WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/150
29 June 2000
(00-2667)
Committee on Trade and Environment
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MARKET
ACCESS EFFECTS OF ECO-LABELLING SCHEMES
Note by the Secretariat
I. INTRODUCTION
This Note responds to a request made by the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) for
an update of previous Secretariat Notes on the market access effects of eco-labelling requirements.1
Since the drafting of the last Secretariat Note on the Technical Barriers to the Market Access of
Developing Countries  (WT/CTE/W/101) in January 1999, only little evidence has emerged on this
subject.  Therefore, this Note proposes to contribute to the knowledge of delegations on this matterthrough: (1) a presentation of this new, albeit limited, evidence, but also through providing (2) factual
information on the principal environmental labels in existence (such as on their geographic
distribution and number), and (3) a compilation of environmental labelling and marking notifications
made under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).   Through (2) and (3), this Note
aims at providing the CTE with some of the tools it may need in order to draw conclusions on trendsin eco-labelling, and its potential trade impact.   The Secretariat will on its own continue to update this
Note as new evidence emerges.
II. RECENT LITERATURE ON THE MARKET ACCESS IMPACT OF ECOLABELS
2
A. S UPPORTING GREEN MARKETS :  E NVIRONMENTAL LABELING , C ERTIFICATION AND
PROCUREMENT SCHEMES IN CANADA , MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES , BY THE
COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION (CEC)3
This CEC report synthesises three separate studies prepared by consultancy firms in Canada,
Mexico and the United States on labelling, certification and procurement.  Its central argument is that
while concern among the general public for environmental protection remains consistently high in
these three North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries, environmental labelling
appears to have settled into a "niche" or specialized market segment.  At the same time, environmentalcertification and green procurement programs appear to be expanding.  The report explains that
considerable overlap exists between labelling and certification, which often use similar criteria and
indices.  However, these two instruments of envir onmental protection differ in the fact that labels
                                                     
1 Recent Secretariat Notes on this issue include:  Eco-labelling: Overview of Current Work in Various
International Fora  (WT/CTE/W/45);  Restrictive Trade Effects of Standards, Technical Regulations and
Conformity Assessment Procedures  (G/TBT/W/42); Market Access Impact of Eco-labelling Requirements
(WT/CTE/W/79); and Technical Barriers to the Mar ket Access of D eveloping Countries  (WT/CTE/W/101).
2 In preparing for this Note, a number of interna tional organizations were contacted for their recent
work on the market effects of eco-labelling schemes.  The Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), the Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN), the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), and the International Trade Center (ITC), all in dicated that they have not conducted any work beyond
that which the WTO Secretariat has already reported on to the CTE.
3 Published by the Communications Department of the CEC, Quebec, 1999.WT/CTE/W/150
Page 2
apply to specific products (and to a lesser extent services), whereas certificates apply to environmental
management systems and often have a different audience, such as large retail firms or purchasers.
The report notes that the shift in many businesses from pollution control to pollution prevention helps
to explain the growing emphasis on certification and institutional procurement.
On the different labelling requirements in place in the United States, Canada and Mexico and
their success in capturing a market share, the report explains the following.  At least 25 important
environmental labelling schemes are in place in the United States, covering approximately 310
different products.  The large number of schemes has created a bewildering array of choices for
consumers, and led to the inability of one or two labels to carve out a dominant market niche.   The
report expects the continued fragmentation of eco-labelling initiatives to lead to disappointing results
in the United States.  By contrast, it explains that in Canada, the principal environmental labellingprogram is Environmental Choice.  Owned by the federal government, it is operated by an
independent agency, Terra Choice Inc.  Approximately 2000 products and services have been
awarded Environmental Choice Labels (from 200 firms). Thus, Environmental Choice (a single
labelling scheme) has succeeded in establishing itself as the dominant ecolabel in Canada.  In Mexico,
work has begun on bringing environmental labels to the market, and examples of products covered bylabels include recycled paper and electrical appliances.
The report argues that although the issue of climate change has not yet affected the public's
purchasing habits, the Kyoto Protocol is likely to  push energy efficiency and conservation to the
forefront in the next five years.  It is sparking the creation of a number of government-sponsoredprograms and initiatives that promote energy conservation, efficiency and greener building design.
Environmental Choice reports a strong demand for certified green power, and expects that demand to
rise, as companies increasingly look for the means to reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions and
purchase credit offsets.
It is argued in the report that green procurement can contribute significantly to the increased
sale of ecolabelled products.  In the NAFTA countries, a common challenge for governments has been
the decentralization of purchasing decisions to a larger number of managers, i.e, allowing different
government departments to implement their own envir onmental purchasing policies.  This is currently
being addressed through various training programs for federal governments officials.
In addressing the extent to which ecolabels could act as an impediment to trade between the
NAFTA countries, the report argues that the harmonisation of criteria used for the certification and
verification of products that carry ecolabels is needed.  Such harmonization could not only lead to an
expansion of trade, but result in a greater positive impact on the environment than if each country
were to pursue its own individual program standard s.  This would be the case as consumers would
cease to be confronted with a bewildering number of different labels.
B. G
REEN LABELS :  C ONSUMER INTERESTS AND TRANSATLANTIC TRADE TENSIONS IN ECO-
LABELLING , BY CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL4
The central argument of this study is that, although eco-labelling schemes aim to empower
consumers to make environmentally sustainable consumption decisions, some have developed in lightof particular national circumstances and environmental concerns that do not apply across national
boundaries.  Differences in these concerns have resulted in the emergence of a multitude of different
approaches to eco-labelling, creating trade tensions.   It is argued that a trade dispute over the use of
                                                     
4 Published by Consumers International's Office for Developed and Transition Economies, London,
1999.  Consumers International is a non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 1960, whose
membership includes more than 260 consumer groups from over 112 developed and developing countries.WT/CTE/W/150
Page 3
ecolabels should be avoided because of the inexorable high cost this would have for consumers.  The
study does not call, however, for disciplining ecolabels through the rules of the WTO ("there is no
need to discipline their use according to trade principles under the ….(GATT/WTO) multilateral trade
framework").  It calls instead for work to be undertaken on enhancing the compatibility of national
eco-labelling schemes through international harmonization or a strategy of partial harmonization.
Consumers International explains that most eco-labelling schemes that would be classified by
the International Standardization Organization (ISO) as Type I,5  tend to be established at the national
level, rather than at the regional or multilateral.   There are two main reasons for this:  (1) that while
there is widespread international support for environmental sustainability, there is a significant
divergence in specific environmental concerns.  Different countries face different kinds of
environmental problems and tend to tailor individual national solutions to them; and, (2) whereasmany Type I ecolabelling schemes are run by the private sector, most are funded and administered by
public agencies, which also tends to limit their focus to national concerns.   The study explains that
governmental involvement in eco-labelling schemes generally has as its objective striking a balance
between consumers, industry and the environment, and bringing about greater public accountability
and consistency in product selection, criteria development and compliance assessments.   The non-homogeneity of environmental concerns and the public role in eco-labelling schemes, however,  has
tended to restrict ecolabels to the national level.  And, it is the divergence between different schemes
that is leading to trade tensions according to this study.
The study compares the eco-labelling schemes in North America to those in Europe and
argues that those in Europe are better supported due to the following:  (1) green public procurement
policies in the European Union have provided incentives for producers to use ecolabels.   In the
United States, despite a Presidential Executive Order
6 on public procurement policies, the market
power of public institutional consumption has been relatively weak compared to that in Europe.
Public procurement policies in the United States were weakened by the inadequate support given tothe implementation of the Executive Order across different governmental departments and agencies
with different mandates.  In addition, the United States-based Coalition for Truth in Environmental
Marketing, which is a coalition of industry associations established in reaction to the European
Union's eco-labelling scheme, has fought hard to ensure that the Federal Government would not
support Type I ecolabels through public procurement.  The study states that "To date, several crucial
deadlines for the Executive Order have been missed, and its future as a framework for a US public
procurement policy is uncertain"; and (2) the credibility of third-party accreditation among Europeanconsumers has encouraged producers to pursue Type I labels.
The study echoes the CEC's conclusion that the proliferation of environmental claims in the
marketplace confuses consumers and prevents them from distinguishing between Type I claims and
other kinds of claims.  It indicates that in the United States, many more eco-labelling schemes are inexistence than in Europe and that this is reducing  the ability of eco-labels to achieve their desired
objectives.
In discussing how to reduce potential trade barriers, the study argues that ecolabels should not
be seen as a trade issue.   Nonetheless, it states that there is interest in harmonizing the criteria onwhich they are based as a trade dispute could imperil the use of ecolabels as a tool for environmental
protection.  However, it cautions that "from the consumer interest perspective, there are significant
disadvantages to pursuing greater compatibility of national eco-labelling schemes within the
                                                     
5 Type I eco-labelling schemes are voluntary programs, adjudicated by independent third parties, that
rank products within a specific produ ct category according to their comp arative or relative environmental
impact based on established criteria.  For more inform ation on the ISO classification of eco-labelling schemes,
please refer to document WT/CTE/W/79.
6 Referenced by Consumers International as "EO 12873, amended 13101."WT/CTE/W/150
Page 4
GATT/WTO framework…..the WTO lacks credible environmental perspective."  Full international
harmonization, it argues, requires a credible international institution.   This institution would then
have to develop 'top-down' environmental objectives on behalf of its members.   Currently, it states,
there is no obvious candidate among the international institutions for this role.   On the possibility of
ISO becoming this institution, it argues that "its te chnical expertise is not in environmental issues and
its administrative structure makes it difficult for environmental and consumer groups to participate
throughout the entire course of standards development."
A strategy of only partial harmonization, therefore, is recommended in the report through
bilateral mutual recognition agreements between national eco-labelling schemes.  It is argued that this
strategy should start by targeting commonly ecolabelled consumer goods, such as detergents and
paper products, and only then move towards others that are more important for industrial production,such as chemicals (including fertilizers and pesticides).
C. P
ROFITING FROM GREEN CONSUMERISM IN GERMANY . OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES IN THREE SECTORS :  L EATHER AND FOOTWEAR , TEXTILES AND CLOTHING AND
FURNITURE , BY THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
(UNCTAD)7
This study identifies trends in the "greening" of the market-place in Germany, focusing on the
extent to which consumers purchase eco-labelled products.  It addresses three different sectors:
(1) leather and footwear;  (2) textiles and clothing;  and (3) timber and furniture.  Its central argument
is that the "cleaning" of products and production processes is not likely to be a temporaryphenomenon in Germany, and that developing countries must think of proactive ways in which to
adapt their exports to the environmental requirements of the German market.
Green consumerism in Germany, this study reports, is a growing phenomenon and eco-
marketing strategies have increased  over the years.   Since the introduction of the Blue Angel eco-labelling scheme in 1978, ecolabels have played a prominent role in the marketing policy of green
companies.   They have been regarded as an additional tool for attracting the attention of consumers to
products in a marketplace in which product differentiation has become increasingly sophisticated.
With respect to textiles and clothing, the study explains that 80 to 90 per cent of clothes in Germany
are imported, predominantly from developing countries.  In 1993, ecolabelled textiles were estimated
to have captured 0.2 per cent of the total market share.  However, the study argues that "the green
market 'niche' in the case of textiles and clothing may be estimated to account for 1 to 2 per cent ofthe entire textile industry today".  Germany imports 80 per cent of all the footwear it uses.  A total of
1 to 3 per cent of its overall consumption is said to be made of certified leather.  With respect to
timber, 80 per cent total consumption comes from Ge rman forests, with imports of tropical timber
accounting only for a small proportion of this consumption.  The main tropical timber exporters to
Germany are Cameroon, Congo, Ghana and Malaysia.  To date, only few eco-labelled timber products
are available in Germany.  However, the demand for certified tropical timber in future is expected to
rise significantly.
The study argues that export-oriented sectors from developing countries should be enabled to
anticipate trends in environmental regulation and id entify growing as well as shrinking export markets
as early as possible.   It recommends improved  information flow on environmental and fair-trade
issues regarding export markets, and intensive networking among producers, retailers, industrial
associations and government agencies.  Sector-specific bilateral workshops between a developing and
a developed country on environmental requirements for imports are identified as a useful vehicle for
information exchange.
                                                     
7 Published by UNCTAD Analytical Study on Trade, Environment and Development, Geneva, 1999.WT/CTE/W/150
Page 5
III. OVERVIEW OF PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL LABELS
The most comprehensive information on the main environmental labels in existence today
which the Secretariat was able to find, is a survey conducted by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in  Environmental Labelling Issues, Policies and Practices World-wide .8
The report was prepared in December 1998 and covers labels which form part of environmental
labelling and certification programmes.
The table below has been extracted from a larger table in the report,  and contains information
on all of the following:  (1)  the name of the countries that have an environmental label;  (2) the name
of their seal or environmental label;  (3) the mandatory or voluntary nature of their label; (4) its
governmental or non-governmental nature;  (5) the year in which it was founded;  (6) the number ofthe product categories it covers
9;  (7) the number of foreign-based licenses it awarded. This reflects
the number of licenses to use the environmental label that were granted to product suppliers from
other countries;10  (8)  the stages in the development of the label in which stakeholders are involved.
Some labels involve stakeholders at a very early stage (in product selection for instance), while others
only involve them later or not at all;  (9) its use in procurement by governments or largeorganizations;  (10) its use for retail products.  This shows if the environmental labels are used for
products intended for sale to individual customers and are distributed through retail outlets;  (11) its
use within industries, prior to retail.   Labels are sometimes used in pre-retail transactions between, for
example, raw material suppliers, product manufacture rs, formulators/packagers, and wholesalers;  and
(12) the extent to which trade issues are/were raised in relation to the label.
 In connection to point (12), the survey explains, for example, that Germany requires
companies which do not participate in its Green Dot program to take back their packaging, and bear
the cost of the recycling or packaging themselves.  There are no exceptions for foreign firms.  The
take-back burden is, therefore, greater for companies that ship their products long distances toGermany because they either have to pay the tran sportation costs of shipping the packaging back to
the country of origin or arrange for in-country processing.  It states that "Many manufacturers
exporting to Germany from within the EU and bey ond claim that the domestic demand for the Green
Dot label places imported goods at a market disadvantage."  Point (12) is designed to capture those
kinds of issues when they have been raised.    Other types of trade issues it is designed to reflect are
situations where labels were developed to boost exports (i.e. respond to the environmental concerns of
export markets).  The survey explains that India recently added textile products as one of the productcategories covered by the Indian Ecomark, in response to new regulations enacted by Germany and
rest of the European Union that banned the use of certain dyes in textiles.
                                                     
8 EPA 742-R-98-009, published in Washington D.C. in December 1998.
9 Such as paper products (including towels, toilet paper, office paper), detergents, office equipment,
dishwashers, and so on.
10 The Secretariat wishes to caution, however, that this could underestimate the total number of foreign
suppliers awarded environmental labels, as importers (w ho are often nationals of the importing country) are
sometimes the ones to apply for the label.WT/CTE/W/150
Page 6
Country SealMandatory/
VoluntaryGovt/
Non-GovtYear
foundedNo. of
product
categoriesForeign -
based
licensesStage at
which there
is
stakeholder
involvement11Used in
ProcurementUsed in
retail
productsUsed within
industry
sector,
i.e. pre-
retailReport
of trade
issues
Existing
Programs
Austria Austrian Eco-Label V Govt 1991 35 10 criteria devlp Yes,
unspecifiedYes Unknown Yes
Canada Canada's Environmental Choice V Quasi 1988 49 10 product
selection,criteria devlpInformal Yes No No
China - V Govt 1994 12 0 product
selection,
criteria devlpUnknown Yes No Yes
Croatia Croatia's Environmental Label V Govt Unknown 33 Unknown criteria devlp Informal Yes Unknown Unknown
Czech Rep. - V Govt 1994 17 0.41% criteria devlp Yes No
Denmark Nordic Swan V Quasi 1989 42 20% product catg
sel, criteria
devlpFormal Yes No No
European
UnionEuropean Union Ecolabel
Award SchemeV Govt 1992 11 N/A product catg
sel, criteriadevlpInformal Yes No Yes
Finland Nordic Swan V Quasi 1989 42 20% product catg
sel, criteriadevlpFormal Yes No No
France NF-Environment V Govt 1992 6 0 criteria devlp Informal Yes No Yes
Germany Blue Angel V Govt 1977 88 17% product catg
sel, finalizingdraft criteriaInformal Yes No No
Germany Green Dot V Quasi 1990 7 Unknown criteria devlp Formal Yes No Yes
Iceland Nordic Swan V Quasi 1989 42 20% product catg
sel, criteriadevlpFormal Yes No No
India Eco-Mark V Govt 1991 16 0 none No Yes No Yes
Japan Ecomark V Quasi 1989 69 Unknown criteria devlp Informal Yes No No
                                                     
11 The word "development" is sometimes reduced to "devlp ", "selection" to "sel", and "category" to "catg".WT/CTE/W/150
Page 7Country SealMandatory/
VoluntaryGovt/
Non-GovtYear
foundedNo. of
product
categoriesForeign -
based
licensesStage at
which there
is
stakeholder
involvement11Used in
ProcurementUsed in
retail
productsUsed within
industry
sector,
i.e. pre-
retailReport
of trade
issues
Korea Ecomark V Govt 1992 36 Unknown criteria devlp Unknown Yes No Unknown
Luxembourg European Union Ecolabel
Award SchemeV Govt 1992 11 N/A product catg
sel, criteria
devlpInformal Yes No Yes
Malaysia Product Certification Program V Govt 1996 1 0 product sel,
 criteria devlpNo Yes No Yes
Netherlands Stichting Milieukeur V Quasi 1992 32 - product
criteriaInformal Yes No No
New Zealand Environmental Choice V Quasi 1990 17 0 product
criteriaNo Yes No No
Norway Nordic Swan Label V Quasi 1989 42 20% product catg
sel, criteria
devlpFormal Yes No No
Singapore Green Label Singapore V Govt 1992 21 Unknown product
criteriaYes,
unspecifiedYes No No
Spain AENOR Medio Ambiente V Non-Govt 1993 3 - - No Yes No No
Sweden SIS-Nordic Swan Label V Quasi 1989 42 20% product catg
sel, criteriadevlpFormal Yes No No
Sweden Good Environmental Choice V Non-Govt. 1990 17 Unknown product catg
sel, criteriadevlpInformal Yes No No
Taiwan Green Mark Taiwan V Non-Govt 1992 35 4 product catg
sel, criteria
devlpWill be formal
in futureYes Yes No
Thailand The Thai Green Label Scheme V Quasi 1993 6 No product catg
sel, criteria-Y e s N o -
United
KingdomEuropean Union Ecolabel
SchemeV Govt 1992 11 N/A product cat
sel, criteriaInformal Yes No Yes
United States Battery Labeling M Govt 1996 3 N/A manufacturers
lobbied forlawNo Yes No No
United States Chlorine Free Products
AssociationV Non-Govt 1997 2 Unknown membership
(it's a tradeassociation)Unknown Yes Yes NoWT/CTE/W/150
Page 8
Country SealMandatory/
VoluntaryGovt/
Non-GovtYear
foundedNo. of
product
categoriesForeign -
based
licensesStage at
which there
is
stakeholder
involvement11Used in
ProcurementUsed in
retail
productsUsed within
industry
sector,
i.e. pre-
retailReport
of trade
issues
United States ECO-O.K. V Non-Govt 1987 5 - Yes Informal Yes Yes No
United States Ecotel V Non-Govt 1994 1 Yes No No Yes No No
United States Energy Guide M Govt 1975 19 N/A No No Yes No No
United States Energy Star V Govt 1992 26 0 Yes Formal Yes Yes No
United States Fuel Economy Information
ProgramM Govt 1975 1 N/A No No Yes No N/A
United States Green Seal VP r i v a t e  –
non-profit1989 88 5 throughout Informal Yes No No
United States ODS – Ozone M Govt 1990 Undefined N/A No No Yes Yes No
United States Office of Pesticide Program
(FIFRA)M Govt 1947 - No - - Yes - -
United States Proposition 65 M Govt 1986 Undefined N/A prog
formationNo Yes Yes N/A
United States SCS – Claim Certification V Non-Govt 1991 4 Yes throughout No Yes Yes No
United States SCS – Eco-Profile V Non-Govt 1989 All Yes throughout Informal Yes Yes No
United States SCS – Forestry V Non-Govt 1991 2 Yes throughout No Yes Yes No
United States SCS – NutriClean V Non-Govt 1984 1 Yes throughout No Yes Yes No
United States Smart Wood Program V- - - Y e s - -
United States TSCA M Govt 1976 - No - - Yes - -
United States Vermont M Govt 1991 35 N/A unknown No Yes No N/A
United States WAVE V Govt 1992 1 No No No Yes No N/A
United States Greening the Government
(buying guide)N/A Govt 1997 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A
United States The Green Pages
(buying guide)N/A Govt 1993 N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A
United States US EPA VOC Emission
Standards for ArchitecturalCoatingsM Govt 1998 50 N/A N/A No Yes Yes N/AWT/CTE/W/150
Page 9Country SealMandatory/
VoluntaryGovt/
Non-GovtYear
foundedNo. of
product
categoriesForeign -
based
licensesStage at
which there
is
stakeholder
involvement11Used in
ProcurementUsed in
retail
productsUsed within
industry
sector,
i.e. pre-
retailReport
of trade
issues
Program
being
Developed
Brazil ABNT – Environmental Quality V Quasi 1993 2 In
ProgressProduct catg
sel, criteriadevlpIn Progress In
ProgressIn Progress No
United States Consumer Labeling Initiative In Progress In
ProgressIn
ProgressIn
ProgressIn
ProgressIn Progress In Progress In
ProgressIn Progress In
Progress
United States Electric Utility Labeling In Progress Quasi In
ProgressIn
ProgressIn
ProgressYes No In
ProgressNo N/A
United States Small Spark Ignited Engines VG o v t I n
ProgressIn
ProgressIn
ProgressYes In Progress Yes No N/A
Finland Type III -G o v t - - - - - Y e s - -
Indonesia BAPEDAL V Govt 1995-
present?In
ProgressIn
ProgressIn Progress In Progress Yes In Progress Yes
Indonesia Ministry of Trade V Govt Unknown In
ProgressIn
ProgressIn Progress In Progress Yes In Progress Yes
Indonesia Indonesian Ecolabeling
Working GroupV Non-Govt 1994 1 Unknown In Progress In Progress Yes In Progress Yes
Germany Type III Not yet
developed
Hong Kong Eco-label Not yet
developed
Not
Operational
Australia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
United States OAQPS labels/CA program N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Argentina - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chile - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWT/CTE/W/150
Page 10
Country SealMandatory/
VoluntaryGovt/
Non-GovtYear
foundedNo. of
product
categoriesForeign -
based
licensesStage at
which there
is
stakeholder
involvement11Used in
ProcurementUsed in
retail
productsUsed within
industry
sector,
i.e. pre-
retailReport
of trade
issues
No
Information
Provided
Greece -
Italy -
New Zealand Project 98 – food label
United States Flipper
Sweden Swedish Type III
Germany Blue Angel's Green Passport -
private
N.B. The United States EPA explained to the WTO Secretariat that wh ere the term "N/A" (for "not available") is used, the EPA was  told that the information it was
seeking was not available.   The term "unknown", a "?" or a "-" is employed for situations in which the EPA could not obtain a response to the question asked.WT/CTE/W/150
Page 11
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL LABELLING/MARKING NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE
A. AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE (TBT)
The following is a table of all technical regulations concerning environmental labelling and
marking requirements notified under the TBT Agreement12 between 1995 and 1999.  It is based on a
search of the notifications made by Members and of the annual Environmental Databases (EDB)prepared by the WTO Secretariat.
13  It will be updated in light of future EDBs.
Environmental Labelling/Marking Notifications under the Agreement
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Notification Symbol Country Product Objective14
G/TBT/Notif.95.51 Canada Electrical or
hydrocarbon fuelled-
appliancesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.95.84 Singapor e Hazardous substances:
Paints containing lead
compoundsProviding information
on lead content of
paints
G/TBT/Notif.95.107 United States Incandescent lamps Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.95.120 Hong Kong Household
refrigerationEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.95.142 Singapore Asbestos brake and
clutch liningsReducing risks of
exposure to asbestos
G/TBT/Notif.95.241 Thailand Light duty diesel
engine vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.95.242 Thailand Gasoline engine
vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.95.320 European Community Household electric
washer-dryersEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.96.37 Switzerland Substances,
preparations, and
pesticidesHarmonizing with
European Union toxic
substances standards
G/TBT/Notif.96.57 Hong Kong R oom coolers Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.96.87 Sweden Marine  engines Decreasing emissions
and reducing noise
G/TBT/Notif.96.178 Thailand Motorcycles Environment-related
                                                     
12 Under the TBT Agreement, notifications are made "Whenever a relevant international standard does
not exist or the technical content of a proposed tec hnical regulation is not in accordance with the technical
content of relevant international standards, and if the technical regulation may have a signficant effect on tradeof other Members" (Article 2.9).   Whereas a technical regulation is a "Document which lays out productcharacteristics or their related processes and production methods……with which compliance is mandatory"
(Annex I), some voluntary  labelling and marking requirements were notified as technical regulations and are
contained in the table above.
13 The most recent Environmental Database is contained in document WT/CTE/W/143 (June 2000).
14 When the objective of the measure is characterised as "environment-related", that means that
environmental protection appears under either the Title of the notified document (Point 5 of the TBT
notification), its Objective  (point 7) or its Description  (point 6).  When more specific environmental objectives
are spelled out in the notification, such as "energy effi ciency" or "waste management", they are stated in the
table.    It is important to keep in mind that many notifications have more than one objective.WT/CTE/W/150
Page 12
Notification Symbol Country Product Objective14
G/TBT/Notif.96.179 Thailand Heavy duty diesel
engine vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.96.181 Thailand Light duty diesel
engine vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.96.182 Thailand Gasoline engine
vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.96.197 Korea Chemicals Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.96.235 European Community Household lamps Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.96.239 European Community Household
dishwashersEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.96.289 Mexico Air conditioners Energy conservation
G/TBT/Notif.96.409 European Community Dangerous
preparations, certain
non-dangerous
preparationsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.96.424 United States Electric motors Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.96.460 Netherlands Inorganic copper-
chromium-arsenic salts
for preserving woodEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.62 Mexico Refrigerators and
freezersEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.97.89 Jamaica Major household
appliancesEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.97.157 Colombia Cyclohexanone
chemical productsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.160 Colombia Liquid detergents Protecting human,
animal and plant health
G/TBT/Notif.97.161 Colombia Toilet soap Protecting human,
animal and plant health
G/TBT/Notif.97.163 Colombia Powdered synthetic
washing detergentsProtecting human,
animal and plant health
G/TBT/Notif.97.164 Colombia Abrasive cleaning
powders for householduseProtecting human,
animal and plant health
G/TBT/Notif.97.215 Mexico Refrigerators Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.97.218 Switzerland Chemical substances
and preparationsHarmonizing with
European Union toxic
and hazardous
substances standards
G/TBT/Notif.97.219 Slovak Re public Footwear Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.243 Norw ay Microbiological
products for
applications that may
involve their release to
the outdoor
environmentEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.277 Costa Rica Fertilizers, Technical
Materials and RelatedEnvironment-relatedWT/CTE/W/150
Page 13
Notification Symbol Country Product Objective14
Substances
G/TBT/Notif.97.280 Costa Ri ca Biological and
BiochemicalAgricultural PesticidesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.382 European Comm unity Products containing or
consisting of
genetically modified
organismsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.419 France Amalgam separators Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.687 Hong Kong, China Washing machines Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.97.704 Norway All genetically
modified organisms,
except ones approved
for placing on marketEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.748 Spain Instruments for
measuring motorvehicle exhaust
emissionsReducing vehicle
exhaust emissions
G/TBT/Notif.97.767 Thailand Two-stroke gasoline
engine lubricating oilEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.785 El Salvador Urea used as fertilizer Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.786 El Salva dor Ammonium sulphate
used as fertilizerEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.787 El Salva dor Ammonium nitrate
used as fertilizerEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.788 El Salva dor Potassium chloride
used as fertilizerEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.789 El Salva dor Potassium sulphate
used as fertilizerEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.97.790 El Salva dor Double potassium and
magnesium sulphate
used as fertilizerEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.68 Thailand Gasoline engine
vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.69 Thailand Light duty diesel
engine vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.79 Czech Republic Chemicals, chemical
compounds andpreparationsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.102 Belgium Ecotaxes Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.141 Thailand Heavy duty diesel
engine vehiclesEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.156 Belgium Agricultural pesticides Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.329 Netherlands Sludge traps, fat and oil
separatorsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.331 United States Electric motors Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.98.382 Korea Processed foods,
beverages, liquors,Environment-relatedWT/CTE/W/150
Page 14
Notification Symbol Country Product Objective14
confectionery, healthand preferred foods,
fruits and vegetables,
cosmetics (includingdetergents), toys and
dolls, stationery,
personal accessories
such as wallets and
belts, quasi-drugs,
dress shirts and
underwear
G/TBT/Notif.98.388 Thailand Motorcycles Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.98.448  Netherlands Timber Reducing deforestation
G/TBT/Notif.98.452 Hong Kong, China Compact fluorescent
lampsEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.98.488 Poland Waste Waste management
G/TBT/Notif.98.545 Denmark Windows,  outer doors Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.98.546 Denmark Insulat ed glass units Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.98.591 United States Household appliances
and other productsEnergy conservation
G/TBT/Notif.99.83 Netherlands Building and
demolition wasteEnvironment and
waste-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.90 Thailand Motor cycles and
mopedsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.204 Korea Agricultural and
fishery products and
their processed
productsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.250 Switzerland Medicines that contain
genetically modified
organisms or consist ofsuch organisms or
medicines that are
manufactured by
recombinant DNA
technologyEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.259 Jamaica Products and
equipment containingor manufactured using
ozone depleting
substancesProtecting the ozone
layer
G/TBT/Notif.99.324 Thailand Industrial products Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.326 Thailand Industrial products Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.376 Hong Kong, China Clothes dryers Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.99.400 Thailand Internal combustion
engines, transport
exhaust emissionsEnvironment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.401 Thailand Internal combustion
engines, transportEnvironment-relatedWT/CTE/W/150
Page 15
Notification Symbol Country Product Objective14
exhaust emissions
G/TBT/Notif.99.445 Philippines Household appliances:
Non-ducted air
conditionersEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.99.446 Philippines Household appliances Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.99.455 Australia All passenger motor
vehiclesFuel efficiency to
reduce green-house gas
emissions
G/TBT/Notif.99.457 United States Home Insulation Energy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.99.498 Argentina Electrical equipment
for household useEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.99.508 Switzerland Fertilizers Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.532 France Household packaging
wasteWaste disposal and
recovery
G/TBT/Notif.99.546 United States Pesticide containers Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.568 Canada Low-speed vehicles Environment-related
G/TBT/Notif.99.619 Trinidad and Tobago Products and
equipment using ozone
depleting substancesProviding consumer
information on ozone
depleting substances
G/TBT/Notif.99.653 United States Commercial and
industrial equipmentEnergy efficiency
G/TBT/Notif.99.655 Mexico Plant nutrients Environment-related
__________