations regarding these terms will come to the
surface through a concrete review of the examples they identify in the document.
11. As noted by the United States in the October 2002 meeting of the CTE in Special Session,
there appear to be specific trade obligations set out in six MEAs listed in WT/CTE/160/Rev.1.  These
are: CITES, the Montreal Protocol, the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam (PIC) Convention, the
Stockholm (POPs) Convention and the Cartagena (B iosafety) Protocol.  (TN/TE/R/3, paragraph 30.)
12. Attached to this paper is a matrix that identi fies some examples of specific trade obligations
in these six Agreements.  Each example is a legally binding commitment to take a particular tradeaction.  Each is "set out" in the relevant agreement.  Each involves an obligation vis-à-vis another
party to the MEA in question.
13. These specific trade obligations identified in th e attached matrix can be contrasted with other
provisions that, while they might also be environmentally significant, are not specific trade
obligations covered by the mandate:
• Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol (in contrast to Article 4A) obligates parties to take particular
trade action in relation to non-parties, rather than parties.  The same is true of Article 4.5 of theBasel Convention.TN/TE/W/20
Page 4
• Article 13.3 of the Rotterdam Convention provides discretion to individual parties on whether
to subject certain of its chemical exports to labelling requirements and, as such, is not anobligation.
• Article 16 of the Biosafety Protocol, Article 4.2(a) of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change and Article 10(b) of the Convention on Biological Diversity contain general, ratherthan specific, obligations that accord disc retion to the parties regarding implementation.
VI. THE WAY FORWARD
14. The United States believes that the CTE in Special Session is now well positioned to proceed
under sub-paragraph 31(i) in a more concrete, analytical manner.  This phase in the work should begin
to build a factual foundation that can subsequently permit the Committee to examine the relationship
between these two distinct sets of international obli gations.  To further this effort, the United States
suggests that:
(1) Other delegations also identify examples of specific trade obligations in the
agreements listed in WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1;
(2) the CTE in Special Session focus on those on which there appears to be a consensus
that they are specific trade obligations without precluding discussion on other
provisions raised by delegations;  and
(3) on this basis, the CTE in Special Session could invite individual delegations to
provide information on their experiences with respect to negotiation and
implementation of these specific trade obligations in light of WTO rules.TN/TE/W/20
Page 5SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS AMONG PARTIES IN AGREEMENTS LISTED IN WT/CTE/W/160/REV. 1
Name of MEA Date of
AdoptionDate of Entry
into ForceSpecific Trade Obligations
Convention on
International Trade
in Endangered
Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
(CITES)3/3/73 1/7/75 Art. II (4) which prohibits trade in specimens of species listed in Appendices I, II, and III except in
accordance with the Convention
Art. III which regulates all trade in specimens of species listed in Appendix I
Arts. IV (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) wh ich regulate all trade in specimens of species
listed in Appendix II
Art. V which regulates all trade in specimens of species listed in Appendix IIIArts. VI (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) which govern permits and certificates
Arts. VIII (1)(a), (1)(b), (3), (4), (6) and (7) which concern measures to be taken by Parties to
enforce the Convention to prohibit trad e in specimens in violation thereof
Art. IX which requires the designation of Management and Scientific Authorities
The Montreal
Protocol on
Substances that
Deplete the Ozone
Layer (Montreal
Protocol)
Montreal
Amendment
(adding Art. 4A)16/9/87
9/971/1/89
10/11/99Article 4A(1) which governs the control of trade with Parties
The Basel
Convention on theControl of
Transboundary
Movements of
Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal(Basel)22/3/89 5/5/92 Arts. 3(1) and 3(2) which requires re porting on national definitions of hazardous wastes
and requirements concerning transboundary movementArts. 4(1), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(f), 4(2)(g), 4(6), 4(7), 4(8), 4(9) and 4(10) which contain general
obligations regarding the transboundary movement of hazardous waste
Art. 5(1) which requires the designation of a competent authority and focal point
Arts. 6(1), 6(2), 6(3), 6(4), 6(5), 6(9) and 6( 10) which govern the transboundary movement of
hazardous wasteArt. 8 which governs the duty to reimport
Art. 9(2) which governs the repatriation of illegal waste
Arts. 13(2), 13(3)(a) and 13(4) which govern the transmission of informationTN/TE/W/20
Page 6Name of MEA Date of
AdoptionDate of Entry
into ForceSpecific Trade Obligations
Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety to the
Convention onBiological
Diversity
(Biosafety
Protocol),29/1/00 Not in force Arts. 7(1) and 7(3) which govern the application of the advance informed agreement procedure
Art. 8 which governs notification
Arts. 9(1) and 9(2) which govern acknowledgement of receipt of notificationArts. 10(1), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(4) which govern the decision procedure
Art. 18 (2) which governs documentation accompanying living modified organisms
Art. 19 which requires the designation of competent national authorities and focal points
The Rotterdam
Convention on the
Prior Informed
Consent Procedure
for certain
Hazardous
Chemicals andPesticides in
International Trade
(PIC)10/9/98 Not in force Arts. 5(1) and 5(2) which govern pr ocedures for banned or severely restricted chemicals
Arts. 10(2), 10(4), 10(5), 10(7), 10(8) and 10(9) which govern obligations in relation to
imports of Annex III chemicals
Arts. 11 which governs obligations in relation to exports of Annex III chemicals
Arts. 12(1), 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4) which govern export notification
Arts. 13(2) and 13(4) which govern information to accompany exported chemicals
Stockholm
Convention on
Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs)23/5/01 Not in force Arts. 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b)(i), 3(2)(b)(ii), and 3(2)(c) which govern obligations concerning
the export and import of listed chemicals (as among Parties)
Annex A, Part II, Paragraph (c) (as among Parties)
__________