RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/12 
14 September 2005 
 (05-4052) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE TWELFTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
7-8 JULY 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 
 
1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS) held its twelfth 
meeting on 7-8 July 2005 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/2600. 
I. PARAGRAPH 31 (I) - WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAS) 
2. The Chairman  drew Members' attention to two new pa pers that had been submitted under this 
item:  document TN/TE/W/53 by the European  Communities, and document TN/TE/W/58 by 
Switzerland. 
3. The representative of th e European Communities  (EC) introduced the EC's new submission 
entitled Putting MEA/WTO Governance into Practice:  The EC's Experience in the Negotiation and 
Implementation of MEAs  which had been circulated in document TN/TE/W/53.  The EC's objective in 
tabling this submission was two-fold.  First, to c ontribute to the sharing of national experiences in the 
negotiation and implementation of MEAs, which so me delegations had calle d for as part of the 
discussion under Paragraph 31(i).  Second, to build on a previous submission which set out governance principles that the EC believed should govern the relationship between WTO and MEA 
rules.
1  One of the key principles addressed in this  paper related to cooperation and increased 
information flow at national and international levels, which in th e EC's view was a precondition to 
enhance the mutual supportiveness between the WTO and MEA regimes. 
4. The first part of the paper described the EC 's internal policy coordination mechanisms, 
drawing attention to its "top down" objective to integrate sustainable development in all policies 
developed through international nego tiations.  In order to achieve gove rnance in that process, the EC 
had worked on guiding principles for formulating policies.  These principles included openness, participation, accountability, effectiv eness and coherence.  The paper set out the internal coordination 
processes within the Commission and further elaborated on the role of the European Council and the 
European Parliament.  The paper highlighted that r eaching out to stakeholders was also an important 
part of this exercise.  The EC referred to its expe rience in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, for which 
it had held a stakeholder consultation on the future of  climate change policies.  The Biosafety Protocol 
negotiations also provided a good example of a st rong and coherent positi on of the EC in MEA 
negotiations, for which the EC had consulted with the main players, including the biotech industry 
and NGOs. 
                                                     
 
1 TN/TE/W/39.  TN/TE/R/12 
Page 2  
 
5. The last part of the paper focused on the EC's objectives in the negotiations.  In this respect, 
the EC recalled that coordination and coherence starte d at the national level, but that a similar kind of 
coordination had to be transposed into the internatio nal arena.  This formed part of the governance 
principles to be taken into account when defining the relationship between WTO and MEAs.  Some of 
these issues were being addressed through the nego tiations on observer status and information 
exchange under paragraph 31(ii).   
6. The representative of Switzerland
 noted that their submission entitled The Relationship 
between Existing WTO Rules and Specific Trade Obligations (STOs) set out in Multilateral 
Environmental Agreements (MEAs):  A Swiss Persp ective on National Experiences and Criteria Used 
in the Negotiation and Implementation of MEAs  was Switzerland's second submission under this 
agenda item.  In the first part of the paper, Sw itzerland joined other delegations in sharing their 
experiences in national coordination;  the second pa rt focused on the principles which Switzerland 
considered should govern the WTO-MEA relationship. 
7. Switzerland noted that its institutionalized coor dination and consultation mechanisms for the 
elaboration of its negotiating positio n, in the context of MEAs or WTO, operated at three different 
levels.  The first level allowed for intergovernme ntal coordination in the preparation of national 
positions in view of negotiations.  Such coordinati on took place for instance, on trade-related issues in 
MEAs, which were subject to the same consultati on procedure as the implementation of international 
obligations following from such negotiations.  The sec ond level consisted of mechanisms to deal with 
issues of particular importance, such as questions relating to the precautionary principle, with some 
more permanent consultation mechanis ms involved.  The third level, which consisted of stakeholders' 
consultation, was presented by reference to the Sw iss Federal Law on Environm ental Protection.  This 
law stipulated that interested parties were to be consulted in the preparation of international legal 
instruments and their implementation.  In this r espect, Switzerland emphasized that the partnership the 
government had with the industries and the ec onomy had been one of the most important 
relationships, in the light of effective impl ementation of MEAs or specific WTO rules. 
8. The paper also described the criteria which we re intended to guide MEA negotiators when 
considering trade provisions specifically in MEA negotiations, or when implementing STOs 
domestically.  In doing so, the following principles had been set out, namely that trade measures 
(1) must serve an overriding public interest;  (2 ) must not constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable 
discrimination nor disguised trade restrictions;  (3 ) must be proportional to achieve the environmental 
goal;  and (4) must be transparent.  With respect to this issue, Switzerland found the submissions by 
Canada and the United States (US) helpful.  Canada  had described very similar criteria that its 
MEA negotiators considered when examining the potential for trade provisions, and the US had 
suggested some conditions which contributed fa vourably to the mutual supportiveness of the 
relationship between WTO rules and MEAs w ith respect to specific trade obligations.2 
9. Switzerland emphasized that the WTO contex t should be borne in mind and that any 
recommendation with regard to the criteria for the ne gotiation of MEAs would ha ve to be endorsed by 
MEA negotiators.  Furthermore, she noted that although negotiators of both MEAs and WTO provisions should strive to ensure mutual supportiveness of the rules in order to prevent disputes, there was no guarantee that conflicts would not occu r at the implementation stage.  The absence of 
any conflict between WTO and MEA rules to date di d not preclude that such conflict could arise in 
the future, especially given the steady growth of the interface between the two sets of rules.   
10. Switzerland further stressed that since both the WTO and MEA regimes were dynamic and 
evolved continuously over time, it was important to  clarify the principles governing their relationship 
in order to ensure mutual supportiveness.  Switzerla nd recalled the principles that it considered central 
to the discussion in the CTESS.  First, the principl e of no hierarchy, which was based on the idea that 
                                                     
 
2 TN/TE/W/40.   TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 3 
 
 
both legal systems were equal and that there w as no hierarchy between the trade and environment 
regimes.  Second, the principle of "mutual s upportiveness", which was based on the assumption that 
the objective of both environmental and trade re gimes was the same, namely the promotion of 
well-being.  In this respect, Switzerland pointed out that although there were different policy areas, 
issues and competences between the trade and envi ronment regimes, there was nonetheless a need to 
ensure their mutual supportiveness.  Third, the principle of deference, according to which each 
framework should remain responsible and competent for the issues falling within its primary area of 
competence, and accept the competence and decisions of the other regime.  This would avoid dealing with issues in the wrong forum because it may be mo re convenient for one or the other reason.  In 
conclusion, Switzerland noted that while it encour aged the discussion on sharing of experiences with 
respect to the negotiation and implementation of ST Os in MEAs both at national and international 
level, the CTESS had to go further and draw certain  conclusions in order to fulfil its mandate and 
ensure that both systems can evolve in a mutually supportive way. 
11. The representatives of Australia
, Norway , Chinese Taipei , Canada , New Zealand , Korea , 
United States , Argentina , Egypt , India , Nigeria , Mexico , Brazil  and Hong Kong, China , thanked the 
European Communities and Switzerland for sharing usef ul information on their national experiences.  
Various delegations, in particular the United States , Nigeria  and Mexico , underlined the importance of 
the discussion of national experiences in helping to  tackle the mandate in paragraph 31(i).  
New Zealand , Korea  and Nigeria  joined other delegations in pointi ng out that the two submissions, as 
well as other papers which had been submitted in the CTESS, underscored that coordination at the 
national level, particularly between trade and envi ronment officials, was important for coherence and 
consistency between international instruments. 
12. The representative of Australia  welcomed the submissions by the EC and Switzerland as 
useful contributions to the national experience sh aring commended by a large number of Members.  
In particular, the EC submission reaffirmed the im portance of effective domestic procedures as a key 
ingredient in the  relationship between MEAs and the WTO.  The paper provided useful examples of 
how the EC's internal procedures had facilitated the negotiation and implementation of MEAs.  It also 
suggested that the key means by which the EC put into practice its principles of governance was 
through this comprehensive approach at the domestic level.  In this regard, the EC's submission added 
further weight to Australia's view that trade and environment obligations were  being implemented in a 
mutually supportive way.  As such, the relations hip between the two bodies of international law was 
working well.  This remained instrumental in te rms of how Members should approach the mandate of 
negotiation in paragraph 31(i). 
13. Australia noted that some of the questions raised  in the EC's paper required further reflection.  
For instance, it was not clear to Australia how certain  parts of the paper fitted within the framework of 
the mandate in paragraph 31(i).  Australia had raised  a similar concern with respect to the previous 
submission by the EC on guiding principles for th e relationship between WTO rules and MEAs.  With 
respect to the issue of policy coordination, Aust ralia was not convinced that there was any problem 
with current levels of communica tion and understanding at the interna tional level.  This was clear 
from the various declarations adopted at important in ternational meetings, such as the WSSD.  In fact, 
a number of avenues already existed to ensure effici ent coordination at the international level.  Some 
of the suggestions made by the EC and Switzerland in their papers regarding information exchange 
and observer status were useful tools to explor e, and had clear linkages with the mandate in 
paragraph 31(ii).  Australia called for more discu ssion on national experiences and hoped that other 
Members would contribute to this exercise. 
14. The representative of Norway  welcomed the two new docum ents, both of which had 
emphasized that policy coordination started at home.  The Swiss paper had revealed many similarities 
to the Norwegian system, in particular with respect to the principles which applied to inter-Ministerial 
coordination.  Norway supported the emphasis in the Swiss paper on the principles of no hierarchy 
and mutual supportiveness.  Norway welcomed the vi ews of other delegations on the issue of outcome TN/TE/R/12 
Page 4  
 
of the mandate.  In this respect, Norway suggest ed that Members try to identify some common 
grounds, perhaps starting with the consensus reach ed at the Singapore Ministerial Conference.  
15. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 welcomed the EC and Swiss submissions, which had 
provided a clearer picture of some of the elements  that could contribute to harmonize STOs in MEAs 
and WTO rules at national level.  She sought clarif ication from Switzerland on two points.  First, with 
respect to the issue of the right forum for so lving disputes involving MEAs and WTO rules, 
Chinese Taipei had understood Switzerland as s uggesting that the MEAs should have equal 
competence in resolving such c onflicts.  Chinese Taipei emphasized that WTO Members' rights to 
solve trade-related conflicts in the WTO dispute settlement system should be safeguarded on account 
of the obligations and rights of a WTO Member and the intrinsic responsibility and competence of the 
WTO.  Secondly, with respect to the statement by Switzerland that the conclusion of the negotiations 
under paragraph 31(i) should go beyond experience sharing in order to fulfil the mandate, 
Chinese Taipei asked Switzerland what it considered  would be an appropriate outcome for these 
negotiations.   
16. Turning to the EC proposal, Ch inese Taipei first noted that on  the basis of the proposals 
tabled so far, it seemed there were two approach es which had been introduced by Members, namely 
the "conceptual or principle approach" and the "na tional experience sharing approach".  It further 
noted that Members seemed inclined to agr ee that MEA and WTO rules should be mutually 
supportive in order to achieve trade and environment "w in-win" situations.  In or der to reach this goal, 
Chinese Taipei agreed with the EC's suggestion in  paragraph 36 of its submission that Members 
should endeavour to work out solutions to strengt hen information exchange and policy coordination 
between WTO and MEAs, both at nati onal and international levels.  Ch inese Taipei believed that this 
point could be further developed as an alternativ e approach in the paragraph 31(i) negotiations.  
Finally, Chinese Taipei wished to reiterate that  the negotiations under para graph 31(i) should not 
prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question.  The role of the 
WTO in dealing with trade disputes, within the boundaries of its competence, should not be 
overlooked.  Moreover, the right of Members to reso rt to WTO's dispute settlement system could not 
be prejudiced.   
17. The representative of Canada  agreed with the EC and Switzerland that Members should go 
beyond national experience sharing and draw some conc lusions from this exercise, including possible 
recommendations on conflict minimization.  At th e same time, Canada supported Norway's view on 
the uncertainty over the content of such conclusions.  With regard to the Swiss paper, Canada pointed 
out that there was a lot of commonality in the way Switzerland operated.  Canada expressed 
agreement with some of the ideas and principles put forward by Switzerland, in particular, that there 
was no guarantee that there would not be any confli cts between MEAs and WTO rules in the future.  
In fact, in Canada's view, tensions between the two regimes had always existed.   Canada wished that 
Members could draw certain conclusions at the end of this process that would contribute to reinforce 
this relationship and minimize the potential for conflict. 
18. The representative of New Zealand  observed that both the EC and Swiss papers had 
underscored that coordination at the national leve l was important for cohe rence and consistency 
between international instruments.  The level of co mplexity of such coordination varied depending on 
the administrative structures of a Member's economy.  Although the coordination and consultation mechanisms illustrated by the Swiss experience were more relevant to Members than those of the EC, 
it was certainly helpful to understand the processes th at the EC's unique organizational arrangements 
required.  Regarding policy coordination at the in ternational level, New Z ealand supported the EC's 
view that the channels of communication and information exchange between the WTO and MEA 
Secretariats were important and should be improved as much as possible. 
19. New Zealand also clarified its position on the i ssue of the potential applicability of principles 
or criteria to the mandate in paragraph 31(i), as suggested by the EC and Switzerland in their  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 5 
 
 
submissions.  Switzerland had outlined some basis criteria that guided its MEA negotiators when 
considering trade provisions in MEA, or in the national implementation of  STOs.  Switzerland had 
argued that the development of criteria would contri bute to improved coordination at the international 
level, and would ensure mutual supportiveness betw een the two sets of law.  However, as was noted 
in the Swiss paper, other countries had also outlined principles or criteria that were potentially useful 
in examining the WTO-MEA relationship.  In part icular, their potential application and design of 
trade provisions in MEAs showed that different c ountries had different views about what is important 
for them in this area.  With respect to national experience sharing, it was not clear to New Zealand 
whether this exercise actually contributed to fulfilli ng the mandate in paragraph 31(i).  New Zealand 
nonetheless welcomed further contributions on this issue. 
20. In conclusion, New Zealand raised three qu estions concerning the two new submissions.  
First, in relation to the issue of policy coordina tion within the Commission as outlined in the EC's 
paper, New Zealand wondered how an unfavourable  opinion given by a Directorate-General on a 
proposal was dealt with in the context of EC's in ter-service consultation procedure.  In particular, 
New Zealand was interested in examples where th e EC had encountered this problem.  The second 
question related to policy coordination among the di fferent Directorates-Gene ral and how it extended 
to the negotiation of MEAs on the ground .  For instance, New Zealand wondered how often trade 
experts participated in MEA meetings where STOs we re being considered.  The third question related 
to the principles proposed by Switzerland, and in pa rticular, the principle of "no hierarchy" between 
the trade and environment regimes.  New Zealand asked Switzerland if it could comment on how this 
principle related to concepts of international law.   
21. The representative of Korea  agreed with the  position advocated by the EC and Switzerland 
that delegations should go further than the ques tion of whether well coor dinated domestic policies 
could reduce possible conflicts between the WT O and MEAs, i.e., including the idea of better 
coordination at the international level.  Rega rding the need for common policy objectives and the 
principles advanced in the two submissions, Korea was not convinced that the conceptual discussion 
could facilitate, at this juncture, Members' effo rts to identify the problems between WTO and MEAs 
and to provide a practical solution.  Instead, Ko rea believed that the CTESS should focus on sharing 
and understanding concrete cases illu strating the relationship between the two regimes.  It further 
noted that such an exercise did not have to  be confined to national coordination.   
22. The representative of Hong Kong, China  noted her delegation's support of the views 
expressed by Australia and New Zealand.  Hong Kong,  China was in favour of a practical approach 
focusing on Members' national experience rather than to prejudge whether there would be problems in 
the international arena in the future. 
23. The representative of the United States  expressed appreciation for the two new papers which 
provided a valuable contribution to the discussion on  national experiences.  The US also considered 
that improved coordination at the domestic and inte rnational levels was key to ensuring a mutually 
supportive relationship between trade and environm ent policies.  While the US agreed that 
international coordination was releva nt to another aspect of the ma ndate, namely paragraph 31(ii), it 
agreed with Australia that it was certainly not a substitute for national coordination between trade and 
environment officials.  The US also agreed that delegations should focus on sharing national experiences regarding STOs set out in MEAs rath er than addressing broad overarching principles on 
the WTO-MEA relationship that could fall outside th e scope of the mandate in paragraph 31(i).   
24. The representative of Argentina
 expressed his appreciation for the new submissions by the EC 
and Switzerland, which set a good example for countries that did not have such elaborate mechanisms 
for internal coordination.  Argentina distingui shed two phases so far in the negotiations under 
paragraph 31(i).  First, the identification of STOs contained in certain MEAs, and second, the sharing 
of national experiences in the negotiation and implem entation of MEAs.  With respect to the first 
phase, Argentina noted that the exercise had b een useful in terms of understanding how MEA TN/TE/R/12 
Page 6  
 
provisions are formulated as compared to WTO rules.   From this exercise, Argentina observed that 
there did not seem to be any direct conflict betw een WTO and MEA rules.  The second phase, which 
involved national experience sharing, had revealed  the need to refine internal coordination 
mechanisms and to improve inform ation exchange between competent agencies in the areas of trade 
and environment.  However, in Argentina's view , neither phase had identified any problems that 
called for the development of intern ational principles within the WTO.  It was therefore premature to 
try to clarify, or define, the relationship between MEA and WTO rules.  Ther efore, delegations should 
pursue the examination of national experiences.   
25. The representative of Egypt
 said that it would be useful if the EC and Switzerland could 
provide examples of situations of conflict betw een trade and environment provisions, how they had 
dealt with them, and how they had tried to make th e final outcome of the MEAs compatible with both 
environment and trade.   
26. The representative of India  joined other delegations in expressing its doubt over some of the 
conclusions drawn in the submissions by the EC and Switzerland.  India joined New Zealand in 
seeking some clarification from Switzerland on the principle of no hierarchy and its application in the 
context of international law.   
27. The representative of Nigeria  noted that his delegation had benefited from the national 
experience sharing exercise so far.  Nigeria was convinced that national coordination could enhance 
the mutual supportiveness between trade and envir onmental rules and contribute to avert conflicts, 
even though conflicts could not be entirely ru led out.  Nigeria hoped that the outcome of the 
negotiations would be benefici al to all participants.   
28. The representative of Mexico  agreed with other delegations on two points:  first, that both the 
EC and Swiss submissions pointed to the absence of conflict between WTO and MEA rules;  and 
second, that it was premature to define criteria or  principles to govern the WTO-MEA relationship, as 
suggested by Switzerland.   
29. The representative of Brazil  noted that the different objectiv es and rationale of environmental 
agreements and WTO rules could explain some of th e tensions that existed between the two sets of 
law.  Brazil also wished to stress that the situ ation of developing countries was reflected in both 
regimes through different sets of rules, and that this  was an important aspect that needed to be taken 
into account.  Brazil agreed with other delegations that while the EC and Swiss experience was useful, 
any discussion regarding overarching principles to  govern the WTO-MEA relationship would be 
premature.   
30. The representative of Brazil explained how Br azil had improved nationa l coordination among 
different Ministries in the subject areas at issu e through the equal participation of both trade and 
environment experts in relevant discussions.  This resulted in greater convergence between the 
different sets of rules that were being developed.  Brazil noted that the issue of coherence between the 
two sets of rules would remain important as both types of agreements became increasingly 
encompassing.  In that sense, national experience sharing was a useful exercise.  However, the 
international dimension also required close consid eration.  Since both sets of norms carried equal 
weight in the international arena, Members had to address the issue of possible tensions or conflicts 
between them.  This was done, for instance, in the TRIPS Council with respect to intellectual property 
and disclosure of origin of  genetic resources.  In Brazil's view, this was an example where issues of 
compatibility between the Convention of Biological Diversity and WTO rules should be made clearer 
in order to reinforce their mutually supportiveness.  
31. The representative of th e European Communities  noted that the Swiss paper had been helpful 
in bridging the gap between the national experience sh aring exercise, and what could be learned from 
these experiences in order to come closer to a r esult in the negotiations.  The Swiss paper addressed  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 7 
 
 
this concern by recalling some of the discussion on the criteria used in the context of MEA 
negotiations.  The EC supported the criteria outlined in  the Swiss paper.  He noted that the final part 
of the Swiss paper was a valuable attempt to di stil from the debate on national experiences something 
concerning the relationship between the WTO and MEA rules.  The EC had focused in its paper on 
one aspect of these principles, which it considered as part of a bigger universe of criterion principles 
which Members could work on.   
32. The EC disagreed with the delegations who had suggested that the relationship between 
MEA-WTO rules was free of tensions.  In this respect, the EC referred to the statement by Canada which had emphasized that even in current process es tensions clearly existed.  Moreover, the EC 
attributed the success in solving th ese problems to the criteria already applied and the attempts to get a 
debate on the issue.  The EC expressed its hope th at the WTO would recognize these issues in a more 
precise fashion, and that the principles at issue wo uld be taken into account in current and future 
work.   
33. Turning to the interventions made by delega tions, the EC welcomed the references by some 
delegations to paragraph 31(ii) as an  encouragement to revisit that part of the mandate.  It felt that 
there were some practical and non-controversial point s that could be drawn out in the context of the 
negotiations under paragraph 31(ii) on which Members could focus in order to make progress.   
34. In response to the comment by Ch inese Taipei, the EC noted that nothing in the EC proposal 
was intended to restrict or diminish Members' rights.  With respect to the comment by some 
delegations that it was premature to discuss prin ciples under paragraph 31 (i), the EC noted that 
although the sharing of national experience was usef ul, Members would at some point have to draw 
certain conclusions from this exercise.  According to the EC, the example of the relationship between 
the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement invoked by Brazil was actually similar in nature in terms of 
defining how the objectives of the CBD and the TRI PS Agreement could be reconciled in a useful 
manner.  The EC also believed that it was more rele vant to think about what could actually be learned 
from the discussions related to the Cartagena Prot ocol on Biosafety or the relationship between the 
CBD and the TRIPS Agreement.  With respect to  the question concerning the EC's Inter-Service 
consultations, he noted that any disagreement was dealt with in a transparent manner involving all 
interested parties.   
35. The representative of Switzerland
 expressed her appreciation for the interventions made by 
delegations, and thanked the EC for its submission.   In Switzerland's view, there were two main 
lessons to be learnt from it:  first, policy coordi nation was needed at both national and international 
levels;  and second, policy coordi nation was a prerequisite for pr eventing conflict between policy 
areas and to ensure the achievement of any overarch ing policy goal.  In response to the question by 
Chinese Taipei, Switzerland noted that in no way did it wish to question the right of any Member to 
bring a trade-related dispute to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and there was certainly no 
such restrictions in the Dispute Settlement Unde rstanding (DSU).  However, Switzerland considered 
that it was more appropriate for any dispute arising between parties to an MEA to be resolved through 
the mechanisms provided for within the MEA.  
36. With respect to the issue of outcome of paragraph 31(i), Switzerland noted that it was open 
about the form of such outcome, but that delega tions would have at some point, to come to a 
conclusion on the need for some kind of operating or clarifying rules.  In response to the question put forward by New Zealand and India on the principle of "no hierarchy", Switzerland indicated that the 
principle did not contradict the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, but it would come back 
with a more detailed answer upon closer examination of the issue.  Finally, Switzerland noted that the 
proposals in its paper were not presented as a subs titute for national coordi nation mechanisms, but 
were rather intended to provide some further cl arification of the relationship between WTO and 
MEAs.   TN/TE/R/12 
Page 8  
 
II. PARAGRAPH 31 (II) – INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR THE 
GRANTING OF OBSERVER STATUS  
37. There was no discussion under this agenda item  
III. PARAGRAPH 31 (III) – ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
38. The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to a number of new documents that had been 
submitted under this item:  TN/TE/W/49 by New Zealand, complemented by the statement in 
TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1;  TN/TE/W/50 by Canada, complemented by the statement in TN/TE/W/50/Suppl.1;  TN/TE/W/51 and TN/TE/ W/54 by India;  TN/TE/W/47/Add.1 and 
TN/TE/W/56 by the EC;  TN/TE/W/52 by the United States;  TN/TE/W/55 by Cuba;  and TN/TE/W/59 by Brazil.  The Secretariat had also updated its Synthesis of Submissions on 
Environmental Goods , which had been circulated in document JOB(05)/57/Rev.1.   
Presentation of new submissions 
39. The representative of New Zealand
 presented document TN/TE/W/49, which contained 
New Zealand's first list of environmental goods.  This  list had first been introduced at an Informal 
CTESS Meeting on 10 June 2005, and the statement by New Zealand at this meeting had been 
circulated in TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1.  In these documents, New Zealand sought to explain how it 
believed it was time to move away from theoretical and conceptual discussions and to start "defining 
by doing".  It also provided some explanation of  how it had constructed its list, including through the 
use of reference points.  In particular, New Zealand had proposed the OECD's definition of 
environmental industries and the APEC's concep tualization of environmental goods as possible 
reference points.  It had also suggested as another possible reference point the lists of environmental 
goods established through free trade agreements (F TAs), though it had been unable to identify any 
such products from its own FTAs.   
40. New Zealand's submission also proposed thr ee new categories of environmental goods, 
namely EPPs defined by end use or disposal charac teristics;  cleaner or more resource-efficient 
technologies and products;  and waste and scrap utili zation.  The paper also made reference to the 
"living list" concept.  He noted that in introducin g its list, New Zealand had sought to identify where 
developing country interests lied, as a way of making a distinction between the perception of a lack of 
developing country interest, and the reality as revealed by the data.   
41. The representative of Canada  presented document TN/TE/W/50, which contained an initial 
list of environmental goods, and document TN/ TE/W/50/Suppl. 1 which contained Canada's 
statement at the Informal Meeting on 10 June 2005.   He stressed that the list presented was without 
prejudice to Canada's position as negotiations proceed ed.  Canada explained that while the products 
on the list were identified by the Harmonised System  (HS) 6-digit code, the products that required 
greater specificity were identified by a descripti on in the "Additional Product Specification" column. 
42. Canada considered that the categories used in its  list were a useful tool to catalogue products 
whose purpose or function might not be explicit from the HS descriptions.  He emphasized that a 
flexible approach should be taken with respect to the use of categories in working on a list of 
environmental goods.  Regarding the linkages betw een the environmental goods and services and the 
negotiations, Canada noted that there were many e nvironmental activities that entailed the delivery of 
services in conjunction with the use of goods.  In developing its list of environmental goods, Canada 
had considered products used in the context of the delivery of environmental services in order to 
ensure a mutually supportive approach.   
43. Canada emphasized that it viewed the negotia tions under paragraph 31(iii) as an important 
contribution to sustainable development.  In particul ar, Canada considered it important to ensure that  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 9 
 
 
developing country Members had the opportunity to effectively participate in the negotiations, and 
that their interests were appropriately reflected through a multilaterally agreed list of environmental 
goods.  Canada expressed its hope that an initial list of  environmental goods reflecting the interests of 
all Members would be presented at the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Conference.  In concluding, Canada 
stressed that these negotiations were not only about liberalizing trade, but were also about allowing 
Members to improve and protect their environment.   
44. The representative of India  noted that its first submission in document TN/TE/W/51 had been 
tabled at the Informal Meeting on 10 June 2005, an d that the second paper in document TN/TE/W/54 
built on India's first submission.  India wished to emphasize in its submissions the importance of the 
objectives of the mandate in paragraph 31(iii), whic h were to achieve economic, developmental and 
environmental benefits.  In this regard, he r ecalled that the WSSD had supported voluntary, WTO 
compatible initiatives for the creation or expansi on of domestic and international markets for 
environmentally-friendly goods and services.  India pointed to the convergence of objectives in these 
various mandates and programmes, and stressed the need to develop synergies between the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration and other mandates, e.g. the Johannesburg Plan of Impl ementation, in order to 
achieve sustainable development.   
45. Discussion so far under paragraph 31(iii) had fo cused on tariff reductions for environmental 
goods, and there had been little discussion on environmen tal services.  According to India, this could 
create an imbalance in the negotiations.  Many environmental activities did not only entail the 
delivery and use of goods, but also the delivery of services in an integrated manner.  Separation of 
services from goods in a particular environmental activity could prove difficult.  India's suggested 
Environmental Project Approach (EPA) intended to address environmental goods and services 
together.  It also intended to address the diversit y in environmental standards of Member countries, 
with common and differentiated responsibilities.  The approach addressed the mandated requirements 
in a direct, cohesive, focused and integrated manne r.  The commitment of each Government Member 
would be commensurate with clearly identified e nvironmental benefits to be achieved, as this 
approach was based on a conscious national assessm ent of both developmental and environmental 
concerns specific to each Member country, within th e broad parameters agreed in the CTESS.  In this 
sense, the approach was need-based and objective-oriented.   
46. India explained that under the project appr oach, concessions would be given on goods and 
services included in the project, for the duration of the project.  Each Member would have a 
Designated National Authority (DNA) that would eval uate project proposals on the basis of defined 
criteria.  The DNA would oversee all approvals to  be granted for tariff reduction on environmental 
goods and services related to a specific project.  A ccording to the proposal, while the composition and 
the structure of the DNA would be determined by  Member countries, such authorities could invite 
participation of stakeholders across the board fro m the government, non-government organizations 
and civil societies.  It would be, therefore, in th e nature of a public-private partnership.  In this 
context, India drew a parallel with the nationa l authorities created under the Clean Development 
Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and noted that th e experience gained in setting up such authorities 
could guide Members in their implementation of the project approach.   
47. India believed that the list approach, unlike the EPA, was too diffuse to achieve any particular 
environmental objective.  In the case of dual- use products, for instance, the benefit for the 
environment could not be measured.  The fact that  the current lists were largely based on the APEC 
and OECD lists was also a concern for India.  Some  studies had shown that th ese lists did not give any 
particular market access advantage to developi ng countries.  Trade significance for developing 
countries based on these lists of environmenta l goods was low, whereas export dynamics for 
developed countries were high.  A recent UNCTAD study on environmental goods  had confirmed this 
even for an extended list of environmental goods.  Th eir study showed that the export to import ratio 
of developing countries, which included China, followed by Mexico, Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, 
Brazil, Thailand, Indonesia and India, countries which accounted for 90% of the developing countries' TN/TE/R/12 
Page 10  
 
exports, did not have any particular market access a dvantage.  China with a ratio of 0.7 was at the 
maximum, followed by Singapore and Mexico at 0.59, Brazil at 0.52 and India at 0.43.  In most of the cases, large parts of the exports were south-south.  This meant that China imported 30 per cent more 
of environmental goods than it exported.  The a dvantage or disadvantage for other countries could 
accordingly be assessed.  India considered these figur es to be indicative of the kind of market access 
that developing countries could expect if the D oha mandate for tariff reduction was read only for 
environmental goods, without looking at other aspects of the mandate enshrined in paragraph 31 (iii).   
48. In addition, India pointed out that the list approach did not take into account technology 
transfer.  India recalled that the EPA, which aimed at developing synergies between trade and environmental interests, addressed these issues in  a comprehensive manner.  The objective was not 
only to enhance the national capacity to produce environmental goods and services, but also to 
facilitate compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures and remove technical barriers to trade, 
with a view to improving market access for developing countries.   
49. The EPA proposed a way forward on paragraph 31(iii ) that was essentially environmental.  In 
this context, market access was not the end in itself, but simply a means to that end.  In this sense, the 
EPA would engage Members in addressing the mandate independently of considerations relevant to 
NAMA negotiations.  The project approach recogni zed the principles of the multilateral trading 
system, such as transparency, predic tability and non-discrimination.  It would also help to tackle the 
issue of dual-use of goods since the concessions grante d would be entirely project-driven.  The role of 
the CTE in this context would be to formulate cr iteria to be applied by the DNA in determining 
whether an environmental project qualified for concessions on environmental goods and services.  
The projects would range from commercial ventures to individual purchases, and would not be 
differentiated in terms of private, government al, non-governmental or non-profit ventures.  
Furthermore, the project approach could be accomm odated within HS Chapter 98.  India noted that 
the list approach had failed to garner effective pa rticipation from developing countries, who had found 
it difficult to elaborate a list and contribute to the discussion.  The project approach was simple in its 
content and easy to implement.  India stressed th at the EPA was presented as a stand-alone approach, 
rather than as a complement to the list approach.   
50. The representative of the EC
 noted that document TN/TE/W/47/Add.1 provided the HS codes 
for the environmental goods identified in TN/TE/W/47.   The EC noted that the HS codes had been 
provided in order to facilitate the identification of  products, without prejudi ce to the EC's position on 
whether there should be full coverage in the negotia tions of the products falling within the 4- or 
6-digit code.  With respect to the Secretariat's Synthesis, the EC suggested to consolidate the 
information in order to reflect the actual number of  products contained in the lists submitted, even 
though the descriptions provided by Members varied.   
51. The EC's new paper in document TN/TE/W/56 bui lt on its earlier submission, in particular 
with regard to Part A, which c overed pollution control and resource management issues.  The EC had 
also added information concerning relevant objec tives set out in the Millennium Development Goals 
and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.  This provided some kind of "reference point", as 
called for by New Zealand.  The EC welcomed Me mbers' views on whether the products identified 
could actually contribute to achieving these objectives.   
52. The EC noted that there were many products on the list, including in Parts A and B of its 
paper in respect of which there was a lot of potential for all Members.  He also called for a debate on 
the issue of renewable energies, and what could be ac hieved in this particular  area.  The EC felt that 
there were a number of other issues, especially in  Chapters 45 and 46, 56, 57, 59, and perhaps 33, 
which would merit closer examination, including w ith respect to products made out of vegetable 
plaiting materials, vegetable textiles, and fibres.  The EC emphasized the importance of both the environmental and developmental dimensions of the negotiations.  With respect to the developmental  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 11 
 
 
aspect, the EC noted that its list contained many prod ucts for which tariffs were significant, and which 
were not exported only by developed countries.   
53. The EC drew Members' attention to the need  to have a mechanism to avoid technological 
lock-in.  It also believed that the process of putting forward products to be included on the list should 
continue on an ongoing basis.  In the EC's view, the current list of products was lengthy, and he 
encouraged Members to start thinking about what would not be acceptable to them.  For instance, in 
the case of dual-use products, delegations could re flect on whether the products that were more 
predominantly oriented towards other objectives than  environmental protection should be excluded.   
54. Turning to the issue of eco-labels raised in its submission, the EC noted that it was not its 
intention to suggest that eco-labels be used as a crit eria, but rather as a tool to differentiate products.  
The EC underlined that this did not necessarily open the issue of non-product-related PPMs, since 
many eco-labels were awarded on th e basis of the physical characteris tics of the products.  This was 
the case, for instance, with recycled paper.  The EC  noted that delegations w ould have to be pragmatic 
and creative for negotiations to result in a balanced outcome.  He invited delegations to reflect further 
on this suggestion.  The EC was willing to show  flexibility in the process and take into account 
concerns related to special and differential treatme nt.  Finally, the EC welcomed Members' comments 
not only on the approach followed, but also on th e individual items identifie d in its submissions.   
55. The representative of the US  presented document T/N/TE/W/52, which contained the 
US' initial list of environmental goods.  This list was based on a practical, bottom-up approach.  It 
focused on end-use criteria, and did not rely on product distinctions based on PPMs or end-use 
certificates.  The list of 155 products had been  developed following consultations with US 
stakeholders, advisory committees, interested US government agencies, and the US Congress.  The 
US reserved the right to update its initial list as consultations with these groups proceeded.  Apart 
from other Members' lists, the US had also draw n from the list developed by APEC economies in 
1998, the list published by the OECD in 2001, and the list published by UNCTAD in 2003.  
56. With regard to the structure of  the list, the US explained that the products were listed in 
chronological HS order, and the Annex identified the Harmonized System code for each product at 
the 6-digit level, as well as a description of each pro duct.  In some cases, the US had provided a more 
detailed product description (what had been referred to as an “ex out”).  The list also included the 
specific environmental category of each good to iden tify its relevance to environmental protection.  
However, the US had not organized products into categories like other Members had, given that some 
of the products had multiple environmental uses.  For purposes of transparency, the US had included 
import and tariff data for all goods  identified, and provided cross-re ferences to other lists, including 
lists of other Members (at the HS 6-digit level).  On the issue of overlaps with other lists, the US 
agreed with the EC that information contained in the Synthesis document could be further condensed.   
57. The US had also added some information in or der to address a point that had emerged in the 
course of the discussion, namely that developed countries were only willing to list goods which were 
already duty free, and/or goods in which they had only a major export interest.  Such information 
included average MFN tariff data, which showed th at less than half of the products listed were 
duty free in the US market, and that some of the products carried a tariff of up to 14 per cent.  It had also offered import data to show that the US was a major importer of most of these goods.  While it was true that the US was a major exporter of many  of these products as well, the trade data showed 
that US imports had outpaced exports.   
58. Turning to the content of its list, the US noted th at most of the products fell into the categories 
of environmental remediation, pollution preventi on, and renewable energy.  The US was also 
encouraged by the discussion on EPPs and supporte d New Zealand’s suggestion to include EPPs 
based on end-use or disposal characteristics, and not on PPMs.  She noted that the US list included a 
few EPPs.  The US had also added to its list a few products which did not fall into any of the TN/TE/R/12 
Page 12  
 
environmental categories previously discussed, a nd proposed natural resources protection as a new 
category.  In this category, the US had listed ci rcle hooks, which reduced th e accidental death of sea 
turtles, and fish nets that incorporated turtle ex cluder devices (TEDs).  These goods were estimated to 
reduce mortality of sea turtles in the order of 70-90 per cent compared to conventional fishing 
methods.   
59. The other area on which the US had focused in preparing its list was renewable energy.  She 
noted that energy demand was forecast to rise by almost 60% between 2004 and 2030, according to 
the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World En ergy Outlook.  While more traditional sources of 
energy were rising in price, the cost of renewabl e energy was dropping significantly.  For example, 
solar cells had become 20% cheaper in just the la st few years, and this drop in price had been 
accompanied by major improvements to the technology itself, meaning lighter panels that had better 
energy absorption and storage capability.  A recent  OECD paper suggested that renewably energy 
technologies were particularly attractive energy so urces in rural areas, where traditional grid-based 
power could be difficult and costly to provide.  Th is was an important fact, as currently around 1.6 
billion people in the world, predominantly in rural areas, did not have access to electricity.  The same 
paper noted the increasing use of solar PV systems in Africa, usually sold by independent businesses 
operating locally, as well as a joint venture project between a major Asian producer and an African consumer on a PV module assembly line.  In additi on to developing country users of solar energy, 
there was a growing number of developing country manufacturers.  For example, a web site listed 
around 35 Indian manufacturers of solar PV cells and 115 suppliers of solar electric power systems.  One of them reported going from a three-person star t-up a few years ago to becoming India’s largest 
producer of solar systems.  As solar cells themselve s accounted for more than half of the cost of an 
installed residential solar electricity system, reduc ing tariffs would have a significant effect on overall 
costs.  MFN tariffs were as high as 20% in some countries, including those with high solar potential, 
such as Djibouti and Vanuatu.  
60. The US noted that its list had been analysed internally in terms of developing country trade in 
environmental goods and related trends .  She noted that the trade data was reported at the HS 6-digit 
level and could be overstated in some cases where the environmental good was designated by an "ex", 
but this reflected the best data available a nd was helpful in assessing trade flows and trends. 
61. She noted that developing countries were both pr oducers and consumers of a wide variety of 
goods found on the US list.  Developing countries  exported a range of environmental products 
including goods produced using advanced technolog y (such as electro-magnets) to other low-tech 
items such as sacks and bags made of jute.  Forty per cent (40%) of all US imports of environmental 
goods on the US list came from developing countries in 2004, up three per cent from 2002.  In addition, developing country imports (as a share of  US imports of environmental goods) had grown at 
a rate of 15% over the same three year period.  This  represented a faster growth rate than for many of 
the manufactured and agricultural imports more generally.   
62. In addition to looking at the US market, her delegation had considered the global market for 
the goods on its list.  Some examples of the extent  to which developing countries were notable global 
exporters and importers in world markets of th ese highly diverse products included:  developing 
country exports of hydraulic turbines and wheels (HS 841013) comprised approximately 15 per cent of world trade in this product.  For example, Br azil exported more than 5 million dollars in 2003, and 
shipped more than two-thirds of its hydraulic turb ines and wheels to developing countries.  The US 
had also noted a significant amount of ASEAN trade in many of the products on the US list, not only 
inter-ASEAN trade but trade with other countries:  for example, virtually 100 per cent of Indonesian exports in water tube boilers (H S 840212) went to Africa.  Malaysia's exports of instrumental 
measuring parts (HS 3090) comprised 6 per cent or wo rld export of this product, and over half of 
these came to the US.    TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 13 
 
 
63. Developing country exports of sacks and bags made of jute (HS 6 30510) represented 88 per 
cent of world exports in this produc t and were valued at more than $58 million in 2003.  More than 
US$47 million of these exports were from Asian economies and just over $6 million were imported 
by developing countries, i.e. more than ten per cent.   For a number of developing countries, growth in 
global exports of items on the US proposed envi ronmental goods list exceeded 50 per cent between 
1998 and 2003.  For instance, taken together, Ch ina, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore, 
Indonesia, Kenya, India and Brazil’s exports in g oods on the US list had grown by over 82 per cent 
between 1998 and 2003 (from r oughly $18 billion in 1998 to $33 billion in 2003).   
64. The US had also considered as part of its data analysis the global growth trends for pollution 
prevention and clean technology products in contrast  to some of the EPP products.  For developing 
country exporters, from 1998–2003, sisal (HS 530490) exports had grown 7 per cent, mats and 
matting (HS 460120) exports had grown 5 per cent,  and jute (HS 560710) exports had grown 
8 per cent.  In the US' view, this was an impressi ve growth, but looking at the same period for the 
same developing country exporters in some of  the pollution prevention and clean technology 
products, the US had found significantly larger growth rates.  For example, over the same period, 
growth in developing country exports of super heat ed water boilers and steam  generator boiler parts 
(HS 840290) was 77 per cent, and for vapour a nd steam turbines (HS 840682) they had grown 
156 per cent, for spark ignition combustion piston engines (HS 840991) they had grown 71 per cent, and for centrifugal pumps (HS 841370) growth in expor ts had been 117%.  This was not to say that 
sisal and jute were not products worthy of inclus ion on a list, but rather it was helpful in reminding 
Members that many developing countries were beco ming major exporters of pollution prevention and 
cleaner technology environmental goods, not to mention the fact that they were significant importers 
as well.   
65. Moreover, the US noted that there were many  synergies between some of the goods included 
on its list and the provision of environmental services and other services.  The US emphasized the 
importance of considering such synergies in the cont ext of the paragraph 31(iii) negotiations.  In fact, 
the use of particular goods in performing an e nvironmental service had been one of the guiding 
considerations of APEC members in the development of their envi ronmental goods list in 1998.   
66. The US looked forward to continuing to wo rk with Members on a list of environmental 
goods, and urged other delegations to fully engage in this important discussion.   
67. The representative of Cuba
 noted the lack of consensus in the CTESS on how to carry 
forward the mandate, and on the actual benefits fo r developing countries in the paragraph 31(iii) 
negotiations.  In Cuba's view, it seemed premature at this stage to anticip ate any results for the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  In its submission contained in  document TN/TE/W/55, Cuba had 
emphasized that the CTESS should focus on outst anding matters and consider modalities for the 
negotiations in order to make progress.  In par ticular, Cuba called for more proposals on how the 
principle of common but differentiated responsibiliti es contained in the Rio Declaration could be 
taken into account in the context of the negotiations. 
68. The representative of Switzerland  presented document TN/TE/W/58, which contained 
Switzerland's initial list of environmental goods.  She recalled that the aim of the mandate in paragraph 31(iii) was to facilitate trade in environmental goods with a view to generate benefits from 
the point of view of trade and the environm ent.  The CTESS had the mandate to identify 
environmental goods and establish a list of such goods, which would then be forwarded to the NAMA 
negotiating group for actual negotiations on tariff reducti ons and/or elimination.  In this context, two 
main questions had to be addressed:  first, whic h environmental goods should figure on the list;  and 
second, how to ensure that the list could evolve in the future.  On the first point, Switzerland agreed 
with the EC that only the goods which could cont ribute to a globally agreed environmental goal 
should be on the list.  Switzerland was aware of th e challenges of reaching agreement on a definition 
of environmental goods.  The definition should therefor e be sufficiently general, flexible and inclusive TN/TE/R/12 
Page 14  
 
to capture future innovations in the rapidly e volving environmental goods industry.  It should 
therefore be a useful screening tool that would serve as a basic definitional threshold.  In order to identify environmental goods, th e clarification of the concept should be firmly grounded in the 
work and existing definitions developed by othe r bodies.  Switzerland's analysis of existing 
approaches suggested that the OECD definition of the environmental industry was best suited for 
the purpose of identifying environmental goods, and could therefore be an  appropriate reference 
point in this exercise.  This was also supported by the fact that the APEC list of environmental 
goods was itself produced largely on the basis of the OECD definition.  The OECD definition also 
encompassed all the main categories proposed so far by Members. 
69. Switzerland noted that most products on its lis t fell within the Pollution Management and 
Resource Management categories, which corresponded to  the first part of the OECD definition.  In 
order to ensure a balanced outcome in the nego tiations, Switzerland proposed to add goods under the 
categories of Cleaner Production and Products, and also  EPPs on the basis of their end-use or disposal 
characteristics.  These two product categories corresponded to the second part of the OECD 
definition.  Switzerland suggested they could accomm odate products of export interest to developing 
countries, in particular EPPs.  Many of these EPPs  were natural and biodegradable products that 
presented export opportunities for natural product-ba sed industries utilizing raw materials and skills 
for which developing countries had a comparative adva ntage.  With respect to  a majority of products 
on Switzerland's list, developing countries had a subs tantial trade interest a nd were net exporters.  
Switzerland indicated that the list included produc ts such as solar cooking appliances;  as well as 
means of sustainable transport, such as railways, solar mobiles, bicycles, barges and boats and their 
related accessories.  All products on the Swiss lis t had been screened by the Swiss Agency for the 
Environment, Forests and Landscapes.  Products whic h, if used improperly, entailed risks to human 
beings or the environment, as well as products  whose production was overly damaging to the 
environment, had been eliminated from the list.   
70. Switzerland gave some explanation of its table,  which contained the following information:  
the HS headings or sub-headings;  the product d escription at HS 4- and 6-digit level;  remarks 
concerning the ex out;  the relevant environmen tal category according to the OECD definition 
(Cleaner Technology and Cleaner Products, or EPPs based on end-use or disposal characteristics);  
and import data for the year 2004 for all goods proposed  on the list.  With respect to this last item, 
Switzerland noted that the value of imports of the proposed environmental goods amounted to roughly 
USD 4.6 billion, which was around 5 per cent of all goods imports for 2004.  Sw itzerland reserved the 
right to add further items or to am end its proposed list as appropriate.   
71. Given the evolving nature of the envir onmental goods industry in both developed and 
developing countries, Switzerland considered it would be necessary to agree on a process of review and update of the list of environm ental goods.  For this purpose, the OECD definition and its main 
categories could serve as a reference point.  This review could be undertaken every two years, for 
instance, in the Regular CTE.   
72. Finally, Switzerland noted that it was committed to ensuring that developing country 
Members had the opportunity to effectively particip ate in the negotiations, and that their interests 
were reflected in a mutually agreed list of enviro nmental goods.  To this end, Switzerland announced 
that it would provide a financial contributi on to support UNCTAD's technical assistance to 
developing country Members in prepari ng their lists of environmental goods.  
73. The representative of Brazil
 introduced Brazil's new submission in document TN/TE/W/59.  
Brazil stressed that a meaningful outcome in the negotiations should take into account the concerns 
and interests of developing countries, and the prin ciples of special and differential treatment, as well 
as less than full reciprocity in the reduction co mmitments.  The liberalization of trade in 
environmental goods should offer opportunities for developing countries to increase their exports of 
such goods, in particular in the areas where deve loping countries had a competitive advantage.  The  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 15 
 
 
mandate in Paragraph 51 of the Doha Declaration was also relevant in this respect.  Furthermore, the 
CTESS was instructed to focus on the development di mension in the context of the Paragraph 31(iii) 
negotiations.  For most developing countries, devel opment would be best addressed if the outcome of 
the negotiations resulted in improved market ac cess for products that had a low impact on the 
environment and/or were derived from or incorpor ated cleaner technologies, and that would enhance 
the use of technologies adapted to the needs of de veloping countries.  In Brazil's view, such an 
approach would also address current imbalances id entified in the environmental goods market, which 
was largely based on "end-of-pipe" technologies and products.  According to studies by UNCTAD, 
developed countries held about 90 per cent of this market for environmental goods.  Therefore, if 
negotiations were to take into consideration only this type of market for environmental goods, the 
results of the negotiations would be unbalanced.   
74. The principles of special and differential tr eatment, as well as less than full reciprocity in 
reduction commitments should apply, to the extent that the environmental goods identified would be 
considered as part of the NAMA negotiations.  Br azil considered that there should be opportunities 
for developing countries in this process, and th at such opportunities would result from an adequate 
definition of environmental goods, i.e. a definition that would be supportive of trade promotion, 
environmental improvement, and po verty alleviation.  More specifically, Brazil suggested that 
products such as natural fibres, colorants and othe r non-timber forest products , as well as renewable 
energy, including ethanol and bio-diesel should be included in a list of environmental goods.  
Furthermore, Brazil considered that the negotia tions should lead to improved market access for 
products that incorporated cleaner technologies, such  as flexi-fuel engines and vehicles, as this would 
encourage the use of environmentally efficient products.   
75. Brazil emphasized the need for criteria in the identification of environmental goods.  It 
considered that a list approach should not be based  on parameters negotiated outside the WTO, such 
as the criteria used in the context of the OECD  and APEC lists.  Brazil supported UNCTAD's EPP 
approach as a basis for developing a definition of environmental goods in the CTESS.  This did not 
mean, however, that Brazil was in favour of using PP Ms as a criterion.  Brazil stressed that the result 
of the negotiations should reflect a balance between developing and de veloped country interests, as 
well as between trade interests and environmental c onsiderations.  Further progress in the negotiations 
would depend on how this bala nce could be achieved.   
Discussion of new submissions 
76. The representative of Venezuela  expressed its appreciation for the Cuban submission.  His 
delegation also shared the concern of Cuba th at the discussion under paragraph 31(iii) had not 
garnered the necessary consensus among Members.  In particular, Venezuela agreed that there was 
uncertainty as to how the negotiations would bene fit developing countries, and help achieve the 
objective of sustainable development.  In Venezuel a's view, it was premature to anticipate any results 
from the discussion in the lead-up to the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Conference.  He recalled that most of 
the environmental goods put forward were from the APEC and OECD lists and did not adequately 
reflect the interests of developing countries.  He further recalled that many issues remained 
unresolved in the negotiations, such  as, whether agricultural products would be considered as part of 
the negotiations under paragraph 31(iii);  how environmental goods liberalization would be 
undertaken within the NAMA group;  or how special  and differential treatment and transfer of 
technology would be taken into account.   
77. Venezuela expressed its support for the "environmental project approach" suggested by India, 
and called for a closer examination of the propo sal.  Such an approach would bring the Doha 
Development Agenda together with the principl es of the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and the 
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.  The fact th at general criteria would be defined by the CTESS 
would enable Members to give appropriate consideration to the needs of national governments in 
adopting their policies.  Furthermore, the Indian a pproach would allow developing countries to further TN/TE/R/12 
Page 16  
 
define their need for capacity building, technolog y transfer, and technical assistance.  Venezuela 
noted that the Indian proposal should be further exam ined in the context of Paragraph 51 of the Doha 
Declaration.  Venezuela sought clarification fro m India regarding the difficulty of establishing a 
distinction between goods and services in specific envi ronmental activities, as flagged in its paper.   
78. Venezuela said it would resist any attempt to submit lists of environmental goods to the 
NAMA group before a satisfactory conclusion to negotiations was found within the CTESS.  With 
respect to the documents submitted by the US, EC , and Switzerland, Venezuela indicated that it 
would examine them in the light of th e approach suggested by India.   
79. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said she wished to make some preliminary comments on 
the new submissions presented in the CTESS.  With  respect to EC's proposal, Chinese Taipei 
supported the EC's suggestion to include on the lis t EPPs and eco-labelled products, which were to a 
great extent in the interest of  developing country Members.  Chinese Taipei noted the legal 
uncertainty surrounding EPPs and eco-labelling, in  areas such as non-product related PPMs, or the 
question of standards for the granting of eco-label  certificates.  Chinese Taipei wondered what the 
EC's views were on these legal issues, and whether they might raise any practical difficulties.  
Chinese Taipei was also interested to know how th e EC proposed to deal with the agricultural 
products included in its list of environmental goods, and issues such as the appropriate forum in WTO 
for conducting negotiations on or ganic agricultural products. 
80. Turning to the US' submission, Chinese Taipei particularly commended the inclusion of a 
column in the table showing the overlap with ot her Members' proposed lists, showing the level of 
consensus among Members on the products consider ed as environmental goods.  Referring to a 
previous US submission circulated in document TN/TE/W/38, Chinese Taipei asked the US whether 
the current list under consideration was a core list,  and if so, whether a complementary list could be 
expected from the US in the near future.   
81. With respect to India's submission, Chinese Taipei explained why it still considered the 
environmental project approach as complementary to th e list approach:  firstly, it could not find in the 
EPA any of the multilateral characteristics that mo st Members agreed were needed to ensure and 
sustain the mutual supportiveness between trade and the environment, such as transparency, 
predictability and non-discrimination;  secondly, th is approach put too much of a burden on the 
Designated National Authority (DNA) to review a nd approve the scope and duration of projects;  
thirdly, Chinese Taipei felt that some of the SM E exporters and importers would not be able to 
approach and get the necessary approval from the D NA;  and fourthly, Chinese Taipei did not agree 
with India's suggestion in paragraph 9 of its paper that EPA could be accommodated in 
HS Chapter 98.  Chinese Taipei pointed out that HS Chapter 98 was for contractual services rather 
than for a commercial purpose, and if it was to be  included in the project for a commercial purpose, 
another classification would be needed.  In add ition, Chinese Taipei wondered how long spare parts 
could be subject to the project entitled to concessions.  She noted th at the WCO could assist Members 
in addressing some of these questions.   
82. Chinese Taipei noted Switzerland's suggestion to take into account the OECD definition, as 
well as the categories of Cleaner Technology and Products and EPPs so as to ensure a balanced 
outcome in the negotiations.  Chinese Taipei noted th at the evolving nature of the goods at issue was 
not a specific feature of the environmental industr y, and noted that the proposal by Switzerland to 
review the list of environmental goods every two y ears would require further discussion.  In response 
to Brazil's proposal to adopt UNCTAD's approach on  EPPs, Chinese Taipei indicated that it had some 
concerns with regard to classification, customs ma tters and WTO legal issues.  She noted that her 
delegation looked forward to Braz il's list of environmental goods. 
83. The representative of Paraguay  noted that any outcome in the negotiation would have to 
promote trade in environmental goods and services, im prove environmental quality at the global level,  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 17 
 
 
and promote sustainable development for all Member s.  Paraguay considered that the list approach 
was not the most suitable approach to achieve these objectives.  Paraguay agreed with India that such 
an approach would have disadvantages for devel oping countries, and therefore welcomed the 
alternative approaches suggested by India and Brazil.   Paraguay asked if India could provide a model 
or an outline to illustrate, on a step-by-step basi s, how its environmental project approach would 
work.  Paraguay also sought clarification from Brazil as to whether its proposed definition would 
cover clean products or technologies, products with  low environmental impact, or high-technology 
products such as those found in some of the tabled lists.   
84. Finally, Paraguay expressed support for Cuba's s ubmission, which in its view reflected the 
concerns of a number of developing country Member s with respect to the process of the negotiations 
and the potential benefits for developing countries.   
85. The representative of Malaysia  shared the concerns expressed by Cuba in its submission 
concerning the lack of clarity as to how environmen tal goods would be treated in the context of the 
NAMA negotiations.  She noted that as long as the qu estion of the level of liberalization remained 
unclear, it would be difficult for her delegation to engage in the discussion and come forward with a 
list of environmental goods.   
86. The representative of Thailand , also on behalf of Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore, 
questioned the inclusion of eco-labelled products in the EC's list.  Th e eco-labelling issue was 
complex and often divisive in WTO, given the relationship between PPMs, and in particular 
non-product-related PPMs, and the WTO principle of non-discrimination.   
87. With respect to India's submission, Thailand indi cated that it appreciated the general thrust of 
the paper, which allowed scope for developing countries to deve lop capacities and achieve national 
priorities.  Thailand indicated it would further refl ect on how the Indian approach could complement 
or facilitate the work undertaken in the CTESS, including with regard to the list approach.   
88. The representative of Chile  said that her delegation would need to reflect further on the two 
main approaches suggested so far,  as it was not convinced by either of them.  Chile had some 
concerns, for instance, with respect to envir onmental goods identified on the basis of PPMs or 
eco-labelling.  Chile reiterated that the treat ment given to products identified on any list of 
environmental goods that would come out of the CTESS would have to be discussed in the NAMA 
group.  Chile also pointed out that if by the time of the Ministerial Conference delegations were not clear on the basic interests of developing countries, it would not be realistic to expect any agreement 
on a list of environmental goods in Hong Kong.   
89. With respect to India's proposal, Chile noted th at the underlying logic that each country would 
determine the treatment to be given to goods on th e basis of criteria agreed in the CTE was an 
interesting one.  While Chile welcomed the link between environmental goods and services in the 
Indian approach, it wondered whether, in the c ontext of an environmental project, only the goods 
imported to carry out the project would benefit fro m preferential treatment.  If this was the case, a 
single product could have a different tariff treatment  depending on whether or not its final use was 
related to an approved environmental project.  Chile pointed out that if the concessions were 
project-driven it would reduce predictability for expo rters.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Chile 
what commitments or concessions would apply in the case of public-private partnership (PPP) 
projects.   
90. Chile thanked the delegations of the US and Switzerland for submitting their list of 
environmental goods.  He appreciated the fact that  these lists focused on products' end-use, and did 
not include PPMs.  Chile also welcomed the fact that Switzerland had included information 
concerning imports and MFN tariff for each product.  He noted that further information from the US 
and Switzerland concerning the volume of exports for such products would be useful.  Chile recalled TN/TE/R/12 
Page 18  
 
that a Secretariat study circulated in December 2002 in the NAMA group had provided statistics on Members' trade in environmental goods
3, and noted that a revision of th is study would be useful.   
91. Finally, Chile agreed with Cuba that it was pr emature to anticipate the result of the discussion 
at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, given the lack of consensus among Members.   
92. The representative of Colombia  stated that the work on the definition of environmental goods 
should continue on the basis of the categories and lis ts proposed.  Colombia supported the inclusion of 
a category of EPPs based on end-use or  disposal characteristics, which in its view would ensure that 
products of interest to developing countries were included on the list.  Colombia also believed that 
priority should be given to proposals that catered for international guidelines, such as those set in the 
Rio Declaration and the Johannesburg Plan  of Implementation of the WSSD.   
93. According to Colombia, many issues raised in  the discussion remained unresolved, including, 
for instance, the application of the concept of a living list and the question of developing countries' 
interests in the negotiations.  Given the constraint s faced in developing a list of environmental goods, 
Colombia did not envisage to table a list of envi ronmental goods that could be discussed before the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  
94. Discussions should continue with a view to c onsolidating a definition of environmental goods 
and services, to the extent developing countries we re able to identify and draw up lists of such 
environmental goods and services of interest to th em.  In this respect, Colombia expressed its 
appreciation for the technical assistance provided to strengthen the capacity of  developing countries in 
this area.   
95. The representative of China  welcomed the new submissions put forward, which he had found 
enlightening and constructive.  He also noted that some of the proposals were considerate for 
developing countries' interests.  In the exerci se of identifying environmental goods, China had 
focused its attention mainly on industrial goods at  the expense of consumer goods.  While some 
consumer goods had found their way on to the lists tabled, China consider ed that more could be added.  
Some of the consumer goods had a direct impact on the environment as well as human health.  These 
goods related, for instance, to purifying or cleaning air and water, treating solid waste, and reducing 
noise and radiation.  They could be identified mainly by their end-use.  In addition, both developing 
and developed countries seemed to have an interest in these kinds of products.  He invited delegations 
to keep an open mind and think cr eatively to ensure that developing countries' interests were fully 
reflected in the negotiations.  Without prejudice to its position on PPMs, and keeping in mind the need 
for special and differential treatment for developing  country Members, China argued that agricultural 
goods should be included on the list.  
96. China agreed with Brazil that the EPP category could help Members take into account the 
development dimension of the negotiations.  It al so found merit in India's proposal, which recognized 
the importance of capacity-building and transfer of technology.  In concluding, China noted that the 
products banned under certain MEAs  should not be included in a WTO list of environmental goods.   
97. The representative of Ecuador  recalled that tariff reduction was not the main objective in the 
negotiations, and should be based on the product's e nvironmental goal.  She emphasized the need to 
address the mandate in a more holistic manner, by c onsidering not only goods, but also services as 
well as non-tariff barriers.  
98. Ecuador wished to make preliminary remark s on the new submissions tabled.  On the 
proposal by India, Ecuador noted that it shared Indi a's concerns with respect to the list approach;  the 
ambiguity in the criteria for defining environmental goods; the issue of multiple use;  transfer of 
                                                      
3 TN/MA/S/8.   TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 19 
 
 
technology;  and the difficulty of identifying certa in products under the HS system.  These concerns 
indicated that there were too many uncertainties re garding the results of the negotiations for Members 
to consider having an agreed list of environmenta l goods by the time of the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference.  In this regard, Ecuador agreed with Chile that it would be necessary to take due account 
of the single undertaking.  Moreover, Ecuador cons idered Cuba's submission as being of particular 
importance, because it underscored pending issues in the negotiations, such as the lack of clarity 
regarding modalities for the negotiations and the app lication of special and differential treatment for 
developing countries. 
99. With respect to the issue of a living list, Ecua dor disagreed with the proposal to carry out a 
review of the list every two years in order to incl ude new products.  According to Ecuador, this would 
aggravate existing imbalances in the list and would further widen the technological gap between 
developing and developed countries.  
100. Ecuador indicated that it had faced certa in difficulties in the process of identifying 
environmental goods and services of national interest , including with regard to the multiple use of 
products identified in other Members' lists.  Furt hermore, issues such as PPMs, certification and 
labelling, put into question developing countri es' comparative advantage in goods derived from 
natural resources.  Finally, Ecuador noted that ad dressing problems related to non-tariff barriers in the 
context of the negotiations presented an opportunity to further strengthen the mutual supportiveness of 
trade and the environment.   
101. The representative of Australia  said that his delegation still considered the list approach as 
providing a viable way forward in the negotiations, a nd that the issues raised could be worked through 
with greater engagement from Memb ers.  Some of the concepts put forward in Members' submissions, 
such as the use of reference points and ex outs, coul d also help in this respect.  Australia emphasized 
the need to broaden the discussion to ensure that  issues of interest to developing countries were 
included in the discussion.  While Australia s upported the list approach, it was still reflecting on 
whether to submit a list.  Australia agreed with the EC that Members needed to focus on some of the 
specific products listed, work out whether or not th ey could agree with such products being included 
on a list of environmental goods, and provide some feedback accordingly.   
102. With respect to the new proposals tabled, Aust ralia agreed with the US that a bottom-up 
approach made sense, and appreciated the focus on e nd-use criteria while avoiding the issue of PPMs.  
Regarding the suggestion to add a category for EPPs,  Australia was still reflecting more generally on 
its position towards the EPP concept.  Turning to th e EC paper and the point raised on eco-labelling, 
Australia emphasized that the issue was not part of  the negotiating mandate, and did not believe that 
comprehensive environmental labelling schemes, such as those promoted by GEN, were useful to a 
definition of environmental goods.   
103. On the Indian proposal, Australia raised a con cern that the project approach could lead to 
further barriers and obstructions rather than facilitate trade.  Australia also flagged concerns regarding 
how the approach would fit within the rule-based multilateral trading system;  whether HS Chapter 98 
could be used for such projects;  and whether th e approach would be suitable for SMEs.  Australia 
supported India's attempts to focus on services in th e proposal as part of the mandate and encouraged 
further discussion of the issue.  
104. Australia welcomed Brazil's submission, which it felt contributed to a better understanding of 
developing countries' interests in the negotiations.  According to Australia, these interests were not 
incompatible with the list approach.  As a number of  delegations had pointed out, there were potential 
benefits from these negotiations fo r developed and developing countri es alike.  Regarding Brazil's 
suggestion to focus on EPPs, Australia was not conv inced that the PPM issue could be avoided in the 
discussion.   TN/TE/R/12 
Page 20  
 
105. Finally, Australia welcomed the intensificati on of the work under this agenda item and the 
constructive dialogue that had taken place.  He thanked the Secretariat for the Synthesis of 
submissions on environmental goods and requested  that the document be kept updated as new 
information became available.   
106. The representative of Argentina
 wished to emphasize the point made by Brazil that trade 
liberalization in the context of the paragraph 31(i ii) negotiations was not an end in itself.  The 
negotiations also had to bring benefits for the e nvironment and development.  Argentina noted that 
despite the fact that some Members had submitted in itial lists of products, th e question of what goods 
were really environmental remain ed unanswered.  Argentina agreed with the EC that delegations 
would have to start discussing the environmental ju stification of the individual products, but noted 
that this should not preclude the initial lists from be ing circulated in other negotiating groups, such as 
NAMA.  Argentina noted some of the difficulties in trying to identify environmental goods as a subset 
of goods in general, namely with respect to multiple use and tariff classificati on.  Similar difficulties 
arose when trying to define the development dimensi on of the negotiations.  In this regard, Argentina 
observed that the mere identification of goods of export interest to developing countries would not 
guarantee development.  He noted that other aspects, such as transfer of technology, were also 
relevant to the development di mension of the negotiations.   
107. In Argentina's view, the main problem in the negotiations was not one of identification of 
goods, but rather one of approach.  It noted in this regard that India's environmental project approach 
seemed to provide answers to some of the difficu lt issues identified by delegations, while giving due 
consideration to the environmental and developmental aspects of the mandate.   
108. The representative of Bolivia  shared India's concern rega rding the discrepancies in the 
composition of lists and the perceived imbalance in terms of reflecting the interests of developing 
countries.  For these reasons, India's environmen tal project approach provided an interesting 
alternative.  One way of ensuring developing count ry participation would be to consider combining 
trade liberalization with the transfer of technology and know-how, on the basis of the principle of 
common and differentiated responsibilities.  Bolivia  shared the view expressed by Cuba in its 
submission that the debate on how to fulfil the mandate had not achieved the necessary consensus, 
and that it would be premature to consider tab ling a list of environmental goods at the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference.  Finally, she recalled th at any result achieved under paragraph 31(iii) in the 
CTESS, be it a list of environmental goods or prin ciples and criteria for environmental projects, 
would be subject to negotiations in the NAMA group. 
109. The representative of Jordan  said that although her delegation had not yet reached a final 
position on the subject, it considered that the final lis t approach was the best way to proceed in the 
negotiations.  Jordan was in the process of consolid ating its initial environm ental goods list.  She 
thanked Canada for its financial support in this process, and insisted on the important role of 
international organizations in providing technical ass istance to developing countries at this stage of 
the negotiations. 
110. The representative of New Zealand  welcomed the tabling of new lists of environmental 
goods, which in New Zealand's view indicated that pr ogress was being made on paragraph 31 (iii).  In 
particular, he welcomed the fact that the submissions were characterized by pragmatism and emphasized "defining by doing" by identifying sp ecific items and informing those choices by drawing 
on existing work, including that of the OECD, APEC and UNCTAD.   
111. With respect to the EC proposals, New Zealand welcomed the fact that the EC had provided 
HS codes for the products it had put forward.  New Zealand noted that further clarification could be 
provided by the EC with regard to the products identif ied at the 4-digit level.  Furthermore, he noted 
that an entire chapter which contained agricultura l products had been proposed.  New Zealand urged  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 21 
 
 
the EC to confine its proposals to the areas that th e NAMA group was expecting, and to try to refine 
its list to include items identified at the HS  6-digit level, with relevant "ex-outs". 
112. With respect to the potential use of the Global Eco-labelling Network system to define 
environmental goods, he noted that a small number  of producers in New Zealand were members of 
the GEN's voluntary non-governmental global programme.  While the use of non-discriminatory 
voluntary eco-labels was important to inform consumer choice, he emphasized that they were not 
appropriate reference tools for use by customs official s seeking to apply tariff rates agreed as a result 
of WTO negotiation on environmental goods.  Theref ore, the importance of voluntary eco-labels lay 
ultimately at the point of sale, rather than at the border as concerned the application of tariffs.  
New Zealand was not convinced that the work of GEN, which used PPM-based criteria, was relevant 
to the negotiations. 
113. With respect to document TN/TE/W/56 which referred to "sustainable agriculture or 
gardening", New Zealand expressed the view th at agricultural products were not a matter for 
discussion in the CTESS.  Furthermore, the discussion of what constituted "sustainable agriculture" or 
"sustainable gardening" would not be helpfu l in making progress in the CTESS towards the 
Hong Kong Ministerial and beyond.   
114. He welcomed the EC's suggestion to establis h an "open list" of environmental goods, and 
considered this suggestion akin to the concept of the living list.   
115. New Zealand also asked for some clarificati on concerning the HS codes that the EC was 
considering for rainwater catchment systems and fog or dew catchers, and the environmental benefits 
of such products.  He also asked about the HS code that the EC intended to use for products related to 
wind energy.  Also, New Zealand was interested in the specific ex-out or 6-digit code for 
category 3920, which referred to plastic or paper sheeting for water and heat savings, and in the 
environmental benefits of polyur ethane foam (HS code 392113).   
116. Turning to the US submission, New Zealand noted  that it brought balance to the negotiations.  
More specifically, he noted that the US submission was transparent;  it offered meaningful reference 
points;  it dealt with the dual use issue in a practical manner;  it addressed the important question of 
how to deal with evolving environmental technologi es;  and it included a number of items of specific 
interest to developing countries.  It also welc omed the transparency sh own by the US in the 
development of its list, with the inclusion of  average MFN rate, as well as import data.  Such 
information would be particularly useful once di scussions began on the items that should appear on 
the consensus list to be provided to Ministers for Hong Kong.  In New Zealand's view, the US list was 
sensible and practical, in that it set out clearly how  the goods had been identified, by making reference 
to the work of the OECD, APEC and UNCTAD. 
117. Furthermore, New Zealand welcomed the use of the term "ex-out" for di fferentiating products 
at a level greater than the six digit HS codes.  It also agreed with the US that an approach would be 
needed in the negotiation in order to take into  account the evolving nature of the environmental 
industry.  Finally, he asked the US for further information concerning the environmental benefits of 
the following products:  HS 560811 (made up fishing nets);  849290 (super-h eated water boilers);  
846596 (splitting, slicing or paring machines); and also 900290 (prism mirrors, mounted and parts and 
accessories). 
118. With regard to the Swiss proposal, New Zeal and noted its appreciation for the practical 
application of the "defining by doing" approach.  He also welcomed the use of the reference points 
approach as a screening mechanism, e.g. the OECD de finition.  Switzerland had used the categories of 
EPPs and cleaner technology and products to stru cture its list, and New Zealand hoped that 
Switzerland would concur with the tighter focus it had given to the EPP category by using the phrase 
"defined by end-use or disposal characteristics".  TN/TE/R/12 
Page 22  
 
119. He also welcomed Switzerland's determination to ensure transparency by the incorporation of 
import data and ex-outs in the list, thus providing  greater clarity and certainty about the products 
being proposed.  He also noted Switzerland's comment s in paragraphs 16 and 17 of its submission on 
the need to establish a living list.   
120. He pointed out that the environmental benefit of some of the items on the Swiss list, 
including, for instance, HS 830110 (padlocks), HS 830160 (parts of padlocks), and HS 830170 (keys 
presented separately) was not obvious to his delegation.  
121. New Zealand had hoped that some of the questi ons raised at the informal meeting in June 
regarding India's first submission (document TN/TE/W/ 51) would have been clarified and resolved in 
India's second submission.  However, New Zealand still had some concerns, and sought some further 
clarification from India as to what prevented its  proposal from being implemented immediately in 
countries that considered it wort hwhile.  New Zealand was aware of  similar mechanisms already in 
place in certain countries, and wondered why the environmental project approach had to secure endorsement at the CTESS.  He also asked how  the project-based approach would contribute 
concretely to improving the transparency and predic tability of the multilateral trading system.  From 
his perspective, he was not sure how that outcome would be assured, since the submission seemed to 
set out a complex administrative process that allowed the raising and lowering of tariffs in an ad hoc 
manner over time, essentially at the direction of a cen tralized body independently of market forces.  
In particular, companies seeking certainty about proj ects might be uncertain as to which project would 
qualify for tariff preferences and which would not, until the designated national authority had made a 
judgment on these.  
122. The submission suggested that the project a pproach was the best way to ensure positive 
environmental benefits.  Environmental projects of the type described in the submission were not only 
major national projects determined by the central gove rnment.  It was often small, localized groups of 
concerned citizens or NGOs who worked to improve environmental circumstances, for example, through clean-up programmes and cam paigns for a specific local area or polluted waterway, bush and 
forest, and these groups frequently required access to  the kind of products under negotiation in the 
CTESS.  For these groups, such projects were vital and did make a measurable difference to environmental outcomes.  However, according to  the Indian proposal, projects seeking to import 
products under preferential rates required central government approval, and the process of securing 
that approval could be burdensome for many of th e local or sub-national groups which had their 
objectives and resources focused on localized situations. 
123. New Zealand noted that the project-based approach could become administratively 
burdensome and could have a chilling effect on tr ade for relatively small economies built around 
SMEs.  He also wondered how the project appr oach could assist in making progress on the trade 
facilitation aspect of the Doha Round, directed at re ducing red tape for traders to further expedite the 
movement, release and clearance of goods. 
124. With respect to Brazil's submission, New Zeal and shared Brazil's view that the negotiation 
must ensure that environmental goods were used  for the benefit of the environment and of 
development.  New Zealand supported Brazil's sugges tion with respect to the categories of EPPs and 
Cleaner Technologies and Products.  These were areas of  considerable trading interest to developing 
countries, which at the same time had an important environmental significance.  With regard to EPPs, 
he emphasized that this category of products should be defined by reference to end-use or disposal 
characteristics only, and recalled that PPM-based criteri a would not be in the interest of this wider 
negotiation.   
125. He was impressed by the importance of the trad e in the categories proposed by Brazil, which 
was further proof that the negotiations had real  commercial meaning for developing countries.   TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 23 
 
 
New Zealand welcomed Brazil's suggestions regard ing natural fibres and renewable energy, including 
bio-diesel.   
126. He noted that there might be synergies between some of the items that had been proposed in 
various lists and the items that Brazil had suggested .  He asked Brazil about the HS codes and ex-outs 
that it would like to propose, for instance, for motor cars and flexi-fuel car engines.  He also noted 
that a number of Members had proposed bio-diesel as an item for negotiation, and asked which 
HS code or ex-out Brazil had in mind for this pa rticular product, and whether it could agree with 
New Zealand's ex-out description.   
127. With respect to Cuba's submission, New Zeala nd welcomed Cuba's interest in products such 
as renewable energy, or energy-efficient technology, and natural products such as bio-diesel.  
New Zealand looked forward to Cuba's more spec ific suggestions in respect of these products, 
including the relevant HS description.   
128. The representative of Korea  recalled its delegation's position th at the practical approach of 
submitting concrete lists would be a more useful way to advance the negotiation.  Once a workable 
list of environmental goods was est ablished, the CTESS would have a concrete basis for proceeding 
with its discussion.  In this regard, Korea welcomed  the initial lists of envi ronmental goods tabled by 
New Zealand, Canada, the US, the EC and Switzerland. 
129. Korea noted that there were so me variations among the different  lists in terms of Members' 
considerations and product covera ge.  For practical reasons, Kor ea had excluded from its list the 
categories of EPPs and Clean Technology, and continue d to have reservations with respect to their 
inclusion.  However, Korea was willing to show so me flexibility with respect to the use of these 
categories, given that some delegations found them he lpful to structure their lists, but noted that this 
was without prejudice to Korea's position with respect to the particular products at issue.   
130. Several Members had underlined the importa nce of achieving a "balanced list" of 
environmental goods that reflected the areas of co mmercial interest to developing countries.  Korea 
fully agreed with the notion that the final outcome  of the negotiation should strike a balance between 
developing and developed country interests.  Keeping in mind this important goal, Korea was 
considering a range of products to  supplement its initial list.  Korea believed it would be helpful if 
more delegations came forward with lis ts of products of particular inte rest to them in order to develop 
a balanced list of environmental goods, and was encouraged to know that some developing countries 
were already in the process of drawing up their lists.   
131. Korea also shared the concerns of other Member s regarding the fact that the Indian proposal 
was presented as an alternative to the list appr oach.  His delegation had doubts as to how the 
environmental project approach could be implem ented within the framework of the multilateral 
trading system.   
132. Korea noted that the WTO list of environmental goods should be regarded as a living list, and 
that it was willing to engage in a discussion to deve lop a mechanism to update the list so as to take 
into account the evolution of environmental technolog ies.  Finally, Korea considered that the CTESS 
was making good progress towards the Hong Kong Minist erial, and needed to further expedite its 
work in order to achieve a meaningful outcom e in the trade and environment negotiations.   
133. The representative of the United States  thanked the Members who had put forward papers at 
the meeting and noted that it was an encourag ing sign that progress was being made in these 
discussions.   
134. She stated that the US welcomed Brazil's a dditional views provided in its submission on the 
types of products that should be  considered under the CTESS mandate, and the fact that the approach TN/TE/R/12 
Page 24  
 
advocated in the paper did not favour PPMs.  Howeve r, she asked for further clarification on how the 
CTESS could adapt UNCTAD's approach on EPPs as a definition to guide the discussion.  For example, she wondered if Brazil had given any thought  to whether this approach was broad enough to 
take into consideration the vari ous environmental and developmenta l challenges faced by developing 
countries, and the priorities set out in the Rio D eclaration and WSSD Plan of Implementation (e.g. 
with respect to waste management and sanitation) , and whether it was broad enough to capture the 
dynamic and diverse export interests of devel oping countries.  As she had noted previously, 
preliminary data analysis undertaken by the US suggested that many developing countries were 
significant exporters of pollution prevention and re mediation goods.  These markets appeared to be 
growing rapidly, and more quickly than markets for EPPs.  The US welcomed further submissions 
from Brazil as it continued to refine its thi nking in terms of products of interest.   
135. With respect to the Swiss paper, she appreciated Switzerland's attempt to expand upon two 
categories of goods, namely cleaner technologies a nd EPPs.  The US had also noted that two more 
categories - pollution management and resource mana gement - were identified in the paper.  She 
asked Switzerland whether it was planning to table a list of products in these other two areas, or 
whether it was content with other Members' lists representing those categories of goods.   
136. Regarding the issue of dual use raised in the I ndian and Cuban papers, she noted that efforts 
could be made to focus on the inclusion of goods  that significantly served environmental purposes.  
She recalled that Members had to consider these ch allenges in the broader context of the DDA, which 
was aimed at further liberalization across industri es and across products.  The task of the CTESS was 
to identify goods used to protect the environm ent, reduce pollution, and help countries meet 
sustainable development goals, so that these goods coul d be liberalized in a manner that would benefit 
the environment, economy, and deve lopment of all Members.  The manner in which this liberalization 
would take place would be decided in NAMA.  In  the US' view, the dual use issue was not as 
significant as it would be in a "one-off" type of liberalization exercise.   
137. In tackling these challenges, the US had advocat ed a pragmatic approach based upon both the 
prevalence of the environmental goods in a given ta riff heading and the importance of the good for the 
environment industry, i.e. including all products w ithin a 6-digit HS category on the list.  She noted 
that even if only a minority of products of a 6- digit category served an environmental purpose, or 
were of critical importance to the environmental sector, the entire 6-digit HS category should be included on the list.   
138. In other cases, the US had advocated including a specific environmental good that was best 
described in terms of the product descriptions found at the narrower, national tariff line level (the 8- 
or 9-digit level).  This explained the use of "ex-ou t" or additional product descriptions on the US' list.  
To the extent that WTO Members could agree that  certain goods within a 6-digit category were 
environmental and could be distinguished physically , they could implement such break-outs in their 
tariff schedule as appropriate.  The US did not current ly have product descriptions broken down at the 
national tariff line level, and woul d have to implement changes to their tariff schedule, if and as 
agreed.  
139. She noted that other options available, such as end-use certificates, would pose practical and 
administrative difficulties.  A project-based approach, like end-use certificates, would be restrictive and administratively burdensome.  Such an appr oach would require that a good be used in a 
government-designated project in order to be exempt ed from duty.  The US wondered how the Indian 
proposal could deliver the kind of benefits that  WTO Members and their exporters expected from 
these negotiations.   
140. She questioned the lack of binding commitm ents, transparency, predictability, and 
accountability presented by this approach.  She also  stressed that it would not guarantee access to 
exporters, and in particular SMEs , since smaller companies selling di rectly into markets would have  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 25 
 
 
to continue paying duties, while those directly supplying major projects would not.  She noted that duties were quite high on some of the goods of in terest to US companies, such as water filtering and 
purifying machinery.  This also led to the question of  benefits for direct consumers, small distributors, 
rural communities, or sub-federal entities that would need these goods, but would not have the 
resources or knowledge to apply for their own project  approval.  She agreed with New Zealand that 
SMEs were hesitant to export their products b ecause of hurdles such as additional paperwork and 
bureaucracy, and the associated delays, and she noted that the environmental project approach could 
add to these challenges.  
141. The US also argued that full market access woul d promote technology transfer more than the 
environmental project approach, since the latter was directed at protection from imports, and seemed 
to involve only selective technology transfer.  Sh e wondered how the project approach would address 
the export interests of the Members whose goal was to increase EPPs exports.  In this regard, she 
wondered if there were any major projects in c ountries that were currently importing fibres or 
flexi-fuel tanks, which were two of the categories fo r which interest had been flagged.  She agreed 
with India on the need for a practical approach th at could help meet the environmental, economic, and 
developmental needs of all Members, but she stresse d that her delegation was not convinced that this 
was the right approach.   
142. The US thanked the EC for its additional e fforts to identify HS codes for its proposed 
products.  She noted that there was an overlap between the EC and US lists with respect to certain products identified at the 6-digit level.  However, in some cases, the EC had only identified HS codes 
at the 2- or 4-digit level, or had not identified an y, so it was difficult for the US to say whether the 
overlap extended to the more detailed product descripti on that the US had offered in certain instances.  
143. She observed that the EC had reiterated its o ffer on eco-labelled goods, but had not identified 
the types of products to be covered by such labels , nor tackled the workabilit y issues raised by some 
delegations at the February meeting.   While voluntary eco-labels could be  a useful tool to differentiate 
products in the market place, they were not a good to ol for purposes of tariff treatment.  In the interest 
of moving the discussion forward, and given that many delegations continued to resist the inclusion of 
PPM-based products on any list of environmental goods, the US suggested that the EC focussed 
instead on other parts of its list, such as pollu tion control, resource management technologies, 
renewable energies, and natural fibres. 
144. She also wondered if the EC had given any a dditional consideration to the goods described as 
"high environmental performance or low environmenta l impact".  She argued that while the EC had 
identified a few products in these categories, such as energy-efficient light bulbs, it did so mostly at 
the 4-digit level, which fell short of addressing the f easibility issues noted at the February meeting.   
145. The US thanked Canada and New Zealand for th eir contributions to a practical, bottom-up 
approach.  She supported both of the papers' focu s on goods with a clear environmental end-use, 
avoiding goods identified on the basis of PPM distin ctions.  She noted that her delegation was still 
reviewing these lists, and would have additional comments and qu estions at future meetings. 
146. In response to questions and concerns raised  by Members concerning the linkages between 
this discussion on environmental goods in the CTESS and negotiations taking place in other 
negotiating groups, the US stressed that the CTESS must identify goods used to protect and preserve 
the environment and let the NAMA group proceed with its work, without prejudice to what might be 
decided in terms of a modality, or when it might be decided. 
147. 
With regard to the Services negotiations, the US noted that these discussions were further 
ahead, given that they already had a defined scope fo r their work, and that quite a few offers had been 
made in environmental services, including some from developing countries.  She also wondered if the TN/TE/R/12 
Page 26  
 
delegations that had had called for more discu ssion on the environmental services component of 
paragraph 31(iii) saw a particular role for the CTESS to play in these negotiations.   
148. The representative of Canada
 felt encouraged by the number of papers presented by other 
Members, which considered a wide range of goods across the board.  With regard to the paper by 
New Zealand, Canada agreed with the sugges tion of using reference points to identify the 
environmental merit of a particular product.  Ne w Zealand's use of categories also provided the 
necessary flexibility to help create a living list.  Ca nada agreed with New Zealand that any WTO list 
of environmental goods should be a living list, and welcomed further discussion on how this concept 
could be put into practice.   
149. Canada noted the interest by some delegations in further addressing the issue of definitions.  
There had been some discussion of the APEC, OECD and UNCTAD lists, as well as other 
approaches, which looked at environmental goods from a slightly different perspective, e.g. end-use, 
remediation, control, or EPPs.  In Canada's vi ew, a broad definition of environmental goods could 
help to achieve a balance between environmental be nefits and export interests among all Members.   
150. With respect to the issue of services and the links  with goods, he recalled the agreement in the 
CTESS to leave substantive work on environmental services to the Council for Trade in Services in 
Special Session.  However, there could be a role for the CTESS to play on this part of the mandate, 
and it could be useful for delegati ons that had developed lists of e nvironmental goods to share their 
experience on how they had taken services into account .  Regarding the issue of the treatment given to 
environmental goods in the context of the NAMA negotiations, Canada hoped that there would be 
some extra benefit, i.e. a "NAMA plus reduction" for environmental goods.  
151. Turning to the EC's paper and the suggestion of including eco-labelled goods, Canada noted 
that it would be difficult to link eco-labelled produc ts with tariff concessions, and that products should 
be identified as a tariff item rather th an on the basis of eco-labels.   
152. Regarding the EC's point on duplication of items in the Secretariat's Synthesis of submissions, 
Canada noted that in some cases delegations had used  different terms to describe the same product.  
With further clarification from delegations, the S ecretariat could proceed to reduce the number of 
items.  The WCO could also give some assistance to Members in this respect.  Canada also noted the 
EC's comment on using a negative list approach, which could be one way of reducing the list. 
153. Canada welcomed the US submission and supported the inclusion of two additional 
categories of environmental goods, namely natural resources protection and renewable energy plants, 
which could also be of interest to Canada.   
154. He noted that Switzerland had put forward some interesting ideas in its submission.  While 
Canada also supported the OECD definition, it consid ered that it could be widened for the purposes of 
the negotiations in order to ach ieve the expected results.   
155. With respect to the Brazilian submission, Canada noted that the products proposed were 
highly relevant to the environment, and looked forw ard to a more precise description of the products.  
Regarding the submission by Cuba, Canada understood some of the con cerns raised and would try to 
provide some further comments at a later stage.   
156. With regard to the proposal of India, Ca nada noted its concern that such conditional 
liberalization would not respond to the mandate in pa ragraph 31(iii) for the reduction or elimination of 
tariff barriers.  The project approach would not provi de any certainty regarding the benefits to specific 
products.  Furthermore, the products  that would benefit from the project approach would tend to be 
higher-technology products produced by large companies which would disadvantage SMEs.   TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 27 
 
 
In Canada's view, EPPs and other items of intere st to developing countries would be unlikely to 
benefit from such an approach.   
157. The representative of Indonesia  recalled that the underlying objective of paragraph 31, and 
particularly paragraph 31(iii), was to ensure that  the negotiations led to a win-win-win outcome for 
the environment, development and trade.  She noted that a list approach had been followed by 
delegations and that various produc ts had been proposed for inclusion on a list of environmental 
goods, based on different criteria and environmental categories.  Indonesia had launched a process of 
consultation with relevant stake holders to develop a list of goods that would ensure environmental 
gains, based on end-use, rather than PPMs criteria,  and using the APEC and OECD lists as reference 
points.  Indonesia's provisional list would include  goods in six environmental categories.   
158. Indonesia emphasized that the crite ria used in the preparation of a list of environmental goods 
would be determinant in terms of ensuring that nego tiations benefitted developi ng countries' interests.  
She agreed with other Members that including EPP criteria could result in the inclusion of many products of interest to developing countries.  However, some EPPs could result in diluting the 
environmental objectives, particularly natural res ource-based EPPs.  Indonesia was of the view that 
the scope of EPPs differed in the various lists presen ted.  The EC list included a wide range of EPPs, 
including products such as railway locomotives.  The EC had also offered to include eco-labelled 
products, which in Indonesia's view would bring fu rther complications.  The US list had fewer EPPs, 
and New Zealand's list included some EPPs that could be of interest to certain developing countries.  
She noted that the concept of EPPs would have to be clearly defined in order to ensure that inclusion 
of such products would benefit developing countries. 
159. The list approach was a pragmatic way forwar d for the negotiations under paragraph 31(iii).  
However, Indonesia was open to a complementary a pproach that would ensure that development 
concerns were taken into account.  She noted that the Indian approach could provide flexibilities and 
incentives to target environmental programmes,  and contribute to maximizing gains for the 
environment, development and trade.   
160. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 joined others in thanking the delegations that had 
put forward their lists of environmental goods.  She noted that her delegation was currently 
considering the lists put forward in the light of their export interests, and hoped to be able to 
contribute to the discussion with its own list of goods.  With respect to the Secretariat's compilation of 
submissions, she indicated that some consolida tion of overlapping items would be useful.   
161. She reiterated concerns about the introduc tion of non-product-related PPMs through 
eco-labelled products and EPPs.  Given the importa nce of such products to developing countries, 
Hong Kong, China was willing to continue to work with other delegations to address the relevant 
technical issues.  In this context, Hong Kong, China welcomed Brazil's submission. 
162. Concerning the Indian proposal, she noted that the environmental project approach could 
indeed proceed without waiting for the work of the CTESS.  In her delegation's view, the Indian 
proposal was a stand-alone approach, rather than an alternative to the list approach.  Similar practices 
were probably in place in some countries, outside  the framework of the WTO multilateral trading 
system.  In this respect, she noted  that the issue of applied versus bound tariff reduction would be less 
pertinent in a non-WTO setting.  She also wondere d if having a mechanism which involved the 
central approval of projects was the most cost-effective way to pursue the mandate in paragraph 31(iii) for small and ope n economies such as Hong Kong, China.  Transaction costs could 
be a deterrent for the private sector, and this could be counter-productive with respect to the 
environmental protection goal that Members were trying to achieve.   
163. With respect to paragraph 31(iii), she believed that the core business of the WTO concerned 
trade liberalization.  The reduction and possible elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers for TN/TE/R/12 
Page 28  
 
environmental products could help to promote trade in those products, and contribute to the objective 
of environmental protection, thereby resulting in a win-win outcome.  She emphasized the importance 
for the CTESS of producing a list of products that wo uld reflect the interests of developing countries, 
while the modalities, including special and differen tial treatment, would be worked out in the NAMA 
negotiating group.  
164. She appreciated the development concerns rai sed in the submissions of India and Cuba.  
These submissions had helped when considering how  to enhance the participation of developing 
countries in the negotiations, including issues such as technical assistance and technology transfer.  
She also welcomed the interest Members had s hown in environmental ser vices, and would welcome 
more work on the issue of classification. 
165. The representative of the EC
 wished to make some preliminary comments on the submissions 
tabled, which provided a clearer picture of what rema ined to be done in order to reach agreement on a 
balanced list that reflected the interests of all Members.   
166. The EC requested some further clarification from New Zealand on some aspects of its 
proposal.  First, the EC enquired about the living lis t and how it would function in practice, including, 
for instance, how changes would be introduced.  The second question related to the concept of EPPs, 
which the EC believed could be a way of ensuring th at the interests of all Members were taken into 
account in the negotiations.  In particular, the EC  asked New Zealand about its reasons for defining 
the concept of EPPs by reference to products' end- use and disposal characteristics, and whether there 
were any other alternatives for expanding the concept further.   
167. The EC supported New Zealand's response in paragraph 9 of its statement to the comment 
that developed countries were inter ested in "costless negotiations".  In particular, the EC welcomed 
the information provided by New Zealand on the tari ffs at stake.  The EC noted that it had included 
products with tariffs of up to 12 per cent in its  own proposal.  The EC welcomed the kind of 
information provided by New Zeala nd in paragraph 17 of its statement with respect to the evolving 
nature of the environmental goods industry and the growing commercial interest of developing 
countries.  With respect to HS 854140 (photosens itive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic 
cells), for instance, the EC had a negative trad e balance with developing countries of 688 million 
Euros per year.  The EC noted that information rela ted to specific tariff lines could further enrich the 
discussion.   
168. Turning to Canada's submission, he asked wh ether Canada had given any consideration to 
EPPs in developing its environmental goods list. 
169. With respect to the submissions by India, he was grateful for the creativity and the genuine 
attempt to move the debate forward on issues such as intellectual property, tran sfer of technology, and 
services.  However, his delegation had doubts about th e proposed way forward.  The EC did not agree 
with India that there had been some ambiguity in the CTESS discussions, and noted that some convergence was emerging on many issues.  Regarding India's point in paragraph 5 of its submission 
where it raised the issue of intellectual property pr otection, he asked India whether it could indicate 
the particular products for which intellectual propert y protection and transfer of technology conditions 
needed to be improved.   
170. Concerning India's point in Paragraph 7 of its  submission that the list approach was too 
diffused, he noted that the debate had moved on, and that there was some agreement that 
environmental benefits were key to this exercise.  The EC noted that it could not support the project 
approach as an alternative to the lis t approach.  Furthermore, he raised  some concerns with respect to 
the practical implementation of the project appr oach, and expressed support for the point made by 
some delegations that such an approach could create difficulties for SMEs.    TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 29 
 
 
171. The EC noted that the US list included some EPPs.  He asked the US about its discussion on 
the inclusion of such products, and whether it coul d consider extending its proposal further in this 
direction.   
172. Turning to the paper from Cuba, the EC noted that  it raised some challenging issues, such as 
dual use.  Regarding the issue of definition, he th ought there was no need to agree on a definition as 
such, but on criteria to identify relevant products .  Regarding the issue of the work in the NAMA 
negotiating group, he argued that the CTESS mandat e was limited to identifying which products 
would qualify for additional liberalization.  As th e CTESS discussion was meant to facilitate work on 
NAMA, discussions in the NAMA negotiating gr oup should not prevent the CTESS from moving 
ahead with its own work.   
173. The EC considered that Brazil had presented a pragmatic way forward in its submission with 
respect to the identification of products of interest .  He asked Brazil whether they would be able to 
provide the HS codes for the products which they had identified, whether it was willing to expand on 
sustainable use products and whether it could provi de some further explanation of the figures 
mentioned in its submission.  He also supported Brazil's suggestion to follow UNCTAD's approach on 
EPPs.  
174. The EC noted that it generally supported the st ructure and conceptual approach taken in the 
Swiss paper.  He welcomed the suggestions concer ning the evolving nature of a list of environmental 
goods and the need for regular reviews.  These were  useful suggestions and should be explored in 
further detail.   
175. In response to the questions concerning the HS codes and product description provided in the 
EC's submission, he said that he would come back to them at the next meeting.  
176. The representative from Mexico  thanked the delegations who ha d made submissions and also 
thanked the Secretariat for the revised version of the Synthesis of Submissions.  She said that the 
diversity of proposals had enriched the discussion a nd generated many questi ons, in particular on 
eco-labelling and EPPs.  She joined other delegati ons including Thailand (speaking on behalf of 
ASEAN), Australia and New Zealand, the US and Canada who could not accept the EC's suggestion 
of including eco-labelled goods in a list.  She al so noted that the US's and New Zealand's lists 
included the EPP category of products on the basis of  end-use and disposal and Brazil's clarification 
to the effect that it did not favour the PPM approach  in defining an EPP.  However, she questioned the 
practical impact of this approach in the negotiations  and agreed with Indonesi a that the scope of the 
EPP approach should be defined. 
177. Regarding the forthcoming Ministerial, she agr eed with those who considered it premature to 
state that there would be a list of agreed environm ental products for Hong Kong.  In this regard, she 
noted that some of the initial lists that had been  presented included goods for which the environmental 
justification was not apparent, and wh ich had not been sufficiently discussed. 
178. As regards the modalities to be agreed in the NAMA group, she concurred with Chile that the 
mandate of the NAMA group for environmental goods  did not differ from its mandate for other 
non-agricultural products.  In NAMA, the Mexican de legation continued to work constructively with 
specific proposals to ensure progress in the negotiations. 
179. The representative of Japan  shared the sense of urgency to proceed with the CTESS' work to 
fulfil the mandate in paragraph 31(iii).  His dele gation supported the continuation of the work based 
on the list approach, taking into account the concerns  of developing countries that had been raised.  
180. He also suggested, in line with the Canadian delegation, to have a detailed discussion on each 
item on the lists from the viewpoint of end use or degree of environmental merit or impact.  This TN/TE/R/12 
Page 30  
 
would give each delegation the possibility to state its own preferences, interests or concerns, including those of developing countries and adding or dele ting items, and would enable the CTESS to move 
forward to a balanced, agreed list, on the basi s of which the NAMA group would discuss modalities 
of tariff reduction at an appropriate time. 
181. He could not agree with India's view in paragr aphs 19 and 22 of its submission that the list 
approach could not reflect the developing countries'  concerns nor that it could not be complementary 
to the project approach.  He was open to discu ssion on each item on the list as a next stage.   
182. With regard to the EC's submission, he agr eed with New Zealand that Chapters 14 and 15 
concerned agricultural products, and that the focu s should be on non-agriculture market access.   
183. He also explained that, like the Korean delegati on, they had excluded EPPs in their initial list.  
However, since the EPP category had been included in  many of the lists submitted, Japan was willing 
to discuss the issue further. 
184. The representative of Cuba
 stressed that the solution of the dual nature of environmental 
goods would be dealt with provided that the mandate  under paragraph 31 was correctly fulfilled.  He 
felt that if modalities of negotiation were clearer  in the NAMA negotiating group, there would be 
greater motivation for ideas on what to do with respect  to the lists and other variants for negotiation.  
He was also concerned with the concept of a living list, and noted that deve loping countries would not 
have the capacity to deal with every new product. 
185. He welcomed the fact that the European Communities had recognized the importance of 
special and differential treatment, and wondered how the concept to be negotiated would be put into 
practice in NAMA negotiations.  
186. He felt that the Indian proposal was innovativ e and approached the problem of sustainable 
development from a practical point of view.  He also welcomed the approach of Brazil and other 
countries, which had spoken of the need to take EPPs into account.   
187. The representative of Egypt  thanked New Zealand for including some of the products of 
interest to developing countries in their list.  He believed that the figures incl uded in the statement by 
New Zealand (TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1) were accurate, but were not sufficiently comprehensive.  
For example, when stating in paragraph 17 that ma ny of the high technology items were exported by 
developing countries, one needed to look at how many developing countries exported goods such as 
photosensitive semiconductor devices or photovoltaic cells .  In paragraph 8, it was stated that 90 per 
cent of EPPs were exported by developing countries.  It would also be interesting to have a figure for 
the value of these exports.  Perhaps the main disadva ntage of EPPs was that they were rather low 
value, and the agreed tariff reduction would in stead benefit high-tech or high-value goods as 
compared to EPPs.  In the US's paper, trade in sisal or jute or such types of EPPs were compared to 
high-tech products. 
188. He also expressed reservations on the category of waste and scrap utilization suggested by 
New Zealand in its submission.  He acknowledged th at some Parties to the Basel Convention were 
facing difficulties with in controlling permissible w astes or non-hazardous wastes (Article 9, as listed 
in Annex 9).  In their responses to a questionnair e by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention on 
Annex 9 of the Basel Convention, 20 countries had sai d that they were not imposing any restrictions 
on the importation of goods under this item;  12 countries including Egypt had said that prior 
informed consent was required;  and 8 countries had indicated that imports were completely prohibited.  He mentioned that there was not a clear line between goods listed under Article 9 and 
Article 8 (100% hazardous wastes), which created di fficulties for customs officials, since HS codes 
did not differentiate between hazardous and non-h azardous goods.  For example, waste and scrap 
would have to be identified as hazardous or non-hazar dous in order to be able to determine whether it  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 31 
 
 
is an environmental good.  One would also have to verify whether the product is controlled or 
prohibited, and if the prior informed consent ha d been fulfilled.  Other problems faced by customs 
officials included illegal trafficking in hazardous wast e;  false declaration;  the distinction between 
waste and regular recyclable goods;  hazardous waste mixed in a larger legal shipment;  mislabelling 
of individual containers;  difficulties in testing, sampling, analysing, detecting and investigating 
products to determine if they were hazardous waste or not.  Focusing on the magnitude of the problem 
he mentioned that a recent study conducted by the Rotterdam Port Authority had found that 
70 per cent of the 1 per cent of the outbound contai ner shipments inspected was either illegal or 
considered irregular traffic.  Another example mentioned was items 70, 90 to 100, zinc waste and 
scrap, where zinc could be recycled and be envi ronmental friendly, unless it was mixed with heavy 
metals like lead, in which case it would be character ized as hazardous.  In his view, such a debate 
should be left to experts, namely the relevant MEAs.  
189. Regarding the New Zealand list, he was of the view that weighing machines with capacity of 
less than 30 kg or more than 30 kg were difficult to accept as environmental goods, given that they could be used for other purposes.   
190. With respect to the Indian submission, he r ecognized the importance of the notion of negative 
impacts of imported environmental goods on locally pr oduced goods, especially if the latter were best 
suited for the local environmental conditions.  He re ferred to the case of windmills in India as an 
example of the failure of market forces to auto -regularize the demand, importation and production of 
environmental goods.  He concurred with India that  the aim of the negotiations was also to achieve 
development and preserve the environment.  He  explained that a study conducted in Egypt 
demonstrated that liberalizing some of Egyp t's environmental goods would not necessarily be 
conducive to an improvement in the environment.  For example, Egypt had found that the demand for 
filters was inelastic.  Therefore, a reduction in ta riffs would not increase their imports and the result 
would be the loss of tariff revenues, with no impact on the environment.   
191. He welcomed the new submission of the United St ates in which concrete data such as tariffs 
and imports, were included.  He said he would like to  see data for exports of the same goods, and also 
wondered if the Secretariat could provide data on average MFN tariff rates, and general trend of 
imports and exports.  
192. He supported many ideas presented in the Cuban submission, such as special and differential 
treatment and the need for technology transfer.  Rega rding the Swiss submission he felt that it was not 
clear how some of the goods proposed in the list w ould help to achieve sustainable development, 
improve the environment, or woul d qualify as an environmental good. 
193. The representative of Switzerland
 said that her delegation was encouraged by the number and 
the quality of the papers submitted.  She welcom ed the US submission and the information it 
contained, e.g. the overlap with ot her proposed lists and import data.  
194. Switzerland also welcomed the EC submission a nd the additional clarification on the kind of 
products the EC was considering in the different categories, especially in the category referring to 
goods with high environmental performance or low e nvironmental impact.  Regarding the issue of 
eco-labelling raised by the EC, she stated that many delegations had concerns over what it might 
entail at the practical level.  She therefore asked the EC to explain further their proposal of using 
labelling schemes included in the GEN network.   
195. Turning to the Indian paper, she acknowledged th e effort of the Indian delegation to find an 
alternative approach to fulfil the mandate under pa ragraph 31 (iii), but expressed  substantial concerns 
with the approach suggested.  She was not sure th at the project approach fulfilled the mandate, and 
agreed with some other delegations that the pr oject approach could be implemented by Members 
individually outside of the CTESS.  She noted that the proposal of assigning HS Chapter 98 to TN/TE/R/12 
Page 32  
 
specific parts of a project would not be practical from a customs point of view.  She indicated that it was not transparent and was discriminatory from th e perspective of like products, because a product 
would have different duty rates de pending on whether it was part of a project or not.  In her view, 
another serious concern was that SMEs might be disadvantaged as compared to larger companies, 
because of the burden and process of requiring the approval of a project.  Furthermore, the proposal 
would not be in line with the objective of trad e facilitation pursued in the Doha Round, as more 
paperwork and more bureaucracy would flow from such an approach.  She also had difficulties 
understanding India's point in Paragraph 2 of TN /TE/W/54 concerning the Cuban submission, that 
market access was just a means for achieving envir onmental benefits, but not the objective in itself.  
While it was true that delegations had raised many questions in their submissions, Switzerland did not 
believe this should prevent the CTESS from pursuing its fruitful discussions.  She disagreed with the 
statement in Paragraph 21 that the lack of ne gotiating modalities was actually a disincentive to 
developing a list.  Not having modalities in NAMA should not stop the preparation of a list.   
196. She stated that the submission from Brazil was useful, and that the Switzerland shared the 
Brazil's view that EPPs was an important category to meet developing countries' export interests.  She 
encouraged Brazil to come up with a list including re levant HS codes to discuss such products further. 
197. Other issues mentioned in the Brazilian paper were non-tariff barriers and services.  She 
indicated that non-tariff barriers were an important and difficult issue that had to be tackled in NAMA.  On the issue of services, she wondered wh ether the role of the CTESS would be different 
from that of the Council for Trade in Services in Sp ecial Session.  She stressed that the services issue 
was an important part of the mandate and should be further discussed. 
198. She also said Switzerland would make available e xport data in an additional list.  In response 
to the request by New Zealand on providing further information on why HS 830110 padlocks, 
HS 830160 parts of padlocks and HS 830170 keys had been named under multiple use category, she noted that such products could have other uses.  Responding to questions by the US delegation, she 
said that at this stage Switzerland did not inte nd to propose further products on the categories of 
pollution management and resource management.  
199. She said the Secretariat's Synthesis of submissions would provide Members with an overall 
view of what had been submitted, and would help ta ke decisions on how to proceed.  She called for an 
intensification of work in order to prepare a pr eliminary list of environmental goods for the Hong 
Kong Ministerial. 
200. The representative of Venezuela
 welcomed the fact that the EC was prepared to work on 
transfer of technology, which was one of the most important concepts in the DDA and a priority issue 
for Venezuela.  He asked the EC if they had iden tified any working modality, and if the transfer of 
technology would be negotiated bilaterally or multilaterally.  He reminded delegations that 
paragraph 37 of the Doha Decl aration provided guidelines to the Working Group on Transfer of 
Technology which emanated from the General Council.  He also indicated that the US had provided 
statistics on environmental goods beneficial to de veloping countries exports without figures that 
reflected imports from developing countries and their share in trade. 
201. The representative of Qatar  said that each country had their own interests when proposing 
their lists, and recalled that Qatar was one of the first in so doing.  He hoped that Canada, other 
natural gas exporting countries and countries expor ting related clean technologies, would mention 
those products in their lists.   
202. The representative of India  pointed out that some of the problems relating to multiple and 
dual-use had not been addressed in the environmenta l goods lists submitted.  He  explained that India 
had proposed an alternative appro ach to the list approach because, in its view, the debate was going  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 33 
 
 
only in the direction of preparing a list without addr essing the concerns flagged in the submissions of 
India, Brazil and Cuba.   
203. Regarding the concerns related to services, he  asked whether the CTESS had indeed made the 
decision to leave the issu e to the Services negotiating group.  In  his view, environmental services had 
been a neglected area and attention was not equall y paid to environmental goods and services.  He 
noted that India had presented the project approach  as an alternative appr oach, because services and 
technology transfer were important aspects for market  access.  The lists tabled so far were all from 
developed countries, and the basic concerns of deve loped countries seemed to be missing altogether.   
204. He also explained that India's intention w as to present an alternative approach.  Their 
conceptual paper should be seen not through the prism of an environmental goods list.  It should be 
considered as providing a different perspective, wh ich tried to address developing country concerns.  
He noted that the Indian proposal would allow th e know-how, the procedures, the management skills, 
and the related technology, to come together in or der to harvest the benefits that came with those 
environmental goods.  He argued that technology tran sfer mostly resulted from trade in services rather 
than trade in goods.  He emphasized that services w ould basically build capacity over time;  there 
would be better access and acceptability of goods in other countries, and more compatibility with the 
applicable TBT-related measures.   
205. In response to the question regarding the issu es of predictability and transparency under the 
project approach, he indicated that it was address ed in their second submission (TN/TE/W/54).  Given 
that none of the environmental projects could work  without goods, he agreed that concessions would 
have to be made to give access to items, from which e nvironmental benefits coul d be derived.  One of 
the reasons for that was that some countries had a large and viable industrial base and their livelihood 
and sustenance could not be ignored, despite a lower level of tariffs, and that  exports to developed 
countries from developing countries were still very lo w.  The idea was to build  a consensus on an item 
which looked at the market access in a futuristic manner also for developing countries, but national 
priorities should be given the place they deserved as well.  He recognized the need to build a common 
and differentiated approach , but not ignoring the priorities of national governments.  He gave the 
example of the water treatment plant, where membranes imported to reduce waste might not take care of the silt, and therefore there would be a problem in  filtering the water.  In that case, even with the 
tariff concession and the availability of goods, th e environmental objectives would not have been 
achieved, since a large number of villages would con tinue to get non-drinkable water.  He highlighted 
the need for working in a cooperative manner and l ooking for a mutually beneficial arrangement from 
which each Member country could benefit.   
206. Finally, India noted that it did not want to cl ose the door on the list approach.  However, India 
remained to be convinced that the list appro ach took into account all of its concerns.   
207. The representative of Oman
 noted his delegation's need for technical assistance in preparing 
its environmental list.  He thanked the Member s who had provided financial support to UNCTAD in 
order to assist developing countries in preparing thei r environmental list, and noted that his delegation 
would also try to benefit from such assistance.   
208. Regarding the submission and presentation by Qatar highlighting the advantages of 
clean fuels, he stated that those were review ed by Oman with respect to the objectives of 
environmental goods, non-carbon and pollutant emitti ng fuels and emergency and the energy-efficient 
technologies.  He indicated that Oman supported the proposal for its sound merits regarding the 
social, economic and environmental benefits fo r the world community, and not just for a few 
countries.   
209. The representative of the WCO  Secretariat thanked Members for their invitation to participate 
in this meeting.  The WCO stre ssed the need for all WTO Members involved in the negotiations to TN/TE/R/12 
Page 34  
 
consult, cooperate and coordinate with their custom s administrations.  He reminded delegations that a 
full description of the commodities that countries wanted  to include in their lists was indispensable for 
other parties to identify whether or not they coul d accept the proposals.  Consultation with customs 
were necessary, since customs gave the appropriate classification that would determine the applicable 
customs tariff, and would have to implem ent any results of the WTO negotiations. 
210. He advocated using the HS terminology when a complete 4-digit heading or complete 6-digit 
sub-heading was referred to.  However, there we re many cases with "ex-outs" from HS codes, in 
which a full description of the commodity shoul d be used, as well as the HS terminology. 
211. With respect to the Indian proposal of using Chapter 98, he clarified that Chapter 98 was not 
part of the Harmonized System Convention.  Chapte r 98 was reserved for specific uses by contracting 
parties to the Harmonized System, for example, for temporary export and import of goods and for 
transboundary movements.  The project approach could give some additi onal burdens to customs 
administrations because they might be involved in th e administration and the management of that type 
of systems.  He wondered how spare parts would be dealt with under that approach, for example, how 
to administer spare parts that would be delivered  after the actual imports of the goods under the 
project.   
212. With regard to the question of the classification of bio-diesel, he informed delegations that the 
Harmonized System Committee had classified a pr oduct referred to as bio-diesel under HS 382490, 
and that a Sub-Committee would later consider how to identify separately in the Harmonized System 
that type of commodity in the 2012 amendment.  He noted that the Harmonized System nomenclature 
was available in English, French , Russian, Spanish and Portuguese. 
213. With respect to issues raised by Egypt on the problems of distinguishing between hazardous 
and non-hazardous waste and scrap, there was a legal definition of waste and scrap in the Harmonized 
Nomenclature System which applied to all its Contrac ting Parties.  He also mentioned that the figures 
making reference to the amount of containers check ed at export being incorrectly classified or 
containing material which should not had been there (70 per cent of the 1 per cent of containers 
checked) was not a surprise given that risk assess ment had been used.  He noted that WCO had 
advocated the use of risk assessment as  a tool to identify products.   
214. The representative of the OECD Secretariat drew Members' attention to recent studies, 
including on "Synergies Between Trade and Envi ronmental Services and Trade in Environmental 
Goods".  The paper considered some of the servi ces that were exported to developing countries and 
asked what kind of goods were associated w ith those.  The study focussed mainly on 
business-to-business services to reflect the fact that developing countries were trying to attract foreign 
investment and have manufacturing plants that me t pollution control regulations.  One way of doing 
this would be to engage a company that would have  the expertise in running pollution control plants.  
The plant would initially be highly dependent on imports but as equipment was needed this would 
stimulate a domestic industry for manufactur ing those particular type of goods.   
215. The other two submissions referred to liberaliz ing trade in renewable energy, and liberalizing 
trade in EPPs.  The renewable energy paper looke d at trade in charcoal, solar photovoltaics and 
associated systems, and wind turbines where th e market was dominated by large OECD-based 
companies.  However developing countries were quickly getting into the business, both through joint 
ventures and acquiring small companies that were originally based in OECD countries in building 
them up.  For example, India was one of th e leading producers of wind turbines and solar 
photovoltaics;  the cells tended to be made by onl y a few companies but the modules and the larger 
systems were increasingly made in developing countries.  
216.
 He indicated that before India had tabled their submission on the project-based approach, 
OECD had found that there were ti mes when items supplied to a de veloping country as part of a  TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 35 
 
 
package, involved a deal that the importing country w ould waive the tariffs.  However, many of these 
types of technologies went under the radar screen of th is type of treatment; for example, household- or 
village-scale electricity systems was one of the fast est growing markets in rural parts of developing 
countries, where studies had shown that it was often a lot cheaper to build village-scale electricity 
systems than knocking down rain forests and buildin g long transmission lines to try to connect those 
villages.  Those goods rarely benefited from tariff waivers since they were too small and the people 
involved were too dispersed for them to benefit from that type of treatment.   
217. Similarly, in the case of wind, he indicated th at there were a large number of exports of 
large-scale utility turbines from OECD countries, but th at small-scale turbines (1,5 KW instead of 1,5 
MW) used at a village level often for water treatm ent plants and irrigation were not benefiting from 
tariff waivers.  
218. He also explained that the OECD was looking at a wide range of a dditional products that 
could possibly be as considered EPPs. 
219. The representative of UNCTAD  stated that using statistical analysis was one way to evaluate 
reciprocity, but delegations should not lose sight of  the other very important parameters in the 
negotiations including tariff profiles, tariff height, in cidence of non-tariff barriers, nature and size of 
the markets, elasticity of demand and supply, and bearing in mind the work that would take place in the NAMA group. 
220. UNCTAD's intention was to provide empirical da ta to address all concerns and to promote 
discussions.  UNCTAD would be ready to provide t echnical assistance on a demand-driven basis.  
Finally, he indicated that they were mindful of th e drawbacks implicit in the statistical analysis done 
at the 6-digit level.    
221. The representative of the Basel Convention
 welcomed the comments by Egypt on the variety 
of products falling within the HS 6-digit produc t categories that could also, depending on the 
circumstances, fall within the scope of the Basel Convention.  He noted that there were ongoing 
discussions within the Convention about distinctions  between wastes and other materials, and a range 
of practical challenges faced at the national le vel in managing transboundary movements.  He 
acknowledged the challenges faced by customs official s which were significant even in developed 
countries, including mislabelling of containers, and difficulties of sampling, analyzing and detecting 
hazardous waste strains.  He indicated that the Basel Convention was responding to many of these 
challenges in a very practical way through tec hnical assistance, capacity-building, and through 
activities at eleven regional centres.   
222. The representative of Brazil  thanked delegations who had pr esented submissions.  Brazil was 
not convinced that the list approach alone would address the concerns of developing countries to 
identify items that would be of export interest to th em and that would be rele vant in terms of their 
environmental benefits.  He mentioned that the lists had been put forward mainly by developed 
countries and built on previous experiences in the OECD or APEC.  The lists tabled also reflected 
mainly the trade aspect and not the win-win-win situations.  There were many products that were not 
obviously win-win-win type products.  On the whole, Brazil considered that th e lists were unbalanced, 
and reflected export interests that prevailed in many developed countries in the so-called 
environmental-related industries.   
223. He considered that other elements, which had not been included in the proposals put forward 
by developed countries, had to be included in the negotiations, i.e. developm ent elements, special and 
differential treatment, and environm ental concerns.  He also recognized the efforts made by some 
Members in their submissions to consider EPPs.  UN CTAD's work could be an interesting basis to 
achieve a preliminary definition of environmen tal goods that would work for developed and 
developing countries.   TN/TE/R/12 
Page 36  
 
224. He thought that the definition of an envir onmental good should be connected with the 
national environmental and developmental needs.  The alternative Indian project proposal created that 
connection.  He noted that developing countries had quite a large portfolio of ongoing environmental 
and developmental projects, including many with  international assistance.  He argued that the 
environmental project approach could also be some sort of a living experience, and enable Members 
to follow how the situation evolved in developing countries.  
225. Brazil indicated that they would not support a living list based on trade only, which would 
involve an evolution towards the more technological and sophisticated type of products that were 
being produced mainly in developed countries, a nd that would not necessarily have a connection to 
the environmental and developmental needs of countries.   
226. With respect to ethanol and bio-fuels, ho not ed that national environmental projects could 
lead to job creation and the provision of a sust ainable and environmentally friendly lifestyle for 
populations that would otherwise migrate to the larg e urban centres.  He explained that the concept 
behind bio-fuels was that the projects should be sm all-scale, should be regionally based, should lead 
to greater energetic autonomy in regions of Brazil that were outside of the more developed centres, 
and that it could be a means for communities to develop.  Therefore, they supported looking further 
into the possibility of making use of the envir onmental project approach as a mechanism for the 
identification of those products that could meet trade, environment and development objectives.   
227. In response to questions raised by Egypt re garding waste, the representative of Canada 
expressed the view that non-contaminated waste was sometimes discriminated against as regard tariff 
treatment simply because it was wast e, despite the fact that it might have the same characteristics as 
raw materials.  The principle used was that it was environmentally virtuous to make sure that waste 
material was recycled and not disposed of in landfills or left to pile up, and that might help in solving 
other countries' problems.  Their view was that one  should be looking at waste as raw materials for 
production processes.  For example,  the requirement to have recycled content in paper in newsprint 
would imply having a source of waste paper and to import waste paper in the metals area, smelters 
were increasingly using raw scrap which was of a very high quality.  Lead was a heavy metal 
absolutely not essential for batteries and it was neces sary that these batteries were recycled and not 
just face barriers simply because they were considered as waste.   
228. In response to issues raised by Qatar, he expl ained they had not come to a conclusion at the 
moment with regard to natural gas,  and therefore it had not been include d in the list.  He indicated that 
the problems with energy were relative.  For example,  if coal were the basic fuel, then gas would be 
an improvement, but for a hydro-economy gas would not look quite as interesting .   
229. He pointed out that clean development proj ects under the Clean Development Mechanism 
(CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol were of interest to developing countries.  He thought it would be 
interesting to do an analysis of how much tari ffs were an impediment to having CDM or other 
projects approved and an impediment to investors investing in them. 
230. In response to the comments of th e WCO, the representative of Egypt
 clarified that the 
reference made to Rotterdam port was from a study ma de by an independent cons ultant in 2001, at the 
request of the Parties to the Ba sel Convention.  He quoted from the study: "Authorities in Rotterdam, 
one of the world's largest ports, recognized that they could only stop, open and inspect a small 
percentage of outbound container shipments, including shipments that may be suspicious."  Therefore, 
he could not agree that it was just an issue of tr ade facilitation and risk assessment.  He observed that 
the fact that there was a specific definition of hazardous waste did not preclude problems such as 
mis-classification.  In response to the example of lead batteries presented by Canada, he stressed that 
the solution was not to liberalize trade, but rather  to have more restriction and transparency.    TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 37 
 
 
231. The representative of Venezuela  said that his delegation attached great importance to 
UNCTAD's work on providing trade figures.  He ma de reference to UNCTAD's statement that there 
were some interesting studies which reflected th e disadvantages many developing countries might 
face in this area.  He agreed with Brazil to ex change and compare UNCTAD's statistics with the 
statistics of some industrialized countries favouring the list approach, and to discuss more extensively 
their statistics on dual-use products and EPPs.  He re called his request to the US to provide trade 
figures indicating the benefits to the developing countries.   
232. The representative of UNCTAD  explained that the trade figures were derived from the 
COMTRADE database of the UN and the world integrated  trade statistics, which was a joint effort of 
several organizations.  He explained that the docum ent mentioned was in fact an informal paper for 
discussion and not an official UN document.  He cl arified that the data had been compiled bottom up 
from the country level and that they had broken it down  to the HS 6-digit code level.  Then, products 
had been grouped according to the criterion that they  should be of export interest to developing 
countries, but that criteria for the groups was for discussion, given there were pros and cons.  He 
noted that dual-use was a significant problem, and that many of the most dynamic products were in 
fact dual-use items.   
233. The representative of New Zealand  said that the living list and how it would operate was 
something that would have to be discussed in th e CTESS.  The consideration of new items to be 
added to the list would be a transparent process,  since NAMA would already have decided which 
formula to apply.  In response to Brazil's question, he clarified that discussions would not just include the question of trade, but would also address th e environmental and developmental benefits.   
234. In response to the EC's question related to th e use of the EPPs definition on the basis of 
end-use or disposal characteristics, he rec ognized that the idea was taken from UNCTAD.  
New Zealand had made some modifications, given that a broad range of products that might 
potentially be placed into an EPP category might requir e an eco-label to identify them.  He noted that 
labels were an important information tool for co nsumers, but should not be used at the border to 
determine tariff rates, because of th e implications with regard to the like products issue in the WTO.   
235. In response to the question raised by Egypt on breaking down data, he found it was more 
interesting to look at the global trend figures rath er than what came into New Zealand, although 
New Zealand had tried to point out what kind of products were imported, a nd what percentage was 
from developing countries.  He also mentioned that th e issues raised by the representative of the Basel 
Convention underlined the importance of the type of  MEA information exchange  needed.  In response 
to the questions from Egypt, he specified that HS  842381, weighing machines less than 30 kilograms, 
was a product used in sewage treatment processing,  basically part of a wastewater management 
system, where the systems weighed the flow of sewa ge, indicating the chemicals needed to clean the 
sewage.  He welcomed the constructive response of  India suggesting they were not closing the door 
on lists, and that there was a possibility of working together.   
236. The representative of the United States
 welcomed the statement by India that it remained 
open to the various approaches, and agreed with th e need to continue the constructive dialogue and 
exchange.  She asked whether any trend-related da ta had been prepared by UNCTAD on EPPs, and if 
they had done any work on the environmental and developmental benefits of  those products.  The US 
agreed that there should be a balance of inter ests and win-win-win situations across the product 
categories.  She also explained that the da ta used by the US was from the UN database. 
237. In response to Chinese Taipei on whether there would be a complementary list in the future, 
she clarified that submission TN/TE/W/38 intended to outline a possible way forward on the question 
of what environmental goods were, and suggest ed a framework which would allow for some 
flexibility in defining environmenta l goods through the use of a core list and a complementary list.  TN/TE/R/12 
Page 38  
 
The US's contribution suggested a wa y to balance the various interests.  Ultimately, the use of a core 
list and a complementary list was an issue for Members to decide.   
238. In response to questions raised by Chile, Eg ypt, and Venezuela concerning export data and 
data analysis, she explained that the import data was included because it was indicative of the market 
opportunities that were available for products in the US market.  Given that US tariffs were already 
relatively low, the US thought it would be somewhat  indicative of the global market opportunities that 
existed when trade was relatively free in these products.  She did not believe that stakes in 
negotiations should be eval uated by looking at overall trade surp lus in environmental goods generally, 
or for one product in particular, but rather to ha ve a multi-dimensional look at products and balances 
on a product-by-product basis in terms of imports, e xports and other considera tions, as Brazil had also 
suggested. 
239. In response to New Zealand's questions on produc ts, she explained they had put two netting 
categories on the list, but only those nets which in cluded the Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs), i.e. a 
steel frame which would allow a turtle to escape fro m the fishing net, had been put on the list.  She 
also indicated that super-heated water boilers were used in renewable energy plants in producing both 
heat and electricity, particularly those operati ng on biomass.  The splitting, slicing and paring 
machines were used in recycling pl ants to prepare plastics and rubber for recycling, and they could 
also be used in preparing and conditioning biomass fuels.  Prism mirrors, parts and accessories were 
used in concentrating solar energy.   
240. In response to the questions from the EC on wh ether there was any scope to enlarge EPPs, she 
said they had attempted to include a few products, in dicating there could be scope for others.  The US 
noted that it could show some flexibility in this  area where products were of interest to many 
developing countries, but would not be consideri ng PPM-related EPPs.  Finally, given the interest 
expressed by many delegations on their submission,  the US was considering hosting a workshop on 
the margins of the following CTESS meeting, where experts could explain th e various goods and the 
data associated with them.   
241. The Chairman
 noted that there had been a suggesti on for the Secretariat to merge several 
entries in the list where there appeared to be comm onality, i.e. where several entries had been made 
under the same 6-digit HS code without any indicati on of an ex-out.  The 6-digit HS code was still 
very wide in scope, and it was not clear whethe r Members intended to designate all the different 
products under that broad category, or only a smal l subset of them, as environmental goods for the 
purposes of the negotiations.  He explained that he could not ask the Secretariat to merge the listings 
unless Members themselves indicated that the descr iption in the HS code, as per WCO classification, 
rather than the description provided in their initial s ubmissions, was of interest to them.  He said that 
the Secretariat would update the paper to incorporate the latest submissions.   
IV. OTHER BUSINESS  
242. The Chairman informed delegations of his intentions for the TNC meeting of 
21-22 July 2005.  With respect to CTESS work, he intended to prepare a "State of Play" report that 
would cover all areas of the ne gotiations, showing what had been achieved, and the work that 
remained to be done. 
243. He would be covering all areas of the mandate but focusing in particul ar on Paragraph 31(iii), 
as that was the area where there had been the most significant engagement, signalling the progress 
that had been made in the negotiations in terms of the submission of lists, and also in terms of the 
submission of ideas on how these negotiations might be  taken forward.  He felt encouraged by the 
number of new submissions tabled at the meeting, and was also mindful of the workload that such 
large lists entailed.    TN/TE/R/12 
 Page 39 
 
 
244. He also informed delegations of his intention to convene a formal meeting 
on 13-14 October 2005.  However, given the Member s' high level of engagement in the negotiations, 
there was a possibility that another meeting be held in September.4  The CTESS agreed to the renewal 
of the ad hoc invitations issued for that meeting at the next meeting.  
 
__________ 
                                                      
4 The meeting was subsequently scheduled on 15-16 September 2005.