WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/W/46 
10 February 2005 
 (05-0552) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session Original:   English 
 
 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS 
 
Submission by New Zealand  
 
Paragraph 31 (iii)  
  
 The following submission, dated 9 February 2005, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of New Zealand
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The issue of environmental goods and services is  one of the areas in the environment sphere 
on which specific multilateral negotiations have been agreed.  Paragraph 31 of the Doha Declaration 
states:  
“With a view to enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and 
environment, we agree to nego tiations, without prejudging their 
outcome on … 
 
   (iii) the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariffs     and non-tariff barrier s to environmental goods and 
    services.” 
 
2. There appears to be a widely shared view that the Committee on Trade and Environment in 
Special Session (CTESS) should work on clarifying the definition or scope of environmental goods 
while not prejudging the responsibility of the Negotiating Group on Market Access (NGMA) for 
negotiating the modalities for liberalization of su ch goods in accordance with the Doha mandate.
1  
Paragraph 17 of the NAMA Framework which Members agreed in July 20042 encourages the 
Negotiating Group on Market Access to work closel y with the Committee on Trade and Environment 
in Special Session to address the issue of non-agri cultural environmental goods.  This proposal seeks 
to respond to that guidance. 
                                                      
1 The Minutes of the 10-11 October 2002 meeting of  the CTESS, for instance , recall that there was 
broad support amongst Members for negotiations on environmental goods being conducted in the NGMA, and that while some called on the CTESS to clarify the conc ept of environmental goods, others, while not opposing 
definitions being developed in the CTESS, could not accept any sequencing between the work in the two bodies.   
2 WT/GC/W/535 Annex B. TN/TE/W/46 
Page 2  
 
II. A “REFERENCE POINTS” APPROACH:  DEFINING BY DOING  
3. A clear problem for the CTESS process remains:   How can we agree a definition of an 
industry that is continually evolvi ng?  Various approaches have been  utilized and these vary in terms 
of their criteria and their scope.  These fall into two broad categories: 
• Narrowly focused definitions (i.e. those whic h are limited primarily to pollution prevention 
activities);  and   
• Broad-based definitions (i.e. those that  extend beyond simply end-use criteria). 
 4. In an effort to focus the discussion on environmental goods, a paper submitted by 
New Zealand in 1999 on the basis of work by APEC members provided details of a sectoral liberalization proposal on environmental goods.
3  More recently, New Zealand has joined other 
Members in seeking to reflect on how best to move  the process on environmental goods forward.  Our 
paper in 2002, for instance, sought to summarize previ ous work that could help clarify the concept of 
environmental goods.4  A number of Members have suggested that the OECD and APEC work be 
utilized in the development of a list of envir onmental goods.  Some Members have also provided 
suggested lists of environmental goods, including products of specific interest to developing 
countries, which they have propo sed be included in the market access negotiations on environmental 
goods.  
5. Although it might be possible to proceed with  negotiations without a formally agreed 
definition of “environmental goods”, it is worth reflec ting on the potential for difficulties when, in the 
absence of an agreed definition, a list of environm ental goods is under development.  What products 
will be on the list and which ones will be excluded?  How will Members be able to credibly include 
specific products on the list in the face of questions by other Members who may doubt the 
environmental credentials of that product?  
6. Given that there appears to be an emerging preference to “define by doing”, New Zealand 
proposes the following pragmatic solution to this qu estion.  Rather than formally negotiating an 
agreed definition of environmental goods, Members could use a set of “reference points” which may 
be cited to initiate a discussion about the enviro nmental credentials of a specific good.  Potential 
reference points which may be used to begin a di scussion on whether a good should appear on a list of 
environmental goods may include:    - The OECD’s
5 definition of environmental industries;  
 - APEC’s conceptualization6 of environmental goods;  and 
 - approaches to environmental goods agr eed through high quality and comprehensive 
  regional or bilateral Free Trade Agreements.  7. In effect, a reference point approach provides a screening mechanism designed to ensure that 
products proposed for inclusion on any agreed list of  environmental products meet a basic threshold.  
Absence of any reference point for a particular pr oduct would mean that it would not achieve the 
threshold requirement for discussion in terms of pos sible inclusion on a list of environmental goods.  
                                                     
 
3 WT/GC/W/138/Add.1. 
4 TN/TE/W/6. 
5 The OECD defines the environmental industry as comprising:  “activities which produce goods and 
services to measure, prevent, limit, minimise or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil as well as 
problems related to waste, noise  and eco systems” OECD (1999) The Environmental Go ods and Services 
Industry:  Manual for Data Collection and Analysis , OECD Publications, Paris. 
6 The descriptive section of WT/GC/W/138/Add.1.contains further details on the approach adopted by 
APEC, though it is also worth recalling that APEC eco nomies utilized the OECD definition cited in footnote 3.  TN/TE/W/46 
 Page 3 
 
 
8. It is important to note that even when a product has the requisite reference point, this simply 
means that a discussion can be initiated on whethe r the product should be included on the list of 
environmental goods.  In short, the use of a reference point does not automatically confer 
environmental goods status for the purpose of the establishment of a list through the WTO process.  
9. In this context, New Zealand supports Canada ’s recent intervention on which categories to 
use in developing a list of environmental goods.  In addition to the groupings Canada has proposed7, 
New Zealand suggests the following categories to help develop the list of environmental goods: 
 
 - Wastewater management (e.g. screens and strainers, chemical recovery systems etc);     and 
 - natural risk management (e.g. seismic instruments). 
 
III. DUAL-LISTS 
10. If the process described above is utilized, i.e. whereby reference points function as a 
screening mechanism as an initial step , then this would assist in the generation of a ‘‘raw’’ list of 
potential environmental goods.  New Zealand considers that the next  step should be to develop a 
single consensus list of products that is as compre hensive as possible.  This consensus-based list 
would be the ‘‘core list’’.  This would include those products around which there is already a broad 
consensus that these are environmental goods.  New Zealand further proposes that all of the products 
which appeared on the core list would be subject to  accelerated or deeper reduction or, as appropriate, 
elimination of tariffs within a specified time fr ame.  This process would also take into account 
discussions on the non-tariff barriers to the trade in  such products with th e aim of simultaneously 
reducing or, as appropriate eliminating these over the same period on an accelerated basis. 
11. However, it is clear from the exchanges to date  that there may be merit in moving beyond a 
single consensus list.  New Zealand supports the proposal
8 that a complementary list  of environmental 
goods could be established which w ould include additional products on which a definitive consensus 
could not be reached, but where there is a suffici ently broad acknowledgement that these goods can 
have significance for environmental protection, sustai nability, and so on.  Again, the reference points 
noted above would be utilized to he lp initiate discussion on the inclusi on of specific goods on this list.  
Goods appearing on the complementary list would be available for the consideration of all Members. 
12. In New Zealand’s view, this complementary list could operate in such a way that Members 
would undertake to nominate a very high percentage (say 85%) of the products on the complementary 
list for accelerated or deeper tariff reduction.  The sp ecific items to be included in this percentage 
would be self-selected.  These products would be subj ect to the same proce ss proposed for the core 
list, i.e. accelerated reduction/deepening or, as appropr iate, elimination of tariffs within a specified 
time frame.  As with the core list, this process woul d also take into account the need to simultaneously 
accelerate the reduction or, as appropriate elimination of the non-tariff barriers on these goods. 
                                                      
7 In JOB(04)/98, 16 July 2004, Canada proposed the following categories for consideration:  air 
pollution control;  water pollution control;  solid/hazardous waste management; remediation/clean-up of soil and water;  noise/vibration abatement;  environmental monitoring, analysis and assessment equipment;  potable 
water treatment;  recycling systems;  renewable energy plant;  heat/energy management;  and soil conservation.  
8 The US proposal contained in TN/MA/W/18/Add.5 and TN/TE/W/38 of 7 July 2003 refers to this. TN/TE/W/46 
Page 4  
 
IV. MAKING THE LISTS OF ENVIRONM ENTAL GOODS “LIVING LISTS” 
13. Environmental goods are an evolving categor y.  As was evident for the information 
technology industry, it will be important for the de velopment of a list of environmental goods that the 
process be dynamic rather than static.  Not only are environmental goods difficult to identify and 
classify, they are continually developing in new and often unexpected directions.  The OECD, for 
instance, has estimated that half of the environmen tal goods likely to be in use within the coming 
decade do not currently exist.
9 
14. New Zealand proposes therefore that any lists of  environmental goods that are developed at 
the WTO should be considered “living lists”.  There ar e useful precedents to consider in this regard.  
The 1996 Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA) and the 
Uruguay Round “zero-for-zero” initiative on the Trade in Pharmaceutical Products were developed on 
the assumption that the lists of products covered by these agreements would need to stay abreast of 
and be responsive to technological breakthroughs.10  A similar conceptualiza tion should be utilized in 
the establishment of living lists of environmental goods 
15. A living lists approach would comprise the two di stinct lists of envir onmental goods proposed 
above, i.e. a core and a complementary list.  Ne w Zealand urges making both lists “living” in the 
sense that they could be updated and expanded to refl ect the reality of the evolution of environmental 
goods not least in the context of technological change.  
16. How best to operationalize this idea in practi ce could benefit from further discussions among 
Members.  One possible option may be to establis h a process to allow for the updating of the lists 
between Rounds.  
17. The maintenance, updating and expansion of living lists of environmental goods could 
perhaps be the focus of future CTE meetings.  An item agreed by consensus (drawing on the 
appropriate reference points) for inclusion on the core living list after a Round has concluded would 
become subject to the reduction commitments applying to that list.  In respect of the complementary 
list, the aim of regular exchanges would be  to reach a sufficiently broad agreement using the reference 
points cited earlier, to allow specific items to be added to the complementary list.  In the event of a 
consensus emerging around a product already on the co mplementary living list or a new item, that this 
is indeed an environmental good, the product could then be transferred directly onto the core living 
list.  
18. It is against this background that New Ze aland expects to table for discussion at a 
forthcoming CTE session a detailed list of goods  for discussion and possible inclusion on any 
consensus-based living list.  For each product listed appropriate reference points will be identified. 
__________ 
                                                      
9 OECD (1998) The Global Environmental Goods and Services Industry , OECD Publications, Paris. 
10 Ronald Steenblik (2004) “Lessons from GATT/WTO Sectoral Initiatives”,   
Presentation to the WTO Workshop on Environmental Goods, Geneva, 11 October, 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/wksp_goods_oct04_ewksp_goods_oct04_e.htm