RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/17 
18 April 2007 
 (07-1608) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
1-2 MARCH 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 
 1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Sp ecial Session (CTESS) held its seventeenth 
meeting on 1-2 March 2007 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/2962.   
2. The following international 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  Wastes and their Disposal, the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, the Convention on Internatio nal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora, the Montreal Protocol on Substan ces that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Rotterdam 
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedur e for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides 
in International Trade, the Stockholm Conven tion on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the 
United Nations Framework Conventio n on Climate Change (UNFCCC).   
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 
3. The Chairman
 noted that no new submissions had b een presented under this agenda item. 
4. The representative of Australia  recalled her delegation had for many years taken a strong 
interest in the Paragraph 31(i) part of the Doha mandate.  In the context of the resumption of the 
Round and given also their concerns with the pr oposal on the table from the European Communities 
(EC)1 which had been discussed in the Committee on 6-7 July 20062, Australia had been considering a 
possible outcome which would more accurately refl ect work done in the Committee, together with 
some other Members. 
5. In Australia's view, the Committee's detailed discussions on specific trade obligations in 
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) had shown that the relationship between MEAs and 
the WTO was working well.  No significant prob lems had been identified by delegations and 
developments since the discussions began some year s ago had shown even more conclusively this to 
be the case.  Further improvements in coordinati on at both the internationa l and national level had 
enhanced the mutual supportiveness of trade and envi ronment.  She noted that the ideas presented by 
the United States (US) in its paper under Paragraph 31(ii)3 should serve further to enhance the 
                                                      
1 TN/TE/W/68. 
2 TN/TE/R/16. 
3 TN/TE/W/70. TN/TE/R/17 
Page 2  
 
  cooperation.  Australia saw a strong link betw een an effective and practical outcome under 
Paragraph 31(ii) and an effective and practical outcome under Paragraph 31(i). 
6. The representative said that in considering an  outcome under Paragraph 31(i), Australia was 
conscious of the importance of national level coor dination.  For its part, Australia had in place a 
domestic system which worked to ensure that trad e and environment issues were dealt with by both 
trade and environment officials.  This was not someth ing that could be enshrined in international law;  
it was something that simply required hard work and, in the case of developing country Members, 
increased capacity.   
7. The representative said Australia would be happy to discuss this part of the mandate 
bilaterally with delegations as work continued on proposals for an outcome. 
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
8. The Chairman
 noted that one new submission had been  circulated by the Delegation of the 
United States in document TN/TE/W/70. 
9. In introducing the submission, the representative of the United States  (US) said the synthesis 
document prepared by the Secretariat4 had been helpful as a reminder of the Committee's discussions 
to date under this aspect of the mandate.  The US welcomed the opportunity for renewed discussion 
under Paragraph 31(ii). 
10. The representative recalled an earlier US submission under Paragraph 31(ii)5 which addressed 
three areas, namely information sessions, docume nt exchange and observer status.  The new 
submission in document TN/TE/W/70 was intended as a second generation-type paper in which the 
US sought further to develop some of the ideas in its first original submission.  As well, the US 
wanted to create a framework under which discussions  on the item might continue in a more concrete 
way.  In this regard, the representative referred de legations to the annex of  TN/TE/W/70 containing an 
outline of US proposals under Paragraph 31(ii).  She hoped this outline would be helpful as the 
CTESS explored areas of potential common ground under the mandate. 
11. With respect to information sessions with ME As, the representative said the submission tried 
to give a general structure for conducting future such sessions.  The US proposed that, initially, the 
information sessions with MEA secretariats take pl ace on an annual basis and that this schedule be 
reviewed every three to five years so Members could see whether they were reaping the benefits 
expected from formalizing the information exchange  process and whether it would be desirable to 
hold information sessions more or less often. 
12. The US submission further proposed that, to the extent practicable and following past 
practice, information sessions be timed in coordinati on with MEA secretariats to ensure the broadest 
participation of MEA secretariats and their delegates.  It was also important in order to reap the full 
benefit of the information sessions to target the right government officials as well as MEA 
secretariats.  The submission further suggested the CTE in regular session agree in advance on themes 
or topics for information sessions (following past practice) and that WTO and MEA secretariats be 
invited to prepare in advance brief background pape rs to inform the discussions.  The representative 
said the US agreed with others that the information sessions should involve a two-way flow of information with WTO Members and the Secretaria t learning about trade-related MEA activities and 
MEA secretariats and their delegates becoming be tter appraised of WTO issues and perspectives. 
                                                     
 
4 JOB(07)/2. 
5 TN/TE/W/5.  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. In terms of document exchange, the representative said this was an area ripe for improvement 
and the US submission offered a number of sugges tions.  The US stressed that document exchange 
between each Member's trade and environment offi cials should occur in the first instance at the 
domestic level:  the most efficient way of shar ing documents was between trade and environment 
officials at the national level.  The US proposed th at Members might first reaffirm the need to share 
documents at the domestic level and also reaffi rm the desire to continue to improve WTO 
transparency in general.  On the latter, the re presentative noted there had been many improvements 
already in terms of document de-restriction pr actices in the WTO and expanding the category of 
unrestricted documents;  the CTESS should reflect on the progress made and try to continue to move 
in that direction. 
14. More immediately, the US proposed that the WT O Secretariat improve its document indexing 
practices and that MEA secretariats be invited to do th e same.  In this context, the representative noted 
that many reports and documents were shared between the WTO Secretariat and MEA secretariats but that often it was not easy for Members to know a bout these documents or to access them.  Thus, it 
was proposed that the WTO Secretariat publish a list of the documents received from MEA 
secretariats on an annual basis, or even more ofte n if delegations found this useful so that Members 
would be aware of the available documents;  MEA secretariats might be invited to prepare similar lists of any WTO-related documents received. 
15. The US further proposed that the WTO Secretariat and MEA secretariats take full advantage 
of hyperlinking and other internet tools to promot e information exchange.  The representative noted in 
this context that the idea had been menti oned by several other delegations as well. 
16. Another aspect of information exchange had to do with technical assistance and 
capacity-building.  It was recognized that the WTO Secretariat was already coordinating its technical 
assistance activities to allow for participation by re levant MEA secretariats.  The US agreed with 
others that such coordination was positive, should co ntinue and perhaps be expanded to areas outside 
CTE expertise.  For example, some of the capac ity-building activities related to the TBT Agreement 
could be of interest to some MEA secretariats, pa rticularly with respect to establishing an enquiry 
point that would facilitate transparency and info rmation with respect to domestic environmental 
regulatory developments.   
17. In addition, the US submission proposed that the WTO Secretariat along with relevant MEA 
secretariats explore ways to build the capacity of developing country Members to foster their own internal trade and environmental coordination procedures.  The representative said there was 
considerable interest in this area and it was ripe for improvement. 
18. On observer status, the representative said the US  and others had previously noted that the 
mandate related to criteria for granting observer st atus and was limited to the question of observer 
status for relevant MEAs.  The mandate did not extend  to the more general issue of observer status of 
international organizations in the WTO as th at responsibility rested exclusively with the 
General Council.  The US had also previously no ted that the mandate was being negotiated in the 
context of the existing Rules of Procedure for Sessi ons of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of 
the General Council found in document WT/L/161, a nd in particular in Annex 3 addressing observer 
status for international intergovernmental organizations in the WTO. 
19. The representative said the CTESS had been tasked  specifically with negotiating criteria for 
the granting of observer status that would help to identify relevant MEAs that might be invited to 
participate as observers in WTO bodies.  Contrary to some other views expressed, the CTESS had not 
been tasked to decide on particular MEAs that should be granted observer status in the CTE regular 
session or other WTO bodies.  In the view of the United States, and with respect to an eventual TN/TE/R/17 
Page 4  
 
  outcome, it would be useful for the CTESS to reaffirm  the nature of the mandate and the fact that 
observer status was decided upon on a Council or Committee basis. 
20. The representative said the US was among many delegations believing that any criteria 
developed should be flexible and should help facilitate WTO bodies'  consideration of whether an 
MEA that was requesting observership had competence and direct interest in their work, as explicitly 
provided in Annex 3 of WT/L/161.  The criteria should not be so inflexible as to make it more 
difficult for an MEA secretariat to gain observers hip in a relevant WTO body.  The desire for 
flexibility had led the US to propose in its submi ssion that the CTESS develop a non-exhaustive list of 
indicative questions to aid WTO bodies in maki ng reasoned decisions, on a case-by-case (i.e., WTO 
body-by-body and MEA-by-MEA) basis, regarding MEA observer status.  Such indicative questions 
would use the non-exhaustive list of factors identifie d as potentially relevant in Annex 3 of the WTO 
Rules of Procedure as their point of departure.  This approach, it was hoped, would be flexible enough 
to deal with new MEAs that might apply for observer status in the future. 
21. The US proposed the following four indicative questions as a basis for discussion:  Does the 
MEA contain specific trade obligations or other trad e-related obligations among Parties, and if so, are 
these specifically relevant to the WTO body's scope of work?  Is the MEA currently an observer to 
other WTO bodies, and if so, what is the extent of th e MEA's participation in meetings of that body?  
Does the WTO Secretariat participate in the MEA meetings as an observer, and if so, does the 
participation relate to issues addressed by the re levant WTO body?  Have the WTO Secretariat and 
the MEA secretariat worked together on reports or  to plan workshops, capacity-building events or 
seminars?   
22. The representative noted that these were not intended to be exhaustive in terms of a set of 
questions and that her delegation was open to ot her suggestions.  These indicative questions were 
intended to help form a basis for a WTO body to determ ine if a particular MEA had a direct interest in 
matters before that body.  She noted that WTO bodies would still be free to add or subtract to the set 
of indicative questions and treat them however they might choose in their deliberations.   
23. In the event that a decision could not be arrive d at with respect to a particular MEA observer 
request, the US proposed that the relevant WTO body be encouraged to invite the MEA to participate 
as an observer on an ad hoc basis or for a period to  be determined by the WTO body, and subject to 
any extension as circumstances may warrant.  In the vi ew of the US, this coul d facilitate information 
exchange on a less than permanent basis. 
24. In addition to the CTESS undertak ing to develop and agree on a set of indicative questions to 
guide WTO bodies and facilitate the consideration of observer requests from MEA secretariats, the 
US proposed that the CTESS could lead the way on the question of observership by granting permanent observer status for the remainder of th e WTO negotiations to the seven MEA secretariats 
that had ad hoc observership in the CTESS.  The representative said the rationale was that the one 
decision the CTESS could make on granting observers hip had to do with its own negotiating group;  
the relevant MEA secretariats had been participatin g in the CTESS discussions so far and a decision 
to grant permanent observer status for the remainde r of the negotiations could send a positive signal to 
the MEA secretariats about WTO commitment to  transparency and information sharing.  
The representative noted that this idea had a di fferent timeframe from other aspects of the US 
proposal.   
25. The representative said the proposals covering information exchange and observer status 
could bring the CTESS closer to identifying a set of concrete elements that could form an eventual 
result under Paragraph 31(ii).  If adopted, the US  believed the indicative questions and other 
information exchange proposals would help MEA secr etariats keep up to date with WTO work and 
enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade and envi ronment, consistent with the mandate.  The US  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 5 
 
 
  hoped the ideas presented in their submission w ould provoke discussion and other ideas;  it was 
intended as a platform for further building of ideas in  the Committee, as well as in bilateral and formal 
discussions.   
26. The representative of Japan  welcomed the US submission as a good basis for advancing the 
discussions and said that generally Japan could su pport the ideas put forward.  The representative 
offered comments based on the outline and points speci fied in the annex of the US submission.  With 
respect to information exchange, Japan believed it appropriate to have information exchange sessions 
annually and also supported the idea of a stocktaking after three to five years; such a stocktaking 
would be necessary to assess the merits of the sessions and to decide on their continued frequency.  
Japan further supported the idea of adjusting the tim ing of information exchange sessions taking into 
account the workloads in the WTO and MEAs so as to ensure participation from as many WTO 
delegates and MEA secretariats as possible.  As we ll, Japan supported the idea of agreeing in advance 
on topics for the information sessions and also that  the WTO Secretariat and MEA secretariats should 
prepare documents in advance.  On the latter point , and given the tight schedules sometimes involved, 
the responsibility for document preparation could be less strict. 
27. With respect to document exchange, Japan w as unsure of the US' suggestion regarding the 
sharing of documents at the domestic level.  Japan noted that exchange of information and documents 
was already taking place among relevant ministri es domestically and that it could share its 
experiences of domestic activities to help improve  each Member's activities.  Regarding the US 
proposals on transparency issues, Japan supported transparency but also recognized that some 
information, especially related to the negotiations, c ould be classified or confidential.  In respect to 
other suggestions on document exchange, Japan  supported proposals relating to indexing of 
documents and knowledge in a more systematic way,  as well as greater utilization of the internet.   
28. Concerning technical assistance and capacity build ing, Japan appreciated  the work done and 
encouraged the Secretariat to continue its technical  assistance activities.  The representative asked if 
the Secretariat had any system for evaluating technical assistance provided and whether such 
information was shared with Members.  Japan also supported the idea of finding ways to assist 
developing countries to develop their own admini strative mechanisms for information exchange. 
29. On the issue of observer status, Japan had the same understanding as the US with respect to 
the mandate of Paragraph 31(ii).  On other aspect s of the US submission, Japan agreed on the 
applicability of the existing Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council a nd that observer status should be  decided on a council or committee 
basis.  Japan further supported the idea of intr oducing indicative questions to assist WTO bodies in 
considering MEA observer requests on a case-by-case basis.  Japan could agree with the content of the indicative questions provided by the US and c ould also discuss whether there were additional 
questions as well.  The representative made clear that some MEAs might not meet all the indicative questions but could still be granted observer status based on their specific activities and the purpose of 
their observer status.  For example, MEAs that ha d no specific trade-related obligations but had some 
sort of de facto influence on trade could be granted observer status. 
30. The representative sought further clarifi cation from the US with respect to the 
recommendation in the submission that, in the event that a decision could not be reached on an MEA 
observer request, WTO bodies be encouraged to invite  the MEA to relevant meetings on an ad hoc 
basis.  Finally, Japan could support granting of obser ver status for the remainder of the negotiations to 
the seven MEA secretariats that currently had ad hoc observer stat us in the CTESS, provided that 
specific reasons were provided for each MEA;  Japan al so reserved the right to add some other MEAs.   
31. The representative of China
 welcomed the US submission as comprehensive and a good effort 
in pushing forward the work of the CTESS.  On in formation exchange, China agreed there should be TN/TE/R/17 
Page 6  
 
  information exchange sessions with MEA secretariats, and that the CTE could hold such sessions 
annually with stocktaking after three to five years.   On document exchange, China shared the US view 
that document exchange between each Member's tr ade and environment officials should occur in the 
first instance at the domestic level.  The representativ e noted in this regard that the composition of the 
Chinese delegation to the CTESS meeting demons trated good coordination among the different 
departments in China in this particular area.  Howe ver, China felt it premature to institutionalize these 
kinds of activities. 
32. With respect to technical assistance and capac ity building, China believed this aspect should 
constitute an important and inte gral part of future information sessions.  China welcomed the 
technical assistance efforts of the WTO Secretariat and MEA secretariats.  On the issue of 
observership, while China regarded the indicative list of questions proposed by the US as very 
helpful, the issue was a complex one th at should be dealt with appropriately. 
33. The representative said China shared the view expressed by Australia that efforts of the 
CTESS on Paragraph 31(ii) would have a posit ive effect on the Committee's agreement and 
understanding on Paragraph 31(i).  In China's view, the relationship between WTO rules and 
obligations in MEAs had so far functioned well.  China would welcome any discussion on sorting out 
the relationship between WTO and MEAs as appropriate. 
34. The representative of Norway
 welcomed the US submission as constructive and said her 
delegation could agree with its main elements, part icularly with respect to information exchange.  
Norway also agreed with the US emphasis on coordination at the national level and on improving transparency.  With respect to technical assist ance and capacity building, as well as information 
exchange, the WTO and MEA secretariats should con tinue and even enhance their coordination in 
these areas.  On the issue of observer status, Norw ay appreciated the US approach to focus on what 
was most relevant for CTESS at that stage.  That sai d, Norway wished to remain flexible with regard 
to the points listed in paragraph 18 of the US s ubmission dealing with indicative questions;  this 
related in particular to the first indicative ques tion on specific trade oblig ations and relevance to 
WTO.  The representative said Norway strongly s upported the US proposal to grant permanent 
observer status for the remainder of the DDA negotia tions to the MEA secretariats that currently had 
ad hoc observership. 
35. The representative of Colombia
 thanked the US for the interesting submission and said the 
CTESS would need to continue discussing it.  The re presentative posed a number of questions to the 
US delegation.  First, with respect to inform ation exchange and the suggestion to hold annual 
information sessions with MEA secretariats, it was observed that MEAs did not necessarily have 
timetables entirely compatible with the timetable of the CTE.  He asked, for instance, if the US had 
been in contact with those MEA secretariats curre ntly taking part in CTESS meetings regarding the 
question of their timetables and the timing of the MEA information sessions.   
36. Second, apart from preparatory papers for the information sessions, did the US envisage 
reports on the outcomes or results of the sessions?  The representative noted in this regard that similar 
information meetings had been held in the past  and reports on these sessions had been extremely 
useful.  The representative noted the separate but related US proposal that there should be a stocktaking of the information sessions every three to five years;  however, he had in mind additionally a mid-term or interm ediate type review on the inform ation that had been exchanged, 
rather than all-out stocktaking.   
37. On observership, Colombia took note of the US explanations concerning the indicative 
questions and the fact that Members could suggest other questions.  Regarding the fourth indicative 
question, relating to joint activities between the WTO Secretariat and MEA secretariats, Colombia 
said this could be a key criterion since it was the only way of ensuring true synergy between the  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 7 
 
 
  international bodies.  Colombia encouraged su ch activities as a way of disseminating mutual 
information and knowledge on MEAs and indeed the rules-based trading system.  Colombia further 
believed it could help in stitution and capacity building in certain countries.  The representative 
suggested there could be an additional indicative qu estion relating to technical assistance and capacity 
building.   
38. The representative of Switzerland  said the mandate provided to the CTESS in 
Paragraph 31(ii) was of significant importance for the promotion of mutual supportiveness between trade and environment policies.  In this regard, Switzerland welcomed the re-launching of discussion 
on this part of the mandate and was grateful to the US for its submission elaborating on ideas it had 
proposed earlier with regard to information excha nge and observer status.  The representative said the 
US submission provided a good overview of the diffe rent aspects of Paragraph 31(ii).  The outline in 
the annex of the submission, which contained concre te elements that could contribute to a possible 
result under Paragraph 31(ii), was helpful and w ould hopefully facilitate CTESS discussions.   
39. With regard to procedures for regular inform ation exchange between MEA Secretariats and 
relevant WTO Committees, Switzerland believed th e modes of information exchange developed by 
WTO, UNEP and MEAs over the past years had proved to be useful and needed to be pursued on a 
permanent basis.  With respect to information sessions, Switzerland could agree with the US on the 
general structure for information sessions with MEAs  secretariats.  In this regard, the representative 
recalled Switzerland's earlier submission
6 which presented a set of elements defining the procedure 
for the organization of efficient information se ssions.  The representative stressed the need for 
information exchange on a more permanent and st ructured basis, while maintaining a degree of 
flexibility so as to avoid additional burdens on th e secretariats involved as well as WTO Members and 
parties to MEAs. 
40. While concurring with the US on the basic structure of the information sessions – 
for instance, that they should be held regularly;  th at there should be stocktaking after a certain time;  
that the timing should be coordinated to the extent  practicable;  that topics of information sessions 
should be agreed in advance;  and that background  papers should also be prepared – Switzerland 
wondered why UNEP was not mentioned in the submissi on.  The representative noted in this regard 
that WTO and UNEP had concluded in 1999 an arrange ment to improve efforts towards the objective 
of sustainable development and establish further e ffective cooperation between the two secretariats in 
areas of mutual interest.  Switzerland believed strongly that UNEP should be referenced under 
Paragraph 31(ii). 
41. With regard to document exchange, the repr esentative said Switzerland concurred with the 
US submission on enhancing the development of in formation flow.  Switzerland especially welcomed 
the encouraged use of the internet, including hyper-l inking, to promote information exchange;  this 
idea, which had also been proposed by Switzerland, was a useful and relatively low-cost instrument.  
While Switzerland agreed with the US that the shar ing of documents at the domestic level was an 
important means of informing trade and environm ent officials of the activities of WTO, UNEP and 
MEAs, it also felt that interna tional coordination was relevant. 
42. The representative observed that paragraph 8 of  the US submission proposed that other 
mechanisms for collaboration shoul d be explored and the submissi on mentioned as well that the WTO 
Secretariat was already coordinating its technical assistance activities to allow for participation by 
relevant MEA secretariats.  Switzerland invited the US delegation to further elaborate on this issue.  
As well, while welcoming good coordination of technical assistance and capacity-building, 
Switzerland sought more information on the idea of capacity building for developing country 
                                                      
6 TN/TE/W/30. TN/TE/R/17 
Page 8  
 
  Members in the context of fostering their own in ternal, national trade and environment coordination 
processes. 
43. Regarding observer status, Swit zerland believed that the granting of observer status to MEA 
secretariats and UNEP should be destined both to CTE regular and special sessions.  With respect to criteria for observer status, this was considered a ma jor element of the mandate given to CTESS in the 
Doha Declaration.  In Switzerland's view, discussi on on this issue should be based on the criteria set 
forth in Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessi ons of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of 
the General Council.  The representative recalled thr ee main criteria presented by Switzerland in their 
earlier submission and statements:  first, decisions should be taken on the basis of written requests and 
on a case-by-case basis;  second, MEA secretariats and UNEP requesting observer status should have 
a direct interest in the Doha negotiations related to trade and environment;  and, third, reciprocal 
treatment should be provided.  Switzerland consid ered these criteria could be viewed as a good 
starting point for discussion.  Switzerland also concu rred with the US idea that the criteria should be 
flexible and should continue to be elaborated.  In this regard, Switzerland welcomed the indicative 
questions in paragraph 18 of the US submission as a useful starting point for further discussion on this 
aspect.   
44. The representative of India
 thanked the US for its effort to clarify the mandate of 
Paragraph 31(ii) both in terms of scope of exchan ge of information and criteria for the granting of 
observer status.  On information exchange, the re presentative said the US submission was helpful in 
laying out a roadmap for a two-way flow of inform ation and in identifying some of the means to 
effect that flow.  India agreed with the sugges tions regarding periodicity of sessions and the means 
through which the exchange could take place.  Referring to an earlier intervention by Japan, the 
representative said it might be possible for informa tion sessions to be held more frequently than 
annually, if the relevant secretariats so deci ded and subject to availability of logistics. 
45. On the issue of criteria for granting of observe r status, India welcomed the amplification of 
criteria suggested by the US.  The indicative questi ons mentioned in the US submission were useful 
and were a good basis for further discussion on the issu e.  If anything, India's preference was for less 
onerous criteria for granting observer status to MEAs .  India agreed with the suggestion made by the 
US to grant permanent observer status to those ME A secretariats that had ad hoc observer status.  
The Convention on Biological Diversity was one su ch secretariat and India hoped this MEA would 
also be accepted as an observer in other WTO bodies .  The representative said India remained open to 
further negotiations to develop the ideas set out in the US submission.  Moreover, India agreed with 
Australia's comments under Paragraph 31(i) and hoped the US submission would facilitate CTESS 
discussions also on that aspect of the mandate.   
46. The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined previous speakers in  thanking the US for its 
contribution which would help to structure Memb ers' discussions and help CTESS to complete the 
work under Paragraph 31(ii) of the Doha Ministeria l Declaration.  Chinese Taipei supported the US 
submission and saw it as a commitment to the important objective of enhancing the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and environment by im proving cooperation between WTO bodies and MEA 
secretariats in two main areas, namely informati on exchange and observer status.  Chinese Taipei had 
also noticed a high degree of convergence in the views expressed by Members, as summarized in the 
US submission, and believed this convergence should be used as the b asis for further intensified work. 
47. The representative said it was important for the WT O to be able to discuss environment issues 
in order to ensure the mutual supportiveness of trad e and environment.  Exchange of information was 
crucial in facilitating this work.  However, in th e interests of transparency, such exchange of 
information should always be a two-way affair.  Both the WTO and MEAs needed to make sure 
information exchanged reflected the proponents as of  the original WTO documents in their entirety 
and integrity.  As well, all information exchanged and assistance should be inclusive and available to  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 9 
 
 
  all Members.  The representative said the contents of exchanged information should not prejudice the 
rights and obligations of any WTO Member nor MEA party.  
48. On observer status, the representative said Chinese Taipei had attempted a comparison 
between the elements proposed in the EC submi ssion (TN/TE/W/66), and those proposed by the US.  
From this, Chinese Taipei had observed that the US seemed to be proposing only indicative criteria 
for granting or not granting observer status to MEAs;  the EC proposal, on the other hand, seemed to 
go one step further by proposing the automatic gran ting of observer status.  The representative sought 
from the US confirmation of the accuracy of Chinese Taipei's observation in this regard;  he also 
asked the US to describe the rationale behind its pr oposal in terms of the scope of the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(ii). 
49. The representative of Egypt  thanked the US for its submission, which tried to bring the 
discussion further on Paragraph 31(ii).  The pape r was also relevant to the discussion under 
Paragraph 31(i), as noted by Australia.  These two pa rts of the mandate would need to be looked at 
closely in the discussion in the CTESS.   
50. Egypt welcomed the proposals by the US on in formation exchange.  Information flow and 
transparency were crucial to the work of the WT O and also to the future well functioning of the 
MEAs as they related to the work of the WTO.  The proposal to use information technology to 
improve information exchange was also welcome.   The synergies that could emanate from such 
information exchange were quite important in d ealing with the complex area of the relationship 
between trade and the environment.   
51. One thing that was particularly important fo r developing countries and especially LDCs was 
that information exchange concentrated on the issu e of technical assistance and capacity building in 
this area.  Unfortunately, in many situations in th e developing world, there was a lack of capacity to 
undertake the necessary coordination between different agencies;  this was important as part of the 
wider information sessions that were suggested.  Eg ypt was studying the best way to conduct these 
sessions and to assess their outcome.  In this regard , the US proposals provided a good start to engage 
in further discussions in the Committee.  More refl ection was required with regard to the issue of 
institutionalizing information exchange and the fo rmat of the information sessions.  Egypt supported 
the view that UNEP, as well as other organizations  such as UNCTAD, were major stakeholders on 
issues related to trade and environment.   
52. Egypt welcomed the fact that the US subm ission highlighted the importance of capacity 
building and the need to improve national coordination in  this regard.  This was an important aspect in 
terms of achieving a development outco me in the Doha Round.  This issu e would need to be put at the 
forefront of Members' efforts when it came to in formation exchange and to reaching a developmental 
outcome in the negotiations on all aspects of Paragraph 31.  
53. With regard to observer status, the representa tive recalled the general position of Egypt on the 
issue of observer status in the General Council.  Egypt noted that there was a difference between 
having criteria for the granting of observer status, and actually applyi ng these criteria;  Egypt believed 
that criteria needed to be applied uniformly acro ss the board within the WTO.  While Egypt was open 
to discussing indicative questions or criteria proposed  by Members for the granting of observer status 
to MEAs, its overarching position on the issue of observership remained.   
54. The representative of Thailand  thanked the US for its useful and timely submission on the 
issues of information exchange between MEAs and WTO, and observer status.  Thailand viewed the 
submission generally as presenting a logical and practical way forward in terms of CTESS efforts to 
fulfil the mandate under Paragraph 31(ii).  On the issu e of information exchange, Thailand agreed that 
existing mechanisms and practises  should be improved through, inter alia , MEA information sessions.  TN/TE/R/17 
Page 10  
 
  Thailand was flexible with respect to the frequenc y of the sessions and determination of definitive 
review periods.  Thailand also supported early coordination between WTO and MEA secretariats on 
the organization of such sessions and subject matte rs to be discussed, so that the sessions were 
relevant to the interests and responded to the co ncerns of Members and also provided concrete 
added-value to the participants at the time they were held.   
55. On the subject of document exchange, Thailand was supportive of the need to improve 
transparency through various documentation- sharing processes between the WTO and MEA 
secretariats.  The representative said any efforts to improve transparency and efficiency of 
information exchange under the existing WTO-MEA c oordination infrastructure, including use of the 
internet, would be welcomed by Thailand. 
56. The representative noted that the US submis sion touched upon the importance of lending 
greater focus to the topic of technical assistance and capacity building activities in order to help 
developing countries strengthen their respective trade and environmental internal coordination 
mechanisms.  The submission further suggested that  this should be undertaken in conjunction with 
efforts to improve information exchange and c oordination between WTO and MEA secretariats.  
Thailand agreed with this line of thinking and was of  the view that technical assistance and capacity 
building was a key item in raising the level of eff ectiveness of internal coordination between trade and 
environment officials in developing countries, which in turn should translat e into greater degrees of 
coordination at the international level.  The repr esentative asked the US to elaborate on the possible 
technical assistance and capacity building activiti es, projects or ideas that could be undertaken. 
57. Regarding the issue of observer status, the repr esentative reserved Thailand's right to address 
this issue at a later date. 
58. The representative of the European Communities
 (EC) thanked the US for its constructive 
submission and added that the subm ission built upon the consensus that  had been developing at the 
previous CTESS meeting.  The representative said th ere were some elements in the US submission 
that the EC appreciated and some positions that the EC shared.  But there were also some elements 
where the EC felt there was not a sufficient degree of ambition.  The representative structured his 
remarks along the lines of the outline in annex 1 of the US submission.  
59. Regarding information exchange, the representativ e described this part of the submission as 
constructive and positive.  The EC supported instit utionalizing information exchange, as they had 
made clear in their own submission.7  In this regard, they supporte d as sensible the suggestion to hold 
information sessions annually with stocktaking afte r 3-5 years.  In terms of the other general 
provisions on the organization of information sessions, the representative said there was nothing in the 
US submission on which the EC had specific concer ns or reservations;  the same applied to the 
section of the submission on document exchange. 
60. With respect to technical assistance and capac ity building, the EC supported the suggestion 
that WTO and MEA secretariats should continue to c oordinate activities in this area.  In addition, the 
representative sought a point of clarification on the US  idea to explore ways to foster better domestic 
trade and environment coordination processes and information sharing procedures in developing 
countries.  In particular, the representative asked  if the US was suggesting that an outcome on 
information exchange should encourage Members to explore ways to foster enhanced domestic trade 
and environment coordination, or whether it was sugg esting that this exploratory work be undertaken 
in the negotiations so that any conclusion drawn from this exercise could form part of the outcome on 
information exchange.   
                                                      
7 TN/TE/W/66.  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 11 
 
 
  61. On observer status, the representative said there were some elements in the US submission 
that were encouraging.  In particular, the EC welcomed the reference to the applicability of the 
existing Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Mi nisterial Conference and Meetings of the General 
Council.  The EC had similarly refe rred to this aspect in their own s ubmission.  However, in the EC's 
view, the approach to observership outlined by the US, predicated on indicative questions, was 
problematic.  In this regard, the representative suppo rted India's preference for less onerous criteria 
for the granting of observer status to MEAs.  Th e representative added that the EC was looking to 
avoid a situation in which ob servership would become a more problematic business for MEA 
secretariats than was currently the case. 
62. The representative commented further that the proposed indicative questions could make the 
existing situation more restrictive.  For example, w ith respect to the first indicative question contained 
in paragraph 18 of the US submission, relating to  specific trade obligations, the EC viewed this 
question as very specific and restrictive.  Also, concerning the other three proposed indicative questions, the representative said it was not obvious wh at right answers would be to such questions.  
The representative also raised questions related to how the indicative questions would be used, 
whether there could actually be right answers to th e questions posed, and how the indicative questions 
would actually be applied in practice.  The repr esentative also raised questions concerning whether 
and how the Committee would be able to take deci sions on observership requests in situations where 
there were different views among Members on what  constituted right and/or wrong answers to the 
indicative questions. 
63. The representative expressed doubt that it would be possible to move from the set of 
indicative questions put forward to something that co uld be applied in practice.  Instead, the approach 
seemed to create a recipe whereby an MEA would not be granted observer status because there was 
no consensus view in the Committee and instead the MEA would be extended ad hoc observer status.  
The representative suggested that with respect to  the CTE and core MEAs, and in terms of the 
existing Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Mi nisterial Conference and Meetings of the General 
Council, the Committee should be able to decide that  their work was associated  with the work of the 
WTO and should therefore be able to decide that those core MEAS should be granted observership in 
the CTE. 
64. Referring to comments made by Chinese Taipei concerning its comparison of the US and EC 
submissions under Paragraph 31(ii), the representative  said the EC submission took a very different 
approach.  In this regard, the representative unders cored an additional point with respect to the EC 
submission that had not been referred to by Chin ese Taipei.  In particular, while the EC submission 
referred to automaticity of observer status, such au tomaticity extended only to core MEAs, i.e., those 
MEAs that had taken part in information exchange sessions in the CTE.  That was, and remained the 
extent of automaticity proposed in the EC submissi on.  For other MEAs seeking observer status in the 
CTE, and also UNEP, and all MEAs seeking observer status in other WTO bodies, automaticity was 
not proposed;  instead, the EC submission had suggested that there should be a strong presumption in 
favour of observership. 
65. Finally, the representative supported Australia's comment on the importance of ensuring that a 
positive outcome on Paragraph 31(ii) was supportive of an outcome on Paragraph 31(i).  However, in 
the EC's view, this would not be a substit ute for an outcome under Paragraph 31(i).  
66. The representative of Brazil
 thanked the United States for bringing this useful document to 
the discussions under Paragraph 31(ii).  Brazil agreed  with Australia's position, supported by China 
and Egypt as to the reading of the mandate as a whole.  In Brazil's view, the discussions under Paragraph 31(ii) would be helpful to the discussi ons under both Paragraphs 31(i) and (iii) of the 
mandate.   TN/TE/R/17 
Page 12  
 
  67. The representative noted that there were many  elements from the US proposal that were 
useful to the discussions and that Brazil could s upport, such as the two-way information exchange 
between the secretariats, as well as the importance of document exchange at the domestic level.  
Brazil raised the question as to whether the new proposal by the US substituted the June 2002 
submission in document TN/TE/W/5.  The representa tive further enquired about MEA participation in 
information sessions.  Regarding the point raised by Switzerland and Egypt with respect to the 
participation of UNEP and UNCTAD in the discussions, Brazil noted that it supported the participation of these organizations, both in fo rmal and informal sessions of the CTE.   
68. On the issue of observer status, Brazil welcomed the flexible position of the US as to the 
granting of observer status to MEAs secretariats.  However, as Egypt had mentioned, such criteria 
should be applied in a uniform manner.  The criteri a should not be read in a way that would exclude 
a priori  the participation of MEAs, for instance MEAs th at had not been associated in the past with 
the work of the WTO, as required under the Rul es of Procedures set out in document WT/L/161.  
Moreover, Brazil asked the US delegation to further elaborate on the criteria of competence and direct 
interest.  In particular, Brazil raised the questi on as to how a WTO committee should deal with an 
MEA request for observer status in cases where the ME A did not meet all of the criteria;  for instance, 
if the MEA had not been working together with the WTO, or had not been present as observer in 
previous meetings, did this mean that the MEA di d not have competence and direct interest in WTO 
work?   
69. The representative of Canada
 thanked the United States for their proposal on continued work 
under Paragraph 31(ii).  His delegation found the pr oposal overall quite helpful in advancing the 
work.  In this regard, he noted that the annex was also a useful aspect of the document as presented.  
Regarding information sessions, Canada agreed wi th the US that these sessions involving MEA 
secretariats were important and should indeed become  a formal, institutionalized aspect of the work of 
the CTE in regular session.  His delegation agreed in  general with the approach suggested by the US 
regarding the organization of such sessions.  Cana da sought a clarification from the US regarding 
paragraph 7 of the submission as to whether the identification of topics for information sessions 
would be done in collaboration with MEAs.   
70. Canada concurred with the US that proce dures for these sessions should not be overly 
detailed and should remain flexible.  At the same time, it would also be useful for Members to agree 
on a general structure for conducting future informa tion sessions.  Canada agreed with the general 
approach as laid out by the United States.  On docu ment exchange, Canada supported the US' view on 
the need to reaffirm the importance of domestic coordination and at the same time to improve 
international coordination, particularly as regards the use of the Internet.   
71. With regard to the granting of observer status, Canada agreed with the general approach and 
criteria laid out by the US to grant observer status  to relevant MEAs.  The representative underscored 
the importance of having a flexible approach for gr anting observer status to MEAs.  Canada agreed 
with the point made by other delegations that crite ria should not be so inflexible as to make it more 
difficult for an MEA secretariat to gain observership to a relevant WTO body.  His delegation saw the 
value of identifying indicative questions and appreciat ed those that had been proposed.  At the same 
time, Canada appreciated the comments by Japan rega rding whether or not there was a right or wrong 
answer to these questions, and whether an MEA shoul d still be granted observer status if one or two 
of the questions were answered in the negative.  The criteria of direct interest could be interpreted too 
restrictively;  it was therefore important to look at the trade relevance of the MEA in question.   
72. His delegation supported the suggestion to grant permanent observer status for the remainder 
of the negotiations to the MEAs that had been  attending CTESS meetings on an ad hoc basis.  
In addition, Canada welcomed the views expressed  by Norway that UNEP should be recognized as 
well.    TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 13 
 
 
  73. The representative of New Zealand  said his delegation welcomed this further contribution 
from the United States.  Like other Members, New Zealand considered that this part of the negotiations was important, particularly in the co ntext of the objective of enhancing the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and the environment.  New Zealand shared the assessment made by the US 
that negotiations under Pa ragraph 31(ii) had been perhaps less s ubstantive and dynamic than in other 
areas.  His delegation therefore welcomed the opport unity to engage substantively on these issues.  
Discussions based on the US proposal would further he lp intensify the negotiations in keeping with 
the recent announcement of full resumption.  In New Zealand's view, the US paper was a constructive 
and substantive contribution to the negotiations, as it  set out workable and practical suggestions for 
taking the process forward.  The US paper a ddressed the two interrelated elements of the 
Paragraph 31(ii) mandate, namely inform ation exchange and observer status.   
74. Regarding information exchange , New Zealand believed that e nhanced information exchange 
and the cooperation that flowed from it would be fundamental in increasing the mutual supportiveness 
between trade and environment. With respect to timing, his delegation was supportive of the 
suggestion that MEA information sessions take pla ce on a regular basis, for instance once every year 
as suggested by the US, with a review to take place every five years.  As part of this review, Members 
could also assess the substance of MEA sessions, thei r usefulness and whether the structure adopted 
was actually working to the satisfaction of the wide r membership.  Such review could be made on an 
ongoing basis.   
75. New Zealand supported the view that there shoul d be a two-way information flow, and that 
the structure of such exchanges should not be overl y prescriptive.  With regard to the cross-cutting 
themes, the representative noted that Members should be  engaging in some substance in terms of what 
the cross cutting themes might be each year.  The sessions could be structured around short, focused 
presentations from the WTO secretariat and MEAs, depending on the theme of the meeting.  Those presentations should be designed to stimulate discu ssions about the information being exchanged;  
specific discussions points could also be used to help focus the exchange.   
76. On the question of background material, New Z ealand emphasized the n eed to make it brief 
and focused to the point of the cross-cutting theme addressed at the meeting.  In terms of the reports 
on the activities, information sessions provided a usef ul opportunity to learn about the collaborative 
activities that were carried out;  this could helpfully inform Members' thinking about the kind of issues they were grappling with in terms of nati onal coordination, but also in terms of bilateral 
information exchange processes with other WTO Members and technical assistance.  New Zealand 
supported the US proposal that the WTO secretaria t should prepare a list of documents that it had 
received and then circulating that more widely.  Th is could also include a brief summary of each of 
the documents listed.  As other delegations had pointed out, his de legation also believed in taking 
advantage of the evolution of information technol ogy, for instance by using hyperlinking to help 
improve the visibility of this kind of material.  
77. Exchanges about national experiences had useful ly highlighted the importance of domestic 
coordination, and these processes could help enhan ce the coherence between trade and environment 
policies.  In New Zealand's view, information ex change between WTO and MEAs was not in any way 
a substitute for coordination at the national level, as noted by Aust ralia, but could supplement such 
coordination.  
78. With regard to the issue of observer status , the US paper helpfully set out the specific 
elements that Members ne eded to consider.  New Zealand strongly supported the US point that the 
mandate of negotiation was tightly drawn to the issu e of observer status for relevant MEA secretariats 
and did not extend to the broader question of observe r status of international organizations in the 
WTO;  that was a matter for the General Council to address.  The outline in Paragraph 18 of the US paper, which contained a list of specific criteri a or indicative questions provided a good basis on TN/TE/R/17 
Page 14  
 
  which to further engage.  In Ne w Zealand's view, one size did not necessarily fit all, in particular 
when taking into account new and emerging MEAs.  In this regard, his delegation welcomed the point 
made by the US in paragraphs 17 and 19 of its paper that the list was non exhaustive, and that some 
flexibility would be required.   
79. In particular, with regard to the first indi cative question, New Zealand noted that an MEA 
may not contain specific trade obligations but more  general trade-related ob ligations that applied 
among the parties.  This was the case for some regiona l fisheries agreements that could contribute to 
discussions in WTO.  Some level of flexibility w ould therefore be required in order to move the 
process forward.  New Zealand observed that the way th e question had been cast in the US paper, i.e. 
referring to MEA containing specific trade obligati ons "or other trade-related obligations among 
parties" helpfully provided some flexibility.   
80. In New Zealand's view, the second indicativ e question regarding whether the MEA had 
observer status in other bodies could provide a usef ul indication of engagement and the relevance of 
the MEA's work.  The third and fourth questions posed in paragraph 18 of the US paper were 
similarly useful.  However, it was important to keep in mind the new and emerging MEAs.  
With regard to the list of indicative questions, Ne w Zealand asked whether the US was thinking about 
asking the WTO secretariat to compile possible answer s to these questions, or whether the questions 
were supposed to guide the consideration of request s for observer status by relevant committees.   
81. Moreover, New Zealand welcomed the suggestion that where agreement could not be reached 
with respect to a particular request, a mechanism of ad hoc observer status could be used.  This would 
not be an ideal solution but would still facilitate in formation exchange and cooperation.  Finally, the 
representative expressed support for the proposal to grant observer status for the remainder of the 
negotiations to the seven MEA secretariats listed in footnote 1 of the US paper.  In summary, his delegation welcomed the US submission as a timely , substantive and constructive contribution that 
would help focus Members' attention on an area of the negotiations that had been rather neglected.  
His delegation looked forward to further discussions under this item and to working with others to 
develop the shape of an outcome that would wo rk in a practical and effective manner.   
82. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
 congratulated the US for its pertinent submission.  
Côte d'Ivoire particularly supported the proposals in the submission relating to institution building, 
technical assistance and capacity building and also  working on national processes in the area of trade 
and environment. 
83. With respect to information exchange and in formation sessions, and also with a view to 
transparency, the representative wondered about the ro le of developing countries, including LDCs, in 
the sessions.  For instance, Members might benefit from receiving information from developing countries who had had bad experiences  in terms of non-respect of certain MEAs.  The representative 
noted that Côte d'Ivoire had faced a serious pr oblem involving toxic waste.  In this instance, 
Côte d'Ivoire had not been informed about the source of the waste, notwithstanding the fact that under 
the relevant convention, the country of origin w as obliged to inform the MEA secretariat, which in 
turn was to inform the country of destination.  In the view of Côte d'Ivoire, this type of experience 
could be shared in the information sessions. 
84. With regard to document exchange and the pr oposal in the US submission to "reaffirm the 
need to share documents at the domestic level as a first-best way to inform trade and environment 
officials of WTO and MEA activities", the represen tative suggested two key players might be the 
World Customs Organization (WCO) and transport servi ces.  On the latter, it was important to involve 
transport services because all waste, including toxic w aste, was transported.  On technical assistance 
and capacity building, the representative said such  assistance must work in support of developing  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 15 
 
 
  countries and LDCs.  Also, there needed to be proper exchanges between developed and developing 
countries so the latter could benefit from the experience of developed countries. 
85. The representative of Australia  joined other delegations in tha nking the US for their work in 
preparing the submission.  Although it had received less attention, Paragra ph 31(ii) was nevertheless 
an important part of the mandate and indeed Australia had already seen benefits from improved 
information exchange and increased national level coordination.  Australia supported the ideas put 
forward and the proposals by the US on informat ion sessions and document exchange.  As well, 
Australia re-emphasized the value of national leve l coordination and information exchange at the 
domestic level.  On this point, the representative noted that capacity building and technical assistance 
were important elements in fac ilitating and enhancing this domestic level coordination in developing 
countries.  Her delegation agreed with the point ma de by New Zealand and the US that international 
information exchange while useful, was not a substitu te for national level coordination.  On observer 
status, Australia regarded the questions posed by  the US as providing a good basis for discussion;  
Australia was flexible on this part of the manda te and willing to engage further on the issue. 
86. The representative of Chile  thanked the US for the submission which was important with a 
view to further developing the work of CTESS.  Re garding the annex, Chile agreed with its content 
with respect to information sessions and document exchange.  Chile also wished to stress the 
importance of coordination at domestic level: wh ile it was sometimes difficult to achieve this 
coordination in developing countries, positive results  could be achieved if the necessary efforts were 
made.  As well, the representative underscored th e importance of the use of the internet and 
information technologies in general:  for exampl e, video-conferences could sometimes be a good 
substitute when time and resource constraints pr ecluded personal or other forms of meetings.  
On technical assistance and capacity building, this asp ect was of particular interest to countries such 
as Chile as they sought to develop.   
87. The issue of observer status was a key pa rt of the mandate under Paragraph 31(ii).  
Chile wished to see general and flexible criteri a established that would not be too difficult to 
implement in practice.  In this regard, the indi cative questions in the US submission were very 
detailed and perhaps overly rigid.  Chile preferred a mechanism that would be more straightforward in 
its implementation.  Finally, Chile agreed with Australia that the outcome of deliberations under 
Paragraph 31(ii) needed to underpin the work under Paragraph 31(i).  The three parts of the 
Paragraph 31 mandate were inter linked and of equal importance. 
88. The representative of South Africa  welcomed the US submission as providing a good basis 
for discussion under Paragraph 31(ii).  Noting that  the other two elements of Paragraph 31 had 
received more attention over the years, the representative said it was timely to give more focus to Paragraph 31(ii).  She added that South Africa shar ed the view of other delegations that all three 
elements needed to contribute together to help  achieve the objective of reaffirming the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and environment.  In terms of information exchange, South Africa agreed that 
facilitating transparency and increasing accessibility to  information was the sort of outcome Members 
needed to look towards achieving.   South Africa agreed broadly with the US ideas and looked forward 
to further discussion and the US response to questions  raised in the meeting.  Concerning integration 
of technical assistance into the cooperation betw een WTO and MEAs, South Africa viewed that as a 
good idea meriting further consideration. 
89. On the issue of observer status, while South A frica agreed with the objective of the US to 
facilitate the participation of ME As as observers, they had doubts about the vehicle proposed to 
achieve this objective.  In principle, South Afri ca did not object to the idea of indicative questions .  
However, the examples provided by the US gave an impression of creating additional hoops for 
MEAs to jump through before being granted observe r status.  Also, the indicative questions tended to TN/TE/R/17 
Page 16  
 
  be qualitative and there was never any right or wrong answer to a qualitative question;  it could end up 
making the process more drawn out than it needed to be.   
90. The representative referred to the point made by  Japan that not all MEAS had specific trade 
measures or trade obligations but could influence tr ade and, in that sense, could have a competence 
the CTESS might need to draw upon in its discussions.  This highlighted the point that the indicative 
questions, while not being exhaustive, needed to  have sufficient coverage;  potentially it could 
become very complicating.  South Africa agreed al so with Chile that any criteria established, while 
not necessarily being automatic, should be stra ightforward and should not complicate matters.  
Noting South Africa's view of the critical role  of UNEP and UNCTAD, and referring also to the 
important role of WCO in the CTESS discussions on Paragraph 31(iii), the representative asked 
whether these organizations had not been mentioned in the US submission beca use they were seen as 
international organizations falling outsid e the scope of Paragraph 31(ii).   
91. The representative of Korea
 joined with others in thanking the US for its valuable and timely 
submission under Paragraph 31(ii) which provide d a good opportunity for CTESS to discuss the 
important issues raised.  In Korea's view, Paragraph 31(ii) also impacted on Paragraph 31(i) issues, as 
both aspects were interrelated and mutually s upportive.  Concerning information exchange and 
document exchange, Korea would have no problem w ith the US submission.  Concerning the proposal 
to grant permanent observer status for the rema inder of the DDA negotiations to the seven MEA 
secretariats that currently had ad hoc observer status  in the CTESS, Korea similarly joined with other 
delegations in supporting this idea.  Korea also wished to emphasize UNEP's important and critical 
role in the trade and environment discussions. 
92. With regard to observer status, Korea noted th at the CTESS should be flexible in determining 
or applying any indicative list of questions.  If CTESS prepared numerous questions, each WTO body 
would then decide which elements or which ques tions they could utilize in deciding on observership 
questions.  For Korea, the CTESS should not spend t oo much time exploring possible questions since 
the final decision would rest with each WTO body.   
93. With respect to Japan's question on evaluation of technical assistance activities, the Chairman  
noted that regular evaluations of technical assi stance programmes were conducted in the WTO and 
were discussed in the Committee on Trade and Deve lopment (CTD).  In fact, a very exhaustive 
evaluation of the technical assistance programme ha d been discussed in 2006 in the CTD.  The CTE 
did not have a separate mechanism for evaluation.   
94. The representative of Japan  thanked the Chairman for the clarification on evaluation of 
technical assistance activities.  The representati ve also referred to the intervention by the 
representative of India and reiterated Japan's pos ition with respect to the proposed information 
sessions with MEA secretariats.  Specifically, Japan supported the holding of these sessions on an annual basis initially;  then, following a stocktaking,  a decision could be taken on whether to hold the 
sessions more or less frequently. 
95. The representative of the European Communities
 (EC) referred to the US proposal that the 
CTESS grant permanent observer status for the rema inder of the DDA negotiations to the seven MEA 
secretariats that currently had ad hoc observership.   He said the EC supported this proposal entirely 
and in fact was even more ambitious to the extent they would prefer observership be extended to all 
thirteen core MEAs as set out in their own submission.8 
96. The representative of the United States  thanked delegations for their comments on its 
proposal in TN/TE/W/70, as well as additional sugg estions and ideas.  Several delegations had 
                                                      
8 TN/TE/W/66.  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 17 
 
 
  mentioned the important linkages betw een Paragraphs 31(ii) and 31(i).  The US agreed that there were 
positive synergies that could be developed thr ough a very practical and useful outcome under 
Paragraph 31(ii).   
97. With regard to the indicative questions on ob server status, the representative noted that the 
US thinking behind proposing indicative questions was th at they would be very flexible and that there 
would be no right or wrong answer.  Rather, i ndicative questions could be used by each Member 
within each WTO body in its consideration of an MEA request for observer status. The US did not 
feel strongly about any one of the indicative questions;  the questions in its paper had been proposed simply as a basis for discussion.  Some interesting ideas had been put forward about how indicative questions could be more facilitating in their nature for MEA secretaria ts;  the US was interested in 
exploring those ideas further.   
98. Some delegations had voiced con cern regarding the fact that the US paper did not specifically 
mention UNEP or other international organizati ons such as UNCTAD or WCO.  The representative 
noted that there was no intention to exclude other international organizations;  the US paper focused 
on MEAs because these were the organizations that were specifically referred to in the mandate.  
99. Turning to some of the more specific questions , Japan had asked for a clarification on the US 
recommendation that in the event that an MEA observer request could not be decided upon, WTO bodies should be encouraged to invite that MEA to  relevant meetings on an ad hoc basis.  This 
proposal was simply aimed at facilitating the ability of some of the MEAs to attend discussions and 
have access to information.  Ultimately, the deci sion would be up to each relevant WTO body, but 
WTO bodies could still be encouraged to consider granting observer status on an ad hoc basis.  
100. With respect to the point raised by Colombia regarding the need to coordinate the timing of 
the information exchange sessions with MEA meet ings, the US noted that as Members discussed 
relevant topics for these sessions, they could also th ink about the most relevant sets of MEAs and try 
to organize the sessions in coordination with those particular MEAs.  Regarding the question raised 
by Brazil on MEA participation, the US intention was to be as inclusive as possible and include topics 
that were of interest to the broadest array of MEAs.   
101. Regarding the proposal on stock taking, the US agreed that there should be an ongoing 
process for reviewing the structure of the informati on sessions.  It would be up to the membership to 
determine the actual nature of the stock taking, but new ideas about how to usefully conduct the 
information sessions would always be welcome.   
102. Several delegations including Switzerland and Thailand had as ked that the US further 
elaborate on its proposal for technical assistance and capacity building among secretariats and to 
better foster domestic trade and environment coordi nation procedures.  The US did not have specific 
ideas on this matter and was interested in hearing proposals by other delegations on how to further 
develop this particular element.  Regarding the question raised by the EC, the US noted that this was 
something for the membership to further discuss in orde r to identify what could be most useful in this 
area.    
103. With regard to the question raised by New Ze aland, whether the indicative questions were 
intended to be answered by the MEA secretariats that were applying for observer status, or were simply intended to be used as a basis for discussi on, the US was open to discussing how the indicative 
questions could be applied ultimately, as well as th e substance of these questions.  If the membership 
felt that the questions should go into a different di rection, i.e. a more facilitative direction for MEAs, 
the US was interested to hear other proposals from different Members.  The US appreciated the input 
by other delegations, which gave a good basis to furt her develop some of the ideas in future meetings.  TN/TE/R/17 
Page 18  
 
  104. The representative of UNEP
 said 2007 represented an important milestone for global 
environmental governance:  it was the 35th anniversary of the founding of UNEP, the 15th anniversary 
of the Rio Earth Summit, and the 5th anniversary of the World Summ it on Sustainable Development.  
2007 had also witnessed unprecedented media attention to current global environmental challenges, 
particularly climate change.  It was in this context that delegates from 141 countries and 
representatives from intergovernmental and non-governm ental organizations, 1000 pa rticipants in all, 
had met in Nairobi from 5-9 February 2007 for the 24th Session of UNEP's Governing Council/Global 
Ministerial Environment Forum.  Heads of seven international organizations, including Mr. Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO, and Mr. Kemal Dervis, Administrator of the UNDP, had also attended.  The representative noted that it was the first time a WTO Director-General had 
participated in a UNEP Governing Council meeting. 
105. In addition to discussing UNEP's work progr amme and budget, Ministers attending the 
Governing Council/Global Ministeria l Environment Forum had focused their attention on two critical 
policy issues; namely, international environmenta l governance and, most relevant to the CTESS's 
work, the relationship between globalization and th e environment.  These issues had been debated 
during several panel and ministerial roundtable discussions. 
106. The representative noted that Mr. Lamy had par ticipated in two of the panel discussions.  
In his presentation to Environment Ministers, Mr. Lamy had affirmed that sustainable development 
was at the heart of the WTO and urged continued support from the environmental community in bringing the WTO Doha negotiations to a successful conclusion.  Mr. Lamy had noted that "The WTO, UNEP and Multilateral Environmental Agreements – as well as other international 
institutions – must be put to work towards a shar ed sustainable development vision."  Moreover, he 
had noted the need to build strong linkages between the WTO and UNEP.  
107. For his part, the new Executive Director of  UNEP, Mr. Achim Steiner, had challenged 
delegates attending the meeting to consider wa ys in which globalization could contribute to 
environmental protection.  He had noted that on th e one hand there would be no lasting developments 
without a sustainably managed environment and likew ise that the environment could not be protected 
without development, economic opportunity, and economic growth taking place. 
108. The representative said the sentiments expressed by Mr. Lamy and Mr. Steiner had been 
echoed in ministerial roundtable discussions, which were summarized in a report of the President of 
the Governing Council, H.E. Mr. Roberto Dobles Mo re, Costa Rica's Minister of Environment and 
Energy.
9  As reflected in the report, Ministers in their discussions had called on UNEP to contribute 
substantively to the dialogue on global trade to help  shape trade-related rules and institutions.  They 
had also requested that UNEP work closely wi th the WTO Secretariat in promoting mutual 
supportiveness of trade and environment. 
109. In addition to the plenary roundtable discussi ons, the UNEP and WTO secretariats had jointly 
organized in Nairobi on 5 February 2007 a high-le vel side event on "Globalization and Environment: 
Ensuring Coherence Between the Trade and Environm ent Regimes."  Both Mr. Lamy and Mr. Steiner 
had participated, joined by H.E. Dr. Mukhisa Kituyi, Minister of Trade and Industry of Kenya and H.E. Mr. Giancarlo Piatti, Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea of Italy.  The roundtable, which was attended by over 150 participants, had explored opportunities for 
promoting greater coherence and reinforcing mutu al supportiveness between trade and environmental 
policies and regimes. 
110. The representative described the focus on tr ade and environment issues during UNEP's 
Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environmen t Forum as remarkable, reflecting not only the 
                                                     
 
9 TN/TE/INF/11.  TN/TE/R/17 
 Page 19 
 
 
  importance given to the issues by Environment Minist ers but also the commitment of Mr. Steiner and 
Mr. Lamy actively to cooperate in promoting mutua lly supportive trade and environment policies.   
111. The representative of Australia  thanked UNEP for its interventi on.  Drawing from the report 
of the Australian delegation on the Nairobi ministerial meeting, she noted that in addition to the aspects mentioned by the UNEP representative, th ere was also recognition in Nairobi of the 
importance of improved coherence among national e nvironmental, trade and sectoral ministries, 
for instance in the areas of agriculture and transport,  and that this was considered a low cost, high pay 
off activity to support consistent  enunciation of government positi ons in development, economic, 
trade and other fora.  The representative said it was usef ul to note that while delegations in the trade 
setting were pushing for improved c oordination at domestic level and international level, the push was 
also coming from the environment negotiations.   
112. In concluding on the item, the Chairman
 noted that the outline provided in the annex to the 
US submission (TN/TE/W/70), had been particular ly useful in focusing the present discussion.  
The discussion had provided a clearer picture of wh ere delegations stood on the different elements 
proposed.  The Chairman observed that many delega tions had indicated their interest in further 
advancing the work and that there was scope fo r making progress on this part of the mandate.  
The next step would be to proceed to a more in depth examination of the various elements on the table.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31(III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
113. The Chairman
 noted that there were no new submissions under this agenda item. 
114. The representative of the United States  said her delegation had en joyed good conversations 
with other delegations on the margins of the meeting and looked forw ard to continuing the 
discussions.  The representative had a sense that delega tions wanted to find a pragmatic way forward 
and remained committed to a very good result in the negotiations, one that would benefit trade and 
environment and produce the kind of win-win scenario that all Members wanted. 
115. The representative of Egypt said that in addition to a result that would be beneficial to 
environment and trade, CTESS was also looking for a development result under Paragraph 31(iii).  
Such a result would be possible with the goodwill of  Members and under the Chairman's leadership of 
the Committee. 
116. The representative of UNEP  informed the CTESS of an upcoming informal roundtable 
discussion on environmental goods being co-organ ized by the UNEP–UNCTAD Capacity Building 
Task Force, University of Geneva Faculty of law,  Geneva-based Graduate In stitute of International 
Studies, and the International Network for E nvironmental Compliance and Enforcement.  
The roundtable scheduled on 14 March would explor e the opportunities and challenges presented by 
the WTO Environmental Goods and Services negotiations for promoting the transfer of cleaner technologies and practices.  The initiative was f unded through the Geneva In ternational Academic 
Network.   
117. The representative of UNCTAD
 referred to a forthcoming meeting of the UNCTAD 
Commission on Trade in Goods and Services, and Commodities in March and informed the CTESS 
that this would include a special session on envi ronmental goods and services, tentatively scheduled 
on 22 March.  It was UNCTAD's intention to use th e session to address some legal issues implicit in 
the negotiations, to look also at non-tariff barri ers and how they could be dealt with in the 
negotiations in general and in the Environmental Goods and Services ne gotiations in particular, and to 
look at the mandate in the broader cont ext of sustainable development.   TN/TE/R/17 
Page 20  
 
  IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
118. The Chairman
 informed delegations of his intenti on to convene a formal meeting of the 
CTESS at the beginning of May 2007 and to hold inform al discussions with delegations earlier to try 
to advance the Committee's work particularly und er Paragraph 31(ii).  The Chairman said that 
following discussions at the present meeting, Para graph 31(ii) was an area where the CTESS seemed 
to have a concrete basis for taking the work further;   he therefore wished to examine in more depth, 
with delegations, the different elements on th e table ahead of the next formal meeting. 
119. The United States  recalled its proposal that observer status be granted for the remainder of the 
WTO negotiations to the seven MEA secretariats that had ad hoc observership in the CTESS.  
The representative noted that the issue could be raised  in consultations with delegations prior to the 
next formal meeting, as many delegations  had expressed support for this idea.   
120. In response to requests from a number of delegations, the Chairman  suggested the Secretariat 
prepare a revision of the document entitled "Synt hesis of Submissions on Environmental Goods: 
Informal Note by the Secretariat."10  The revision should reflect any changes in terms of lists put 
forward by Members under Paragraph 31(iii) an d should be updated as well to reflect new 
submissions and proposals under Paragr aph 31(iii) tabled after preparation of the original document.   
121. The CTESS agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc i nvitations issued for that meeting at the next 
meeting of the CTESS. 11   
__________ 
                                                      
10 TN/TE/W/63. 
11 The following organizations will be 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 and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).