WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1 
16 June 2005 
 (05-2548) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session Original:   English 
 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS 
 
Submission by New Zealand  
 
Paragraph 31 (iii)  
 
Statement by New Zealand at the CTESS Informal Meeting of 10 June 2005  
 
Supplement  
  
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. New Zealand believes that we have made consid erable progress on paragraph 31 (iii).  This is 
a view that is shared widely in the CTESS and New Zealand was encouraged therefore to see this 
confirmed in the Chair's recent report to the Trad e Negotiations Committee, which advised that there 
was a "general view that as a potential outcome for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, 
delegations could prepare a list of environmental goods."
1  
2. New Zealand considers that the Chair's report ac curately reflects the discussions in February 
and it is in this context that New Zealand is pleased  to table its first list of environmental goods.  Not 
only is this New Zealand's first list of environmenta l goods, I believe it is the largest one yet tabled at 
the WTO.   
3. New Zealand also welcomes the contribution from Canada which is simila rly designed to take 
us forward in the development of a c onsensus list of environmental goods.   
II. ACHIEVING "BALANCE" IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS NEGOTIATIONS 
4. When New Zealand presented its conceptual  approach to the environmental goods 
negotiations, many Members underlined the importa nce they attach to a "balanced list" of 
environmental goods, i.e. a list of  products which takes into accoun t areas of commercial interest to 
developing countries.   
5. A number of developing countries have questioned the benefits fo r them of freeing up trade in 
environmental goods, commenting that most envi ronmental goods proposed thus far have been 
"high-tech" products that are primarily of interest  to developed countries.  New Zealand noted, for 
instance, that this point is referred to in the recent submission from India.2 That is an intriguing 
argument.  It is one which New Zealand took as a challenge in its own work to develop a list of 
environmental goods that could span this broad range of interests.   
                                                      
1 TN/TE/11 of 14 March 2005. 
2 TN/TE/W/51 of 2 June 2005. TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1 
Page 2  
 
 6. It was in that spirit that New Zealand developed the list contained in TN/TE/W/49.  In 
addition to seeking to advance New Zealand's commerc ial interests and our interests in domestic and 
global sustainability, New Zealand sought to ensure that its list is a "balanced" one, i.e. a list that 
takes into account developing countries' very r eal and rapidly growing commercial interests in 
environmental goods.   
III. INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PRODUCTS (EPPS) 
7. New Zealand's approach consisted of two in ter-related components.  First, New Zealand 
analysed the work that UNCTA D has done on what it describes as environmentally preferable 
products.  New Zealand wanted to take these items  into account when developing its list.  To 
incorporate these into the New Zealand list, a new category of products for the WTO negotiations is 
proposed.  This category is described in our list as "Environmentally Preferable Products based on end 
use or disposal characteristics only."  
8. The trade with New Zealand in these items is dominated by developing countries.  Over the 
past eight years, more than 90% of the EPPs on the New Zealand list that were exported to 
New Zealand came from developing countries, including, for instance, countries like Bangladesh, 
Kenya, Zambia, South Africa, Tanzania and India.  In other words, 90% dominance by developing 
countries and an example of very real South-North trade. 
9. Second, New Zealand has reflected on a comment ma de at the last meeting to the effect that 
OECD countries are only interested in what one Me mber called a "costless" negotiation, i.e. that 
developed countries would list products for negotia tion on which the existing tariffs were already 
extremely low or at zero, but were relati vely higher in developing countries.   
10. The reality is somewhat different in the case of  the New Zealand list.  A number of the items 
currently on its list are ones for which the bound ra te is significant.  In many cases the bound rates 
range from 10-15% and in some cases above that.  Moreover, New Zealand has some bound rates of 30% in our Uruguay Round Schedule, including on, for instance, two EPP lines of interest to 
developing countries.  These are the product li nes of HS 560710 (twine made from jute) and 
HS560721 (twine made from sisal). 
11. These are not the only examples of products on the New Zealand list that attract high bound 
rates designed for historical reasons to protect a local New Zealand industry from competition and 
raise revenue.  There are a number of others which Members can readily verify by looking at our schedule. 
12. It was in this context that New Zealand was con fronted by a difficult decision as to whether to 
list items at the WTO around which there were qu ite serious tariff sensitivities.  In the end, 
New Zealand made a conscious political decision to  proceed and list these items despite the presence 
of these high bound rates.   
13. New Zealand did this for two reasons.  First, because it attaches great importance to these 
negotiations and understands the need to ensure a balance in outcomes.  Second, this decision was 
made because New Zealand wanted to  make it clear that this negotia tion should not be about offering 
only to liberalise trade in products for which there is already essentially free trade.  That would be 
meaningless.   
14. In short, New Zealand has signalled to these ne gotiations that those very high bound rates on 
items detailed on the New Zealand list are up for re duction and potential elimination.  This is in 
keeping with the spirit of what our Ministers in tended when they drafted paragraph 31 (iii).    TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 15. Second, having looked at the products which UNC TAD believed would be most interesting to 
developing countries, New Zealand undertook a rigorous an alysis of all of the items on its list to see 
where developing countries' commercial interests might be, not just with New Zealand, but globally.   
IV. DEVELOPING COUNTRY INTERESTS IN THE TRADE IN ENVIRONMENTAL 
GOODS 
16. New Zealand appreciates the value of data.  Good clear numbers robustly and rigorously 
generated have a truth all of their own.  They ha ve a particular appeal because their existence cuts 
through verbiage and rhetoric.  Importantly, numb ers also provide a context for statements which 
otherwise may sound too much like sweeping generali zations.  The following is data drawn from an 
analysis of the New Zealand list: 
- In 2003 exports of environm ental goods on New Zealand's list accounted for nearly 3% of 
total exports from developing countries globall y, compared to 4.7% for all countries 
combined. 
 - Between 1997 and 2004, the trade in environm ental goods on the New Zealand list by OECD 
members rose at a per annum rate of 0.7%.  For developing countries, however, the growth 
rate was nearly 10% per annum.   
 - For a large number of developing countries the growth rate in the trade in items on the 
New Zealand list exceeded an average of 15% per annum and for at least a handful of developing countries the growth rate averaged 35% per annum. 
 
- New Zealand's own growth rate in this trade w as higher than the OECD average, but still well 
below the bottom third of developing country traders. 
 - In three of the categories of environmental goo ds on our list, developing country trade has 
grown by nearly 25% per annum and in tw o of these categories developing countries 
collectively account for the majority of the global trade.   
 - Of the items on the New Zealand list which Ne w Zealand currently imports, nearly 40% are 
already being supplied by developing countries.   A projection New Zealand has done suggests 
that, within the decade, more than half a nd possibly as much as 65% of its imports of 
environmental goods will come from developing countries.   
 - The trend therefore is clear – this is a dynami c and evolving trade which over the past five to 
eight years has tilted very strongly in the direction of developing countries. 
 
17. A significant number of items on the New Zeala nd list are ones in which developing countries 
have a rapidly growing commercial interest.  Many of these items are of the "high technology" type 
which the submission TN/TE/W/51 observes were not of interest to developing countries.  The 
following are some very specific items drawn from the New Zealand list that provide a context for that suggestion: 
- HS854140 (photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells):  developing 
country global exports in 2003 were worth US$2. 1 billion and this comprised 19% of global 
exports in 2003.  Exports from developing count ries on this item have expanded at a rate of 
15% per annum over the past eight years. 
 TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1 
Page 4  
 
 - HS853931 (electric discharge lamps (excl. ultra-violet lamps), fluorescent lamps, hot 
cathodes).  Developing country trade in this item amounted to US$680 million in 2003.  Collectively, comprised nearly a fifth of global exports of this item. 
 - In terms of New Zealand-specific data, 100%  of New Zealand's imports of HS841011, 
hydraulic turbines and water wheels came from developing countries in 2003; 59% of 
HS851629 (electric space heating and soil heating apparatus) came from developing countries;  40% of cathode rays imported into New Zealand came from developing countries, 
as did 37% of multimeters (HS903031).  77% of New Zealand's imports of phosphate 
trisodium (HS283523) come from developing c ountries;  94% of New Zealand imports of 
matting for erosion control similarly come from developing countries.   
 18. In short, an examination of the statistics, pa rticularly the trends, indicates that developing 
countries do have a very real commercial inter est in the items on the New Zealand list.   
19. A negotiation therefore that is focused on a list of environmental goods offers the best 
opportunity to capitalize on this important and rapidl y expanding trade in a way that perhaps no other 
proposal does.   
V. CATEGORIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS 
20. The proposed environmental goods in the New Ze aland list are organised into categories.  
These were selected to help illustrate the envir onmental purpose justifying the products' inclusion in 
the list.  Most of the categories used have been previously proposed in the CTESS by Canada, apart 
from two.  These were wastewater management  and natural risk management proposed by 
New Zealand in February.
3  However, in compiling New Zealand's list, it was considered necessary to 
include three new categories not yet proposed at the WTO.  These are: 
- Environmentally preferable products based on end-use or disposal characteristics;  
- cleaner or more resource-efficient technologies and products;  and 
- waste and scrap utilisation.   
 21. Importantly, these latter categories were ones that comprise a significant and growing 
developing country trade.  New Zealand encourages the Secretariat to include these latest three and 
the earlier two categories proposed by New Zeal and in its revision of its compilation paper.
4     
VI. CORRIGENDUM TO TN/TE/W/49 
22. There is currently a reference point missing for the last item in the Cleaner or More Resource 
Efficient Technologies and Products category (HS870390) motor vehicles, specifically electrical cars).  The reference point is the OECD defin ition and New Zealand would be grateful if the 
Secretariat could make the necessary adjustment to TN/TE/W/49. 
VII. ESTABLISHING A LIVING LIST 
23. New Zealand attaches great importance to the concept of a "living list" which it first 
introduced in February this year.  Since environmental goods are an evolving category, it is New Zealand's view that the process of developing a list of such products should be dynamic rather 
than static.  The OECD has estimated that half of  the environmental goods likely to be in use within 
the coming decade do not currently exist.  There is  a risk therefore that any list agreed at the 
                                                     
 
3 TN/TE/W/46 of 9 February 2005. 
4 JOB(05)/57 of 19 April 2005.  TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 conclusion of the Doha Round woul d rapidly be overtaken by th e evolution of environmental 
technologies.  In this context, New Zealand consid ers that any list of environmental goods that is 
developed at the WTO should be considered a living one. 
VIII.  CONCLUSION 
24. In terms of the way forward to July and beyond, New Zealand encourages the Secretariat to 
revise its synthesis document to take into account t hose new lists being tabled by Members, including 
the New Zealand list.  An updated compilation of the lists tabled at the WTO to date will provide a 
very useful focus for our discussions in July.  Ne w Zealand encourages other Members to submit their 
own lists to ensure that their interests ar e also accounted for in this negotiation.   
__________