WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/W/39 
24 March 2004  
 
(04-1337) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session Original:  English 
 
 
 
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WTO RULES AND MEAS IN THE CONTEXT  
OF THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEM 
 
Submission by the European Communities  
 
Paragraph 31  
 
 
 The following submission, dated 22 March 2004, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the European Communities . 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In the context of the negotiations on paragraph 31 (i) the EU submitted a paper to the CTE in 
March 2002 (TN/TE/W/1).  The submission addressed two main strands of the 31 (i) debate:  a 
discussion of principles underlying the global governa nce system, in particular the relationship 
between MEAs and WTO agreements, and a discussi on of the definition on the concepts set out in 
paragraph 31 (i).  So far the debate on 31 (i) in th e CTE has focused on the latter, in particular on the 
Specific Trade Obligations debate, where some usef ul progress has been made.  The EU has actively 
contributed to this debate, inter alia  with more in-depth submissions on the definition of Specific 
Trade Obligations (STOs), and intends to contin ue to participate in it constructively.   
2. In the following submission the EU would ther efore like to refocus on the governance section 
of our 2002 submission, since, as the EU has stated before, the MEA/WTO relationship is an 
international governance issue which, in particul ar, is related to the necessary links between 
international organizations and trea ties dealing with international trad e and environment.  We believe 
that it would be useful to consider the MEA/WTO debate in the context of the global governance 
system for sustainable development.  Finally,  we are also picking up on points addressed by 
Switzerland in their 2002 submission on this mandate (TN/TE/4).   
3. From the outset, it is worth recalling that all members of the international community, 
collectively and individually, are committed and res ponsible for the protection of the environment and 
for achieving a sustainable development, nationall y as well as at the global level, as stated in 
Rio Principle 7:  “ States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and 
restore the health and integrity  of the Earth’s ecosystem … ”.  Furthermore, the close link between 
environment and development is emphasized in Rio Principle 4 which states that “ In order to achieve 
sustainable development, environmental protectio n shall constitute an integral part of the 
development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it ”.  MEAs consequently have a key 
role to play to address global and transboundary environmental challenges in order to promote global 
sustainable development.   TN/TE/W/39 
Page 2  
 
4. It is also widely recognized that the in terface between trade and environment and, in 
particular, MEAs and WTO agreements, is steadily growing and that ensuring a mutual supportiveness between the two sets of rules is esse ntial.  This has been recognized on numerous 
occasions by the international community.  Even though trade or trade-related measures are not 
systematically used in MEAs, th ey can be needed in certain c ases to achieve the environmental 
objective and it should be noted that their use is increasing.   
5. Various international fora have emphasized this position:  UNEP’s synthesis report of 
January 2002, for example, stated that “At inte rnational level, enhancing synergies between the 
governance structures established for the environment,  trade and finance will be a key to shaping a 
sustainable global economy”.
1  The same views were confirmed and restated inter alia  in the Plan of 
Implementation of the WSSD.2 
6. This paper builds on, but is not limited to , paragraph 19 of our 2002 submission, which 
referred to a number of basic governance principles th at are in our view essential in the relationship 
between MEAs and WTO agreements and should be  reflected in the negotiations under 31 (i): 
7. Paragraph 19 “… the EU considers that the relationship between WTO rules and MEAs in the 
context of a global governance system should be based on the following principles : 
 
• “The importance and necessity of MEAs:  global  environmental problems need a multilateral 
approach and solutions;  accordingly unilateral ac tion should be avoided as far as possible. 
 
• Multilateral environmental policy should be made  within multilateral environmental fora, and 
not in the WTO, in accordance with ea ch body’s respective expertise and mandate. 
 
• When governments around the world develop positions  for MEAs negotiations it is desirable 
that they give consideration to relevant WTO ru les so as to ensure a mutually supportive 
relationship between both sets of rules.  When  the trade and environment interface raises 
novel trade-related questions, these could usefully be a subject of information exchange between the MEA secretariat and the relevant WTO Committees. 
 
• MEAs and WTO are equal bodies of international law.  They should recognize each other 
with a view to being mutually supportive, in  order to meet the common goal of sustainable 
development. 
 
• WTO rules should not be interpreted in “clinical  isolation” from other bodies of international 
law and without considering other complementary bodies of international law, including 
MEAs”.
3 
 
8. These governance principles, as will be addressed  below, have been confirmed in various 
international fora, a few of which will be recalled in the text.  They form the “ aquis ” in the field of 
trade, environment and international governance. 
                                                      
1 “Enhancing Synergies and Mutual Supportiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the 
World Trade Organization:  A Synthesis Report”, January 2002, UNEP 
2 Plan of Implementation of the World Summit of Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 
September 2002 
3 Appellate Body in Reformulated Gasoline  case  TN/TE/W/39 
 Page 3 
 
 
II. THE IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY OF MEAS  
9. The first two bullet points of paragraph 19, above, refer to the importance of a multilateral 
approach and solutions to global environmental problems. 
10. The importance of multilateral cooperation, regional and global, to tackle global 
environmental problems is widely recognized.  I ndeed, unilateral action taken by one country is 
unlikely to be effective in solving the transboundary  or global environmental problems that the world 
is increasingly facing today.   
11. The principle of multilateral cooperation and solu tions in solving issues of global sustainable 
development has been endorsed in various global summits and ministerial-driven processes.  Among 
the examples are:  principle 24 of the Stockholm Conference of 1972, the Bruntland Commission 
of 1987, Agenda 21, The Rio Declaration (UNCED) and the WSSD.  
12. In its report to the Singapore Ministerial (para. 171) the CTE stated that:  “The CTE endorses 
and supports multilateral solutions bas ed on international cooperation and consensus as the best and 
most effective way for governments to tackle en vironmental problems of a transboundary or global 
nature.  WTO Agreements and multilateral environm ental agreements (MEAs) are representative of 
efforts of the international comm unity to pursue shared goals, and in the development of a mutually 
supportive relationship between them due respect must be afforded to both”.   
13. In the EU’s view,  MEAs have many advantages over unila teral solutions to tackle global or 
transboundary environmental challenges, th e most important of which are that: 
- From an environmental point of view, collectiv e action and co-operation for tackling a global 
threat and achieving a common objective is without  doubt the most effective course of action. 
- The way MEAs are negotiated and agreed (i.e. by consensus in a multilateral context) works 
as an effective guarantee against discriminatory action and their use for protectionist purposes. 
- MEAs represent a concrete implementation of  the “common but differentiated responsibility” 
principle (Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration)  and do offer broad policy packages.  While 
trade measures that may be needed in certain cases to achieve the environmental objective of 
co-operation provisions, other measu res (in particular financial, technology transfer, technical 
assistance and capacity building), are at least an equally important part of the MEA package. 
Such measures can clearly be crucial, notably  for developing countries, in the effective 
implementation of an MEA.  In this connecti on, paragraph 173 of the Singapore report rightly 
notes that:  “Adequate international cooperation provis ions, including among them financial 
and technological transfers and capacity building,  as part of a policy package in MEAs are 
important and can be indispensable elements  to facilitate the ability of governments, 
particularly of developing countries, to become Parties to an MEA …”  
14. The EU therefore considers that it is worth recalling the responsibility of all countries to 
co-operate in view of tackling global environmental threats and the associated positive status of 
multilateral policy measures, as opposed to unilatera l ones, both in the trade and the environment 
areas.  TN/TE/W/39 
Page 4  
 
III. MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 
MEAS   
15. Recognizing the importance and necessity of ME As also implies the recognition of their 
competence in dealing with global environmental issues, in accordance with their respective mandates 
and objectives. 
16. From this follows that MEAs should be r esponsible for developing and deciding upon the 
necessary measures and action needed to achieve  the environmental objective, including trade 
measures if considered necessary and appropriate.  It naturally follows that environmental policy 
should not be made in the WTO.  However, given the strong interlinkages between the policy areas of 
environment and trade, close policy coordina tion between the two bodies is however essential 
(see section 3 below). 
17. One practical application of this principle is  the recommendation of the CTE that, in case of 
disputes over trade measures applied pursuant to an MEA, parties to the MEA in question should 
consider settling their differences in that foru m (CTE report to Singapore, para.178).  This “good 
governance” principle is not only important for the de velopment of environmental policy at the global 
level, but also critical for WTO’s own credibility and legitimacy. 
IV. THE NEED FOR CLOSE COOPERATION AND INCREASED INFORMATION 
FLOWS AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL BODIES IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE MUTUAL SUPPORTIVENESS 
BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT POLICIES 
18. The third bullet point of paragraph 19 refers to the need for close policy coordination and 
proper information flows when developing MEAs.  Th ere are broad benefits to  be gained from such 
cooperation, not only in ensuring mutual legal consistency but also in allowing for increased 
information exchanges, identifying synergies between, and ensuring mutual supportiveness of, 
international trade and environment policies.  Both dimensions, namely conflict prevention and 
synergies, are equally important components of a mutually supportive relationship. 
19. National policy coordination is of primary importance to ensuring coherency in the area of 
trade and environment.  This means that, when negotiating and implementing MEAs, trade 
considerations and relevant trade ru les have to be taken into account by countries at a national level.  
It is clear that countries have a responsibility to ensure the cohe rence and mutual support of their 
positions and commitments in different fora.   
20. Policy coordination can be encouraged and fu rther enhanced through increased co-operation 
and information flows between the WTO and MEAs secretariats which in turn should inevitably 
trigger the need for better co-ordination at national level.  The WSSD confirmed, in paragraph 91 (c) 
of the Plan of Implementation, the need to “encourage efforts to pr omote cooperation on trade, 
environment and sustainable development … betwee n the secretariats of WTO, UNCTAD, UNDP, 
UNEP and other relevant international environmental and development and regional organizations” . 
21. The CTE Singapore Report had already identified observer status as a means to this end: 
“ … Observer status for relevant MEAs in WTO bodi es, as appropriate, can play a positive role in 
creating clearer appreciation of the mutually supporti ve role of trade and environmental policies.  
Requests from the appropriate bodies of MEAs for observer  status should be considered in this light.  
The CTE should also consider extending invitations  to appropriate MEA institutions to attend 
relevant discussions of the CTE” (para. 175).  
  TN/TE/W/39 
 Page 5 
 
 
22. These statements recognize that a productive dial ogue between relevant  international bodies 
can be crucial to ensuring the effective deliver y of environmental commitments, and to further 
developing international consensus on issu es relating to trade and environment.   
23. Since Singapore, information exchange in  the WTO on issues within the trade and 
environment interface has been undertaken by the CTE.   As stated in our October 2002 CTE proposal 
on MEA information exchange and observer status  (TN/TE/W/15), while noting that these discussions 
have not a priori allowed for concrete and m easurable results, these sessions have proved, 
nonetheless, useful and constructive in allowing for a va luable two-way flow of information.  As also 
stated in the October 2002 paper, the EU consid ers that strengthening these existing processes - for 
example by agreeing on structure and follow-up to  discussions, institutionalizing exchange sessions, 
and encouraging other WTO committees to convene  similar events – would be productive in 
identifying synergies and ensuring mutual suppor tiveness between international bodies working on 
trade and environment. 
24. WSSD reiterated this goal, st ating in paragraph 121 that “measures should be taken to 
strengthen sustainable development ins titutional arrangements at all levels ” in order to achieve 
objectives such as “integration of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable 
development in a balanced manner” and “enhancing participation and eff ective involvement of civil 
society and other relevant stakeholders ...”.   
25. The EU believes that the importance of the need  for coordination and c ooperation at all levels  
of trade and environment policy-making should be reinforced by the work undertaken by the CTE on DDA.  Cooperation and exchange of information can al so be of considerable usefulness in the context 
of WTO dispute settlement proceedings, as w as rightly recognized by the CTE in its 
Singapore Report.
4  
V. MEAS AND WTO ARE EQUAL BODIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NEED 
TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO EACH OTHERS’ RULES TO ACHIEVE MUTUAL SUPPORTIVENESS 
26. The fourth and fifth bullet point of paragraph 19 refer to the legal relationship between the 
two bodies of international law.   
27. The principle of mutual supportiveness is based  on the assumption that both sets of rules, 
MEAs and the WTO, are equal in terms of status in international law and that there consequently is no 
hierarchy between them.  This was echoed in the Pl an of Implementation of the WSSD, paragraph 98: 
“Promote mutual supportiveness between the mu ltilateral trading system and the multilateral 
environmental agreements, consistent with sustai nable development goals, in support of the work 
programme agreed through WTO, while recognizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of 
both sets of instruments ”. 
28. The goal of enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environmental treaties must be 
achieved not only through the establishment of an appropriate framework for interaction between 
international organizations, but also through the ope ration of fundamental legal principles relating to 
the harmonious interpretation and application of treaty rules.  States that are both parties to an MEA 
and to the WTO would normally aim at fulfilling bo th sets of obligations in a consistent way, 
following an interpretation of the relevant legal rul es that avoids any potential conflict between them.  
The same approach is followed by adjudicatory bodies. 
                                                     
 
4 CTE Singapore Report:  “The CTE recognises the benefit of having all relevant expertise available to 
WTO panels in cases involving trade-related environmental measures, including trade measures taken pursuant 
to MEAs”. TN/TE/W/39 
Page 6  
 
29. Much of the above is encapsulated in the Appellate Body’s conclusion in the Gasoline  case as 
regards the interpretation of WTO rules in the broader context of public international law.
5  This leads 
to the important conclusion that policy formulati on and legal interpretation in MEAs and the WTO 
cannot be undertaken in isolation from each other.  Even if the two sets of law have developed in 
different fora, rather than under a common constituti onal umbrella, they nevertheless equally reflect 
the will and needs of the international community.   
30. This state of affairs is funda mentally based on the so-called “deference” principle:  both WTO 
and MEAs should remain responsible and competent for issues falling within their respective primary 
areas of competence and expertise.  While MEAs are responsible for environmental policy making, 
the WTO is competent for ensuring that the nationa l implementing measures are not protectionist;  
i. e. constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustif iable discrimination or disguised restrictions on 
international trade.   
31. Mutual supportiveness, therefore,  essentially lies in the recognition of the very existence and 
competence of each other, and in the developmen t of substantive linkages which recognize this 
inter-connectedness without indicating hierarchy.   
32. The EU would favour an open discussion in the CTE on how such governance principles 
operate to enhance the mutual supportiveness be tween MEAs and the WTO as equal bodies of 
international law, including consideration of practi cal steps to facilitate the interaction between the 
two. 
VI. CONCLUSION  
33. The above governance principles constitute a u seful backdrop in shaping the relationship 
between MEAs and WTO agreements.  They give  a clearer and broader picture of the global 
governance system as it relates to sustainable de velopment and the spirit in which it operates.  
Furthermore, they emphasize the need to ensure that the WTO is part of this system and, in particular, 
that it does not operate in isolation from internati onal developments and agreements in other fields 
that are more specific but nevertheless trade-related.   
34. The fact that there has so far been no conflict between MEAs and WTO rules is highly 
encouraging.  However, considering that the inte rface between the two sets of law is growing, we 
should ensure that such a harmonious co-existence is  preserved and that everything is done to enhance 
their mutual supportiveness. 
__________ 
 
 
 
                                                      
5 Referring to the clarification of WTO provisions  in accordance with cu stomary rules of public 
international law, which the Appellate Body has been directed to apply, the A ppellate Body said:  “That 
direction reflects a measur e of recognition that the General Agreement  is not to be read in clinical isolation from 
public international law”, WT/DS2/AB/R, p.20.