RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/14 
9 February 2006 
 (06-0576) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE FOURTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
14 OCTOBER 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS) held its fourteenth 
meeting on 14 October 2005 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, WTO/AIR/2684.   
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAS) 
2. The Chairman
 noted that Switzerland had circulated  the statement it had made at the 
September meeting of the CTESS in document TN /TE/W/61.  No new submissions had been 
presented under this agenda item.   
3. The representative of Australia  stated that trade and environment obligations could be, and 
were in fact implemented in mutually supportive ways.  As such, the relationship between the two 
bodies of international law was working well.  Eff ective domestic procedures for consultation and 
coordination were a key factor, and the national experiences presented and discussed in the CTESS on 
negotiating and implementing specific trade obligations in MEAs could form the basis for an outcome under paragraph 31(i).   
4. Australia noted that there were some elements  of Switzerland's statement with which it could 
agree.  For instance, Switzerland usefully set out some of the principles of international law that 
provided a backdrop to the Committee's discussions in this area.  Furthermore, Switzerland stressed 
the importance of ensuring mutual supportiveness betw een the multilateral trading system and MEAs.  
However, Australia could not agree with the conc lusions drawn by Switzerland from its examination 
of these principles of international law, nor with  its reasons for drawing such conclusions.   
5. Australia wondered on what basis Switzerland believed that problems would arise in the 
future in the MEA/WTO relationship when it recogni zed that there were currently no problems.  It 
was unclear to her delegation how a solution could be formulated for a problem that did not exist.   
6. Turning to the conclusions drawn by Switzerland in its statement, Australia could not agree 
that all measures provided for by an MEA should be  considered WTO-consistent, or that all MEA 
measures should be considered necess ary when analysed in a WTO contex t.  In Australia's view, these 
conclusions were misguided, if not simply wrong und er international law.  A treaty interpreter could 
not accept such conclusions at the outset, but n eeded instead to follow the customary rules of 
interpretation of public international law, as refl ected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention 
on the Law of Treaties.  Under Article 3(2) of the DSU, WTO Panels and the Appellate Body had 
been directed to apply these rules of interpretation in seeking to clarify the provisions of the "covered 
agreements", i.e. the WTO agreements.  Moreover,  it was for States to decide which measures they 
would adopt to implement WTO and MEA obligations, based on what was appropriate in light of their TN/TE/R/14 
Page 2  
 
national circumstances.  It was important that such measures be examined critically for WTO 
consistency by a Panel or the A ppellate Body.  In Australia's view, the proposal to establish a 
presumption of necessity was clearly beyond the scope of the mandate, which explicitly stated that the 
negotiations would not add to, nor diminish the WTO rights of any Member.  For these reasons, 
Australia did not believe that Switzerland's idea s contributed to move the work forward under 
paragraph 31(i).   
7. The representative of Argentina
 noted that his delegation shared some of Australia's concerns 
with respect to the conclusions set out in paragraph 4 of TN/TE/W/61.   
8. Regarding the proposed approach according to  which a measure provided for by an MEA 
should be considered as WTO-compatible, he noted that this a priori  qualification would not be 
appropriate, as it would not allow for a review from the point of view of WTO rules as to whether the 
measure adopted was one that had less impact or fewer restrictions on trade.  He added that this would 
not be in line with the synergies between the two lega l regimes, nor with the principle of no hierarchy 
as set out in the Swiss statement.   
9. With regard to the sentence in paragr aph 4 of the Swiss statement that " in the context of WTO, 
the words 'necessity of a measure provided for in an MEA' should not be re-examined ", Argentina 
recalled that the necessity test under Article XX of  the GATT 1994 was meant to ensure that measures 
adopted for an environmental purpose did not have  a protectionist intent.  Under the SPS or TBT 
Agreements, a Member could adopt a measure for the protection of human health, provided that such 
measure met the proportionality test.  Switzerland's s uggestion to waive the necessity test with respect 
to measures taken pursuant to an MEA would im ply that environmental objectives were more 
important than human health objectives.  Similarly, Switzerland's statement that "WTO should use 
deference with regard to this issue"  implied that there would be no need to re-examine an 
environmental measure.  He noted that while Switzerland was advocating the principles of no hierarchy and deference, its proposal to waiv e the necessity test in fact gave precedence to 
environmental rules over trade rules.   
10. Finally, with regard to paragraph 5 of TN/TE/W/61, which stated that " the decisions of 
international courts such as the International Cour t of Justice, but also the decisions of the WTO 
Appellate Body [reflected] the above-mentioned principles ", Argentina understood that Switzerland 
was referring to the principle of no hierarchy as a ge neral principle of international law, and not as 
principles set out in paragraph 4 of its statement.   
11. The representative of the United States
 (US) noted that Switzerland's statement expanded on 
matters that went beyond the specific mandate of th e CTESS.  It addressed MEAs generally, while the 
mandate of the CTESS was limited to a subset of issu es within this broad topic, namely specific trade 
obligations set out in MEAs.  
12. In her delegation's view, the Swiss paper inaccu rately summarized the international treaty 
law.  Moreover, the US did not agree with Switz erland's interpretation of the way in which WTO 
dispute settlement operated in the context of international law.  The US believed that 
experience-based discussions would be more fruitful in  furthering the task set out in the mandate of 
paragraph 31(i) than abstract discussions of general principles.   
13. The representative of the European Communities  (EC) reiterated the view expressed by his 
delegation at the September meeting that the statem ent by Switzerland provided a useful clarification 
to the debate, and noted the need for more work under paragraph 31(i).   
14. The EC recognized the importance of experience-based discussions on the negotiation and 
implementation of MEAs, but did not share Australia's view that it could in itself constitute an outcome under the mandate.    TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 3 
 
 
15. The EC considered that the reflection of the A ppellate Body principles as set out in the Swiss 
paper was accurate.  The fact that the mandate in pa ragraph 31(i) was limited to certain aspects of the 
WTO-MEA relationship did not preclude that principles could apply to a subset of issues relevant to this relationship.  The CTESS could therefore discu ss principles without going beyond its mandate.  
The EC noted that the Swiss paper could provide a point of departure for the continuation of the 
discussion after Hong Kong.   
16. The representative of Mexico
 noted that her delegation disagre ed with the interpretation of 
some of the principles presented by Switzerland, and supported the views expressed by Australia and 
Argentina in this regard.   
17. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that it had made its statement in response to a 
question put to her delegation on the compatibili ty of the principles it had put forward with 
international law.  She agreed with the EC that  the discussion should continue after Hong Kong.   
18. Responding to the points raised by Australia and Argentina, Switzerland stated that while it 
was not aware of any problems or conflicts in implementing MEAs, problems could still arise in 
future with respect to the universe of trade measure s taken on the basis of existing MEAs or new rules 
being adopted.  Switzerland believed that it was for Members to decide what should happen in case of 
conflict, using the work of the Panels and the Appellate Body as a basis.   
19. With regard to the issue of necessity, Switzerla nd believed that if a measure was regarded as 
necessary by all the Parties to an MEA to implemen t a certain outcome, then this should not be put 
into question by WTO.  However,  Switzerland agreed with Argentin a that a Panel or the Appellate 
Body would still need to consider the way in whic h the measure had been implemented in accordance 
with the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, w ith a view to ensuring that the measure was not 
discriminatory or protectionist.   
20. With respect to the remark made by the US, Switzerland noted that its intention was not to 
expand the mandate by developing a principle th at would apply between MEAs and the WTO in 
general.   
21. Switzerland agreed that the experience-based di scussion had been useful and that it should 
continue.  However, it was unclear to her delega tion how this discussion could result in a practical 
outcome that would fulfil the mandate under paragr aph 31(i).  She invited the delegations that had 
expressed support for this view to explain further how the experience-based discussion could lead to 
an operational result, so that Members could start working on finding common ground on this issue.   
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
22. There were no new submissions under this agenda item.   
23. The representative of the European Communities  was concerned that there had been no 
discussion under this agenda item at the last meeting.   He recalled that delega tions had tried to make 
progress before the Cancún Ministerial Conference on this issue, and had never really discussed the 
question of whether Members could agree definitively  on the issue of ad hoc observer status.  He 
believed there was a need to continue with a substa ntive discussion on this matter, which could result 
in some practical improvements to achieve bette r coherence in the work of the various bodies 
involved.   
24. The delegate from the Convention on Interna tional Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora  (CITES) stated that a Biodiversity Liaison Group had been formed among five 
different MEAs devoted to biodiversity conserva tion.  This included CITES;  the Convention on TN/TE/R/14 
Page 4  
 
Biological Diversity (CBD);  the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS);  the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands;  and the World Heritage  Convention.  The Heads of these different secretariats met on a 
fairly regular basis, and had recently issued a jo int statement on the contribution of biodiversity 
conservation to the Millennium Development Goals.  This type of mechanism could perhaps facilitate 
information exchange with the WTO.   
25. The Chairman
 thanked the delegate from CITES for providing this information to the 
Committee, and stated that the Committee would re turn to the issue after Hong Kong at its next 
formal meeting.  
III. PARAGRAPH 31 (III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
26. The Chairman  first invited delegations to focus on  the new submissions circulated under 
paragraph 31(iii), namely, a submission by India, entitled "Procedural and Technical Aspects of the 
Environmental Project Approach", circulated as document TN/TE/W60;  a submission by Argentina entitled "Integrated Proposal on Envi ronmental Goods for Development"
1;  a Revised Provisional List 
of Environmental Goods from New Zealand, circ ulated as document TN/TE/W/49/Rev.1;  and a 
revised version of Japan's List of Environmental Go ods explaining the environmental benefits of the 
products it had proposed, which had been circulated as a room document.   
27. The representative of India  presented India's third submission on the environmental project 
approach, which addressed some of the questions put across by Members on how to operationalize the 
environmental project approach.  His delegation felt  that the objective of this approach, and of the 
mandate, was to address the environmental and de velopmental goals of the Doha Development 
Agenda through trade liberalization.  The appr oach was need-based and objective-oriented, and 
included positive measures such as capacity building a nd transfer of technology.  It also addressed the 
diversity in environmental standards with common but differentiated responsibilities thereby 
providing policy space to national governments.  He added that the project approach recognized and 
built on the market trends, by taking  the entire system into considerati on, rather than individual items, 
which could have a multiple or dual use.   
28. He recalled the EC's example of a wastewater management system for which pipes were 
required.  Under the project approach, any goods re quired for a project would have the market access 
benefits.  He added that this approach had been conceived to integrate services with the project, the 
system, and the goods in order to obtain the required benefits.   
29. He mentioned that an important aspect of inte grating the services was that there would be a 
transfer of technology, which would enhance the basic capacity of developing countries, hence the 
need to recognize this aspect in the mandate and look at it in a coherent manner.  He recalled that in 
one of the presentations at the WTO Symposium on Trade and Sustainable Development held in October 2005, it had been noted that some of the modes of transfer of technology were the transfer of capital goods;  knowledge;  and movement of people.   
30. The question of transparency had been rai sed by many Members.  In India's view, 
transparency did not apply just to the process, but the project approach would lead to more 
transparency and predictability.  Goods used for the project would have market access, while granting 
market access across the board in the context of th e list approach would not take care of the dual or 
multiple-use problem, which could affect a larg e number of countries, pa rticularly developing 
countries and their SMEs. 
                                                     
 
1Argentina provided a courtesy translation of its submission as a room document.  The paper was 
circulated after the meeting in document TN/TE/W/62.    TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 5 
 
 
31. He indicated that the paper also suggested wa ys in which the designated national authority 
could function, but India was also open to other ideas as to how the project approach could be implemented.  Finally, India recalled that the obj ectives identified in the CTESS could be based, for 
instance, on the sustainable development objectives set by MEAs or the Millennium Development Goals.   
32. The representative of Argentina
 said that in its submission in document TN/TE/W/62, 
Argentina proposed an approach which combined some of the more positive aspects of the various 
approaches discussed.  Pursuant to this proposal , Members would identify some categories of 
projects;  within these categories, environmental go ods would also be identified.  The reduction or 
elimination of tariffs would be operational and effective when the goods identified would be used in 
the context of a national environmental project.  Such an approach would also facilitate the transfer of 
technology.  Argentina believed that such an appr oach could lead to a ba lanced result for trade, 
environment and development.   
33. The representative of New Zealand  recalled that Ministers had singled out environmental 
goods as a distinct group of products worthy of speci fic attention, as they believed that improving 
access to these goods could assist countries in tackli ng many sustainable development problems.  The 
statistics on global sustainable development unde rlined the urgency and seriousness of the 
Committee's task:  50 per cent of the global popul ation had no access to basic sanitation;  2 billion 
people were at risk from water-related diseases;  50 per cent of the urban global population did not have access to safe waste disposal;  20 per cent of  the world had no access to safe drinking water;  
more than 3 million people die as a consequence of air pollution every year.  This situation had led 
manufacturers globally to consider how to mitigate and eliminate such type of problems.  The 
environmental goods industry was one of the f astest growing in the world;  combined with 
environmental services, it was valued at some 563 billion dollars – roughly the same size as the IT or pharmaceutical industry - and was growing at a ra te of more than 10 per cent per year.   
34. He noted that environmental goods could ma ke a substantial contribution to global 
sustainability, given the interconnected nature of th e environmental and developmental aspects of the 
negotiations.  This was also underlined in the M illennium Development Goals and other international 
commitments, such as the Johannesburg Plan of Implem entation, as well as a range of MEAs.  In this 
context, liberalizing trade in such products incr eased efficiency, improved access to new technologies 
and enabled countries to tackle environmental pr oblems with the best-priced and most efficient 
equipment.  Together with the negotiations on environmental services, this aspect of the Doha 
Development Agenda had a real potential of deliv ering on the premise of the triple win.   
35. New Zealand believed that the discussion on th e environmental benefits of some 150-180 
products at the Information Exchange Session had been  constructive and helpful.  He indicated that 
New Zealand had updated its list a nd identified the specific environmental benefits of each of the 
products listed in a separate column.  This inform ation supplemented the reference points approach, 
which New Zealand had earlier used as a screening device, designed to ensure that the products 
included for any agreed list of environmental products  would meet a basic threshold.  Members would 
find on the list, for example, details of the envi ronmental efficiency of composting and waterless 
toilets;  hot water weed killing systems;  environm ental applications for biodegradable netting;  and 
micro-combined heat and power systems, which could help minimize transmission losses from normal electricity flows.   
36. At the Information Exchange Session, his delegation had provided specific and detailed 
information on all the items within the EPP category,  as well as on some of the other items that had 
been proposed only by New Zealand.  Many of the other items that figured on New Zealand's list had 
been discussed in some detail during exchanges in the Committee, covering categories such as air 
pollution control, renewable energy, and water and waste management.   TN/TE/R/14 
Page 6  
 
37. Finally, New Zealand reiterated that the intr oduction of a living list seemed to be the only 
way to meet the dynamic demands of a continua lly expanding market and to ensure that new 
technologies be brought swiftly to markets in order to meet specific and increasingly urgent environmental needs.  Recalling the conclusions of  the Brundtland Report, he stressed that it was 
important not to lose sight of the purpose of the negotiations in the CTESS, i.e. to demonstrate that the 
WTO could, and should, make a meaningful contribution to global sustainability.  New Zealand 
placed a strong emphasis on the work in the CTESS as a wa y of contributing to this shared objective.   
38. The representative of Japan
 introduced the revised Japanese list of environmental goods 
circulated as a room document, which contained re marks on how each item was used and/or its related 
environmental benefits.  This document had been prepared in response to the request from other 
Members at the previous CTESS Meeting for further in formation on the environm ental benefits of the 
products contained in the list.  He hoped that the revised list would help clarify Japan's objectives in 
this area.   
39. The representative of Colombia  thanked Argentina and India for their submissions, which 
Colombia was studying in more detail.  She also thanked New Zealand and Japan for their documents, 
which Colombia considered to be a useful cont ribution for evaluating the proposed lists from an 
environmental point of view.   
40. The representative of Hong Kong, China  stated that her delegation continued to have 
reservations on how the environmental project appr oach would fit into the multilateral negotiations, 
which were meant to provide certainty and predictab ility to traders.  In her delegation's view, what 
was being suggested was not autonomous liberalization, but selective tariff exemption.  This did not 
seem to fall within the mandate of paragraph 31(iii) , which called for negotiatio ns on the reduction or 
elimination of tariffs and non tariff barriers for environmental goods.  She also noted that it had 
always been her delegation's position that bound tariffs  remained the basis for negotiations in NAMA.  
Hong Kong, China failed to understa nd how the environmental project a pproach could facilitate trade, 
or how the creation of a designated national authority in every Member country could contribute to 
policy space. 
41. Hong Kong, China thanked Argentina for its efforts to find a solution, but noted that the 
Argentinean paper had confirmed the misgivings of he r delegation with regard to the Indian proposal.  
While one should not underestimate the difficulty and effort involved in producing a list of 
environmental goods in the CTESS, adding the approval of a national authority as a prerequisite for 
tariff exemption did not seem to be the answer to  the negotiations envisaged under paragraph 31(iii), 
which were about tariff reduction or  elimination.  She noted that for non-tariff barriers to be 
discussed, it would be necessary to have a clearer idea of the products that were being considered.  
Furthermore, since the issue of transfer of tec hnology was not limited only to tariff negotiations in 
environmental goods, some focus would be needed in orde r to be able to address this issue.  Relevant 
linkages with services could be discussed when c onsidering the goods proposed to be included in an 
eventual list.   
42. With regard to the Information Exchange S ession, she noted that there could be more 
meaningful work done on the environmental benef its of the products that had been proposed by 
Members.  She also believed that the Information Exchange had shown that there were some clear-cut environmental goods, e.g. in the area of renewable energy, and that other items had been suggested 
that could be further discussed, including items of dual use.  She noted that while it was necessary to 
continue the Committee's work, items clearly ag reed to be environmental goods deserved more 
straightforward treatment.   
43. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation had difficulty working with the concept 
put forward in India's proposal on a practical level, both in terms of the institutions of WTO and of the 
specifics of the mandate.  Canada's approach to the implementation of paragraph 31(iii) was based on  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 7 
 
 
a mandate for the CTESS to define a set of envi ronmental goods for the negotiation of modalities in 
other negotiating groups, such as NAMA, and the basi c elements of the project approach were not 
amenable to that objective.   
44. Looking ahead to Hong Kong, it was not entirely clear to his delegation how the different 
approaches could be brought together in the time ava ilable, so as to provide Ministers with a result 
that they could build on, and which would enable  Members to move on to the next stage of the 
negotiations.  The Hong Kong Ministerial Conference  was a key point in the Round, and Canada felt 
compelled to deliver solutions to Ministers rather  than parallel tracks.  He recalled that for his 
delegation, the deliverable was the identification of a range or set of environmental goods for the 
other negotiating group to work on.   
45. The representative of Brazil  believed that both the Indian a nd Argentinean papers had positive 
aspects and responded to some key concerns of his delegation.  On the issue of dual use, Brazil 
questioned the direct link between trade liberalisa tion of goods such as pipes, tubes, pumps or 
bicycles, and the protection of the environment.  In  Brazil's view, it did not seem reasonable to focus 
only on the environmental use of a product, without also taking into account its other uses.  He noted 
that the proposals by India and Argentina offered some responses on how to deal with the dual use 
issue.   
46. Regarding the question of criteria, Brazil believe d that having no, or only self-defined criteria 
for environmental goods had led to treating bio-fuels, pipes or specific kinds of toilets, as if they all 
had the same impact on the environment, when they  actually did not.  Another positive aspect of the 
proposals by Argentina and India was that they re minded the Committee of the persistent lack of 
conceptual basis in the debate a nd also suggested a way out.   
47. Furthermore, these proposals allowed room fo r environmental services and the question of 
technology transfer to be considered, which cons tituted an important devel opmental aspect of the 
mandate that had not been taken into account in a coherent way in the lists tabled so far.   
48. He further noted that the proposal by Arge ntina built upon the regional experience within 
MERCOSUR, which had a group established for the discussion of environmental goods.   
49. Finally, Brazil believed that some result needed  to be achieved for the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference, but not at all costs.  He recalled that  any result would have to take into account the 
environmental and developmental aspects of  the mandate in a coherent way.   
50. The representative of Chile  thanked New Zealand, India, Japan and Argentina for their 
presentations.  She particularly appreciated the integr ated approach of Argentina's paper, which was a 
constructive contribution to the negotiations, and noted  that her delegation would consider it in more 
detail.   
51. Chile was one of the delegations that had difficulties with the list approach, and was 
concerned that the reduction or elimination of ta riff barriers for environmental goods would mainly 
benefit developed countries.  For this reason, Chile  was sympathetic to the efforts made by Brazil, 
India, China, Cuba and Argentina to provide alternative approaches.  Chile shared the view of these 
delegations that the negotiations should have clear objectives, namely to put sustainable development 
at the centre of the negotiations;  to incorporate special and differential treatment;  to ensure the 
transfer of clean technology;  and to facilitate mark et access.  She noted that her delegation was not 
entirely convinced by any of the approaches that ha d been put forward so far, i.e. the lists, the 
environmental project approach (EPA), the devel opment aspects of the Brazilian approach, nor the 
Argentinean integrated approach, but was ready to co nsider all the options in order to seek progress in 
the fulfilment of the Doha mandate. TN/TE/R/14 
Page 8  
 
52. With respect to the integrated approach , Chile understood that the CTESS would be 
implementing two functions, namely identifying and defining categories of environmental projects, 
and developing a list of products that  would be used to carry out these projects.  It appeared that to 
benefit from preferential tariff treatment, an admini strator of a national environmental project would 
need to identify to which category the project bel onged, and what products within the list of products 
under this category would be used.   
53. Chile had questions concerning the legal predictab ility of this approach.  In the case of dual or 
multiple use products, she noted that a customs mechan ism would have to be designed to differentiate 
products according to their use.  This did not s eem compatible with the principles applying to 
like-products, nor with the principles of trade faci litation in the WTO, and could introduce more 
paperwork.  Chile also asked about how the envi ronmental products that did not fall within any 
categories would be dealt with, e.g. the EPPs me ntioned by New Zealand, and how environmental 
services, which were key to the operationalization of any environmental project, could be incorporated under this approach.   
54. Finally, Chile was concerned that the Co mmittee was prejudging the treatment given to 
environmental goods in NAMA.   
55. The representative of Japan
 thanked Argentina for its integrated proposals on environmental 
goods for development.  He agreed that for its implementation, the project-based approach did not 
require the multilateral trading system, as Argentina ha d pointed out in paragraph 7 of its submission, 
given that this was currently availa ble on a bilateral and unilateral basis.  He also thanked India for its 
new submission in document TN/TE/W/60, and noted th at paragraph 11 also attempted to answer this 
question.   
56. Regarding the integrated approach proposed by Ar gentina in paragraph 9, he said that Japan 
needed more time for its examination.  Japan belie ved that the list approach was simpler and more 
transparent, and that this was the appropriate way forward.  Nevertheless, he recognized that Members 
would have to give some consideration to the issue of dual or multiple use.   
57. The representative of Cuba  agreed with Brazil that more clarification and debate were needed 
before the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  Fo r instance, she noted that the CTESS had not yet 
found any solution to the problem of dual use.  She recalled that at the Information Exchange Session, 
Cuba had presented examples of products with dual use, such as chlorine a nd activated carbon.  She 
noted that for some of the products on the list, entir e HS categories had been identified, and that it was 
impossible to negotiate these lists with objectivity on such a basis.  This was a disincentive for 
developing countries, which were seeking reassurance that liberalization would effectively lead to 
sustainable development in their countries.   
58. Cuba could not accept trade liberalization in th is area without real environmental benefits, 
especially in light of the overall objective of th e negotiations to enhance the mutual supportiveness 
between trade and environment, as well as the objectiv e of sustainable development.  In Cuba's view, 
the list approach did not offer guarantees in this respect.  Cuba pointed out the need for more 
coordination in the work of the CTESS and NAMA,  as highlighted in the July package.  Her 
delegation was concerned that special and differentia l treatment, as well as the principle of less than 
full reciprocity, would be left out until a final lis t was drawn up, while zero-tariff initiatives and the 
concept of a living list had been discussed.   
59. Cuba welcomed the approaches proposed by Indi a and Argentina which tried to provide an 
answer to the mandate in paragraph 31(iii).  In par ticular, she noted that India's approach was based 
on an analysis of some of the difficulties related to the list approach, which the Committee had not yet 
been able to address.  By providing tariff reducti ons to goods imported for a specific environmental 
project, India's Environmental Project Approach c ould contribute to fulfilling the objectives of the  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 9 
 
 
Rio Declaration and the Johannesburg Plan of Implem entation.  She noted that the Indian approach 
included other positive aspects, such as an incentive for the mitigation of  the problem of multiple use;  
special and differential treatment;  transfer of technol ogy;  and the fact that the loss of income would 
correspond to conscious decisions based on national environmental objectives.   
60. The Cuban experience pointed to the viability of the Indian proposal, albeit with some 
differences.  Cuba had been following a fairly si milar approach since 2000, based on environmental 
legislation that promoted the importation of enviro nmentally friendly technology.  This reflected the 
political will to guarantee national action in favour of  sustainable development, independently of the 
WTO negotiations, which could be described as autonom ous liberalization.  Cuba had been applying a 
tariff bonus of 50 per cent for imports of technologies that favoured the environment.  This treatment 
was granted on a case-by-case basis, following the a pproval of the Ministry of Environment, who 
certified that the technology was in accordance with  the technological policy and also with the 
environmental requirements outlined by the country.  Although this was not a project per se , it 
fulfilled similar objectives by promoting the win-win-wi n formula.  She noted that such an initiative 
required the political will to achieve sustainable development, a solid structure to attend the 
environment, and a high level of coordination between the trade and environment authorities.  
61. Finally, Cuba invited the delegations that ha d proposed lists of environmental goods to 
continue to explain the benefits derived from the ap plication of the list approach.  She noted that a 
solution to the issues of dual use and special and di fferential treatment would be desirable before the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.   
62. The representative of China  thanked Argentina, India, New Zealand and Japan for their new 
papers.  China appreciated Argentina's efforts to  narrow the gap between Members' positions.  He 
recognized that the identification of categori es and available goods within these categories, as 
proposed by Argentina, could help to address the i ssue of lack of transparency and predictability, 
which were regarded by many Members as the main problem with India's environmental project approach.   
63. With regard to the project approach, he noted  that not all the environmental goods would be 
covered by a particular environmental project.  China wondered how to treat those goods that fell 
outside a particular environmental project, some of which had obvious envi ronmental benefits and 
were therefore relevant to the mandate of para graph 31(iii).  He stated that the Committee should 
explore ways of making the process as inclusive as po ssible.  In China's view, the project approach 
was especially good at addressing the problem of mul tiple use, technology transfer and incorporating 
the issue of services.  
64. Finally, with respect to Japan's list and in pa rticular the first line of the category "Other 
Recycling Systems", namely "worn clothing and othe r worn articles" (HS 630900), he noted that the 
trade of textile wastes was prohibited under the Basel Convention.  China asked how one could 
distinguish textile wastes and worn clothing from the waste prohibited under the Basel Convention 
(e.g. reused and recycled articles), since different pr oducts in that category could have very different 
impacts on the environment and human health.   
65. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 thanked India, Argentina New Zealand and Japan for 
their submissions.  Chinese Taipei welcomed Ar gentina's proposal in document TN/TE/W/62, which 
integrated elements from both the list and the envi ronmental project approach for the identification 
and definition of environmental goods.  However, he felt that more work was required on this issue.   
66. Chinese Taipei also agreed with  the Chairman's statement in his October Report to the TNC, 
that while there were some elements of this list on which there was convergence, more work would be 
required to determine what produc ts should be treated as environmental goods for the purpose of the 
negotiations.  Chinese Taipei was confident that Members would eventually achieve the goal of TN/TE/R/14 
Page 10  
 
constructing a WTO list of environm ental goods, including the so-called "core list" of products, with 
goods identified for their environmental u se based on commonly agreed criteria, and a 
"complementary list" of products on which there ma y not be consensus regarding their environmental 
function.   
67. He indicated that Argentina's proposal expressed  concerns over the list approach, such as the 
lack of multilaterally agreed criteria or its failure to address the problem of multiple use or PPMs.  At 
the Information Exchange Session, he noted that his delegation had gained  a better understanding of 
the rationale behind Members' lists and their selec tion of products.  Furthermore, the Information 
Exchange Session had led to a constructive discu ssion on finding solutions for the treatment of 
products with dual or multiple use.  He agreed with  Argentina's concern, expressed in paragraph 8 of 
its paper, regarding UNCTAD's definition of Envi ronmentally Preferable Products (EPPs), since it 
provided the possibility of including goods on the basi s of PPM.  He also agreed with Thailand that 
EPPs should be scrutinized by requiring a demonstr ation of the concrete linkages between these goods 
and their environmental benefits.  
68. He noted that Argentina also expressed concern about the effectiveness of a list approach in 
achieving the mandate of negotiation.  However, in his delegation's view, the list approach offered the 
best chance of delivering a win-win-win outcome for trade, environment and development, and a 
multilaterally agreed list which woul d fulfil the mandate.  He explaine d that all the products contained 
in a core list would help the private sector to miti gate the cost impact, in contrast to the project 
approach, which might adversely affect them in terms of competitiveness and willingness to purchase 
environmental goods.  With regard to the products contained in a complementary list, the Committee 
might consider using a project approach in order to further ensure the delivery of trade, environmental 
and developmental benefits, while minimizing as much as possible the aforementioned adverse 
effects.  Chinese Taipei asked Argentina whether this would fit with its proposed integrated approach.   
69. Finally, he stated that his delegation w as encouraged by the recent progress in the 
negotiations and looked forward to more in-depth technical discussion with a view to drawing up a 
WTO list of environmental goods. 
70. The representative of Egypt
 thanked New Zealand, Japan, India and Argentina for their 
efforts.  With regard to the Indian paper, he tha nked India for clarifying different issues related to the 
project approach.  He asked India to expand on its ideas on technology transfer, as expressed in paragraph 6 of TN/TE/W/60.  In particular, regarding the statement that increased local capacity to produce goods and provide services as part of th is multilateral negotiation would translate into 
increased export opportunities, he asked about the linkages between the issue of technology transfer, 
the project approach and multilateral negotiations.   
71. With regard to the Argentinean paper, Egyp t asked Argentina whethe r there was any action 
foreseen at the multilateral level or within the fra mework of WTO with regard to negotiating the 
conditions of access to the transfer of clea n technology and local capacity building.   
72. Egypt saw merit in Argentina's attempt to bri dge the gap between the different approaches.  
He recalled that another approach had been sugg ested in the framework of an expert meeting 
organized by UNCTAD in 2003.
2  However, he noted that this i ssue had never been discussed in the 
Committee.  The idea put forward at this meeting was to structure the negotiations focusing on a few 
specific environmental areas, with more holistic  and comprehensive discussions on issues such as 
transfer of technology, products of interest to  developing countries and specific NTBs.  Egypt 
believed that this approach, Argentina's appro ach or other approaches should be given greater 
exposure when considering how the negotiati ng mandate could be best achieved.   
                                                      
2 The report of this meeting was circulated in document TN/TE/INF/6.    TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 11 
 
 
73. The representative of the European Communities  (EC) thanked the delegations that had 
presented new material at the meeting and at the Information Exchange Session.  He felt it was necessary to concentrate his interven tion on the issues that had been ra ised in the papers by India and 
Argentina, since there seemed to be some basic misunderstandings that required further discussion.   
74. With regard to India's question on the convenience of abandoning the work on the 
environmental goods list for the environmental proj ect approach, he noted that the 25 EU Members 
that he represented were firmly opposed to this id ea.  Some Members had pointed out that the project 
approach had little to do with the mandate.  He sai d that the Committee had a duty to look into the 
difficulties of any approach and see which solution helped address them, while at the same time 
remaining faithful to the mandate.   
75. With regard to the issue of the list approach giving an economic advantage to industrialized 
countries, he asked whether this was the key ques tion.  Discussions in the CTE concerned a special 
category of goods, namely enviro nmental goods, as well as their associated services, where the 
removal of tariffs or non-tariff barriers would have  beneficial environmental impacts on the importing 
country.  He believed that the environmental impa ct should be the overriding consideration guiding 
the Committee's discussions under paragraph 31(iii).  This was the consideration that had guided the 
EC in drawing up its list.  The fact that many indus trialized country products were to be found on the 
list was not a sign of failure of the list approach, a nd noted that there was evidence that some of these 
products were also of interest to developing countries.   
76. The EC recognized that the environmental advantage of the products under discussion had to 
be clear cut and substantial.  In this regard, the Information Exchange Session had contributed to give 
clarity on the environmental benefits of the goods that had been proposed.   
77. The EC believed that by a closer examination of the goods that had been put forward, 
developing countries would find a comparative advantage in many of the products.  The EC acknowledged that some of items proposed on the lis t were high technology goods.  However, the EC 
was also proposing the category of EPPs, which in cluded products that could only be produced in 
developing countries.  He indicated that the EC's  list of EPPs was only indicative, and encouraged 
other delegations to propose more products of  interest to developing countries.   
78. He recalled that in paragraph 6 of its first submission in document TN/TE/W/51, India had 
stated that opening markets to environmental goo ds could prevent home grown solutions and the 
development of an environmental industry in their ow n country.  In the EC's view, the adverse effects 
of increased market access and competition mentione d in the Indian paper, could be even greater 
under the project approach, given that all sorts of  other products linked to the project would be 
covered and exposed to international competition.   
79. Concerning India's point that the list approach involved permanent and open-ended 
concessions, he noted that according to New Zealand's proposal for a living list, this would not be the 
case, since the tariff concessions on environmental goods would be subject to periodical review.  
Therefore, products could be a dded or removed from the list depe nding on how the environmental 
context evolved.  Moreover, there would be a continuing involvement of the CTESS, which could 
work on the dynamic aspects of the list, thereby addr essing some of the concerns raised by India.   
80. With respect to India's statement about the need to give special status to the goods that had 
clear linkages to the environment, or the so-called multiple use issue, the EC believed that the issue 
required further consideration.  He cited as an ex ample filtering or purifying machines for water or 
parts thereof (HS 842121), which could be used fo r an environmental purpose (e.g. bio-filters or 
clarifiers used for waste water treatment) but also for other industrial purposes (e.g. filters used in a 
brewery).   TN/TE/R/14 
Page 12  
 
81. The EC pointed out that the discussion so far had shown that it was necessary to be equipped 
with a reasonable tool to address this issue, and ther e were many ways to do this.  He stated that one 
way was for the Committee to clarify the environm ental linkages and distinguish between categories 
of products.  For instance, there could be a cate gory for single-use products, such as solar cells;  a 
second category for products with a clearly predomin ant environmental use;  and a third category for 
products that may have a clear environmental use and purpose, but also a significant 
non-environmental application.  He noted that this  kind of exercise could help find consensus on the 
various products.   
82. The EC believed that another way of addressing this issue was to use ex-outs for customs 
classification purposes to specify the environmental aspect or use of the products covered.  He noted 
that such an approach would not be so difficult to implement, as many Members already had some of 
these classifications in place.   
83. He pointed out that even with the project a pproach, there was an issue of diversion of 
resources from an approved project to other uses.  He  noted that the project approach dealt with the 
multiple-use issue because by definition, this a pproach was based on the end-use of a particular 
product.  He felt that this showed that the Comm ittee was becoming involved in the whole question of 
distinction within the project, where many products  being covered would not qualify as environmental 
goods on their own.   
84. The EC believed that whole systems that were  contracted as turn-key, ready made projects 
could be taken as items on the list.  It was not clear  whether HS codes would even be needed for this 
purpose.  In the EC's view, this was an area of overl ap with India's approach, and he encouraged other 
delegations to further reflect on the inclusion of these whole plants or systems.   
85. With respect to technology transfer, services, and non-tariff barriers, he believed that it was 
difficult to address these issues without a clear idea of the type of goods that were being considered.   
86. The EC noted that there was a consumer dema nd for a number of products which were being 
discussed, e.g. solar panels or boilers, and that ther e was a need to capture the environmental benefits 
associated with such a demand.  He said that many policies already encouraged decentralized, 
small-scale environmentally-friendl y solutions, and consumer demand was driving an important share 
of the industry.  The potential benefits associat ed with greater accessibility of these goods for 
consumers would be missed if only large government projects were considered.   
87. In response to the questions raised by Braz il concerning criteria, he indicated that the 
Secretariat's Synthesis document in JOB(05)/57/Rev.2 contained a chapter summarizing the 
parameters for identifying environmental goods pr oposed by delegations.  He believed that it was 
worth focusing as a starting point on the paramete rs, justifications, and environmental linkages 
highlighted in the Members' submissions.  He en couraged other delegations to build on the work 
carried out to clarify the universe of goods.   
88. The representative of Cote d'Ivoire
 thanked India, Argentina, New Zealand and Japan for their 
contributions to the debate.  He agreed with the comments made by Chile and Brazil.  Cote d'Ivoire 
also supported the proposal by India, which in its  view enabled developing countries to emphasize 
their national environmental policies and identify th eir own development needs.  He noted that the 
comments by Chile, Brazil, and India also supported the health policies of developing countries in 
their fight against water pollution, as well as the issue of transfer of technology.   
89. His delegation was of the view that the list approach did not favour trade facilitation for 
developing countries.  The division of the membership  on the issue of approach actually reflected the 
differences between developing and developed countri es in terms of capacity, from an administrative, 
technological and technical point of view.  He stresse d that whilst the list approach had its merits, it  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 13 
 
 
did not correspond to the level of development of developing country Members.  Finally, he noted 
that the Argentinean proposal should be given due  consideration before Hong Kong, as it tried to 
combine the list and environmental project approaches. 
90. The representative of South Africa  thanked India, Argentina, New Zealand and Japan for their 
papers.  South Africa's understanding of the manda te was that the Committee should define what 
could constitute an environmental good.  In her delegation's view, this did not necessarily mean 
drawing up a list, nor identifying a range or unive rse of products.  South Africa believed that the 
Indian project approach remained the most compelling basis to ensure that environmental and developmental objectives were achieved , and to integrate environmental services into the discussion.   
91. South Africa was grateful to Argentina for its pa per, which integrated elements of nearly all 
the proposals on the table.  She noted that Argent ina's paper would be useful in making progress 
towards reaching what could constitute a definitio n of environmental goods.  As pointed out by 
Brazil, focusing on criteria would be a way to m ove forward.  However, South Africa cautioned 
against producing a list at all costs for Hong Ko ng.  She indicated that as a developing country 
Member currently working on identifying its interests in that area, drawing up a list of environmental 
goods was not easy;  it presupposed considerable policy development beyond basic development 
imperatives, which most countries were prioritizing at this stage.   
92. In her delegation's view, the environmental criteria was not the primary concern in the 
negotiations.  Although relevant in the context of the identification of environmental goods, it had to 
be judged against the broader benchmark of the Doha Development Agenda in order to ensure that all 
Members would benefit from the Round, including within these negotiations.   
93. The representative of the United States
 thanked Argentina, New Zealand and Japan for their 
new papers.  She stressed that the role of the CTESS in these negotiations was to champion 
environmental issues and to ensure that sustai nable development was taken into account in the 
Development Round.  It was also n ecessary to bear in mind how the work of the CTESS fitted in with 
other mandates.  For instance, Hong Kong, China ha d raised a question on how the modality aspect of 
this mandate fitted into the binding reduc tion commitments discussed in NAMA.   
94. She was also concerned that some of the proposals might take the Committee in the wrong 
direction, since they seemed to be limiting the envi ronmental benefits that could be achieved through 
the mandate of liberalizing trade in environmen tal goods and services.  In the context of other 
negotiations in the WTO, for instance, the US ha d not seen proposals that would limit the application 
of the tariff reduction to a particular project or area.  She expected the liberalization of trade in 
environmental goods to produce the broadest possibl e benefits to the largest number of people who 
could benefit from environmental protec tion and sustainable development.   
95. The US believed that a concrete discussion of  the products that should be considered as 
environmental goods was necessary to advance on the ma ndate.  In this regard, the role of the CTESS 
was to clarify the concept of environmental goods.  She noted that this was the approach of many 
delegations at the beginning of th e negotiations.  In particular, sh e recalled that India had made a 
submission to NAMA stating that product coverage  on environmental goods would need to be 
discussed in the light of the products of interest to  developing countries.  To  many delegations, this 
type of concrete information was necessary in or der to be able to address other aspects of the 
mandate, such as non-tariff barriers or the issue of  technology transfer.  She noted that while 
Argentina attempted to integrate the two approaches in its proposal, it had not actually identified the 
products or given the kind of conc rete information necessary to achie ve liberalization according to the 
mandate.   
96. With respect to the Indian paper, the US re mained unconvinced that the project approach 
could deliver the long-term benefits that Members and their exporters had come to expect from the TN/TE/R/14 
Page 14  
 
WTO, particularly with regard to sustainable development.  The lack of binding commitments, 
transparency, predictability and acc ountability in this approach con tinued to be a source of concern 
for her delegation.   
97. Her delegation agreed with India that Members ha d to be mindful of the interplay between the 
goods and services in the paragraph 31(iii) mandate.  However, she noted that India's revised services 
offer did not contain commitments to environm ental services suppliers, and wondered how India 
would propose to operationalize this liberalization for services providers if this did not appear in their 
schedule of proposed commitments.   
98. As a practical matter, the US failed to unders tand how the project approach could guarantee 
access for small and medium sized enterprises, give n that SMEs generally exported smaller quantities 
of goods through distributors rather than supplying ma jor projects.  India's fast track approval process 
for SMEs did not provide any account for the fact  that SMEs would not usually supply major 
infrastructure and development projects.  The US di d not believe that the negotiations were aimed at 
benefiting the multinationals that dominated this ma rket.  Her delegation also questioned the benefits 
of the project approach for consumers and small di stributors, or for rural communities that may wish 
to purchase, for example, a solar water treatment  system;  they might have a need for these 
environmental goods, but neither the resources nor th e knowledge to apply for the approval of their 
own project.   
99. The US remained concerned that this type of  approach could create additional paperwork, 
bureaucracy and unnecessary delays for the export of goods.  For the US, the concerns had increased 
after reading India's new submission in document TN/TE/W/60, where it was suggested that the 
designated national authority would be  comprised not just of government officials, but also of private 
sector and civil society representatives.  She w ondered whether India had envisioned that much 
information would need to be provided by a company in order to even be considered for this preferential tariff exemption.  Moreover, it was uncl ear to her delegation what kind of information a 
company would be in a position to provide before th e project had even started.  She noted that the 
negotiations should not add to some of the cha llenges that were being addressed in the trade 
facilitation negotiations.   
100. While the US acknowledged that trade in cap ital goods could contribute substantially to 
technology transfer, it wondered how technology transf er could be better promoted through a project 
than through full market access.   
101. The US pointed out that some of the more useful aspects of India's proposal could be 
implemented without any WTO action.  For instance,  in paragraph 10 of TN/TE/W/60, India proposed 
that the designated national authority maintained a database of the approved environmental projects 
with a complete list of goods and services included in them.   
102. For her delegation, the project approach was in fact a proposed modality that digressed from 
the task of the CTESS of identifying environmen tal goods and services, and discussing their relevance 
from an environmental point of view.  This was also in line with earlier Committee reports which had 
outlined the role of NAMA and of the Council fo r Trade in Services in Special Session (CTSSS) 
regarding the modality for the goods and services portion of the mandate, leaving it to CTESS to 
clarify the concept of environmental goods.  According to the US, the environmental project approach failed to clarify the concept of environmental goods , or to identify environmental goods or specific 
environmental services that were important from the perspective of developing country Members.   
103. The US believed that the CTESS should continue  to identify environmental goods, but did not 
see how this could be done without eventually  producing some kind of compilation or list of 
environmental goods.  The US remained open to discussing ways in which the CTESS could  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 15 
 
 
contribute to the work on environmental services, but noted that the project approach did not seem to 
fit into the GATS framework and the schedules of commitments envisaged in  those negotiations.   
104. She noted that the information exchange session had been useful in analyzing the various 
environmental goods that had been proposed a nd discussing their environm ental and developmental 
benefits.  In particular, the US appreciated New Zealand's and Japan's add itional contributions that 
outlined the environmental benefits of the goods on their list.  The US hoped that as the technical 
work and information exchange continued, so me convergence of views would arise on what 
environmental goods were, and on their possible contribution to environmental protection.   
105. The representative of Colombia  thanked the delegations that had contributed to the 
Information Exchange Session, which she considered ha d been a very useful ex ercise.  In Colombia's 
view, the lists submitted would require further work by Members, including some revision by the 
delegations that had proposed them.  The multiple use of the products proposed was a problem that 
occurred with respect to all the categories of produc ts discussed at the Information Exchange Session.  
Colombia asked about the solutions that could be found to this problem.  It appeared that using 
additional specifications would be an alternative, as  the EC and other delega tions had suggested.  The 
specifications given in some lists, such as those of  Canada, warranted further review in order to 
properly identify the products proposed.  This was the case, for instance, with clinical thermometers.  
She asked whether this would be an acceptable a nd manageable result for the NAMA representatives 
during their negotiations and when drawing up sche dules of specific commitments.  In Colombia's 
view, this question deserved further consideration.   
106. She noted that commitments in the lists in WTO negotiations were at a maximum tariff 
heading level of six digits and, in the present case,  trade commitments had to be made at a level of 
tariff specifications of more than six digits.  Th is was an issue that deserved more discussion with 
regard to its feasibility, possibly with the assistan ce of NAMA experts, or customs experts including 
the World Customs Organization (WCO).  It appeared that such an alternative would be contrary to 
the objectives of the negotiations on Trade Facilitati on.  Members should also discuss the need for a 
multilateral agreement on tariff classification of environmental goods resulting from these 
negotiations.  More work was required with a view  to identify all the products in the lists under 
consideration that raised the problem of multiple use, and to obtain additional clarification from the 
delegations that had proposed them.  Furthermore, alternative solutions for their more precise and 
correct identification had to be sought.   
107. One problem related to the issue of multiple use was that of the products' description used in 
the Secretariat's Synthesis document, which reflected  the description provided in the lists proposed by 
delegations rather than the description agreed in WC O.  Consequently, if the description proposed by 
countries did not correspond to the generally accepted description, a further specification was required 
in order to properly identify the environmental prod uct.  An addition to the Secretariat's Synthesis 
document was therefore required in order to show the tariff classification, the commonly accepted 
description, the description proposed by the Memb er and, where the two did not correspond, the 
additional specification properly id entifying the product proposed.  Th is appeared to be the case for 
one of the items proposed by the EC, namely solar panels, for which the general classification was much broader.   
108. Another problem was the labelling require ment for the proper identification of 
environmentally preferable products.  For instan ce, the EC had proposed a product (item 477 in the 
Synthesis document) labelled to identify those products that did not only meet the final use criterion 
but also the life cycle.  The term life cycle was much broader in scope, as it included product-related process and production methods (PPM), which ra ised problems for many delegations.  While 
developing countries might have a comparative advant age in producing and exporting products in this 
category, Colombia was aware that the inclusion of such products could give rise to certain problems 
in WTO.  In view of the insistence on including th is type of product, for example in the case of the TN/TE/R/14 
Page 16  
 
EC, perhaps what was lacking was further discussion between the environmental and trade experts.  
She noted that this would allow some developi ng countries to reach an understanding, define the 
appropriate scope and find a solution in the context of these trade negotiations.   
109. Colombia suggested that the Secretariat prepare a document on relevant provisions of 
WTO Agreements regarding like prod ucts and labelling, including th e TBT Agreement, as well as 
rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body.  Furthermore,  the Secretariat could prepare a list of reference 
documents from both the WTO and observer organiza tions on this subject.  The proposed document 
could help Members find a common language between trade and the environment.  Colombia also 
supported the proposal made by Chile at the Inform ation Exchange Session to request the Secretariat 
to prepare a version of the Synthesis document gr ouping the products by category, given that some 
products had been proposed unde r different categories.   
110. With regard to the evaluation of the lists from a trade point of view, and the question of 
whether developing countries also exported these pr oducts, she noted that according to a preliminary 
analysis of trade conducted on four of the lists, wh ich covered more or less  half of the products, 
Colombia's imports accounted for ten times its exports.  This analysis suggested that the results would 
not be favourable to Colombia's trade interests.   
111. Colombia agreed that Members needed to evaluate the goods proposed, but also taking into 
account the environmental point of view.  This woul d allow Members to be more certain of potential 
benefits that could possibly offset the trade defic it.  She noted that the additional documents submitted 
by Japan and New Zealand, which highlighted th e environmental attributes of their suggested 
products, had provided valuable information.  Co lombia proposed that other countries which had 
submitted lists provide additional information on the environmental benefits of each product.   
112. She noted that the trade analysis conducte d with respect to these products was based on 
six-digit tariff lines.  However, given the additiona l specifications proposed by some delegations and 
the issue of multiple use, the results could be distor ted.  It was therefore premature for Colombia to 
draw any conclusion regarding its trade interests in these products.  For instance, both New Zealand 
and Japan had proposed subheading 870322 (item 361 of the Synthesis document), which referred to 
motor cars.  The specification proposed by these tw o Members referred to "hybrid cars/vehicles".  
Therefore, Colombia had to look more closely in to this additional specification, as well as the 
clarification provided by New Zealand and Japan, in order to determine whether it produced and 
exported this product.   
113. Colombia had made progress drawing up a lis t of environmental goods, but much work 
remained to be done before any results could be shared.  Colombia had a list of environmental goods 
and services for the purpose of domestic environmental policy called " Mercados Verdes " (Green 
Markets) and had encountered many obstacles in tr anslating it into the terms required for the purpose 
of trade negotiations, especially given the time necessary to complete such an exercise.   
114. In addition, Colombia shared the concerns  expressed by other countries regarding the 
discussions on environmental services, and how they  could help achieve a balanced result in the 
negotiations.   
115. Regarding Canada's proposal on presenting some  results for Hong Kong, Colombia did not 
agree to present even partial results given that th e lists, including Canada's, required further discussion 
and revision.  The only result that could be presen ted in Hong Kong was that while some progress had 
been made, more work was required in order to achie ve a minimum result acceptable to all Members.   
116. The representative of Australia  thanked India for further elabor ating on its project approach.  
However, his delegation did not consider that the new submission answered earlier concerns 
expressed about the environmental project proposal.  Like Chile, the EC, and Hong Kong, China, his  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 17 
 
 
delegation failed to unde rstand how India's proposal fitted within the WTO multilateral rule-based 
system, particularly with the emphasis on  MFN and the need for transparency.  
117. Australia was concerned about ho w SMEs would find the resources to get a project approved, 
as well as transaction costs and additional obstacles cr eated for businesses of all sizes.  On the dual 
use issue, he wondered how the use of goods importe d for an approved project would be tracked after 
that project was complete, and if a good, imported as  an environmental good, could be used for a less 
environmentally sound purpose.   
118. Australia thanked Argentina for its efforts to  draw out points of commonality between the 
different ideas put forward, and also noted some  of the other ideas presented at the meeting by 
Chinese Taipei, Egypt and the EC.   
119. With regard to New Zealand's and Japan's contributions, he welcomed the additional 
information concerning the environmental benefits of the goods proposed on their list.  Australia also 
believed that the environmental goods proposed under the five categories discu ssed at the information 
exchange session would deliver both environmental a nd development benefits.  Australia was of the 
view that the Committee’s task shoul d now be to remove from the list the goods that did not offer the 
broad-based and generally shared environmental or development gains, including, for instance, 
Switzerland's wide range of trans port-related products.  In Australia' s view, these products seemed to 
make a judgement about the comparative environmenta l benefits of certain forms of transport, which 
were not readily transferable from one country to another.   
120. He also expressed the same concerns about goods proposed under the "Clean Technology and 
Products" and "High Environmental Performance or Low Environmental Impact" categories, which 
did not take account of diverse factors and cond itions, and which included some products identified 
on the basis of PPMs and/or labelling.  He stated that current discussions confirmed that concerns 
regarding dual use products could be addressed , e.g. the inclusion of products which had a 
predominant environmental end use, using ex-out s for HS categories that had a wider scope.   
121. In response to some of the comments made by Colombia, he recalled that ex-outs had been 
used in the negotiation of other agreements, such  as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).  
In cases where a product had multiple uses but an environmental function that was critical, the Committee should judge whether the environmental be nefit was sufficiently important to justify its 
inclusion for trade liberalization.   
122. He noted that the exclusion of goods defined in terms of their PPMs would help focus the 
efforts of the Committee on its core task.  It w as therefore unnecessary to have a paper prepared by 
the Secretariat on this subject, as per Colombia’s suggestion.  
123. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked India, New Zealand, Japan, and Argentina for the 
documents they had submitted.  She welcomed Argen tina’s contribution of an intermediate approach 
between the list and the environmental project appro ach.  In Ecuador's view, such a proposal could be 
used as a guide for future discussion.  Ecuador had noted Egypt’s comment regarding a proposal made 
at an Experts Meeting held by UNCTAD for a more holistic consideration of the issues under 
negotiation, and hoped that more informa tion could be shared on this proposal.   
124. According to Ecuador, the mandate in pa ragraph 31(iii) needed to be looked at 
comprehensively, not only on the basis of the reduc tion and/or elimination of tariffs, but also taking 
into account non-tariff barriers to environmental goods  and services.  It was by looking at all the 
linkages between the environment and trade, that the objective of sustainable development would be 
achieved in the negotiations.  Ecua dor believed that special and diffe rential treatment for developing 
countries, including commitments on technical assistan ce and transfer of technology should also be TN/TE/R/14 
Page 18  
 
considered as part of the mandate, especially in light of the Rio Declaration and the Johannesburg 
Plan of Implementation.   
125. She noted that both the list and project appro aches could contribute to fulfilling the mandate 
of negotiation, while presenting some problems in their implementation.  The list approach was based on APEC, OECD and UNCTAD lists, and included products with a high technological content.  
Furthermore, it presented problems regarding multiple use, and lacked any environmental justification 
or linkage with services.   
126. While the project approach was interesting from the point of view of development, it also 
presented some problems with regard to its implem entation at the multilateral level.  The evaluation 
was focussed on the need to find so lutions to problems such as multiple  use and technical issues, so as 
to provide credibility to the negotiations.  The adde d value of the negotiations was that environmental 
and development benefits c ould be sought through trade.  Therefor e, the identification of goods based 
on environmental criteria was of paramount importa nce to promote imports that could improve the 
quality of the environment in many countries, as well as exports that could foster development.   
127. She noted that the Committee had already st arted a revision of the environmental and 
developmental justification of e nvironmental goods, but it was also n ecessary to carry out an exercise 
on trade flows of imports and exports in the differe nt categories, as suggested by various Members.  
She thought that the proposal made by Chile at th e Information Exchange Session to classify products 
under the different categories could be helpful in this process.   
128. Ecuador reiterated its position that Members s hould aim at reducing the number of products, 
since many of them had multiple use.  Moreover, the categories should remain  open, as there was still 
much work to be done to clarify certain issues such  as the benefits of EPPs to developing countries.   
129. Finally, she noted that the discussion of the va rious approaches was still preliminary, and that 
greater analysis and technical work were require d.  Many developing c ountries, including Ecuador, 
were working on these questions at the national level.   Their contribution to the discussions had been 
delayed by the fact that the OECD or APEC lists  could not be used as a reference point.  In her 
delegation's view, the Hong Kong Ministerial Decl aration should encourage Members to continue 
their work, as it was still premature at that stage to anticipate a list.   
130. The representative of Bolivia
 thanked India, Argentina, New Zealand, and Japan for the 
submission of new documents.  She agreed that the inclusion of an additional column explaining the 
environmental benefits and uses of products would facilitate Memb ers' understanding of the lists.  
However, there were still problems related to dual or multiple use, and the issue of how to deal with 
special and differential treatment was still unclear.  With the clarifications provided by India in 
document TN/TE/W/60, and with the new integrated approach proposed by Argentina, such problems 
could be overcome.  Argentina had also introduc ed some elements that  could ensure greater 
transparency and predictability.   
131. While Bolivia had taken note of the comments made by the EC, it still believed that the 
relationship between development, trade and envir onment was dealt with in a more comprehensive 
manner within the project and the new integrated approaches.  In terms of achieving results for 
Hong Kong, Bolivia noted that more work would be necessary on all the approaches that had been 
discussed.   
132. The representative of New Zealand  said that he wished to make a number of comments on the 
project approach, which were informed by the practical experience of certain companies in 
New Zealand with projects of the type proposed by India.  As a general comment, New Zealand 
recalled that the project approach was already be ing implemented in various Member countries, and  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 19 
 
 
could therefore be undertaken on a unilateral basis, as Argentina itself had pointed out in paragraph 7 
of its paper.   
133. New Zealand asked whether the project approach was not in fact a modality.  He recalled that 
the report of the October 2002 CTESS meeting had indicated that there was agreement that the CTESS should work on clarifying the definition and scope of environm ental goods, while not 
prejudging the responsibility of NAMA for negotiating the modality.  It seemed that a proposal which 
involved fluctuations of tariffs over a certain  period of time sounded more like a modality.   
134. He noted that the purpose of negotiations in  the WTO was to improve the transparency, 
predictability and commercial certainty of global  trade.  He wondered how transparency and 
predictability could be ensured within the project  approach, since the three submissions by India 
seemed to suggest an administratively complex and centrally managed process where tariffs could be 
raised and lowered on an ad hoc basis, at the discretion of a centralized body.   
135. He referred to an SME in New Zealand suppl ying wastewater equipment systems and its 
experience with the project approach.  He noted th at each time the company applied for a project, the 
rates were different and products were  treated differently.  It was also  impossible to predict what spare 
parts would be needed for the project;  the compa ny would not be given the preferential rate when 
spare parts were required to repair the products, si nce the list of goods approved had been closed and 
could not be revisited.  New Zealand was con cerned that the project approach would make it 
burdensome for small companies to get their projects approved.   
136. With respect to trade facilitation objectives, he wondered how a seemingly administratively 
complex process could help the Committee address th e NTBs aspect of the negotiation, as suggested 
by India.  He indicated that based on a calculation carried out by a company on the costs and benefits 
associated with following the project approach, it was cheaper, less time consuming and less 
complicated to simply pay the tariff, which in so me cases exceeded 20 per cen t.  He also wondered 
how the project approach responded to the modalitie s for negotiations on trade facilitation, where the 
objective was to further expedite the move ment, release and clearance of goods.   
137. With regard to the Argentinean paper, he not ed that New Zealand shared the concerns of 
Argentina regarding the identification of goods on the basis of their PPMs, and welcomed the 
suggestion that the CTESS continue to focus on specific categories of products.  However, in 
New Zealand’s view, the proposal by Argentina was mo re an elaboration of the project approach than 
an integration of the list and project approaches.   
138. New Zealand could not agree with Argentina’s su ggestion that the list approach did not meet 
the development objectives that had been established by the Marrakech Ministerial Declaration.  He 
recalled that both in its submission in TN/TE/W/ 49/Suppl. 1 and its presentation at the Information 
Exchange Session, New Zealand had tried to outline the development and the environmental benefits 
of its approach.  His delegation lo oked forward to working constructiv ely with Argentina and India on 
the way forward to achieve the shared obj ective of sustainable development.   
139. The representative of Switzerland
 thanked India, Argentina, New Zealand and Japan for their 
submissions.  With regard to the Indian paper in TN/TE/W/60, her delegation was concerned about 
the lack of transparency and predictability of th e project approach.  She noted that the EPA was 
available on a bilateral and unilateral basis already a nd did not require the multilateral trading system.  
Switzerland was not convinced that the EPA was w ithin the mandate of the CTESS, which was to 
identify environmental goods.  She recalled that moda lities for tariff reductions and NTBs, as well as 
environmental services, were dealt with in NAMA and the CTSSS, respectively.   
140. With regard to paragraph 7 of the Indian pa per, it was not clear to Switzerland how India 
suggested dealing with NTBs in respect of identified goods and services. TN/TE/R/14 
Page 20  
 
141. Her delegation was concerned th at SMEs would be disadvantaged compared to larger 
companies when requesting the approval of a projec t, in spite of India's proposal to introduce a 
"fast track" procedure for SMEs.   
142. According to Switzerland, the EPA would not be in line with the objective of trade facilitation 
of the Doha Round, since more paperwork and bureaucracy would result from it.  With respect to the 
issue of dual or multiple use raised by India and Ar gentina, Switzerland asked whether this was really 
a problem if none of the other potential uses was actually harmful to the environment.  
For Switzerland, a product should be excl uded from the list only in cases where the 
non-environmental use(s) were actually harmful to th e environment.  Her delegation also agreed with 
the broad categories of products that the EC  had referred to in its statement.   
143. With respect to the Argentinean proposal, she not ed that in paragraph 9, Argentina proposed 
that "the CTESS should include in each 'category' th e environmental goods that  would be 'available' 
for application to the development of national proj ects".  Switzerland asked whether this meant that 
the end result would also be a list of environmenta l goods.  In the same paragraph, Argentina also 
suggested that "the tariff benefit granted by the importing Member should cover a specific period, i.e. 
the project implementation phase".  For her delegati on, this did not provide sufficient predictability 
and transparency.  Moreover, since some discussion had already taken place in the CTESS on categories of environmental goods and the environm ental benefits of some of the products, she was 
not convinced that the Argentinean prop osal was really bridging the gap.   
144. In response to a question raised by Argentina,  she noted that the EPPs on Switzerland's list 
had been selected on the basis of their use and dispo sal functions, and did not take into consideration 
their production scheme.   
145. Finally, Switzerland thanked New Zealand a nd Japan for providing additional information 
concerning the environmental benefits of the products on their lists.   
146. The representative of Venezuela
 thanked the delegations that had presented new proposals at 
the meeting.  Venezuela welcomed India's ideas on the project approach, which seemed to give 
precedence to sustainable development over mark et access.  This was in accordance with the 
objectives set out in the Doha Ministerial Declar ation, Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of 
Implementation.  She believed that trade liberalization per se  did not guarantee sustainable 
development.  India's proposal provided the policy space to take into account the characteristics and needs of each Member.  Venezuela hoped that the CTESS would continue to review this proposal and 
to further address the various issues it raised.   
147. The representative of Thailand
, also speaking on behalf of Indonesia  and Malaysia , thanked 
the Members that had made new submissions at the m eeting.  He felt that progress had been made in a 
number of areas, including in the discussion on appr opriate criteria to define environmental goods.  
This work had given a clearer picture of the kind of  issues that had to be taken into account when 
considering products proposed by Members as e nvironmental goods.  The discussion of approaches 
proposed by both developed and developing countries had also been fruitful.  This discussion had 
pointed to the need to carefully consider the vari ous approaches in order to achieve a successful and 
balanced outcome of the negotiation, which reflec ted the interests of all Members, especially 
developing countries and LDCs.   
148. He stressed that defining environmental goods  and attempting to link them with negotiations 
in areas such as Services, NAMA and technology tran sfer, was a challenging task for the Committee.  
He believed that it was necessary that the CTESS co ntinued these intensive discussions and collective 
efforts with a view to fulfilling the mandate in paragraph 31(iii).    TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 21 
 
 
149. In Thailand's view, the negotiations could be  hampered by several factors, including 
differences among delegations on the most suitable approach for the negotiations.  Also, some 
products and categories were questionable with respect  to their direct linkage to the environment, 
especially with regard to end use and environmen tal protection.  This had resulted in a large 
compilation list that was difficult to manage for developing countries. 
150. He believed that several issues needed to be discussed further, including the need for an 
approach, or a combination of approaches, that could overcome the weaknesses of each individual 
approach proposed.  In this regard, he noted that  the paper by Argentina was an initial and welcome 
attempt at combining elements from different approaches.  
151. He indicated that the discussion should also focus on the more specific criteria to apply when 
considering the products put forwar d as environmental goods, especially for those goods that were not 
clearly environmental, or that Members were not fa miliar with.  For instance, the end use or disposal 
characteristics of products could be used to furthe r refine the concept of EPPs, although he noted that 
this would not solve the issue of PPMs inherent to the general category of EPPs.   
152. Lastly, Thailand believed that to limit the ne gotiations to categories of environmental goods 
recognized by all Members as being of priority fo r the environment would make negotiations more 
manageable, especially for developing countries.  In  this regard, he noted that Egypt's suggestion 
could be helpful in advancing the discussion.   
153. The representative of Korea  recognized that the list approach was not perfect, but believed 
that it was the best proposal in terms of fulfilling the mandate in paragraph 31(iii).  He thanked India 
for its new submission, which provided further expl anation on the project approach.  However, Korea 
was not convinced that this a pproach was workable in the context of the multilateral trade 
negotiations.  He wondered what the rights and oblig ations of Members would be under this approach, 
as it did not seem to have the basic elements of any international trade agreement, i.e. commitments.   
154. With regard to the Argentinean proposal, he felt th at the integrated approach was closer to the 
project approach, but yet it did not seem to solve an y of the concerns raised with regard to this 
approach.   
155. Korea indicated that it was open to principles or guidelines to facilitate the discussions based 
on products, but that agreement amongst Members could be difficult to reach given the time available.  
Nonetheless, Members could share some genera l understanding on criteria for identifying 
environmental goods, e.g. depending on whethe r the product's end use was primarily or 
predominantly environmental.  This approach c ould also be applied in the case of multiple use 
products, by reviewing whether each product had an envi ronmental use that outweighed its other uses.   
156. The representative of Indonesia  thanked Members that had submitted proposals on 
approaches, as well as lists of environmental goods.  She noted that there had been progress in the 
discussion under paragraph 31(iii), and that Member s had a clearer idea of how the triple win 
objective of the mandate could be achieved.  For he r delegation, this meant that the Committee should 
not focus only on one particular approach.  She thought that Argentina's submission further 
strengthened the case that an environmental list appro ach needed to be modified or complemented by 
additional approaches.   
157. Indonesia claimed that in order to remain true to the mandate in paragraph 31(iii), 
environmental goods incorporated into any list ought to fulfil the criteria of single use and no PPMs.  
She found that the lists of environmental goods ta bled contained goods that did not fulfil these two 
criteria.  While these lists had the potential to e nhance the trade of developed countries, it was not 
always clear whether the products contained on the li st could actually contribute to the protection or 
cleaning up of the environment.   TN/TE/R/14 
Page 22  
 
158. The justifications put forward by some Members during the Information Exchange Session 
had not fully convinced Indonesia that some of the goods could be categorized as being environmental 
goods.  Thailand had pointed out in its statement the n eed to refine the criteria for the consideration of 
environmental goods.  Indonesia fully subscribed to this view, and noted that  this would enable the 
Committee to have a common platform for the identification of environmental goods.   
159. She noted that the WTO was relatively inexpe rienced in identifying environmental goods.  
Therefore, an approach such as the EPA could be an  interesting complement to the list approach.  She 
noted that the mandate in paragraph 31(iii) was sp ecific and limited, and that Members needed to 
ensure that the approach followed did not extend  beyond this mandate, for instance by including 
goods that were not truly environmental.   
160. The representative of Japan
 said, in response to a question by China concerning the items of 
its list under HS 6309 and 6310, that r ecycling contributed to saving resources, and that this was also 
applicable to textiles and clothing.  According to  Appendix 9 of the Basel Convention, Japan believed 
that textiles and clothing were outside the scope of the Convention.  Therefore, the inclusion of these 
products on a list did not raise concerns with regard  to the implementation of the Basel Convention.  
He noted that the Basel Convention was about waste,  not about merchandises or raw materials, and it 
applied only when items were mixed with other mate rials which were harmful to the environment;  if 
textiles and clothing were mixed with other materi als, they would not fall within HS Code 6309 and 
6310.  He noted that this type of  question showed the necessity of having other information exchange 
sessions with the participation of more experts.   
161. The representative of India  said that his delegation had put forward its submissions3 in an 
attempt to explain relevant aspects of the envir onmental project approach and address the questions 
that had been put to his delegation.  In response to a question by New Zealand, he noted that the 
goods included in a project would be subject to a duty reduction, even if the project repeated itself over time.  There was therefore no need under the EPA to define environmental goods, nor their related services since these were identified as part of a project.   
162. India recalled that it had initially proposed th e project approach because it was not convinced 
by the list approach, nor by the environmental purpo se of several products included on the list.  While 
many of the items on the list could, in a particular  context or project, deliver environmental benefits, 
this did not mean that these products were envi ronmental goods.  India provided examples of a 
number of products on the list, including, lim estone flux;  glass fibres;  vacuum pumps;  
electromagnets;  laser diodes;  spectrometers;  electricity meters;  multi-meters;  cathode-ray 
oscilloscopes;  industrial lab furnaces and inductive furnaces;  clutches and shaft couplings;  gears, 
balls and gearboxes;  office machines;  and automatic banknote dispensers.   
163. India mentioned its national experience with  a cooperative of farmers involved in the 
production of fertilisers, who had used the EPA for 14 years and reaped significant benefits, including 
energy savings, reduction of air pollution, and a more efficient production.   
164. Regarding the mandate of the CTESS and the relationship with NAMA and the CTSSS, he 
noted that India had suggested an approach that would not make it necessary to turn to NAMA or the 
CTSSS, since it involved the liberalization of goods a nd services in the context of a particular project.   
165. India recalled that the EPA had been put forward as a suggestion to address some of the 
concerns related to the list approach, by providi ng greater policy space to national governments.  He 
hoped that discussions among delegations would conti nue in a collaborative a nd constructive manner, 
giving due consideration to all proposed approaches.   
                                                     
 
3 TN/TE/W/51, TN/TE/W/54 and TN/TE/W/60.    TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 23 
 
 
166. The representative of Argentina  thanked the delegations that had commented on their 
proposal.  He noted that many of the comments had made reference to the weaknesses of the various 
approaches, while Argentina's intention with its s ubmission was in fact to preserve and build on the 
positive elements of the list and project approaches.  He noted that Members should continue to look 
for common ground, and not let positions drift further apart.   
167. The representative of the EC  noted that it was necessary for Members to engage in further 
work on the shortcomings of the proposed appro aches.  His delegation had tried to provide some 
answers to the key issue of dual use, in respect of  which many delegations had voiced concerns.  He 
noted that the specific questions raised by delega tions regarding some of the products could help 
Members eliminate a number of items contained in the list.   
168. The EC recognized that the proponents of the lists would have to stand ready to provide 
information on their proposed items, as they had d one to some extent at the Information Exchange 
Session.  At the same time, he recalled that questi ons had been raised with regard to the project 
approach, e.g. its predictability a nd WTO-compatibility, and noted that  these questions also needed to 
be addressed.  The EC had also identified some areas of complementarity between the list and project 
approach, e.g. whole plants and turnkey installations, which in some respects were similar to projects.  
He encouraged Members to engage constructively in  addressing these various issues in more detail.   
169. With regard to the concerns raised by Colo mbia and Thailand on the issue of eco-labels, 
EPPs, and PPMs, he noted that the EC was not tr ying to force acceptance of non product-related 
PPMs.  He thought that New Zealand's definition of EPPs was very clear, since it considered physical characteristics and did not raise the PPM issue.  He noted that his delegation did not support the 
request by Colombia for a paper on like products and PPMs at this stage.  The EC suggested to start 
working on criteria or questions on which there c ould be consensus among Members, or on products 
which could more easily be linked to the envi ronment, in order to make some progress.   
170. The representative of New Zealand
 supported the point made by other delegations concerning 
the use of ex-outs to deal with the issue of dual u se.  The Committee also n eeded to make a decision 
as to whether or not the environmental benefit of a product outweighed the other effects of the 
products being imported.  Some Members had rai sed questions concerning EPPs and the kind of 
categories they would fit into.  New Zealand agreed  that EPPs did not fit neatly into any existing 
category, and for this reason, it had proposed to est ablish a category of EPPs defined by their end-use 
or disposal characteristics.  His delegation also shared the concerns expressed by some delegations 
with regard to the issue of PPMs, and hoped that  the criteria proposed addressed such concerns.   
171. The representative of the United States  welcomed the questions raised by India, and shared its 
view that it was necessary to continue discussing th e environmental rationale for some of the products 
on the lists.   
172. With respect to the point raised by India c oncerning industrial la b furnaces and inductive 
furnaces on the US list, she noted that an additiona l product description or ex-out had been provided 
for waste incinerators, since these were furnaces that were used for waste disposal.  With regard to 
clutches, shafts and gearboxes, these items had been identified specifically in relation to the operation 
of wind turbines, under the renewable energy categ ory.  Regarding office machines, an additional 
product description had been added for paper sh redders used in solid and hazardous waste 
management to shred paper, which could then be disp osed or condensed into a landfill, or recycled.   
173. She noted that these goods were being put forw ard for consideration as environmental goods, 
and that Members could discuss the environmental ra tionale for putting any of these goods on the list.  
The task of cleaning up the list would require hard, technical work, but this kind of work was necessary, especially as some delegations seemed to consider that the list in its current form was unmanageable.   TN/TE/R/14 
Page 24  
 
174. The representative of Brazil
 noted that it was necessary to reach an agreement as to what 
exactly was the nature and scope of the exercise to  be undertaken by the Committee.  It seemed that 
some delegations wanted to get into the specific s without first defining th e scope of the mandate.  
For Brazil, this negotiation was not a typical NAMA negotiation, nor a sectoral negotiation.  He noted 
that this was a risk if Members could select the goods, without any criteria, based on their own 
interpretation of what was environmentally sound.  Brazil believed that the added value of the 
mandate was the fact that trade liberalization should be made supportiv e of environmental and 
developmental objectives.   
175. Members needed to have a common understandi ng of the environmental goods and services 
that actually benefited the environment.  In this re gard, he noted that the Committee should be striving 
to match both the list and project approaches.  In  Brazil's view, the project approach was the only 
means of effectively addressing the dual use issue.  It also ensured that goods and services imported 
would have an environmental application and use.  Moreover, the project approach took into account 
the environmental priorities of each Member.   
176. He recognized that it was difficult to have  a common understanding of what may be an 
environmental project, since there was no "one size fits all" solution to the environmental challenges 
faced by Members.  However, a common list of goods  and services that was static and applied equally 
to all Members would not take into consideration th e different national priorities;  only an alternative 
approach, such as the EPA, could provide the nece ssary degree of flexibility.  Brazil noted that the 
EPA could also be matched with a multilaterally ne gotiated component, such as a reference list.   
177. The lack of criteria in the list approach mean t that there was no indication as to how large the 
list could actually get once national tariff schedules we re considered.  Furthermore, the concept of a 
living list required further discussion.  It was not clear to Brazil, for instance, how Members could 
include new items and remove others  from the list.  He wondered wh ether the list would continue to 
evolve towards more efficient technology, always  benefiting the country or company selling such 
technology.  According to Brazil, the issue of a rolling list involved just as much uncertainty and 
unpredictability as the national project list, given the evolving nature of the industry.   
178. Brazil asked whether the Chairman could prov ide a work programme that would include 
elements to define the nature and scope of the ex ercise, and perhaps an alternative to merge the list 
and project approaches, which his delegation considered both useful.   
179. The representative of UNCTAD  noted that UNCTAD's definition of EPPs had been updated 
since 1995;  the current definition excluded PP Ms, and included only products that could be 
distinguished according to their origin and composit ion (e.g. the natural or renewable character of 
their components, and the environmental characteristics that they displayed at the stages of consumption and disposal).  
180. UNCTAD believed that Members had followed an all-inclusive and open-ended approach to 
EPPs, which in its view broadened the scope and scal e of the negotiations.  He noted that UNCTAD's 
idea of introducing EPPs in the negotiations was to use EPPs to balance out the negotiations on 
product coverage, based on the u nderstanding that countries would not accept an outcome where the 
developmental or environmental be nefits would go to one group of  countries, while trade benefits 
would go to another.  He noted that UNCTAD had suggested EPPs as a form of special and differential treatment in the discussions on product cove rage, i.e. for developing countries to be able 
to select a few EPPs of export interest for inclusion on a list.   
181. With regard to NTBs, he noted that there would be no point in including EPPs within the 
scope of the negotiations if delega tions did not find a meaningful way to liberalize trade in these 
goods.  He found that, with very few exceptions, tariff s were not a problem for EPPs.  This meant that  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 25 
 
 
unless delegations addressed the NTBs affecting tr ade in EPPs, the propositions and claims would 
only have a symbolic value.   
182. UNCTAD believed that there was a trend in the Committee to discuss environmental goods 
(and EPPs) in isolation from modalities.  He noted that earlier in the negotiations, delegations had 
made parallel submissions in the CTESS and NAMA, which seemed to suggest that Members 
appreciated the importance of this link.  However, in  his view, there had been an unfortunate reversal 
in this respect.  Furthermore, he noted that the Committee could have chosen at the beginning of the 
negotiations to have delegations s ubmit their lists, and then let Member s engage in the standard tariff 
negotiations in NAMA.  However, th is Committee had chosen to define, ex ante , precisely which 
environmental goods would be negotiated in NAMA, leaving aside the issue of modalities, which he 
believed was particularly important with respect to EPPs.   
183. The representative of the OECD  pointed out that after looking at the entire Harmonized 
System with a fairly narrow definition of EPPs, th e OECD had found hundreds of tariff lines that 
would qualify as environmenta lly preferable products.   
184. The Chairman  said that he wished to offer some  comments on the Information Exchange 
Session that was held on 12 October 2005.  He noted that many delegations had emphasized in 
previous discussions the distinctive character of the negotiations in the CTESS and the triple win 
dimension of the mandate in paragraph 31(iii).  He  thought that the Information Exchange Session 
had resulted in a useful and constructive discussi on, by further exploring the environmental and 
developmental aspects of the mandate.   
185. In order to help structure the discussion, the Chairman had suggested focusing on five areas, 
namely:  Wastewater Management;  Solid and Haza rdous Waste Management;  Air Pollution Control;  
Renewable Energy;  and Environmentally Preferable  Products.  These areas had been identified on the 
basis of the commonalities that were discernible from the positions expressed by Members, both in 
the context of the list and the environmental project approaches, as well as areas of interest mentioned 
by developing countries.  
186. In his view, the discussion had confirmed that not all the products put forward carried the 
same weight for the environment.  Delegations ha d raised some concerns with respect to certain 
products and how they could actually benefit the e nvironment.  On the other hand, certain products, 
groups of products, or systems, on which delegati ons had commented seemed to have a clear linkage 
to environmental protection.  He noted that the i ssue of dual or multiple use of products was at the 
heart of the discussion.  It seemed clear that the questions of how to identify the environmental 
attributes of products, and whether certain products were vital for the environmental purpose that they 
served, would require further attention as Members continued their work under paragraph 31(iii).  It 
was only through a continued exchange based on conc rete examples that Members would be able to 
tackle such issues.   
187. He reminded delegations that only a sub-set of the items listed in the Secretariat's Synthesis 
document were covered under the five areas mentione d, and that a large number of products in other 
categories or in the context of other approaches,  such as the EPA, could also be considered.  
In addition to the environmental and developmental attributes of th e products, many delegations had 
indicated that they wished to discuss trade flow s in these products.  He noted that as discussions 
proceeded in the Committee, Members would n eed to find ways of bringing together the 
development, environment and trade dimensions.  Finally, he emphasized the short time available to 
the Committee to complete its work in order to be able to provide its input to the negotiating groups 
entrusted with the task of reducing or eliminati ng tariffs and NTBs, given that modalities in NAMA 
and Agriculture could be agreed at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.   TN/TE/R/14 
Page 26  
 
188. The representative of Canada
 agreed in general with the Chairman's summary of the 
discussion at the Information Exchange Session.  He found that the meeting was evidence of what 
could be accomplished if delegati ons worked together, focusing on c oncrete issues and products.  He 
indicated that Canada had covered more than 15 0 products out of the 480 items on the list.   
189. He noted that some "sorters" had started to emerge from the discussion.  For instance, there 
were several clearly emerging categories of envi ronmental goods where it was possible to identify 
environmental benefits of specific goods, and also  to identify linkages between goods within and 
among the various sectors or categories.  It also be came clear that it was possible to identify numerous 
products that were used exclusively for environmen tal purposes.  With regard to other products, dual 
use could be acceptable on the premise that the envir onmental usage was critical to the delivery of the 
environmental application.  However, there were  still some dual use goods which required further 
assessment, as their environmental benefit was not sufficiently clear.   
190. Canada indicated that some of the elements  that had emerged from the discussion would be 
helpful in terms of reviewing the list internally, and identifying some operational concepts that could 
be used in future.  He noted that there was a sense of urgency with respect to the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference, and that the Informati on Exchange Session had allowed for the type of 
technical work needed to further define  the universe of environmental goods.   
191. The representative of Chile  said that to analyse products in the abstract, without referring to 
their final environmental use would be a mist ake, and would prevent the Committee from moving 
towards identification.  She thought that the organizat ion of the Information Exchange Session in five 
areas, with interventions from the participants on th e environmental and develo pmental benefits of the 
goods, had helped in gaining a be tter understanding of the use and purpose of many of the products 
listed.  While Chile had participated in the session w ith an open mind, she noted that various concerns 
persisted with regard to the list approach.   
192. Regarding the EPP category, she agreed with Ne w Zealand, Australia, Ecuador and Thailand, 
that goods should be considered only on the basis of their end use.  In Chile's view, it would be useful 
to remove from the list, all the products th at did not comply with this criterion.   
193. She noted the comment by some delegations that the EPP category would mainly benefit 
developing countries.  While it was true that some  of the EPPs on the list were produced mainly by 
developing countries, the trade data available for these goods showed that liberalization would benefit 
mainly developed countries.  Therefore, she noted  that more information concerning tariff barriers 
would be needed, and that the universe of goods id entified would have to be more representative of 
the developing world.   
 
194. Regarding NTBs, she felt that this topic required more discussion as their reduction or 
elimination was also part of the mandate.  She noted that some Members had made an effort to 
demonstrate the synergies between services a nd environmental goods during the Information 
Exchange Session, but this was not sufficient.  More information would be needed from various 
sources, including experts from other internati onal organizations, such as UNCTAD and the OECD, 
in order to encourage Members to make new contributions in the negotiations regarding 
environmental services.   
195. She noted Ecuador's request to have another in formation exchange about products on the list, 
focusing on the trade dimension.  Chile reiterated its view that the treatment of these products would 
be discussed and defined in NAMA.  While her dele gation was not in favour of sectoral approaches, 
she noted that it would still be useful to have deta iled information on tariffs and trade flows, including 
the main exporters and importers for every product.  Chile requested that this kind of information be 
also included in future information exchange sessions, in addition to any information on the subject of 
NTBs, as well as environmental and developmental be nefits of the products not covered in the  TN/TE/R/14 
 Page 27 
 
 
previous Information Exchange Session.  Chile was al so of the view that the classification of products 
into categories would facilitate the analysis of these goods.   
196. The delegate of Brazil  thought that the Information Exch ange Session had helped Members 
understand the rationale behind the lis ts that had been put forward.  However, he recalled that the 
Committee had agreed to participate constructively in  this exercise under the condition that this did 
not prejudge the outcome of the discussions, including on the issue of approach to fulfil the mandate.  
He noted that there was still a lo t of scepticism, and pointed to a lack of sound scientific basis 
regarding the environmental benefits of the goods considered at this session.   
197. The Chairman  recalled that the invitation sent out to delegations for the Information 
Exchange Session stated clearly that all the a pproaches on the table, including the list and the 
environmental project approaches, would be considered in the discussion.   
198. The representative of Korea  thanked the Chairman for his assessment, particularly with 
respect to the need to speed up the negotiation.  He emphasized that the Committee had to focus its 
work in order to deliver results that would feed in to the work of other negotiating groups.  He invited 
other delegations to leave aside tactical moves at this stage, emphasizing that the mandate offered a 
special opportunity for Members to make a differen ce with regard to the potential benefits to 
environment and development.  In this regard, his delegation had found the Information Exchange 
Session useful in terms of taking the work in the ri ght direction.  Korea believed that questions such 
as why a product was an environmental good, or what was the rationale or the benefit of including 
certain products on the list, were encouraging, par ticularly since many of these questions had come 
from developing countries.   
199. He agreed with the Chairm an that some consensus had started to emerge on the 
environmental benefits of certain goods, just as doub ts had been raised regarding other goods.  He 
noted that this type of discussion was the best way to advance in the negotiation.  Korea expected that 
a convergence of views would naturally emerge on the principles, as well as on categories or areas, 
provided the work continued to focus on products.   
200. The representative of Egypt  noted that useful information had been provided by the 
proponents of the lists, regarding namely, the rationale for considering certain products as 
environmental goods.  However, he  believed that a neutral assessment of the use of specific goods 
was also necessary, for instance to determine the percentage of use of a product for a specific purpose, 
or its predominant or partial environmental use.  He noted that an organization like UNIDO, an association of industries or another neutra l body could provide such information.  
201. He agreed with the Chairman on the importanc e of focusing on trade figures, which were 
lacking in many developing countries.  He believ ed that concrete and reliable figures were necessary 
to assess the real benefits from the negotiations.  In  Egypt's view, such information was perhaps more 
important for the negotiations than information on the environmental benefits of products, which 
could be evaluated by environmental experts.   
202. The representative of Cuba
 considered that the session had b een useful to understand the lists, 
but he expressed concern about the fact that the good s on the list had not been sufficiently analysed.  
He thought that it was necessary to explain further th e environmental purpose of the products, in order 
to guarantee sustainable development in accordance  with the mandate, whether the products were 
liberalized as part of a list or project approach.   
203. The representative of Ecuador  indicated that the Information Exchange Session had raised 
some concerns for her delegation, since there were different criteria, environmental justifications and 
interpretations that had been discussed.  She cons idered that the Committee should carry out more TN/TE/R/14 
Page 28  
 
work on this topic, given that there was no consensus regarding the inclusion of any product or category on a list.   
204. The representative of the EC
 agreed with the Chairman's assessment, as well as comments 
made by Korea and other delegations.  In response to the remark by Brazil concerning the need for 
scientific evidence, he noted that it was more a question of factual evidence on how certain products 
were being used, and this was exactly the type of in formation that had been sh ared at the Information 
Exchange Session.  He noted that there was s till some scepticism, and that some products were 
difficult to deal with.  However, he also noted th at the inclusion of certain products had not been 
contested, and that there had been no hesitation am ong the proponents of products as to whether these 
products were environmental.  He t hought this was the type of progr ess that was needed to consolidate 
the work of the Committee.   
205. The representative of China  believed that the informal ex change of information in the 
five areas covered at the Information Exchange Session had been fruitful.  He asked whether it was possible to have more information exchange, and to extend this to the project approach in order to 
understand how it operated.  This could include Memb ers' experience with national policies to protect 
the environment, and different instruments used to encourage environmental projects.  He noted that 
before reaching any conclusion, Members should have a closer look at the effects of such policies on 
trade, also taking into account the perspective of  SMEs as well as consumers.  Members had to 
ensure, which ever the approach followed, that the outcome would fully reflect the triple-win 
objective of the Doha mandate, as well as the c oncerns of developing country Members.   
206. The Chairman
 noted the request from some delegations for more information exchange 
sessions.  He proposed to hold another session that would build upon the experience gained at the 
12 October Information Exchange Session.  He pointed out the need to bring together the 
environment, development and trad e dimensions of the mandate.  Th is could include, for instance, 
information on issues such as tariff data and trad e flows related to specific products;  technology 
transfer;  the effects of imports on the environmen t and development, particularly for rural areas 
(e.g. solar energy, sanitation, etc.);  the importa nce of NTBs;  the question of the inclusion or 
exclusion of products based on envi ronmental considerations;  the ser vices that could be linked to 
products or projects;  as well as products of e xport interest to developing countries.   
207. The CTESS agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc i nvitations issued for that meeting at the next 
formal meeting.4   
__________ 
                                                      
4 The following organizations were invited to participate as ad hoc invitees:  UNEP, UNCTAD, the 
World Customs Organization (WCO), the OECD, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary 
Movements of Hazardous Wa stes and their Disposal, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain 
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in  International Trade, the Stockholm  Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants (POPs Convention) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).