RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/15 
5 April 2006 
 (06-1591) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE FIFTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
21-22 FEBRUARY 2006 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS) held its fifteenth 
meeting on 21-22 February 2006 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/2753.   
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAS) 
2. The Chairman
 noted that there were no new submissions under this agenda item.   
3. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that in Paragraph 30 of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration, Ministers had instructed Members "to intensify the negotiations without prejudging their outcome on all parts of Paragraph 31 [of the Doha Mi nisterial Declaration] to fulfil the mandate".  
Therefore, progress had to be made in all three ar eas of Paragraph 31, incl uding Paragraph 31(i) and 
(ii).  She noted that the Director General had pr oposed timelines to help focus the work in 2006.
1  
These timelines set out with great precision the wo rk ahead, including in those areas where the 
Hong Kong Declaration was more general.  With re gard to negotiations under Paragraph 31(i), the 
timelines suggested that text-based negotiations should start by September 2006.  For Switzerland, a 
successful outcome under Paragraph 31(i) negotiations  was a priority.  However, at that stage, 
Switzerland was ready to focus its efforts on Paragra ph 31(iii) in order to advance discussions with a 
view to meeting the April deadline for modalities.  She noted that Switzerland would come forward 
with a proposal under Paragraph 31(i) in early summer in order to contribute to the discussion.   
4. The representative of the European Communities  (EC) noted that in the lead-up to 
Hong Kong, little progress had been registered in th e rules negotiating areas, including in negotiations 
under Paragraph 31(i).  However, these issues would have to catch up with the overall program, which 
had been dominated mainly by the Agricultural and NAMA negotiations, since all the negotiations 
were part of a single undertaking.  The EC woul d take seriously the mandate that Ministers had 
agreed to in Hong Kong to intensify the work under Paragraph 31(i), and would also bring forward more ideas on how to tackle this mandate in or der to achieve a reasonably ambitious outcome.  The 
EC was ready to work with all delegations to ensure  that this would happen.  The EC noted that it 
would present text in due course in order to give  other delegations a better idea of how it saw the 
negotiations shaping up in the forthcoming months.   
5. The representative of UNEP
 wished to brief the CTESS on UNEP's activities related to the 
overall objective of the negotiations  under Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration to enhance the 
mutual supportiveness of trade and the environment.   
                                                      
1 JOB(06)/13.   TN/TE/R/15 
Page 2  
 
6. Prior to the next meeting of the CTESS, UNEP would be forwarding to governments for 
review and comment, a draft paper commissioned by  UNEP which examined the use of trade-related 
measures in several MEAs, including:   the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species;  
the Montreal Protocol;  the Basel Convention;  th e Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent;  
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;  and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants.  The aim of this paper was to s upport UNEP’s mandate to promote understanding and to 
disseminate information about trade-rela ted measures in MEAs.  The paper noted, inter alia , the 
importance of considering trade-re lated measures within the overall context in which the measures 
were negotiated, given that these measures were de signed to serve a specific objective, and formed 
one part of an overall package of measures de veloped for effective MEA implementation.   
7. In addition to this analytical work, UNEP ha d recently launched two multi-year initiatives to 
enhance mutual supportiveness of trade and environmen tal policies at the national level.  The first 
initiative, a four-year project launched in the se cond half of 2005, aimed to support developing 
countries in their efforts to implement the Conven tion on Biological Diversity by enhancing national 
capacities to assess, design and im plement policies that maximized development gains from trade in 
the agricultural sector, while minimizing the impact on biodiversity.   
8. UNEP, in close collaboration with the UNEP- World Conservation Monitoring Centre, was 
developing an Integrated Assessment Reference Ma nual that would be customized and applied by 
national institutions in six African, Caribbean a nd Pacific countries.  Based on the outcomes from 
these assessments, integrated national respon ses would be designed and implemented.   
9. In a second initiative, the UNEP-UNCTAD Ca pacity Building Task Force, the CITES 
Secretariat, and the Graduate Institute of Developm ent Studies had jointly launched a two-year project 
aimed at enhancing the capacities of developing co untries and countries with economies in transition 
to review, design and implement effective national wildlife trade policies.  Drawing on assessment methodologies developed by CITES and UNEP, a toolkit of wildlife trade policy assessment methodologies was being developed that would be applied by national institutions in four pilot 
countries with the support of an international advisory group.  The methodologies developed and 
lessons learned from these pilot studies would then  be used to develop a guidance document for use 
by other countries interested in undertaki ng similar wildlife trade policy reviews.   
10. Both of these national-level initiatives were  focused on developing and implementing 
practical methodologies and processes for enhancin g communication and coordination between the 
trade and environment communities at the national level. 
11. Finally, UNEP and the International Institute  for Sustainable Development had recently 
published the Second Edition of their Environmen t and Trade Handbook.  This edition had been 
updated to feature significant analysis of the WTO’s Doha programme of work, new material on regional and bilateral agreements  and a stronger emphasis on sustainable development issues.  UNEP 
wished to thank the European Un ion, the Government of Switzerla nd and the Geneva International 
Academic Network for their generous financia l support to the above-mentioned initiatives.   
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
12. The Chairman
 noted that there were no new submissions under this agenda item.   
13. The representative of the European Communities  noted that not much attention had been 
given to this part of the mandate of negotiations , but that the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration had 
actually blown some new life into this part of the mandate.  The EC wanted to have a debate at the 
next meeting on practical steps to be taken so as to advance on this mandate.  This issue was much 
less controversial than other issues discussed in  the Committee and was therefore conducive to  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 3 
 
 
progress building on some of the ideas that had b een brought forward by delegations in earlier 
submissions.  Members needed to consider these issues in a more structured manner and see whether there was a readiness to engage and improve the pr ocedures for information exchange.  In the EC's 
view, this should not be problema tic, as it did not prejudice the subs tantive position of delegations.  
He noted that this mandate was an important part of the mutual supportiveness of trade and 
environment.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31 (III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
14. The Chairman
 noted that a new submission had been circulated by the United States (US) in 
document TN/TE/W/64 entitled "Continued Work under Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration."   
15. He recalled that in January, he had held consultations with a nu mber of delegations to get a 
sense of how Members saw the work progressing in the CTESS.  He had noted from these 
consultations, a willingness on the part of delegation to  engage in technical work aimed at clarifying 
the scope of the mandate in Paragr aph 31(iii), without prejudice to th e approach to be followed to 
fulfil this mandate.  In this context, it had been sugg ested that some parameters  could be used to guide 
the discussion on environmental and developmental be nefits of products consid ered relevant under the 
mandate.  Based on the comments made in these cons ultations, he had put fo rward in an informal 
communication to delegations, some indicative parameters  in the form of questions that could be used 
to launch discussions.   
16. The first parameter raised the question as to wh ether products or categories of products had a 
clear and direct environmental end use.  This pa rameter was meant to assess, for instance, whether 
certain products were used solely for an envi ronmental purpose or whether multiple use products 
could be identified as having a predominant enviro nmental use.  The second parameter was meant to 
identify environmental products, categories of products or projects of particular interest to developing 
country Members, or which otherwise contributed to  sustainable development objectives.  Finally, the 
third parameter focused on other considerations th at could be taken into account when determining 
whether a product was an environmental good, e.g. wh ether the product was used in the delivery of an 
environmental service, or was otherwise harmful to the environment.  He emphasized that these were 
only illustrative parameters, and that additional pa rameters or considerati ons could emerge with 
respect to particular products or categories of products as the work proceeded.   
17. He noted that in the context of his consultations, other issues had been raised for 
consideration in the negotiations, including for instance special and differential (S&D) treatment, 
transfer of technology, non-tariff barriers (NTBs), as well as some other technical questions relating 
to tariff classification.   
18. The Chairman stressed that Members needed to ag ree on a simple tool that would help launch 
the discussions in a focussed manner.  By applying  indicative parameters to the examination of 
concrete situations, delegations would be able to draw certain conclusions regarding the products, 
categories of products or projects that they consider ed relevant within the scope of the mandate.   
19. In his communication to delegations, he had put  forward one possible way of structuring the 
work by looking at the various products or cat egories of products in the broader context of 
environmental projects or systems aimed at a particular environmental objective, such as the production of clean or renewable energy, or the pr otection of water, air and soils.  These broad 
categories were intended to capture a vast range of products discussed in the CTESS.  Moreover, he 
had suggested that other products could be cons idered in a second category of "environmentally 
preferable products" as the term was br oadly used in the Secretariat's sy nthesis paper.  This could also 
include, for instance, clean technology and products.  He emphasized that this  framework was simply 
aimed at providing a tangible basis for the discu ssions, in particular since there was limited time TN/TE/R/15 
Page 4  
 
available for Members to complete their work u nder the mandate.  The Chair welcomed any further 
suggestions from Members that could contribute to taking this process forward.  
20. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chairman for his efforts in putting 
forward some suggestions on how to structure th e work under Paragraph 31(iii).  The US had put 
forward in its paper (TN/TE/W/64) some ideas on how the work could be taken forward, by proposing 
a fairly simple and straight forward way of focusi ng and structuring the work.  The US believed that 
the CTESS had a real opportunity to contribute substa ntially to the Doha Development Agenda and to 
sustainable development more broadly, by deliver ing a concrete result under Paragraph 31(iii).   
21. Ministers in Hong Kong had instructed Members to complete the work expeditiously under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  As Members c ontinued to intensify their work on environmental goods, the US saw 
great utility in efforts by the CTESS to clarify simp le and straight forward parameters to fulfil the 
mandate in this area and to guide the Committ ee through its technical discussions.  Two main 
concerns had emerged from the discussions prior to  Hong Kong and subsequently in some informal 
discussions that the US had held with other delegati ons:  first, that the Secretariat's Synthesis of 
Submissions under Paragraph 31(iii)2 had become very large and unma nageable for many delegations;  
and second, that the direct environmental benefits of  some of the products that had been proposed so 
far were not always clear.   
22. At the same time, there seemed to be a willi ngness to engage in continued technical work 
needed to identify those goods that did not have a cl ear and direct environmental benefit.  In this 
regard, the US had put in its paper some indicative questions that were intended to assist delegations 
as they considered the products that had been put forward so far.  These indicative questions could 
provide useful parameters for the CTESS' discu ssions of the scope of environmental goods.  
Alternatively, these questions could also help de termine products that were potentially garnering 
greater convergence of views among delegations as to  their qualification as environmental goods for 
the purpose of fulfilling the mandate under Paragraph 31(iii).   
23. The first question put forward asked whether the product had a clear and direct environmental 
benefit.  Based on the discussions thus far, it appear ed that most delegations agreed that the primary 
factor in determining the answer to this ques tion was that the product had an obvious and direct 
environmental end use.  For instance, where the product was used to control pollution or clean the 
environment.  The question encompassed direct envi ronmental end use, but would also capture other 
rationales for why a product had a direct e nvironmental benefit apart from end use.   
24. If a clear and direct environmental benefit was identified, delegations would also need to 
consider whether the product had dual or multiple use.   If it did, the US s uggested that the following 
additional questions be raised:  (a) could this du al or multiple use be addressed by using a narrower 
product description at the national level (i.e. at 8 or 10-digit level);  and (b) was the product so central 
to the delivery of key environmental or developmen tal benefits that its exclusion from liberalisation 
would significantly reduce the intended environmen tal benefit of this in itiative and thus hinder 
sustainable development objectives.  The third question put forward by the US was whether the 
product was sensitive or otherwise raised concerns fo r delegations.  For instance, did it appear to be 
inconsistent with sustainable development obj ectives.  Based on its discussions with several 
delegations, the US considered it necessary to allo w Members to express legitimate concerns related 
to trade, the environment or development, or as they related to a particular product. 
25. These simple questions could be applied in addressing in turn, various categories of goods 
drawn from the Secretariat's compilation, such as air pollution control, environmental monitoring, 
analysis and assessment, and renewable energy, whic h Members were already familiar with.  This was 
                                                      
2 TN/TE/W/63.  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 5 
 
 
without prejudice to other categories that could be  suggested and to the various approaches that had 
been proposed.   
26. The indicative parameters put forward by the US  were simple and straight forward and took 
into account the various concerns and questions that  had been raised over the last year.  However, 
these were not meant to be exhaustive, and Memb ers were free to suggest additional questions.  
As the work progressed, she expected that many qu estions would arise that would need to be 
addressed.  The US welcomed delegations' reactions  to these indicative questions.  Based on these 
questions and comments, the CTESS could move forward in its consideration of the proposed 
products.   
27. The US also welcomed delegations' thoughts on the categories that were of most interest to 
them.  Some of the categories that seemed to be c onsidered as a priority by many delegations included 
air pollution control, renewable energy, waste water management, and solid and hazardous waste 
management.  The goal for the US was to take on this  review of the various categories of products and 
any new proposals that might emerge.  Her delega tion was ready to undertake all the work necessary 
until April, and hoped that other de legations would be willing to enga ge.  This was without prejudice 
to the modalities and the approaches that would u ltimately be decided upon.  The US believed that 
this work had to be undertaken in the CTESS and i nvited other delegations to engage with an open 
mind.   
28. The representative of Cuba  thanked the Chairman and the Un ited States for their suggestions 
on the way forward.  Cuba recalled that it had raised in the context of informal consultations held by 
the Chair a number of issues of concern to many developing country delega tions, and asked how these 
concerns would be taken on board in the work to  be undertaken by the Co mmittee.  These questions 
included S&D treatment and well as NTBs, which form ed part of the Doha and Hong Kong mandates 
given to the Committee in relation to Paragraph 31( iii).  Cuba would not be able to move forward 
without the inclusion of such issues, emphasizing that the approach followed should not prejudge the outcome of the negotiations.  She asked that these issu es, which her delegation had raised in a spirit of 
constructiveness and with an open mind, be ta ken into account in future discussions.   
29. The Chairman
 noted that the communication he had sent to delegations on the way forward 
had not been circulated as a formal paper for the me eting.  He had taken note of the questions raised 
by Cuba, which he believed were important consider ations in the negotiations.  These issues had also 
been taken on board in his introductory statement.   
30. The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed his appreciation for the US contribution, 
which would help structure future discussion and complete the work expeditiously under 
Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Ministerial Declara tion, as instructed by Ministers in Hong Kong.  
In particular, the three questions raised by the US in its submission provided useful parameters for the 
CTESS' discussion of the scope of environmental goods.   
31. These parameters could then be applied in addressing various categories of goods, without 
prejudice to other categories proposed by Members.   After this category-by-category discussion, 
Members would have a better understanding of the coverage of environmen tal goods, and would be 
able to better address issues such as S&D treatmen t, NTBs, technology transfer, and the synergies 
between environmental goods and services.  This w ould also positively contribute to the process in 
the CTESS by engaging the proponents in justifying  the goods put forward and eventually dropping 
those that did not garner support.   
32. Chinese Taipei believed that there was a certa in degree of convergence between the US 
submission and the suggestions by the Chair on th e way forward under Paragraph 31(iii), particularly 
with regard to pollution management.  He noted that these points of convergence should be used as 
the basis for further intensified work.   TN/TE/R/15 
Page 6  
 
33. The representative of Cuba
 thanked the Chair for his clar ification, but noted that she 
continued to have doubts as to how the concerns rais ed by her delegation would be reflected in future 
discussions.   
34. The Chairman  reiterated that the document that had b een circulated was aimed at facilitating 
discussions in the Committee.  The elements ra ised by Cuba, as well as other points made by 
delegations in the informal consultations had been brought into the formal meeting in his introductory 
statement.  He recalled that it was for Members to  decide how they wished to proceed with the 
discussions in the Committee.   
35. The representative of Venezuela  thanked the Chairman for his suggestions on the way 
forward.  He agreed that the indicative parameters should serve as a point of departure to reach some 
progress in the work of the CTESS and to try to fu lfil the mandate under Paragraph 31(iii).  Regarding 
the indicative parameters suggested, he noted that  these underlined certain parts of the discussions 
which had been questioned by his delegation, as well as by other developing country Members.  
Venezuela believed that any list of products woul d have to be based on a clear definition of 
environmental goods and services.  The parameters should therefore be aimed at establishing clear 
and objective criteria that could lead to a definiti on which genuinely contributed to the protection of 
the environment and to development.  Without a cl ear definition of environm ental goods and services, 
Venezuela did not see how the discussion could m ove on to the consideration of the areas of 
application.   
36. The representative of Kenya  thanked the US for its paper.  He noted that since discussions 
were taking place elsewhere on some of the industri al products discussed in the Committee, Members 
could focus in the CTESS on products in other ar eas, in order to see whether the list could be 
narrowed down to at least some indicative products.  Industrial products would have to be liberalised 
in NAMA, whether or not the CTESS came up with  a list.  The CTESS needed to find a way to 
advance its work in a manner that would deliver e nvironmental and trade bene fits.  In Kenya's view, 
the issues raised by Cuba were important.  In this  regard, he noted that technology transfer would 
enable developing countries to produce the goods and to fully participate in the global market.   
37. The representative of the EC  believed that the suggestions by the Chair as well as the US 
paper provided a useful way to move  the debate forward, especially in light of the instructions from 
Ministers in Hong Kong to carry out th e work expeditiously.  In this re gard, he welcomed the fact that 
delegations were willing to move ahead in the CTESS.  The parameters and indicative questions 
which had been discussed provided a useful tool to  undertake further work and to clarify what had 
been proposed so far.  Without prejudging the appro ach to be followed, Members had to find a way of 
defining and asking these questions, including the issues raised by Cuba.  The EC therefore welcomed the Chair's proposal to look at products, systems, or projects within broad categories with a view to moving forward.   
38. The EC noted that the question of a linkage between goods and services, for instance, could 
only be answered when considering a specific situ ation, project or product.  The Chairman had 
suggested a way forward which involved launching a discussion on the basis of indicative parameters 
or questions, providing a forum to address the va rious issues comprehensively while considering 
individual items.  There was no need for Members to  reach agreement on a set of parameters, so long 
as Members agreed on a tool that they could use to  examine the individual items that had been put 
forward so far, and to have a better idea of the pr oducts, systems or categories that they wished to 
address in the CTESS.  
39. Regarding the points made by Kenya, he noted that there were two distinct mandates, namely 
that given to the NAMA group on industrial pr oducts on the one hand, and the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii) on the other ha nd, which involved the more specific task of identifying the 
environmental goods.  However, he agreed with Ke nya's point that it was not a foregone conclusion  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 7 
 
 
that the discussion in the CTESS should be limited to  industrial goods.  While there had not been a 
decisive debate on this question, some of th e indicative parameters discussed encompassed this 
question.  This was an issue that would need to  be addressed in the CTESS, if Members wished to 
raise it, with a view to finding an answer that was acceptable to all Members.  He recalled that there 
were many technical challenges ahead (e.g. the ex out, the dual or multiple use issue or the 
environmental benefits of products) and limited time to fulfil the mandate.  The EC was ready to work 
with all delegations to gain a be tter understanding of these issues.  The EC believed that the Chair's 
suggestions on the way forward had pointed Members in the right direction.   
40. The representative of Australia  thanked the Chairman for his efforts to develop some 
indicative parameters to facilitate the discussions under Paragraph 31(iii), and al so thanked the US for 
its paper which drew out most of the key questions  which Australia believed should be applied to the 
various categories of goods that had been identified.   Australia had noted that the questions presented 
were not exhaustive and would cons ider whether any further questions  should be added.  Australia 
agreed with the view expressed by other delegati ons that Members needed to maintain a certain 
degree of flexibility in these discussions.  This included being able to accommodate concerns 
regarding for instance transfer of technology.  Australia believed that these discussions would also 
need to lead to outcomes that would be of be nefit to both developed and developing country 
Members.   
41. The representative of Chile  noted that both the Chair's and the US' suggestions on the way 
forward shared common objectives, namely:  fulfilling the mandate by applying certain parameters to 
products in various categories through a discussion of  the environmental benefits of products;  and 
narrowing down the list by agreeing on a set of environmental goods that could be sent on to other 
negotiating groups.  With this identification exer cise, the CTESS would have completed its mandate, 
and the mandate of the NAMA group, which was different from that of CTESS, which would come into play.   
42. Chile considered that the only clear parameter th at should be applied was that of final use.  
Through the inclusion of other parameters, Memb ers could start opening up the field of these goods 
thereby giving space for each Me mber or each proponent to defend their products.  Members would 
also have to establish some priorities among the di fferent categories, and in doing so, delegations 
would need to show some flexibility.  Her de legation remained open to any comments from other 
delegations on where to start in this discussion.  However, in her delegation's view, the category of 
environmentally preferable products raised some systemic issues and should not be included.   
43. Chile had concerns regarding questions 2(b) and 3 of the US paper, as well as the Chair's 
second and third questions, as they seemed to mix ma rket access considerations with environmental 
concepts.  Chile also shared the concern of other delegations regarding the time available to complete 
this work, and considered it important to fulfil th e mandate and to identify environmental goods.  In 
order to make some progress, the CTESS had to begin with the application of the first parameter, i.e. 
with products that had an obvious and direct environmental end use.  This parameter could be initially 
applied to one or two categories.  The CTESS coul d then advance in its work progressively, category 
by category, with the understanding that the lis t of goods would be extended as consensus was 
reached on the products.  However, to achieve this obj ective would require flexibility on the part of all 
Members.  The proponents would also need to show  a willingness to narrow down their list, and the 
Members that had put forward different approaches would have to try and clarify as much as possible 
these approaches.   
44. Any list agreed in the CTESS at the end of this exercise would have to be balanced and reflect 
the interests of both developing and developed countries, not only as regards the environmental 
benefits, but also in terms of export and import interests.  Chile was open to discuss a work 
programme to be implemented until the end of th e year.  Finally, she noted that the CTESS would 
benefit from having some information regarding th e work of the Special Session of the Council for TN/TE/R/15 
Page 8  
 
Trade in Services (CTSSS) on the identification of environmental services, given the synergies that existed between environmen tal goods and services.   
45. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the Chairman for his efforts to guide the CTESS in the 
discussions on the way forward under Paragraph 31(iii) in line with the provisions of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration to carry out the work expe ditiously.  Ecuador shared some of the concerns 
expressed by Cuba regarding the importance to include in the negotiations all of the elements of the 
mandate, including the NTBs to environmental goods and services, so that the outcome would reflect 
the linkage between these various aspects of the ma ndate, which were all important from the point of 
view of sustainable development.  Ecuador sh ared the sense of urgency in the discussions, and 
stressed that substantive progress needed to be made in other areas of the negotiations, including 
Agriculture.   
46. Ecuador agreed that it was important to discuss i ndicative parameters or criteria to guide these 
discussions, without excluding any approach put forward by Members.  Such a discussion would also be useful to define those goods and services that  would provide environmental benefits for all 
Members.  This was, in Ecuador's view, the potential value-added of these negotiations.  The 
indicative parameters, guidelines or criteria should assist the CTESS in filtering the significant 
number of products identified that had no real e nvironmental justification.  Among the indicative 
parameters mentioned by the Chair, the environm ental end use parameter would make it easier for 
Members to define those environmental goods and services.   
47. As to the possible areas of application of the parameters, Ecuador felt th at it would be useful, 
without any a priori exclusion, to focus on cate gories of environmental goods and services that would 
be beneficial to all Members, and in particular  to developing countries through S&D treatment.  In 
other words, it would be important for the C TESS to establish priorities among the different 
categories and to define the various steps that would have to be followed in order to identify products 
that had clear environmental uses.  In this contex t, she noted the importance of S&D treatment, as it 
related to the transfer of technology for goods a nd services used to mitigate the environmental impacts 
of air, water or soil pollution, which many developing countries lacked.   
48. Regarding the categories of environmenta l goods and services to which the CTESS should 
give priority, Ecuador noted the need to take into  account those in which developing countries could 
be at a competitive advantage.  In this regard, she recalled that NTBs were an important component of 
the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii) given that they could prevent products of environmental use from 
circulating.  She noted that while the categoriza tion of environmental goods could be useful to the 
discussion, Members needed first to establish tho se criteria that would guide the examination of 
products in the various categories, so as to ensure  that the negotiations continued to be guided by 
environmental considerations.  Fi nally, with regard to the US paper, Ecuador asked whether the 
reference to "sensitive products" in the last ques tion was linked to the Agricultural negotiations.   
49. The representative of China
 thanked the Chairman and the US for their work, which had 
helped trigger the discussion on the way forward.  As  this was the first meeting of the year for the 
CTESS, it was important to work out a well-stru ctured and balanced approach for further 
deliberations in the CTESS with the objective of fu lfilling the mandate.  After a lengthy discussion of 
proposals tabled by Members, China believed that  the Committee needed a clear idea of the way 
forward under Paragraph 31(iii), but also of any po ssible follow-up actions by relevant negotiating 
bodies.   
50. In this connection, his delegation noted the e fforts of the Chair in trying to list a set of 
indicative parameters and possible categories with a view to facilitating the work.  He noted the Chairman's reference in his introductory rema rks to the identification of environmental and 
developmental benefits of goods, and to projects, and the references to the issues of synergies between 
goods and services, technology transfer and NTBs.  China appreciated the effort to accommodate  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 9 
 
 
different ideas with a view to achieving triple-w in objectives.  However, looking at the indicative 
parameters, it seemed that if the CTESS tried to find answers to these questions, it would fall into 
another round of debate about dual use, or about the list vs the project approach.   
51. As a newly acceded Member, China regarded th is negotiation as a learning process.  China 
believed that the identification of environmenta l goods in the CTESS was different from sectoral 
negotiations, e.g. on electric and electronic products , or textile products.  The latter was about the 
physical nature or character of a product, while the former was about the purpose or end use of a 
product.  It was also easier in the context of the latter to identify products, whereas in the case of the 
former, any product could be considered as having an environmental purpose.  While it was easy to 
say that a hammer was not an electronic product, it w as not easy to say that a hammer was absolutely 
not an environmental product.  Environmental goods needed to be defined by parameters such as the 
product's final use or purpose.  Even some ty pical environmental goods, such as environmental 
monitoring equipment, could also be used for milit ary purposes;  however, a sweater or a T-shirt, 
whatever the use, was no doubt a textile product.  This was the main reason why China encountered 
so many conceptual and practical difficulties in this exercise.   
52. China noted that if Members tried simply to de lete from the list those products for which they 
had difficulties tracing the end use, this would not be fair to their possible environmental function, 
and could run counter to the objective of the ma ndate.  This raised the question of how the 
environmental function or end use of a certain pr oduct could be highlighted simply by listing the 
products, and whether drawing up a list of enviro nmental goods was the only way to fulfil the 
mandate.  China found it easy to identify categori es, since categories were actually areas of the 
environmental end use of products, but difficulties would necessarily arise when examining certain 
products.  Therefore, debating issues such as the dire ct environmental end use of products, the dual or 
multiple use, or drawing up a long or a short list of environmental goods may not lead anywhere. 
53. In China's view, addressing some of these difficulties could also help the CTESS in finding a 
way forward in its work.  His delegation welcomed an y suggestions as to how different ideas could be 
incorporated in the discussion rather than pursu ing a single approach regardless of its basic 
difficulties.   
54. The representative of Thailand , also on behalf of Malaysia  and Indonesia , said that his 
delegation was not opposed in principle to a discus sion of indicative parameters if Members agreed 
that this was one potential way of moving forward.   However, his delegation supported the inclusion 
of indicative parameters that directly addressed th e environmental project approach.  According to 
Thailand, the EPA gave Members more policy space, especially to developing country Members.  
Moreover, the project approach dealt more effectivel y with the difficult issue of dual or multiple use.  
One possible parameter relating directly to th e EPA could be, for instance, to identify the 
environmental projects of particular interest to de veloping country Members, or those that had a clear 
and direct environmental end use.   
55. Secondly, regarding the consideration of EPPs, he  recalled that the inherent linkage of these 
products to PPMs was a problem for his delegation.  He recalled that the main consideration invoked 
by some delegations for the inclusion of EPPs was that many of these products were of particular 
trade interest to developing countries.  However,  as a developing country Member, Thailand was of 
the view that the concept of EPPs would not help the CTESS in its efforts to identify environmental 
goods.   
56. Thailand thanked the US for trying to help the CTESS move forward by presenting their new 
paper, which his delegation was still examining.  Re garding the US suggestion in question 2(a) that 
dual or multiple use could be addressed by using a narrower product description at national level, he 
noted that if the question was answered in the ne gative, there would be no need to address question TN/TE/R/15 
Page 10  
 
2(b), since Members had different views on how centr al a certain good could be in terms of delivering 
key environmental or developmental benefits.  
57. The representative of New Zealand
 said that given the Director-General's suggestion that 
Members agree on parameters by the end of April, it was appropriate for the Chair to seek to focus the 
negotiations to achieve that end.  New Zealand a ppreciated the Chair's willingness to think creatively 
about some indicative parameters, without prejudice to other suggestions.  In his delegation's view, 
indicative parameters were the right starting point.  They would give substance to and build upon the 
CTESS discussions.  More importantly, the concep t would give Members the tools needed to 
accomplish the work that Ministers were expecting.  Like other Members, New Zealand believed that 
the overarching premise for these negotiations should  be on the universe of items which had an 
environmental benefit.  This was the reason why this particular area had been singled out by 
Ministers.  The indicative parameters suggested  by the Chair and those proposed in the US 
submission also acknowledged that.  He noted that the indicative questions of the Chair provided a 
starting point for Members to build upon, and the US submission put forward other ideas that complemented this framework.   
58. New Zealand had started a process of civil soci ety consultations around the items on its list 
proposed for negotiation.  Like other delegations , New Zealand had accepted that the scope of the 
negotiations needed better definition.  In practical terms, this could involve reducing the number of 
items up for negotiation, and his delegation was prepared to play its part in that process.  While the domestic process was not yet complete, New Zealand expected that the negotiations and the discussions of parameters in particular, would in form any policy choices that were being made in 
terms of the items that had been proposed by his delegation.  New Zealand had also reflected upon the 
kinds of parameters that could be used to make  the process more manageable.  In this regard, 
New Zealand had also come up with a set of questions  which shared some similarities with the Chair's 
indicative parameters and the questions set out in the US paper.   
59. One issue that had taken up a great deal of time domestically was the question of multiple 
use.  New Zealand suggested that this question coul d be considered in the context of two inter-related 
points:  first, whether the item was an essential comp onent of a plant or an equipment with a single 
environmental use;  and second, whether it could be identified at the border by a customs official with 
a narrower product description under national tariff codes.   He noted that the US had also raised this 
issue in its paper.   
60. The Chair's suggestions had been very help ful in focusing delegations' minds on the key 
issues, and the indicative parameters provided a good foundation to move the discussion forward.  
The Chair's suggestion to start applying those pa rameters to products was also a useful one.  
New Zealand saw merit in applying the indicative parameters to specific categories, and welcomed 
the fact that the Chair had set out groupings or categories that could be contemplated for discussion.  He noted that the second question set out by the US  in its paper addressed the dual use issue in a 
sensible and practical manner.  Furthermore, New Z ealand agreed with the categories proposed by the 
US for the application of the parameters.   
61. Regarding the EPP category, he recalled that hi s delegation had proposed that the concept of 
EPPs be defined on the basis of end use or disposal  characteristics of products only.  This definition 
had been proposed deliberately so as to rule out PP Ms.  He noted that othe r delegations had been 
similarly careful about the way in which they had de scribed that category.  If parameters were to be 
applied to this category, New Zealand believed that  it would need to be defined in this way.   
62. New Zealand expressed sympathy for the comments made by delegations which emphasized 
the need for the negotiations to benefit all Members.  He noted that it was diffi cult to deal with issues 
such as S&D treatment and NTBs in the abstract and that the best way to genuinely address these 
concerns was to actually apply the parameters to the specific categories and engage in a practical  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 11 
 
 
discussion.  He emphasized that the parameters  suggested were only indicative and could be 
supplemented as the work progressed.  New Zealand viewed the process as an organic and evolving 
one;  the main objective was for the CTESS to engage in a concrete discussion.   
63. The representative of Mexico  thanked the Chairman for his sugg estion to work on the basis of 
indicative parameters and his efforts to provide a structure to the discussion under Paragraph 31(iii).  
Her delegation also thanked the US for tabling its  paper in document TN/TE/W/64.  Mexico noted 
that the discussion of parameters should not prej udge the position of Members in the negotiations.  
In terms of the categories, she noted that the qu estion of end use was important.  However, her 
delegation raised some questions regarding some of  the other parameters, such as the one related to 
dual or multiple uses or the consideration of goods that had a lesser impact on the environment or 
which did not present a risk for the environment.   
64. Mexico shared the views expressed by Thailand with regard to the category of EPPs, and did 
not consider that such products we re relevant to the discussion in light of the difficulties highlighted 
regarding the identification of environmental goods  based on PPMs.  Moreover, regarding the point 
raised by the EC on the consideration of non-in dustrial goods, Mexico had already expressed its 
preference for excluding such goods from the discu ssion.  She asked the EC whether its proposal 
would provide, for instance, better access for organi c bananas in comparison to any other agricultural 
product.   
65. Mexico appealed to the proponents of the lists to revise their list instead of repeating that 
parameters were already included in these lists.  Mexico pointed out that a discussion of parameters would be counter-productive if it resulted in finding a ju stification for all of the items proposed so far.  
Finally, with regard to the negotiations on environmental services, Mexico supported Chile's 
suggestion that the Chair of the CTSSS should report to the CTESS on the status of the discussions so 
as to maintain the synergy between  the two negotiating groups.   
66. The representative of Singapore
 said that the suggestions from the Chair and the US 
submission on the way forward were timely, given th e need to make headway in the negotiations.  
Without prejudice to the various proposals on the ta ble and the issue of approach, Singapore believed 
that looking at parameters, as the Chair had sugg ested, was a good way of advancing the work.  
The US had also made some useful suggestions in this regard.  In particular, Singapore agreed with 
the suggestion to look at the obvious end-use of a product in order to determine whether it had a clear 
and direct link to the environment.  The end-use was a relatively simple and practical concept to 
implement, including for customs officials.  While his delegation supported the end-use criterion, this 
did not mean that other criteria should be exclude d.  In this regard, Singapore shared the view 
expressed by China that the CTESS sh ould not lower its level of am bition for the negotiations, which 
in his view could potentially benefit all Memb ers, in particular developing countries.   
67. He noted that the parameters presented by the Chair and by the US were only indicative, and 
that Members could bring in new parameters that  would contribute to fulfilling the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii) while deliver ing benefits to all Members from a trade, development and 
environmental perspective.  Singapore also supporte d the suggestion to apply parameters to a few 
categories of products.  Singapore noted the point ma de by the EC that the Committee's focus should 
not be restricted to industrial products.   
68. Regarding the issue of categories, Singapore was of the view that certain categories were of 
particular interest to developing countries, for instance renewable energy.  This category included 
products such as bio-fuels, which could be benefici al from an environmental, trade and development 
point of view.  Finally, on the question of dual or multiple use products, his delegation believed that 
there should be an inclusive approach to deal with them.  Some of the suggestions already put forward 
on how to treat such products, for instance using a narrower HS product description, or assessing whether their use was predominantly envir onmental, warranted further discussion.   TN/TE/R/15 
Page 12  
 
69. The representative of Egypt
 thanked the Chair for his suggestions on the way forward, which 
attempted to bridge the gap between the different  approaches.  He noted that there were still 
divergences on the issue of approach and that furt her work was needed on the lists that had been 
tabled.  The Chair's suggestions on the way forwar d provided a platform upon which further technical 
discussions could take place.  It was Egypt's conviction that discussions on how to structure the work 
in future needed to focus on de fining the scope of the work on environmental goods and services so as 
to ensure that the negotiations provided some valu e added from a development perspective.  While his 
delegation saw merit in discussing parameters and indicative questions  related to environmental goods 
and services, Egypt considered that it was for the pr oponents of the lists to revisit these lists, and it 
was not for other delegations to undertake this ex ercise for the proponents.  While Egypt was open to 
discussing parameters, he emphasized that this di scussion should be without prejudice to Members' 
positions in the negotiations.   
70. Regarding the integration of the development asp ect in the discussion, Egypt also appreciated 
some of the elements suggested by the Chair.  However, it was important to agree first on how 
environmental goods and services would be treated .  For instance, it was still unclear whether 
environmental goods would be treated as a sect oral in NAMA and how S&D treatment would be 
applied to these goods.  He asked how issues such as NTBs and transfer of know-how, for instance, 
could be integrated into the discussion.  These quest ions were not theoretical , and were important for 
many Members to engage in any discussion of de finition.  Egypt reminded delegations that other 
approaches were still on the table and that these appr oaches also merited the Committee's attention.  
India's environmental project approach, for instance,  had helped Members focus on certain aspects of 
the problem at hand.  Egypt also appreciated the fact that the integrated approach suggested by 
Argentina attempted to bridge the gap between  the different approaches on the table.   
71. For Egypt, it was incumbent upon Members to re vise the different approaches and to agree on 
the treatment that would be given to environmen tal goods and services.  This would provide some 
comfort for Members to engage further in the discu ssion.  He also noted that Members should avoid 
using broad terms such as "environmentally prefer able products", the "do no harm" principle, or " 
predominant environmental use" which were not help ful to the process.  Finally, he asked the US to 
provide some further clarification on the meanin g of the words "sensitive products" in the third 
question set out in the US paper, as these word s could be interpreted in different ways.  
72. The representative of Korea  said that the contributions by the Chair and by the US would 
facilitate the process of negotiations in the CTESS by developing parameters that could be applied in 
the identification of environmental goods.  Korea wish ed to reiterate that due consideration should be 
given to both environment and trade aspects for th e effective integration of the two elements.  He 
believed that criteria of the end-use and the practicab ility of using HS codes at the 6-digit level and 
ex-outs was the most pragmatic way to bring about environmental and trade benefits.  In order to 
assist the process of reducing the list of environm ental goods based on parameters, he noted that 
further technical work could be undertaken on th e potential environmental benefits of products, as 
well as issues related to the identifi cation of products at customs.   
73. The representative of Brazil  expressed his appreciation for the suggestions by the Chair and 
also to the US for its paper, which both raised some valuable questions that would help Members 
fulfil the mandate.  One point that Brazil had found pa rticularly useful in both papers was the idea that 
an environmental good had to have a clear and direct  environmental end-use.  This was a parameter 
that could help the group to narrow down the list of  products put forward provided that Members had 
a clear understanding of how to define end-use.   
74. Regarding the question of how to deal with dual or multiple use, he noted that his delegation 
was sceptical about the use of 8 or 10-digits as suggest ed by the US.  For instance, Brazil failed to see 
how "non-woven of manmade filaments with a speci fic weight" (entry number 116 in the compilation 
list) could have any environmental use outside of a specific context or project.  In this regard, Brazil  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 13 
 
 
shared the views expressed by Egypt, China and other delegations that some of the categories and parameters suggested so far would not be usef ul for the purposes of the discussion.  Members 
therefore needed to consider whether these coul d be supplemented by any additional questions, 
including some that would relate to the identification of goods used in environmental projects.  This 
would also provide a means of taking on board  the points mentioned by Cuba, including S&D 
treatment and the transfer of technology.   
75. Brazil agreed with New Zealand regarding the difficulties of discussing the issues of NTBs, 
S&D treatment and transfer of technology in the ab stract.  However, he did not believe that applying 
the indicative parameters to the categories on the tabl e would effectively contribute to the discussion 
of these issues.  Members needed to find a way of adding the project component to the parameters that 
had been discussed.  One way could be to revisit Argentina's integrated approach, which contained 
useful ideas that could gu ide the work ahead.   
76. The representative of Argentina
 thanked the Chair for his efforts and good work in presenting 
indicative parameters and possible areas of applicati on.  He also thanked the US for its paper, which 
showed good will in trying to indicate a path fo rward that would allow the CTESS to make some 
progress.  Following up on the comments made by some  delegations, Argentina wished to make three 
main points which in its view were crucial to the discussion.   
77. First, Argentina noted that the indicative para meters and the categories suggested for their 
application provided some flexibility to accommodate as many concerns as possible.  He recalled that 
the discussion under Paragraph 31(iii) had started ou t with very few basic re ference points, and had 
resulted in a compilation list that contained many items which delegations di d not consider to be 
environmental goods.  Argentina was concerned that  an open discussion based on general questions or 
parameters would lead Members to the same result,  by leading to a situation where each Member 
would pick and choose what was in its own interest .  Furthermore, Argentin a was not convinced that 
the parameters or categories identified were the right ones.  For these reasons, Argentina had doubts 
about the final outcome of such an exercise.  S econd, the CTESS had not yet found any solution to the 
conceptual problem of defining environmental goods .  This was not a question that Members could 
afford to ignore or leave aside.  Finally, his dele gation had suggested an alternative approach that 
integrated elements from both the list and the proj ect approaches.  While Argentina was ready to 
discuss parameters and the identification of envir onmental goods under different categories, he noted 
that the discussion should also include the idea of projects.   
78. The representative of Canada  said that in its own process of identifying parameters and 
indicative questions, his delegation had found some c onceptual overlaps with the suggestions made by 
the Chair and the US.  Both of these contributions had tried to identify simple questions.  However, 
asking simple questions was not an easy task if these were to be the essential questions.  Canada 
welcomed a discussion of the issues raised by some developing country Members, and was prepared 
to move forward on the understanding that both the Chair's and the US' proposals would serve as a 
basis in pursuing the task of clarifying environm ental goods in the CTESS.  With regard to the 
suggested areas of application, Canada indicated  its preference for the categories used in the 
Secretariat's compilation as reflected in the US pape r but was also willing to work on the basis of any 
proposal that garnered support among Members.   
79. The representative of Japan  said that the indicative parameters presented by the Chair and the 
US delegation provided a good starting point for narrowing down the list of products.  Japan noted 
that it had some concerns regarding some of the parameters.  However, gi ven the time available, 
Japan recognized that Members needed to move to  technical discussions where these parameters or 
indicative questions would be applied to  specific categories or situations.   
80. Japan was reviewing its own list of environmen tal goods and the discussi on of parameters and 
their application in the CTESS coul d facilitate and expedite this process.  The technical discussions TN/TE/R/15 
Page 14  
 
would also provide an opportunity to discu ss technologies or innovations developed for 
environmental purposes or which could be used to reduce adverse environmental effects.  Finally, 
Japan recalled its position that any product identif ied on the basis of PPMs should be excluded from 
the discussion.   
81. The representative of Switzerland
 welcomed the Chair's suggestion to test indicative 
parameters by applying them to different areas.  The timelines set out by the Director-General for 
negotiations in this area called for concrete results  by April 2006.  Therefore, there was a sense of 
urgency, as this result would have to feed into the work of the NAMA negotiating group on modalities for tariff reductions.  The NAMA group coul d not work solely on the basis of a set of 
parameters.  Members needed to know what would be the implications of these parameters and what 
HS tariff lines were at stake, hence the need fo r a technical discussion that would allow Members to 
test the parameters against the products or categories.   
82. Switzerland believed that the para meters had to achieve two main  goals, namely to highlight 
whether the goods had an environmental benefit, which was the specific mandate of the CTESS in 
Paragraph 31(iii), and whether these goods raised practical problems with  regard to their identification 
at customs.  The parameters needed to meet thes e two requirements and had to be sufficiently simple 
and flexible to reflect technical innovation that co uld occur in future.  They also needed to be 
indicative to facilitate the next step, which was to apply them to product categories or products per se .  
With respect to dual or multiple use there were, in  her delegation's view, two possibilities, namely to 
identify products beyond HS 6-digit level at national level or with an ex-out, or alternatively, to 
exclude any environmentally harmful product from the list.  Switzerland noted that the former option 
was more restrictive than the latter.  
83. Regarding the US submission in document TN/TE/W/64, Switzerland thanked the US for 
coming up with a good indicative list of questions.  Her delegation agreed that the environmental 
benefit should be considered first.  However, th e focus should not only be on end of pipe products, 
and prevention needs also had to be addressed .  Switzerland supported the point made by 
New Zealand regarding the EPP category and the criteri a of end use and disposal characteristics.  
Furthermore, her delegation agreed with Chile that the CTESS needed a broad outline or work 
programme proposing categories for the continuation of the discussions in the CTESS.   
84. The representative of South Africa
 said that her delegation agreed with the points made by 
other Members regarding the sense of urgency.  The fact that some delegations were picking up on 
issues such as S&D treatment was an encouraging sign that Members were not thinking only about 
what constituted an environmental good, but also about what would happen to this environmental 
good once Members had actually agreed on it.   
85. She noted that South Africa had not ruled out the possibility that environmental goods could 
include agricultural products.  Her delegation wa s not willing to accept the fact that the CTESS' 
contribution would be limited to the work in NAM A.  This question was premature since Members 
were still grappling with the definition of envir onmental goods.  South Africa was open to the concept 
of working with parameters, which was a useful wa y of refocusing the discussions.  Furthermore, the 
application of parameters was compatible with her delegation's preference for using projects as a 
means of identifying environmental goods, as projects allowed Members to start with the question of 
environmental use.  China had clearly articulated the kind of difficulties that developing country Members were facing in identifying environmental goods .  She noted in this regard that the project 
approach provided an easy way of identifying go ods which had a specific and clear environmental 
use.   
86. While South Africa supported work on the basis of  categories, any listing of categories for the 
purpose of the discussion should not be considered as exhaustive.  Within these categories, South 
Africa was considering identifying the sorts of pr oducts which would be used in the context of  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 15 
 
 
specific projects.  This was how South Africa was thinking of moving forward on the basis of parameters.  The use of parameters in future discussions would also provide a useful way of 
identifying NTBs associated w ith the projects, the technology or know-how gaps, as well as the 
appropriate services which would be attached to th ose environmental projects.  For her delegation, 
these were restricted to environmental services per se .   
87. The South African delegation would not be ab le to engage in a discussion on a product by 
product basis.  This was a task that needed to be undertaken in capital.  She noted that her delegation 
would not have the necessary expertise to deal w ith all the different categories in the CTESS.  
South Africa hoped that the discussion would guide the proponents of the lists in reviewing and 
shortening their lists.  Once the list would be br ought to a more manageable size, then other 
delegations could start engaging.  The onus was also on the Members supporting the project approach 
to build on it and provide some examples of goods and services required in the context of environmental projects.  Finally, she noted that wh ile her delegation would continue to work towards 
the objective of completing the Round by the en d of 2006, the only deadlines South Africa was 
committed to were those that had been  agreed to by Ministers.  In th is regard, she further noted that 
the deadlines set in April were fo r modalities in NAMA and Agricultu re and not for the environment 
negotiations.   
88. The representative of India
 said that while his delegation was open to the idea of working on 
the basis of parameters, it was not convinced about th e purpose of this exercise.   The US had made it 
clear in the presentation of its paper that they woul d like the parameters to be used to trim down the 
compilation list.  However, this was not something India could agree to.  India appreciated the fact 
that some of the proponents had started revising th eir list and had indicated that the discussion in the 
CTESS could help in this process.  However, it was not the purpose of the Committee to use the 
Synthesis list as a basis for fulfilling the mandate and deciding that the parameters should now be 
used to trim down the proponents' lists.   
89. While the suggestions made on the way forwar d were helpful, India believed that these 
suggestions were biased in that they did not take into account the project approach, nor the integrated 
approach put forward by Argentina.  India noted that in the build up to Hong Kong, it had become evident that a number of developing country Memb ers had severe problems with the list approach.  
Furthermore, Members had not been able to agree at Hong Kong on a common way forward.  India could not agree to simply move on to the identifi cation of products to be passed on to NAMA by 
April.  India's project approach was still on the ta ble, and it was not clear from the US paper how this 
approach could be taken on board.  Regarding the possible areas of application of the parameters 
mentioned by the Chair, India wish ed to seek a clarification on how the indicative parameters would 
apply to an environmental project.  Even if these categories were generally acceptable, the goods and 
services considered for tariff concessions under the EPA were those required for the purpose of the 
environmental project.  Therefore, India failed to see how the suggested areas of application catered 
for these kinds of situations.   
90. India had taken note of the point by South Africa that Members that supported the project 
approach needed to come forward with more deta ils on the approach and with some indicative goods 
and services that were commonly used in the cont ext of environmental projects.  In previous 
information exchange sessions, India had provided some examples on which future discussions could 
build.  However, there was in India's view an in- built bias in some of the suggestions made which was 
leading towards the list approach, and this creat ed problems for his delegation.  Moreover, the 
mandate in Paragraph 31(iii) had to be considered as a whole, including the issue of NTBs.  
Furthermore, India noted the role of services in th e discussion, and in particular the engineering and 
consultancy services that were linked to the deliver y of certain goods.  His delegation was concerned 
that this aspect of the mandate would not be su fficiently incorporated in the discussion.   TN/TE/R/15 
Page 16  
 
91. Regarding the issue of process, he agreed with  the delegation of South Africa that it would 
not be possible for his delegation to be sitting in  the CTESS with experts goi ng through products to 
determine whether these qualified as environmental goods on the basis of their possible use.  Finally, 
with regard to deadlines, he stressed that India felt committed only to those that had been set by 
Ministers.   
92. The representative of the EC
 said that the question raised by Mexico pointed to another 
question that the EC had raised in previous discu ssions regarding eco-labelle d products in the CTESS 
negotiations.  The EC was not actively propos ing eco-labelled products , but had nevertheless 
suggested that these could be considered as part of  the negotiations.  With regard to agricultural 
products, the EC was interested in hearing what ot her delegations thought, emphasizing that there was 
no a priori  exclusion.  He further noted that most of the EPPs, which the EC had defined as products 
with high environmental performance or low enviro nmental impact, were not actually PPM products.  
If Members looked at the individual goods on the table, they would find items such as animal or vegetable fertilizers that could be used instead of synthetic fertilizers.   
93. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 welcomed the indicative parameters that the Chair 
and the US delegation had put forward.  Her delega tion understood that these were only indicative and 
were intended to help the CTESS move forward and fulfil its mandate as agreed in Doha.  
Hong Kong, China believed that the parameters coul d help Members either in examining the list of 
products that had been proposed or in clarifying so me aspects of the environmental project approach.  
Hong Kong, China agreed that it would be up to the delegations that had put forward lists to revise 
them.  However, the discussion in the CTESS coul d still provide some useful feedback for the 
proponents to proceed with such revision.  The same also applied to the environmental project 
approach.   
94. Her delegation still had questions  regarding the EPA, e.g. how the issue of NTBs would be 
dealt with regard to the specific  products covered by projects.  As for the issue of NAMA, Egypt had 
made an interesting point about wanting to know wh at exactly the treatment of the products would be.  
Hong Kong, China was also interested in this question, as this would mean that Members had 
resolved the issue of modality in NAMA.  Hong Kong, China believed that the CTESS could add 
value to a sectoral discussion in NAMA.  In th e latter context, Members would look at products 
merely from the point of view of their own trade inte rests or would focus on products that they wished 
to export.  In the CTESS, Members could take into  account the broader pers pective of environmental 
benefits, as well as the development aspects.  This w as where some of the parameters that had been 
put forward could actually contribute to the discu ssion.  Her delegation therefore supported the 
proposal to move forward on the clarification of products.   
95. Cuba and other delegations had also mentioned some pertinent considerations, namely with 
regard to S&D treatment, NTBs and transfer of technology.  Hong Kong, China agreed with those 
delegations that found it easier to look at the concrete  products that were being considered rather than 
talking about S&D treatment in the abstract.  Finally , she asked Ecuador to explain further the linkage 
between transfer of technology and S&D treatment.   
96. The representative of Norway  thanked the Chairman for his work and efforts to bring the 
discussion forward.  He also thanked the US for pr esenting their paper.  Norway continued to support 
the view that a list of goods had to address primarily environmental objectives, and that the products 
identified under any approach would have to  deliver clear environmental benefits.   
97. In this regard, Norway fully supported the need  to identify some kind of parameters, criteria, 
or questions in order to progress on this issue.  What the Chair and the US had put forward provided a 
valuable starting point.  However, he agreed with  other delegations that further technical discussions 
on the issue were needed.  Norway had no strong view s on the different parameters or categories, as 
long as they reflected what his delegation believed to  be the main objective in the CTESS, namely to  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 17 
 
 
ensure that environmental improvements were made  possible.  Norway agreed that environmental 
products, categories of products or projects that were  of particular interest to developing countries 
should be properly addressed.  His delegation looked  forward to engaging in what it hoped would be a 
constructive debate on the way forward.   
98. The representative of Ecuador  said that her delegation wished to respond to the question 
raised by Hong Kong, China regarding S&D treatme nt and transfer of technology.  As was well 
known, S&D treatment was a cross- cutting issue in all the negotiati ons aimed at balancing certain 
existing rights among developed and developing counties.  In the context of these negotiations, the 
offensive interests of certain developing country Members such as Ecuador with regard to the lists 
tabled were fairly limited.  A preliminary stud y of the list had shown that Ecuador only exported 
2 per cent of the total number of products on the lis t.  Therefore, S&D treatment was particularly 
relevant to these negotiations.  One way of creati ng a balance was through transfer of technology, 
without prejudice to the different approaches on the table.  In the context of the project approach, technology transfer could be more operational.  In th e context of the list appro ach, the issue needed to 
be discussed further and clear criteria would have to be set.   
99. The representative of Cuba
 in response to the comment by New Zealand emphasized the need 
to make more operational and conc rete the question of S&D treatment.  Cuba agreed with Ecuador 
that there was a technology imbalance that should be addressed.  She also echoed the comment by 
Kenya that there was a need to reverse the situati on whereby developing countries continued to be at 
the receiving end of environmental goods and had very limited opportun ities to export such goods.  It 
was therefore important to have S&D treatment as well as transfer of technology.  The CTESS also 
needed to look at NTBs.  Without due attention be ing paid to these aspects, the negotiations would not 
translate into real access for all pr oducts.  In that context, Cuba has asked that these views be reflected 
in any agreement on the way forward, without prejudi ce to the issue of approach.  Cuba agreed with 
the point made by Egypt and Argentina that perhap s Members needed to take one step backwards in 
order to take two or three steps forward.   
100. The representative of the US  thanked the delegations that had commented on its paper.  She 
noted that the indicative parameters suggested by the US were not very much unlike some of the 
indicative parameters and questions that the Chair ha s raised.  However, the main area where the US 
paper and the Chair's proposal differe d was with regard to the areas of  application of the parameters.  
The US preferred to apply the parameters accordi ng to the categories that Members were familiar 
with, namely those listed in the Secretariat's comp ilation, which were essentially the categories that 
Members had themselves put forward.   
101. The US noted that the objective was not to creat e hard nosed criteria or some mathematical 
formula that would yield exact results.  What it had tried to do in putting together some broad parameters was to take into cons ideration the various concerns raised by delegations.  The US hoped 
that the indicative parameters that it had suggest ed were broad and balanced enough to accommodate 
all of the various views.  She underscored that these parameters were not inte nded to be exhaustive.  
Brazil had suggested that the CTESS in its examinat ion of categories could think about the products 
used in environmental projects.  This was a quest ion that the US had asked several times in the 
Committee.  Her delegation was interested in h earing more from those who supported the project 
approach about the kinds of products and categories that were used domestically.   
102. Regarding the concerns expressed on S&D treatme nt, the US had circulated in the CTESS a 
proposal for a modality based on a core and a comple mentary list.  This paper contained suggestions 
on how S&D treatment could be considered in th e negotiations.  While the CTESS' mandate was not 
to determine a modality, the US was willing to hear any specific suggestions on this matter. 
103. Several delegations had also raised the aspect of NTBs which was part of the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii).  As the CTESS moved to a discuss ion of categories, the US hoped that this would TN/TE/R/15 
Page 18  
 
give some context in which to discuss NTBs.  The EC was correct in pointing out that it was difficult 
to have a discussion of NTBs in abstract, outside of  a concrete context.  The US would be interested 
to find out about the particular products or categories where delegations were facing NTBs. 
104. Other concerns had been raised by delegati ons on the EPP category.  She recalled that 
initially there had not been much support for defining EPPs based on end use and disposal 
characteristics.  However, after more discussion in  this Committee, it had become clear that while 
those particular products were of interest to cert ain delegations, they raised some fairly serious 
concerns among other delegations.  This underscored the point that Members needed to have a very 
open discussion of the various products that had b een proposed so that Members could get a sense of 
what was agreeable or what would raise serious c oncerns.  It also emphasized the point that the 
discussion needed to take place in the CTESS, rath er than for the proponents to assume what other 
delegations wanted and did not want in trying to  create a shortened list.  The US hoped that the 
proponents could get such feedback through a structured discussion in the CTESS.   
105. Concerning the questions raised on the third indicative question proposed by the US, which 
used the term "sensitive", she noted  that there was no intention to establish a link with the agriculture 
discussions.  The objective of this third question was to give delegations scope to come forward with 
any other concerns about a particular product or category.   
106. The US agreed with the point made by China about  not lowering the ambition at this stage.  
With regard to dual use in particular, it was too ear ly to draw any major conclusions.  Some questions 
had also been raised about the second question set out  in the US paper on dual use.  Again, the US's 
intention was not to dictate what that discussion w ould be, but rather to offer some ideas on how to 
deal with dual use.  This was another area where the context was very important.  It was hard to have 
a discussion of dual use in the abstract, and it was important to have that discussion within particular categories of products or specific products on a case-by-case basis.  She noted that there had been a fairly positive reaction to the idea of organizing futu re work according to categories of goods so as to 
consider them in a more holistic manner.  The idea w as not to close any doors, but rather to set out a 
more structured path for some of the work that needed to take place, without prejudice to any other 
suggestions on the way forward that could be made in future.   
107. The representative of UNEP
 said that the UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force 
was commissioning the development of a paper that examined the experience of MEAs in identifying, 
providing access to and transferring environmental technologies.  In addition to furthering the 
implementation of these MEAs, this paper could also provide useful  insights for the environmental 
goods discussions in the CTESS.  The paper focu sed its analysis on the Basel Convention, the 
Convention on Biological Diversity, CITES, the Mo ntreal Protocol, and the Stockholm Convention on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants.  In particular, the paper analyzed relevant provisions and described 
various initiatives taking place within these MEAs relate d to technology.  A first draft of this paper 
had been forwarded to the relevant MEA Secretar iats for their initial comment, and would then be 
forwarded to governments for their comment.   
108. The Chairman  said that Members had gone a long way in  their exchange on the way forward.  
From these discussions, it seemed that Members were  now willing to engage in technical work, which 
was an encouraging sign at that stage of the nego tiations.  It was well understood that this technical 
work would not prejudge any discussion of approach es that could be adopted to fulfil the mandate 
under Paragraph 31(iii).  However, Members in the CTESS needed to focus on finding a practical way 
of launching this work.   
109. The idea of using parameters to guide future discussions was important to ensure that the 
work could proceed in a practical and focused ma nner.  There also seemed to be broad agreement 
among delegations that the paramete rs should remain fairly simple, and most importantly, flexible.  
He had noted that many delegations had expressed th e view that environmental end-use was the most  TN/TE/R/15 
 Page 19 
 
 
important parameter, but that there were also other considerations of importanc e to some delegations.  
The discussions had established that there was no point  in discussing parameters in the abstract.  
Instead, the parameters should be applied to conc rete situations and examples so as to enable 
Members to focus their attention on the various aspects of the mandate.   
110. With respect to the point made regarding th e value added of the CTESS' work, he believed 
that there was a need to take stock of the work  already carried out, the concerns expressed and the 
issues raised, in order to avoid duplication and repetiti ons.  He noted in this regard the useful work 
that had been carried out in the context of the Information Exchange Sessions, as well as the 
discussions held in CTESS meetings.   
111. He suggested beginning the technical discussions by applying parameters  to various products, 
categories of products, or projects aimed at particular  environmental objectives.  At the next meeting, 
the CTESS would initially focus on single environmental end-use to apply to products or situations.  
The CTESS would then need to consider other issues of interest to delegations.  Clearly, at that stage, 
there would be a need to broaden the scope of th e discussions beyond the issue of single use.  He 
further suggested starting the work at the next  meeting by focusing initially on two areas of 
application, namely Renewable or Clean Energy and Air Pollution Control.  Furthermore, 
cross-cutting issues such as S&D treatment, related NT Bs, transfer of technology and the justification 
of a good in relation to a particular context, project or system, would also be discussed.   
112. He emphasized that there was not much time le ft in the negotiations and that the CTESS had 
to use this time fruitfully to complete its task.  Members that had submitted lists had a responsibility 
to address the concerns raised with respect to certain  products.  This would allow them to take these 
concerns into account and to look again at their lists .  At the same time, those delegations that had 
suggested other approaches, including the enviro nmental project approach, would also have the 
opportunity to bring their ideas to the table for discussion.   
IV. OTHER BUSINESS  
113. The CTESS agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc i nvitations issued for that meeting at the next 
meeting of the CTESS.3   
__________ 
                                                      
3 The dates of the next formal meeting of the C TESS would be announced at a later stage.  The 
following organizations would be invited to participate as ad hoc  invitees:  UNEP, UNCTAD, the World 
Customs Organization (WCO), the OECD, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements 
of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity, the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Montreal Protocol on Substances 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 Persistent Organic 
Pollutants and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).