RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/21 
29 April 2008 
 
 (08-2066) 
Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session  
  
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE TWENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
1-2 NOVEMBER 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat
 
  
1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Sp ecial Session (CTESS) held its twenty-first 
meeting on 1-2 November 2007 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/3100. 
2. The following international organizations  were invited to participate as ad hoc  invitees:  the 
United Nations Environment Programme;  th e United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development;  the World Customs Organization;  the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development;  the Basel Convention on the Cont rol of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 
Wastes and their Disposal;  the Convention on Inte rnational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora;  the Rotterdam Convention on th e Prior Informed Consen t Procedure for Certain 
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in Internatio nal Trade;  and the Stockholm Convention on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants;  the Convention on Biological Diversity;  the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;  and the United Nations Framew ork Convention on Climate 
Change.   
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 
3. The Chairman
 noted that no new submissions had been presented under this agenda item.  
Reporting on his consultations under Paragraph 31(i), he said that dele gations seemed ready to engage 
in a focused discussion of the proposals on the tabl e, on an element-by-element basis.  He had 
identified four main items which covered key point s from Members' proposals for an outcome.  These 
items were:  (1) reference to the mandate;  (2) observations drawn from CTESS discussions on 
specific trade obligations (STOs) in MEAs;  (3) the importance of internal coordination in the 
negotiation and implementation of ME As and the value of national expe rience sharing in this regard; 
and (4) the use of MEA expertise in the context of  dispute settlement.  To assist delegations in the 
discussions, the Secretariat had prepared a compilation of elements drawn from Members' proposals 
in respect of these four items.   
4. He emphasized that these items were by no means exhaustive.  The objective was to stimulate 
a discussion of elements that could be reflected in  an outcome under Paragraph 31(i).  He noted that 
while some of the ideas put forward already garner ed broad support, others  would require further 
discussion.  The Chair said he would continue his c onsultations in the coming weeks on this part of 
the mandate in an inclusive manner.  TN/TE/R/21 
Page 2  
 
  II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  PROCEDURES FOR REGULAR INFORMATION 
EXCHANGE BETWEEN MEA SECRETARIATS AND THE RELEVANT COMMITTEES, AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANTING OF OBSERVER STATUS 
5. The Chairman
 noted that there had been extensive discussions on the "Elements of a Draft 
Text under Paragraph 31(ii)" and recalled that the last  version of the document had been circulated to 
Members in early July.  Overall, the paper had matu red to a point where it provided a good basis from 
which to develop an outcome, although a few outstandi ng questions would require further discussion.  
The Chairman reported that since July he had focused  his attention on other parts of the Paragraph 31 
mandate to ensure that work in all areas continued to progress in parallel.  He intended to resume his 
consultations on the "Elements" paper unde r Paragraph 31(ii) in due course.   
6. The representative of the Convention on Intern ational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora  (CITES) reported that during the m onth of June 2007 the CITES Standing 
Committee and its Conference of the Parties (COP) ha d met at the Hague in the Netherlands.  These 
meetings had resulted in a number of policy decisi ons that had some implications for cooperation 
between the CITES and the WTO.  These developments  were also relevant to the WTO "Matrix on 
trade measures pursuant to selected Multilateral E nvironmental Agreements (MEAs)", which had 
been updated by the WTO Secretariat in March 2007.1  She noted that background documents, reports 
and resolutions of decisions were access ible on CITES' website (www.cites.org). 
7. The representative of CITES said that at its 55th Session, the Standing Committee had decided 
that its Chairman would write again to the WTO to request observer status for the CITES in the 
General Council and other WTO bodies which th e Standing Committee deemed relevant.  The 
Standing Committee had also decided that with the support of the Secretariat, it would work with the 
WTO to develop a cooperative Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between CITES and the 
WTO.  At its 14th meeting, the COP had adopted a legally bi nding set of amendments to the lists of 
species covered by the Convention.  These amendmen ts reflected additions to, and deletions from the 
lists, as well as increased and decreased protection fo r various species, and annotations on how certain 
parts and derivatives would be handled.   
8. Significantly, the COP had also adopted a new CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013, which 
sought to enhance cooperation with relevant intern ational and environmenta l trade and development 
organisations to ensure that the CITES and other multilateral instruments and processes were coherent 
and mutually supportive.  The COP had also ad opted a guide on CITES compliance procedures and 
guidelines on the management of nationally estab lished export quotas.  The COP had paid greater 
attention to the socio-economic context in whic h the Convention operated by adopting decisions 
which addressed CITES and livelihoods of the poor, further work on national wildlife trade policy 
reviews, incentives for implementation of the Conven tion and the promotion of multilateral measures.   
9. Other decisions adopted by the COP were aimed at ensuring that the lists of species covered 
by the Convention correctly reflected their conser vation needs and that the determinations as to 
whether particular trade is sustainable were based on the best available scientific information.  For the 
first time in the history of CITES the Netherlands  had organised a parallel ministerial roundtable 
which had produced a chairman's report on the cont ribution of CITES to the broader biodiversity and 
sustainable development agenda, as well as mean s for strengthening its implementation and 
enforcement and its role regardi ng timber and marine species.   
10. The representative thanked the WTO secretariat for inviting CITES to participate in a WTO 
Trade and Environment Workshop for Asian and Paci fic Economies held in New Delhi, India and for 
                                                      
1 TN/TE/S/5/Rev.2.    TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
  helping them to arrange the par ticipation and presentation by the CITES management authority of 
India at that workshop.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31(III):  THE REDUCTION OR, AS APPROPRIATE, ELIMINATION 
OF TARIFF AND NON-TARIFF BARRIERS TO ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
11. The Chairman
 drew Members' attention to the non-pape rs circulated by the delegations of 
Brazil2 and Peru3 under this agenda item.   
Non-Paper by Brazil 
12. The representative of Brazil  said that their non-paper w as the result of an internal 
coordination process aimed at finding a solution that  could move forward the debate in the CTESS 
beyond the definition of environmenta l goods.  In addition, the non-pa per also intended to reflect the 
developmental perspective of the Doha Round, which could be translated in the CTESS as sustainable 
development.   
13. For developing countries, such a pers pective would imply an outcome under 
Paragraph 31 (iii) which took into account Member s' export interests and not only their import 
interests.  An approach focused  exclusively on the dimension of importation, as the list approach 
suggested, would amount to treating equally countri es that had different priorities.  In Brazil's 
opinion, the list approach was based on the assump tion that all the goods identified would have a 
beneficial impact on the environment, irrespective of  each country's specificity.  The list did not take 
into account issues of paramount importance fo r developing countries, such as the need for 
conciliating liberalization with the preservation of policy space that would allow Members to create 
and develop their own environmental goods industry.   
14. To this end, two types of negotiating mechanis ms were proposed, namely a request and offer 
approach, and a basket of concessions.  As far as th e legal framework of the outcome was concerned, 
Brazil noted that schedules in Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) and Agriculture would 
incorporate the products suggested.  Members woul d include the goods and concessions made in the 
CTESS in their national schedules without classifying them as environmental goods.  
15. In the spirit of introducing into the debate deve loping countries' export interests, the Brazilian 
submission also put forward proposals on the reduction of non-tariff barriers (NTB s), especially in the 
field of organically produced foods.  He noted that the proliferation of standards for the certification 
of such products constituted one of the main barrier s for developing countries' exports in those goods.  
Brazil suggested that the WTO and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)/Codex 
Alimentarius Commission (Codex) act in cooperatio n with a view to harmonizing those standards. 
16. Therefore, Brazil had proposed that WTO request  Codex to analyse the possibility of further 
detailing or reviewing the existing guidelines.  Brazil understood that some countries were not 
Members of Codex or had not participated in the ne gotiation of the guidelines.  In light of this, Codex 
would have to define the starting point for such harmonization.  Brazil remained open to suggestions 
in this regard.  The ultimate objective would be th at Members comply with Codex provisions when 
legislating on the certification for organically produced foods.   
17. Finally, with respect to the transfer of tec hnology, the proposal was intended as an incentive 
for Members to engage in a debate on possible me chanisms for technology transfer, which was an 
                                                      
2 JOB(07)/146, 1 October 2007.  
3 JOB(07)/161, 30 October 2007. TN/TE/R/21 
Page 4  
 
  important aspect in the realm of these negotiations.  To this end, Brazil had proposed to start with the 
technologies inherent to the goods subject to trade liberalization in the CTESS.   
18. The representative of India
 thanked Brazil for explaining some of the features of its proposal, 
and said he wished to seek additional informati on.  Brazil's proposal supposed that each Member's 
final concessions could be for uni que products.  He noted that this  had been one of the concerns 
behind India's project approach.  In his delegation' s view, it should be up to Members to determine 
what products they considered useful for the environment.   
19. Brazil had made the point that the process of requests and offers needed not wait for the 
classification of goods as environmental.  This answered  one of the questions raised in the past as to 
how negotiations could go forward without a co mmon understanding of what environmental goods 
were.   
20. India shared Brazil's view that the mandate did not exclude agricultural goods.  However, 
India had some defensive concerns in Agriculture.  In  this regard, he sought further clarification as to 
how the tariff concessions agreed in the negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii) would impact instruments like special products and special  safeguard measures in Agriculture.   
21. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 complimented Brazil for its non-paper.  His delegation 
would have to reflect further on the PPM issue but wanted to seek clarification on a number of points.  First, Brazil had suggested that Members shoul d adopt Codex standards for organic foods once 
developed.  Chinese Taipei asked Brazil whether this  meant that Members should use such standards 
as a basis, or replicate them into their national sta ndards.  He also asked if Brazil's proposal required 
automatic recognition of the conformity assessment of the exporting country.   
22. With respect to the request and offer process, the representative sought further clarification as 
to which of the traditional request and offer or b asket approach would, in Brazil's view, be more 
appropriate in the context of these negotiations.  Moreover, his delegation wondered whether under 
the basket approach, Brazil envisaged some benc hmark to ensure meaningful participation of 
Members.   
23. The representative of Egypt
 congratulated Brazil for its proposal, which he considered to be a 
positive contribution to CTESS work.  In particular , Egypt welcomed the f act that the proposal 
highlighted the objective of sustainable developmen t within the negotiations, as well as developing 
countries' export interests.  He noted that these aspects had not been dealt with adequately in the past.  
The request-offer process provided enough flexibility fo r developing country Members to engage in a 
more concrete discussion of their offensive and de fensive interests with respect to environmental 
goods and services.   
24. Another positive aspect of the proposal was its focus on NTBs, which was another issue that 
had not been given sufficient attention in previous di scussions.  It had been widely recognised, also in 
other committees, that standardisation and conform ity of organic products was an important issue for 
many developing country Members.  There had be en discussions within the African Group about the 
fact that organically-produced goods were facing diff erent layers of requirements that were sometimes 
overlapping or conflicting.  It was therefore a significant step to take this discussion to an 
internationally recognized body such as Codex, in  order to establish the right standards at the 
international level, and discuss how this could wo rk to the benefit of producers in developing 
countries.   
25. The part of the submission dealing with Special and Differential Treatment (S&D) would 
need further development and discussion;  this w as a question that would demand some creativity on 
the part of the membership.  In the context of the CTESS' mandate, S&D would have to go beyond  TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 5 
 
 
  longer implementation periods.  Members would ha ve to come up with a mechanism that would 
provide the necessary policy space, while at the same  time sensitizing Members to the importance of 
environmental objectives.   
26. Egypt welcomed the fact that Brazil's non-paper highlighted the issue of technology transfer 
and made it part of Paragraph 31(iii) discussions.  This was a challenging issue for the Committee.  
There had been some discussions in the Worki ng Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology on 
where to draw the line between private holders of  technology and governmental action to encourage 
technology transfer.  This raised questions re lating to intellectual property regulations and 
requirements.   
27. Egypt recognized there was an inherent difficulty in defining the universe of goods and 
services that related to the environment.  Unilatera l determination was welcomed but there was a need 
for more discussion on how this could work in practi ce.  Egypt shared some of the points raised by 
Chinese Taipei regarding the part of the proposal on NTBs, in particular the need to define what 
Codex could do and how its work related to the CTESS discussions.   
28. The representative of Singapore  thanked Brazil for the new subm ission.  In her delegation's 
view, Paragraph 31(iii) was a multilateral mandate.  In this regard, all Members needed to contribute, 
taking into account the development needs of deve loping countries to fulfil the mandate.  The list 
approach and the modalities that had been pr oposed by some Members in the CTESS and NAMA 
would facilitate the meeting of this mandate.  Nevertheless, Singapore was open to discussing the 
Brazilian proposal as an alternative means of fulf illing the Paragraph 31(iii) mandate.  The request 
and offer procedure had been used in the Uruguay Ro und for goods;  it was also the modality that was 
being used in ongoing Services negotiations.  Singa pore asked how this approach would help ensure 
that all Members were able to contribute at a comparable level of concessions with respect to environmental goods, as would be the case under the list approach. 
29. Singapore supported Brazil's view that biofuels were environmental prod ucts that could be 
beneficial to both developed and developing country Members.  However, her delegation had been 
surprised by Brazil's point in its non-paper that biof uels had been left out completely in previous 
discussions under Paragraph 31(iii).  She recalled th at biodiesel was included in some of the initial 
lists of environmental goods tabled in the CTESS.
4  Singapore asked Brazil whether it considered 
biodiesel to be part of the biofuels family.   
30. The representative of Korea  joined other Members in expressing sincere appreciation to 
Brazil for providing new input to Paragraph 31(iii ) discussions.  She noted that her delegation's 
understanding from the negotiations had been that CTESS was to negotiate th e product coverage of 
environmental goods, while the modality for liberal ization fell within the competence of the NAMA 
Group with respect to goods, and Services Group with respect to environmental services.  She noted 
that the Brazilian proposal suggested to add agricu ltural goods under the mandate.  Korea agreed with 
Brazil that there was nothing in the mandate that pr ohibited the inclusion of agricultural products in 
the discussions.  However, since the beginning of  the Doha negotiations, CTESS' work had been 
linked to NAMA.   
31. With respect to the issue of product treatment, Korea appreciated that Brazil might be able to 
provide further clarification;  she noted that th ese ideas could be communicated in writing in order to 
help delegations' understanding.  Korea's understanding was that Brazil was proposing to discuss 
treatment in the context of the request-offer process.   If this was the case, she asked whether it would 
be up to requesting Members or offering Members to  request or propose the modality.  If Brazil's 
intention was that the CTESS as a whole discussed a general formula, including flexibilities to be 
                                                      
4 See TN/TE/W/63.   TN/TE/R/21 
Page 6  
 
  applied to environmental goods that would be identified by Members voluntarily, then Korea 
wondered how this work would link with  Agriculture and NAMA negotiations.   
32. Korea sought clarification as to when would be the right time for Members to offer or request 
products and their treatment, i.e. whether this woul d take place after other groups had decided on the 
formula, taking the formula as a basis to discu ss the modality for environmental goods.  Some 
Members had made the point in previous CTESS discussions that the negotiation under 
Paragraph 31(iii) was not a "NAMA plus" exercise.  Therefore, Korea wondered if it was Brazil's 
intention to seek an "Agriculture plus" result under Paragraph 31(iii).   
33. Korea noted that it had already expressed its concerns regarding the inclusion of organic 
agricultural products given their relationship to th e issue of process and production methods (PPMs) 
in the WTO context.  She noted that it would be difficult to differentiate these products at customs 
without some kind of certification scheme.  Ko rea understood this was the reason why Brazil was 
suggesting in the latter part of its proposal that  the Committee recommend that Codex create generally 
applied guidelines.  Korea asked whether the CTESS w as the right forum to do so.  The representative 
asked Brazil how it envisaged implementation by Memb ers once organic products would be subject to 
tariff preferences, i.e. whether each Member would apply its own certification scheme or some kind 
of organic labelling.   
34. The representative of Japan
 welcomed Brazil's non-paper as constructive, especially as it 
suggested to make progress in Paragraph 31(iii) ne gotiations by concentrating efforts on specific 
products.  Japan said it wished to seek clarificati on from Brazil on certain aspects of the proposal.  
First, Japan wondered how to ensure that request s and offers would be based on the environmental 
benefit of the products.  In particul ar, would it be up to the requesting or offering countries to evaluate 
whether the results of the negotiations were credible  from an environmental point of view.  He asked 
whether some boundaries could be agreed upon in th e context of a request-offer negotiation with 
respect to products, in order to prevent situations  where Members might identify some products that 
would not be acceptable, such as, for instan ce, hazardous wastes.  Moreover, Japan sought 
clarification as to whether Brazil acknowledged that dual use  products could be liberalized as long as 
requesting and offering countries agreed.   
35. Regarding Brazil's proposal on the basket of c oncessions, Japan sought clarification as to how 
the basket approach differed from the request and offer approach.  In the context of the basket 
approach, did Brazil expect each country to offer pr oducts that it wanted to liberalize?  If so, how 
would the products included in the basket be trea ted?  Japan noted that the proponents' "potential 
convergence set"5 had been produced through a sort of re quest and offer process, and asked whether 
Brazil recognized the proponents' set as being part of this basket.   
36. Japan recalled that his delegation was agains t including biofuels, because Japan did not 
support the inclusion of agricultural products as envi ronmental goods.  Furthermore, he noted that it 
was difficult at present to distinguish between biofuels and non-biofuels at customs.   
37. Japan appreciated Brazil's effort to come up w ith specific proposals on NTBs.  His delegation 
hoped that this would encourage other delegations to present their own proposals on NTBs, based on 
specific products.  Since Japan was against the u se of PPM-based criteria to identify environmental 
goods, it disagreed with the inclusion of organic produc ts.  Interested Members could turn directly to 
Codex to develop standards for organic agricultu re and there was no need for WTO to make any 
specific request in this regard.   
                                                      
5 Job(07)/54.    TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 7 
 
 
  38. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the fact that with this non-paper, 
Brazil was engaging seriously in the negotiations, th ereby underlining the importance of an outcome 
which supported the goal of sustainable development.   He noted that one of the concerns of his 
delegation in recent years had been the lack of engagement on the part of important Members on trade and environment.   
39. The EC shared some of the concerns expressed by Korea.  His delegation had been working 
on the assumption that Paragraph 31(iii) negotiations were focusing on non-agricultural products, and 
that while the determination of the scope of produc ts would be carried out in CTESS, the subsequent 
negotiated modalities would be determined in th e NAMA negotiations.  These assumptions had been 
to some extent turned on their head by the Brazilian proposal, wh ich suggested that agricultural 
products should be included, and that the moda lity aspect should be discussed in CTESS.  This 
presented a major shift in emphasis and approach at a late stage in the negotiation.  Moreover, he 
noted that the EC was against the inclusion of ag ricultural products in gene ral, and biofuels in 
particular, as these were being covered in Agriculture negotiations.   
40. Nevertheless, the EC was ready to work further on certain aspects of the Brazilian proposal.  
His delegation was not entirely closed to the idea of a request and offer approach, although recent 
experience with this process in WTO had not alwa ys been positive.  His delegation was open to 
considering this particular modality of negotiation as a complement rather than as an alternative to the 
development of a common, multilaterally agreed lis t of environmental goods.  He asked for some 
clarification and confirmation from Brazil that the request and offer approach was not being proposed 
at this late stage as an alternative to the aim of  establishing a common list of environmental goods for 
MFN liberalization.   
41. Brazil had pointed out that it was difficult to  agree on what environmental goods were, and 
that the request-offer approach would sidestep the question of definition by allowing each Member to 
unilaterally determine what it considered to be an  environmental good.  This approach did not get 
around the fundamental problem of what was an environmental good.  In fact, it made it harder to 
arrive at some common understanding and definition.   
42. In addition, there was a practical  issue regarding timing.  Requ est and offer negotiations were 
cumbersome and slow, and his delegation wondered about the feasibility of starting out on a new negotiating track at this point in time.   
43. Finally, the EC welcomed the importance th at Brazil attached to NTBs and technology 
transfer in their proposal.  His delegation was rea dy to work further on these issues to see what could 
be done in practical terms, and whether some kind of rules or guidelines could form part of the 
outcome to this exercise.   
44. The representative of Ecuador
 said that a great deal of time and effort had gone into 
negotiations on this part of the D oha mandate.  The complexity of achieving a holistic vision of the 
mandate, including on environmental goods and services, NTBs linked to the access of environmental 
goods and S&D treatment for developing country Me mbers, was further accent uated by the absence 
of a definition of environmental goods and the lack of criteria to identify such goods.  This explained 
why, to date, the issues of coverage a nd treatment had not yet been settled.   
45. The list approach, which several delegations c onsidered as the only way of complying with 
the mandate, although pragmatic, presen ted many inherent difficulties.  For instance, the list did not 
provide a holistic response for complying with the mandate, nor did it address the issue of multiple 
use of goods.  Moreover, it suggested a mandatory sectoral approach while it had been agreed in the 
context of NAMA negotiations that sectoral initiatives would be voluntary.  Th e integrated approach 
of India and Argentina had provided a substantia l contribution to the negotiation, precisely for its TN/TE/R/21 
Page 8  
 
  holistic approach and sustainable development pers pective.  However, more information would be 
required on how such an approach could be implemented at the multilateral level.   
46. Her delegation was surprised by EC's comment that there was a presumption that coverage 
excluded agricultural products, since the EC itself had included some agricultural products in its 
initial list of environmental goods.  With respect to  coverage, Ecuador had on several occasions noted 
the importance of reaching a balanced outcome for developing country Members, many of which did 
not have offensive interests in goods with a high tech nological content.  One way of dealing with this 
concern was to open the negotiations to organic pr oducts, provided NTBs were also being addressed 
in parallel.  Otherwise, she noted, there would be no real market access.   
47. Brazil's proposal addressed the issue of NTBs by suggesting to request the Codex Committee 
to develop standards for organic products which co uld then be adopted by each Member.  Ecuador 
was interested to hear views from developed count ry Members on this proposal, as it had important 
implications with respect to the develo pment dimension of the Doha Round.   
48. The issue of PPMs was often used by developed countries to restrict ma rket access for some 
products based on environmental, labour, sanitary or ph ytosanitary criteria, among others.  Substantial 
problems could result from a lack of common and pred ictable international standards.  The modality 
based on requests and offers that had been proposed  by Brazil was a pragmatic one.  The advantage 
being that each country could put forward products which it believed were environmental in nature, 
and that others could choose to accept or refuse to liberalize such goods in line with their own 
sustainable development criteria.   
49. Ecuador sought some additional information on how  the round of offers would work to ensure 
a balance of concessions that took into account deve lopment levels.  This would mean that Members 
had to agree on a list of environmental goods for future concessions includin g both agricultural and 
industrial ones.   
50. In its proposal, Brazil also addressed the issu e of criteria, which Ecuador considered 
important to identify environmental goods.  She noted  that there had been many difficulties in this 
regard so far, as Members had been  unable to define objective criteria.  One criterion considered was 
that of end use, but there were other criteria whic h raised questions with respect to dual or multiple 
use.  Therefore, Ecuador considered that criteria relating to sustainable deve lopment could be applied 
by countries in line with their own principles and regulations, the multilatera l agreements they had 
ratified, and their development priorities.   
51. With respect to S&D treatment, Ecuador be lieved that it was inherent to the modality 
proposed by Brazil.  Technical cooperation and t echnology transfer were also essential to achieve 
effective market access, and these questions w ould have to be explored further.   
52. Finally, with respect to biofuels, she noted that these could be considered as environmental 
goods if they were sustainably produced.  Howeve r, she noted that her delegation did not have a 
definitive position on the matter given the ongoing deba te regarding the potentia l impact of biofuels 
on food security and biodiversity.   
53. The representative of Norway
 said that the new proposal by Brazil gave an important impulse 
for an active engagement in future work on this pa rt of the mandate.  Norway had on earlier occasions 
called upon other Members to define and table their export interests.  With its proposal, Brazil had 
made an important effort in this regard.  She no ted that all Members faced major challenges regarding 
the environment and development.  In its propo sal, Brazil had highlighted some crucial aspects 
regarding sustainable development in developing co untries.  It had emphasized, for instance, that  TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 9 
 
 
  developing countries should not reproduce the pattern s of energy consumption and natural resources 
depletion of developed country Members.   
54. With respect to biofuels, it was of the utmost importance that economic, social and 
environmental criteria be taken into consideration, and that sustainable standards be secured.  Criteria 
and standards for organic agriculture and environmen t were already established to a certain extent and 
further development in this direction was an inter esting topic to explore.  Norway wanted to do its 
part in international efforts to establish releva nt international guidelines and recognized the 
importance for all Members to pa rticipate in this effort.   
55. There were still issues to explore with regard to the inclusion of PPM-based criteria for the 
identification of environmental goods, in particular fro m the point of view of customs classification.  
There were also challenges that had to be solved  such as climate change and identifying sustainable 
sources of energy, which might prove difficult if Me mbers were not to take production methods into 
account.  Norway would welcome additional inform ation from Brazil on how the proposed standards 
for organically-produced foods related to the discussion on the use of PPM-based criteria.   
56. Noting from previous experience that the request-offer process could be time consuming and 
present some technical challenges, Norway emph asized the need for a marker regarding the 
environmental content and result.  Another concer n was transparency in the negotiations.  Norway 
wondered whether a request-offer process would ensure  that environmental goods were treated in line 
with the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).  Finally, the representative said that th e issue of S&D treatment 
would play a central role in the negotiations and that  her delegation would be pa rt of the discussion of 
different solutions in this regard.   
57. The representative of Australia  welcomed Brazil's request and offer approach to the 
negotiations under Paragraph 31 (iii).  The proposal  suggested a possible means by which trade 
liberalisation in environmental goods could finally  be achieved and, as such, merited careful 
consideration.  Like others, Austra lia had a number of questions regarding the approach.  In particular, 
the representative sought clarification regarding the di fferences or similarities between the request and 
offer approach and the basket approach, and th e process for making these approaches operational.  
Australia also emphasised the need to ensure that the mechanism woul d deliver a credible outcome for 
the environment.  Her delegation was flexible as to  how this could be done but took note of Japan's 
comment regarding hazardous waste.  Australia w ould have some concerns with a completely 
open-ended request and offer mechan ism.  There needed to be some  multilateral consideration of the 
products to be liberalized on the basis that they were environmental goods.   
58. Her delegation also needed to be confident th at the process would deliver an outcome on trade 
liberalisation across the board.  This referred to th e treatment issue that had been raised by other 
delegations.  Developmental concerns  were an important part of the range of issues that Members had 
to take into consideration in the discussions.  In th is regard, Australia recognised that the request and 
offer process, with its flexibility, did have some positive elements.   
59. The representative reiterated her delegation's c oncerns regarding the possible inclusion of 
biofuels as environmental goods unde r Paragraph 31(iii).  Whether biof uels could be considered as 
environmental goods was still an open and controversia l question.  It was also possible, as others had 
noted, that biofuels be classified as environmental goods on a PPM basis.  Australia reiterated its concerns about introducing PPM-based methodology into the negotiations.  PPMs reflected the 
specific economic, social and environmental conditions  of individual countries and, as such, were best 
dealt with at the national level rather than in th e WTO.  Moreover, there were fundamental concerns 
that PPMs could be used as an artificial trade ba rrier, which would potentially defeat the purpose of 
the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii) in relation to trade liberalisation.   TN/TE/R/21 
Page 10  
 
  60. With respect to Brazil's proposal on organi cs, Australia noted that Codex had already 
developed standards for organically-produced foods .  She recalled that Codex production guidelines 
for organically produced goods had been adopted in 1999 and sought further information from Brazil 
about the relationship between its proposal and the guidelines that Codex had developed.  With 
respect to Brazil's point that WTO Members would ha ve to adopt Codex guidelines, she noted that for 
Australia, such standards would operate under the SPS Agreement in the same manner as any other 
measure adopted by a Member.  Australia would be concerned if there was some attempt to alter the 
balance of rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement.   
61. The representative of Colombia
 thanked Brazil for its proposal  which underlined important 
concerns of developing country Members.  For his delegation, the list approach did not guarantee the 
environmental use of the multiple use go ods targeted under Paragraph 31(iii).   
62. With respect to biofuels and organic products, Colombia agreed with Brazil that such goods 
presented an opportunity for developing country Members.  Therefore, any solution under Paragraph 31(iii) would have to in clude such products.  Given world consumption trends with regard 
to organics, there was a need to promote tr ade facilitation for these products by establishing 
international rules that were harmonized and impl emented by all Members.  Therefore, Colombia 
shared Brazil's view regarding the need to prom ote the harmonization of such standards through 
Codex.  This would lend credence to the discourse to support development and to cater for the needs 
of countries that had small, trad itional agricultural production.   
63. He noted that the request and offer process could be a useful, complementary approach, 
as long as the products liberalized presented a genuine and verifiable environmental benefit.  In this 
regard, there was a need for specific criteria to en sure that the products identified would in fact 
comply with environmental objectives and help address environmental concerns.   
64. Finally, Colombia highlighted the importan ce of promoting access to new environmental 
technologies, especially for developing country Members.   In particular, his delegation was interested 
in the possibility of establishing a mechanism to fac ilitate the transfer of technology with respect to 
environmental goods subject to liberalization.   
65. The representative of Cuba
 thanked Brazil for its proposal.  Her delegation shared the views 
expressed by Ecuador regarding the definition of environmen tal goods, as well as biofuels.  In Cuba's 
view, biofuels should not be incl uded as environmental goods.  She noted that some biofuels were 
produced on the basis of primary products which rai sed concerns with respect  to food security in 
developing countries, given the increase in prices or the reduction of goods in international markets.  
Some studies had demonstrated scientifically the nega tive impact of biofuels production not only with 
respect to animal and feed stuffs, but also as regard s to deforestation and world water consumption.   
66. She recalled that Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration reaffirmed Members' commitment to 
the objective of sustainable development, as stat ed in the Preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the WTO.  It also emphasized the n eed to ensure support between an open multilateral 
trading system and the protection of the environmen t and promotion of sustainable development.   
67. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked Brazil for their useful and constructive 
proposal.  His delegation had some concerns regarding the request and offer approach.  
He acknowledged Brazil's point about the flexibility of this approach, particularly with respect to the 
defensive interests of developing country Members.  However, there were concerns with respect to 
the timing, the procedural complexity, the MFN nature of the outcome, as well as the resources 
implications, especially for small delegations.  Th ere was also the question of how to ensure the 
environmental benefits of the products identifie d as a result of the request and offer process.  
In particular, he noted that it would be useful to  have further clarification on the proposed procedure  TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 11 
 
 
  and the estimated time required for such a process, at least with respect to the first round of requests 
and offers.  His delegation had doubts as to whet her the request-offer approach could deliver any 
meaningful outcome to the mandate.  His delegatio n continued to support the list approach, but was 
open to considering whether the request-offer process  could be used as a complementary approach.   
68. Hong Kong, China had no objection in principl e to biofuels, but noted the controversy 
surrounding these goods, especially as regards to the economic and social impacts of biofuels.  
He looked forward to further justification from Braz il as regards to the benefits of including biofuels 
in the negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii).   
69. The representative of Chile  thanked Brazil for their non-paper.  The merit of the proposal was 
that it brought Members back to a discussion of them es that had been set aside for some time, also 
questioning some of the assumptions on the basis of which the Committee had been proceeding.  One 
of these assumptions was that the task of the CTESS was limited to the identification of 
environmental goods;  another was that agricultural products were outside the scope of the mandate.  
Chile did not believe that these two questions were as clear as some Members seemed to suggest.   
70. Chile noted its interest in biofuels and organi c products, which Brazil had highlighted in its 
proposal.  With respect to the PPM issue, he noted that certain delegations seemed to consider the 
issue from a defensive or protectionist point of view, i.e. that sanitary or e nvironmental considerations 
could be invoked to limit market access for goods based on how they had been produced.  However, 
in his delegation's view, the PPM issue could also be  considered from an offensive or positive point of 
view.  He asked Brazil whether it had thought of ho w to include goods such as organic products or 
biofuels, without getting into a s ubstantive discussion of PPMs.  Chile saw merit in further discussing 
this issue.   
71. Chile noted the point made by Cuba regarding the possible negative repercussions of certain 
biofuels, such as those produced with raw material , which could raise concer n with regard to food 
security.  It was clear that such biofuels should not be  included.  However, he noted that other types of 
biofuels, such as those produced with biomass, could be viewed differently.   
72. The representative sought more clarification from Brazil regarding the difference between 
requests and offers and the basket approach.  In pa rticular, he asked whether the two approaches were 
proposed as alternatives, or whether the basket a pproach was meant to be  used in the case where 
requests and offers would fail.  As a number of Members had said, negotiations should result in an 
environmentally beneficial outcome.  However, it w as also important that the final outcome led to 
greater market access.  Therefore, Chile asked Brazil whether the modalities it had proposed would 
guarantee increased trade flows.  With respect to timing, Chile asked whether Brazil had any specific 
ideas in mind and supported Hong Kong , China's suggestion that a particular calendar be discussed.   
73. Chile noted that Brazil's proposal on organics was an interesting one, particularly as it 
provided a specific example of NTB.  This was an important issue that required further discussion.  Chile asked why existing guidelines had not proven useful.  In introducing its proposal, Brazil had 
noted that Codex could update the guidelines.  Ch ile sought further clarification from Brazil on this 
point and raised the question as to whether this would be in line with the mandate.   
74. The representative of South Africa
 said that her delegation welcomed the new document from 
Brazil.  There had been a stalemate on certain  issues, including on the issue of approach.  
The Brazilian proposal seemed to offer a viable comp romise as it provided flexibility to take into 
account the interests of all Members.   
75. Her delegation agreed with Brazil's point regard ing the need to take sustainable development 
considerations into account.  All Members wanted  to develop their environmental sector, but TN/TE/R/21 
Page 12  
 
  eliminating tariffs on a set of environmental goods at  six-digit level was probably not the best way to 
achieve this objective.  South Africa believed that the list approach was overly ambitious and raised 
several technical issues.  The reason why the requ est-offer was attractive to South Africa was because 
it was not comparable to the list approach.   
76. The representative said that she was still consulti ng with respect to the issue of biofuels, as 
well as the proposal regarding Codex on organic agri culture.  She noted that for many developing 
countries, the only possible offensive interest and benefit from the negotiation would be in 
agricultural products.  Hence, South Africa had not re jected the idea that agricultural products could 
be included as environmental goods.  She recalled th at many of the list proponents had been arguing 
that the outcome under Paragraph 31(iii) should be "NAMA plus", and noted that the same logic 
should apply with respect to agricultural products  identified as environmental goods.  However, all 
the flexibilities and S&D treatment which formed part of NAMA and Agricultural modalities would have to stand.   
77. In summary, South Africa was encouraged by th e tabling of Brazil's proposal, which in its 
view had the potential to move the negotiation forward.   With respect to the concerns raised regarding 
timing, she noted that any solution that could take Members towards a positive, successful outcome 
should be given due consideration.   
78. The representative of Switzerland
 welcomed the proposal by Br azil as a very constructive and 
positive contribution that would allow Members to  engage in further discussions.  Like other 
delegations, Switzerland had some questions w ith respect to the proposal, including how the 
request-offer procedure would work in practical terms.   
79. Switzerland did not agree with Brazil that the convergence list only focused on developed 
countries' interests.  He noted that his delega tion would appreciate receiving more information on 
goods of interest to developing countries.  Rega rding the basket approach, Switzerland had similar 
questions and concerns as those raised by Japan.   
80. Regarding the reference to Codex, Switzerland agre ed that it was important to ensure that the 
outcome in the CTESS would be in line with other re levant international fora.  In this regard, he 
sought further clarification from Brazil as to how it intended to proceed in order to guarantee such 
coherence.  He recalled that coherence as such was not only important in reference to the Codex 
Committee but also with regard to internati onal obligations under MEAs in general.   
81. The representative of China  said that the Brazilian proposal seemed to have taken discussions 
under Paragraph 31(iii) to a new level.  China shared  many of the observations in the Brazilian paper 
concerning the objectives of the proposal.   
82. China found Brazil's proposal on requests and of fers interesting and was open to further 
discussion, also bearing in mind that there were other proposals on the table regarding the approach under Paragraph 31(iii).  The representative welcomed the fact that the Brazilian paper addressed the issue of NTBs, which was an important aspect of the mandate.  Furthermore, China noted that Brazil 
had proposed a new idea on the issue of technology tr ansfer.  In China's view, this issue needed 
further exploration due to its importance for develo ping country Members, particularly in relation to 
intellectual property rights.   
83. The representative of New Zealand
 said that Brazil's proposal was important because it had 
contributed to focus discussions.  In particular, the non-paper proposed a way forward and suggested a 
specific item for the negotiation, in addition to wi dening the scope.  The representative said he would 
focus his comments on three aspects, namely the requ est-offer process, the spec ific items proposed by 
Brazil and the encouragement of further work by Codex.  TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 13 
 
 
  84. First of all, New Zealand shared Brazil's emphasi s on the inter-related nature of the work.  His 
delegation fully agreed that the liberalization of trade needed to enhance opportunities for countries to 
increase exports of environmental goods and services.   
85. Requests and offers had a long history in the WT O and were currently part of the process that 
was being undertaken in the area of Services.  This  prior experience shed some light on what Brazil 
was proposing.  He noted that in a way, Members had already been trying to start the process of 
engagement on a request-offer basis, albeit in a mu ltilateral sense, which was not quite the same thing 
as Brazil had in mind.  His delegation was intere sted in discussing how the request-offer process 
could complement the valuable work already carried out in CTESS.   
86. He was also particularly inte rested to learn more about the concept of the basket of 
concessions, as proposed in Paragraph 7 of the non-pa per.  In particular, he wondered whether Brazil 
had in mind a basket of products, and if so, what ite ms might fit into that basket, or a basket of 
commitments.  He also wanted to know what this  would mean in practice, i.e. whether a number of 
baskets would emerge out of the request-offer proc ess or whether there would be a single basket.  
As regards the basket of commitments, he asked wh ether all of the commitments would be voluntary 
and based strictly on Members' requests and offers, or whether the basket would be in a number of 
parts, i.e. one part on which all Members woul d take action and other parts on which different 
Members would make different concessions.   
87. These questions were important, since New Zealand considered that there was a useful way in 
which the request-offer process could complement so me of the work already undertaken.  A number 
of other delegations had mentioned the potential c onvergence set that New Zealand had co-sponsored.  
His delegation was interested to hear Brazil's view on whether it saw this work fitting into the basket 
conceptualization.   
88. Members that had commented on New Zealand's list had been concerned that some of the 
products included were actually envi ronmental.  Therefore, New Zealand sought clarification as to 
how this could be ensured in the context of a re quest-offer process.  Moreover, he noted that the 
request-offer process had resources implications and could be burdensome.  For New Zealand, it was 
important to consider whether this  approach would result in a better outcome for small delegations.   
89. New Zealand welcomed the fact that Brazil had flagged its interest in certain products.  The 
representative noted that many Members were  hoping for a robust outcome in Agriculture 
negotiations, which were at the core of the Doha Round, and encouraged further movement in this 
area.   
90. He recalled that New Zealand had put forwar d biodiesel (HS 382490) in its initial list of 
environmental goods.  New Zealand was the only de legation that had spoken in defence of this 
product both on developmental and environmenta l grounds.  Unfortunately, these views had not 
received support at the time and as a result, New Z ealand had decided to drop this product from the 
list.  He sought additional inform ation from Brazil regarding the HS  codes for the products they had 
in mind.   
91. His delegation agreed with Australia's point that  Codex had done useful and interesting work 
which many Members were already implementing.  New Zealand asked Brazil what it considered could be the added value of furthe r engagement with respect to the existing guidelines.  His delegation 
wanted to avoid embarking on an intensive process unless it was clear that it would actually bring discussions forward.   
92.
 In summary, New Zealand was encouraged by the tabling of this new c ontribution.  The paper 
recognised that Members had deadlines and that it wa s important to press ahead with the negotiations.  TN/TE/R/21 
Page 14  
 
  It was also an important signal that Brazil was prep ared to engage in a concrete and specific manner 
to take this process forward.   
93. The representative of the United States
 thanked the delegation of Brazil for the non-paper.  
In general, the US felt that this was a constructiv e contribution and a good effort on the part of Brazil 
to find a practical solution and a way forward that drew on traditional WTO mechanisms and 
methodologies.  She also appreciated that the prop osal focused on specific products of interest to 
Members.   
94. She said that her delegation felt the need to correct  some of the perceptions with respect to its 
own position, including on some of the products that had already been put forward.  She agreed with Brazil that discussions should continue to focu s Members not only on creating new market access 
opportunities for environmental goods but also on ensu ring the environmental credibility of the result.  
In that sense, the US had worked hard over recent years to defend the products it had proposed and to 
explain their environmental, trad e and development benefits.   
95. There was a lot of focus in Brazil's paper on the importance of building exports and export 
industries.  She recalled that the US was a net im porter of environmental good s and that its imports 
were growing faster than its exports every single year in this area.  Moreover, US imports from 
developing countries were growing twice as fast as imports from other OECD countries.  Clearly, there were some export interests and market opportu nities for developing countries.  This gave her 
delegation confidence that at least some of the goods that had been proposed met the objectives of 
Paragraph 31(iii) negotiations as set out by Brazil in paragraph 9 of the non-paper.   
96. It was also important to reiterate that the products proposed were not all high technology 
products out of the production reach of developing countries.  Key pr oducts, such as filters and pumps 
for waste water treatment, as well as wind turbines and parts for generating renewable energy were 
increasingly being produced in developing countries.   
97. There also seemed to be a misunderstanding in  the non-paper that the list approach was one 
that would require all Members to liberalize every single product.  Many delegations had made the 
point in their intervention that the appeal of Braz il's proposal was flexibility.  She recalled that her 
delegation had made some proposals which also offere d flexibility for Members.  For instance, the US 
had put forward a proposal in 2003 that would a llow Members to choose among the products that it 
was willing to liberalize, with greater flexibility for developing countries.
6  This would involve as 
well a core set of products that all Members would agree to liberalize.  The US asked Brazil whether 
there was room in their proposal for this kind of mu ltilateral set, in addition to  requests and offers.   
98. New Zealand had already raised several practi cal questions about the request-offer process.  
For the US, it was critical that there be a multilateral outcome re sulting from the negotiations under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  Brazil had already stated that an y commitment made as a result of the request-offer 
procedure would be on a MFN basis, which would gua rantee a multilateral result.  For her delegation, 
it was also important that the result be transparen t and credible;  one should not have to go through 
national tariff schedules in order to figure out th e result of the negotiations.  She wondered whether 
Brazil had any thoughts on how to ensure this sort of transparency with respect to the outcome.   
99. The US also asked what sort of format Brazil had in mind for the request-offer process, i.e. 
whether negotiations would proceed exclusively on a bilateral basis or whether there would be room 
for plurilateral efforts.  The timing aspect was also  a concern for her delegation, as the US was eager 
to see the discussions move forward as quickly as possible.   
                                                      
6 TN/TE/W/38.    TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 15 
 
 
  100. The US considered that it had already s ubmitted both a request and an offer in the 
negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii).  Her delegation saw value in the proposal to the extent it would 
allow developing countries to meaningfully engage in  the negotiation in ways they had felt they were 
not able to previously.  It was encouraging to hear  the comments by Egypt and South Africa that they 
could meaningfully engage in a concrete way in  this kind of negotiation.  She noted that her 
delegation would welcome more input from those delegations as to how they saw negotiations 
moving forward.   
101. Much had already been said about other aspects of Brazil's non-paper, including with respect 
to products they had proposed, such as biofuels.  Certainly, there was growing controversy regarding 
biofuels, and those concerns merited attention.  Wi th respect to agricultural goods, the US had been 
working under the assumption that such goods were not within the scope of the CTESS' mandate.  She 
noted that the US would not favour bringing agricu ltural products into Para graph 31(iii) negotiations 
at this point in time.   
102. As regards the proposal to involve Codex in wo rk on organic standards, the US sought some 
clarification about the relationship with the work alre ady undertaken by Codex in this area.  Overall, 
she found Brazil's proposal encouraging, particularly  if it could bring into the negotiations other 
Members in a concrete and meaningful way.  Her delegation looked forward to working with other 
Members to bring the negotiations forward towards so me sort of robust result for trade, environment 
and development.   
103. The representative of Canada  joined other delegations in thanking Brazil for their proposal, 
which was a constructive and useful contribution to the work at hand.  The most important 
consideration at that stage was to identify an a ppropriate "landing zone" fo r the negotiations under the 
mandate.  Therefore, he asked Brazil what final outco me they expected to result from their proposal.   
104. Canada recalled that the proponents had tabled a proposal for a modality that could apply to 
the products put forward.  For his delegation, the process should result in a "NAMA plus" outcome.  
Canada had always considered that the Committee' s role was to identify products that would be 
subject to additional treatment.  He recalled that  the proponents had also made proposals on S&D 
treatment and the need for flexibility for developing  countries.  In doing so, the proponents had tried 
to be as transparent as possible in terms of how  environmental goods could be identified.   
105. Canada recalled that the Committee had alread y carried out significant work on criteria or 
parameters to identify environmental goods.  Th ese discussions had demonstrated the difficulty of 
reaching any agreement on criteria.  However, th e Committee had benefited a lot from this work.  
For instance, the discussions in the Committee had led his delegation to reconsider its initial list of 
environmental goods and to drop certain products , such as chemicals.  The comments made by 
delegations in this process had also been useful  to the proponents in developing the "potential 
convergence set" of products.7  Like the US, Canada was a net importer for a majority of the products 
contained in that list, which spoke to  the idea of requests and offers.   
106. With respect to the suggestion to include agri cultural products in the negotiations, he noted 
that it was the task of the Comm ittee to collectively assess the merits of products and determine which 
ones should be considered as environmental goods.  Applying the same reasoning as for industrial 
goods, if Members were to agree on the inclus ion of agricultural products, this should mean 
"Agriculture plus" treatment for these products.  In summary, Canada welcomed Brazil's constructive 
suggestions and hoped that Members wo uld make progress in this process.   
                                                      
7 Job(07)/54.  TN/TE/R/21 
Page 16  
 
  107. The representative of Egypt
 noted that his delegation had b een engaged in the negotiations 
from the beginning and had been active in pushing th e process forward.  With respect to the question 
raised regarding some of the products that could be put forward through a request-offer approach, he 
noted that one parameter that should be taken into  consideration was the international commitments 
that countries had undertaken in other fora, for instance under the Kyoto Protocol or the Basel 
Convention.  Egypt, like many other Members, had undertaken international obligations in other fora 
and would continue to be truthful to these obliga tions in the work of the WTO, including in the 
CTESS and other committees.   
108. The same applied with respect to Codex.  He noted that Codex had examined the question of 
benchmarking of certification requirements applying to  certain agricultural or bio products;  he noted 
that perhaps the work was not yet complete in some  of these areas.  Egypt hoped to take this further 
and to eventually benefit the work regarding both the environmental and deve lopmental aspects of the 
Round.  This was the understanding of his delegatio n and the basis on which it would continue to 
engage in the negotiations.   
109. The representative of Brazil  thanked delegations for their comments on the proposal, which 
he hoped would help reach a positive result.  He said he would try to respond to the various comments 
and questions raised regarding the proposal but th at his delegation would remain available to discuss 
bilaterally any aspect of the non-paper.   
110. Brazil had worked closely with the delegation of India in this area of the negotiations, and had 
acknowledged many of the positive aspects from earlier proposals by India.  Brazil agreed with India's 
understanding that one of the advantages of the re quest-offer process was that it did not have to wait 
for some agreement on the definition of environmen tal goods.  The "defining- by-doing" approach of 
requests and offers allowed Members to prepare th eir national list of requests and offers based on 
their own understanding of environmental goods.   In that sense, the proposal allowed some 
accommodation of national interests and perspectives.   
111. With respect to India's question regarding special products and SSM in Agriculture 
negotiations, Brazil did not think it was impossible to  accommodate defensive interests in the context 
of the proposed approach.  Members would simply have to be careful in the selection of requests and the acceptance of offers.  One of the reasons wh y Brazil had not thought about a mechanism for 
incorporating special treatment or special safeguard s within the proposal was that the treatment had 
not been defined yet.  In this context, it was diffi cult to think about specific defensive mechanisms.   
112. With respect to the methodology, and in particular the comments made by some delegations 
that requests and offers could be a cumbersome and time consuming process, he noted that Members' 
positions had been paralysed for almost one year, which in itself had been time consuming.  The 
request-offer process was not a new method within  the organization and there was no reason to 
suppose that it would be more cumbersome than any other method.   
113. He stressed that the request-offer process was not being proposed as a complement to the list 
approach but simply as another method.  He wanted to think the proponents of the list would see their 
approach as complementary to requests and offers.  The proponents already had a request list;  all they 
had to do was to engage bilaterally and present their requests.   
114. Concerning the question of how the request-offer process could go forward, he noted that 
once Members would reach agreement on modalities, the next phase in the negotiation would be the 
preparation of national schedules.  During this peri od, Members could meet in parallel to decide the 
requests and offers so that negotiations in the differe nt areas could move in tandem.  He noted that the 
preparation of national schedules could take betw een 8 to 10 months, which provided sufficient time 
for the request and offer process to go through.  TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 17 
 
 
  115. The basket of concessions was pr esented as a second option;  it was similar to the concept of 
positive lists in Services.  Concerning the questio n raised by New Zealand, Brazil said that the 
proposal was not for a basket of modalities but rather  a basket of products.  Each country would offer 
a given product as its contribution to the basket, a nd Members would then consider the result.  The 
representative stressed that the resu lt would be on an MFN basis, just  like under the traditional request 
and offer method.   
116. Brazil was open on the question as to whethe r the request and offer process should be 
conducted bilaterally or plurilate rally.  Members would probably ha ve to favour the most productive 
and less time consuming option;  what was important  was that negotiations could move forward.   
117. In his delegation's view, the proposed approach c ould achieve a credible result.  He noted that 
if Members were to present only two products each, the result would already be twice as much as the 
number of products put forward by the proponents in  the potential convergence set.  This in itself 
would already be a significant result for the negotiations.   
118. Concerning the question of what would prevent Members from including any given product, 
he said that a useful way forward would be to inco rporate the notion of activities.  This could provide 
some parameters to organise, rather than constrai n the request and offer process.  In this process, 
Members should be guided by common sense, as well as by their commitment to the international system as a whole, as noted by Egypt.   
119. Brazil recalled that the mandate did not state that environmental goods were necessarily 
non-agricultural goods.  For his delegation, the sco pe of environmental goods was not limited to 
industrial goods;  agricultural goods also had to be included as part of the negotiation.  He noted that 
it was part of the development mandate to promote ag riculture.  Agriculture was an indispensable tool 
to overcome poverty, and if Members were going to give credit to the notion of the Doha 
Development Round it should be in the front set of the concerns. 
120. Concerning biofuels, Brazil understood the concerns raised with respect to food security.  
However, in the last five years in Brazil, the le vels of malnourishment had decreased dramatically 
while at the same time the biofuel sector had grown significantly.  This was an indication that there 
was no incompatibility between nourishment and biofuel production.  With resp ect to biodiversity, the 
representative noted that while Brazil was very effi cient in producing biof uel from sugar cane, only 
one percent of the agricultural land was actually bein g used for sugar cane.  On this basis, Brazil did 
not consider that biofuel production posed a threat to food security.   
121. Brazil noted that the US, the United Kingdom (UK) and the EC had all identified biofuel as 
part of their commitments to reduce emissions levels  and to help tackle climate change pursuant to 
Article 4 of the United Nations  Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  This 
provision encouraged countries to submit nationa l communications setting out  how they would reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and what actions they in tended to take to combat climate change.   
122. The US had a program called "Corporate Aver age Fuel Economy" (CAFE), which required 
automobile manufacturers to meet average fuel econo my standards for light duty vehicles sold in the 
US.  The US also imposed renewable fuel standards to  ensure that gasoline sold in the US contained a 
specific volume of renewable fuel.  Therefore, renewa ble energy and biofuels were already part of the 
US legislation.  The UK had a similar program in  place on alternative fuels since 2003.  The EC had 
also adopted a Directive on 8 May 2003 (2003/30/E C), which promoted the use of biofuels and other 
renewable fuels for transport and identified bi oethanol and ethanol produced from biomass as 
biofuels.  Brazil was therefore surpri sed to hear that the EC did not recognise biofuels as part of the 
environmental mandate.   TN/TE/R/21 
Page 18  
 
  123. In response to some of the comments made, he noted that the Committee was discussing 
modalities, and not treatment.  Since no one knew what the treatment would be in Agriculture, 
NAMA and Services, it was premature to discuss the i ssue of treatment with respect to environmental 
goods.   
124. With respect to the proposal regarding Codex, he said that Codex was already recognised 
under the SPS Agreement as a valid counterpart.  Br azil's suggestion was that Members collectively 
ask Codex to harmonise benchmarks in order to have common standards for organically produced 
foods, in particular since not all Members were currently part of existing standards.  Organic 
agriculture was an important sector for many deve loping countries, particularly to fight poverty.  
Therefore, it deserved specific and import ant consideration in the discussions.   
125. Finally, his delegation did not believe that this new submission was a sign that Brazil was 
now engaging seriously in the negotiations under Para graph 31(iii).  He recalled that Brazil had been 
fully engaged all along.  The fact that his delegation had been opposed to the list approach did not reflect a lack of engagement in the negotiations on the part of Brazil.   
Non-Paper by Peru 
126. The representative of Peru
 said that the discussion had raised a number of questions that were 
fundamental for the WTO, the work of the CTESS and the fulfilment of the mandate.  During the time of the negotiations, issues of great importance for the international community had arisen, such as in 
relation to climate change.  It was for this reas on that discussions under Paragraph 31(iii) had to be 
linked to other topics, including energy and agriculture.   
127. Peru did not believe it would be  credible for the WTO to assu me that there was no specific 
relationship between agriculture and environment sin ce the reality clearly showed that such a linkage 
existed.  The production of goods that  were clearly environmental, such  as biofuels, demonstrated that 
fact.  In this regard, the proposal also prov ided an endorsement of the proposal by Brazil. 
128. He noted that some of the proposals tabled so  far in CTESS, including by the proponents, did 
not make reference to services, which was clearly part of the mandate.  In this context, Peru noted the 
usefulness of earlier contributions by Argen tina and India under Pa ragraph 31(iii).   
129. With respect to the question of organic products  mentioned in Brazil's submission, he noted 
that the issues of sustainable development and envi ronment had to be an integral part of the Doha 
Round to ensure that the international trading sy stem lived up to the standards established by the 
international community.   
130. As regards the part of the non-paper deali ng with trade-related aspects of intellectual 
property, the representative noted that although not strictly with in the framework of the CTESS 
mandate, the issue was of great importance within th e framework of the Doha Round, particularly for 
developing countries.  In this context, Peru wished to draw Members' attention to the need to amend 
the TRIPS Agreement, making it a requirement to di sclose the origin and source of genetic resources 
and the related traditional knowledge  in the patent system.   
131. The representative of Brazil
 thanked the delegation of Peru fo r their non-paper.  He welcomed 
the fact that the submission essentially endorsed the proposal by Brazil.  Brazil also shared all the 
concerns highlighted in Peru's non-paper.   
132. For instance, Brazil agreed with Peru's em phasis in paragraph 7 on the importance of 
addressing not only tariffs but also non-tariff measur es in CTESS.  Furthermore, Brazil agreed with 
the importance of organic agricultural products in th e negotiation.  Other aspects of the non-paper that  TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 19 
 
 
  spoke to Brazil's reality was how to make agri culture and development compatible with the 
ecosystems and biodiversity.  Finally, his delega tion welcomed the reference to the question of 
disclosure of origin in the patent system  in paragraph 13 of the non-paper.   
133. The representative of Norway  thanked Peru for their constructive contribution.  His 
delegation welcomed the active participation of an increasing number of Members in the negotiations.  
The communication presented Peru's perspective on im portant issues such as its  export interests, the 
necessity of clean environmental technologies and the global challenges to the environment and 
sustainable development, with particular em phasis on combating poverty within indigenous 
communities.   
134. As regards the part of the non-paper relating to intellectual property, in particular Paragraph 
15, the representative noted that Norway had partic ipated actively in the discussions in the TRIPS 
Council, including by tabling its own proposal whic h presented a position that was close to that of 
Peru in several respects.  Although some of these questions were being discussed in another 
WTO committee, the issue was nevertheless of great importance to his delegation.  Norway would study Peru's communication in greater detail, in pa rticular as regards to the question of including 
organic products, in parallel with the further examination of Brazil's proposal. 
135. The representative of India
 thanked Peru for their proposal, which it considered as a 
constructive move to take the negotiations forw ard.  India recognized the reasons underlying the 
proposal on organic agriculture, including the benef its that would result fo r indigenous communities 
involved in these forms of production.  India look ed forward to further elaboration of how this 
proposal could be implemented.  With regard to th e third part of the non-paper, India shared Peru's 
views on the issue of disclosure of origin in the patent system, and hoped to see a successful outcome 
on this issue.   
136. The representative of Ecuador  thanked the representative of Peru for the submission and for 
his support to the negotiations.  The Peruvian  paper was an important contribution which 
complemented the document submitted by Brazil.  T ogether with other delega tions, Ecuador gave its 
support to the proposal regarding organic products and the question of NTBs.  Moreover, Ecuador 
noted its own interest in the issue of disclosure of origin, which it considered an important issue 
within the Doha mandate.   
137. The representative of South Africa  said that as a co-sponsor of document IP/C/W/474 
mentioned in the non-paper, her delegation shared Pe ru's view on the issue of disclosure of origin.  
This was an important issue of the Doha manda te on which her delegation was hoping to see a 
positive and successful outcome.  Since this issue was also related to the work under Paragraphs 31(i) 
and 31(ii), it was appropriate for Pe ru to bring it up in CTESS.   
138. The representative of Egypt  thanked Peru for their submission.  Although his delegation was 
still examining the paper, he welcomed Peru's effo rt to highlight the sustainable development and 
environmental dimensions of the negotiations.  Egypt also stressed the importance of tariff and 
non-tariff measures in the context of the trade a nd environment negotiations .  Another important 
concept in the negotiations was the protection of traditional knowledge, as mentioned in Peru's 
submission.   
139. The part of the non-paper dealing with the TRI PS Agreement raised important questions that 
Members might have to revert to at a later stage in  the negotiations.  He noted that Peru's submission 
went a long way in supporting the initial thrust  of the Brazilian non-paper to achieve a win-win 
outcome in the negotiations, both for deve loped and developing countries.   TN/TE/R/21 
Page 20  
 
  140. The representative of Argentina
 thanked the representative of Peru for his presentation of the 
non-paper.  His delegation welcomed this new contribu tion, along with that of Brazil, as providing a 
way forward that might allow the Committee to ma ke progress in the negotiations.  Peru's non-paper 
complemented to some extent Brazil's submission, including with respect to the inclusion of organic 
agricultural products.  In his delegation's view, sinc e organic products were naturally produced, they 
supported by definition the environment.  Paradoxically, the CTESS had been discussing 
environmental goods and services liberalization for more  than six years, focusing only on industrial or 
technological products.  For Argentina, it would be s hort-sighted not to give consideration to issues 
such as the inclusion of agricultural goods given the nature of the mandate.   
141. The representative of Colombia  said that his delegation fully supported the comments made 
by Peru, in particular with respect to organic pr oducts and biofuels, which in his view were clearly 
linked to the environment.  Brazil had also provi ded some useful examples where biofuels were 
actually being promoted through national legislati on.  For Colombia, organic products and biofuels 
provided a real opportunity for developing countries to  increase their share of world trade.  In this 
regard, his delegation very much welcom ed this new contribution from Peru. 
142. The representative of China  joined previous speakers in thanking Peru for its latest 
contribution.   
143. The representative of Peru  thanked other delegations for their comments on the non-paper.  
He welcomed the fact that the initial response to the document had been generally positive.  
He recalled that the non-paper ha d been tabled in reaction to the Brazilian proposal, and that his 
delegation supported the request-offer process as the ma in approach to carry forward the negotiations 
under Paragraph 31(iii).  This process had been foll owed in other areas of negotiation in WTO, and 
there was no point in discussing whether it would be cumbersome or time-consuming, since this 
largely depended on Members' willingness to compromi se.  In this regard, Members would have to 
find a way of making this approach work effectivel y with a view to achieving a positive result, as was 
the case in the area of Services.   
144. There had been several comments on the issue of  organic products and their importance for 
developing countries, such as Peru, which had rich biodi versity.  With respect to the third part of the 
non-paper, he noted that it was important to info rm the Committee of what was happening in other 
areas of the Doha Round, especially in an area of such importance for both developed and developing 
countries.   
145. The Chairman  thanked the representative of Peru for the proposal, which established a useful 
linkage between CTESS negotiations and the wo rk in other areas of the negotiations.   
146. The representative of the United States  said that she wished to dr aw the Committee's attention 
to a recent report by the World Bank entitled "Warming up to trade:  harnessing international trade to 
support climate change objectives", which addressed key issues underscored by delegations in the 
discussion.   
147. In concluding, the Chairman  noted that he had been holding some consultations with 
delegations in small groups on th e mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).  The interest expressed by several 
delegations with respect to the Brazilian proposal sh owed that Members were willing to engage in the 
negotiations.  During the discussions, some clarificat ion was sought from Brazil,  namely with respect 
to the modality aspect of the proposal, i.e. the request-offer process and the basket of concessions.  
Some delegations noted that they wished to reflect  further on the feasibility of this approach before 
deciding on how to move the process forward.    TN/TE/R/21 
 Page 21 
 
 
  148. In addition, some useful questions had been ra ised with regard to the phases of work, the 
format of the discussion, and how requests and offe rs would fit with other approaches already on the 
table.  This proposal took the Committee to a different level of activity and deserved further 
discussion.  Members should continue reflecting on th ese ideas as they explored modalities that could 
be acceptable to all.   
149. He recalled that at the previous open-ended m eeting, several delegations had noted that the 
categories or environmental activities could provide  a useful framework for engaging in future 
discussions.  He would therefore continue explor ing this option in his consultations on the way 
forward.  He believed that one of the main objectiv es at this stage was to clarify Members' interests 
from a trade, environment and development perspe ctive, without prejudice to Members' positions on 
approaches.  He hoped that delega tions would be ready to engage constructively with a view to 
bridging the gap in their positions.   
IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
150. The CTESS agreed to the renewal of the ad  hoc invitations extended to international 
organizations for the next meeting of the CTESS.   
 
__________