WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/12 
20 July 2005 
 (05-3239) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF 
THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT 
TO THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE 
  
1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) with an 
overview of the progress made in the trade and e nvironment negotiations und er Paragraph 31 of the 
Doha Development Agenda (DDA) until July 2005. 
I. STATUS OF WORK 
2. Since the commencement of the negotiations, the CTESS has held twelve formal meetings, as 
well as several informal ones.  Under Paragraphs 31(i) and (iii) in particular, a large number of 
proposals were submitted by delegations.
1  While Paragraph 31(ii) has also been discussed, it has 
received less attention than othe r parts of the mandate.  As the Committee's work progressed, it 
became clear in the beginning of this year that Members wished to focus on Paragraph 31(iii), with a 
view to making progress by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  This was without prejudice to other parts of the mandate, which Members remained fully committed to.  The focus on 
Paragraph 31(iii) has certainly intensified and, as I told Members during the last CTESS meeting, I 
am pleased with their very active engagement and the numerous new submissions that have been received.   
Paragraphs 31(i) and (ii) 
3. With respect to Paragraph 31(i), the CTESS first attempted to develop a common 
understanding of the negotiating mandate.  Various terms contained in the mandate were explored, 
such as "specific trade obligation" (STO) and "mu ltilateral environmental agreement" (MEA).  In 
parallel, discussions on potential outcomes for negotiati ons were also held.  In the past year, Members 
embarked on an exercise of sharing their nati onal experiences in the negotiation and domestic 
implementation of STOs in MEAs.  This has entailed explaining how their domestic policy 
formulation process takes place in areas involving a WTO-MEA interface, and how that process is 
reflected on the international plane.  This exercise has been fruitful.  I would note two points in its 
regard:  first, that numerous delegations have yet to  contribute to it;  and, second, that Members need 
to consider what lessons, if any, can be drawn th at could contribute to fulfilment of  the mandate 
under Paragraph 31(i). 
4. The proposals made with regard to potential outcomes are on principles to govern the 
relationship between the WTO and MEAs, and, on a mechanism for "mutual supportiveness and 
deference" between the WTO and MEAs, where both regimes would complement each other in their 
areas of competence.  Both these suggestions app ear to embrace the notion that while no WTO-MEA 
conflict has arisen to date, there is a need for the WTO to en sure that future conflicts are prevented.   
The CTESS has yet to engage in a substantive discussi on of proposed outcomes.  As the work of the 
Committee progresses on this delicate part of the manda te, I would urge all Members to reflect on the 
views expressed, and to work towards finding common ground.   
                                                     
 
1 See document TN/TE/INF/4/Rev.6, dated 11 July 2005, for a full list of the submissions made. TN/TE/12 
Page 2  
 
 5. With respect to Paragraph 31(ii), Members have  referred on a number of occasions to the list 
of ideas for greater information exchange and co-o peration between the WTO and MEAs contained in 
document TN/TE/7.  I believe that the time has now come to explore these ideas, and any other that may be proposed by Members, in detail, as well as to discuss the nature of the instrument that could 
emerge as the outcome of this part of the mandate. 
6. I would also like to note that, several delega tions have pointed to the synergies between 
Paragraphs 31(i) and (ii) of th e negotiating mandate.  The source of these synergies has been fairly 
clear:  with greater cooperation and information exchange between the WTO and MEAs, and with 
criteria for the granting of observer status in the WTO to relevant organizations, the WTO-MEA relationship could be stre ngthened, and potential conflicts possibl y averted.  I believe that these 
synergies would merit further exploration in future. 
Paragraph 31(iii) 
7. With respect to Paragraph 31(iii), very early on in the negotiations delegations recognized 
that there was some overlapping of the mandates of the CTESS and other negotiating bodies.
2  Since 
then the CTESS's work focussed on clarifying the concept of an environmental good, based on the 
submissions of the Members. 
8. In total, nine lists of environmental goods ha ve been tabled by delegations, and are now 
before the Committee.3  While there appears to be some elements of convergence among these lists, 
in-depth analysis and intensive technical work would be required for progress to be made.  I am 
hopeful that, with intensification of work, a set of environmental goods could slowly begin to emerge.  
In parallel to the submission of lists, some Member s have also shared their ideas on different aspects 
of the negotiations.  For instance, a few submissions have addressed the potential structure of an 
environmental goods list (in particular, whether there would need to be one list or more), and whether 
a WTO list would need to be kept "alive" so as to be able to incorporate new products that may be 
agreed upon in future. 
9. Recently, a Member has come forward with an alternate approach for the negotiations;  one 
that it has labelled the "environmental project appr oach."  Members would identify at the national 
level the environmental goods and services that they wish to liberalize for the purposes of 
environmental projects.  Such projects could incl ude those aimed at meeti ng national environmental 
objectives as well as objectives of any bilateral or multila teral environmental agreement.  It has also 
been suggested that the broad criteria for "envir onmental projects" could be agreed upon in the 
CTESS with due consideration to the po licy space of national governments.   
10. I welcome, as all Members have done, all subm issions, and hope that common ground will 
soon be found among the list approach to environm ental goods, the environmental project approach, 
and other methodologies that Members may wish to consider.   
II. FUTURE WORK BETWEEN NOW A ND THE HONG KONG MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE 
11. I am deeply conscious, as are most delegations, th at there is very little time left between now 
and the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  Hen ce, I particularly welcome the call by many 
Members, at the last CTESS meeting, for an inte nsification of work, and to focus the work on the 
mandate contained in Paragraph 31(iii).  After the summer break, the CTESS will need to use its time 
                                                      
2  See document TN/TE/1 dated 12 April 2002. 
3 These have been submitted by New Zealand, the Un ited States, Qatar, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Korea, 
the European Communities, Canada and Switzerland.  TN/TE/12 
 Page 3 
 
 
 judiciously to discuss the details of the products that could be designated as “environmental goods”, 
as well as to delve further into the “environmental pr oject approach”.  I intend to consult on a suitable 
timetable and structure for the CTESS' work, so that  delegations may better focus their deliberations 
and contribute to the negotiations.  The Hong Kong Ministerial Conference remains an important 
target date for progress on Paragraph 31(iii). 
__________