WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/W/71 
30 April 2007 
 
 (07-1772) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session Original:   English 
 
 
 
CONTINUED WORK UNDER PARAGRAPH 31(II) 
OF THE DOHA MINIST ERIAL DECLARATION 
 
Submission from Canada and New Zealand   
 
Paragraph 31(ii)  
   The following communication, dated 30 April 2007,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Canada and New Zealand. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Paragraph 31(ii) instructs the Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session 
(CTESS) to negotiate: "procedures for regular inform ation exchange between MEA secretariats and 
the relevant WTO committees, and the criteria for the granting of observer status."  
2. Canada and New Zealand wish to thank the United States (TN/TE/W/70) and the European 
Communities (TN/TE/W/66) for their recent contributions reinvigorating discussions on  Paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  These efforts, together with the earlier 
contribution from Switzerland (TN/TE/W/30), the S ecretariat’s synthesis document (JOB(07)/2) and 
the many valuable exchanges with Members in th e CTESS suggest that there is broad convergence on 
the way forward for this item.   
3. Drawing upon the valuable contributions to date, including the most recent informal 
exchanges at the CTESS on 30 March 2007, Canada a nd New Zealand are submitting this paper with 
a view to advancing CTESS negotiations.  Specifically , this submission suggests that broad agreement 
has been achieved on the key elements of this impo rtant part of the mandate: (i) that procedures for 
information exchange between MEA secretariats and WTO bodies become a formal, institutionalized 
feature of WTO work; and (ii) that flexible crite ria should be advanced to facilitate granting MEAs 
observer status in WTO bodies.  
I. PROCEDURES FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE  
4. Canada and New Zealand welcome the suggesti ons put forward by Switzerland, the US and 
the EC concerning procedures for information excha nge between MEA secretariats and the WTO.  It 
is our sense that there is convergence on the need  for information exchanges to become a formal, 
institutionalized feature of the WTO's work. 
5. We welcome the suggestion that procedures fo r information exchanges should not be overly 
detailed and should remain flexible.  We propose therefore that annual meetings - information 
sessions - form the central feature of regular in formation exchanges.  These information sessions 
would be organized by the WTO secretariat, and hosted by the Committee on Trade and Environment TN/TE/W/71 
Page 2  
 
  (CTE), in concert with other WTO bodies according to  the subject matter or theme chosen in a given 
year.  
6. We agree that Members should also establish a general structure for conducting future 
information sessions and we find the suggestions made  to date useful and constructive.  Information 
exchanges should promote the mutual supportivenes s of trade and the environment and improved 
coherence nationally and internationally.  Bringing together trade officials and environment officials 
in a coordinated fashion through information excha nges and events will help in developing a more 
integrated approach at the domestic level.  This cannot replace the work being undertaken 
domestically to improve coherence between these sets  of officials, but it can helpfully complement 
that process.  The co-sponsors believe that info rmation sessions should seek to attract the broadest 
possible representation from within the WTO bodies a nd among MEAs relevant to the topic identified 
for the given session.  It will also be important to draw upon the expertise within UNEP and other UN agencies involved in trade and environment issues.  Ta king together the suggestions made by others to 
date, we would suggest that the following key elements should be included when establishing 
procedures for information exchanges between the WTO and MEAs: 
(a) Information sessions should be held regularly, perhaps once a year initially, and 
timed strategically to coincide with MEA or WTO meetings according to the theme 
of the particular information session.  
(b) Members should take stock of this practi ce after an appropriate period of time, 
perhaps after three years, to  assess the utility of this formalisation of the information 
exchange process.  During such a stock-taking exercise, Members could consider, 
inter alia , whether it is desirable to hold information sessions more or less often. 
(c) The topics or themes for the information sessions should be identified jointly by 
relevant WTO bodies and MEAs. Relevant background papers should be prepared 
and distributed in advance by the WTO and MEA secretariats.  Participation in such information sessions should include officials from WTO Member governments, 
including those that regularly attend the CTE and other relevant WTO bodies, MEA 
secretariats and MEA delegates, and the WTO Secretariat.  Procedures should be flexible enough to allow for participation by other organizations or groups as 
appropriate and according to the themes or topics to be addressed. 
(d) Annotated agendas and background papers on specific issues should be provided for 
the meetings. 
(e) Regarding on-going document exchanges, ac cess to de-restricted documents should 
be facilitated in accordance with the ne wly approved General Council rules on 
document de-restriction. 
(f) The use of the Internet as the instrument of choice to enhance information exchange 
between the WTO, UNEP and MEAs should be  encouraged.  Sharing of information 
in this manner can be determined on an ad hoc basis.  
(g) The WTO Secretariat could index documentation it has received from MEAs for the 
information of WTO Members.  For exampl e, the WTO Secretariat could issue a list 
of MEA-related reports or documentation that it has received on an annual basis.  
And for its part, an MEA Secretariat coul d be invited to prepare an index of 
documents it has received from the WTO Secretariat in order to facilitate access to 
such documents by MEA delegates and secretariat staff.  TN/TE/W/71 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (h) Information sessions and document sharing should be reciprocal, involving a  
two-way flow of information so that the WTO Members and secretariats learn about MEA activities and rules that may have imp lications for international trade, while 
MEA secretariats and delegates become better apprised of a trade perspective and issues arising under the WTO Agreements.  
(i) Other mechanisms for collaboration shoul d be considered and included in the 
proposed procedures and tested on an on-going basis, including ways and means of incorporating technical assistance activ ities and capacity building elements for 
developing country Members to foster their own internal, national trade and environment coordination processes.   
II. CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
7. Canada and New Zealand welcome the sugges tions by Switzerland, the US and the EC 
concerning criteria for granting WTO observer stat us to multilateral environmental agreements 
(MEAs).  It is the view of the co-sponsors that granting observer status to MEAs in the WTO can 
encourage cooperation at the international leve l and complement and fa cilitate national-level 
coordination and cooperation between trade officials and environment officials. 
8. There has also been some discussion regard ing a recent proposal to develop "indicative 
questions" to assist the CTE and other WTO bodies to  decide whether observership should be granted 
to a particular MEA.  It is our understanding th at this recommendation underscored broad support for 
a flexible approach to the decision-making pro cess.  We view the phrase "indicative questions" as 
complementary to the concept of "criteria."  At  the same time, Ministers directed the CTESS to 
develop criteria
 to grant observership status.  The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines criteria 
as: "a principle or standard by which someth ing may be judged or decided."  Canada and  
New Zealand agree that a flexible approach is requi red for granting observer status to MEAs, and that 
the criteria should not be so inflexible as to make  it more difficult than is currently the case for an 
MEA secretariat to gain observership to a releva nt WTO body.  This approach should be flexible 
enough to allow new MEAs to apply for observer status in the future. 
9. As the US has noted in its submission, it is also important to underscore that the mandate 
given to the CTESS under Paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha  Declaration is to develop criteria for granting 
observer status for relevant MEA secretariats in WTO bodies. It does not touch on the more general 
issue of observer status in the WTO.  That r esponsibility rests exclusively with the WTO General 
Council.  
10. In this context, the co-sponsors would like to emphasize the importance and usefulness of 
Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for the Sessions of  the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the 
General Council (WT/L/161).  These should guide and inform our discussions and the development of 
criteria to grant observer status to relevant ME A secretariats.  Canada and New Zealand recommend 
the following non-exhaustive set of criteria (s upplemented by indicative questions) to aid WTO 
bodies in making reasoned decisions on a case-by-case basis (i.e., WTO body-by-body and MEA-by-
MEA) regarding MEA observer status, using Annex 3 of the WTO Rules of Procedure as their point 
of departure:  
(a) Relevance :  Is the MEA’s work relevant to the WTO body’s work and vice-versa?  
Does the MEA contain commitments that have  potential implications for international 
trade?  For example, does the MEA contain specific trade obligations, or more 
general trade-related measures?   TN/TE/W/71 
Page 4  
 
  (b) Observer elsewhere :  Is the MEA currently an observer to other WTO bodies, and if 
so, what is the extent of the MEA’s par ticipation in meetings of that body?   
For example, has the WTO Secretariat and the MEA Secretariat worked together on 
reports or to plan workshops, capacity bu ilding events, or seminars?  For new MEAs 
applying for observership, is there the potential or intention for it to work with the 
WTO Secretariat, including, inter alia , on workshops, reports, capacity building 
events, or seminars?  
(c) Representativeness :  Does the MEA reflect the broad membership of the WTO?  
For example, does the organization repr esent a geographical balance of WTO 
membership? 
(d) Reciprocity :  Will there be a reciprocal relationship between the MEA and the WTO 
body with respect to access to proceedings, documents, and other aspects of observer 
status?  
11. These criteria, supplemented by indicative questions are by no means exhaustive, and should 
be augmented as appropriate by WTO bodies to he lp determine if a particular MEA has trade 
relevance in matters before that body.  
12. From a procedural perspective, the fo llowing elements should be considered:  
(a) The decision to grant observer status should be made on the basis of a written request 
and on a case-by-case basis for each request. 
(b) Decisions on the granting of observer status to MEAs in relevant WTO committees 
should fall to the relevant committee. 
(c) Observer status should be granted upon condition of full reciprocity. 
Which MEAs? 
 
13. The EC has suggested that 'core' MEAs, namely those that have participated in the previous 
informal information exchange sessions, should be gran ted observer status in the CTE.  We agree that 
such MEAs are likely to fulfil the criteria to be accorded observer status.  At the same time, however, 
and in keeping with the general WTO Rules of Pro cedure, we think that decisions on participation 
should be made by the body in question, following r eceipt of a written request from the relevant MEA 
secretariat that wishes to be granted observer status.  We consider that such an approach will help to 
avoid unnecessary debate on defining which organizati ons would constitute a ‘core’ set of MEAs.   
In this context, it may be useful to recall that th e following have all participated in CTE information 
sessions as described in TN/TE/S/2 at paragraph 11:   
• the Basel Convention on the Control of Tran sboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and 
their Disposal (Basel Convention),  
 
• the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),  
 
• the Convention for the Conservation of An tarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 
 
• the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), 
 
• the International Commission for the Co nservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT),  TN/TE/W/71 
 Page 5 
 
 
   
• the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF),  
 
• the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO),  
 
• the Montreal Protocol on Substances that De plete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol),  
 
• the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Inform ed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous 
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC), 
 
• the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), 
 
• the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 
 
• the United Nations Framework Conven tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 
 
• the United Nations Fish Stocks Ag reement (UN Fish Stocks), and  
 
• the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF).   
  14. Recognizing that the CBD, CITES, ICCAT, and UNFCCC, together with UNEP, have 
already been granted observer status in the CTE, th is would suggest that there are ten bodies that have 
worked with the CTE previously that may wish to  become observers.  As noted above, MEAs seeking 
observer status will need to put this requ est in writing to the CTE in due course.  
15. With respect to the CTESS, the co-sponsors agree with the suggestion to grant observer status 
for the remainder of the DDA negotiations to UNEP and the seven MEA secretariats that currently 
have ad hoc observer status.
1 At the same time, of c ourse, we recognise that this is not the same as 
"permanent observer status", given that  the WTO negotiations will soon conclude. 
III. CONCLUSION 
16. Canada and New Zealand are pleased to submit th is paper to help stimulate discussion at the 
3-4 May meeting of the CTESS.  We are encouraged by the positive discussions to date on this item, 
and look forward to a fruitful exchange. We reco mmend that the Chair of the CTESS indicate in his 
next report to the Trade Negotiations Committee that  we are near convergence on this item of our 
agenda and that we would welcome input from other WTO bodies, as appropriate, on specific points 
of agreement to date.  
17. In closing, we would like to note that recent discussions have also flagged the question of 
how to put into practice any agreement achieved on  this area of the mandate.  We would welcome 
suggestions from Members on this issue and we are prepared to undertak e the necessary work in 
concert with others that may wish to participate to adjust the proposal to meet  our collective desire to 
fulfil this part of our mandate.  
__________ 
 
                                                      
1 The Basel Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal Protocol on Su bstances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Rotterdam 
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in 
International Trade, the Stockholm Convention on Pe rsistent Organic Pollutants, and the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change.