WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/CTE/W/243 
27 November 2006 
 (06-5688) 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
  
 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS 
 
Note by the Secretariat 
 
 
 
This document has been prepa red under the Secretariat's own 
responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Members 
and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Pursuant to Paragraph 51 of the Doha Minister ial Declaration, "The Committee on Trade and 
Development and the Committee on Trade and Environm ent shall, within their respective mandates, 
each act as a forum to identify and debate de velopmental and environmental aspects of the 
negotiations, in order to  help achieve the objectiv e of having sustainable development appropriately 
reflected."  
2. At its meeting of 5 July 2006, with a view to  further facilitate the identification and debate 
under Paragraph 51 of the environmental aspects of the negotiations, the Committee on Trade and 
Environment (CTE) requested the Secretariat to prepare a paper compiling the statements previously 
made by the Secretariat on the environment-related issues in the various negotiating groups (see 
paragraph 6 below).1 
3. This paper has been prepared in  response to that request.  It compiles the statements by the 
Secretariat made in 2002-2003 and subsequently updat ed in 2005 on the environment-related issues in 
the various negotiating groups, name ly negotiations on agriculture (section A, pages 3-6), market 
access for non-agricultural products (section B, pa ges 6-10), rules (section C, pages 10-12) and 
services (section D, pages 13-17).  For the purposes of the present version of the paper, these have 
been further updated to reflect the state-of-play as of  July 2006.  The area of trade and environment 
negotiations (section E, pages 17-23) has been a dded to the present paper to ensure that it is 
comprehensive in its coverage of the negotiations .  In each area, following a brief summary of the 
status of the negotiations, sub-sec tions set out the environment-related aspects;  specific proposals and 
discussions related to the environment;  and possibl e benefits to the environment and contribution to 
sustainable development.   
4. This paper is prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and by no means claims to 
cover exhaustively all the environm ental aspects raised in the course  of the negotiations.  Nor should 
the paper be seen as an attempt to prioritize issues , subjects or concerns raised by individual Members 
or groups of Members.  Finally, this paper does not  prejudice the right of any Member to raise other 
views related to Paragraph 51 of the Doha Ministerial. 
                                                      
1 WT/CTE/M/42, 1 September 2006    WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 2  
 
  II. BACKGROUND   
5. Following adoption of the Doha Ministerial D eclaration, at a CTE meeting in June 2002, 
Members held an initial exchange of views on ho w to structure the debate.  There was general 
agreement that the approach to address Paragra ph 51 should be Member-driven in order to identify 
elements from the negotiations for debate, with inputs from the Secretariat as appropriate.  The 
importance of the mandate was stressed, and it was noted that Paragraph 51 was a standing item on 
the agendas of both the CTE and the CTD.
2   
6. At the meeting in October 2002, delegations agreed  to take a sectoral approach to the mandate 
and the Secretariat was invited to brief the CTE on relevant developments  in various negotiating 
areas.3  In 2003, the CTE received briefings by the Secretariat in the following negotiating areas: 
agriculture (WT/CTE/GEN/8), market access for non-agricultural products (WT/CTE/GEN/9), rules 
(WT/CTE/GEN/10) and services (WT/CTE/GEN/11) .4  This was followed by a substantive exchange 
on different areas which included:  non-trade concer ns mentioned in the Preamble of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, trade-distorting agricultural policies, fishery subsidies, liberalization of environmental 
goods and services, classification of environmental services, regulatory issues with respect to services, 
Paragraph 51 on sustainable deve lopment and developing countries,  and coordination between the 
CTE and the CTD in the context of Paragraph 51 work.  The CTE's 2003 report to the General 
Council reflected, among others , its work on Paragraph 51 .5  
7. In 2004, having heard in 2003 the series of briefings mentioned above, the Committee sought 
ways to carry forward its work.  It was agreed th at the Chairperson of the CTE would meet with the 
Chairperson of the CTD to exchange informati on on how the Paragraph 51 mandate had been taken 
up in the two respective Committees.6  Subsequently, an oral report was provided to the CTE by its 
Chairperson.7  
8. In 2005, following a request from Members in the CTE ,8 the Secretariat organized a WTO 
Symposium on Trade and Sustainable Development w ithin the Framework of Paragraph 51 of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration on 10-11 October.  The event was open to WTO Members and 
observers and drew on the contribution of representa tives from various international organizations and 
other professionals with expertise on the specific issues addressed.  After a high-level segment introducing the concept of sustainable development a nd its relevance in the context of the Doha Work 
Programme and highlighting as well the potentia l contribution of trade towards achieving the 
objective of sustainable development, individual panels focussed on selected issues of the Doha 
negotiations, namely Agriculture, Fisheries Subsid ies and Environmental Goods and Services, and 
addressed other selected issues of the Doha Work Pr ogramme of particular interest to developing 
countries, namely the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the TRIPS 
Agreement, and the role of intellectual property right s in facilitating transfer of technology.  The final 
session was a roundtable with representatives from di fferent international organizations on capacity 
building activities to promote sustainable developm ent.  At the back-to-back CTE meeting on 
12 October, the Symposium generate d further discussions on Paragraph 51.
9 
                                                      
2 WT/CTE/M/30, 11 September 2002 
3 WT/CTE/M/31, 2 December 2002 
4 Subsequently, updates of the Secretariat briefings  were provided at the CTE meeting of October 2005 
(WT/CTE/GEN/8/Suppl.1, WT/CTE/GEN/ 9/Add.1, WT/CTE/GEN/10/Suppl.1 a nd WT/CTE/GEN/11/Suppl.1 dated 5 
October, 10 October, 5 October,  and 11 October 2005 respectively). 
5 WT/CTE/9, 11 July 2003 
6 WT/CTE/M/36, 19 May 2004 
7WT/CTE/M/38, 20 December 2004  
8 WT/CTE/M/39, 2 May 2005 
9 WT/CTE/M/41  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE DOHA DEVELOPMENT AGENDA 
A. NEGOTIATIONS ON AGRICULTURE10  
1. Status of the Negotiations   
9. The preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture  states that commitments under the reform 
programme established a basis for starting a process of reform and notes that the commitments should 
have regard to non-trade concerns , including food security and the n eed to protect the environment. 
10. The negotiations on agriculture started in Ma rch 2000 in accordance with Article 20 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  This Article recognised  the long-term objective of achieving substantial 
progressive reductions in support and protection, and re quired that the negotiations  take into account a 
number of factors, including:  the experience of implementing the results of the Uruguay Round;  the 
effects of Members' Uruguay Round commitments on world trade;  non-trade concerns;  special and 
differential treatment;  the objective of establishing  a fair and market-oriented agriculture trading 
system;  and the other objectives set out in th e preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture.   
11. The Doha Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1) put the negotiations on a new 
footing.  Under the Doha mandate, Members co mmitted themselves to comprehensive negotiations 
"aimed at substantial improvements in market acce ss;  reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all 
forms of export subsidies;  and substantial reduc tions in trade-distorting domestic support.  [...] 
Special and differential treatment for developing countr ies shall be an integral part of all elements of 
the negotiations and shall be embodied in the Schedules of concessions and commitments and as 
appropriate, in the rules and disciplines to be negot iated so as to be operationally effective and to 
enable developing countries to effectively take acc ount of their development needs, including food 
security and rural development."  Furthermore, Mini sters confirmed that non-trade concerns would be 
taken into account in the negotiations as pr ovided for in the Agreement on Agriculture. 
12. The Framework for Establishing Modalities in Agriculture in Annex A of the Decision 
Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004 (W T/L/579) added significant further detail to all 
aspects of the negotiating mandate, and again confirme d that non-trade concerns would be taken into 
account.   
                                                      
 10Paragraph 13 of the Doha Declaration:   "We recognize the work already unde rtaken in the negotiations initiated 
in early 2000 under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, including the large number of negotiating proposals 
submitted on behalf of a total of 121 members. We recall the long- term objective referred to in the Agreement to establish a 
fair and market-oriented trading system through a programme  of fundamental reform enco mpassing strengthened rules and 
specific commitments on s upport and protection in order to correct and pr event restrictions and distortions in world 
agricultural markets. We reconfirm our co mmitment to this programme. Building on th e work carried out to date and without 
prejudging the outcome of the negotiations we commit ourselv es to comprehensive negotia tions aimed at: substantial 
improvements in market ac cess; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial 
reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. We agree that  special and differential treat ment for developing countries 
shall be an integral part of all elemen ts of the negotiations and shall be embodi ed in the schedules of concessions and 
commitments and as appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be  negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and to enable  
developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, incl uding food security and rural development. 
We take note of the non-trade concerns reflected in the ne gotiating proposals submitted by Members and confirm that non-
trade concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations  as provided for in the Agreement on Agriculture."  
   Paragraph 14 of the Doha Declaration:  "Modalities fo r the further commitments, including provisions for special 
and differential treatment, shal l be established no later than 31 March 2003. Pa rticipants shall submit their comprehensive 
draft Schedules based on these modalities no later than the date  of the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference. The 
negotiations, including with respect to rules and disciplines and related legal texts, shall be concluded as part and at the da te 
of conclusion of the negotiating agenda as a whole." 
 
 
  WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 4  
 
  13. The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration (WT/ MIN(05)/DEC) built on the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and the Framework in several areas, such as providing a date for the final elimination of all forms of export subsidies.  However, after mont hs of intensive negotiations there was not sufficient 
convergence between Members to enable modalities to  be established.  The Draft Possible Modalities 
on Agriculture (TN/AG/W/3) sets out the different pr oposals on different issues.  Like negotiations in 
other areas, the negotiations on agriculture were suspended following the Ge neral Council meeting on 
27 July 2006. 
2. Environment-related Aspects  
(a) Non-trade Concerns   
14. Throughout the agriculture negotiations, envi ronmental issues have been discussed as non-
trade concerns.  Many Members have presented views and tabled proposals on this subject.  
Essentially, the debate has not centred on the qu estion whether non-trade concerns, such as the 
protection of the environment, are legitimate policy objectives – this view is widely shared – but 
rather the debate has centred around what the appr opriate and effective inst ruments are to achieve 
these objectives.  It may also be worthwhile notin g that, in the context of the discussions on these 
matters, several developing countries have made th e point that their non-trade concerns are of a 
fundamentally different dimension to  those of developed countries.   
15. During the first two years of the negotia tions, March 2000 to March 2002, Members 
submitted to the Committee on Agriculture, either individually or as co-sponsors, various proposals 
outlining their aspirations for the negotiations, includi ng with respect to environment related policies.  
These proposals were the subject of in-depth discussi on within the Committee.  Many of the non-trade 
concerns raised during this period, which include d those relating to environmental policies, were 
discussed in the context of possible modifications to  Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, the so 
called 'Green Box', and Article 6.2 which provi des for developing countries, exemptions from 
reduction commitments for certain programmes.  A survey of the specifi c proposals discussed over 
this period is contained in the Overvi ew Paper on the negotiations (TN/AG/6).  
16. The negotiations that led to the Agreed Fr amework focused less on the objectives of support 
and more on the means by which such support can be delivered.  Thus, although various issues, 
including non-trade concerns, were no longer necessarily the main focus of discussions, they 
remained firmly on the table.  Furthermore,  these issues remained important on how Members 
approached the negotiations and how they responded to new ideas and proposals.   
17. With respect to the Green Box, which many Members consider would be the appropriate 
means by which environmental objectives might be  addressed, the Agreed Framework states that 
"Green Box criteria will be reviewed and clarified with a view to ensuring that Green Box measures 
have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting eff ects or effects on production.  Such a review and 
clarification will need to ensure that the basic c oncepts, principles and effectiveness of the Green Box 
remain and take due account of non-trade concerns."  
18. This precision was further amplified in the H ong Kong Ministerial Declaration which states  
"Green Box criteria will be reviewed in line with Pa ragraph 16 of the Framework,  inter alia, to ensure 
that programmes of developing country Members that  cause not more than minimal trade-distortion 
are effectively covered."   
(b) Environment Impact of Protection and Trade-distorting Support in Agriculture  
19. In terms of the actual environment policy relate d discussions, the role of protection and trade-
distorting support featured prominently.  Although many Members recognize that agricultural  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 5 
 
 
  production can have both positive and negative eff ects on the environment, there are, however, 
different views about the environmental impact of trade-distorting agricultural policies.   
20. A number of developed and developing Me mbers have emphasized that trade and 
environmental protection can be mutually positively reinforcing and that reducing trade distortions 
can improve the environment through its positive imp act on resource use.  In their view, protection 
and trade-distorting domestic support policies en courage environmentally harmful agricultural 
practices, such as intensive farming,  including high use of fertilizers a nd pesticides.  The result can be 
resource degradation and environmental stress, such  as adverse effects on the ground water, the soil 
and biodiversity.  Furthermore, these Members noted  that trade-distorting support, including export 
subsidies, can also have negative environmental ef fects in third countries, particularly developing 
countries, because these measures drive down interna tional prices and increase their volatility.  As a 
result, returns from agriculture in developing coun tries are lower than otherwise, thus exacerbating 
poverty and making it even more difficult for farm ers in these countries to move towards more 
environmentally sustainable practices.  These Memb ers have, therefore, advocated a reduction in 
protection and trade-distorting agricultural support as a way of simultaneously advancing trade, 
development and environmental objectives. 
21. Other Members have highlighted the positive envi ronmental effects of agriculture, including 
land conservation, management of water resources,  preservation of biodiversity and habitats and 
maintaining the landscape.  In their view, a certain level of trade-distorting domestic support may be necessary to maintain agricultural production, especi ally in areas with low agricultural potential, and 
thus ensure provision of the positive environmental externalities.  These Members hold that, for them 
to achieve their objectives regarding non-trade con cerns such as the protection of the environment, 
they also need an appropriate level of border protection as a flanking instrument.   
(c) Further Liberalization of Market Access and the Protection of the Environment   
22. While much has been made of environmental c oncerns being raised and discussed within the 
context of the Green Box, some Members have also  linked the ability to protect the environment to 
further liberalisation of market access and reductions in support based on production.  In this context, 
some Members have noted that the existence of  preferential market access has made available 
additional export earnings (which w ould not have otherwise been available) to preference receiving 
countries and thereby providing these countries with a greater level of income with which to help 
protect the environment.  On the other hand, others have stated that preferences in favour of some Members mean discrimination against others.  It has also been noted that improved non-
discriminatory market access, particularly for produc ts of interest to developing countries, would not 
only provide developing countries with the ability to  increase income levels, but would also help to 
improve investment levels, infrastructure and production processes.  All of this, they argue, would help to improve and protect the environment.   
23. Other countries have, however, noted that with already low levels of market access protection 
and vulnerable agricultural sectors, further liberalisati on particularly at a rapid pace, would put further 
strain on their already fragile eco-systems as farm ers may increase production in ways that may not be 
environmentally sustainable. 
3. Specific Proposals and Discussions Related to the Environment 
Green Box - Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:  Paragraphs 2 and 12  
24. With respect to how environmental policies shoul d actually be dealt with in the negotiations 
and in the Agreement on Agriculture, the discussions  on non-trade concerns, including environmental 
concerns, have tended to fall under the domestic support umbrella, usua lly, the Green Box.  Under the WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 6  
 
  Agreement on Agriculture, domestic support with no, or  at most minimal, trade-distorting effects or 
effects on production, can be provided by governme nts as they see fit, provided that the criteria 
defining Green Box measures are complied with. These criteria are specified in Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  For instance, Paragraph 12 of Annex 2 allows Members to provide direct 
payments to producers under environmental or conservation programmes subject to certain 
conditions.  For example, such payments being pa rt of a clearly-defined government programme and 
being limited to the extra costs involved in complyi ng with the programme.  Furthermore, Paragraph 2 
of Annex 2 also covers support for research in  connection with environmental programmes.  
25. Several specific proposals have been ma de concerning environmental policies under 
Paragraph 12 of Annex 2 which are reflected in the Draft Possible Modalities on Agriculture.  The 
proposed amendments set out in the document ar e intended to cover programmes in developing 
countries that are designed to address environmenta l concerns and to ensure that support provided 
under environmental programmes in developed countri es is not related to the volume of production. 
4. Possible Benefits for the Environment and Contribution to Sustainable Development 
26. Throughout the negotiations on agriculture, e nvironmental issues have been part of the 
discussions on non-trade concerns.  While Members gene rally share the view that the protection of the 
environment is a legitimate policy objective, there continue to be differences in views about the 
appropriate instruments to achieve this objective.   A number of Members consider that targeted, 
transparent and non, or no more than minimally, trade-distorting measures are the effective tools.  
Many of them see the reduction of trade-distorti ng support and border protection as having an overall  
positive effect on the environment.  Some other Memb ers argue that they need some trade-distorting 
support and border protection to achieve their non-trade objectives, including the protection of the 
environment.  There is, however, broad consensus that the environmental-related provisions of the 
Green Box should be maintained.  
B. 
NEGOTIATIONS ON MARKET ACCESS11 
1. Status of the Negotiations  
27. The Negotiating Group on Market Access (NGM A) began its work in July 2002 after 
addressing some procedural issues.  The NGMA took note of the broad support in the CTE Special Session (CTESS) for the idea that negotiatio ns on environmental goods, as foreseen in 
Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration, be conducted in the NGMA for Non-Agricultural 
Products
.12  As a result, this topic has been discussed in the context of the NAMA negotiations and 
many references have been made to it by Members in their submissions. 
28. On a practical level, coordination between the CTESS and the NGMA has been good.  At an 
NGMA meeting that took place on 12-13 September 2002, it was agreed that:  (i) the Chairperson, on 
                                                      
 11 Paragraph 16 of the Doha Declaration:  "We agree to ne gotiations which shall aim, by  modalities to be agreed, 
to reduce or as appropriate eliminate tariffs, including the re duction or elimination of tari ff peaks, high tariffs, and tariff  
escalation, as well as non-tariff barriers,  in particular on products of export in terest to developing countries.  Product 
coverage shall be comprehensive and without  a priori exclusions.  The negotiations sh all take fully into account the special 
needs and interests of developing and l east-developed country participants, includ ing through less than full reciprocity in 
reduction commitments, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994 and the provisions 
cited in Paragraph 50 below.  To this end, the modalities to be agreed will include appropriate studies and capacity-building 
measures to assist leas t-developed countries to participat e effectively in the negotiations." 
  
 Paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha Declaration:  "With a view to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and 
environment, we agree to negotiations, without prejudging thei r outcome, on:  ...(iii) the reduction or, as appropriate, 
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barrier s to environmental goods and services." 
12 TN/TE/1, 12 April 2002  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 7 
 
 
  a more formalized basis, would keep the Ch airperson of the CTESS informed of the ongoing 
discussions in the NGMA concerning environmental goods .  The Chairperson would in turn report to 
the NGMA any information of relevance provided to him by the Chairperson of the CTESS;  and, (ii) papers relating to environmental issues submitt ed in the NGMA would also be submitted to the 
CTESS to enhance transparency.
13 
29. Discussions since 2003 led, on 1 August 2004, to an agreement on a "NAMA framework" 
contained in Annex B of the General C ouncil Decision on the Doha Work Programme14.  In its 
decision, the General Council encouraged the NGMA to work closely with the CTESS with a view to 
addressing the issue of non-agricultural environmen tal goods covered in Paragraph 31 (iii) of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  Since then, the NGMA has met several times to discuss the broad 
spectrum of elements in the NAMA framework , including the issue of environmental goods.15  While 
a number of the initial submissions16 addressed the subject of environmental goods more generally, 
including the definitional issue, some of the mo re recent submissions have instead focussed on 
proposed lists of environmental goods. 
30. At an informal meeting that took place in  July 2005, the NGMA Chair reported that the 
CTESS was working on lists of environmental goods  and that a stocktaking exercise would be 
required at the appropriate time by the NGMA. 
31. At the Hong Kong Ministerial conference, Ministers took note of the report by the 
Chairperson of the NGMA17, which states that:  "Since the adoption of the July framework in 2004, 
limited discussions have been held on this subject in  the Group.  However, it is noted that much work 
under Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration has been undertaken by the Committee on 
Trade and Environment in Special Session.  There would need to be close coordination between the 
two negotiating groups and a stock taking of the work undertaken in that Committee would be 
required at the appropriate time by the NGMA." 
32. More recently, in a report to the TNC entitled "Towards NAMA modalities",18 the 
Chairperson of the NGMA noted that there was no consensus on the subject of non-agricultural 
environmental goods, beyond the existing mandate.  Furthermore, as there had been no progress on 
this issue at the time of the report, he suggested  to transfer the July Framework language to the 
modalities paper. 
2. Environment-related Aspects  
(a) Treatment of environmental goods 
33. One rather basic issue that has been discussed since the be ginning of the NAMA negotiations 
concerns the treatment (i.e. the tariff cutting moda lity) of environmental goods.  At the beginning of 
the discussions, some Members were of the view that since there would be a tariff cutting formula that would apply across the board, environmental goods s hould not be the subject of special treatment.  
That is, they should be treated in the same manner as other non-agricultural goods and subject to the 
same modalities.  However, some other Members vi ewed Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration as 
                                                     
 
13 TN/MA/4  
14 WT/L/579, Annex B (July Package) 
15 Discussions concerning environmental goods took place on th e informal meetings of 31 January – 4 February 
2005, 14-18 March 2005 and 4-8 July 2005. 
16 See Annex 1, List of documents submitted by Members referring to environmental goods in the context of the 
NAMA negotiations. 
17 TN/MA/16, 24 November 2005 
18 TN/MA/W/80, 19 July 2006 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 8  
 
  providing for special treatment to environmental goods in the form of, for example, deeper cuts or 
even tariff elimination.   
34. In 2006, three submissions dealing with the treatment of environmental goods were tabled to 
the NGMA.  The first one, tabled by a group of seven Members
19, proposed the elimination of tariffs 
on these products no later than 2008  for developed countries and those developing countries declaring 
themselves in a position to do so.  Recognizing the need for flexibility, a longer implementation 
period could be negotiated for developing countries, as well as the possibility to have exclusions for a 
limited number of products.  A second submission w as tabled by the NAMA-11 group of developing 
countries20.  These Members took the view that the CTESS should continue and first finalise its work 
before the NGMA can approach the issue of tariff tr eatment.  Furthermore, they considered that an 
important outcome of the negotia tion should be to strengthen th e environmental goods sector in 
developing countries as a means of ensuring a win-win-win for the environment, development and trade, and stressed the importance of S&D provisions  in the form of longer implementation periods 
and lower reductions, issues related to the transfer  of technology and know-how, and NTBs.  A third 
document, which was previously circulated  in the CTESS, was submitted by Argentina.
21  T h i s  
Member proposed an "integrated approach" that would lead to the multilateral identification of 
categories of environmental projects and "envir onmental goods" that could be included in those 
projects.  Tariff reduction/elimination and the elim ination of non-tariff barriers would be agreed 
multilaterally, taking account of special and differe ntial treatment.  These reductions/eliminations 
would take effect as of the time that the importi ng Member assigns, to a gi ven national environmental 
project, the goods required to meet the objectives of that project.  The tariff benefit granted by the 
importing Member would cover a specific period, i.e. the project implementation phase. 
35. The above-mentioned submission by a group of seven Members was introduced and briefly 
discussed at the 12-16 June 2006 NGMA informal open -ended meeting.  Some Members were of the 
view that any initiative concerning a further liber alization of environmen tal goods (in addition to 
formula cuts) would be tantamount to a sectoral negotiation and, therefore, participation therein 
should be on a non-mandatory basis.  However, ot her Members considered that the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Ministerial Declara tion called for a higher degree of liberalization on 
the environmental goods identified.   
(b) Definition of environmental goods 
36. Different suggestions have been put forward re garding the criteria to be used for defining 
environmental goods.  While some Members have s upported the need to defi ne environmental goods 
and produce a list, others have expressed the view  that a definitional exercise is not required.  
Furthermore, some Members consider that a list of environmental goods is not a necessary outcome of the negotiations and that other approaches are possible. 
37. In discussions that took place in 2005, there app eared to be an understanding that it would be 
the responsibility of the CTESS to define a list of environmental goods, while it would be the 
NGMA's responsibility to determine the tariff and non- tariff treatment of such goods.  Some Members 
expressed the view that it would not be possible for the NGMA to make progress without advancing the work in the CTESS. 
                                                     
 
19 TN/MA/W/70, Canada, European Communities, New Zeal and, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and the United 
States, 9 May 2006 
20 JOB(06)/194 from Argentina, Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela, Brazil, Egypt, I ndia, Indonesia, Namibia, 
Philippines, South Africa and Tunisia. 
21 TN/MA/W/77, 26 June 2006  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 9 
 
 
  38. A 2006 submission by a group of seven Members22 noted that the product coverage for 
environmental goods would need to be determined .  It should be as comprehensive as possible and 
based upon the work undertaken in the Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS).  Furthermore, given the evolving nature  of environmental goods, product coverage should 
be reviewed and updated over time to ensure that  WTO Members have access to the best available 
technologies to protect the environment and promote sustainable development.  It was also noted that 
work in the CTESS to identify environmental goods w as difficult without an indication of what the 
eventual modalities would be, and how special  and differential treatment would apply. 
(c) Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) 
39. On the work concerning NTBs, although some of  the measures which have been notified may 
be indirectly related to environmental measures an d regulations, only a few have made an explicit 
reference to them.
23  Furthermore, in most of these cases the notifying Member indicated its intent to 
address the concern either bilaterally or in the context of the WTO regular bodies.24   
40. As to the NTBs affecting the trade on n on-agricultural environmental goods, the above-
mentioned submission by a group of seven Members (see paragraph 38) noted that, while reducing the 
cost of these products through the elimination of  tariffs is an important means of making 
environmental goods more affordable and widely av ailable, NTBs can be equally or even more 
significant impediments to trade in such goods.  Fo r this reason, they proposed that specifically 
identified barriers on these products (including  any time-consuming and burdensome customs 
formalities) should also be addressed and reduced to the maximum extent.  Similarly, the NAMA-11 
considered crucial to address NTBs on environmen tal goods and issues relating to the transfer of 
technology and know-how, in particular  on non-agricultural environmental goods.25  Argentina made 
a reference to the reduction/elimination of NTBs as part of the proposed integrated approach.26  As a 
final remark, it should however be noted that no reference has been put forward beyond the 
recognition of the general importance of the issue.   
3. Specific Proposals and Discussions Related to the Environment 
41. Since the beginning of the negotiations, ma ny Members have submitted proposals dealing 
with environmental goods.27  In the initial phase of the work in this area, following a proposal by the 
Chairperson, the NGMA agreed th at the Secretariat circulate the OECD and APEC lists of 
environmental goods.28  While some Members considered that  these lists were a good starting-point 
for discussions, others were of the view that they should only be considered as contributions or useful 
inputs, but not as the basis for discussions on this issue.  
42. In 2002, 2003 and 2005, lists of non-agricultu ral environmental goods were tabled by Japan, 
Qatar, Chinese Taipei, Korea and the United Stat es, as well as two lists from the EC designed to 
                                                      
22 TN/MA/W/70, Canada, European Communities, New Zeal and, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and the United 
States. 
23 Some of the NTB notifications made an express referen ce to problems faced with environmental regulations and 
standards.  For example, Egypt made re ference to problems faced with environmen tal standards and environmental related 
prohibitions (see TN/MA/W/46); India made reference to the im position of voluntary internati onal standards by buyers on 
their suppliers in exporting countries (see TN/MA/W/46/Add.4); and Japan noted that th e EC's system for the registration of 
new and existing chemicals (REACH) could impose a higher bur den on importers than on the manufacturers within the EU 
member states (see TN/MA/W/46/Add.7). 
24 See JOB(04)/62/Rev.7.  For a general overview of the tr eatment of non-tariff measures, in particular those 
affecting LDC exports, see doc ument WT/COMTD/LDC/W/39. 
25 See JOB(06)/194 
26 See TN/MA/W/77 
27 See Annex 1. 
28 TN/MA/S/7, 30 October 2002   WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 10  
 
  provide examples of the categories and types of products that may be considered in these 
negotiations.
29  At the request of the NGMA, the Secretariat generated trade statistics on Japan's list of 
environmental goods in order to give an indication of the trade flows on these products .30  It should 
however be noted that a large number of the products in Japan's list were identified by ex-outs of HS 
six-digit tariff lines and that the Secretariat could onl y generate statistics at the six-digit HS tariff line 
level.  As a result, the statistics for many of these products were overestimated.   
43. During 2004, the efforts of the NGMA focussed on the preparations of the NAMA framework 
as contained in Annex B of the General Council D ecision on the Doha Work Programme of 1 August 
2004, and no proposals were submitted by Members. 
44. During 2005, non-agricultural environmental goods issues were discussed on three occasions 
and a submission by the United States entitled "Initial List of Environmental Goods"31 was received in 
July 2005.  The issue was also discussed in 2006 as part of the preparatory work for modalities, and 
three further submissions were discussed.  A brie f summary of these discussions was included by the 
Chairperson of the NGMA in his report to the TNC entitled "Towards NAMA modalities."32 
4. Possible Benefits for the Environment and Contribution to Sustainable Development  
45. A point made by certain Members has been that liberalisation in the sector of environmental 
goods could result in a win-win-win situation for trad e, the environment and development.  However, 
the point has also been made that given the high technological content of such products, one had to 
avoid the situation of real trade benefits going only  to the more advanced Members.  The question of 
easier access to environmental tec hnology has also been raised. 
C. NEGOTIATIONS ON WTO RULES33 
1. Status of the Negotiations  
46. The most explicitly environmental issue encomp assed within the mandate for the negotiations 
on Rules is that of fishery subsidies:  ("...I n the context of these negotiations, participants  shall also 
aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisher ies subsidies, taking into account the importance 
of this sector to developing countries.  We note th at fisheries subsidies are also referred to in 
Paragraph 31.")  While the focus of the fishery subs idies mandate is subsidy disciplines, the reference 
to "Paragraph 31" of the Ministerial Declaration is  a recognition of the environmental aspects of this 
issue as well (Paragraph 31 being in the section of the Declaration concerning trade and the environment).  Thus, while the fishery subsidi es negotiations are concentrating on disciplining 
                                                     
 
29 It should be noted that other lists by Canada, Ne w Zealand and Switzerland were tabled in the CTESS 
30 TN/MA/S/8, dated 2 December 2002, and more detaile d statistics have been posted on Members' website. 
31 TN/MA/W/18/Add.7, 4 July 2005 
32 TN/MA/W/80, 19 July 2006 
 33 Paragraph 28 of the Doha Declaration:  "In the light of experience and of the increasing application of these 
instruments by Members, we agree to ne gotiations aimed at clarifying and impr oving disciplines under the Agreements on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and on Subsidie s and Countervailing Measures, while preserving the basic 
concepts, principles and effectiveness of these Ag reements and their instruments and obj ectives, and taking into account the 
needs of developing and least-developed participants.  In the initial phase of the negotiations, participants will indicate the  
provisions, including disciplines on trade dist orting practices, that they seek to clar ify and improve in the subsequent phase.   
In the context of these negotiations, participants shall also  aim to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies, taking into account the importanc e of this sector to developing countries.  We note that fisheries subsidies are als o 
referred to in Paragraph 31." 
 
  Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration:  "With a vi ew to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and 
environment, we agree to negot iations, without prejudging their ou tcome, on: ...We note that fish eries subsidies form part of 
the negotiations provided for in Paragraph 28." 
  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 11 
 
 
  subsidies, the mandate also takes note of the enviro nmental aspects of the fisheries subsidies issue.  
Furthermore, certain other potentially environm ent-related issues were flagged early in the 
negotiations, although to date th ese have not been developed.  
2. Environment-related Aspects 
(a) Fishery Subsidies34 
47. The issue of fishery subsidies w as originally raised in the CTE some years ago.  Beginning 
with that debate, the demandeurs have  consistently maintained that th is issue has trade, environmental 
and development aspects, all of which should be addressed by new, enhanced, subsidy disciplines.  
On the other side of this debate, certain particip ants have questioned the re levance of environmental 
concerns in the context of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the SCM 
Agreement"), as well as the link between subsidies and environmental damage to fisheries, pointing in 
this regard to inadequate fisheries management.  These participants have at times taken the position 
that any inadequacies in the SCM Agreement should be addressed on a horizontal basis rather than 
sectorally, to avoid fragmentation of subsidies disciplines. 
(b) Other Environment-related Issues  
(i) Polluter pays principle and non-actionable subsidies  
48. During the Uruguay Round, certain environment -related provisions were introduced into the 
SCM Agreement, although on a provisional basis.  In  particular, in something of a deviation from the 
"polluter pays" principle, certain subsidies for adaptations to new environmental standards were 
defined as non-actionable.  This provision, along with the other non-actionable subsidy provisions, 
lapsed at the end of 1999, due to the absence of a consensus among Members to extend them.  
Proposals to revive the non-actionable category in on e form or another (including reinstating this 
category as it was) were tabled early in the negotia tions.  However, to date, this issue has not been 
actively pursued.   
(ii) Environmental NGOs 
49. It remains possible that other environmental issues could be raised during the subsidy 
negotiations, although to date this has not happened.  In this regard, there is increased pressure from 
NGOs to bring environmental issues into WTO disputes concerning subsidy and countervailing 
issues, as well as increased activity among certain environmental NGOs in respect of environmental 
effects of various forms of subsidies, and in resp ect of general subsidy issues in the DDA.  These 
views from civil society could eventually find th eir way into the negotiating positions of certain 
participants.  
3. Specific Proposals and Discussions Related to the Environment 
Fishery Subsidies 
 
50. In the Rules negotiations, the main environmental damage attributed by the demandeurs to 
fishery subsidies, via the fostering of overcapacity and over fishing, is the depletion of world fish 
stocks.  The demandeurs have cited estimates of subsidization at 20-25 per cent of total sectoral 
revenues, and have argued that these subsidies not only finance overcapacity di rectly (e.g., through 
subsidies for shipbuilding and for gear and equipment) but also by reducing the costs and risks of 
                                                      
34 The full list of fisheries subsidies -related documents submitted to date to the Negotiating Group on Rules is set 
forth in Annex II to this paper.   WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 12  
 
  investing in this sector (e.g., through income and price supports, insurance subsidies, operating cost 
subsidies, etc.).  The demandeurs also argue that fi sheries subsidies cause trade distortion, in the form 
of distorting access to the resource – the fish – but that this type of distortion is not reached by the existing subsidy rules of the SCM Agreement.  Th e demandeurs have proposed, as the most effective 
way to tackle these problems, a broad ban on subsidi es to the fisheries sector, with certain exceptions 
(see below).  Participants on the other side of the issue initially responded that if the current subsidy 
disciplines are ineffective, a horizontally-applicable  rather than sector-specific solution should be 
found.  More recently, the position of these particip ants has evolved to encompass proposals of their 
own for possible new disciplines in this sector.  In particular, these participants have submitted proposals on subsidy disciplines that would, in their vi ew, target the fisheries subsidies that have the 
negative effects referred to, i.e., that contribute to ove rcapacity and overfishing.  In this context, based 
on their position that the existence of such effect s will vary depending on the fisheries management 
context in which a particular subsidy operates, they propose to condition any such disciplines on 
management indicators.  These participants disagre e with a broad ban approach, and instead argue 
that only certain, listed subsidies with the identified effects should be prohibited.   
51. Participants on all sides of the debate recogni ze the potentially positiv e environmental effects 
of some kinds of fishery subsidies, such as certa in subsidies for retiring obsolete fishing vessels, 
research subsidies for sustainable use and renewal of  fish stocks, subsidies for fisheries management 
enforcement, and others.  Participants generally ag ree that subsidies that do not harm fish stocks 
should be outside the scope of any prohibition.  Th ere are differences of vi ew as to whether such 
subsidies should be actionable (potentially subject  to countervailing measures and/or WTO dispute 
settlement), or entirely non-actionable.  
52. Participants in the negotiations also genera lly recognize that many developing countries' 
economies are heavily dependent on the fisheries sect or, and that any new disciplines need to take 
account of this sustainable development aspect of the issue.  A number of proposals for differentiated 
disciplines for developing country Members are under discussion.  The range of these proposals 
includes:  exempting from new disciplines certain  specified measures for/by developing country 
Members (including subsidies to small-scale and ar tisanal fishing), longer transition periods and 
actionability instead of prohibition for certain fisher ies subsidies of developing country Members, and 
full exemption from any new prohibitions for developing country Members.   
53. Differing views have been expressed in the nego tiations as to which forum or fora offer the 
most accurate, reliable information concerning the st ate of world fish stocks and the adequacy of 
fisheries management.  Organizations/fora referred to  in this regard include the FAO, the OECD, the 
UN, regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), and othe rs.  Differing views also have 
been expressed as to the extent to which any new di sciplines should be conditional on or refer to such 
information.   
4. Possible Benefits for the Environment and Contribution to Sustainable Development  
54. As noted above, for many participants, the curre nt focus in the negotiations on identifying 
new disciplines for fisheries subsidies that contri bute to overcapacity and overfishing is a means 
to simultaneously address the environmental as well as the commercial effects of these subsidies.  These participants believe that such disciplines will help  to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks so 
that all Members, including fishing-dependent de veloping Members, can have long-term access to a 
reliable supply of fisheries resources.  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 13 
 
 
  D. NEGOTIATIONS ON SERVICES35 
1. Status of the Negotiations 
55. The negotiations on trade in services began in January 2000, pursuant to Article XIX of the 
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) .  This section of the Note focuses on the 
negotiations related to the environmental services s ector, where most of the environmental issues in 
the services negotiations have arisen. 
56. In the course of the discussion on environmenta l services, a question was raised about the 
reference, in Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Minist erial Declaration, to environmental services and 
whether it might affect work in the Special Session  of the Council for Trade in Services.  As he 
indicated in his Report to the Trade Negotiations Committee,36 the then Chairperson of the Special 
Session of the Council for Trade in Services, had consu lted on this issue with the Chairpersons of the 
negotiating bodies concerned, i.e. the Negotiating Group on Market Access and the Special Session of 
the Committee on Trade and Environment.  He noted that, in the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment, there was broad support fo r the idea that the negotiations on environmental 
services be conducted as part of the overall services negotiations in the Special Session of the Council 
for Trade in Services.
37 
2. Environment-related Aspects 
57. In the Services Sectoral Classification List (doc. MTN.GNG/W/120) developed during the 
Uruguay Round, and largely based on the United Na tions Provisional Central Product Classification 
(CPC), the environmental services sector includ es:  (A) sewage services (CPC 9401);  (B) refuse 
disposal services (CPC 9402);  (C) sanitation a nd similar services (CPC 9403);  and (D) other 
environmental services.  Although the "other" cate gory does not refer to any CPC item, it presumably 
includes the remaining elements of the CPC environm ental services category, i.e. cleaning of exhaust 
gases (CPC 9404), noise abatement services (CPC 9405), nature and landscape protection services 
(CPC 9406), and other environmental protection ser vices not included elsewhere (CPC 9409).  This 
List has been used by many Members in their schedules of sp ecific commitments. 
58. To date, about 50 Members38 have undertaken specific commitments in at least one sub-sector 
of the environmental services sector.  As compared to other sectors, such as tourism, financial services or telecommunications, liberalization bound under the GATS in environmental services appears rather limited.  However, one should remember that Members' policies may be more liberal in practice than what is reflected in their schedules.  A survey of Members' schedules shows that mode 1 
is often unbound, in part because some Members c onsider it not technically feasible.  Commitments 
under mode 2 are liberal, reflecting a general trend across services sectors.  Most commitments on 
environmental services focus on mode 3, while commitments on mode 4 are limited to some particular categories of services providers.  Overall, few market access and national treatment 
                                                     
 
35 Paragraph 15 of the Doha Declaration:  "The negotiations on trade in services  shall be conducted with a view to 
promoting the economic growth of all trad ing partners and the development of deve loping and least-developed countries. We 
recognize the work already undertaken in the negotiations, initiated in January 2000 under Article XIX of the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services, and the large number of propos als submitted by members on a wide range of sectors and 
several horizontal issues, as well as on movement of natural persons. We reaffirm  the Guidelines and Procedures for the 
Negotiations adopted by the Council for Trade in Services on 28 March 2001 as the basis for continuing the negotiations, 
with a view to achieving the objectives of the General Agre ement on Trade in Services, as stipulated in the Preamble, 
Article IV and Article XIX of that Agreement. Participan ts shall submit initial requests for specific commitments by 
30 June 2002 and initial offers by 31 March 2003." 
36 Statement of the Chairperson of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services to the Trade 
Negotiations Committee, 22 March 2002, TN/S/1. 
37 Statement by the Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment to the Trade 
Negotiations Committee, 22  March 2002, TN/TE/1. 
38 The 15 EC member states counted as one. WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 14  
 
  limitations have been scheduled.  However, the scope  of the commitments is restricted in a number of 
schedules by horizontal limitations and restri ctive definitions of the activities covered. 
3. Specific Proposals and Discussions Related to the Environment    
(a) The Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services  
59. The negotiating proposals on e nvironmental services generally share the premise that 
increased liberalisation in environmental services coul d play a positive role to improve environmental 
protection and human health, assuming that appropriate  domestic regulatory instruments are in place, 
and stress the potential for "win-win" situ ations, especially for developing countries.
39  S o m e  
Members are of the view that negotiations will have  to take into account the different levels of 
development of Members.  Several Members have  expressed their interest in new and improved 
commitments on environmental services.   
60. Three main themes seem to emerge from the propo sals and the ensuing debate in the Special 
Session.  Firstly, further liberalization is generally  called for, in terms of both increased country 
coverage and reduction of barriers to trade across all modes.  Commercial presence is often singled 
out as being the most important mode of supply a nd several proposals identify various market access 
barriers affecting this mode (equity limitations, rest rictions on legal form, uns pecified economic needs 
tests, monopolies, etc).  Some Memb ers also stressed the n eed for further liberalisation of mode 4, 
and, to a lesser extent, modes 1 and 2.  Secondly, some proposals raise regulatory issues, such as the need for increased transparency, implementation of  Article I:3(a) of the GATS and recognition of 
environmentally-related professional qu alifications acquired in the territory of another Member.  The 
United States explicitly indicated that liberalizati on in environmental services must not impair the 
ability of governments to impose performance and qua lity controls on environmental services and to 
otherwise ensure that services providers are fu lly qualified and carry out their tasks in an 
environmentally-sound manner.  Several Members shar ed the view that negotiations on environmental 
services should not impair Members' ability to regulate.  Thirdly, most proposals identify classification as a significant issue for this sector a nd propose to improve the existing W/120 List.  
The classification component of these proposals is  under consideration in the Committee on Specific 
Commitments (see below). 
61. In February 2005, a group of Members submitted a joint report on their informal discussions 
on environmental services.  The document centres  around three broad groups of questions:  the 
cross-border provision of environmental services, th e definition of consultancy services in the area of 
environmental services, and issues related to th e scheduling of commitments for environmental 
infrastructure services.
40  In June 2005, the OECD presente d a paper on "Managing Request-Offer 
Negotiations Under the GATS:  The case of environm ental services."  The aim of this paper is "to 
assist WTO Members in gaining a greater insight in to the particular issues of importance in the 
environmental services sector and how they might be approached in current request-offer negotiations 
under the GATS."41   
                                                      
39 Written proposals on environmental services have been ta bled by the United States (S/CSS/W/25), the European 
Communities (S/CSS/W/38), Canada (S /CSS/W/51), Switzerland (S/CSS/W/76), Australia (S/C/W/112), Colombia 
(S/CSS/W/121) and Cuba (S/CSS/W/142). 
40 Communication from Australia, the European Communitie s, Japan, New Zealand,  the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and the United States, Joint report on informal discussion on 
environmental services in the context of the DDA , TN/S/W/28, 11 February 2005.  Hong Kong, China is also a sponsor of 
this document. 
41 See OECD, Managing Request-Offer Negotiations Under the GA TS:  The Case of Environmental Services , 
OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 11, by M. Gelo so-Grosso, TD/TC/WP(2004)8/FINAL, 15 February 2005 and 
Council for Trade in Serv ices – Special Session, Report of the Meeting Held on 27 and 30 June and 1 July 2005 , Note by the 
Secretariat, TN/S/M /15 + Corr. 1, 15 September 2005, Paragraphs 42 to 63.  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 15 
 
 
  62. In his July 2005 report to the Trade Negotiati ons Committee, the Chairperson of the Special 
Session of the Council for Trade in Services, incl uded an Annex containing a summary, prepared 
under his own responsibility, of the sectoral, modal, rules-related and other discussions held under the 
review of progress.  Concerning the negotiations on environmental services, the Chairperson noted that  
"[t]wo delegations indicated their exp ectation for increased liberalization of 
environmental services.  One explained that environmental services benefited both importer and exporter economies, and recalle d that the Doha Declaration made a 
specific reference to the liberalization of these services as a means of benefiting both 
trade and environment.  This delegation s ought further commitments, particularly in 
mode 3, but also in modes 1 and 2, since these modes were relevant for advisory 
services and helped to transfer technical know-how."
42 
63. An information note on environmental services,  summarizing the main issues raised in the 
negotiations, was circulated by the Secretariat on 26 September 2005.43 
64. Pursuant to Annex C of the Hong Kong Mini sterial Declaration, a group of Members 
prepared a collective request on environmental services .44  At the meeting of the Special Session held 
on 7 April 2006, the European Communities, as coor dinator for environmental services, reported on 
the collective request and the first plurilateral meeting as follows: 
"... the first plurilateral meeting had been  held on 3 April to discuss the collective 
request, with the presence of the 11 co-spons ors and 22 recipients.  Environmental 
services as well as environmental goods we re singled out for liberalization in 
Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration.  The collective request covered commitments 
across all environmental services sub-sectors but did not address water for human use.  A brief overview of the collective request by the coordinator had been followed by exchanges of questions and answers on various elements of the request.  Participants had described their existing commitments or offers. Some delegations 
had indicated further improvements that coul d be included in their upcoming offers.  
A few delegations had underlined that additional commitments would require 
legislative changes.  The meeting had show n that many recipients would benefit from 
additional information to fac ilitate reflections and domest ic consultations on possible 
new or improved commitments on environm ental services.  The co-sponsors intended 
to provide recipients with more detailed  answers to certain questions highlighted 
during the meeting building on their experi ence with the scheduling of commitments 
in this sector."
45 
                                                      
42 Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services, Report by the Chairman to the Trade Negotiations 
Committee , TN/S/20, 11 July 2005. 
43 Information Note by the Secretariat, Environmental Services , JOB(05)/209, 26 September 2005. 
 44 Paragraph 7 of Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Decl aration reads as follows:  " In addition to bilateral 
negotiations, we agree that the request-offe r negotiations should also be pursued on a plurilateral basis in accordance with 
the principles of the GATS and the Guidelines and Procedures fo r the Negotiations on Trade in Services.  The results of such 
negotiations shall be extended on an MFN basis.  These negotiations would be organized in the following manner:  (a) Any 
Member or group of Members may present requests or collective requests to other Members in an y specific sector or mode 
of supply, identifying their objectives for the negotiations in that sector or mode of supply;  (b) Members to whom such 
requests have been made shall consider such requests in accordance with Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article XIX of the GATS 
and Paragraph 11 of the Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services;  and (c) Plurilateral 
negotiations should be organised with a view to facilitating th e participation of all Members, taking into account the limited 
capacity of developing countries and smaller delegations to part icipate in such negotiations." 
45 Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services, Report of the Meeting Held on 7 April 2006, Note by the 
Secretariat, TN/S/M/19, para. 15. WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 16  
 
  (b) The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) 
65. In the CSC, Members have been consideri ng whether and how the environmental services 
section contained in the Secretariat Services Classification List should be revised.  A number of delegations concur that the exis ting classification is obsolete because it does not account for how 
business now operates.     
66. Work on a revised classification of environmental services is based on proposals by the 
United States (S/CSS/W/25), the European Communities (S/CSS/W/38), Canada (S/CSS/W/51), Switzerland (S/CSS/W/76), Australia (S/CSS/W/112), and Colombia (S/CSS/W/121).  The communication presented by the European Commun ities proposes the creation of seven sub-sectors 
based on the environmental media (air, water, soil, wast e, noise, etc.);  this is intended to reflect the 
way services providers tend to specialize and aims at ensuring a comprehensive coverage of the 
industry.  The communication presented by Switzerla nd is close to the EC proposal, except for water 
distribution, which Switzerland has not included.  Australia is in favour of broadening the current 
classification and supports in principle the approach  proposed by the EC.  The United States supports 
proposals that incorporate a core list of environmental services comprised primarily of the currently 
classified environmental services sectors.  Canada is  in favour of liberalizi ng environmental services 
as they are currently defined in W/120.  Colombia considers it would be useful to establish a model 
list incorporating new services not already included in  W/120.  No agreement has been reached so far 
on a revised classification. 
4. Possible Benefits for the Environment and Contribution to Sustainable Development  
67. Many delegations noted that the environment i ndustry had developed significantly since the 
end of the Uruguay Round, due in particular to  growing environmental awareness and increasingly 
stringent environmental standards and regulations.  Technology had evolved, gradually shifting from 
an "end-of-the-pipe" approach to more prevention.   A number of delegations stressed the potential for 
"win-win" situations in this sector:  liberalizi ng environmental services could help to improve 
environmental protection and create trading opportun ities and, thus, be beneficial for both importing 
and exporting Members.  Increased competition resu lting from improved market access could lead to 
innovation and better quality services;  however, appr opriate domestic environm ental regulations and 
policies must be in place.  Members' right to regulate was of key importance to achieve environmental and social policy objectives. 
68. Some delegations recalled that the Doha Decl aration had reaffirmed the importance of the 
"win-win" dimension of open trade and its relationship with environm ental protection, human health 
and economic development. 
69. Several delegations felt that the negotiations should advance trade liberalization in core 
environmental services;  barriers should be reduced to a minimum and country coverage increased.  Some Members were of the view that liberalization in this sector could be of particular benefit to 
developing countries.  For instance, commercial pr esence of foreign enterprises could contribute to 
capital formation, technology transfer, and improve ments in environmental and sanitary conditions.  
Several delegations stressed th at the level of development should be taken into account when 
liberalizing this sector.   
70. Some delegations also noted that mark et opening was not the only way to solve 
environmental problems, but that it could make a contribution.  One delegation expressed doubts 
whether a direct link existed between liberalizat ion of environmental services and sustainable 
development;  market opening might not reduce cost s for developing countries since trade in this 
sector was dominated by large monopolies.  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 17 
 
 
  E. NEGOTIATIONS ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT46 
71. The negotiations on trade and environment unde r Paragraph 31 takes place in the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTESS). 
2. Status of the Negotiations 
(a) Paragraph 31 (i) 
72. Since the early stages of the negotiations, tw o main approaches have been followed under 
Paragraph 31(i), namely the identification of specifi c trade obligations (STOs) set out in MEAs;  and a 
broader and more conceptual discussion of the WTO- MEA relationship. In a preliminary phase of the 
discussions, Members focused on some of the terms of the mandate such as "multilateral 
environmental agreement" (MEA);  "specific trade obligation" (STO);  and "as among parties to the 
MEA" etc.  With respect to the definition of STO , Members have examined various types of trade 
measures set out in a number of MEAs, and how these measures may qualify as STOs for the purpose 
of the mandate.  As a reference for this discussion, delegations had available to them the Secretariat 
Note entitled "Matrix on Trade Measures Pursua nt to Selected Multilateral Environmental 
Agreements".47 
73. The identification of STOs set out in MEAs led subsequently to an exercise of sharing 
national experiences in the negotiation and domestic  implementation of STOs in MEAs.  This has 
entailed explaining how Members' domestic policy fo rmulation process takes place in areas involving 
a WTO-MEA interface, and how that process is  reflected on the international plane. 
74. In July 2004, Members reaffirmed their commitment to make progress in negotiations on 
trade and environment.  At the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December 2005, Ministers have 
instructed Members to intensify the negotiations, without prejudging their outcome, on all parts of 
Paragraph 31 of the Doha Decl aration to fulfill the mandate. 
 
75. At the July 2006 meeting, the CTESS reverted to Paragraph 31 (i) discussions following a 
proposal by the European Communities which sugge sted an outcome under Paragraph 31(i) in the 
form of a ministerial decision on trade and environment.48  
(b) Paragraph 31 (ii) 
76. The mandate of Paragraph 31(ii) has two main  components, namely information exchange 
between MEA Secretariats and the relevant WTO co mmittees, and criteria for the granting of observer 
status. 
                                                      
 46 Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration:  "With a vi ew to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and 
environment, we agree to  negotiations, without prej udging their outcome, on: 
 (i) the relationship between existing WTO rules and specifi c trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental 
agreements (MEAs). The negotiations shall be limited in scope to the applicability  of such existing WTO rules as among 
parties to the MEA in question. The negotiations shall not prejudi ce the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the 
MEA in question; 
 (ii) procedures for regular information exchange between MEA Secretariats and the relevant WTO committees, 
and the criteria for the granting of observer status; 
 (iii) the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of  tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and 
services. 
 We note that fisheries subsidies form part of the negotiations provided for in paragraph 28."  
 
47 TN/TE/S/5/Rev.l 
48 TN/TE/W/68 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 18  
 
  77. With regard to information exchange, a number of concrete elements have been put 
forward since the beginning of the negotiations to  improve or complement existing practices and 
cooperation mechanisms.  These suggestions and ideas for potential avenues were summarized in 
document TN/TE/7 of July 2003, and include forma lizing MEA Information Sessions in the CTE, and 
organizing them on a regular basis;  holding MEA Information Sessions on specific themes by 
grouping the MEAs that share a common interest;  organizing meetings with MEAs in other WTO 
bodies, either together with the CTE or separatel y;  organizing more systematically WTO parallel 
events at MEA Meetings of Parties;  organizi ng joint WTO, UNEP and MEA technical assistance and 
capacity building projects;  promoting the excha nge of documents, while respecting confidential 
information;  creating avenues for information exchange between government representatives from 
the trade and environment sides;  and establishing an electronic database on trade and environment. 
78. A meeting of the CTESS held on 12 November  2002 was devoted to information exchange 
with the Secretariats of six MEAs and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 
(TN/TE/4). 
79. With regard to observer status, it has been suggested that the general criteria pertaining to 
the granting of observer status to international in tergovernmental organizati ons contained in Annex 3 
of the Rules of Procedure of the General Counc il (document WT/L/161, dated 25 July 1996) could 
provide a basis for discussing specific criteria for MEA observership. 
80. Since 2003, the CTESS has invited, on an ad  hoc basis, the United Nations Environment 
Programme (UNEP) and six MEAs
49, as well as the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD), the World Customs Or ganization (WCO) and the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation a nd Development (OECD)  to its meetings.  This is without prejudice to 
ongoing negotiations inter alia on Paragraph 31 (ii) within the CTESS and to the settlement of the 
question of observer status in the TNC or the General Council. 
81. Several delegations drew attention to the li nks and potential synergi es between Paragraphs 
31(i) and (ii) of the negotiating mandate.  Enhanced cooperation between the WTO and MEA 
secretariats could contribute to improving both in ternational and national coordination, and could 
further contribute to conflict prevention between the tr ade and environment regimes.   In this regard, it 
has been suggested that an outcome under Para graph 31(ii) could go some way in addressing the 
mandate under Paragraph 31(i). 
(c) Paragraph 31 (iii) 
82. Different approaches to Paragraph 31(iii) nego tiations have emerged from the submissions 
made to date.  In the initial phase of negotiations , discussions based on submissions by a number of 
Members, revolved around the identification of envi ronmental goods using di fferent parameters and 
categories of environmental goods.  At present, th e CTESS has before it nine lists of environmental 
goods.50  The items included in the individual lists have  been compiled in the Secretariat's Synthesis 
of Submissions on Environmental Goods.51   
                                                      
 49 The Basel Convention on the Transboundary Moveme nts of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal, the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES ), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 
Ozone Layer, the Convention on Biologi cal Diversity (CBD), the United Nati ons Framework Convention on Climate 
Change (UNFCCC), the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Info rmed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals 
and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stoc kholm Convention on Persistent  Organic Pollutants.  
50 Canada (TN/TE/W/50/Rev.1), Chin ese Taipei (TN/TE/W/44 and Corr.1), European Community (TN/TE/W/47 
and Add.1), Korea (TN/TE/W/48), New Zealand (TN/TE/W/49/Rev.2), Qatar(TN /TE/W/24 and 33), Japan (TN/TE/W/17 
and Corr.1), Switzerland (TN/TE/W/57 and Corr. 1) and United Stat es (TN/TE/W/52). 
51 TN/TE/W/63  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 19 
 
 
  83. In 2005, an alternative approach to negotia tions was proposed by India described as the 
"Environmental Project Approach".52  Argentina came forward with a proposal for an "integrated 
approach" to the negotiations, which combines so me of the elements of the previous two 
approaches.53  Furthermore, other delegations have made  contributions that focused on developing 
countries' interests in the negotiations. 
84. At the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, Mini sters have called upon Members to complete 
the work expeditiously under Paragraph 31 (iii).  Th e negotiations on this part of the mandate have 
become more concrete and substantive since then.  As a way of moving forward, the Committee held 
technical discussions under Paragraph 31 (iii) from April to June 2006, which followed the 
information exchange sessions organized in the la tter half of 2005.  Technical discussions have 
highlighted the practical issues related to product coverage. 
85. Following the technical discussions held from Ap ril to June 2006, Cana da and New Zealand 
tabled revised lists of environmental goods in July 2006.54  Other proponents have also stated at the 
July 2006 meeting that they were currently in th e process of revising their lists in light of the 
comments they had received during the technical discussions. 
 
86. Furthermore a group of Members55 have tabled a proposal setting out modalities for 
environmental goods liberalization.56  Another Member has submitted a proposal focusing on how 
special and differential treatment can be impl emented in the context of Paragraph 31(iii) 
negotiations57.  Some Members have expressed the view th at they considered the issue of modalities 
to be contingent upon a determinati on of product coverage.  In this context, some delegations have 
drawn linkages with the work of other negotiating groups. 
87. Finally, Members have noted that there is so me degree of overlap in the mandate of the 
CTESS and those of other relevant negotiating gr oups.  Delegations supported the idea that the 
negotiations on market access for environmental goods and services be conducted in NAMA and in 
the Council for Trade in Services Special Sessi on (CTSSS) respectively, and that CTESS would 
monitor developments in other ne gotiating groups under Para graph 31 (iii).  Consultations were held 
in 2002 between the Chairs of the NGMA, the CTSSS and CTESS to avoid duplication of work under 
Paragraph 31 (iii) mandate and to  enhance information flow betw een the three negotiating bodies. 
3. Specific Proposals and Discussions 
(a) Paragraph 31 (i) 
88. Different views have emerged from the beginni ng of the discussions over the issue of an 
outcome for negotiations under Pa ragraph 31(i).  Proposals submitted by the European Communities 
and Switzerland have addressed this particular issue,  focusing, for instance, on the need to develop 
certain "principles and parameters" to underpin th e WTO-MEA relationship, such as the principles of 
no hierarchy, mutual supportiveness and deference be tween the trade and environment regimes.  The 
delegations that have put forward these proposals are of the view that the WTO-MEA relationship 
could be further clarified and impr oved to prevent future conflicts.58  Some support was expressed for 
the proposed governance principles, pa rticularly on the need to devel op common approaches to address 
                                                      
52 TN/TE/W/51 and 54 
53 TN/TE/W/62 
54TN/TE/W/46/Rev.1 and TN/TE/W/50/Rev.1  
55 Canada, European Communities, New Zealand, Norw ay, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. 
56 TN/TE/W/65 
57 TN/TE/W/69 by Cuba 
 58TN/TE/W/1, TN/TE/W/4 and TN/TE/W/39 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 20  
 
  global environmental problems, avoidi ng unilateral action.  However, th e view was also expressed that 
governance principles fell outside the paragraph 31 (i ) mandate.  Many delegati ons maintained that the 
CTESS needed to continue to bu ild a firm, factual and analytical  foundation to support any result 
reached on this part of the mandate. 
89. Several delegations indicated that the mandate was more limited in scope, and did not extend 
to the general WTO-MEA relationship.  In their view, the mandate is circumscribed to a specific 
aspect of this relationship, as it focuses on existing WT O rules and specific trade obligations set out in 
MEAs.  Furthermore, the mandate clearly states th at the negotiations are limited in scope to the 
applicability of WTO rules as among parties to the MEA, and shall not prejudice the WTO rights of 
any Member that is not a party to the MEA. 
90. On the different components of the mandate, the proposals and related discussions have 
revolved around the terms "MEAs," "STOs," and the notion of measures being "set out in MEAs."  
On "MEAs," while some believe that there is a need  to define the concept so as not to overstep the 
boundaries of the mandate, others do not view this  as necessary.   Some focus was placed on six 
MEAs that could contain STOs.  On "STOs," several  delegations believe that these must be measures 
which are explicitly provided for and mandatory unde r MEAs.  Furthermore, some delegations have 
argued that the entire operational framework of MEAs  needs to be looked at in identifying the STOs 
that are "set out in MEAs," suggesting that Conference of Parties (COP) decisions should be 
addressed.
59  
91. Moreover, Members discussed the issue of national coordination in  the negotiation and 
implementation of MEAs, mainly in relation to submissions from the United States, Australia and 
Hong Kong, China.60  The submissions addressed the issue of national coordination, transparency, and 
accountability in the negotiation and implementa tion of MEAs.  They also emphasized the 
importance of national and interna tional coordination between trade and environmental experts, and 
identified a number of features in the design and implementation of STOs that contribute to their 
effective operation.  Addressed in the discussi on were, amongst other issues, the mechanisms 
established by various WTO Members for coordina tion between different governmental bodies;  the 
processes through which conflicting views were reconc iled;  the way in which stakeholders were 
consulted;  and the development of  MEA implementing legislation.  It has been argued in this context 
that information on coordination and information exch ange at the national leve l could provide insight 
into measures for ensuring coherence between trad e and environmental policies at the international 
level.  Furthermore, a call was made for princi ples of good governance to be extracted from the 
national experience sharing, so that the factors th at have prevented WTO-MEA conflicts from arising 
thus far could be identified. 
92. In the discussions, Members held different vi ews on the scope of Paragraph 31(i).  Some 
delegations consider that the mandate provides an  opportunity to further clarify and improve the 
relationship between WTO and MEA rules with a view to preventing conflicts fr om arising.  For other 
delegations the WTO-MEA relationship has proved to  be working well, and the experience to date 
does not support the need for further clarification to  ensure the mutual supportiveness of the trade and 
environment regimes.  These delegations consider that the sharing of national experiences in the 
negotiation and implementation of specific trade obl igations in MEAs undertaken by some Members 
could provide a basis for taking the discussions forward under Paragraph 31(i). 
 
                                                      
 59 TN/TE/W/2 by Argentina;  TN/TE/W/7 by Australia;  TN/TE/W/10-13 by Japan, Chinese Taipei, New Zealand, 
and Korea respectively;  TN/TE/W/20-23 by  United States, Switzerland, Canada and India respectively;  TN/TE/W/26 by 
Japan;  TN/TE/W/28 by Hong Kong, China;  TN/TE/W/29 by Ma laysia;  and TN/TE/W/31 by European Communities.  For 
a complete list of Proposals under Pa ragraph 31 (i), see Annex III. 
60 TN/TE/W/40 and TN/TE/W/45 and TN/TE/W/28  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 21 
 
 
  93. At the July 2006 meeting, the CTESS consid ered a further proposal by the EC which 
suggested an outcome under Paragraph 31(i) in th e form of a ministerial decision on trade and 
environment.  This submission proposed, inter alia, to establish core principles to govern the 
relationship between MEAs and WTO rules, and also set out procedures to guide WTO bodies and dispute settlement panels in their c onsideration of environmental issues.
61  A number of delegations 
raised questions as to whether the proposal was with in the scope of the mandate, which they noted 
was circumscribed to the relationship between exis ting WTO rules and specific trade obligations set 
out in MEAs.  Several delegations noted that th ey wished to study in more detail the legal 
implications of such a proposal in light of rules and procedures under existing WTO agreements. 
(b) Paragraph 31 (ii) 
94. With respect to information exchange, the proposals tabled by Members have explored how 
existing practices can be complemented or further improved upon by other forms of cooperation.  It 
has been suggested that some of  the existing mechanisms already in place to facilitate information 
exchange between the WTO, UNEP and MEAs coul d be formalized or further consolidated.62 
Delegations had available to them a note by the Secretariat entitled "Existing Forms of Cooperation 
and Information Exchange between UNEP/MEAs and the WTO".63  A number of delegations 
suggested that the ideas developed by the CTESS on how to further MEA-WTO Secretariat 
cooperation and information exchange (contained in document TN/TE/7) be explored in greater detail. 
95. Suggestions have also been put forward regarding the granting of observer status to MEA 
secretariats in relevant WTO committees.  Refere nces have been made in the discussions to the 
overall situation on observer status in the General Co uncil.  At the same time, some delegations have 
suggested indicative questions or criteria that coul d guide WTO committees in their consideration of 
requests for observer status from MEAs.  It was s uggested that these could build on existing criteria 
for the granting of observer status to inte rnational intergovernmental organizations.  While several 
delegations have argued that the outcome of th e General Council and TNC deliberations on this 
matter must be awaited, others have stated that the CTESS has an important role to play.  For them, 
the mandate was only designed to deal with environm ental issues and called for a de-linking of this 
part of the mandate from the broader question of observer status in WTO.  At the 6-7 July 2006 meeting, Members discussed a new submission by the European Community under Paragraph 31(ii), 
which proposed to make information exchange  between WTO and MEA secretariats a formal, 
institutionalized feature of WTO work, and which al so set out general conditions to facilitate the 
granting of observer status to MEAs in the CTE as well as in other WTO committees.
64 
(c) Paragraph 31 (iii) 
96. Several submissions made by delegations ha ve been discussed in the Committee, following 
different approaches.  Some delegations have identif ied specific products that they would like to be 
considered in the context of the negotiations.  In total, nine lists of environmental goods have been 
submitted by delegations, and are now before the Committee.65 
97. An alternative approach, referred to as the "e nvironmental project approach" was proposed by 
India.66  Under this approach, Members would identify,  at the national level, the environmental goods 
                                                      
61 TN/TE/W/68 
  62 TN/TE/5 by United States, TN/TE/W/15 by Eur opean Community and TN /TE/W/30 by Switzerland 
63 TN/TE/S/2/Rev.1 
64 TN/TE/W/66 
65 Canada (TN/TE/W/50/Rev.1), Chinese Taipei (TN/TE/ W/44 and Corr.1), European Community (TN/TE/W/47 
and Add.1), Korea (TN/TE/W/48), New Zealand (TN/TE/W/49/Rev.2), Qatar(TN /TE/W/24 and 33), Japan (TN/TE/W/17 
and Corr.1), Switzerland (TN/TE/W/57 and Corr. 1) and United Stat es (TN/TE/W/52).  
66 TN/TE/W/51 and 54 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 22  
 
  and services that they wish to liberalize for the purpose of environmental projects.  Such projects, 
aimed at meeting national environmental objectives,  would be subject to approval by a Designated 
National Authority (DNA).  The goods and services included in the approved project would qualify 
for specified concessions for the duration of the project.  The broad criteria for selecting these "environmental projects" could be agreed upon in the CTESS.  
98. An "Integrated Approach" was presented by Arge ntina in an attempt to reconcile elements 
from the previous two approaches.
67  In order to benefit from liberalization under Paragraph 31(iii), 
the goods would have to be included in one of the environmental project categories to be identified by 
the CTESS.  The application of tariff and non-ta riff concessions granted by the importing Member 
would cover the period of project implementation. 
99. Some Members have also adva nced ideas on the possible structure of an environmental goods 
list by suggesting the development of a "living list" th at could be updated in future to incorporate new 
products, so as to reflect the reality of the evol ution of environmental goods as well as technological 
change.68  Another proposal discussed suggested the crea tion of two lists, a core and a complementary 
list, involving different sets of commitments.69 
100. A number of developing country Members have emphasized the need to pursue the 
consideration of alternative approaches to the lists  to address the mandate.  Some further explanation 
was provided at the July 2006 meeting on the environmental project approach, based on a further submission on the subject by India.
70  New ideas were also put forward by developing country 
Members on criteria that could guide discussions on product coverage for environmental goods.  
Several developing country participants indicated that they were net importers of environmental 
goods, and that the mandate would need to addr ess their objectives as well, including on technology 
transfer and on their enhanced international competitiveness. 
101. In the context of the technical discussions held from April to June 2006, Members have 
engaged in an examination of the wide range of products put forward as environmental goods.  This 
process has allowed for a more focused debate on the potential environmental and developmental 
benefits of these products.  Questions were raised re garding the application of different parameters to 
some of the products within the relevant categories,  and how such parameters  could help define the 
scope of environmental goods.  It was noted that  the parameters applied in the examination of 
products and systems may not always reflect the e nvironmental and developmental priorities of all 
Members.  The parameters used in the discussion included "single environm ental end-use", "clear 
environmental use or benefit", "predominant enviro nmental end-use" and "otherwise environmentally 
beneficial".  The discussions have revealed that a majority of the products proposed have dual or 
multiple uses.  Several delegations reiterated their concerns regarding the designation of multiple use 
products as environmental goods. 
102. Some Members have also referred in the course of Paragraph 31 (iii) discussions to the cross-
cutting issues of non-tariff barriers, transfer of t echnology and the linkage of environmental goods to 
services as important questions to address in the context of these discussions. 
103. Moreover, a number of specific questions were ra ised with regard to classification under the 
Harmonized System and the use of ex outs to iden tify goods that may qualify as environmental for the 
purpose of the negotiations.  It was noted that many  of the products that could potentially qualify as 
environmental goods were not described at the 6-di git level under the HS and could therefore require 
                                                      
67 TN/TE/W/62 
68 For instance, by New Zealand (TN/TE/W/49) 
69 TN/TE/W/38 by US 
70 TN/TE/W/60  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 23 
 
 
  the use of a narrower product description or ex-out.  Some of the difficulties highlighted related to the 
fact that the HS was not based on the criterion of end- use.  Classification issues were also raised with 
respect to products traded as part of a system or an entire plant.  Following the technical discussions 
revised lists were presented by Canada and New Zealand.71 
4. Possible Benefits for the Environment and Contribution to Sustainable Development 
104. The fulfillment of the mandate under Paragra ph 31 (i) and (ii) would enhance mutual 
supportiveness of trade and the environment.  Reaching a balanced result to negotiations under 
Paragraph 31 (iii) mandate would be  a triple-win outcome that c ould deliver benefits from the 
perspectives of trade, the environment and development. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
71 TN/TE/W/50/Rev.1 and TN/TE/W/46/Rev.1 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 24  
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
Documents Submitted by Members Containing  a Reference to Environmental Goods 
in the Context of the NAMA Negotiations 
 
Participant Document Symbol Title Date 
European 
Communities TN/MA/W/1 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 24 June 2002 
United States TN/MA/W/3 Negotiations on Environmental 
Goods 3 July 2002 
Japan TN/MA/W/5 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 5 August 2002 
Korea TN/MA/W/6 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 5 August 2002 
Korea TN/MA/W/6/Add.1 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 7 January 2003 
Norway TN/MA/W/7 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 4 September 2002  
Singapore TN/MA/W/8 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 10 September 2002 
Canada TN/MA/W/9 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 15 October 2002 
India TN/MA/W/10 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 22 October 2002 
India TN/MA/W/10/Add.1 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 8 January 2003 
European 
Communities TN/MA/W/11 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 31 October 2002 
European 
Communities TN/MA/W/11/Add.2 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 1 April 2003 
Mexico TN/MA/W/13 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 12 November 2002 
Japan TN/MA/W/15 + Corr.1 
TN/TE/W/17 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 20 November 2002 
Switzerland TN/MA/W/16 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 28 November 2002 
Chile TN/MA/W/17 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 2 December 2002 
United States TN/MA/W/18/Add.4 
TN/TE/W/34 Liberalizing Environmental 
Goods in the WTO:  Approaching 
the Definition Issue-  Paragraph 31 (iii) 19 June 2003 
United States TN/MA/W/18/Add.5 
TN/TE/W/38 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products: U.S. 
Contribution on an Environmental Goods Modality - Addendum 07 July 2003 
United States TN/MA/W/18/Add.7 
TN/TE/W/52 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products: Initial list 
of environmental goods 4 July 2005 
MERCOSUR TN/MA/W/23 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 15 January 2003 
Qatar TN/MA/W/24 + Corr.1 
TN/TE/W/19 + Corr.1 Negotiations on environmental 
goods:  efficient, lower-carbon 
and pollutant-emitting fuels and 
technologies – Paragraph (iii) 28 January 2003  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Participant Document Symbol Title Date 
Thailand TN/MA/W/26 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 17 February 2003 
Ghana; Kenya; 
Nigeria; Tanzania; 
Uganda; Zambia and 
Zimbabwe TN/MA/W/27 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 18 February 2003 
Bolivia TN/MA/W/28 Negotiating group on market 
access for Non-Agricultural 
products 28 February 2003 
Qatar TN/MA/W/33 
TN/TE/W/27 Harmonized System (HS) 
Classification Codes Of Gas-Related Goods - Paragraph 31 (iii) 25 April 2003 
Ghana; Kenya; 
Madagascar; 
Mauritius; Nigeria; 
Rwanda; Tanzania; 
Tunisia; Uganda; Zambia and 
Zimbabwe TN/MA/W/40 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products – Joint 
statement on Draft Elements of 
Modalities for Negotiations on 
Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products 11 August 2003 
Turkey TN/MA/W/41 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products 12 August 2003 
Canada, European 
Communities, New 
Zealand, Norway, 
Singapore, Switzerland and 
United States TN/MA/W/70 
TN/TE/W/65 Market Access for Environmental 
Goods 9 May 2006 
Argentina, 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, 
Egypt, India, 
Indonesia, Namibia, Philippines, South 
Africa and Tunisia JOB(06)/194 Market Access for Non-
Agricultural products – Comments by the NAMA 11 
Group of Developing Countries 19 June 2006 
Argentina TN/MA/W/77 
(Circulated previously as 
TN/TE/W/62) Integrated Proposal on 
Environmental Goods for 
Development 26 June 2006 
 
List of Documents Prepared by the Secretariat on Environmental Goods in the context of the 
Negotiating Group on Market Access 
 
Document Symbol Title Date 
TN/MA/7 
WT/CTE/GEN/9 Committee on Trade and 
Environment - Negotiating Group on Market Access - Environmental 
Aspects of the Negotiations on 
Market Access - Statement by Mrs. 
Carmen Luz Guarda at the Regular 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 14 February 
2003 21 February 2003 
TN/MA/S/6 List of  environmental goods 7 October 2002 
TN/MA/S/8 Trade in environm ental goods 2 December 2002 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 26  
 
  ANNEX II 
 
Fisheries Subsidies Proposals Submitted by Participants within the Framework  
of the Negotiating Group on Rules 
 
(2002-2006) 
 
 
Participant Proposal Symbol 
Australia, Chile, Ecuador, 
Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, 
Philippines, and the United 
States  The Doha Mandate to Address 
Fisheries Subsidies: Issues TN/RL/W/3 
China Proposal from People's 
Republic of China on Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/W/9 
Japan Japan's Basic Position on 
Fisheries Subsidies Issue TN/RL/W/11 
New Zealand Fisheries Subsidies-Limitations 
of Existing Subsidies 
Disciplines TN/RL/W/12 
Korea Korea's Views on the Doha 
Development Agenda 
Discussions on Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/W/17 
United States Adverse Trade and 
Conservation Effects of 
Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W/21 
Japan Japan's Contribution to 
Discussion on Fisheries 
Subsidies Issue TN/RL/W/52 
Argentina, Chile, Iceland, 
New Zealand, Norway, and 
Peru Subsidies in the Fisheries 
Sector: Possible Categorisations TN/RL/W/58 
Korea Korea’s Views on the 
Suggested Categorization of 
Fishery Subsidies TN/RL/W/69 
United States Possible Approaches to 
Improved Disciplines on 
Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W/77 
  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Participant Proposal Symbol 
European Communities 
 Submission of the European 
Communities to the Negotiating 
Group on Rules- Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/W/82 
Japan Questions from Japan 
Concerning Papers on the 
Fisheries Subsidies Issue TN/RL/W/84 
China Comments from the People's 
Republic of China on the 
United States Proposal on 
Fisheries Subsidies 
(TN/RL/W/77) TN/RL/W88 
Chile Possible Approaches to 
Improved  disciplines on 
Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W115 
Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, 
Fiji Islands, Guyana, the 
Maldives, Papua New Guinea, 
Solomon Islands, St Kitts and 
Nevis Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W/136 
New Zealand Fisheries Subsidies: 
Overcapacity and 
Overexploitation TN/RL/W154 
Japan Fisheries Subsidies: Proposed 
Structure of the Discussion TN/RL/W159 
Korea Questions and Comments from 
Korea on New Zealand's 
Communication on Fisheries 
Subsidies (TN/RL/W/154) TN/RL/W/160 
New Zealand Fisheries Subsidies: UNEP 
Workshop on Fisheries 
Subsidies and Sustainable 
Fisheries Management TN/RL/W/161 
Japan Proposal on Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W/164 
Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, 
New Zealand, Peru, 
Philippines Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W/166 WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 28  
 
  Participant Proposal Symbol 
United States Additional views on the 
structure of the fisheries 
subsidies negotiations TN/RL/W/169 
Japan; Korea; and the 
Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu Contribution to the Discussion 
on the Framework for the 
Disciplines on the Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/W/172 
Brazil Contribution to the Discussion 
on the Framework for 
Disciplines on Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/W/176 
European Communities Fisheries Subsidies TN/RL/W/178 
New Zealand Fisheries Subsidies to 
Management Services TN/RL/GEN/36 
European Communities  IV. Paper on Fisheries TN/RL/GEN/39 
United States Fisheries Subsidies:  Programs 
for Decommissioning of 
Vessels and License Retirement TN/RL/GEN/41 
Japan IUU Fishing And Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/GEN/47 
Australia, Ecuador & New 
Zealand Contribution to the Discussion 
on the Framework for 
Disciplines on Fisheries 
Subsidies - Aquaculture TN/RL/GEN/54 
Brazil Contribution to the Discussion 
on the Framework for 
Disciplines on Fisheries 
Subsidies TN/RL/GEN/56 
Antigua & Barbuda, 
Barbados, Dominican 
Republic, Fiji; Grenada, 
Guyana, Jamaica; Papua New 
Guinea; St. Kitts & Nevis, St. 
Lucia, Solomon Islands, and 
Trinidad & Tobago WTO Fisheries Subsidies 
Disciplines – Architecture on 
Fisheries Subsidies Disciplines TN/RL/GEN/57/Rev.2 
  WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 29 
 
 
  ANNEX III 
 
Proposals Submitted by Participants  under Paragraph 31 Negotiations  
 
A. PARAGRAPH 31 (GENERAL ) 
Symbol Date Subject/Title 
TN/TE/W/39 
 24 March 2004 
 The Relationship between WTO Rules and MEAs in the Context 
of the Global Governance System - Submission by the European Communities  – Paragraph 31 
 
B. PARAGRAPH 31 (I) 
Symbol Date Subject/Title 
TN/TE/W/1 21 March 2002 Multilateral E nvironmental Agreements (MEAs):  
Implementation of the Doha De velopment Agenda – Submission 
by the European Communities   
TN/TE/W/2 23 May 2002 Mandate Under Paragr aph 31(i) of the Doha Declaration on 
Trade and Environment - Submission by Argentina  
TN/TE/W/3 - 
WT/COMTD/W/99 - WT/CTE/W/ 
208 3 June 2002 Sustainability Impact Assessment - Submission by  the 
European Communities  
TN/TE/W/4 6 June 2002 Multilateral E nvironmental Agreements (MEAs): 
Implementation of the Doha Development Agenda - Submission 
by Switzerland   
TN/TE/W/7 7 June 2002 Suggested Procedure for the Negotiations under Paragraph 31(i) 
of the Doha Declaration - Submission by Australia   
TN/TE/W/9 - 
WT/CTE/W/ 215 
 17 Sept. 2002 Energy Taxation, Subsidies and Incentives in OECD Countries 
and their Economic and Trade Implications on Developing 
Countries, in Particular Developing Oil Producing and Exporting 
Countries - Submission by  Saudi Arabia  
TN/TE/W/10 2 Oct. 2002 The Relationship between Existing WTO Rules and Specific 
Trade Obligations Set Out in Multilateral Environmental 
Agreements (MEAs) - Submission by Japan   
TN/TE/W/11 2 Oct. 2002 Contribution on Para graph 31(1) of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration - Submission by the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu   
TN/TE/W/12 3 Oct. 2002 Negotiations under Para graph 31(i) of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration - Submission by New Zealand  
TN/TE/W/13 8 Oct. 2002 Specific Trade Obligations (STOs) -  Submission by the 
Republic of Korea  
TN/TE/W/16 5 Nov. 2002 Statement by Switzerland  at the CTE Special Session 
on 10 October 2002  
TN/TE/W/20 10 Feb. 2003 Sub-Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Declaration - Submission by 
the United States  
TN/TE/W/21 10 Feb. 2003 Meeting of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Environment, 12-13 February 2003 – Submission by 
Switzerland   WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 30  
 
  Symbol Date Subject/Title 
TN/TE/W/22 10 Feb. 2003 Discussion Paper on the Concept of Specific Trade Obligations 
(STOs) - Submission by Canada   
TN/TE/W/23 20 Feb. 2003 Relationship between Specific Trade Obligations Set Out in 
MEAs and WTO Rules - Submission by India   
TN/TE/W/24 20 Feb. 2003 Statement by Hong Kong, China  at the meeting of the 
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 12-13 February 2003  
TN/TE/W/25 20 Feb. 2003 Contribution by Norway  based on its intervention at the 
Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment 
of 12-13 February 2003 
TN/TE/W/26 25 April 2003 The Relationship between WTO Rules and Specific Trade 
Obligations Set Out in MEAs - Submission by Japan   
TN/TE/W/26/
Corr.1 5 June 2005 The Relationship between WTO Rules and Specific Trade 
Obligations Set Out in MEAs – Submission by Japan – 
Corrigendum 
TN/TE/W/28 30 April 2003 Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Declaration - Specific Trade 
Obligations - Set Out in Multilate ral Environmental Agreements 
- Implementation of Cites in Hong Kong, China - Submission by 
Hong Kong, China  
TN/TE/W/29 30 April 2003 Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration - 
Submission by Malaysia   
TN/TE/W/31 14 May 2003 The Relationship be tween MEAs and WTO Agreements: “Set 
Out in MEAs” - Submission by the European Communities    
TN/TE/W/32 13 May 2003 Statement by Switzerland  at the Meeting of the Special Session 
of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 1-2 May 2003  
TN/TE/W/35 27 June 2003 Identification of  Multilateral Environmental Agreements 
(MEAs) and Specific Trade Obligations (STOS) - Submission by China 
 
TN/TE/W/35/Rev.1  3 July 2003 Identification of Multila teral Environmental Agreements 
(MEAs) and Specific Trade Obligations (STOS) - Submission by China  - Revision 
TN/TE/W/36 
 3 July 2003 The Relationship between WTO Rules and “Specific Trade 
Obligations Set Out in MEAs” - Submission by the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu   
TN/TE/W/37 7 July 2003 APEC Trade and Environment Workshop - 19-20 May 2003, 
Bangkok  - Submission by  Australia  
TN/TE/W/40 21 June 2004 Sub-Pa ragraph 31(i) of the Doha Declaration - Submission by 
the United States  
TN/TE/W/41 
 18 June 2004 
 Comments on "The Relationship Between WTO Rules and MEAs 
in the Context of the Global Governance System " (TN/TE/W/39)  
Submission by  the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
TN/TE/W/43 25 Aug. 2004 The Relationship between Existing WTO Rules and Specific 
Trade Obligations (STO S) Set Out in Multilateral Environmental 
Agreements (MEA S) - Statement by Colombia  in the Committee 
on Trade and Environment Special Session at its Meeting of 
22 June 2004 
TN/TE/W/45  12 Oct. 2004 Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha  Declaration -Australia’s experience 
- Submission by Australia   WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Symbol Date Subject/Title 
TN/TE/W/53 4 July 2005 
 Putting MEA/WTO Governance into Practice:  the EC’s 
Experience in the Negotiation and Implementation of MEAs – Submission by the European Communities  
TN/TE/W/58 6 July 2005 
 The Relationship between Existing WTO Rules and Specific 
Trade Obligations (STOs) Set Out in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs): a Swiss Perspective on National Experiences and Criteria Used in the Negotiation and 
Implementation of MEAS - Submission by Switzerland  
TN/TE/W/61 10 October 2005 
 The Relationship between WTO Rules and MEAS - Submission 
by Switzerland  
TN/TE/W/68 30 June 2006 Proposal for a Decision of the Ministerial Conference on Trade 
and Environment - Submission by the European Communities  
C. PARAGRAPH 31 (II) 
Symbol Date Subject/Title 
TN/TE/W/5 6 June 2002 Contribution of the United States  on paragraph 31(ii) of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration  
TN/TE/W/15 17 Oct. 2002  MEAs:  Inform ation Exchange and Observer Status – 
Submission by the European Communities   
TN/TE/W/30 30 April 2003 Information Excha nge and Observer Status - Submission by 
Switzerland   
TN/TE/W/66 15 May 2006 Continued Work under Paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha Declaration 
– Submission by the European Communities  
 
D. PARAGRAPH 31 (III) 
Symbol  Date  Subject/Title  
TN/TE/W/6 6 June 2002 Environm ental Goods - Submission by New Zealand   
TN/TE/W/8 9 July 2002 Negotiations on En vironmental Goods - Submission by the 
United States   
TN/TE/W/14 9 Oct. 2002 Environmental Goods - Submission by the State of Qatar   
TN/TE/W/17 20 Nov. 2002 Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products - Submission by 
Japan  
TN/TE/W/17 / 
Corr.1 25 Nov.2002 Market Access for Non-Ag ricultural Products - Submission by 
Japan   
TN/TE/W/19 
TN/MA/W/24 28 Jan. 2003  Negotiations on Environmental Goods:  Efficient, Lower-
Carbon and Pollutant-Emitting Fuels and Technologies - 
Submission by the State of  Qatar   
TN/TE/W/19/ 
Corr.1 TN/MA/W/24/Corr.1 21 Feb. 2003 Negotiations on Environmental Goods:  Efficient, Lower-
Carbon and Pollutant-Emitting Fuels and Technologies - Submission by the State of  Qatar  - Corrigendum 
TN/TE/W/27 
TN/MA/W/33 25 April 2003 Harmonized System (HS) Classification Codes of Gas-Related 
Goods - Submission by the State of  Qatar   
TN/TE/W/33 
WT/CTE/W/ 
228 21 May 2003 OECD Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment:  
Environmental Goods:  A Comparison of the APEC and OECD 
lists - Information Note by the OECD Secretariat  WT/CTE/W/243 
Page 32  
 
  Symbol  Date  Subject/Title  
TN/TE/W/34 
TN/MA/W/18/Add.4 19 June 2003 Liberalizing Environmenta l Goods in the WTO:  Approaching 
the Definition Issue - Submission by the United States   
TN/TE/W/38 
TN/MA/W/ 18/Add.5 7 July 2003 United States  Contribution on an Environmental Goods 
Modality 
TN/TE/W/42  6 July 2004 
 Statement by China  on Environmental Goods at the Committee 
on Trade and Environment Special Session (CTESS) Meeting of 22 June 2004  
TN/TE/W/44 7 Oct. 2004 
 Proposed Initial List of Environmental Goods - Submission by 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, 
and Matsu  
TN/TE/W/44/ 
Corr.1 3 Dec. 2004 
 Proposed Initial List of Environmental Goods - Submission by 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, 
and Matsu  - Corrigendum 
 
TN/TE/W/46  10 February 
2005 Environmental Goods - Submission by New Zealand  
TN/TE/W/47 
 17 February 
2005 
 Market Access for Environmental Goods - Communication from 
the European Communities  
TN/TE/W/47/ 
Add.1 
 27 June 2005 
 Market Access for Environmental Goods - Communication from 
the European Communities – Addendum 
TN/TE/W/48 
 18 February 
2005 
 Initial List of Environmental Goods Proposed - Submission by 
the Republic of Korea  
TN/TE/W/49 
 26 May 2005 
 Environmental Goods - Submission by New Zealand  
TN/TE/W/49/ 
Suppl.1  16 June 2005 Environmental Goods - Su bmission by New Zealand - Statement 
by New Zealand  at the CTESS Informal Meeting 
of 10 June 2005 – Supplement 
TN/TE/W/49/ Rev.1  12 October 
2005 Revised New Zealand Provisional List of Environmental Goods 
- Submission by New Zealand – Revision 
TN/TE/W/50 
 2 June 2005 
 Canada's Initial List of Environmental Goods - Submission by 
Canada  
TN/TE/W/50/ 
Suppl.1 
 1 July 2005 
 Canada's Initial List of Environmental Goods - Submission by 
Canada  - Statement by Canada at the CTESS Informal Meeting 
of 10 June 2005 – Supplement 
TN/TE/W/51 
 3 June 2005 
 An Alternative Approach for Negotiations under 
Paragraph 31(iii) - Submission by India  
TN/TE/W/52 
 4 July 2005 Initial List of Environmental Goods - Submission by the 
United States   WT/CTE/W/243 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Symbol  Date  Subject/Title  
TN/TE/W/54 
 4 July 2005 Structural Dimensions of the Environmental Project Approach - 
Submission by India  
TN/TE/W/55 
 5 July 2005 
 Environmental Goods - Communication from the Republic of 
Cuba   
TN/TE/W/56 
 5 July 2005 
 EC Submission on Environmental Goods - Submission by the 
European Communities  
 
TN/TE/W/57 6 July 2005 Environmental Goods – Submission by Switzerland  
TN/TE/W/57/ 
Corr.1 14 September 
2005 Environmental Goods - Submission by Switzerland – 
Corrigendum 
TN/TE/W/59 8 July 2005 Environmental G oods for Development - Submission by Brazil  
TN/TE/W/60 19 September 
2005 Procedural and Technical Aspects of the Environmental Project 
Approach – Submission by India  
 
TN/TE/W/62 14 October 
2005 Integrated Proposal on Environmental Goods for Development - 
Submission by Argentina  
TN/TE/W/64 20 February 
2006 Continued Work Under Para graph 31(iii) of the Doha 
Declaration - Submission by the United States  
TN/MA/W/70 
TN/TE/W/65 9 May 2006 Market Access for Envi ronmental Goods - Communication from 
Canada, European Communities, New Zealand, Norway, 
Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States  
TN/TE/W/67 13 June 2006 Envi ronmental Project Approach:  Compatibility and Criteria - 
Submission by  India  
TN/TE/W/69 30 June 2006 The Development Dimension as an Integral Part of the 
Negotiations on Environmental Goods:  the Principle of Special 
and Differential Treatment - Communication from the Republic 
of Cuba  
 
     
__________