RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/13 
11 October 2005 
 
 (05-4623) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE THIRTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
15-16 SEPTEMBER 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS) held its thirteenth 
meeting on 15-16 September 2005 on the basis of th e agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/2633.   
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAS) 
2. The representatives of Argentina
, Australia , Brazil , Chile , the European Communities  (EC), 
and Switzerland  noted that Paragraphs 31(i) and (ii) of the Doha Declara tion remained important parts 
of the mandate, despite the fact that delegati ons had chosen to focus their work mainly on 
Paragraph 31(iii) until the Hong K ong Ministerial Conference.   
3. The representative of Chile  noted that focussing on Paragraph 31(iii) did not prejudge any 
result on this part of the mandate for the Hong Kong Ministerial.   
4. With respect to Paragraph 31(i), the representative of Australia  noted that the process of 
national experience sharing on the negotiation and implementation of MEAs had proved useful.  
In Australia's view, this national experience shari ng could, in its own right, deliver an outcome under 
Paragraph 31(i).   
5. Responding to a question raised by New Zealand at the July meeting concerning the 
principles of no hierarchy, mutual suppor tiveness and deference (document TN/TE/W/58)1, the 
representative of Switzerland  firstly noted that, in principle, international law did not create a 
hierarchy between agreements.   
6. The only exceptions in this regard were the following:  first , jus cogens  always preceded.  
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law  of Treaties, jus cogens  were norms accepted and 
recognized by the international community of States as a whole, as norms from which no derogation was permitted.  The WTO law did not have the status of jus cogens;  neither were MEAs perceived 
as jus cogens . 
7. Secondly, according to the principle of jus posterior , newer law  preceded over older law.  
This rule applied only if the countries invol ved in a conflict were parties to both the
 old and new law.  
Thirdly, more specific law preceded over more general law ( lex specialis) .  This rule only applied 
between countries that were both parties to the conflicting rules.   
                                                      
1 The statement by Switzerland was subsequently  circulated in document TN/TE/W/61.   TN/TE/R/13 
Page 2  
 
8. It was clear from these principles that ther e existed no hierarchy between WTO rules  and 
MEAs.  This had also been confirmed by the inte rnational community, for instance by United Nations 
General Assembly decisions, and by the World Su mmit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Plan of 
Implementation, which invited States to "promote  mutual supportiveness between the multilateral 
trading system and the multilateral environmental ag reements, consistent with sustainable development 
goals, in support of the work progamme agreed through WTO, while recogni zing the importance of 
maintaining the integrity of both sets of instruments".
2   
9. She noted that this reference to mutual supportiven ess and to the need to maintain the integrity 
of the WTO and the environment regimes was a clea r recognition of the principles of no hierarchy, 
mutual supportiveness and deference.  In fact, the integrity of each system could only be maintained by 
showing deference to each other.  By stressing thes e principles, it was also acknowledged that there was 
no need to introduce, for example, in new MEAs, provisions dealing w ith the relationship of the treaty 
in question to other treaties (the so-called "savings clauses").   
10. Furthermore, as long as  different international rules could be  interpreted in a compatible and 
consistent manner, there was no need to establish an artificial hierarchy between them.  In that sense, 
WTO rules should always be interpreted, according to international law, in a manner that did not 
constitute a conflict with MEA rules.  The same al so applied with respect to the interpretation of 
MEAs rules.  This was a reflection of the general principle .pacta sunt  servanda,  which required that 
States should try to fulfill their obligations under on e treaty without violating their obligations under 
other treaties.  Hence, treaties should generally be construed so as not to create any conflicts with 
other rules of international law.  Thus, if in .a specific situation WTO and MEA rules both applied, the 
provisions of each instrument should be construed,  if possible, in a manner that would not create 
conflicts with the applicable rules and principles of other instruments.  This also implied that in the 
context of the WTO, the necessity of a measure pr ovided for in an MEA should not be re-examined, 
thus questioning the fulfillment of obligations under an MEA, but the WTO should use deference with 
regard to this issue.   
11. Finally, she noted that the above-mentioned principles were also reflected in decisions of 
international courts, such as the International Cour t of Justice, as well as decisions of the WTO's 
Appellate Body.  
12. The representative of the EC  noted that his delegation fully subscribed to the principles 
invoked by Switzerland in its statement.   
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
13. There was no discussion under this agenda item. 
III. PARAGRAPH 31 (III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
14. The Chairman  recalled that at the meeting in July, submissions had been tabled by the EC 
(TN/TE/W/47/Add.1 and TN/TE/W/56), New Z ealand (TN/TE/W/49 and Suppl.1), Canada 
(TN/TE/W/50 and Suppl.1), India (TN/TE/W/51 and TN/TE/W/54), the United States (TN/TE/W/52), 
Cuba (TN/TE/W/55), Switzerland (TN/TE/W/57) and Brazil (TN/TE/W/59).  He invited delegations 
to further discuss the ideas currently  on the table, and to share thei r thinking on how the CTESS could 
advance its work towards the Hong Kong Ministerial.   He further noted that Switzerland had recently 
circulated a corrigendum to its paper (document TN/TE/W/57/Corr.1) and that the Secretariat had 
updated the Synthesis of Submissions on Environmental Goods (JOB(05)/57/Rev.2).   
                                                      
2 Paragraph 98 of the WSSD Plan of Implementation (WT/CTE/W/220/Rev.1).   TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
15. The representative of the United States  (US) thanked the Secretariat for updating the 
Synthesis document.  The US noted that 480 produc ts had been proposed by the nine Members that 
had submitted lists, and that almost  two hundred of those products had been proposed by more than 
one delegation.  She noted that approximately fo rty products put forward still did not have any HS 
code attached to them, and underscored the importa nce of including HS codes when proposing goods.   
16. The representative of the EC  noted that paragraph 19 of th e Secretariat's paper could be 
considered in conjunction with paragraph 11 of the Swiss paper (TN/TE/W/57), which proposed four 
broad categories of products, i.e., Pollution Ma nagement;  Resource Management;  Cleaner 
Technology and Products (CTP);  and Environmentally Preferable Products (EPPs).  The EC asked 
whether other delegations also shared the view that  these four broad categories or sub-categories were 
representative of the universe of products that Member s were willing to consider in the context of the 
negotiations.  Understanding this un iverse of products would help de legations find a balance between 
developing and developed countries' interests in the negotiations, and contribute significantly to the 
protection of the environment through the tool of trade liberalization.   
17. He pointed out that India had identified the following categories in paragraph 14 of its 
submission (TN/TE/W/51):  Air Pollution Control;  Water and Waste Management;  Solid Waste 
Management;  Remediation and Clean-Up;  No ise and Vibration Abatement;  Environmental 
Monitoring and Analysis;  Process Optimization;  Energy Saving Management;  Renewable Energy 
Facilities;  and Environmentally Preferable Products .  According to the EC, there seemed to be a 
common understanding emerging on the type of unive rse that should be discussed in the context of 
the Paragraph 31(iii) negotiations.   
18. The EC noted that delegations should not feel  overwhelmed by the 480 items listed in the 
Synthesis document.  He invited ot her delegations to find a way to engage in meaningful discussions 
on parts of what had been tabled, emphasizing the need  to find a process that would lead to consensus.  
He expected the result of the discussion to be less complex than the paper currently before the 
CTESS.   
19. Lastly, he encouraged Members to use the Secr etariat's Synthesis as a tool to help them 
identify goods of interest to them.  As already stat ed by India, it was not easy to develop a list, even 
on a national basis.  He recalled that there was some overlap between the various lists tabled.  
Therefore, delegations could study in more detail the products already put forward, and concentrate 
on possible additional items that could comp lement the list of environmental goods.  
20. The representative of India  noted that the listing of areas in paragraph 14 of its submission 
(TN/TE/W/51) was made in the context of the Envi ronmental Project Approach (EPA) and not in the 
context of a list approach, or any other approach.  In India's view, the EPA was a comprehensive and 
balanced way of fulfilling the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).  India had circulated a new proposal in 
response to questions raised by other delegations.  According to India, there were several elements 
that were vital to achieving the mandate in Para graph 31(iii).  These included ensuring that benefits 
actually accrued to the environment on a sustainable a nd long-term basis.  This  required not only that 
concessions over goods and services be clearly rela ted to environmental objectives, but that in 
addition such concessions involve the transfer of technology.  The mandate in Paragraph 31(iii) 
should be fulfilled so as to avoi d unintended consequences, such as de-industrialization in certain 
developing segments of industry in developing countries.   India was of the view that the list approach 
failed to address these critical elements.  Hence, it did not promise to be an acceptable way of 
fulfilling the mandate.   
21. The EPA provided the necessary policy space to national governments to ensure that the 
environmental objectives were met on a sustainable and long-term basis, and in a manner that was 
consistent with countries' own devel opment and industrialization priorities.  From the point of view of 
developing countries, the EPA also ensured that ther e were no adverse trade balances that would harm TN/TE/R/13 
Page 4  
 
their overall economic growth, and was therefore in keeping with their development priorities.  He 
added that the main concerns of developing count ries and the overall objectives of the mandate were 
addressed by the EPA.  However, India remained open to other approaches that would also take into account these concerns and help meet the objectives set out in the mandate. 
22. The representative of Canada
 recognized that different approaches had been proposed under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  However, there were some unde rlying questions or considerations common to all 
approaches that Members could usefully address in or der to make some progress in the work towards 
the Hong Kong Ministerial.  Therefore, Canada welcomed any discussion relating to categories of 
products or individual products, in order to  keep up the pace of technical work under 
Paragraph 31(iii).   
23. The representative of New Zealand  agreed with India's comment at the July meeting that 
Members needed to work together creatively and deliberately on how to make progress in the 
negotiations.  He noted that further informatio n exchange was important  at this juncture.  
New Zealand concurred with India that Members s hould focus on the environmental benefits of some 
of the products to further enrich the discussion.  He suggested that delegations leave aside the 
question of approach, and engage in a more info rmal discussion, completely open and transparent, 
without prejudice to the process of negotiation.  In this respect, New Zealand noted that it had found 
the workshop organized by the United States on 14 September helpful, particularly in terms of highlighting development benefits in respect of specific items.   
24. The representative of Thailand
, also speaking on behalf of three ASEAN members, namely 
Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam, stated that  much time had been spent at the beginning of 
the discussions under Paragraph 31 (iii) on the overarching concepts and characteristics of 
environmental goods.  The "bottom up" approach examined the issue from a more concrete 
perspective, with tangible exampl es of products that could be c onsidered as environmental goods.  
This was the origin of the list approach.  Many lists had been submitted to the CTESS, some of which 
were based on principles and concepts already di scussed in the context of the APEC and OECD 
environmental goods lists, and some which encompas sed additional concepts, such as the concept of a 
living list, or the inclusion of Cleaner Technology and Products, or EPPs.   
25. The number of new proposals submitted under Paragraph 31(iii) showed that Members 
viewed the mandate as important.  However, he expressed concern with respect to some categories 
and examples of goods that had been proposed by certain Members.  This concern was based on the 
interpretation of the mandate unde r Paragraph 31(iii), namely that the motivation behind the mandate 
was lower tariffs and NTBs for goods that would directly help to cl ean up the environment or mitigate 
adverse effects on the environment.   
26. It was Thailand's belief that e nvironmental goods had a direct fu nction and a linkage with the 
protection of the environment, including, inter alia , air, water, noise and waste.  Thailand had always 
maintained that end-use was an important criterion for determining the envir onmental nature of goods 
which should be considered under the mandate, hence his delegation's concerns regarding some of the 
products put forward as environmental goods.  Such pr oducts included, for instan ce, waterless urinals, 
composting toilets, padlocks, yachts and bicycles.  In Thailand's view, such products were not 
primarily used for environmental purposes.  Most  of these products fell under the EPPs and Cleaner 
Technology and Products categories.  This raised  the question as to whether these categories allowed 
too much leeway in including goods that were not  truly environmental.  The fact that one EPP was 
preferable to another, or that one product was produced by cleaner technology, did not mean that it 
could be justified for environmental reasons, at leas t not for the practical interpretation of the term 
"environmental good" under Paragraph 31(iii).  If a g ood were to be consider ed environmental under 
Paragraph 31(iii), there should be a concrete linkage betw een the proposed good and the 
environmental purpose it fulfilled.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
27. The representative of Indonesia  thanked the Secretariat for revising the Synthesis document, 
which would help her delegation analyse the products put forward by other delegations as 
environmental goods.  She supported the statement by  Thailand that the current negotiation under 
Paragraph 31(iii) had focused on the concept of a list approach with the aim of agreeing on a single 
environmental goods list.  Under this approach, nine  Members had submitted lists of goods that they 
considered environmental.  Most of these Memb ers had used the OECD and APEC environmental 
goods lists as the basis for their list.  Some Memb ers had also submitted lists containing goods that 
were not identified in the APEC or OECD lists, wh ich some delegations may not consider to be of 
direct relevance to the protection of the environmen t.  The proponents of the list approach maintained 
that this was a pragmatic way forward for the negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii).   
28. At the last CTESS meeting, Indonesia had stated  that simply focussing on the list approach 
could make the target of a "win-win-win" outcome for the environment, development and trade more 
elusive.  Therefore, Indonesia had some reservatio ns on the effectiveness of the list approach to 
ensure optimal results for the environment and development.  Technology transfer and capacity 
building were important issues from the point of view of development and the protection of the 
environment, and could not be addressed by trad e and market forces alone.  In the absence of an 
agreed definition or criteria to identify envir onmental goods, agreeing on a single list of products 
could prove difficult.  According to Indonesia, the lis ts that had been tabled varied greatly.  While 
some Members had submitted clearly defined lists  of environmental goods, other delegations had 
included many dual-use products of high export interest on their list, but with lesser significance for the environment. 
29. For many developing countries, including Indon esia, participating in the list approach pr esented 
a real dilemma.  Indonesia, for example, had adopted the criteria of single use and no PPM (pro cess and 
production methods) in order to identify environmenta l goods.  In its experience of drafting a national 
environmental goods list, Indonesia had initially de veloped a list which c ontained environmental 
goods that were mostly of export interest to devel oped countries.  This had led domestic stakeholders 
to question how this environmental goods list coul d contribute to the development aspect of the 
mandate, and how it could result in a "win-win-win " outcome for Indonesia.  In this context, 
Indonesia recommended a multiple approach under Paragr aph 31(iii) to ensure that a "win-win-win" 
outcome was achieved.   
30. Referring to India's environmental project approach (TN/TE/W/51 and TN/TE/W/54), she 
recalled India's point that Paragraph 31(iii) was es sentially environment-oriented, and that market 
access was a means to achieving this objective, rather than the objective in itself.  India's explanation 
of how the EPA could be implemented as part of th e WTO system had shown that such an approach 
could be made transparent and predictable under the rule-based system, while still maintaining the 
flexibilities and the benefits to development inhe rent in the EPA.  Moreover, the EPA more 
adequately served the mandate under Paragraph 31( iii) in terms of addressing environmental goods 
and services in a more comprehensive manner.   
31. Indonesia agreed with India that the EPA provided flexibilities and incentives to target 
environmental programmes, which could maximize ga ins not only for the environment but also for 
development and trade.  Indonesia had experience in implementing a programme similar to the EPA 
suggested by India.  Indonesia's environmenta l programme began informally in 1987 and was 
formalized by a decree of the Minister of Finan ce in 1997.  This environmental programme provided 
duty free access for all products that were required as part of an environmental project recommended 
or approved by the Ministry of Environment.  The main purpose of the environmental programme in Indonesia was to provide an incentive to the business sector to implement projects that prevented or 
controlled pollution and/or environmental degradati on.  The environmental programme also aimed at 
reducing the cost of compliance for the business sector  with the various environmental regulations in 
Indonesia.   TN/TE/R/13 
Page 6  
 
32. Based on Indonesia's experience, the environm ental programme had been effective in 
encouraging the business sector to undertake various environmental projects.  Furthermore, it had 
encouraged investment in the area of environmenta l protection and clean-up.  She noted that between 
1987 and 1995, over 185 environmental projects had been undertaken, providing duty-free access to environmental products required within the framework  of these projects.  Indonesia's environmental 
programme also ensured that goods imported for an environmental project were used for this purpose 
only.  Moreover, the organizations or compani es undertaking the environmental project benefitted 
directly from the duty free access of goods.   
33. Through its environmental programme, Indonesia had also been able to provide support to 
local industries.  Organizations or companies undertaking environmental projects which involved 
environmental products or components that were al ready produced locally were encouraged to use 
these goods.  This in turn encouraged local industr ies to invest in new technologies and improve the 
quality of their products.  This was an important development aspect of Indonesia's environmental 
programme, as it generated technology transf er and innovation at the national level. 
34. Indonesia believed that the implementation of its  environmental programme had been useful 
in terms of encouraging environmental projects at  national level, providing flexibilities and incentives 
to target environmental objectives, and maximizing ga ins for the environment, development and trade.  
In this regard, Indonesia's experience with its environmental programme had proved useful in the 
context of the Paragraph 31(iii) negotiations.  Mo reover, Indonesia's national experience was in line 
with many of the arguments put forward by India with respect to the EPA.  Since the current list 
approach did not ensure the achievement of a wi n-win-win situation for environment, development 
and trade, Indonesia felt that the EPA should be ta ken into consideration as an alternative or a 
complementary approach to the list approach.   
35. The representative of Singapore
 thanked the Secretariat for the Synthesis document.  He 
welcomed the various lists that had been subm itted by Members and noted India's project-based 
approach.  He thought that the lists would provide a useful tool for the work under Paragraph 31(iii).  
Singapore was studying the various lists to ascertain which products could be classified as 
environmental goods, and whether there were gaps in th e existing list.  He noted that products such as 
bio-fuels could be of interest.  He mentioned that  his delegation might submit a paper that reflected 
the potential gaps in the existing list and the criteria used to select products on the list.   
36. In its examination of the lists tabled, Si ngapore had taken into account the potential 
contribution of the liberalization of trade in e nvironmental goods and services to the environment and 
development.  Singapore concurred with Thailand's view that in identifying environmental goods for 
the purpose of the negotiations, the environmental attr ibutes of the products needed to be established.  
According to Singapore, the objective was to have a universal environmental goods list.  However, his 
delegation agreed with the EC that from a practical perspective, Members needed to begin the process 
of short-listing products th at would contribute to fulfilling the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).  Finally, 
he welcomed the initiatives taken by some delega tions, including the US, to develop case studies on 
particular products or groups of products.   
37. The representative of Australia  agreed with other delegations that the Secretariat's Synthesis 
document could be useful to delegations in terms of identifying areas of possible interest to them.  He 
also agreed with the US' view re garding the need to identify relevant HS codes for the products put 
forward, as this provided a clearer picture of the products or categories of products that were being 
considered.  Australia believed that the list a pproach was the most practical way forward under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  In Australia's view, it should be possible to find a way through many of the issues 
that had been identified, such as the question of dual use, or the inclusion of products that were 
beneficial both from an environment and development point of view.  He appr eciated the statement by 
Thailand, which highlighted some of the difficult issues that needed to be addressed, such as the 
environmental goods definition, which his delegation had also found challenging.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
38. Australia agreed with New Zealand and Canada th at there were issues that could usefully be 
addressed to carry the work forward, without focussi ng on the issue of approach.  He welcomed the 
fact that India had pointed out that it would be w illing to consider other options, provided that they 
delivered certain outcomes.   
39. He noted that the US' approach at its work shop of focussing on the environmental goods 
themselves was useful, and that such an approach w ould enable delegations to make efficient use of 
the time available.  For Australia, this kind of fo cus would have to be based on products' end-use, and 
not on their process and production methods.  Australia  agreed with Thailand that the inclusion of 
certain products or groups of products required fu rther reflection.  His delegation had not yet 
determined, for instance, whether it could support a fo cus on EPPs as part of th e work.  He noted that 
the use of an EPP category could lead to all kinds of definitional problems or raise the type of 
concerns that Australia had over PPM-based appro aches to the definition of environmental goods.   
40. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the US for the workshop it had held on the US' 
list of environmental goods.  He also thanked the S ecretariat for the revision of the Synthesis paper.  
He noted that much technical work remained to be done with respect to the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii), and that time was limited.   
41. With respect to the suggestion by some delegations to share national experience on 
environmental projects or other regimes, Chinese Taipei made reference to end-use certificate regimes, whereby duty free treatment could be give n to certified environmental goods.  In the context 
of the negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii), Chin ese Taipei hoped that Members could further 
improve the predictability and transparency of th eir trade regime for environmental goods.  Finally, 
Chinese Taipei agreed with New Zealand that Memb ers needed to find a constructive way to carry 
forward the discussions on this part of the mandate.   
42. The representative of Mexico
 thanked the Secretariat for the revised Synthesis paper, and the 
US for having organized its workshop.  She reca lled the position her delegation expressed at the July 
meeting3, and shared the concern of Thailand and other ASEAN countries with respect to the lack of a 
clear link between some of the goods put forw ard by Members and their contribution to the 
environment.   
43. The representative of the EC  noted that his delegation was still unconvinced by the arguments 
put forward by India.  In particular, his delegati on did not see how India's proposal could contribute to 
fulfilling the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).  He agreed  with other delegations that there was a need to 
concentrate on the environmental benefits of th e products put forward.  However, in doing so, 
Members should not lose sight of the overall objective of the negotiations to reduce tariffs and ensure 
more predictability in the trading system.   
44. The EC noted that environmental schemes simila r to those proposed by India already existed 
outside the WTO.  The EC did not agree with Indi a's assertion in paragra ph 8 of its submission 
(TN/TE/W/51) that the list approach would expose developing and least-developed countries to the 
adverse effects of increased market access and co mpetition without any compensatory benefits, as the 
duty concessions were open-ended and permanent.  He recalled that the mandate involved using the 
tool of opening markets to increase environmental be nefits for all Members.  He recalled that some 
delegations had called for a more practical focus in  the work.  He noted that now that concrete 
examples of products had been put forward, delegati ons should have a closer look at these individual 
items in order to make some progress in the discussion.   
45. In paragraph 9 of the Indian submission (TN/TE/W/54), the EPA was described as ranging 
from large commercial ventures to individual purch ases.  He raised the question as to whether the 
                                                      
3 TN/TE/R/12, Paragraphs 176-178. TN/TE/R/13 
Page 8  
 
project-based approach could work for individual purchases without a list of items from which to 
choose.  In order to apply a project-based appr oach, it was necessary to know which products to 
include.  He invited Indonesia and India to comme nt on their experience in undertaking environmental 
projects or on products that had been considered in the context of such projects, and noted that there 
would be convergence with respect to some of the products proposed in the list.   
46. He noted that the best way to make progress in  the discussion was to set aside the question of 
approach, as suggested by New Zealand, and to co ncentrate on finding consen sus on products which 
could contribute to the protection of the environment.   
47. The representative of Brazil
 recalled his delegation's position, which was reflected in the 
summary report of the July CTESS meeting.  Accord ing to Brazil, the lists that had been tabled 
focussed more on economic gains than on environmenta l benefits.  Furthermore, the lists seemed to 
target products with higher tariff rates in devel oping countries, and lower tariffs in developed 
countries.  In Brazil's view, most of the products on these lists were produced by developed countries, 
and were therefore of greater export interest to them.   
48. In his delegation's view, more discussion was needed on relevant criteria to guide the work of 
the CTESS.  Brazil supported the suggestion of fo llowing a multiple approach, given that the list 
approach alone did not meet the objectives of the manda te in terms of delivering benefits to trade, the 
environment and development.  This would imply going beyond the usual market access negotiations 
on non-agricultural products (NAMA), to consider th e environmental impact of products subject to 
liberalization, development, special and differen tial treatment, and the issue of less than full 
reciprocity.   
49. He noted that the US workshop had been useful  and informative in terms of indicating how 
products in certain categories involved average tariff  rates that were higher in developing countries 
than in developed countries.  In this context, the US had indicated that there were statistics pointing to 
increases in developing country exports of certain products.  Brazil noted that there was no means of 
knowing what the end-use of these products really w as, and whether there was a relationship between 
the increase in exports and environm ental benefits.  He noted that the use of HS codes and ex-outs 
would not eliminate this problem.  Therefore, Braz il believed that the use of criteria was necessary to 
take into account environmental be nefits, development concerns, sp ecial and differential treatment, 
and less than full reciprocity.   
50. According to Brazil, the negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii) concerned not only the 
reduction of tariff levels, but also generating a positive impact on the environment, and giving 
developing countries the necessary flexibility and policy space to put environment and development 
first on their national agendas.  In Brazil's view, there was room for applying, even partially, the 
environmental project approach put forward by In dia, as it would provide flexibility and policy space 
for developing countries.  His delegation was in fa vour of a multiple approach under Paragraph 31(iii) 
that would not preclude discussion of criteria to id entify environmental goods, or of approaches, such 
as the EPA.  
 51. The representative of India
 welcomed the fact that delegati ons recognized the complexity of 
the issues that needed to be addressed as part of the mandate.  India feared that in the current 
discussion, the letter of the mandate was only partially  respected, and that its spirit was being ignored.  
In India's view, the list approach addressed the tr ade aspect of the mandate, namely by identifying 
products of interest from a trade perspective, wit hout recognizing the environmental dimension of the 
products.  The mandate was intended to promot e commonly accepted environmental objectives, and 
the list approach was based on the assumption that  enhanced trade would necessarily achieve this 
goal.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 9 
 
 
52. The list approach did not sufficiently take in to account the wide range of environmental 
considerations and the type of solutions that ha d been used to address them.  Developing countries, 
including India, had been looking at efficient ways of addressing environmental issues, namely 
through the use of local products and technologies.  The list approach did not take into account the 
wide variety of environmental problems, nor the solu tions that could be used in different countries to 
address these problems.  Priorities and concerns we re not always the same, and while there were 
linkages across problems, there was still a degree of  prioritization in policy making.  This dimension 
had been missing in the technical discussions, which had made it difficult for India to engage meaningfully.   
53. He noted that the project approach might not be the only possible answer to the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii).  However, in India's view, th e EPA took into account the main elements of the 
mandate, and adequately addressed de veloping countries' concerns.  In dia noted that other countries, 
such as Indonesia or Chinese Taipei, had also tried th e approach with a degree of success, and it could 
be helpful to discuss their national experience.  
54. In response to the questions raised by the EC , he noted that while environmental projects 
involved mainly non-cons umer goods, there might still be room to take consumer  behaviour into 
account.  India intended to elaborate on its nationa l experience to further demonstrate how the EPA 
integrated these dimensions.   
55. India believed that one of the weaknesses of th e list approach was that it made no mention of 
environmental services or non-tariff barriers (NTBs).  He noted that other delegations, such as Brazil, 
had raised issues related to the development di mension of the mandate, as well as special and 
differential treatment, and also shared concerns as to whether the list approach fully addressed the 
mandate.   
56. The representative of the United States
 noted that from her delegation's perspective, the 
mandate was concerned with liberalizing trade in  environmental goods and services because they 
provided and promoted environmental and developmen tal benefits.  She recognized that the US list 
had not fully underscored and clarified the environmen tal and developmental bene fits of some of the 
products, but explained that it had been crafted with  this objective in mind.  It was for this purpose 
that the US had organized a workshop to unde rscore these potential benefits, using case studies on 
renewable energy, solar and wind energy, as well as wastewater treatment and air pollution.  
57. The US noted that the Synthesis document incl uded some of the products that had been 
proposed in those categories, i.e. 118 entries were related to wastewater management, and 108 entries 
to renewable energy.  She explained that solar energy was a means to ease global and local 
environmental and financial pressures attributed to the intensive use of fossil fuels.  Renewable energies could also be used for other e nvironmental and developmental priorities, such as 
supplying clean water and heating water for reside ntial and commercial appli cations, or using solar 
powered water pumps, as opposed to diesel pumps, to  supply clean water in rural areas and to provide 
electrification beyond the reach of conventional grids.  She indicated there had been an enormous use 
of solar and wind energy in sub-Saharan Africa .  Such technologies could be used in powering 
telecommunications and medical equipment, which we re important developmental priorities in many 
countries.  The US had attempted to identify the particular products that were used in those 
applications, and had presented some trade and ta riffs data showing the growth in trade among 
developing countries in these products.  
58. One of the case studies presented at the wo rkshop focused on automotive emissions, which 
were a primary source of air pollution across the gl obe, and the products relevant in controlling, 
testing and monitoring air pollution.  With respect to  the issue of wastewater treatment, she noted that 
leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Develo pment (WSSD) had called for more affordable 
technologies to address the problem of wastewater management.  Furthermore, she noted that many TN/TE/R/13 
Page 10  
 
countries were enacting laws driving the demand fo r wastewater equipment and technologies.  The 
US had tried to identify specific goods that were used to treat wastewater.   
59. Addressing the comments made by Brazil, she noted  that tariffs were generally higher in 
developing countries than in developed countries, a nd she assumed that this was the case across the 
board for tariffs.  She indicated that tariffs on e nvironmental goods were actually relatively low in 
most countries, which could be an indication that many Members had already decided unilaterally to 
lower their tariffs in light of the environmental and developmental benefits of some of these products.   
60. She agreed with New Zealand that regardless of the approach or form taken, there would have 
to be commonality on the specific products considered .  She noted that the overlap in the various 
approaches proposed would be in the products them selves and how these related to environmental and 
developmental priorities.  In the US' view, this approach was more pragmatic and concrete than a 
project-based approach.  The US w as willing to assist in further st ructuring the discussions, focussing 
on individual products and how th ey related to environmental a nd developmental priorities.   
61. She agreed with Thailand that the environmen tal benefits of produc ts should be fairly 
obvious.  However, the US was not convinced that th ere was a need to adopt specific criteria in order 
to identify environmental goods, as Brazil had suggest ed.  Finally, she recalled the position of her 
delegation that environmen tal goods should be determined based on their end use, and not on the way 
they were produced or manufactured.   
62. The representative of Canada
 noted that if delegations wished to engage in an exchange of 
information without prejudice to the issue of approa ch, Canada would be open to considering the lists 
of environmental projects that some Members had approved, and the type of goods that had been 
granted duty-free treatment for these projects.  As pa rt of this information exchange, his delegation 
could further elaborate on the environmental benefits  of some the products put forward in their list. 
63. The representative of Chile  agreed with Thailand that the list of products compiled in the 
Synthesis document may have to be further refined in order to eliminate the products that were not 
clearly linked to environmental objectives.  She qu estioned, in this regard, the products mentioned 
under entries 196, 197, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 283 and 416 of the Synthesis document.  Chile 
supported further work to clarify the linkag es between the products put forward and their 
environmental objectives.  She recalled that th e negotiations should achieve results for the 
environment, and also for development.  She noted that an ambitious formula was being discussed as part of the NAMA negotiations, which would have  a strong impact on the tariffs applied by 
developing countries.   
64. Chile emphasized the importance of predictab ility, which in her delegation's view was a 
problem with respect to New Zealand's proposal for a living list.   
65. Furthermore, Chile shared the concerns of Australia regarding the EPP category, and how it 
could raise PPM-related issues. 
66. Chile recalled that there were other elemen ts in Paragraph 31(iii), including NTBs and 
environmental services, which also needed to be addressed.  She indicated that there had been 
interesting discussions in the Services Council on the issue of environmental services.  In particular, 
she referred to an intervention by the OECD that focussed on th e classification of environmental 
services, which she suggested could also be discussed in the CTESS.   
67. Finally, she thanked the US for organizing its workshop, and hoped that other similar events 
could be scheduled in the future, bearing in mind the constraints of small delegations.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 11 
 
 
68. The representative of Cuba  stated that her delegation welcomed the debate under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  She indicated that the list appro ach and the nine lists of environmental goods tabled 
required further consideration at nati onal level.  Cuba noted that the i ssue of multiple use of some of 
the products identified was a disincentive for develo ping countries, and that the list approach did not 
seem to provide any solutions to this problem.   
69. She noted that some of the lists included aggregat ed products, or lacked clarity with respect to 
the actual products to be liberalized and their relatio nship to the environment.  Cuba emphasized that 
the environmental benefits of the pr oducts had to be taken into account  in the negotiations;  otherwise, 
the objectives stated in the mandate to promote sustainable development and mutual supportiveness 
between trade and the environment would not be achie ved.  In her delegation' s view, the list approach 
did not seem to offer any guarantee in this respect.   
70. Another pending question was the relationship be tween the work of the CTESS and that of 
the NAMA Group.  In this regard, she recalled that  the July package had referred to the need for 
closer cooperation between the two groups.  In Cuba 's view, the issue of special and differential 
treatment had been left aside while a list was established in the CTESS, although there had been 
initiatives promoting zero tariffs.  Cuba shared  Brazil's concern with regard to granting 
tariff reductions that did not lead to full reciprocity.   
71. According to Cuba, the list approach was not the only viable option for the negotiations.  
There were other interesting ideas on the table that  required further consideration, such as India's 
EPA, which presented advantages for developing countries.  For instance, the EPA provided a 
solution to the issue of multiple use.  Furthermor e, the EPA reflected the principle of special and 
differential treatment by addressing the issue of tec hnology transfer, and by linking the loss of income 
from tariff concessions to conscious decisions by Members based on their particular environmental 
objectives.  Cuba expected such issues to  be addressed in the negotiations.   
72. The representative of Ecuador  agreed with India that according to the spirit of the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii), the negotiations had to deliver e nvironmental benefits, and also contribute to the 
overall objective of the Doha Round, namely developmen t.  Ecuador also agreed with the EC that the 
mandate not only referred to envi ronmental goods but also to environmental services and NTBs, and 
that it should be addressed in a holistic manner.  Like Chile, Ecuador was of the view that an 
ambitious formula was being negotiated in the NAMA group, which would reduce significantly the 
tariffs applied by developing countries.  She noted that what differentiated negotiations in the NAMA 
group from the negotiations in the CTESS was the e nvironmental component.  In this respect, 
Ecuador could support the list approach, as long as it provided real environm ental and developmental 
benefits.   
73. Ecuador had begun its own analysis of some of the products put forward and had detected that 
many of these products had multiple or dual use, or  had nothing to do with the protection of the 
environment.  Ecuador noted that if the list appro ach was to be pursued, the compiled list of products 
would have to be cleaned up.  This would require  important technical work, and would involve time 
and effort from all delegations.  In Ecuador's view, India's proj ect approach should be explored 
further, as it took into account developing countr ies' concerns.  She also noted that further 
consideration should be given to  EPPs, as these products could present a comparative advantage for 
developing countries.   
74. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for updating the Synthesis 
document and agreed with Ecuador regarding the po ssibility of cleaning up the list.  Switzerland also 
supported the suggestions of Canada , the EC and the US of focussing on technical work based on the 
products, without prejudice to the different approaches.  With respect to the questions raised concerning certain items on Switzerland's list, such as transport mediums, she indicated that her TN/TE/R/13 
Page 12  
 
delegation was considering organizing a workshop to  further explain the rationale for including the 
products on its list. 
75. The representative of the EC
 believed that the question of balance between trade, 
environmental and developmental objectives under Pa ragraph 31(iii) was an important one, and that 
the EPP category could provide scope for achieving th is balance.  He aske d about Canada's position 
on this question, since Canada had mentioned that they were working on the concept of EPPs, even 
though their list did not contain any such products.  He asked whether Canada had considered the 
EC proposal or other proposals for the inclusion of  EPPs, or alternatively, what were the points of 
clarification that had arisen from its internal deliber ations.  He also noted that no discussion had taken 
place on New Zealand's suggestion that EPPs be consid ered on the basis of their end-use or disposal 
characteristics.   
76. Addressing Brazil's point in paragraph 10 of its  paper (TN/TE/W/59) that the definition of 
environmental goods should cover products such as natural fibres,  colourants, non-timber forest 
products, and renewable energy, he asked whether this  was an illustrative list, or whether further work 
had been undertaken by Brazil with respect to these pr oducts.  He thought that it would be interesting 
to discuss examples related to natural fibres, col ourants or renewable energy, so as to add more 
specificity to these products.   
77. He also asked Brazil, with respect to paragra ph 11 of its paper, whether more work had been 
undertaken regarding market access for products wh ich incorporated cleaner technologies, such as 
flexi-fuel engines and vehicles.  Moreover, the EC fully subscribed to the basic principles laid down 
in paragraph 1 of Brazil's submissi on regarding the perspective of de velopment.  In his delegation's 
view, the development and environment perspectives should be the guiding principles.  Liberalization 
and tariff reductions were only the tool, but the objectives remained development and environmental 
protection, in other words, sustainable development.   
78. With respect to Brazil's statement in paragra ph 13 of its submission that any definition of 
environmental goods should include products in wh ich developing countries had special interest, and 
its proposal that UNCTAD's EPP concept served as a basis for developing a definition, he asked 
Brazil how it intended to take this work forwar d.  He noted that the EC's category of "high 
environmental performance and low environmental im pact" had also followed UNCTAD's thinking.   
79. The representative of Canada , in response to the EC's question, noted that his delegation had 
been looking at a range of other products, including certain EPPs, which could be  considered at a later 
stage.  This process had involved the review of  the compilation list by an interdepartmental 
committee.  Canada did not consider it necessary to propose any of the items that had already been put 
forward again.  In this regard, Canada had pl aced more emphasis on products that had not been 
identified by any other Members, for example certain  EPPs that might have been identified in other 
fora, such as UNCTAD.  Canada hoped to be able to share the results of this work with other 
delegations at a future meeting.   
80. The representative of Korea  asked whether the classification of eco-labelled products and 
products with high environmental performance an d low environmental impact was practicable, in 
view of the difficulties that customs authorities might face in identifying these products.  He noted 
that the inclusion of high-efficiency products could be problematic, given that there were no 
internationally standardized criteria that could be applied.  This could gi ve rise to the relative 
application of criteria on a case-by-case basis, commensurate with the different levels of national 
technological capabilities.  For instance, there were no objective criteria for assessing the lifespan of 
fluorescent tubes, which the EC had proposed as a high-efficiency product in its submission (TN/TE/W/56).  In this regard, he wondered how en ergy-efficient bulbs could be distinguished by 
their physical properties from other bulbs.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 13 
 
 
81. He explained that eco-labelling schemes were adopted by countries on a voluntary basis, and 
that the criteria for certification as well as releva nt technological capabilities varied from one country 
to another.  Furthermore, eco-labelling schemes ra ised the issue of PPMs, as they differentiated 
between products based on their environmental impa ct in the course of the manufacturing process, or 
life-cycle analysis.  For this reason, eco-labelled products were practicably unclassifiable, and were 
therefore incompatible with WTO practice.   
82. Korea's list of environmental goods did not incl ude high-efficiency or eco-labelled products, 
due to these practical problems.  However, Kore a recognized the possible contribution of these 
products to environmental protection.  In this regard, Korea believed that practicability and the 
end-use approach were the most pragmatic and re alistic means of identifying environmental goods.  
In Korea's view, if the EC  wished to bring the proposed EPPs to the negotiating table, there would be 
a need to establish assessment criteria for designating products which were cost effective, acceptable 
to the majority of Members, and objective enough to  be applied by customs authorities.  He also 
wondered what options were being considered  by the EC in setting up such criteria.  
83. He noted that Switzerland had put forward a list comprising mostly EPPs, and wondered what 
the position of Switzerland was on the matter of practicability in discerning EPPs at customs.  
Moreover, he asked whether the Swiss proposal included certifiable EPPs claimed to have been 
selected based on the consideration of potential trad e benefits for developing countries, which were 
net exporters of such products.  He also wondered if padlocks and locks used for bicycles, as well as 
hand-operated spanners and wrenches,  were intended to bring benefits  to developing countries, and 
what the environmental benefit was in classifying those products as EPPs. 
84. He observed that Switzerland had submitted 46 products under the category of clean 
technology, including bicycles and railway parts.  He asked whether it was appropriate to discuss the 
criteria for considering a product environmentally pr eferable, once it had been identified on the basis 
of its impact on the environment.   
85. Korea invited Brazil and Cuba to further elabor ate on their proposed products, such as natural 
fibres, non-timber products, flexi-fuel engines, re newable energies and bio products, and possibly to 
break them down into categories, given that th e implications of including those items on a 
environmental goods list were unclear.   
86. The representative of Chinese Taipei  raised further questions on the agricultural products 
proposed by the EC in entries 1 to 6 of the Synt hesis document.  He observed that the Member's 
description field for entries 1 and 2, i.e. HS 12119 0 and 130214 respectively, were the same, and he 
felt that the description for entry 1 should not be the same as for entry 2.  He noted that the description 
of HS 1211 read "plants and the parts of plants, in cluding seeds and fruit of a kind used primarily in 
perfumery, in pharmacy, or for insecticidal, fungici dal or similar purposes", whereas the one proposed 
by the EC was "pyrethrum, extracts of pyrethrum or of the roots of plants containing rotenone".   
87. He noted that the whole of chapter 14 had been included in entry number 3, with the 
description "vegetable plaiting materials and other vegetable products", and wondered if there were 
any other vegetable plaiting materi als or other vegetable products.  He also mentioned that the 
description of HS 151590 was "other vegetable fats and oils, including jojoba oil and their fractions, 
whether or not refined but chemically modified",  but that the EC's description under entry number 4 
read "unrefined shea butter".  He wondered if the product was an organic product or if it was related to the PPM issue, given that the EC had added under its remarks that "shea butter is extracted from the 
fruits of the wild shea tree, in Sahelian Africa.  These trees do not need any irrigation, fertilizers or 
pesticides and are not grown in plantations".   
88. He also made reference to entries number 5 and 6, HS 152110 and 152190, for vegetable wax 
and other vegetable wax respectively, and noted that  since the EC's description of the products was TN/TE/R/13 
Page 14  
 
confined to beeswax and other insect waxes, and th at the remarks read "products harvested on trees 
without deforestation", it could be more appropriate to move that description to the ex-out specification.  He also asked the EC to share its id eas on the inclusion of agricultural products on a list 
of environmental goods.  
89. The representative of New Zealand
 welcomed the fact that the EC, Brazil and Cuba had put 
forward items with HS codes in their papers, which he noted helped focus the discussion.  
90. With respect to the EC's list of environmen tal goods, he noted that including the entire 
HS Chapter 14 was unhelpful in terms of the wider ne gotiations.  Therefore, he encouraged the EC to 
continue the process of transparency by confining its proposals to the areas relevant to NAMA, i.e. 
items that appeared in HS Chapter 24 onwards.   
91. In line with Korea's comments concerning eco-l abelled products, he noted that labelling was 
an important tool, particularly for consumer in formation.  However, eco-labelling schemes were 
voluntary programmes and were not a ppropriate reference tools in the context of these negotiations.  
The importance of voluntary eco-labels lay ultimately at the point of sale and not at the border in 
terms of the application of tariffs.  He stated that  New Zealand did not have a problem with the Global 
Eco-Labelling Network (GEN ) per se , but with the possibility of PPM-b ased criteria entering into the 
negotiation.  New Zealand also expressed concern regarding the EC's proposal of including products 
related to "sustainable agriculture or gardening".  
92. New Zealand asked the EC to identify a specific HS code for rainwater catchment systems 
and fog or dew catchers, and to provide more in formation on the environmental benefits of these 
products.  Moreover, he supported th e suggestion of India and Brazil of having further discussions on 
the environmental benefits of some of the pr oducts, including HS 392113 (polyurethane foam).  
93. With respect to Cuba's submission, he welcomed  the fact that Cuba had engaged in work to 
identify the items in which it might have an expor t interest, such as renewable energies, energy 
efficient technology, and natural products (e.g. bi o-products).  New Zealand stated that it would 
welcome further discussions in the CTESS on the environmental benefits of these products.   
94. With respect to Brazil's submission, he indi cated that the EPP category was certainly of 
interest, but his delegation also shared some of the concerns expressed by  Thailand and other ASEAN 
countries.  This was why New Zealand had prop osed limiting the EPP category to end-use and 
disposal characteristics, so that the PPM issue would not enter the debate.   
95. He joined other delegations in asking Brazil about the environmental benefits of natural 
fibres, colourants and bio-diesel, which it had include d in its proposal.  New Zealand noted that Brazil 
had mentioned flexi-fuel cars in its submission.  He noted that in its environmental goods list, 
New Zealand had included an ex-out for hybrid vehi cles, and asked Brazil to give more precision on 
the HS code or ex-out description it had in mind for its flexi-fuel car.  
96. Referring to comments by Brazil, India, and Indon esia that the lists tabled were driven only 
by the export interests of their respective propo nent, and that negotiatio ns would not benefit 
developing countries, New Zealand noted that the pr oducts on its list were of no export value.  The 
EPP category had been specifically added to take in to account developing countries' interests and to 
ensure balance in the negotiations.  Import data had shown that New Zeala nd imported many products 
that could qualify as EPPs.   
97. Furthermore, New Zealand applied high tariffs  on some of the proposed products, including 
bound rates of up to 30 per cent and applied rates of 15 per cent. New Zealand was open to 
negotiations on these tariffs, to the extent that it co uld be beneficial to the economy of developing 
countries exporting to New Zealand, even if this m eant a loss of revenues.  For instance, machinery  TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 15 
 
 
items in New Zealand had tari ffs between 15 and 20 per cent under the Uruguay Round schedules, 
and were mainly imported from ASEAN countries.  Such products could form part of a list of 
environmental goods to be nego tiated under Paragraph 31(iii).   
98. He agreed with Thailand that it was necessary to look at the environmental attributes of some 
of the products identified, and stressed that Ne w Zealand was prepared to further discuss the 
environmental benefits of some  of the items on its list.   
99. The representative of Brazil  noted that work had been undertaken at the national level to 
identify environmental goods that not only could be of commercial interest, but that could also 
contribute to environmental objectives and to the promotion of development in the context of the 
WTO negotiations.  The products identified by Braz il gave a general indication of the kind of 
products his delegation considered to be justifiable in terms of development, environmental and trade 
interests.   
100. Brazil considered that parameters or criteria to  establish a list of environmental goods should 
be further discussed by Members.  According to  Brazil, such criteria were necessary to guide 
developing countries in the exercise of drawing up a list, and also to ensure that the negotiations 
resulted in a win-win-win outcome.  Without this focus, the negotiations under Paragraph 31(iii) 
would be no different from negotiations in the NAMA group.   
101. Brazil noted that it was not ready for the time being to justify tec hnically each item it had 
identified.  With respect to the question posed by the EC, he explained that flexi-fuel engines were 
also designed to use multiple types of fuel, including ethanol, which could have an impact on the reduction of carbon emissions.   
102. He noted that his delegation had been enga ged in consultations with UNCTAD and UNEP, 
where UNCTAD's work on EPPs, as well as many of  the issues addressed in the CTESS, had been 
discussed.  In this context, it had been suggested that the best way forward in the discussion under 
Paragraph 31(iii) would be a multiple approach comb ining the list approach and India's environmental 
project approach, since neither approach seemed to fully address the uncertainties regarding the 
environmental impact of the products, their classifi cation, or their identification at the border.   
103. In Brazil's view, the list approach and the EPA were, to some extent, two extremes.  On the 
one hand, the list approach did not have any pre-estab lished criteria, or any structure in terms of how 
environmental goods were being identified.  On the other hand, the EPA proposed a system which, in 
Brazil's view, could be burdensome,  costly and difficult to implement for developing countries.   
104. For these reasons, Brazil considered that criteri a were needed to guide Members in their 
identification of environmental goods for the purposes of the negotiations.  He noted, for example, the 
suggestion by some delegations of selecting EPPs on the basis of end-use, and not on the basis of PPMs.  In Brazil's view, such an approach would ensure that delegations knew exactly on what basis 
products were being proposed.   
105. Brazil noted that natural products, as s ubstitutes for artificial products, had both 
environmental and developmental characteristics.  For instance, artificial fibres were less 
environmentally friendly than natural fibres su ch as sisal, which was produced in developing 
countries.  Moreover, these products had the clear  development advantage of producing greater 
employment in the less privilege d regions of developing countries.   He mentioned that the sisal 
industry in Brazil generated about 100,000 jobs in ag riculture for 800,000 families.  Finally, he noted 
that additional elements were needed in order to  proceed with the negotiations, and especially for 
developing countries to clearly express their negotiating interests.  TN/TE/R/13 
Page 16  
 
106. The representative of Cuba
 noted that the questions by Korea, New Zealand and the EC 
focused on section 3 of the Cuban proposal.  She note d that in paragraph 15 of the paper, Cuba had 
stated that it was a net importing country for most of the products that were being discussed.  While 
Cuba's submission was intended to reinforce some of  the concerns that it had with respect to the 
negotiations, this particular section was meant to signal that Cuba was in the process of examining 
some of the products in which it had interests.  In addition, Cuba was trying to review the 
environmental aspects of these products.  However, she indicated that her delegation had not yet 
decided how or when it would present these products, in particular since there was no consensus on 
the question of approach.   
107. The representative of the EC  stated that some of the questions raised by delegations reflected 
the type of internal work that  was necessary to discuss examples of environmental goods.  With 
respect to the question from Korea regarding the high-efficiency or low environmental impact 
category, he thought that there might have been a misunderstanding.  He noted that what the EC had stated in the remarks column was that all fluorescen t tubes were worthy of consideration because they 
had a much longer lifespan than normal bulbs.  He explained that these could easily be distinguished 
on the basis of their physical composition or disposal  qualities.  He also reminded delegations that the 
EC had made an offer of including eco-labelled produc ts in order to resolve some of the problems.  
For example, energy efficient appliances were not a PPM question, since kilowatts could actually be 
measured.  In this regard, it was easier to use some  type of certification process with a label that was 
recognized and acceptable to all.  He stressed that some of the labels were well known and that the 
question of customs having to look at certificates of origin and other rele vant documentation was not 
unfamiliar.   
108. In response to the question fro m Chinese Taipei regarding the classification in the Synthesis 
document, he noted that in some cases, two head ings had been tentatively mentioned for the same 
product.  The EC wished to discuss the products fi rst before addressing the issue of classification or 
the need to use ex-outs.   
109. With regard to New Zealand's comments on the products classified under HS Chapter 14, he 
indicated that his delegation was trying to find relevant products within the broader scope of the 
mandate.  However, he recognized the need to fu rther discuss the inclusion of such products.  
110. The EC considered that a discussion of the envi ronmental benefits of the proposed products 
would provide some reference points to further grou nd the debate.  In this regard, the EC suggested 
that delegations could draw from si milar discussions in other fora.   
111. With respect to New Zealand's question on the environmental benefits of polyurethane foam, 
he pointed out that in the EC's submission, that product was part of air purification.  He noted that his delegation would provide further t echnical explanations of the product and its relationship to air 
purification at a later stage.   
112. In response to Brazil's comment on the lack of crite ria, the EC did not consider that the debate 
was operating completely without criteria.  He recal led that his delegation had suggested identifying 
products that could contribute to fulfilling intern ational or national environmental objectives.  He 
mentioned the Millennium Development Goals in this  regard.  The EC was willing to discuss how a 
number of products on the list could help achie ve the objectives of sustainable and human 
development.  The EC was in favour of a "botto m-up" approach that would initially focus on the 
products themselves.   
113. Finally, the EC asked the US how it intended to tr eat the issue of dual use, in particular in the 
environmental monitoring and analysis category, which figured prominently in their proposal.  For example, he noted that monitoring physical or chemical processes was not often confined to 
environmental purposes.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 17 
 
 
114. The representative of Australia  found the discussions helpful, particularly the responses by 
the EC to the questions posed by Korea.  He noted that Australia had similar questions on the use of 
eco-labels as a classification tool for environmenta l goods.  Furthermore, he asked delegations that 
supported the use of EPPs based on end-use and dis posal characteristics to give further reassurance 
that the consideration of these products would no t introduce broader issues such as PPMs.  As 
Australia had indicated, further work would be ca rried out on the environmental goods proposed, and 
a more focused discussion on EPPs would help Australia  to decide whether it could support this kind 
of approach.   
115. Regarding the suggestions made by Brazil with respect to flexi-fuel engines and ethanol, he 
mentioned that there was an active debate in Aust ralia on these types of products, and whether they 
should be included.  Finally, Australia recognized that the discussions had reached a more specific 
and technical level, but noted that it was probabl y necessary to focus on products and why they had 
been included on the lists. 
116. The representative of the United States  noted that there seemed to be agreement concerning 
the need to further discuss the environmental and developmental aspects of products, and to go 
beyond the NAMA-type discussion.  She thought it was pr emature to say that th ere was a need for a 
multi-faceted approach, when there was still no list, but only proposed products.  The answer to that 
question would depend on the type of list of envi ronmental goods, and whethe r the products contained 
therein delivered environmental and developmental benefits.  
117. Many products had been mentioned as having e nvironmental and devel opmental benefits, and 
it was challenging to deal with all of the different rationales.  She explained that the US had looked 
further into the issue of wastewater management , which was an area that many delegations had 
focussed on in their list.  She stressed that 25 per cent of the compilation seemed to be related to 
wastewater management, and 80 products had been in cluded on more than one list.  She felt that there 
was a common understanding on the relevance of  this area from an environmental and a 
developmental perspective, as well as on the types of products involved.   
118. When looking at the various products in the c ontext of an environmental problem, it could be 
useful to use a holistic approach rather than a line-by-line approach with HS codes to see how they 
fitted together, namely because of the challenge of  dual-use goods.  In the US' view, the dual-use 
issue could be addressed by a product-by-product appro ach.  For example, filters used in wastewater 
treatment to remove solids and other contaminants we re also used in many other different industrial 
applications (e.g. breweries).  She noted that the EC had raised a question concerning the dual use of 
monitoring and assessment equipment, such as pharma ceutical glassware, and stated that some of 
these products also contributed to scientific and technological advancement.   
119. She supported the idea of a product-level discu ssion to resolve the various issues and 
challenges, focussing on some specific environmen tal and developmental pr oblems and the products 
that could be used to solve them.  She reminded delegations that the US was willing to help to 
structure and organize the discussion in whatever wa y Members felt would be most useful to identify 
the products that had environmental and developmen tal benefits, without prejudice to any approach.   
120. The representative of Switzerland , in response to the questions raised by Korea, Thailand, 
Chinese Taipei and other delegations, noted that the Swiss list was based on the OECD list, and 
included some additional products.  In line with New Zealand's comments, Switzerland had tried to 
develop a balanced list, including some products  which did not involve any export revenues for 
Switzerland. 
121. She noted that the EPPs put forward in Switzerla nd's list were based on end-use and disposal 
characteristics.  She explained that Switzerland ha d included EPPs for two reasons.  First, because 
many developing countries were be tter endowed with EPPs that were natural and bio-degradable, or TN/TE/R/13 
Page 18  
 
substitutes of goods that had more adverse environmen tal impacts.  Therefore, the promotion of trade 
in such natural EPPs would offer attractive expor t opportunities for natural product-based industries 
utilizing raw materials and skills in which developi ng countries had a comparative advantage.  For a 
majority of products on the Swiss list, developing countries had a substantial trade interest and were 
net exporters.  Second, she mentioned that some of the EPPs included were transport means, which 
following an embracing and holistic view, included bicy cles and parts, such as padlocks, bells, lights 
and helmets.  Given its sensitive ecosystems, it was a priority for Switzerland to use more ecological 
transport means, given that both the water and mountain ecosystems could not absorb, ad infinitum,  
negative environmental impacts.   
122. She also noted that in the corrigendum circ ulated by her delegation (TN/TE/W/57/Corr.1), 
hand operated spanners and wrenches had been wi thdrawn from Switzerland's list of environmental 
goods.  She indicated that her delegation would be  willing to provide further information on the 
reasoning of its additional list or EPPs, and to help structure the discussion in a meaningful way. 
123. The representative of Japan
 agreed with Switzerland, Ecua dor and other delegations on the 
need to clean up the compiled list of environmenta l goods, and thought that it should be done first by 
the Members who had submitted lists.  He i ndicated that Japan had submitted a list in 
November 20024, and was currently in the process of reviewing the products in the list, with more 
emphasis on the environmental and de velopmental benefits, and giving consideration to the issue of 
dual or multiple-use.  Japan hoped to be able to comp lete the work and to explain to other delegations 
why some of the products had been included on its list.   
124. The representative of the EC  invited other delegations to share their views on how best to use 
the time at the following meeting in order to exch ange more information on the various products. 
125. The representative of the US  agreed with other delegations on  the need to share information 
concerning the products on the lists.  The US w as willing to provide further information on its 
environmental goods list, on a product-by-product basis.   She added that the US would be prepared to 
facilitate any discussion according to groupings, as it had done for its workshop, for instance on areas 
such as air pollution control, or wastewater treatment and management.   
126. The representative of India  stated that India would try to provide more information on 
projects or the project-type approach at the meeting in October, and encouraged other delegations to 
share their national experiences in this area.  Indi a also suggested addressing issues such as criteria, 
NTBs, and services, as well as other issues that were not being addressed under the list approach. 
127. The representative of New Zealand  agreed, particularly with India, on the need for an 
information exchange process, and indicated that  his country would be prepared to discuss the 
environmental benefits of products on its list at the next meeting.   
128. The representative of Canada  thought that it was important to have a suitable timetable and 
structure for the work of the Committee before th e Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  For Canada, 
the Hong Kong Ministerial remained an important ta rget date to demonstrate progress on the mandate, 
particularly regarding the nego tiations under Paragraph 31(iii).  
129. With the objective of advancing the work in  the Committee, Canada proposed to identify 
initially two or three areas to examine the proposed goods in detail, and their linkages to the relevant 
environmental services that would be required to conv ey the specific environmental benefits that the 
Committee was trying to identify.  He suggested fo cussing, for instance, on sanitation, wastewater 
management and renewable energy, and then pr oceeding with other areas to ensure complete 
coverage of the material identified in the submissions  and compiled by the Secretariat.  Alternatively, 
                                                      
4 TN/TE/W/17 and Corr.1.    TN/TE/R/13 
 Page 19 
 
 
he indicated that there were four main categories identifiable in the Secretariat's compilation list, and 
suggested choosing those categories as a basis to go forward.   
130. In Canada's view, the use of categories was a good point of reference for the CTESS in 
identifying environmental goods.  However, Cana da recognized that categories alone were not 
sufficient to demonstrate or elucidate the specific e nvironmental benefits of a product.  Canada agreed 
to better define the environmental benefits of each  product on its list, and to introduce criteria and 
further reference points as tools to advance the discussion. 
131. The representative of India  sought clarification on whether the Canadian proposal was to 
exchange views in informal groups or in the Commi ttee, or to focus at the meeting in October on the 
three areas mentioned.  He also suggested that Members could first address the issues already raised, 
both on the environmental project approach that I ndia and some other countries had suggested, as well 
as on the list approach.   
132. The representative of the EC  agreed that there was a need to obtain more information on all 
issues (e.g. the approaches, and on various specific projects), but noted that delegations should also 
bear in mind the time available for these types of discussions.  
133. The representative of the US  suggested that delegations s hould be prepared to discuss the 
issues that India had raised in a more holis tic manner, along with the environmental and 
developmental benefits of  products, perhaps through an exercise such as the one that Canada had 
proposed.  She noted that further information on the progress of the negotiations on non-agricultural 
market access, especially on NTBs, as well as on services, could also be useful. 
134. The representative of India  clarified that his intention was to draw the Committee's attention 
to the issues of NTBs and services, in the context of  the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).  With regard to 
the organizational work, he mentioned that India wa s also in favour of faster progress towards the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, as were many other Members.  
135. The representative of China  appreciated Canada's proposal, a nd suggested that this type of 
discussion could be conducted as a side event, simila r to the US workshop, in preparation for more 
intensive discussions in the Committee. 
136. The representative of the EC  thought that a discussion was n eeded within the Committee and, 
in parallel, delegations could focu s on their own lists in the context of workshops or other events.   
137. The representative of Switzerland  thanked Canada for its proposal, and agreed with the EC 
that side events were useful to develop a comm on understanding and to exchange information.  She 
noted that her delegation was also in favour of di scussing groupings or categories of products in the 
Committee. 
138. The representative of Chinese Taipei  wondered whether it was possible for Members to 
submit proposals containing the environmental benefits of products, and then for the Secretariat to add 
these rationales in an additional colu mn in the Synthesis document.   
139. The Chairman  noted that the discussion under Paragraph 31(iii) had been useful.  He stated 
that many delegations had emphasized the triple -win nature of the mandate, and the need for 
negotiations to result in benefits for trade, envir onment and development.  He  indicated that a number 
of delegations had expressed an interest in di scussing the actual environmental and developmental 
benefits of the products that could be consider ed as environmental goods for the purposes of the 
negotiations.  Many delegations ha d also suggested that it could be useful to hear delegations' 
experience in conducting nati onal environmental projects or similar initiatives.   TN/TE/R/13 
Page 20  
 
140. He was of the view that a process of information exchange  would enable the Committee to 
make some concrete progress in the discussion unde r Paragraph 31(iii).  He thought that there was 
merit in engaging in further work in order to have a better understanding  of the products and 
categories suggested in the lists, and how the products could benefit the environment and 
development.  He explained that he would hold c onsultations with interest ed delegations on how to 
organize the work to ensure that the information exchange was meaningful and could contribute to 
furthering the mandate under Paragraph 31(iii).  He also  suggested devoting some time to the issues of 
environmental services and NTBs, which also formed  part of the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii).   
141. He announced that the CTESS meeting w ould take place on 13-14 October 2005
5, 
back-to-back with other environment meetings in the WTO, including a Symposium on Trade and 
Sustainable Development within the framework of Pa ragraph 51 of the Doha Declaration.  He noted 
that this could be an appropriate time to hol d an information exchange session on environmental 
goods and services.  Finally, delegations agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc invitations issued for that meeting to the next meeting of the CTESS.   
_________ 
 
                                                     
 
5 The formal meeting of the CTE in Special Session was subsequently scheduled on 14 October 2005.