WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/3
2 December 2002
(02-6637)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special Session
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT TO THE TRADE
NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE
1. The third meeting of the Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session (CTESS) was
held from 10-11 October 2002.  The report of the meeting is contained in document TN/TE/R/3.
I. STATUS OF WORK
A. P ARAGRAPH 31 ( I)
2. A number of new documents were circulated under this item: document TN/TE/W/9 from
Saudi Arabia, TN/TE/W/10 from Japan, TN/TE/W/11 from Chinese Taipei, TN/TE/W/12 from New
Zealand, and TN/TE/W/13 from Korea.  The two approaches that had emerged at the last meeting forwork under paragraph 31 (i) continued to be discussed.  A large number of participants supported the
idea of the "bottom-up" approach that had been proposed and which consisted of three-phases (see
paragraph 5 of document TN/TE/2).  One delegation listed six multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs) that could be taken as a starting-point for discussions.  However, some participants
recommended a more conceptual approach for the CT ESS' work, arguing that it would not exclude the
examination of STOs ("specific trade obligations").  One of them called for the Special Session to
base its work on "modules" that would include: (1) issues of scope and definition, (2) the development
of certain principles to address the WTO-MEA relationship  (such as those of no hierarchy and of
mutual supportiveness), (3) dialogue with MEAs, and (4) the development of options or solutions.
Some suggested that the two approaches were not mutually exclusive, and could be pursued in
parallel.
3. Much discussion took place on the concepts contained in the mandate.  Participants discussed
the terms (1) MEA, (2) STOs, and (3) "relevant WTO rules."   On MEAs, while some were in favour
of defining the concept, others were opposed.  Fo r some of those opposed, the reasoning was that the
mandate was limited to the applicability of WTO rules to parties to an MEA.  Those in favour of a
definition advanced certain criteria for the Committee's consideration, such as that of "universality." A
few participants argued that MEAs could be identified as opposed to defined.  Discussion also tookplace on whether regional environmental agreements, and MEAs that had not yet entered into force,
were covered by the mandate.
4. On STOs, discussion revolved around how broadly the term could be interpreted.  While there
seemed to be general agreement that mandatory trad e measures explicitly provided for in MEAs that
were in force constituted STOs, there was disagreement over other kinds of trade measures takenpursuant to MEAs and over Conference of Parties (COP) decisions.  A view expressed was that STOs
could not be judged in isolation, and that their context would need to be taken into account.  That
context would include other relevant provisions of the MEA, as well as COP decisions.  A few
participants stated that alternatives to trade measures, such as technology transfer, financial and
technical assistance, could sometimes be more effe ctive in achieving the environmental objectives of
MEAs.  On relevant "WTO rules," some participants believed that these extended beyond GATT
Article XX, and could include other provis ions of GATT or of WTO agreements.TN/TE/3
Page 2
5. The new papers tabled at the meeting were discussed in relation to some of these terms and to
more conceptual issues advanced by some delegations, such as the reversal of the burden of proof.  A
number of participants argued that it was premature to discuss negotiating outcomes since the
Committee was still in a preparatory phase.  They reminded participants that the negotiations could
not alter the balance of rights and obligations under WTO rules (paragraph 32 of the Doha MinisterialDeclaration).  Others countered that discussion would be needed on when a clarification of the rules
could begin to constitute a change in that balance.  The Committee was also reminded of the call that
had been made by a participant for the drafting of  negotiating guidelines prior to the start of the
negotiations phase.
6. Several participants cautioned that it was important in these negotiations not to interpret or
drift into renegotiating MEAs, not to create a disincentive for governments to join MEAs, or to
neglect the importance of national coordination between trade and environment officials.  It wasagreed that the Secretariat would prepare a compendium of all the proposals tabled in the CTESS
under this item for the first meeting of the Committee next year.
B. 
PARAGRAPH 31 ( II)
7. A new document was circulated under this item, document TN/TE/W/15 from the EC.  Some
delegations supported the call for early action on this part of the mandate.  Discussion then revolvedaround (1) procedures for information exchange between MEA Secretariats and relevant WTO
Committees, and (2) the question of observer status.  A number of ideas were floated on how
information exchange could be enhanced, such as  the regularization/institutionalization of existing
MEA Information Sessions, the creation of a two-way information flow between the WTO and
MEAs, the organization of WTO side-events at th e COPs of MEAs, and documents exchange.  Some
discussion was held on the kinds of documents covered by the mandate and the need to respect
document confidentiality.  A call was made for the identification of the WTO bodies that could
benefit from information exchange with MEAs.
8. On the question of observer status, two issues were discussed:  (1) observer status in the
CTESS itself, and (2) the criteria for the granting of observer status called for under the paragraph 31(ii) mandate.  With respect to the former, a suggestion was made that observer status in the CTESS be
granted to UNEP and MEAs on an ad hoc basis, without prejudice to the consultations which the
Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) was conducting. In general, there was significant support for an
expeditious resolution of the observer status question in the CTESS.  On observer status under the
paragraph 31 (ii) mandate, a new proposal was floated calling for a positive presumption to be
established in favour of MEA and UNEP observership, and for the CTESS Chair to consult MEAs
and UNEP on the WTO bodies they could contribute to.  However, no decision was taken.  A viewwas expressed that since observer status could enhance information exchange, it was the more vital
aspect of the paragraph 31 (ii) mandate.  It was suggested that criteria would need to be developed for
what constituted an MEA to serve as basis for the granting of observer status.  Some delegations
argued that the observer status issue was before the TNC and the General Council, and that the
CTESS had to await their decision.  However, others countered that it was important not to empty theparagraph 31 (ii) mandate, insisting that the CTESS had a role to play.  It was agreed that a new
document would be prepared on observer status in the different negotiating bodies established pre and
post-Doha.
C. 
PARAGRAPH 31 ( III)
9. Participants were briefed on the consultations that had taken place between the Chairs of the
Negotiating Group on Market Access for Non-Agri cultural Products (NGMA), the Council for Trade
in Services Special Session (CTSSS) and the CTESS.  The consultations were designed to avoid the
duplication of work under the paragraph 31 (iii) mandate and to enhance information flow between
the three negotiating bodies.  Two new documents were circulated under this item, documentsTN/TE/3
Page 3
TN/TE/W/8 from the US and TN/TE/W/14 from Qatar.  At the meeting, several participants opposed
the use of the process and production method (PPM) criterion in the identification of environmental
goods.  A number of participants referred to the work that had been conducted by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) a nd the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum
(APEC) on environmental goods, with some suggesting that it could be taken as a starting-point forwork under this mandate.  A number of participants supported the proposal made for energy efficient
technologies and systems to be considered under paragraph 31 (iii).  Finally, the point was also made
that technical assistance would help identify the environmental goods of export interest to developing
countries.
D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
10. The importance of technical assistance during the course of the negotiations on trade and
environment was highlighted by some participants.  Participants were urged to engage actively in the
discussion of the WTO Technical Assistance Plan for 2003, so that their needs in this area of the
negotiations could be duly considered.
II. OUTSTANDING ISSUES
11. One of the most pressing outstanding issues be fore the CTESS is that of observer status.
While the TNC and the General Council are consulting on the matter, it would be useful for
participants to reflect on the proposal made to grant ad hoc observer status on a meeting-by-meeting
basis to the organizations that have applied in the CTESS.  This proposal would be without prejudice
to any TNC or General Council decision that would in future be taken.
III. FUTURE WORK
12. Given the differences of views on how to pursue the mandate under paragraph 31 (i), the
Chair decided to consult delegations.  Informal consultations on the structure of work under the
paragraph 31 (i) mandate were held on 12 Novemb er 2002.  It was decided that the CTESS would
focus on STOs in relevant MEAs, and that this would not preclude addressing any definitional or
other issues.
__________