RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/19 
8 August 2007 
 
 (07-3364) 
Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE NINETEE NTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
11-12 JUNE 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat
 
  
1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Sp ecial Session (CTESS) held its nineteenth 
meeting on 11-12 June 2007 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/3019. 
2. The following international organizations  were invited to participate as ad hoc  invitees:  the 
United Nations Environment Programme; the Unite d Nations Conference on Trade and Development; 
the World Customs Organization;  the Organisati on for Economic Co-operati on and Development;  
the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; the 
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Cons ent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals 
and Pesticides in International Trade;  and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants; the Convention on Biological Diversity;  the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 
the Ozone Layer;  and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 
3. The Chairman
 noted that no new submissions had been  presented under this agenda item.   
4. The representative of New Zealand  said her delegation was currently working and consulting 
with other delegations on a new paper under Paragraph 31(i) which addressed ideas outlined at the 
May meeting.1   
5. The Chairman  encouraged delegations to pursue the discussion of the different ideas put 
forward with a view to identifying aspects that coul d form part of an outcome under this mandate.   
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
6. The Chairman  recalled that a very useful exchange had taken place at the May meeting on a 
submission tabled by the delegati ons of Canada and New Zealand.2  Building on the sense of 
convergence arising from this proposal, the Chairman  had initiated a process of consultations on 
"Elements of a Draft Text under Paragraph 31(ii)".  These elements reflected Members' proposals as well as comments made by delegations in pr evious CTESS discussions both on procedures for 
                                                     
 
1 TN/TE/R/18. 
2 "Continued Work under Paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration", Submission from Canada and 
New Zealand, TN/TE/W/71, 30 April 2007. TN/TE/R/19 
Page 2  
 
  information exchange and criteria for the granting  of observer status to MEAs.  The Chairman 
reported that Members had made a good start in devel oping elements of a draft text under the mandate 
and that further consultations would be held ahead of the July meeting to make some further progress 
on the document.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31(III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
7. The Chairman
 noted that a non-paper had been circulated by the delegations of India and 
Argentina in document JOB(07)/77.3   
8. The representative of India  said that the integrated approach presented in the non-paper was 
an attempt to address some of the concerns raised  with respect to earlier proposals tabled in the 
CTESS.  India believed that the non-paper was an  important step forward towards achieving the 
objectives of the mandate, and could offer a starting point for finding convergence.  He noted that the 
non-paper was still work in progress, that the appr oach remained based on end-use and that earlier 
proposals by the co-sponsors, including the envi ronmental project approach, were not being 
substituted.4  The CTESS had spent considerable time trying to agree on a definition of 
"environmental goods".  In his view, the objective of the mandate was to improve and protect the 
environment, as well as to help developing country  Members meet their sustainable development 
goals.  He believed that a list of  environmental goods could not be the conclusion of the work under 
Paragraph 31(iii) and that the ma ndate could not result in an envi ronmental sectoral initiative under 
NAMA negotiations. 
9. India indicated that the non-paper focused on the identification of environmental activities 
that could be agreeable to Members, with a vi ew to achieving environmental and developmental 
goals.  Paragraph 3 of the non-pape r contained a reference to some of these activities, such as air 
pollution control, waste water management and soil conservation;  however, the list was only 
indicative.  In the co-sponsors' view, developi ng country Members could select some environmental 
activities, depending on their priorities, as subj ect to a possible special and differential (S&D) 
treatment.   
10. As a first step, it was proposed that Members negotiate and agree on a list of environmental 
activities.  Members could then submit a list of en tities engaged in such activities and notify it to the 
WTO.  The list of entities would not be a closed list and Members could add entities after notifying the WTO or remove entities from the list, if necess ary.  All goods imported by the notified entities for 
carrying out an agreed environmental activity woul d be granted preferential tariff treatment to be 
determined by Members.  Such preferential treatme nt could therefore extend to goods that might not 
be per se  environmental, such as office equipment and construction materials.   
11. The representative noted that the notificati on of both the activities and the entities carrying 
out the activities would provide a degree of certainty regarding the preference offered.  In India's 
view, this would be an effective way of ensuri ng that the goods actually traded were offered 
preferential access, and that goods receiving pref erential access were used  for an environmental 
purpose.  It was also suggested that Members co nsider some form of registration process for the 
environmental entities, as was commonly done fo r business enterprises in many countries.  The 
representative noted that the non-paper was not ove rly prescriptive on the mechanism employed to 
monitor environmental use, as it was expected that  Members would devise the mechanism best suited 
to their situation.  Moreover, developing country  Members could offer lower tariff concessions than 
developed country Members, in accordance with their priorities. 
                                                     
 
3 "Integrated Approach to Paragraph 31(iii)", Submission by Argentina and India, JOB(07)/77, 
6 June 2007. 
4 TN/TE/W/51, 54, 60, 62, 67.    TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 3 
 
 
  12. India recalled that one of the major concerns  expressed in earlier discussions was that goods 
used for environmental purposes were generally at the cutting edge of technology.  In the 
co-sponsors’ view, a truly environmental outcome involved free access by developing country Members to new environmental technologies.  In this regard, India drew Members' attention to 
Paragraph 37 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, which required Members to examine issues related 
to technology transfer.  The non-paper suggested that  the WTO Secretariat monitor such transfer of 
technology on the basis of Members' notifications and report periodically to the CTE.  Finally, he 
noted that the non-paper also addressed the issues of services and non-tariff barriers (NTBs).  India 
was prepared to discuss with other Members and de velop these ideas further in order to advance the 
integrated approach.   
13. The representative of Argentina
 said that his delegation had on many occasions stressed the 
importance of considering alternatives to the lis t approach, and that the non-paper offered a new 
possibility in this regard.  He drew Members' atte ntion to three key aspects of  the non-paper:  (i) it 
provided scope to further explore areas of conve rgence based on environmental activities;  (ii) it 
proposed to examine a list of activities rather than products, which was important from the 
perspective of developing country Members;  and ( iii) it incorporated the concept of a living list to 
reflect developments and changes with respect to environmental activities.  Argentina believed that 
the integrated approach could provide a way of m oving forward and obtaining a balanced result in the 
negotiations with respect to devel opment, environment and trade.   
14. The representative of Thailand  hoped that the new non-paper w ould help delegations agree on 
a common approach in order to advance the work  under Paragraph 31(iii).  Thailand sought some 
clarification from the co-sponsors with respect to the following points:  (i) how the public and private 
entities that had not yet been established or that were not included initially on the list of entities, 
would be treated and would be able to compete with the entities listed;  (ii) what would be the frequency of the review of the list of entities;  a nd (iii) how the work programme on NTBs mentioned 
in Paragraph 7 of the non-paper would be set up, i.e. who would be responsible for its 
implementation, and whether a list of pr oducts would have to be drawn up.   
15. The representative of Egypt
 said that the non-paper contained several positive elements, 
including the suggestion to identify environmental activities.  Egypt believed that it would contribute 
to the understanding of the CTESS mandate, which sought  to elaborate a holistic approach to trade 
liberalization of environmental goods and services.  He noted there was a certain parallelism between 
the reference to environmental activities in the non-paper and the environmental categories presented 
in the proponents' list.  In Egypt's view, c onvergence was possible on the identification of 
environmental activities that were important for development and the environment.  The 
representative stressed that the concerns of devel oping country Members would have to be the focus 
in this identification process.  Another positive elem ent was the reference to the issue of NTBs, which 
was of major importance to developing country Me mbers as they were developing their own domestic 
regulations and production capacity in many of the environmental activities discussed.  The issue was 
particularly complex because many of the envi ronmental activities were heavily regulated and 
subsidised.   
16. As the approach in the non-paper was based on end-use, it addressed the issue of product 
coverage in a more mainstreamed fashion.  In th is regard, he noted that the CTESS had encountered 
difficulties understanding how many of the propo sed industrial products could qualify as 
"environmental goods".  Moreover, the non-paper men tioned some development issues that had been 
raised by Members, including in relation to policy space.  The non-paper also covered the issue of 
services, which had not been given enough attention in  the CTESS;  he recalled that according to 
experts, environmental services constituted a large portion of trade in this area.  TN/TE/R/19 
Page 4  
 
  17. Egypt looked forward to further elaboration on the issues of capacity building and S&D 
treatment.  As many environmental issues transcende d Members' borders, he emphasized the need to 
think creatively beyond longer implementation pe riods for developing country Members or 
exemptions for least-developed country Members.  He requested the co-sponsors to provide further 
information on the entities, including with respec t to the selection process.  Egypt noted that 
environmental goods and services was a new area in th e WTO and for this reason, the issue had to be 
dealt with in a progressive manner.  Finally, r ecalling the position of his delegation against the 
inclusion of hazardous waste, he asked the co-spons ors to comment on the reference in the non-paper 
to the category of solid waste management.   
18. The representative of Vietnam
 asked the co-sponsors whether Paragraph 6 of the non-paper 
was meant to be restricted to the services im ported by the listed entities, and sought further 
clarification on the type of services that would be cove red.  In particular, he asked about the kind of 
preferential access that India and Argentina had in mind.   
19. The representative of the Philippines  asked the co-sponsors whether a numerical limit would 
be set on the number of public and private entities i nvolved in environmental activities.  Moreover, he 
asked whether the list of entities would be limited to  those with an establi shed track record or 
programme for implementing such environmental activities, or whether the applications for 
accreditation would be open-ended.  He pointed out that the non-paper was unclear as to who would 
develop criteria for the goods that would receive pr eferential treatment.  He wondered whether this 
would be negotiated in the CTESS, or whether each entity would establish its own criteria to 
determine which products would be classified as environmental goods.  Lastly, on technology 
transfer, he noted that the non-paper stated that  it was necessary that developing country Members 
had unrestricted access to alternate and clean environm ental technologies.  In this regard, he asked the 
co-sponsors about the conditions that restricted access to these technologies.   
20. The representative of Australia  said her delegation welcomed the fact that through this non-
paper, the co-sponsors were thinking over some of  the implications of the project approach and 
practical issues surrounding its implementation.  Au stralia had some questions and concerns about 
how the integrated approach would operate from a prac tical point of view.  In the Australian context, 
private and public entities were fre quently involved in a wide range of activities, only some of which 
were environment-related.  If Members confined th e list of entities to those exclusively involved in 
environment-related activities, this could signi ficantly reduce the scope for environmental goods 
liberalization.  Moreover, she wondered what would be  the practical effect of this approach on how 
companies structured their businesses.  For econom ies like Australia, which had privatized and 
disaggregated environmental functions, such an approach might present more problems and challenges than for economies that had publicly owned utilities. 
21. The representative of Australia asked India whet her a selected entity had to exclusively carry 
out environmental functions or whether its activities could be disaggregated, i.e. a listed entity could 
certify that goods were imported for a specific  environmental activity, while other non 
environment-related activities performed by the same  entity would not receive a preferential access.  
This raised the question as to whether any good imported by an entity on the list, no matter what the good was, would be eligible for preferential treat ment.  She wondered whether Members would have 
some flexibility in terms of setting their own criteri a in this regard.  The approach proposed by the 
co-sponsors would allow import on preferential term s of a number of goods that were not really 
environmental or that were used across a company whose activities might be only partially related to 
the protection of the environment.  This would ma ke the assessment of private and public entities all 
the more challenging.  In this regard, Australia  asked whether this would be done by individual 
Members or whether the WTO would have a role in monitoring the review.    TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. With respect to making changes to the list of entities, Australia asked whether it would be 
done by Members through a process of notification or whether a negotiation was envisaged.  In the 
latter scenario, she wondered whether there would be numerical limits a nd whether some record 
would need to be shown.  For Australia, such processes could act as a significant barrier to new entrants in a rapidly expanding field.   
23. The representative of Costa Rica
 was of the view that the ideas presented in the non-paper 
constituted a positive move in approaching enviro nmental issues, and ensuring development and 
access to technologies.  Concerning Paragraph 6 of the non-paper, Costa Rica sought clarification 
with respect to the meaning of "preferential acces s" in reference to services imported by the listed 
entities for carrying out environmental activities.  In particular, Costa Rica asked whether this 
preferential access would cover all modes of suppl y, as well as national treatment received by service 
suppliers from other Members;  whether this woul d be listed under additional commitments;  and 
whether it would apply only to environmental services or to any service imported by the listed 
entities.   
24. The representative of Chile  thanked the co-sponsors for their effort to present an alternative 
approach on the Paragraph 31(iii) mandate.  Chile  welcomed the suggestion regarding environmental 
activities, which could form part of the final outco me, although his delegation regretted that some of 
the ideas presented were not fully developed in the non-paper.  As stated by Argentina and Egypt, 
some elements of the non-paper could be explor ed further, including the identification of 
environmental activities, which seemed to overlap w ith categories identified in the proponents' list.  
The representative was not convinced that the integr ated approach was in line with the mandate, as it 
involved a case-by-case reduction or elimination of ta riffs.  Chile believed that the mandate called for 
a multilateral process that should provide certainty and predictability in li beralizing environmental 
goods.  In addition, his delegation believed that the integrated approach would be contrary to basic 
principles of the multilateral trading system, namely  the Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) principle, as it 
would grant some privileges to certain  goods, depending on the importer.   
25. In Chile's view, the integrated approach rais ed a number of questions.  For instance, the 
representative asked whether there would be a minimum number of entities to be included in the list;  
what would be the criteria to draw up a list of en tities (e.g. whether the entity was representative of 
the sector or had a certain level of participation in internal production);  whether the negotiation 
would take place before or after notification of the entities;  whether the lis t would be negotiated on a 
bilateral basis, similar to the request and offer pro cess in services negotiations, or a process similar to 
that in NAMA and Agriculture negotiations;  and how the list would be managed.   
26. The representative was also concerned that the document did not further elaborate on certain 
aspects, namely transfer of technology and the refe rence to the mandate in Paragraph 37 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration.  In this respect, he asked  why the concept of transfer of technology would 
deserve a particular treatment that was not contem plated in other areas of the negotiations, such as 
NAMA.  Chile requested the co-sponsors to explain the meaning of "assured access to technology" or 
"unrestricted access to clean technologies" in Paragra ph 4 of the non-paper.  In particular, he asked 
how access to technology could be guaranteed desp ite certain limitations to access, such as 
intellectual property.   
27. Moreover, Chile had questions similar to tho se raised by Costa Rica and Vietnam regarding 
the services aspect of the non-paper.  His delegation also shared Egypt's view regarding NTBs and 
shared its interest in the idea of establishing a st ructured work programme.  He suggested to look at 
what was being done in the context of NAMA on th is issue and noted that other NTBs could be 
included in the work programme, such as export tax es and differential import duties.  In conclusion, 
Chile noted it had many doubts with respect to the integrated approach.  While his delegation was not TN/TE/R/19 
Page 6  
 
  convinced that the list approach as presently struct ured was the best solu tion, it seemed that the 
integrated approach raised more ques tions than it provided answers.   
28. The representative of China
 said that the contribution by India and Argentina had provided 
useful new input at a critical time in the di scussions under Paragraph 31 (iii), in particular by 
addressing important development aspects of the nego tiations.  First, the non-paper highlighted the 
priority areas for many developing country Member s, such as air pollution control, water and waste 
water management.  Second, it attempted to solve the issue of S&D treatment as called for by many delegations.   Third, the non-paper also addressed the issu e of transfer of technology and proposed a 
monitoring mechanism in this regard.  Above all, Ch ina believed that the integrated approach was an 
improvement of the project approach by way of  expanding the scope and making the work more 
predictable and transparent.   
29. The representative said that the non-paper show ed some convergence with other approaches, 
in particular as regards to product category specificat ions.  His delegation was interested in working 
further on the ideas developed in the non-paper in order to address China's technical concerns, e.g. 
with respect to the large number of entities invol ved and whether preferential treatment should be 
granted to all goods imported by listed entities.  Finally, China expressed an interest in exploring 
further the issue of technology transfer in th e context of Paragraph 31(iii) negotiations.   
30. The representative of Brazil
 expressed her delegation's suppor t to the integrated approach 
proposed by India and Argentina.  In particular , she noted that the non-paper addressed the mandate 
as a whole, as well as issues of particular interest  to developing country Members that had not been 
discussed in the CTESS so far, such as environmenta l services.  Her delegation was also pleased that 
the co-sponsors had mentioned activities such as ai r pollution control and renewable energy, which 
were important for both developi ng and developed country Members.  The non-paper also addressed 
the important issue of transfer of technology c ontained in Paragraph 37 of  the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration.  Brazil stressed the importance of unencumbered access to alternative and clean environmental technologies for developing country Me mbers.  In reference to Paragraph 4 of the non-
paper, she noted that there were also provisions in many MEAs regarding technology transfer.  The 
work carried out in the WTO Working Group on Transfer  of Technology could also shed light in this 
regard.  Moreover, Brazil welcomed the fact that  the important issue of NTBs was addressed in 
Paragraph 7 of the non-paper.   
31. The representative of Ecuador
 welcomed the suggestion by the co-sponsors that new options 
should be considered in connection with the mandate  in Paragraph 31(iii).  Ec uador believed that this 
was a useful exercise and that Members should di scuss further some of the technical aspects of the 
non-paper.  In particular, she shared the view e xpressed by other delegations that this was a positive 
contribution, and that only an integrated or holis tic approach to the mandate would contribute to 
sustainable development goals.   
32. She noted that environmental activities were an interesting aspect of the non-paper, and that 
some of the activities mentioned in the document, su ch as pollution management, were of interest to 
many Members.  Ecuador also welcomed the fact that the proposal sought to remedy the problem of 
multiple use inherent to the list a pproach.  Ecuador considered Paragr aph 31(iii) negotiations to be sui 
generis in nature, and different from NAMA or Agri culture negotiations.  While being sympathetic to 
this new submission, Ecuador had also noted the various questions raised by other delegations and 
looked forward to further discussions on the non-paper.   
33. The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted that the suggestion by the co-sponsors of the non-
paper to identify and agree on environmental act ivities was somewhat similar to the categories 
mentioned in the proponents' lists of environmenta l goods.  In this regard, she noted that reaching 
convergence on categories or activitie s would set a good basis for further discussions.  However, her  TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 7 
 
 
  delegation had some concer ns regarding the next step proposed in the submission, and looked forward 
to further clarification from the co-sponsors regardi ng the suggestion to negotiate a list of public and 
private entities and grant preferential tariff treatment  to products imported by those entities.  If this 
was the intention, Chinese Taipei wondered about the criteria that would apply in this negotiation, and 
the reason for limiting preferential tariff treatment to certain entities only.  In particular, her 
delegation wondered how th is would contribute to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade and 
environment, while being consistent with WTO rul es.  She wondered how the dual use problem would 
be resolved, with regard to entities that performed other functions than environmental ones.  Chinese 
Taipei noted that the co-sponsors had also made so me suggestions on the issue of NTBs.  In this 
regard, the representative suggested that, based on the aforementioned activities or categories, 
Members could further discuss the identification of products with the objective of addressing relevant 
NTBs faced by all WTO Members.   
34. The representative of the European Communities  (EC) thanked the co-sponsors for their new 
submission.  Making a general point in relation to paragraph 2, he disputed the suggestion that it 
would not be possible to reach agreement on a list of environmental goods.  The representative said 
the process of the proponents of the list approach  over the past year had shown it was possible to 
converge on an idea of what were environmental goods .  If Members put their minds to the challenge 
and could multilaterize the work, a list could be achie ved.  The representative added that there were 
elements in the non-paper that bolstered his view that agreement could be reached multilaterally on a 
list of environmental goods. 
35. The representative said the non-paper created a number of difficult and substantive challenges 
for his delegation.  In particular, the EC sought clarification on some challenging legal concerns and 
difficult practical issues.  With respect to enviro nmental activities, the representative observed that the 
proponents were non-committal as to what constitu ted environmental activities but did provide 
something of a guide through a listing of a number of activities in paragraph 3 of the non-paper.  
Recalling the separate non-paper circulated by a number of delegations on 27 April 20075, which 
proposed twelve environmental categories, the repr esentative asked if the proponents viewed those 
categories as environmental activities that w ould qualify for tariff liberalization.   
36. Recalling his optimism that a list of environm ental goods could be agreed upon multilaterally, 
the representative said there were a number of sign als in the non-paper that had led him to this 
conclusion.  First, paragraph 2 re ferred to "few environmental goods";  while phrased in the negative, 
the reference could also be read positively as confir ming that there were indeed some environmental 
goods.  Second, paragraph 4 contai ned a reference to "clean envi ronmental technologies"; clearly, 
therefore, such technologies existed and the proponents must have an idea of what those technologies were.  The representative said it would be constructiv e to efforts to arrive at convergence if the 
proponents could specify what were those "few en vironmental goods" and what were those "clean 
environmental technologies"; then Members could ha ve a serious negotiation about how to liberalize 
trade in those goods and technologies. 
37. Concerning paragraph 6 of the non-paper, th e representative said his delegation did not 
understand the concerns of the proponents and some  other delegations that had taken the floor on 
environmental services.  The fact that there was no substantive debate on this aspect in the CTESS did 
not mean there was no negotiation on liberalization of environmental services.  The negotiation on 
environmental services was being dealt with as part  of the Services negotiations.  The representative 
asked the proponents to clarify what they wanted w ith respect to environmental services.  In that  
regard he asked if they were seeking regular re ports from the Services negotiations, as he did not 
believe it was the proponents' intention that  CTESS duplicate work happening elsewhere. 
                                                     
 
5 JOB(07)/54. TN/TE/R/19 
Page 8  
 
  38. Also with respect to environmental servi ces, the representative said his delegation was 
concerned with what was being proposed in paragrap h 6.  For his delegation, the Services negotiations 
should deliver environmental services to be liberaliz ed and scheduled accordingly.  That would be the 
appropriate legal environment.  The current non-paper, however, app eared to be proposing a dual and 
secondary legal system.  It was not clear to the EC how the systems would overlap and work in 
practice.  The representative sought clarification in this regard. 
39. The representative also sought clarification on a number of legal issues with respect to the 
non-paper.  First, in relation to the concept of discrimination, he observed that the non-paper proposed 
that there should be an agreed list of environmen tal activities and also a central register; Members 
would inscribe on the register those entities that normally carried out the agreed environmental 
activities in their territories and all goods importe d by the notified entities for carrying out the 
activities would be granted preferential treatment.  The representative said that, in the view of his delegation, this was a recipe for disaster and lega l disputes because, by definition, some entities would 
not be on the register.  For example, new entities would not be on the register.  This seemed to the EC to be de jure  discrimination – not only between entities but also between countries – that would lead 
to legal disputes.  A second legal issue was whethe r or not the proponents saw their proposal for ad 
hoc tariff reduction to inscribed entities as consistent  with Article I of the GATT.  This was a point 
that had been raised by the delegation of Ch ile and the representative asked how the proponents 
viewed the proposal in relation to the MFN principle. 
40. The representative observed that paragraph 7 of  the non-paper dealt with non-tariff barriers 
and read, in part, "Noting that domestic regulat ory requirements often act as NTBs, Members should 
consider relaxing those requirements to the extent  necessary for the effective conduct of the agreed 
environmental activities."  His delegation agreed that  this was an important paragraph but viewed it 
differently from the proponents.  The representative observed that the proponents were proposing that  
Members create a central bureaucracy and that the bureaucracy manage a list of environmental 
entities and govern all trade in environmental goods.  He asked if the proponents genuinely thought 
this approach relaxed regulatory requirements and fostered trade in environmental goods.   
41. The representative of Norway
 thanked Argentina and India for the non-paper and provided 
preliminary comments.  Norway found some elemen ts of the non-paper of particular interest and 
importance.  In this regard, the representative hi ghlighted the list of environmental activities as highly 
relevant for the negotiations unde r Paragraph 31(iii).  She further observed that the concept of 
environmental activities seemed to overlap with environmental categories as used in document 
JOB(07)/54;  this aspect should be explored furthe r to see if there were possibilities for convergence 
between different approaches in th e Paragraph 31(iii) negotiation. 
42. With regard to the list of public and private entities to be submitted by Members, Norway's 
initial reaction was that this could be complicated to  arrange.  How were Members to ensure that all 
interested parties, including small and medium sized enterprises, were included on an equal basis?  
For privatized economies such as Norway, this would not be an easy task.  It would also lead to 
administrative burdens both for the WTO Secretaria t and Members.  Nor was Norway convinced that 
the proposal, as formulated, would facilitate s ound technology choices in a more general sense, 
including at the household level. 
43. The representative recalled Norw ay's emphasis throughout the negotiations on the importance 
of environmental credibility.  This was crucial to  securing an environmentally sound outcome and 
Members therefore needed to choose the right appro ach to secure this outcome in the best way.  
Norway recognized the importance of access to the latest technology in that regard and recalled 
activities carried out by the WTO Secretariat, UNEP, UNCTAD and others. Norway was a strong supporter of that work.  The representative also pointed  to the fact that by fulfilling the mandate on  TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 9 
 
 
  reduction or elimination of tari ffs and non-tariff barriers to e nvironmental goods, Members would 
enhance access to technology. 
44. The representative of Switzerland  thanked Argentina and India for the non-paper and gave 
preliminary remarks.  Her delegation welcomed the proposal in paragraph 3 for a definition and 
agreement on environmental activities such as ai r pollution control, water and waste water 
management, and soil and soil conservation, to name  a few.  Those environmental activities had been 
put forward by the proponents of the list appr oach in document JOB(07)/54 as "environmental 
categories".  For Switzerland, whether they were called environmental activities or environmental categories should not be a major debate;  the most  important issue was to reach convergence on those 
environmental categories or activities. 
45. Further referring to paragraph 3,  the representative said Switzerla nd continued to have serious 
concerns with the idea that all goods imported by the notified entities would be granted preferential 
tariff treatment.  That remained a pick and choose approach, as mentioned by Chile and others, and  
also retained elements from the project appro ach upon which Switzerland had previously expressed 
reservations.  The integrated approach also seemed unfavourable to small and medium sized 
enterprises, which might be severely disadvantaged  compared to larger companies, and did not 
represent an adequate representativen ess of the sectors.  With respect  to the additional suggestion in 
paragraph 3 of post-audit systems to be put in pl ace by Members to monitor the actual use of products 
imported for agreed environmental activities, th e representative said that would seem to increase 
rather than reduce bureaucracy.  The representative a dded that the integrated approach would not be 
in line with the objective of trade facilitation bei ng pursued in the Doha Round, as the result would be 
more paperwork and bureaucracy. 
46. The representative raised a number of questi ons and queries regarding the non-paper and 
sought clarification from the co-sponsors.  On pa ragraph 3, how would entities be eligible for 
inclusion on the list of public and private entities at  the national level?  Also, what would be the 
situation for future public and private entities?  W ith respect to the additional suggestion in paragraph 
3 that all goods imported by the notified entities fo r carrying out agreed environmental activities be 
granted preferential tariff treatment, why were all goods  to be exempted from tariffs? On paragraph 6, 
the representative said it was not clear to her de legation how services imported by the listed entities 
for carrying out agreed environmental activities would be granted preferential access.  Finally, on paragraph 7 dealing with NTBs, it was not clear to  Switzerland how regulatory requirements could be 
relaxed to the extent necessary to facilitate the effe ctive conduct of agreed environmental activities;  
also, would such relaxing of regulations be only temporary and only for a specific sector? 
47. The representative of Korea
 thanked the proponents for their new input into CTESS 
discussions on Paragraph 31(iii).  Korea appreciated  the paper's comprehensiveness in addressing 
most of the important elements under that mandate , albeit in a brief and concise manner.  Korea 
particularly considered the issues of technology tr ansfer and non-tariff barriers mentioned in sections 
B and D respectively as important and meriting fu rther discussion.  Korea was open to further 
elaboration of the details on those issues. 
48. The representative focused on the proposed inte grated approach in paragraph 3 of the 
non-paper and said her delegation fo und both positive and less positive aspects in that approach.  On 
the positive side, Korea welcomed the suggestion by  the proponents of identifying or agreeing on 
environmental activities.  Like other delegations , Korea found similarities between the illustrative 
environmental activities in the co-sponsors' non- paper and the categorization used for product 
specification in the separate non-paper submitted earlier  by a group of Members, including Korea, at 
the preceding session of the CTESS.6  Korea believed those common elements could be a possible 
                                                      
6 JOB(07)/54. TN/TE/R/19 
Page 10  
 
  ground for building convergence on the categories of  environmental activities which were important 
for achieving environmental and developmental objectives. 
49. On less positive aspects, the representative sai d Korea struggled with the suggestion of 
agreeing on a list of public and private entities carry ing out agreed environmental activities.  She 
noted previous speakers had raised many questions and concerns on this idea;  similarly, Korea was 
unfamiliar with this kind of approach and rema ined to be persuaded of its practicability and 
workability. The representative advi sed that within Korea there we re more than 10,000 private 
companies involved in a range of activities and the list was in constant flux as new companies began operations and others ceased their activities.  Wh en contemplating the work involved in the 
construction of lists of all 150 WTO Members;  veri fication of other Members' lists;  negotiation of a 
central list within the multilateral process; and re-n egotiating that list periodically, Korea feared the 
WTO would be overwhelmed by the sheer bureaucratic  exercise.  The representative noted that the 
Indian delegate had referred in his introductory presentation to registration and notification processes, 
but had not mentioned the negotiation process.  Sh e asked for clarification of how the proponents 
envisaged that latter aspect. 
50. The representative said her delegation was perplexe d at the suggestion that all products that 
the notified entities claimed to be necessary for ag reed environmental activities would be granted 
preferential tariff treatment.  She asked if it was th e intention of the proponents to delegate to private 
companies the power to decide the definition of  environmental goods, since Members had thus far 
failed to do so.  Moreover, if so, how were Member s expected to provide 100  per cent or less tariff 
concessions on a predictable basis – since the produc t coverage would be at  the discretion of the 
private entities? 
51. Regarding the possibility of a negative list as me ntioned by the representative of India, Korea 
remained to be convinced that this was a better solution for addressing concerns about multiple uses 
of products that had been raised previously in re lation to the list approach.  The representative asked 
what would be the benefits of agreeing on a list of en tities instead of a list of products.  She also asked 
if the proponents would not find it more useful to focus on some sort of positive/product list.  In this 
regard, the representative encouraged the proponents to consider in their approach integrating lists of 
products rather than lists of entities.  By doing so , the integrated approach could be a constructive 
basis for bridging the gap and moving fo rward the Paragraph 31(iii) negotiations. 
52. The representative of Mexico
 thanked Argentina and India for their contribution and made 
three points.  First, Mexico shared the concerns  expressed by the proponents in paragraph 2 of the 
non-paper, notably with respect to the fact that there was no internationally agreed definition of 
"environmental goods" and in terms of ensuring th at goods once imported were actually used for 
improvement of the environment.  Second, like  other delegations, Mexico viewed positively the 
suggestion from the proponents to focus on identifyi ng and agreeing on environmental activities;  this 
could help the CTESS move towards convergence.  Third, Mexico had questions as to how the 
mechanism proposed by the proponents would ope rate.  The representative said overall Mexico 
agreed with the concerns raised by Argentina and In dia and felt also that their non-paper helped give 
some context to the CTESS discussions – so the di scussions were not considered merely a market 
access negotiation. 
53. The representative of Canada  said his delegation welcomed th e non-paper from Argentina and 
India and the effort it represented.  Canada also welcomed the potential offered in the submission for 
convergence on certain elements.  For example, th e idea in the non-paper regarding environmental 
activities was similar to the concept of environmental categories as put forward by a group of delegations, including Canada, in document JOB( 07)/54.  Thus, the activities identified in the 
co-sponsors' non-paper, including air pollution cont rol, water and waste water management, soil and 
soil conservation, solid waste management, enviro nmental monitoring and analysis, energy saving  TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 11 
 
 
  management, and renewable energy were all categor ies contained in JOB(07)/54.  The representative 
said Canada saw other elements of convergence as we ll, for example with r espect to the idea of a 
living list – albeit in a slightly different context as elaborated by Argentina in its introduction of the 
non-paper. 
54. The representative said Canada disagreed with the assertion in paragraph 2 of the non-paper 
on the improbability that a list of environmental goods  for preferential tariff treatment would ever be 
developed.  In Canada's view, JOB(07)/54 showed clearly that the co-sponsors had taken on board 
numerous comments and had reviewed and refine d the products proposed.  The representative 
recalled that the original list of 480 products had be en reduced to approximately 150 products;  the 
co-sponsors had also acknowledged that more work  was required and had i nvited further detailed 
comments on JOB(07)/54 – to assist them to ma ke additional improvements, as required.  
Specifically, the representative wondered if Argentina and India would be prepared at some point in 
the future to suggest some of the products they would have in mind to be used in the environmental 
activities they proposed. 
55. The representative said his delegation did not find  particularly useful the suggestion from the 
proponents to identify public and private entities to carry out agreed environmental activities.  Setting 
aside the fact of the work that would be entailed a nd setting aside also the fact of needing to agree on 
the environmental activities and criteria to be u sed to identify entities, his delegation had given 
thought to how the proponents' suggestion might be a pplied in Canada.  Canada was large in area but 
small in population.  Nonetheless, conceivably ther e could be tens of thousands of entities in the 
country.  Canada had a federa l government, ten provinces, three territories and roughly 10,000 
municipalities.  The representative said his delega tion could easily see all those jurisdictions having 
responsibilities for environmental prot ection and undertaking environmental activities.  That was just 
in the public sector alone;  if the private sector we re included as well, there would again be thousands 
and thousands of entities.  In that context, the representative wondered how such an approach would 
achieve certainty and transparency. 
56. The representative raised a number of questions in relation to the issue of non-discriminatory 
treatment of like products.  He asked the proponents if  like products would be treated in a consistent 
way across the board.  In this regard, he invited comments from the proponents as to whether or not environmental goods used in large scale envir onmental activities would be accorded the same 
treatment as products used in smaller environmental activities or at the household level.  If they were 
not accorded the same level of treatment, Canada  would see this as discriminatory treatment and 
contrary to WTO rules.  On a related subject, th e representative observed that while the delegate of 
India in his introductory presentation did not see it as necessary to identify environmental goods to be 
utilized in agreed environmental activities, nonethele ss he had raised the possi bility of a negative list 
of goods that may not be obvious environmental goods.  The representative speculated that such a 
negative list could result in a very interesting bureau cratic outcome with many items to be added and 
negotiated.  He further asked a question as to why,  if it was possible to identify non-environmental 
goods, it was not possible to identify environmental goods? 
57. The representative said Canada placed great emph asis on the role of individual households in 
addressing environmental issues.  Individual choices made by consumers each day could lead to 
significant and historic shifts to sustainable forms of  consumption and living.  In that regard, many of 
the 150 products put forward by the co-sponsors of  JOB(07)/54 could be used in both large scale 
environmental activities as well as small scale and h ousehold-level environmental activities.  Some 
examples were solar panels, ground source heat pumps , water filters and purification systems, fuel 
cells, solar stoves, septic tanks, reservoirs for dr inking water, and heat exchange units.  The 
representative observed that all those items could be  purchased by an individual to put into their 
home.  Canada viewed such items as environmenta l goods.  In concluding, the representative invited a TN/TE/R/19 
Page 12  
 
  response from the proponents concerning the role played by households in the delivery of 
environmental objectives, for example, to reduce energy consumption and reduce air pollution. 
58. The representative of Japan
 thanked the proponents for the non-paper.  He made a number of 
positive comments on the non-paper and also raised sev eral questions.  On the positive side, like the 
EC, Japan had noted the comment in paragraph 2 of the non-paper that there we re "few environmental 
goods that can be called inherently so".  Japan  very much looked forward to hearing from the 
proponents what sorts of products they had in mind.   Also, paragraph 3 of the non-paper referred to 
environmental activities and mentioned several activiti es in that regard such as air pollution control, 
renewable energy and waste water management.  Ja pan agreed with comments by China and Brazil on 
the importance of those activities.  The representativ e noted also that JOB(07)/54 had included several 
categories covering inter alia  air pollution control, renewable en ergy and waste water management.  
Thus, his delegation saw potential for convergen ce on the environmental activities part of the 
submission. 
59. With reference to the suggestion in paragraph 3 of the non-paper to identify public and private 
entities to carry out agreed environmental activities,  the representative said he had undertaken some 
rough calculations;  if 150 WTO Members each subm itted 10 entities, that would mean 1,500 entities;  
if they submitted 100 entities, that would mean  15,000 entities: and if they each submitted 10,000 
entities, the total would be 1.5 million entities.  The representative asked if it w as the intention of the 
proponents that Members should ne gotiate such lists of entities. 
60. The representative referred to the suggestion, also  in paragraph 3 of th e non-paper, that all 
goods imported by the nominated entities receive pref erential tariff treatment.  He noted also the 
proponents' suggestion that Members might agr ee a negative list of goods that were not obvious 
environmental products and which, therefore, would not be eligible for preferential tariff treatment.  
In that regard, the representative observed that th ere were around 4,500 non-ag ricultural products at 
the HS 6-digit level and around 600 or 700 agricultural products.  Thus, if there were to be a negative 
list, it would be much larger than the list of 480 pr oducts originally put forward by selected Members 
and far larger than the list of 153 products  submitted by the co-sponsors of JOB(07)/54. 
61. With respect to post-audit systems, the represen tative speculated that if such systems had to 
focus on hundreds of thousands of entities, it woul d create significant administrative costs and could 
also hinder private businesses.  He invited the pr oponents' views on this aspect.  On technology 
transfer, the representative said this was very importa nt but there were difficult issues as could be seen 
in the proceedings of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology.  The representative 
said Japan shared views expressed by the delegation of Chile on this point. 
62. The representative of Nicaragua  thanked Argentina and India for the non-paper and agreed 
with previous speakers th at there were positive elements in th e proposal that would enrich the CTESS 
discussions on Paragraph 31(iii).  Expressing prelimin ary comments, the representative agreed that 
the final use of goods and services of an enviro nmental nature should ha ve a direct link with 
improvement of the environment.  In Nicaragua's vi ew, the approach in the negotiations should be an 
integrated one to ensure a real contribution to sust ainable development.  Nicaragua also viewed very 
positively the coverage of such elements as tec hnology transfer.  With respect to NTBs, the 
representative said this was a crucial aspect if there were to be a balanced result from the negotiations 
and to ensure that the development dimension of the mandate was fulfilled.  The representative said 
her delegation awaited with interest the answers to  be circulated by the proponents to the various 
issues raised.   
63. The representative of New Zealand  welcomed the non-paper an d willingness of Argentina 
and India to work to try to find a way forward on Paragraph 31(iii).  New Zealand did not see the 
proposal as advancing discussions in the CTESS, no r as a basis for convergence.  New Zealand also  TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 13 
 
 
  disagreed with the concern elaborated in paragraph 2 of the non-paper that the lists of environmental 
goods presented by developed country  Members primarily benefited themselves.  The representative 
said New Zealand had worked hard to identify the cl ear trade and development benefits of the items it 
had proposed.  Also, document JOB(07)/54 had demonstrated significant movement by the co-sponsors, including New Zealand, in terms of the products listed, in response to concerns 
expressed by Members.  The representative said the co-sponsors of JOB(07)/54 had done their best to 
identify developing country interests, but needed more  information.  She added that it was unfortunate 
that the information was still not available and th at the non-paper from Argentina and India had not 
helped to identify specific items of interest to developing countries. 
64. The representative said the suggestion that Members agree on environmental activities was 
one that New Zealand had found interesting when first presented by Uruguay.  In JOB(07)/54, the 
co-sponsors had sought to identify products and cat egorize them in ways that were relevant, 
environmentally.  Thus, for example, the documen t referred to renewable energy and waste water 
management and grouped items under those headings.  That had been an attempt to respond to the 
Uruguay suggestion and seemed, in the view of the co-sponsors, a basis on which to move forward on 
Paragraph 31(iii). 
65. The representative said the real problem with th e proposal from Argentina and India had to do 
with implementation.  In that regard, she noted that  a range of concerns and questions had been raised 
with respect to how the proposal would operate in a WTO-consistent way and how Members could 
legitimately identify activities within their borders  that would include some entities and exclude 
others. 
66. The representative commented that it was not fo r the WTO to tell Members which public or 
private sector firms could engage in trade in e nvironmental goods.  From New Zealand's perspective, 
that kind of approach, including the post-audit pro cesses, appeared to be administratively complex, 
burdensome, and probably not consis tent with what the institution was trying to achieve in the trade 
facilitation negotiations.  Further, while such an  approach could work for large multinational 
enterprises, it would not work for small countries wh ere environmental goods sectors were dominated 
by small and medium enterprises.  Nor would such an approach solve the problem of S&D treatment, 
as some Members had suggested. 
67. On technology transfer, the representative sai d New Zealand recognized the importance of 
this aspect but could not compel its private sector to  undertake the types of activities contemplated in 
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the non-pape r.  On NTBs, the representative said it was useful to know that 
what Argentina and India were contemplating was a relaxation of regulatory requirements.  However, 
in order to engage in this area, specific inform ation was needed about specific non-tariff barriers on 
particular products – then New Zealand would be read y to talk about any of its regulations in that 
regard and to do so on the basis of specific concerns of Members. 
68. The representative of Colombia
 thanked Argentina and India for the non-paper.  Colombia 
viewed the non-paper as interesting, particularly as it sought to overcome difficulties in identifying 
environmental goods and in terms of multiple use go ods.  Colombia also welcomed the approach of 
trying to identify environmental activities as a useful and progressive starting point.  The representative said his delegation did not fully u nderstand what the procedures would be for the 
identification of environmental ac tivities and also public and private entities and added that there was 
a need for further clarification, particularly bear ing in mind the transparency needed in the process. 
69. The representative said his delegation was very inte rested in the topic of technology transfer.  
This was an element that had been demanded by deve loping countries and had been debated at length.  
Unfortunately, there had been only minor response at  the multilateral level.  The approach suggested 
in the non-paper recalled projects which would i nvolve national and foreign companies;  in TN/TE/R/19 
Page 14  
 
  Colombia's view, this could facilitate the devel opment of complementary activities which would help 
the transfer of technology in areas of industry.  The representative said his delegation had seen very 
positive results from projects involving joint ventures by national and foreign companies.  He said the non-paper offered an interesting alternative to give  form to the demand by developing countries for 
technology transfer. 
70. The representative said it was interesting to see in the non-paper the proposal for Members to 
consider a structured work programme to address NTBs faced by developing country Members in the export of environmental goods.  This was not someth ing that would be simple but was worth trying.  
The representative added that it was well known th at the major difficulties in market access for 
environmental goods were linked to non-tariff barri ers; this made it more difficult for developing 
countries' products since those countries did not have the technology nor regulations to guarantee 
compliance with standards. 
71. The representative reiterated his request for fu rther clarification from the proponents with 
respect to the design and implementation of the pr oposal.  His delegation was willing to engage in a 
discussion with the proponents to try to clarify doubts. 
72. The representative of Brazil
 commented on a range of points made by other delegations.  She 
referred to comments by the EC delegate conc erning the risk of CTESS duplicating work being 
carried out in the GATS Council.  In that regard , she suggested a double standard was being applied 
because some Members - including some list proponent Members – had similarly proposed a document in the NAMA Group in 2006.  Thus when it came to Services, there was duplication of 
work;  but when it came to Goods, there was no dupli cation of work.  In the representative's view, this 
was a double standard.   
73. Responding to a further intervention, the represen tative said there were indeed environmental 
goods;  however, the difficulty was that the C TESS had been unable to agree on a core set of 
environmental goods.  In her view, the revised list ci rculated in JOB(07)/54 showed that not even the 
list proponents could reach a consensus on a short set of products.  Despite the fact that they were 
unable to agree on a list, the proponents were asking  other Members to contribute and to make known 
their interests.  In this regard, the representa tive asked if every WTO Member specified 100 products, 
how many products there would be in the end.  Th e representative suggested it would be easier to deal 
with a list of entities than liberalizing and giving pr eferential tariff treatment to a large number of 
products.   
74. The representative recalled that some Members had referred to the list in JOB(07)/54 as 
containing around 153 products.  However, this num ber was based on products defined at the HS 6-
digit level;  when it came to 8-digit subhead ings, the list covered over 500 tariff lines.  The 
representative further commented that contained in JOB(07)/54 were some entries called "others", and 
that these could include an additional 20 subhead ings – depending upon how specific a country 
defined "others" in its HS commitments.   
75. Making a further general point, the representativ e said Members should not loose sight of the 
developmental objective that permeated the Round.  Th is implied that the debate on the liberalization 
of trade in environmental goods could not be unders tood only in terms of promoting the international 
circulation of such goods.  It had to enhance the participation of developing countries in trade and 
their capacity to develop their own environmen tal goods industry.  For Brazil, sustainable 
development meant a model of development that  did not reproduce the same patterns of energy 
consumption and environmental res ource depletion of developed countri es.  It also meant generating 
solutions and environmental goods adapted to the specific and particular needs of each developing 
country Member.    TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 15 
 
 
  76. In that context, it was important that deve loping countries had unencumbered access to new 
environmental and clean technologies, as mentioned in the non-paper by Argentina and India.  In order to facilitate this access, the representa tive proposed the CTESS should analyse more closely 
alternatives for technology transfer.  She suggested  in this regard that CTESS could identify the 
existing mechanisms for transfer of technology in MEAs and also seek some light from the Working 
Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology.   
77. Brazil noted that one of the problems with the list was that it gave equal treatment to unequal 
Members.  It ignored Members in difficult situati ons and at different leve ls of development.  
Moreover, this approach entailed the liberalization of a significant amount of industria l goods that had 
no, or only limited environmental justification.  Reiterating her point that 153 products at the HS 
6-digit level unfolded into about 500 products at HS 8-digit level, she suggested that 290 out of the 
500 subheadings had no clear environmental end use.  Moreover, if the criteria for defining 
flexibilities in NAMA negotiations were applied in this instance, there would be another 
40 sub-headings that would have to  be considered as sensitive products  for Brazil.  Therefore, more 
than half of the products contained in JOB(07)/ 54 had limited environmental purposes or could hardly 
fit any definition of environmental goods that Members could agree to.  She advised that in the case of 
Brazil, the consequences of liberalizing trade in su ch products would generate  an annual trade deficit 
of 1.5 billion US dollars.   
78. For her delegation, it was surprising that all kinds of renewable energy products were being 
contemplated in JOB(07)/54, but biofuels.  Biof uels were one of the pr omising alternatives for 
substituting non-renewable energy sources.  In Br azil's view, biofuel was an environmental good by 
definition irrespective of the criteria applied.  It was therefore inadmissible that renewable energy was 
overlooked in elaborating a list of environmental goods.  The absence of biofuels was the result of an approach that neither reflected a consensus defi nition, nor respected the particular needs and 
differentiation amongst Members.  Alternatives based on other negotiating areas where Members' 
sensitivities were taken into account should be sought.  She noted that the concept of a living list or a 
periodically revisited set of produc ts represented an element of un certainty to investors in the 
environmental goods industry.   
79. In light of recent attempts to characteri ze these negotiations as a NAMA sectoral, Brazil 
reiterated its position that nothing in the mandate  prejudged or limited the outcome of the CTESS 
negotiations only to industrial goods.  Quite the opposite, the mandate was broadly set with the 
overarching objective of promoting mutual supportive ness between trade and environment.  In this 
regard, nothing prevented the CTE from dealing with  both agricultural and non-agricultural goods, as 
well as services, as proposed in the non-paper by Argentina and India.   
80. Brazil also drew Members' attention to an of ten forgotten element of the mandate, i.e. the 
reduction or elimination of NTBs.  The eliminati on of such type of barriers was of paramount 
importance for achieving a triple-win outcome.  Fo stering organic agriculture, for instance, would 
bring net benefits to environment,  development and trade.  To this end, Brazil suggested that the 
CTESS examine the possibility of requesting that relevant committees of the Codex Alimentarius 
established rules for organic agriculture.  The ela boration and adoption of a common set of standards 
would represent an improvement to existing voluntary directives.  A commitment by WTO Members to adopt an internationally defined set of standard s, replacing the extensive set of national parameters, 
would permit the development of organic agricu lture and benefit a numbe r of developing country 
Members.   
81. The representative of the United States  (US) said her delegation had a number of questions 
with respect to the non-paper, including some that had also been raised with respect to the project 
approach.  In particular, the US had concerns re garding the WTO consistency of the proposal and the 
potential for discrimination, not just among tradi ng partners but also among entities, suppliers and TN/TE/R/19 
Page 16  
 
  consumers of environmental goods.  The US also ra ised questions with respect to the non-binding 
nature of the approach;  its implementation by customs officials; and whether the proposal would 
involve binding commitments in the co ntext of the GATS Agreement.   
82. She noted that there had been some assertions that the list approach and products put forward 
were not consistent with developm ent objectives.  Brazil, for instance, had mentioned a trade deficit 
of 1.5 billion dollars in the products put forward by the proponents.  In response to Brazil's comment 
in this regard, she noted that the US had a trade deficit of over 10 billion dollars with respect to the 
products proposed, but this did not mean that it had no interest in these products, either from an export 
or import perspective.  She noted that one of the co-sponsors had exported to the world in 2006 over a billion dollars of products on the list and had seen those exports grow by 34 per cent between 2004 
and 2006, which was probably one of the larg est growth rates among the industrial products it 
exported.  The exports of these products to other developing countries had grown by 42 per cent over 
the same period versus its exports to developed countries, which ha d grown by 19 per cent.  Another 
co-sponsor had exported nearly 3 billion dollars of  these products and had seen its exports grow by 
111 per cent between 2004 and 2006.  Hence, there was clearly some growth in terms of exports, but 
liberalization would yield other benefits as well in terms of greater import and use of environmental 
goods and cleaner technologies.  
83. The content of the list would be the determini ng factor in terms of who would benefit from 
environmental goods liberalization.  There was ther efore a need to clarify which products were of 
interest to developing countries in order to en sure that the list would benefit both developed and 
developing country Members.  The US noted that it could perform some of this work on its own but 
that it would be easier to hear directly from de veloping country Members about their interests.   
84. In response to some of the comments made by other delegations, the US believed that there 
could be some utility in identifying a set of envir onmental activities or categories.  In fact, there was 
probably agreement already about what environm ental activities were, based on the activities and 
categories mentioned in Members' submissions.  Sh e recalled that Argentina and India had mentioned 
a number of activities in their paper, such as ai r pollution control, waste water management, and 
renewable energy, that Members would probabl y agree were environmental activities.   
85. While there was potential for agreeing on e nvironmental categories or activities, views 
seemed to diverge on what the next step should be .  For the US, the next step was to identify 
environmental goods used in carrying out those activities.  The proposal by Argentina and India 
suggested a different route, namely to identif y public and private entities that carried out 
environmental activities.  In the US' view, this appr oach raised many questions.  With respect to air 
pollution control, for instance, the US had proposed  some 15 products, including condensers for steam 
or other vapour power units, vacuum pumps, ai r pumps, filters, and catalytic converters for 
automobiles.  Based on the Indian and Argentin ean proposal, it was unclear what kind of entities 
would be involved in air pollution control activities.   Moreover, the large number of relevant public 
and private entities made the proposal unmanageabl e.  There was also the question of whether 
consumers of catalytic converters or solar panels would be able to benefit from a reduction in tariffs 
on these products.  Moreover, it was unclear to her delegation whether foreign and domestic 
companies alike would be able to benefit from an y tariff reduction.  As the proposal was open to 
public companies and involved the listing of entiti es, the US asked whether it covered government 
procurement as well, and if so, how this would be dealt with in practice.   
86. The representative noted that the co-sponsor s had suggested a modality and asked whether 
they had anything specific in mind in terms of a lower preference margin for developing countries, 
and how this would take into account the notion of  measurable environmental benefits accruing from 
liberalization.  Furthermore, her delegation soug ht clarification on proposals regarding technology  TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 17 
 
 
  transfer, and whether the co-sponsors intended to table more specific proposals in the Working Group 
on Trade and Transfer of Technology for Members' consideration.   
87. The US agreed with the co-sponsors that NTBs  were an important aspect and was willing to 
explore specific NTBs to the environmental goods se ctor.  However, her de legation cautioned against 
the suggestion by the co-sponsors that domestic regul atory requirements be automatically relaxed.  
While domestic regulatory requirements could add admi nistrative and other costs to trade, that fact 
alone did not make them NTBs that should be elim inated.  Any such require ments, once identified, 
would need to be considered on their merits and discussed in the Committee, much like the approach 
followed in the NAMA Group.  She noted that in the environmental sector in particular, regulation was actually a strong driver of developm ent of environmental technologies.   
88. The US looked forward to hearing responses to  the questions and concerns raised and how 
this could take the work forward in the pursuit of the mandate.   
89. The representative of Egypt
 noted the concern of his delegation regarding the different weight 
given to certain issues, depending on whether they were discussed in CTESS or elsewhere in WTO.  It 
was clear further work needed to be undertaken in the CTESS under Paragraph 31(iii).  Nothing 
suggested that this work had to focus on a single a pproach - namely the list – Members had to remain 
open to considering other approaches.  The current list still contained many in dustrial products such 
as pumps, generators, pipes, screws and other indus trial products, which his delegation believed could 
not be considered environmental goods.   
90. Egypt recalled that some goods discussed in th e context of the proposed product coverage 
qualified as single environmental end use products.  As such, these goods could provide a starting 
point for discussing some of the environmental activities identified by Members.  Moreover, Egypt 
noted that if Members were to address the issue of organic agriculture as suggested by Brazil, the 
discussions would take a different turn.  For his delegation, some indicators or criteria would be 
needed to guide Members in this  discussion.  Egypt was concerne d about how easy it was for some 
delegations to leave aside issues like technology tr ansfer, NTBs or S&D treatment, which required 
further discussion.  In Egypt's view, the negotiations  could not be limited to a "NAMA plus" exercise.  
Goods selected for liberalization would have to pass a test with respect to their potential benefits for 
the environment;  in his delegation's view, this aspect of CTESS discussions could not be 
compromised.   
91. He hoped that based on the discussion at the mee ting, Members could initiate a process that 
would take them nearer convergence, for inst ance by discussing environmental categories or 
activities.  In this regard, he suggested that Memb ers could focus on a few cat egories to begin with.  
Finally, Egypt supported the view expressed by Brazil regarding the general framework of the 
negotiation and believed it was important for Memb ers to focus on that in order to advance the 
discussions.   
92. The representative of Ecuador  said that the delegation of Brazil had raised some matters of 
importance to the negotiations and to the overall mandat e.  For her delegation, it was important to take 
into account tariff income with respect to the produc ts put forward in the convergence set.  Moreover, 
Ecuador emphasized the need for predictable and tr ansparent results in the negotiations.  In this 
respect, her delegation did not believe that the s uggestion made by certain Members regarding the 
adoption of a living list, which would involve the in clusion of new products in future, would lead to 
predictability and transparency.   
93. Ecuador believed that the question of NTBs c ould possibly add value to the negotiations by 
ensuring more transparent and predictable trade w ith particular advantages for developing countries, 
which in most cases lacked the technical or regulat ory capacity to access markets, especially those of TN/TE/R/19 
Page 18  
 
  developed countries.  With respect to the sugges tion by Brazil regarding organic products, Ecuador 
believed such a proposal would not be viable, gi ven the difficulties faced by developing country 
Members with regard to NTBs affecting these products.   
94. Ecuador noted that certain environmental goals, such as those recognized at the 1992 Rio 
Conference on Environment and Development, were often treated as secondary or peripheral in the 
context of the negotiations.  Her delegation considered that the mandate offered real opportunities to 
achieve tangible results for developing country Memb ers.  Finally, she recalled that Colombia had 
submitted a paper on criteria that could be usef ul in future discussions under Paragraph 31(iii).
7  In the 
absence of a clear definition of environmental goods , such criteria or parameters could provide an 
objective filter and help negotiations move forward.   
95. The representative of Nicaragua  supported the comments made by Brazil and Ecuador on the 
importance of making progress on the issue of NTBs, and noted the interest of her delegation in organic farming.   
96. The representative of India
 thanked delegations for their co mments on the submission.  India 
believed the interventions made had shown an inter est in developing further some of the ideas with a 
view to reaching convergence.  In India's view, a single list of goods did not really achieve the 
underlying objective of the mandate, which was to improve the environment.  This objective implied 
the need to ensure that goods liberalized were ind eed used for an environmental purpose.  In the non-
paper, as well as in earlier submissions, India ha d suggested an approach to ensure that goods which 
received preferential tariff treatment were used fo r the purpose for which this preferential treatment 
was being granted.  Hence his delegation had proposed  that Members start first with the identification 
of environmental activities and then grant preferentia l tariff treatment to goods used in those activities 
through the entities.  Many delegations had note d similarities between the environmental activities 
and the categories or environmental objectives men tioned by the proponents in JOB(07)/54.  India 
agreed that there was some co mmonality in this regard.   
97. India noted that some of the questions rai sed regarding the co-sponsors' submission arose 
from the fact that it was not suggesting a list of e nvironmental goods.  In response to Chile’s comment 
that the proposal was incompatible with the MF N principle, since different treatment would be 
granted depending on the entities or importers, he no ted that the US had made a similar proposal in 
the Negotiating Group on Trade Facili tation.  This proposal suggested that in some circumstances, 
different treatment - including tariff free treatment - could be given on the basis of operators bringing 
the goods into a country.  Such an approach was therefore not inconceivable.  By proposing to 
identify environmental activities and the entities invo lved in such activities, India believed the non-
paper was addressing the objective of the mandate.   
98. Regarding the issue of services and the extent to which preferential treatment would impinge 
on the services negotiations, India noted that the pro posal was to negotiate an outcome which could 
provide a more preferential access to environmental services, similar to what Members were 
negotiating for goods. 
99. On the issue of transfer of technology, Indi a believed that improved access would be in line 
with the objective of sustainable deve lopment.  It would also encompass issues such as the creation of 
production capacity for environmental goods and access to the latest technologies for improving the 
environment.  He added that the CTE could mon itor any hindrance faced in  granting such access to 
technology.   
                                                      
7 JOB(06)/149.  TN/TE/R/19 
 Page 19 
 
 
  100. With respect to NTBs, India recalled that in th e context of the mandate in Paragraph 31, the 
NTB issue would go beyond what was understood in the context of the NAMA negotiations.  India made reference to the ITA Ministerial Declaration which sought to address Members’ difficulties with 
NTBs.  India believed that under Paragraph 31, NT Bs would not only include commodity trade but 
would also incorporate issues such as intellectual pr operty and services.  India proposed that the work 
programme itself be based on issues that Members would bring forward.  Taking the ITA example 
further, India noted that the harmonization of el ectro-magnetic compatibility was discussed and that 
some guidelines had been adopted in that context.   At that stage, India was only considering a 
provision that would allow further discussions of NTBs. 
101. He noted that the EC had raised a number of questions regarding the environmental categories 
and whether there would be discrimination on the basis of entities.  The non-paper proposed that 
Members register the entities that were engaged in  environmental activities.  India noted that all 
businesses were registered with some authority and that registering environmental activities was not 
an entirely new concept.  Furthermore, his delega tion believed that the question of the large number 
of entities that could potentially be regi stered was one that could addressed.   
102. India had been deliberately non-prescriptive about the process of monitoring or ensuring that 
listed entities would not misuse the tariff concessions that were available, or would not use the goods 
for non-environmental purposes.  Each Member coul d devise its own mechanism to ensure that the 
goods benefiting from tariff concessions were indeed used for an environmental purpose.  India had 
referred in its introduction to a possible negative list,  in reference to the fact that entities could import 
goods which had nothing to do with the environmen t.  Approved entities would be subject to some 
post-clearance auditing to ensure that there was no misuse.   
103. Responding to a question from the US, India confirmed that any entity registered in a country, 
whether domestic or foreign, woul d be eligible for tariff concessions.  Regarding Egypt’s point on the 
issue of hazardous waste, India explained that  the non-paper referred to the management of 
domestically generated waste and not the import or trade of waste.   
104. India had tried to put forward an approach that would help Members find convergence 
between the different approaches on the table.  Hi s delegation welcomed the questions raised and 
remained open to further discussions with other Members with the aim of reaching convergence. 
105. The representative of Argentina
 said that the questions raised by delegations had been very 
useful, particularly since the objective of the non- paper was to serve as a basis for developing an 
alternative approach.  With respect to a comment  made by the EC regarding paragraph 2 of the 
non-paper, Argentina believed that no Member had contradicted the fact that some goods were 
environmental per se .  In this regard, he mentioned that  the delegation of Brazil had given the 
example of biofuels.  As emphasized in paragraph 2,  it was in fact the context or the environmental 
activity in which the good was used that c onferred to it its environmental nature.   
106. With respect to the comments on the legal cons istency of the integrated approach, and in 
particular the compatibility with the MFN clause, Ar gentina noted that the approach proposed did not 
involve discrimination based on the origin of g oods.  There was the question as to whether a good 
imported in the context of an e nvironmental activity would be c onsidered "like" another similar 
product imported for an industrial purpose.  He noted that according to WTO jurisprudence, the concept of "like products" went beyond the physical characteristics of the goods.   
107. Argentina asked whether accrediting one entity but not another would amount, in and of 
itself, to discrimination.  He doubted this would be discriminatory from a legal WTO perspective, as 
this would be similar to situations where Memb ers offered subsidies to a particular activity.  
Argentina agreed with the US' point regarding discrimination between entities and consumers in TN/TE/R/19 
Page 20  
 
  general but in his delegation's view , this was similar to situations where agriculture was subsidised 
through consumers and was not contrary to th e principles of National Treatment or MFN under 
Articles I and III of GATT 1994.   
108. With respect to the concerns raised rega rding the number of entities and the difficulties 
related to the registration or notification of those entities, Argentina noted that the main objective of 
notifying and registering entities was to give de veloping countries the flexibility to progressively 
increase the use of these products based on environmen tal objectives.  From the point of view of 
imports, countries like the US, Australia or Canada could lower their tariffs to zero and not register 
any entity.  As priorities varied among Members, it was important that ne gotiations yielded results 
from a development perspective.   
109. Responding to the questions raised on the notifi cation procedure, Argentina explained that 
this was linked more generally to the modalities of the proposed approach.  The notification procedure 
needed not be complex;  it could comprise of a lis ting of entities that would potentially be involved in 
the agreed environmental activities.  He noted that a similar approach had already been adopted in the 
area of government procurement.   
110. Some delegations had raised th e question of how to ensure that an accredited entity importing 
goods on a preferential basis would use such goods stri ctly in the context of an environmental activity, 
and not for another industrial purpose.  For Argen tina, this was a domestic matter that could be 
addressed at the stage of implementation, fo r instance through certification or accreditation 
procedures.   
111. Argentina had noted the questions about tariff reductions being made on a case-by-case basis.  
Under the integrated approach, tariff concessions would not be granted on a case-by-case basis as was 
the case under the project approach;  it would cove r all goods required in the context of the 
environmental activity performed by the accredited entity.  Argentina believed that some of the 
questions raised could be dealt with in more detail when Members would discuss the operational 
modalities.   
112. Finally, Argentina believed that progress under Paragraph 31(iii) nego tiations would depend 
on some opening on the part of the proponents of the list.  For his delegation, it would be unacceptable to consider environmental goods nego tiations as a simple "NAMA plus" exercise.   
113. The Chairman
 noted that a useful discussion had taken place on the new contribution by India 
and Argentina.  He also recalled that the conve rgence set of the proponents of the list approach 
circulated in JOB(07)/54 had been on the table for some time.  The Chairman encouraged delegations 
to pursue their discussions in order to find a way forward under Paragraph 31(iii). 
IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
114. The CTESS agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc  invitations issued for that meeting and 
extended to international organization at the next meeting of the CTESS. 
 
__________