RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/16 
22 December 2006 
 (06-6149) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
6-7 JULY 2006 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 
 1. The Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS) held its sixteenth 
meeting on 6-7 July 2006 on the basis of the agenda set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/2846.   
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAS) 
2. The Chairman
 noted that one new submission had b een presented under this agenda item by 
the delegation of the European Communities (EC) .  The submission, circulated in document 
TN/TE/W/68, was entitled "Proposal for a Decision  of the Ministerial Conference on Trade and 
Environment." 
3. The representative of th e European Communities  (EC) stressed the reason why the EC had 
come forward with a submission at that time.  Despite failure the previous week to establish 
modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, the EC was of th e view that matters could evolve quickly and a 
breakthrough could allow Members shortly to ente r into the final phase of the DDA negotiations.  
With this timeframe in mind, the EC wished to en sure that all aspects of the trade and environment 
mandate were included in the picture. 
4. The EC believed that all parts of the Paragra ph 31 mandate were important.  If it were true 
that recently there had been more activity on Paragr aph 31(iii), Members needed  to be faithful to the 
whole mandate and deliver concrete results on each paragraph.  For the EC, no outcome on 
Paragraph 31(i) simply would not be acceptable.  Th at said, the EC had for some time been asked to 
clarify its intentions with regard to Paragraph 31( i); now that Members could enter the end-game, it 
was time to be specific. 
5. The representative explained that the submission wa s basically divided into two parts, the first 
recalling general principles and the second being more  operational, aimed at ensuring the principles 
were followed by the WTO.  Concerning the princi ples, it was stressed that the submission simply 
reiterated principles the EC had insisted upon in a previous submission on the subject discussed in 
April 2004.1  In this regard, the submission should not co me as a surprise to the CTESS, even if the 
EC had added a few operational suggestions. 
                                                      
1 The submission by the European Communities is in document TN/TE/W/39.  See also document 
TN/TE/R/8 containing the Summary Report on the Eighth Meeting of the Committee on Trade and Environment 
in Special Session. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 2  
 
6. The EC proposed to have a formal WTO reconfirmation of the basic principles governing 
relations between MEAs and the WTO.  The prin ciples the EC wished to agree upon were well known 
to all, not only because they were discussed in  2004, but also because those same fundamental 
principles were endorsed already by the interna tional community in other multilateral fora, for 
example in Rio in 1992 or more recently in J ohannesburg.  The EC believed it should not be a 
problem for the WTO to do again what it started to do  in Singapore in 1996, that was to say restate its 
full support for basic governance principles reflecting th e state of play of public international law. 
7. The basic principles the EC wished  to have restated were as lis ted in operative paragraph 2 of 
the submission: mutual supportiveness, meaning that efforts to safeguard the multilateral system must 
go hand-in-hand with commitment to sustainable de velopment and the right to take measures to 
protect the environment;  no subordination, meani ng that WTO and MEAs rules have equal standing;  
deference – which recognised that MEAs and WTO have distinct competences and specific expertise 
and that this expertise must be valued and u tilized; and, finally, transparency, which was 
self-explanatory, ensuring mutual s upportiveness through increased transparency. 
8. The representative noted that a good question migh t be asked as to why the EC had come 
forward at that time with a proposal to restate t hose well known principles.  After all, the relationship 
between WTO and MEAs had not been marked by any serious problem so far.  The reason was simple: the fact that there had not been any conflic t so far between the two bodies of law did not mean 
anything; there was no such thing as "stare decisis" in the WTO and in the absence of a legal system 
based on precedents, Members could not rely on existing panel and Appellate Body decisions to 
ensure no conflict would take place in the fu ture.  For the EC, good governance and conflict 
prevention between WTO and MEAs lay at the heart of the Paragraph 31(i) mandate and the best way 
to fulfil the mandate was to agree principles and pr ocedures to ensure no conflict would occur in the 
future. 
9. For the EC, if WTO restatement of support fo r governance principles was key, it was not 
sufficient.  It was for this reason that in the third part of their paper, the EC proposed to put in place 
mechanisms to ensure the WTO did not act in clinic al isolation from internati onal environmental law.  
The EC believed the most obvious way to ensure that good governance was implemented was firstly 
to ensure that MEAs and WTO were fully inform ed of what each other was doing.  Information 
exchanges had to be improved between MEAs and WTO and this was the purpose of the proposal in 
operative paragraph 3(a) of the submission.  The WT O was already an observer to many MEAs; in the 
EC's view, MEAs had to be granted observer status in WTO committees as well. 
10. Improvement of information exchanges would not  in itself guarantee that conflict would not 
take place in the future.  To achieve this, the EC suggested both in operative pa ragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) 
of their submission that the WTO would not decide on matters which were not of its straight competence.  For the EC, the WTO was a trade organi zation and the fact that it had a very efficient 
dispute settlement system did not give it competence  nor expertise to decide on issues of competence 
to MEAs.  The best way to ensure WTO laws co-e xisted peacefully with MEAs rules was to agree 
that WTO bodies and WTO panels should call for a nd defer to the expertise of the MEAs when 
confronted with issues that were of the competence of MEAs in question. 
11. To be concrete, the representative provided a "real life" example of a country taking a trade 
restrictive measure to prevent depletion of fish st ocks caused for example by excess in fishing. This 
was an issue currently before the Negotiating Group on Rules, namely how to handle and regulate 
over fishing.  If the trade restrictive measure w as brought to WTO dispute settlement, would it be for 
a WTO panel or the Appellate Body to decide on whether the fish stock was being depleted?  Would the WTO Secretariat have the expertise, knowledge a nd resources to decide on such a technical issue?  
The EC's answer was no and it further believed that  it would be dangerous to allow an organization 
specialized in trade to rule on this  type of issue.  In the specific case, fishery agreements were the  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 3 
 
 
relevant international organizati ons dealing with fish stock prese rvation and should be the ones to 
decide on whether the fish stocks were depleted. 
12. Continuing the example, the representative e xplained that the WTO would still decide on the 
trade-related aspects of the measure where it was co mpetent.  It would only defer to the fishery 
agreements on whether the measure was justified fro m a fish depletion viewpoint.  A distinction was 
needed between the fundamental justification for the measure (i.e., was the fish stock being depleted?) 
– a matter for the fishery organization; and the ma nner by which the measure was applied – a matter 
for the WTO to decide upon.  It was clear to the EC that the WTO would remain competent to decide 
on issues of its competence and would be the organi zation to decide if the measures were not applied 
in a manner that would constitute a means of ar bitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between 
countries where the same conditions prevailed, or a disguised restriction of international trade. 
13. The representative anticipated that some Me mbers would not be able immediately and 
wholeheartedly to support the EC proposals.  In his view, however, the proposals were not 
revolutionary, nor were they proposing to ame nd existing WTO rules nor change the rights and 
obligations of WTO Members.  The submission was an  effort to propose a concrete outcome for this 
part of the negotiations, an objective the EC hoped was shared by all.  It would be a modest outcome 
that would ensure that basic internationa l good governance principles were reconfirmed and 
effectively followed by the WTO.  The representative encouraged all delegations  to consult their legal 
and environmental experts and to reflect on what the EC had proposed as an outcome for Paragraph 31(i). 
14. The representative of Chile
 thanked the EC for the submission and said his delegation shared 
the emphasis on Paragraph 31 and in particular Paragraph 31(i).  The representative noted the 
EC submission (in the form of a proposed minist erial decision) contained both legal and concrete 
elements as proposed outcomes for the discussions and said a more detailed study of the legal implications would be required.  In the mean time, he had preliminary comments and questions. 
15. The representative noted the submission contained no mention of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration nor Doha mandate.  Therefore, some body unaware of the background and reading the 
draft might wonder where it came from and what was its context.  There was no reference to 
Paragraph 31 nor Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration, so it seemed the decision appeared from 
nothing; that Ministers just thought it might be a good idea to come up with guidelines on the relationship between MEAs and WTO.  The representative further noted the submission did contain a reference in preambular paragraph 1 to Article IV.1  of the WTO Agreement.  However, Article IV.1 
concerned the authority of the Ministerial Conferen ce to take decisions on matters under agreements 
already taken up and the present theme was not dealt with  in such agreements.  There was, therefore, a 
major vacuum as to the context in which the draft decision appeared. 
16. Concerning the draft decision itself, the representative said Chile agreed with the fundamental 
principles referred to by the EC; these were prin ciples that should govern the relationship between 
WTO and MEAs.  However, in terms of defining or applying those principles, as in the four sub-
paragraphs of operative pa ragraph 2, Chile had concerns as to th eir scope.  This would need further 
analysis.  As well, there were other principl es previously discussed in the CTESS which did not 
appear in the EC proposal, including "internatio nal cooperation";  Chile believed this was an 
important principle that should be reflected in an y MEA-related decision or action to be taken by 
Ministers.  Another element was "internal c oordination";  the CTESS had already held long 
discussions on national experiences in terms of in ternal coordination, which impeded or favoured 
greater understanding or greater application or implementation of WTO rules and MEA rules. 
17. The representative said operative paragraph 2 of the EC submission went beyond the Doha 
mandate because it talked about relations be tween MEAs and WTO rules, whereas Doha 
Paragraph 31(i) was a more restricted mandate.  He  speculated this might explain why there was no TN/TE/R/16 
Page 4  
 
mention of the Doha mandate in the EC submission.  The representative asked if the EC submission was based on the Doha mandate or whether it went  much further, as seemed to be indicated in 
operative paragraph 2.   
18. The representative described operative paragraph 3 as interesting and, in a context of Chile's 
own history with respect to WTO and MEA disput e settlement mechanisms, sought more information 
concerning the idea behind operative paragraph 3(c).  The representative suggested this aspect would 
need to be looked at in more detail, including the scope of any opinion that might be given by an MEA to a WTO panel and how the idea related to  Article 13 of the Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (D SU). The representative also recalled in this 
context a contribution from Switzerland relating to Ar ticle XX (g) of the GATT.  In concluding, the 
representative said there were interesting elements in the EC submission and that his delegation 
shared the overall basis.  However, further di scussion would be required in terms of concrete 
application.  Chile was of the view that any acti on to be taken by Ministers should be based on the 
Doha mandate.  At first view, the EC subm ission did not contain this Doha context. 
19. The representative of Norway
 noted that Paragraph 31(i) w as an important element of the 
Doha mandate and welcomed the EC  submission as a contribution that  might energize the debate.  
In Norway's view, the CTESS had explored the Doha  mandate in a constructive manner thus far.  
Interesting examples had been provided of how c ountries approached the interface between MEAs 
and trade rules at the national level.  The exerci se had shown that it was becoming regular practice 
that countries coordinate across ministries and sector s when negotiating new international agreements. 
It  was clear also that cooperation among relevant  organizations at the international level was 
improving.  As well, it was becoming a common feat ure of international negotiations that trade 
aspects were discussed in environmental negotiations and vice versa.  Norway therefore considered 
that the Doha mandate on this point had been e xplored extensively.  A decision was however still 
needed on how to conclude on th is part of the Doha mandate. 
20. One option that seemed to have gained some tr action was to reflect some core principles on 
the WTO/MEA relationship in a ministerial decl aration, building on Paragraph 6 of the Doha 
mandate.  With the growing importance of the WT O system and an increasing number of MEAs with 
almost universal membership, it was important that countries had a common understanding of the 
mutual supportiveness between trade rules and MEAs.  Norway had always emphasised that "mutual supportiveness" and "no hierarchy" should constitute major principles when dealing with the relationship between WTO rules and MEAs and was pleased to see those principles strongly reflected 
in the EC submission.  The EC submission contai ned many aspects Norway could generally support.  
If a ministerial declaration were to be the outco me, something which was still to be discussed and 
negotiated, Norway could foresee the development and incorporation of many of those elements. 
21. Developments over past years had shown that Members' views on the issues were perhaps not 
so far apart when looking at what was actually ha ppening in different fora.  Most countries were both 
WTO Members and parties to several of the importa nt MEAs.  This could only be interpreted as a 
clear indication that countries felt both sets of rules were important for their overall development.  In Norway's view, the EC contribution constituted an important element when furthering work under the 
agenda item. 
22. The representative of Australia
 reiterated Australia's view expr essed in previous meetings on 
the importance of staying tightly within the circum scribed mandate of Paragr aph 31(i).  Australia had 
also said previously that it believed the discussions  on national experiences had been very useful and 
presented the best way to take forward the Para graph 31(i) discussions in a concrete manner.  
Australia's paper on national experiences had descr ibed their coordination and consultative processes 
and had concluded that the relationship between trade and environment obligations was working  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 5 
 
 
well.2  Australia had yet to hear any evidence in the CTESS to the contrary.  Australia wondered, 
therefore, at the value of the EC paper which trie d to formulate a solution to a problem which did not 
exist.  In the process, it created, in Australia's vi ew, many new problems.  For these reasons, Australia 
did not accept the value of establishing principles to  govern the relationship between MEAs and WTO 
rules, as proposed by the EC. 
23. Australia provided specific comments and ques tions on the EC paper. With respect to 
operative paragraph 2(a), Australia asked why the EC seemed to have paraphrased GATT Article XX 
but ignored the chapeau, and not referred to SPS Agre ement provisions and a suite of other rights and 
obligations under the WTO.  In Australia's view, th is confused rather than  clarified the rights and 
obligations of Members.  The same paragraph also appeared to set down rules of interpretation which 
went beyond those which panels and the Appellate Bo dy were to apply under Article 3.2 of the DSU. 
24. With respect to operative paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) of the EC submission, Australia found 
troubling the idea that committees and panels must de fer to MEAs.  In Australia's view, this proposal 
would make dispute settlement in this area more complicated and more uncertain.  Panels would 
apparently have to disregard any other expert opinion they had sought under Article 13 of the DSU.  
Thus panels would have the right to  seek expert opinion but, if this varied in any way from the advice 
of an MEA, it would have to be ignored.  The re presentative posed further related questions, namely 
what if none (or only one) of the parties to a dispute were parties to the MEA?  What if more than one MEA covered the subject area of the dispute and divergent advice was provided by the MEAs? 
25. Australia agreed it was important that panels  had the capacity to seek technical assistance 
from MEAs when they deemed this appropriate  and necessary, in accordance with the DSU.  
However, in Australia's experience, MEA Secretar iats did not necessarily reflect the views of all 
Members.  There were frequently conflicting views about the interp retation of the MEA and there was 
the risk that the respective Secretariat may not ad equately present this diversity of views to a WTO 
panel.  A panel was more likely to make an inform ed decision on a technical issue if it was able to 
seek advice from a range of experts and hence receive a diversity of opinions. 
26. While the EC noted in its submission that one of the principles of the WTO/MEA relationship 
was that neither should be subordinate to the othe r, the call for WTO panels and committees to defer 
to MEAs implied that the WTO should in fact be su bordinate to the MEA in qu estion.  In Australia's 
view, this would seem to confuse rather than cl arify the WTO/MEA relationship, in a manner that 
would not be acceptable to their delegation. 
27. The representative of India
 complimented the EC for having presented its submission under 
Paragraph 31(i) and sought clarification as to its fo rmat as a decision of the Ministerial Conference; 
the representative thought it should be a "draft decisi on".  The representative referred to some of the 
issues raised earlier by Chile.  In particular, he not ed that the EC paper contained no reference to the 
Paragraph 31(i) mandate under whic h it had been submitted.  Consequently, the context was not 
brought out.  Also, the representative recalled that Paragraph 31(i) dealt with specific trade 
obligations (STOs) set out in MEAs rather than ME As as such; he sought clarification from the EC as 
to whether they intended STOs in MEAs or MEAs per se.   
28. Concerning some of the key principles mentioned in the EC submission – "mutual 
supportiveness", "no subordination", "deference" and "transparency" – India appreciated those 
principles.  In India's view, good international gov ernance needed some of those principles to be 
observed.  There was one set of MEAs developing rules and regulations towards achieving some 
objectives.  The WTO also had certain objectives and th ere was linkage between the two.  It could not 
be the case that the WTO worked in isolation.  This was the objective that would have to be fulfilled.  
                                                      
2 TN/TE/W/45. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 6  
 
Some of the key principles mentioned in operativ e paragraph 2 of the EC submission could be a good 
beginning. 
29. That said, the representative referred to operativ e paragraph 3(c) of the EC submission which 
talked about instances where a WTO panel might examine issues with an environmental content 
relating to a particular MEA.  In such instances,  it was proposed in the submission that the panel 
should call for and defer to the expertise of the MEA in question.  In this context, the representative 
drew attention to Articles 13.1 and 13.2 of the DS U (concerning "Right to Seek Information"); it was 
supposed that WTO does call for the opinion of the relevant bodies, depending on whether the parties 
agree.  Therefore, the representative sought clarification from the EC concerning the inclusion of operative paragraph 3(c) when such  a provision already existed.   
30. The representative described his comments as preliminary and said the opinion of an expert 
panel in India would be sought be fore his delegation would give fi nal views.  He described the 
submission as a good working document and reiterated his appreciation of some of the principles 
mentioned therein. 
31. The representative of Saudi Arabia
 thanked the EC for its submission and expressed 
appreciation also for the elaboration provided by th e EC delegation.  Saudi Arabia's preliminary view 
was that the scope of the document appeared to  be broader than what was envisioned under the 
Paragraph 31(i) mandate.  Saudi Arabia might not be  able to support it as it stood.  The submission 
would be reviewed thoroughly in capital and Saudi Ar abia would come back with its views further at 
the next session. 
32. The representative of Brazil  welcomed the submission on Pa ragraph 31(i) from the EC and 
said his delegation was positively surprised to see the proposal as it showed the importance of looking 
at the Paragraph 31 mandate as a whole.  Brazil be lieved all elements of Pa ragraph 31 were important 
and the CTESS should not concentrate its efforts ex clusively on one part of the mandate at the 
expense of others.  It was a positive sign, therefore,  that the CTESS was resuming work in an area of 
the mandate which had been neglected for many sessions. 
33. The representative presented preliminary comments on the submission and added that Brazil 
wished to understand some of its features before it c ould react properly.  First and foremost, he asked 
why the EC had chosen the form of a draft minister ial decision, and what was the specific meaning of 
this in the light of expected result in other are as of the mandate.  Second, Brazil was concerned about 
the possible systemic effects that such a decision coul d have with regard to Article XX of the GATT.  
It was supposed that the EC did not intend to ch ange established rights and obligations of Members 
but confirmation was sought in this regard. 
34. The representative's third point, related to the previous point, concerned the precise definition 
of "deference".  Although there was an explanation of what "deference" could mean there was so far 
no detailed explanation of how "deference" should or would work in practice.  Thus, once a WTO 
panel was established, he asked whether deference would work on the basis of information exchanges 
between the WTO Secretariat and relevant MEA Secr etariat, or whether the WTO would defer instead 
to decisions from the Conference of Parties (COP) of the specific ME A.  In the second situation, what 
if there were no decision from the COP?  The repr esentative of Brazil said those were some doubts his 
delegation had as to how deference could work in practice and he sought more in-depth explanation 
from the EC. 
35. Brazil's fourth point related to some possible contradictions in the submission.  It was 
mentioned in the submission that the respectiv e responsibilities of the WTO and MEAs should be 
preserved; Brazil felt this was a valuable principle.  But it was also mentioned that the WTO should defer to MEAs on relevant points of expertise.  Since it was not yet known how "deference" would 
work, there was an unavoidable risk of invasion of  competence.  He asked how Members would work  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 7 
 
 
with that risk.  In anticipating further informa tion on the EC submission, the representative reiterated 
Brazil's support for each part of the mandate and thei r view, shared with the EC, that the WTO should 
live in peace with MEAs and the trade obligations contained therein. 
36. The representative of Argentina  thanked the EC for its submission and noted also the EC's 
introductory comments concerning why the submissi on had been put forward at that time.  The 
representative sought to put the document into the c ontext of the negotiations:  when work began in 
2001, the CTESS discussed initially the scope and inte rpretation of the Paragraph 31(i) mandate.  
On that basis, the Committee had reached an unde rstanding to analyze the relationship between STOs 
and the norms of WTO.  Since then, the CTESS ha d been identifying STOs in respect of specific 
MEAs and attempting to establish the shortcomings and pros and cons of all this.  Argentina was 
surprised, therefore, that the EC was still insisting the problem to be considered was the relationship 
between WTO and MEAs.  The EC had referred to work done in Singapore in 1996.  However, the 
present negotiations could not be a continuation of that work because what was done in Singapore had 
to do precisely with the relations between WTO and MEAs, while the mandate referred to STOs.  The representative wondered if the CTESS should de part from the understanding of the last four 
years. 
37. The representative argued that the EC submissi on, in establishing principles, would erode 
principles already established in the WTO.  This w as a source of great concern to Argentina and the 
representative offered two examples.  First, operative paragraph 2(a) of the EC submission stated that 
efforts to safeguard the non-discriminatory multilate ral trading system had to go hand-in-hand with 
the commitment to sustainable development.  One of the most important values of the WTO was the 
principle of non-discrimination; therefore it would be  surprising that Members would merely have to 
make an effort to preserve the principle of no n-discrimination and would not be committed to the 
principle.  Second, operative paragraphs 3(b) and (c) of the EC submission would oblige WTO 
committees and panels to "...call for and defer to, in the relevant points, the expertise of the MEA in 
question".  This would once again be the subordi nation of WTO agreements to the environmental 
goals of MEAs.  The representative said there were  other examples of apparent contradictions or 
consequences of implementing a decision of the kind suggested. 
38. The representative referred to the hypothetical  example provided by the EC of a country 
adopting a trade measure to prevent over-fishing.  The first question was whether a WTO panel or the 
Appellate Body, or the WTO secretariat would be  competent to assess the state of the fisheries 
resource.  On this, Argentina shared the view that  it was not necessarily the Secretariat nor Appellate 
Body that would have to make that assessment or judgement;  however, nobody would doubt that a 
panel or the Appellate Body could obtain informat ion from scientific experts.  This was foreseen 
under the DSU, for instance in Appendix 4.  
39. Also, what was undeniable was the competen ce of the WTO to assess whether a trade 
measure was necessary for achieving a particular environmental goal, whether the measure was 
proportionate to the objective, and whether or not it would be discriminatory.  This was within the 
competence of the WTO; specifically, Article XX of  the GATT suggested such an examination could 
prevent a country adopting a trade measure under an environmental justification if such a measure 
was in practice or design discriminatory.  Th e representative said the objective was to prevent a 
situation where a protectionist measure was presente d as an environmental measure – this was a real 
value and it would be dangerous if this skill and competence of the WTO were eroded.  The 
representative said there were examples in the WT O of specific instances where trade measures had 
been adopted under some sort of environmental ju stification and had been declared protectionist. 
40. The representative said the main idea of the Doha  Round was market access.  The benefits of 
market access needed to be preser ved and the situation needed to be  avoided of enha ncing the ability 
of Members to take protectionist measures behi nd an environmental screen, thereby negating any 
progress that might be achieved on market access. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 8  
 
41. The representative of China
 thanked the EC for its submission.  The submission reminded the 
representative of discussions held almost two year s ago when the CTESS had tried to select some 
competent MEAs and to identify STOs in the selected  MEAs.  Most importantly and practically, some 
Members had shared their national experience s concerning the coordination of trade and 
environmental agencies in the course of negotiati on on certain MEAs.  From that discussion, China 
had seen no proof of the necessity for a legal paper such as that presented by the EC.  China shared 
and fully supported the views expressed by Ch ile, Australia, India, Brazil and Argentina. 
42. The representative of the United States  (US) thanked the EC for its submission.  Reacting to 
the example given by the EC as to why this ki nd of proposal was necessary, the representative said 
her delegation would welcome more concern from th e EC to protect fish stocks in the Rules 
negotiations and to support some ambitious proposals there rather than to create general principles of 
"deference" between MEAs and the WTO.  In the vi ew of the US, this would be more efficient and 
effective and would directly support the safeguarding of the world's fish stocks. 
43. The US shared the concern of other delegations with regard to where the context was for the 
EC proposal and what bearing or resemblance it ha d, or lacked, with respect to the mandate of 
Paragraph 31(i).  The mandate was specific: it asked that Members considered the relationship 
between existing WTO rules and STOs set out in MEAs.  In the view of the US, the EC proposal went 
well beyond the limited scope of the mandate and even more disturbing, it appeared to 
mischaracterize WTO rules and other concepts rela ted to MEAs.  The EC proposal also failed to 
reflect the factual, experience-based discussions the CTESS had had most r ecently under Paragraph 
31(i). 
44. In the view of the US, while the draft proposal purported to summarize WTO rules and 
reaffirm them, it actually mischaracterized them in several instances by omitting key concepts and 
terms.  In this regard, the example had already been mentioned by other delegations of operative 
paragraph 2(a) of the EC submission where some cr itical conditions of the chapeau of Article XX of 
the GATT had been completely left out or ignored.  The US wondered if the EC was seeking to re-
write GATT Article XX through the back door of a ministerial declaration. 
45. The representative added that the text of the EC  submission also mischaracterized, or simply 
misstated, concepts related to MEAs.  The exampl e was given of preambular paragraph 5; the US 
disagreed that MEAs constituted " the" response of the international community to trans-boundary 
environmental problems.  In the US view, many transboundary environmental problems could be addressed through cooperation or other a rrangements apart from legal agreements. 
46. The representative said perhaps the most troub ling piece of the proposal came in operative 
paragraph 3 where the EC had crafted those mischaracterizations and inaccuracies into a draft decision that sought to commit the Membership and all dispute settlement panels examining "issues of 
environmental content" to defer to an "MEA".  Sh e said that putting aside for the moment obvious and 
critical questions, many of which had already been  raised (questions such as "Which MEAs would 
this include?"; "What was an "MEA" exactly ap art from its Membership and the Secretariat 
established to serve that Membership?"; "What exac tly was meant by phrases su ch as, "defer to" and 
"issues of environmental content"?"; and "What woul d all this mean in practice in terms of how a 
panel would be expected to inte rpret and apply those pronouncemen ts?"), the US would appreciate 
explanation from the EC as to how its proposal more  fundamentally:  (1) fulfilled the mandate given;  
(2) could be viewed as consistent with that ma ndate, in particular the part in DDA Paragraph 32 
which stated that "…negotiations carried out under pa ragraph 31(i) and (ii) shall be compatible with 
the open and non-discriminatory nature of the multilater al trading system, shall not add to or diminish 
the rights and obligations of Members under existi ng WTO agreements, in particular the Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, nor alter the balance of these rights and 
obligations, and will take into account the needs of  developing and least-developed countries"; and (3)  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 9 
 
 
took into account another critical piece of the mandate , namely the fact that "The negotiations shall 
not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member th at is not a party to the MEA in question"? 
47. It appeared to the US that the draft decision was intended to have the effect of significantly 
altering Members' rights and obligations.  In th is regard, the US looked forward to the EC's 
explanation. 
48. The representative said the US stood ready to wo rk to advance the negotiations but the EC 
proposal did not form a basis upon which to move forwar d.  Instead, it distracted from the task at hand 
and failed to build on constructive and practical di scussions that had been held in the CTESS most 
recently.  In the view of the US, Members needed to avoid abstract and misguided principles that 
could have broad and unknown impacts on WTO Memb ers' rights and obligations, and instead reflect 
more carefully on the experience-based papers and exchanges that were held to date and build upon 
those.  For example, several Members had unde rscored the importance of domestic coordination 
among trade and environment experts at the national level.  The Committee should look for ways to 
recognize and promote domestic coordination and co operation.  Several Members had also noted the 
importance of ensuring that STOs set out in ME As were science-based and transparent.  The 
Committee might look for ways to recognize and promote science and transparency in both the 
negotiation and implementation of STOs. 
49. In the view of the US, an outcome building on Members' experiences in negotiating and 
implementing STOs set out in MEAs was not only consistent with the mandate, and would not 
prejudice Members' rights and obligations in the WT O, but would also further enhance the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and environment.  The re presentative observed that all of the experiences 
offered to date strongly suggested the relations hip between WTO rules and STOs set out in MEAs 
was working quite well.  The relationship was not in  need of "reconciliation" as suggested by the EC 
in its paper; there was no evidence of that.   
50. Better coordination among trade and environmen t officials at domestic and international 
levels, particularly those domestic officials w ith responsibility for implementing the relevant 
provisions, could further enhance the relationship.  The representative of the US noted also that 
several delegations and previous reports from th e Chairman had pointed to synergies between 
Paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii), par ticularly related to cooperation an d information sharing between MEA 
secretariats and the WTO.  The US was interest ed to explore the synergies further in CTESS 
discussions in 2006.  However, the work would need  to be done in a manner consistent with the 
mandate and not at cross-purposes with it. 
51. The representative said that if the CTESS wished  to engage further on the EC proposal, the 
US would have even more detailed questions and co mments for the EC, particularly with respect to 
some of the legal implications of this kind of proposal. 
52. The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined previous speakers in expressing appreciation to 
the EC for its submission.  Chinese Taipei shared th e view of some delegations that the proposal had 
complex legal implications; his de legation would continue reflecti ng on the proposal and revisit the 
discussion with the EC in due course.  The representative offered preliminary comments. 
53. In preambular paragraph 6 of the EC submissi on, the EC proposed that if a dispute arose 
between WTO Members which were parties to an MEA over trade measures, they should endeavour 
to resolve the matter through the dispute se ttlement mechanism available under the MEA.  
In Chinese Taipei's view, however, when there wa s a specific trade dispute between WTO Members, 
parties to the MEA in question, the complaining Me mber alone should have the right to bring the case 
to the dispute settlement mechanis m under the WTO regime or the regime of the MEA in question, 
subject to the provision of Article 23 of the DSU.  If the trade dispute was between a WTO Member TN/TE/R/16 
Page 10  
 
party and a WTO Member non-party to the ME A in question, the case should only be settled 
according to WTO rules and procedures. 
54. In preambular paragraph 7, the EC proposed that "…Members through their individual and 
collective actions were responsible  for and committed to the protection of the environment and that 
MEAs played an instrumental role in reinforci ng these actions."  In Chinese Taipei's view, MEAs 
should be only one of the options.  Chinese Taipei also  shared the view of India and other delegations 
with respect to the scope of the Paragraph 31(i) ma ndate.  This meant that the negotiations should be 
limited to the scope of the relationship of WTO ru les and STOs set out in MEAs.  In addition, the 
outcome of the negotiations under Paragraph 31(i) should not add to or diminish the rights and 
obligations of Members under existing WTO agreem ents, as mandated by Paragraph 32 of the DDA. 
55. In the operative section of the proposal, Chinese Ta ipei had similar concerns to the US with 
respect to the proposed principles to govern the relationship between MEAs and WTO, especially 
operative paragraphs 2(b), "no subor dination", and 2(c), "deference".  Chinese Taipei's main concern 
was how to ensure, after implementation of these principles, that the measures taken pursuant to MEA STOs should not be automatically presumed in conf ormity with WTO rules.  Also, how would WTO 
ensure that WTO Members who were not MEA parties would only be governed by WTO rules and 
not MEA rules.  The representative of Chinese Taip ei added that in order to ensure the proper 
functioning of the trade regime, the WTO should be allowed to examine the legitimacy of the 
application of certain STOs if a dispute arose. 
56. The representative of Switzerland
 observed that the CTESS had thus far had a good 
discussion on national experiences with respect to  implementation of STOs in MEAs and existing 
WTO rules.  CTESS had also had a thorough disc ussion on principles guiding the relationship.  
In Switzerland’s view, while the experience-sharing had been helpful, it was not enough to fulfill the 
mandate which Ministers had given in Doha.  Rather, there was a need to define in concrete terms the 
principles guiding the relationship.  In this re gard, Switzerland welcomed the EC’s proposal as 
constituting an excellent basis for CTESS’s future discussions on a concrete outcome under 
Paragraph 31(i). 
57. The representative said it was clear some ques tions with respect to the form of the EC 
submission might deserve further analysis.  For instan ce, there might be a need at some point in the 
future to reconsider what should be placed in th e preambular and operative parts of the decision.  
Also, the relationship between WTO panels and releva nt institutions of different MEAs, as set out in 
operative paragraph 3 of the EC submission, might  require further clarification.  That said, 
Switzerland supported the basic ideas contained in operative paragraph 3. 
58. The representative observed that Switzerland ha d always supported and continued to support 
the four principles mentioned in operative paragra ph 2 of the EC submission.  Switzerland agreed the 
relationship between WTO rules and STOs in MEAs s hould be governed by the general principles of 
"no subordination", "mutual supportiveness", "deference" as well as "transparency". 
59. The representative commented that the multilatera l trading system and environmental regime 
were mutually supportive in focusing on their own t asks and competences.  In order to maintain this 
mutual supportiveness, each should remain responsib le and competent for the issues falling within 
their respective primary areas of competence.  Switzerland observed that references to mutual 
supportiveness were incorporated in MEAs; the term  "mutually supportive" appeared in the preambles 
of the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, as we ll as the Cartagena Protoc ol.  The concept of 
mutual supportiveness had come up also in various c ontexts and generally had related specifically to 
the trade and environment relationship.  There were  references to "mutual supportiveness" also to be 
found in the WTO context.  The Doha mandate us ed the concept of mutual supportiveness as an 
ultimate goal of the negotiations relating to th e relationship between WTO rules and MEAs.  
Although legally speaking the inclusion of the "mut ual supportiveness" concept did not amount to a  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 11 
 
 
‘rule of conflict’, it could in the view of Switzer land serve as a guiding principle in finding concrete 
solutions in cases of conflict. 
60. The representative of Switzerland recalled the elaboration their delegation had provided in 
October 20053 to the effect that the principle of "no subordination" or "no-hierarchy" among treaties 
was incorporated in the terms of the Vienna Convention.  In the context of the WTO-MEA 
relationship, the principle of "no subordination" thus  also applied. As a result, there was no ranking 
between WTO rules and MEAs.  In order to avoi d the conception that treaties were ranked unless 
otherwise specified, Switzerland believed the refere nce to "no subordination" within WTO was an 
important recognition of an existing prin ciple of public international law. 
61. Switzerland further believed "deference" was a ke y concept to guide the relationship between 
MEAs and the WTO, as it allowed institutions and norms to focus on their respective spheres of 
competence and legitimacy and also reduced the possib ility of inconsistencies within the international 
legal system.  With respect to "transparency", Sw itzerland believed this was a principle which helped 
to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade and the environment by providing for regular 
information exchanges between the WTO and MEAs. 
62. Switzerland had concluded that in the present EC submission, the four principles of "mutual 
supportiveness", "no subordination", "deference" and "transparency" had been reflected adequately.  
Switzerland welcomed the first concrete proposal of the EC and the work upon which it was based. 
63. The representative of Korea  expressed appreciation to the EC for its submission.  Korea 
wondered if the CTESS had yet exhausted its effort s to discuss potential or actual cases of conflict 
and reached the point sufficient to deliberate a specific text or decision to be considered by Ministers.  
Expressing preliminary comments, the representative sai d Korea was of the view that WTO rules and 
MEAs were on an equal footing and mutually suppor tive; this was a view that also enjoyed broad 
support among Members.  However, preambular para graph 6 of the EC submission, pointing out the 
priority among the dispute settlement mechanisms, a nd operative paragraphs 2( a), 3(b) and 3(c), in 
particular, had a binding nature for Members and WTO bodies.  These paragraphs would need more 
consideration towards keeping a balance between WTO rules and MEAs. 
64. The representative of Mexico  thanked the EC for its submission.  Expressing preliminary 
comments, she said Mexico's position was well known and their delegation, like others, had asserted 
there was no need for a proposal such as the one be ing presented by the EC.  In Mexico's view, the 
proposal contained many contradictions.  First, the relevant mandates were as set out in the 
Ministerial declarations of Doha and Hong K ong and required the negotiations to focus on the 
relationship between existing WTO rules and STOs established by MEAs.  While the representative 
of the EC had earlier spoken of the need to be fa ithful to the mandate and of ensuring an outcome 
under Paragraph 31(i), this was not reflected in  the present submission.  A second contradiction 
concerned the assertion by the EC that the objective of the proposal was to guarantee that there would 
be no conflict.  Mexico believed this objective w ould be difficult to achieve with the elements 
contained in the EC proposal.  For example, ope rative paragraph 2(a) on "mutual supportiveness" 
seemed to go against the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT, the purpose of which was to discipline 
the use of exceptions.  This had been recogni zed by the Dispute Settlement Body on several 
occasions.  This effort would seem to be reduced to a mere invitation which would go against, as 
other delegations had also said, th e principle of non-discrimination. 
65. A further contradiction related to the EC's e xplanation that it was not the purpose of their 
proposal to modify WTO rules nor increase or reduce Members' rights and obligations.  In Mexico's 
view, some principles, for example "no subordination" and "deference", and also operative paragraph 3(b), seemed to run counter to the DSU,  particularly Article 3.2 which said the dispute 
                                                     
 
3 TN/TE/W/61. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 12  
 
settlement system was a central element in providi ng security and predictability to the multilateral 
trading system.  Also in Article 3.2 of the DSU,  Members recognized that the system served to 
preserve the rights and obligations of Members u nder the covered agreements and to clarify the 
existing provisions of those agreements in accordan ce with the customary rules of interpretation of 
public international law.  In Mexico's view, the pr oposals contained in operative paragraph 3(c) of the 
EC proposal would run counter to the integrity of the DSU. 
66. The representative said that for all the above r easons, Mexico agreed with other delegations 
that (1) the EC proposal called into question the ma ndate the CTESS had for its work; (2) the proposal 
would have a negative impact on the integrity and pr edictability of the multilateral trading system;  
and, (3) it was not necessary to make changes to existing rules. 
67. The representative of Pakistan
 extended appreciation to the EC for coming forward with its 
submission.  The representative observed that the preamble of the draft decision portrayed goodwill 
sentiments for according due respect to MEAs and th eir legal status in terms of WTO obligations.  
At the same time, the representative wondered if the MEAs would also ever consider to extend such 
status to WTO.  While Pakistan could go along with  the general format of the preamble, consistent 
with its view that WTO Members did pursue shared objectives with MEAs to the extent of promotion 
of sustainable development, Pakistan also felt that the elaboration of basic principles as set out by the 
EC in operative paragraph 2 had only a loose re lationship with the im plementation provisions 
suggested in operative paragraph 3. 
68. With respect to operative paragraph 2, Paki stan could agree to the formulation of 
sub-paragraph (d) relating to "tra nsparency" and exchange of info rmation between WTO and MEAs.  
However, Pakistan had concerns with the de scriptions of the three principles of "mutual 
supportiveness", "no subordination", and "deference". 
69. On "mutual supportiveness", Pakistan was espec ially concerned at the last sentence of 
sub-paragraph (a) which would make  it binding for all WTO bodies to ensure that the interpretation 
and application of WTO rules took due account of a nd was mutually supportive with the provisions of 
MEAs.  The representative asked the EC how 'due account' would be ensured and what would be the 
test and criteria to judge the accuracy of such inte rpretation.  On "deference", Pakistan agreed that 
MEAs and WTO had distinct competences.  However, Pakistan did not agree with the EC's view that 
both had a mutually supportive multilateral governan ce framework.  Whereas the WTO's governance 
framework was very well ensured by the DSU, th e representative doubted that similar kinds of 
arrangements existed in MEAs.  Hence, "deference" w ould not really be justified in that context.  
On "no subordination", the representative noted Aust ralia's comment that when issues were deferred 
to MEAs on the basis of their having environmental or sustainable development content, it meant that 
WTO was being subordinated to some MEA provi sions.  The representative posed the following 
questions to the EC:  if there was a dispute at th e WTO, would the WTO panel be required to refer the 
case in the first instance to all MEAs to get th eir respective points of view on any environmental 
content?  Would they be required to ask the MEAs whether any of the parties had ever consulted them 
or approached them for recourse under any MEA pr ovision?  If this were the case, what would the 
WTO panel do? 
70. The representative said he could not think of an y dispute in international trade which could 
not be stretched so as to include any content of sustainable development or environmental concern to 
any level or degree.  Hence, it would become vi rtually impossible for the DSU to function actively 
and effectively.  Pakistan agreed with Australia and others suggesting that the WTO panel would have 
recourse to environmental experts coming either from the MEAs or from Member states in seeking technical advice.  But the WTO panel should in no way be subjected to the whims of MEAs' experts 
as more than one expert may find it difficult to c onverge on the level of environmental impact in a 
particular case.  Nor would Pakistan wished to see the WTO panel held hostage to such divergence of 
technical views by the MEAs and have proceedings deferred.  Besides complicating the dispute, the  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 13 
 
 
obligation would also entail extra burdens of tim e and resources on the parties, especially when it 
concerned developing country Members and LDCs.   
71. The representative said Pakistan stood ready to work with the EC and other delegates in 
reshaping such concepts for furthering the mandate. 
72. The representative of the Philippines  joined other delegations in thanking the EC for the 
submission embodying its expectations for an out come under Paragraph 31(i).  While the proposal 
was still being examined in capital, the representativ e had preliminary comments.  First, like other 
delegations, the Philippines believed that the issuan ce of such a proposal may have been premature 
and some of the recommended decisions appeared  to go beyond the scope of the mandate, which 
related to specific trade obligations in MEAs and the applicability of existing WTO rules as among 
parties to the MEAs.  On the latter point, the Philippines observed, as other delegations had done 
previously, that there was no reference in the EC submission to the Doha mandate, except in the title.  
Second, in the view of the Philippines, thus far there were not enough indications of convergence in 
the CTESS on the content as well as the structure of an  outcome on Paragraph 31(i).  In this context 
the Philippines doubted there was yet sufficient basi s for drawing up a proposed Ministerial Decision 
on the mandate. 
73. The Philippines sought clarification on a number of specific points with respect to the EC 
submission.  Concerning preambular paragraph 4, what sustainable development objective was being 
referred to that accorded Members the right to adopt  measures for the protection of animal or plant 
life or health?  In relation to ope rative paragraph 2(a), how did this right to protection figure into the 
principle of mutual supportiveness?  The representativ e observed in this regard that some delegations 
had noted that international agreem ents contained the principle of mutual supportiveness.  However, 
he asked from which of these agreements did the EC  derive such a link between right to protection 
and mutual supportiveness.  Was their determinati on of appropriate level of protection in accordance 
with Article XX (b) and (g) of the GATT 1994 as well as other relevant WTO agreements, such as the 
SPS and TBT Agreements?  
74. Concerning preambular paragraph 5, the represen tative of the Philippines asked what was the 
basis for stating that multilateral approaches to gl obal environmental problem s were to be strongly 
preferred.  With respect to operative paragraph 3(a), the drafting seemed to suggest MEA bodies automatically would be granted observer status in the relevant WTO committees upon request.  Did 
the EC envisage to incorporate into its decisi on the proposed criteria and conditions for granting 
observer status to MEAs contained in its sep arate submission in document TN/TE/W/66.   
75. With respect to operative paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c), the Philippines shared concerns raised by 
other delegations.  While respecting the competen ce of WTO and MEA institutions, the Philippines 
was concerned at the proposal for WTO committees and panels to defer to MEAs by the mere  
characterisation of issues as having an environmental content.  Also, this could run counter to the 
principle of no subordination and also precluded the thorough examination of the environmental 
measures, trade and development effects on which the WTO rules might be applicable. 
76. The representative of South Africa
 thanked the EC for its submission.  In her view, the draft 
language of the submission essentially dealt with bo th Paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii); her delegation 
would revert to some issues when the CTESS resume d its consideration of 31(ii).  On the present 
item, South Africa agreed with comments made by Australia, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Philippines 
and others and also had additional comments to make. 
77. The representative observed that the EC submis sion had made extensive use of language and 
concepts already agreed in various fora.  As a count ry with a particular interest in the Johannesburg 
Plan of Implementation, South Africa believed some  of those concepts needed further refining.  
For example, with respect to the idea contained in the preamble of the EC submission that “trade and TN/TE/R/16 
Page 14  
 
environment policies blended effectively to deliver sustainable development, South Africa was left 
wondering what happened to the third pillar of sustai nable development, namely social development? 
78. South Africa sought clarification on a number of points in the EC submission.  For example, 
what was being said in operative paragraph 1?  While inputs were awaited from capital, the 
representative observed that the language in this pa ragraph was an excerpt from the Preamble of the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  She sought clarification as to the implications of 
moving the language into the operational part of a Mi nisterial Declaration.  Also, clarification was 
sought on the implications of changing the verb “recognising” to “the WTO shall reconcile”.  The 
representative noted also that questions had been ra ised with respect to how “deference” would be 
implemented.  In this respect she observed that  while WTO’s competence in trade issues was 
recognised in operative paragraph 2(c), by operative paragraphs 3(b) and 3( c), WTO would defer to 
MEAs on issues with environmental content, even  though the fact those issues were being addressed 
in a WTO committee or panel implied they were trade issues.  At first glance, this seemed 
contradictory.  In this connection, the re presentative wondered about the basis upon which MEA 
Secretariats would participate.  In this regard she observed that while the EC submission gave an 
impression of MEAs as uncomplicated, unchanging, unc ontroversial and universal bodies of law, this 
was not her impression. 
79. The representative noted that while South Africa agreed with some of its elements, the EC 
submission failed to mention the mandate.  Moreover, it was a struggle to see how the submission addressed the mandate.  In this respect, the represen tative observed that while the mandate referred to 
STOs, the submission mentioned trade measures just on ce, in the preambular part.  Also, the mandate 
referred to existing rules and the only existing WTO rules which seemed to be impacted in the EC 
submission were the DSU and perh aps Article XX of GATT.  The representative concluded that 
South Africa’s initial impression was that the EC submission went beyond the mandate and would be 
difficult as a contribution towards achieving the ma ndate, to which South Africa was committed. 
80. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the EC for its submission.  She joined other speakers 
in expressing uncertainty with the format of the document as a proposal for a decision of the 
Ministerial Conference.  She queried also the meani ng of the format in relation to other aspects of the 
negotiating mandate.  Ecuador observed that in ce rtain areas the proposal had legal and systemic 
implications.  Ecuador's preliminary response was to  agree with other delegations that the proposal 
went beyond the mandate or remit of Paragraph 31 (i).  Ecuador further felt the proposal departed 
somewhat from the development dimension that was the focus of the Round.  For Ecuador, the 
development dimension was to be realised through market access and anything that restricted or 
diminished such market access would be problematic for her delegation. 
81. The representative of Ecuador referred to contradi ctions highlighted already by other speakers 
and mentioned specifically a contradiction between operative paragraph 2(a) of the submission and 
Article XX of the GATT.  In this regard, she cont rasted the reference to “efforts to safeguard the 
non-discriminatory multilateral trading system” cont ained in operative paragr aph 2(a), which dealt 
with principles of non-subordination and deference,  with the fact that non-discrimination was a 
governing principle of the WTO.  Ecuador also shared  the concern of others with respect to operative 
paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c). 
82. The representative of Malaysia  thanked the EC for its proposed text to give effect to 
Paragraph 31(i).  Malaysia shared the concerns ra ised by many previous speakers including Australia, 
India, China, US, Brazil, Mexico and Ecuador, especia lly with respect to the fact that the submission 
went well beyond the mandate of Paragr aph 31(i).  Malaysia further shared the view of the US that the 
CTESS's current discussion on experience-sharing w as an appropriate way to further progress the 
discussion under Paragraph 31(i).  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 15 
 
 
83. The representative sought clarification with resp ect to operative paragraph 3(a) of the EC 
submission; the drafting of this paragraph seeme d to suggest all MEA bodies should, upon request, 
automatically be granted observer status in the relevant WTO committees.  In Malaysia's view, 
requests by MEAs for observer status in WTO co mmittees should be considered in the relevant 
committees.  Also, such requests should have con sensus support of all Members and should not be 
granted automatically.  The representative asked the EC for clarification on this aspect of 
“automaticity” of granting of requests for observer status. 
84. The representative of New Zealand  welcomed the EC contribut ion under Paragraph 31(i) and 
the opportunity it presented to enga ge substantively on the issues raised.  New Zealand considered 
that part of the mandate important and noted also  that the present exchanges in the CTESS would help 
intensify the negotiations as directed by Ministers at Hong Kong. 
85. Before commenting directly on the EC submissi on, the representative noted that, like other 
Members, New Zealand had appreciated and found u seful the reviews of national experiences which 
had been the focus of CTESS exchanges to date unde r Paragraph 31(i).  Those exchanges had helped 
to inform thinking on the decision-making processes at  the national level.  The range of contributions 
and outline of experiences indicated the substantive nature of the dialogue CTESS had had thus far.  
That said, it was perhaps less clear how far that di scussion could assist in clarifying the very specific 
issue which Ministers had asked Members to think about i.e., the relationship between STOs in MEAs 
and existing WTO rules – not least because issues of  WTO consistency were more likely to arise at 
the level of domestic implementation and interpre tation of specific MEA measures, even when MEA 
provisions and WTO rules were, on their face, mutually supportive. 
86. New Zealand noted its view that an outcome from the Paragraph 31(i) negotiations was an 
important element.  Like others, New Zealand belie ved Ministers in Doha clearly considered there 
was a specific issue to address; it was over to nego tiators to find a way forward.  For its part, 
New Zealand was considering its own contribution to the discussion which would likely build upon an 
earlier proposal New Zealand had made before th e Doha Round was launched regarding a voluntary 
consultative mechanism.  This mechanism would facilitate consid eration of 'first-best' policy 
outcomes on the environment through the optional cons ideration of a tool box of policy approaches, 
including technology transfer, development assistance,  technical and information exchanges – all of 
which, in New Zealand's view, might be more effi cient and effective than a trade measure applied 
through an MEA as a means of addressing an environmental issue. 
87. Turning to the EC's contribution, the represen tative raised a number of points.  First, 
New Zealand sought information on the reaso ning behind the approach of addressing the 
Paragraph 31(i) mandate through a Ministerial Deci sion.  In particular, New Zealand was puzzled by 
the absence of a reference in th e text to the Paragraph 31(i) mandate and had doubts as to whether a 
Ministerial Decision framed in the way proposed by th e EC was necessarily the best approach to fulfil 
the mandate.  New Zealand further wondered if the way the draft decision was caste did not stray 
outside the mandate.   
88. Second, New Zealand highlighted a need for vig ilance to ensure that what was contained in 
any such Ministerial Decision was within the comp etence of the Ministerial Conference as set out in 
Article IV of the WTO Agreement and did not ov er-reach that authority.  Third, New Zealand 
observed that the main thrust of the EC's draft deci sion seemed to be to enunciate a set of principles to 
reflect the relationship between MEAs and WTO rul es, as contained in operative paragraph 2.  The 
representative recalled that New Zealand had also rai sed questions earlier about the extent to which 
WTO could elaborate such a list of principles in th e absence of any input from the MEAs themselves.  
This was especially the case if some of the princi ples such as operative paragraph 2(d) of the EC 
submission – suggested the imposition of new res ponsibilities on the MEAs.  New Zealand's view was 
that the negotiations needed to bear in mind the ne ed for appropriate consider ation of the perspective 
of MEAs. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 16  
 
89. The representative referred to  the introductory remarks of the EC and said New Zealand 
shared the perspectives of Argentina, Chile and the US in terms of the reference to fishing.  The 
representative commented that New Zealand would a ppreciate seeing the same level of ambition that 
was clearly reflected in the present EC submission al so reflected in the rules negotiations on fisheries 
subsidies. 
90. New Zealand noted that many of the operative para graphs appeared to be cast in terms of hard 
obligations when they were more in the nature of principles and objectives which could be drawn on 
for guidance by WTO bodies when issues arose rela ting to the relationship between WTO rules and 
provisions of MEAs.  In New Zealand's view it wo uld be better to focus attention on elaborating 
effective principles to reflect this relationship than to attempt to set  out hard obligations which could 
stray beyond the WTO's mandate and which could be  difficult to give meaning to in practice. 
91. The representative observed that operative paragra ph 1, for example, stated that "The WTO 
shall reconcile expanding production of and trade in goods and services with the optimal use of the 
world's resources...".  From New Z ealand's perspective, the obliga tion to "reconcile" trade outcomes 
and environmental outcomes was difficult to quantif y.  Further, specific questions which arose for 
New Zealand were how would the WTO seek to re concile trade and environmental outcomes and to 
which parts of the WTO would this apply, e.g. the Secretariat, Members or panels.   
92. The representative observed that operative paragraph 2 attempted to set out a list of principles 
to apply to the relationship between MEAs and th e WTO.  Operative paragraph 2(a), for instance, 
appeared to summarise Articles XX (b) and (g) of the GATT. New Zealand wa s concerned, however, 
that in doing so, operative paragraph 2(a) appeared to go beyond the existing parameters of the WTO 
agreements in that a new subjective element of "ensuring the level of protection it considers 
appropriate" was added.  Also, the Agreement's chap eau proviso, that measures were not to constitute 
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, was diminish ed by being relegated to the preamble of the EC 
submission.  New Zealand's sense was that that asp ect needed to be adjusted and brought into line 
with the WTO agreements.  New Zealand was also  hesitant about the final sentence of operative 
paragraph 2(a).  In New Zealand's view, this went  beyond the applicable framework of the customary 
rules of interpretation of public international law (in accordance with Article 3.2 of the DSU), as other 
delegations had pointed out. 
93. In terms of operative paragraph 2(b), New Ze aland noted the suggestion that "Both MEAs 
and the WTO Agreement constitute legitimate bodies of international law of equal standing. Due 
respect must be accorded to each."  Apart from the general consideration of whether this was 
necessarily within the co mpetence of the Ministerial Conference, New Zealand had concerns about 
ambiguities in the provision.  For instance, New Zealand wondered about the purpose of equal standing, as well as the relevant fora.  Due respect  must be accorded to each by whom?  In what 
contexts?  The reference to "legitimate bodies of in ternational law" was simi larly confusing for New 
Zealand:  did this refer to the substantive law of each or was "bodies" a reference to the organizations, 
i.e., the WTO as an organization and the various organizations that were established by MEAs? 
94. Operative paragraph 2(c) attempted to recogni se that the WTO and MEAs had expertise in 
their own areas and stated that their respective e xpertise in environment a nd trade matters "shall be 
valued and utilised".  New Zealand believed this  had the air of an objectives provision since it was 
difficult to quantify an obligation to "value" expertise; nor did the provision elaborate on how their respective expertise should be "utilised" and by what  institutions.  New Zealand was hesitant also 
about some elements of operative paragraph 3, not least the vague and potentially too sweeping 
reference to "issues with an environmental content". 
95. Reflecting on the present discussion in the CTESS, the representative expressed the view that 
it had been one of the richest exchanges Members had had on Paragraph 31(i); this was timely given 
all the hopes and expectations of Members to move forward in the wider process as well as in that  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 17 
 
 
particular negotiation.  Observing that a large number of delegations ha d taken the floor, the 
representative said this was a positive situation.  New Zealand had registered its views which reflected 
many of the hesitations other Members had express ed.  But at the same time, New Zealand felt the 
EC's submission provided considerable food for th ought and would provide a basis for stimulating 
further discussion and debate.  In expressing continue d support for an outcome under Paragraph 31(i), 
the representative said New Zealand's view was that  the EC's submission was not the answer to the 
question of how Members would address that part of the mandate. 
96. The representative of Thailand  thanked the EC for its interesting new paper on 
Paragraph 31(i), and restated his delegation's vi ew that the relationship between WTO and MEAs 
continued to work well.  The experience-sharing exercise the CTESS had b een undertaking had been 
very useful.  Thailand's early reaction to the EC s ubmission was to share the view of others that it 
went well beyond the specific scope of the mandate of Paragraph 31(i), especially with respect to the 
broad principles elaborated in operative paragraph 2 as well as the concepts contained in operative 
paragraph 3 concerning deference to MEAs by WTO committees and panels.  The proposals seemed 
inherently to extend the mandate under which the CTESS operated.  Thailand was further concerned 
as to how the EC submission might have legal implic ations with respect to Article XX of the GATT.  
Also, Thailand supported Malaysia's  comment on operative paragraph 3( a) and sought clarification on 
the issue of "automaticity" of observer status to MEAs.  Thailand also wonde red about the linkage of 
this aspect of the EC submission with CTESS's sepa rate mandate under Paragr aph 31(ii) of the Doha 
Declaration. 
97. The representative of Bolivia  joined other delegations in thanking the EC for its submission.  
Bolivia regarded it as important that there shoul d be a concrete result under the Paragraph 31(i) 
mandate.  Nevertheless, Bolivia was not sure the EC  submission was the best way to move forward in 
the discussions.  The representative said there was a need for some detailed analysis of the legal 
implications of the EC's proposal, especially in te rms of possible implications for the procedures and 
rules under the DSU.  Similarly, there would be a need for detailed discussion of the principles 
contained in operative paragraph 2 of the EC su bmission towards trying to determine a common 
consensus or understanding on the terms therein a nd their bearing to established principles of the 
WTO such as non-discrimination.  The represen tative said the CTESS needed to be mindful of 
proposals already submitted in the Committee, for exam ple with respect to best practises in terms of 
coordination between respective authorities responsib le at the national level for implementation of 
undertakings under MEAs and WTO. 
98. The representative of Cuba  thanked the EC for its submissi on and agreed it had re-energized 
discussions.  Cuba agreed with other delegations  including Ecuador, South Africa and Philippines 
who had raised problems with the scope of the EC  proposal and the principles contained therein.  
Cuba similarly shared concerns expressed by ot her delegations with respect to the notion of 
"automaticity" of MEA observership requests; Cuba ha d often insisted that the matter of observership 
must be resolved by the General Council.  Cuba asked the EC if, among the principles it was trying to 
take into account in the submission, it should also  include special and differential treatment.  Cuba 
also raised a question relating to a possible contradi ction that needed to be addressed with respect to 
the core WTO principle of non-discrimination an d the Doha mandate in Paragraph 31(i) which 
qualified that the negotiations should not prejudice the rights of any Member that was not party to the 
MEA in question. 
99. The representative of Indonesia  thanked the EC for its proposal. Indonesia associated itself 
with statements of previous speakers that the EC's  proposal seemed to be premature at that stage of 
the negotiations.  Indonesia viewed it as important first to build on a common understanding of the 
definition of the relationship between MEAs and STO s.  Indonesia was also of the position that the 
objective of the relationship between WTO and MEAs  was to establish a multilateral trading system 
that took into account the development of the global environment for achieving sustainable 
development objectives.  The relationship between  existing WTO rules and STOs set out in MEAs TN/TE/R/16 
Page 18  
 
should also be based on the principles which exis ted in each multilateral system.  An important 
principle that Indonesia wished to highlight for example was the principle of common but 
differentiated responsibilities which were found in various MEAs.  Indonesia supported the granting 
of observer status to MEA bodies; however, lik e Malaysia and Thailand, Indonesia sought 
clarification on operative paragraph 3(a) of the submission.  
100. Responding to the discussion, the representative of the EC
 agreed with a comment by 
New Zealand that the present debate had been one of the richest exchanges CTESS had had on 
Paragraph 31(i).  He thanked colleagues for their substantial contributions, notwithstanding the fact 
they had received the EC submission only a few days  prior to the meeting.  He acknowledged also the 
preliminary nature of most of the interventions ma de.  The representative repeated that the EC was not 
expecting definitive positions to be  taken at the present meeting and he welcomed the indication from 
colleagues that they would refer all the considerations  back to experts in capitals so as to prepare for a 
continuation of the debate.  The representative th anked those delegations that had expressed support 
for the general principles mentioned in the EC subm ission and thanked also those delegations that had 
expressed interest in going further into the ques tion of how effectively to operationalize those 
principles in WTO.  From the support shown, the EC  felt reinforced in its efforts to come forward 
with effective solutions. 
101. The representative stressed that the EC's submi ssion was a work in progress and he added that 
the useful suggestions made in the present debate  would be examined in Brussels with a view to 
enriching the paper.  For example, the EC would be  interested to reiterate the fact that the draft 
decision fitted well within the context and objectives of the Doha Declaration; also, the EC was open 
to include reference to other principles such  as "international cooperation" and "internal 
coordination", as had been menti oned by delegations.  The representative addressed a number of 
general points raised in the present debate and sai d the EC would revert back on the more specific 
points, following substantial and in-depth examination.   
102. Concerning the format of the submission as a draft Ministerial Decision, the representative 
said the reason for involving Ministers in the pro cess was first and foremost to send a strong political 
message with respect to the govern ance principles that the EC believed were adhered to by all 
WTO Members.  Different options had been cons idered including ambitious approaches such as 
proposing an authoritative interpre tation under Article IX.2 of the WTO Agreement or an amendment 
to existing rules under Article X.  However, th e EC submission was an attempt to marry two 
objectives:  on the one hand to be ambitious and sen d a strong political signal, hence the involvement 
of Ministers;  and on the other hand to be realistic and not to propose changes to existing WTO rules.  
This was why the EC did not opt for a formal proposal to amend the rules nor to authoritatively interpret the rules;  instead, the EC had gone for a modest instrument, namely Article IX.1 of the 
WTO Agreement in order not to alter or change the balance of rights and obligations in WTO. 
103. With respect to comments concerning the mandate  of Paragraph 31(i), the representative said 
that following years of discussion, there were differe nt interpretations of this mandate.  For the EC, it 
was clear the mandate did not instruct CTESS simply to identify problems that might have occurred in 
the past in the relationship between MEAs and WTO.   Thus, if some would interpret the mandate as 
meaning Members might go through a national expe rience-sharing exercise, conclude there was no 
problem and then agree no outcome was needed und er the Paragraph 31(i) mandate, that was not the 
interpretation of the EC.  The EC would argue that if  there had been no problem so far, this was to be 
welcomed but there remained a need  to ensure that peaceful relations  between the two bodies of law 
continued into the future.  The representative added th at while there existed different interpretations of 
the mandate, the EC was still waiting for concrete  proposals from others that would ensure and 
guarantee that peaceful relations would continue into th e future;  for the EC this was very much at the 
heart of the Paragraph 31(i) mandate.  The represen tative agreed with Brazil that it was important to 
look at the mandate as a whole and not spend time contesting each other's interpretation of 
Paragraph 31(i).  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 19 
 
 
104. Referring to comments and questions raised by delegations concerning the general principles 
in the EC submission, notably with respect to wh y those principles were mentioned and what was the 
basis of their inclusion, the representative offere d examples to show that what the EC had done was 
simply to reaffirm principles that were already r ecognized in the WTO.  With respect to preambular 
paragraph 5 - contending that MEAs "constitute the response of the international community to 
transboundary environmental problems..." and no ting that "multilateral approaches to global 
environmental problems are to be strongly preferre d" - the representative referred the Committee to 
paragraph 171 of the CTE's Singapore Report4 which expressly mentioned the principle of preference 
for multilateral solutions and also quoted Principle 12  of the Rio Declaration; he noted that the Rio 
Declaration was also referenced in the Decision on Trade and Environment adopted by Ministers in 
Marrakesh in 1994.  Thus, no new principle was bei ng created;  this was simply a reiteration of a 
principle that was well-known to all and which had already been endorsed by Ministers.   
105. With respect to the principle of "mutua l supportiveness" contained in operative 
paragraph 2(a), the representative referred the Committee to the 1994 Ministerial Decision on Trade 
and Environment and the reference therein to the "aim of making international trade and 
environmental policies mutually supportive...".  On ce again, operative paragraph 2(a) reiterated a 
well-known principle.  Concerning references in th e EC submission to dispute settlement, including 
preambular paragraph 6 (proposing inter alia  that "if a dispute arises between WTO members which 
are Parties to an MEA over trade measures they are applying pursuant to that MEA, they shall 
endeavour to resolve it through the dispute settle ment mechanism available under the MEA"), the 
representative said this was a 'cut and paste'  from Paragraph 178 of the Singapore Report5;  also the 
representative noted the phrase "shall endeavour to" was not an absolute obligation.  Concerning 
references in the EC submission to "sustainable development", which had been questioned by some 
Members, the representative noted this aspect was re ferenced in Paragraph 6 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration.  Concerning other principles, the re presentative reiterated EC's interest to include 
references to principles mentioned by some Memb ers on "international cooperation" and "internal 
coordination". 
106. Referring to the operational part of their s ubmission, the representative observed that many 
questions had been raised with respect to operative paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c) and that these mainly had 
to do with the concept of "deference".  In res ponse to the question regarding what was meant by 
having WTO committees and panels call for and defe r to the expertise of MEAs, the representative 
said the EC's assessment was that these were not re volutionary principles in the context of existing 
WTO rules.  For example, Article XII of the GATT dealt with restrictions to safeguard balance of 
payments and the Agreement contained a mechanism6 whereby the Balance-of-Payments Committee, 
before deciding on a balance of payment issue, need ed to consult the International Monetary Fund.  
Thus, international governance/concrete procedur es had been established for some time under the 
GATT and had not been contested.  Similarly with respect to WTO panels, the representative referred 
to Paragraph 4 of the Annex on Financial Servi ces of the GATS which provided that "Panels for 
disputes on prudential issues and other financial matt ers shall have the necessary expertise relevant to 
the specific financial service under dispute."  In the view of the EC, this showed that even within 
WTO panel dispute settlement proceedings there was re ference and an obligation to revert to specific 
expertise.  The representative said he would be inte rested to hear why the proceedings which were 
available and had been agreed upon by the whole me mbership in the context of BOP and financial 
services would not be applicable to the present discussion and to trade and environment.   
107. Also with respect to "deferen ce", the representative observed that it was already practiced in 
WTO.  For instance, the Appellate Body already cons ulted, referred to and even deferred to the advice 
and expertise of MEAs.  Therefore, the EC simply  sought to make this fact more visible through 
                                                      
4 WT/CTE/1, Report (1996) of the Committee on Trade and Environment. 
5 WT/CTE/1, Report (1996) of the Committee on Trade and Environment. 
6 See also Article XV of the GATT. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 20  
 
ministerial endorsement.  The representative conclude d on this aspect by noting that some legitimate 
questions had been raised as to how deference woul d work in practice; the EC would come back to 
those questions in due course. 
108. The representative referred to questions concerning how the EC submission, notably 
operative paragraph 2(a), fitted with Article XX of  the GATT, including questions as to whether the 
EC was looking to revise Article XX and whether,  by omitting any reference to the chapeau of 
Article XX, the EC was seeking to modify the Article "through the back door".  The representative 
said there was no such intention on the part of th e EC.  The language of operative paragraph 2(a) 
reflected a 'cut and paste' of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  In Paragraph 6, 
Ministers had said "We recognise that under WTO rules no country should be prevented from taking 
measures for the protection of human, animal or plan t life or health, or of the environment at the 
levels it considers appropriate."  The representa tive said this language was repeated in operative 
paragraph 2(a);  there was no attempt by the EC to  dilute the WTO's non-discrimination rule and the 
operative paragraph was a simple reas sertion of Ministerial wording. 
109. The representative repeated that the principle of  "deference" was key.  For the EC, this meant 
that the expertise of MEAs as well as the experti se of the WTO should be valued and utilized.  There 
was no question in the submission of giving ME As the competence to decide on issues more 
appropriately within the competence of WTO.  Re ferring to the earlier illustrative example of trade 
measures to prevent over-fishing, the representativ e said a clear distinction was needed between 
substantive issues of interpretation (e.g., was the measure justified under the objective of combating 
fish-depletion?), on which the relevant MEA coul d provide an answer, and issues relating to the 
manner by which the measure was applied, on which it was clearly for the WTO to decide. 
110. Concluding, the representative said the EC submission was a modest proposal reiterating well 
known and accepted principles.  The EC was grateful  to Members for having energized and enriched 
the debate under Paragraph 31(i).  The EC would be seeking to continue the debate and would come 
forward with more specific answers in due course. 
111. The representative of UNEP
 updated the CTESS on UNEP's activities related to 
Paragraph 31(i).  Recalling that the UNEP Econom ics and Trade Branch had commissioned a paper 
(with funding from the Swiss government), examini ng trade-related measures in several MEAs, the 
representative said the first draft of this paper had been forwarded to Geneva-based government 
missions for review and comment.  The overall ai m of the paper was to promote understanding and 
disseminate information about trade-related measure s in MEAs and to inform ongoing discussions on 
Paragraph 31(i) taking place in the CTESS. 
112. The representative explained that the paper firs t reviewed the role, importance and approach 
of MEAs in responding to global environmental problems.  Although each MEA contained a framework designed to respond to a unique set of  environmental problem s, a number of common 
principles and characteristics could generally be fou nd within MEAs.  For instance, the principle of 
common but differentiated responsibilities, first elaborat ed in Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration, was 
found in many MEAs and required that internatio nal environmental challenges be addressed in a 
balanced and equitable manner.  Other common ch aracteristics found in MEAs included that:  they 
were negotiated in response to best available sci ence;  they were carefully tailored to address a 
particular set of environmental issues;  and finally,  they had widespread international support.  In the 
latter regard, the representative noted that CITES, th e Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention all 
had over 160 Parties. 
113. After the introductory discourse, the paper anal yzed the objectives and main provisions found 
in six MEAs - namely, the Basel Convention, CBD's  Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, CITES, the 
Montreal Protocol, the Rotterdam Convention, a nd the Stockholm Convention - with a particular 
focus on how the trade-related measures in these MEAs supported the overall objectives and structure  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 21 
 
 
of the MEAs.  The wide variety of trade-relate d measures included in MEAs reflected the diverse 
environmental concerns they were  designed to address.  Given this , the paper found that classifying 
trade-related measures on the basis of criteria deve loped outside of the context of the MEA could be 
difficult. 
114. The representative highlighted other elements.  Th e paper noted that in order for negotiations 
to identify concrete ways to enhance the mutual  supportiveness of WTO trade rules and MEAs, the 
trade-related measures in MEAs needed to be an alysed and understood in the overall context of the 
MEA.  The paper also noted that considering tr ade-related measures in the context of each MEA 
might be useful to further build the synergies that already existed between the WTO and MEAs.  Further observations in the paper included that MEAs had widespread international support and 
fulfilled the international community's preferen ce for multilateral action ove r unilateral action to 
address environmental concerns; and, that MEAs were based on science, thus mirroring one of the 
WTO's fundamental approaches towards objective, rather than arbitrary, rules. 
115. Given the common objective of both the WTO and MEAs to support sustainable 
development, the paper concluded by noting that  Paragraph 31(i) presented WTO Members with a 
unique opportunity to make the objective of sustainable development operative by explicitly 
recognizing the significance and legitimacy of trade-related measures in MEAs. 
116. The representative announced that UNEP planned to convene an international workshop on 
the relationship between MEAs and WTO to be held  back-to-back with the Fall 2006 meeting of the 
CTESS.  UNEP would be inviting government offi cials from capitals, Geneva-based government 
missions, MEA Secretariats, international organiza tions and NGOs involved in trade and environment 
work.  The symposium would address key issues relate d to all three sub-paragr aphs of Paragraph 31 
and the MEA/WTO relationship.  It would provide op portunity to review current efforts and proposals 
under the negotiating items and explore possible opt ions to advance work in this area.  The 
representative said an updated draft of the MEA tr ade-related measures paper and a paper on MEAs 
and environmental goods and services would be discussed at the symposium. 
117. The representative of UNEP, delivering a statem ent on behalf of the Executive Secretary to 
the Convention on Biological Diversity
 (CBD), provided an overview of recent developments in the 
Convention on Biological Diversity and its Cartagen a Protocol on Biosafety with relevance to the 
work of the CTESS.7  He referred to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the 
Convention (COP8) held in Curitiba, Brazil, from 20 to 31 March 2006;  he referred also to the third 
meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP-MOP/3) which took place from 
13 to 17 March 2006, also in Curitiba. 
118. The representative said COP-8 had been a landma rk event in the life of the Convention.  
The Ministerial segment of the meeting for the first time brought together over 120 Ministers and Heads of delegations in an interactive dialogue which had facilitated the adoption of thirty-four 
decisions.  The video message by the Director-G eneral of the WTO, Mr. Pascal Lamy, to the 
Ministerial segment, as well the active particip ation of Deputy Director-General, Mr. Harsha V. 
Singh, had contributed substantially to the succe ss by sending a strong message to Ministers that 
international environmental and trade law had to be mutually supportive in order to achieve the 
common goal of sustainable development. 
119. One of the most significant achievements of COP-8 with relevance to the CTESS had been 
the adoption of a structured framework and time-fra me for the further elabor ation and negotiation of 
an international regime on access to genetic resour ces and benefit-sharing.  In this regard, it was 
recalled that following a call by governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 
                                                     
 
7 A more complete description of these developments , prepared by the CBD Secretariat, was circulated 
as a room document.  TN/TE/R/16 
Page 22  
 
negotiations had been launched in February 2004 at COP-7 on the establishment of an international 
regime on access to genetic resources and benefit-sh aring.  The Ad-hoc Open-ended Working Group 
on Access and Benefit-sharing, mandated to negotiate  the international regime, had since that time 
considered the nature, scope and possible elements for inclusion in the international regime.  COP-8 
had welcomed the progress made by the Working Group and instructed the Working Group to 
complete its work at the earliest possible time before the tenth meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties (COP-10) to be held in 2010. 
120. The CBD COP decision on invasive alien species  was also relevant to the work of the 
CTESS.  In its recent work, the COP had identifie d and analyzed gaps and inconsistencies in the 
international regulatory framework for invasive alien species.  COP-8 had requested the Executive 
Secretary to consult with relevant international bodies and instruments, including the WTO, regarding 
whether and how to address the lack of internati onal standards covering invasive alien species.  
The Secretariat to the Convention had been cons ulting with the WTO Secretariat on this matter. 
121. With respect to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the representative noted that as at 
20 June 2006, there were 133 Parties to the Protocol;  the Protocol aimed to ensure an adequate level 
of protection in the field of safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs).  
The third meeting of the Conference of the Parties, serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP-MOP/3), had achieved a breakthrough regarding the issue of detailed requirements for 
documentation accompanying shipments of LMOs inte nded for direct use as food or feed, or for 
processing.  The documentation requirements for this  specific category of LMOs had not been fully 
resolved during the negotiations of the Protocol and agreement had eluded governments on this issue 
ever since.  Under the agreement reached at COP-MO P/3, Parties to the Protocol were requested, and 
other Governments urged, to take measures to en sure that documentation accompanying LMOs for 
direct use as food or feed, or for processing was in co mpliance with the requirements of the country of 
import.  Transboundary shipments also had to  be accompanied with documentation which among 
other things clearly stated that the shipment (i) contained LMOs, where the identity of the LMOs was 
known through means such as identity preservation systems, (ii) may contain LMOs, where the 
identity of the LMOs was not known through means such as identity preservation systems. 
122. The Parties to the Protocol took first steps c oncerning the consideration of the need for and 
modalities of developing standards with regard to id entification, handling, packaging and transport of 
LMOs.  On this issue, Parties, other Government s and relevant internati onal organizations were 
invited to submit to the Executive Secretary views and information on the adequacy of existing rules 
and standards, and the exis ting gaps that could justify a need to develop new rules and standards, or to 
call upon relevant international bodies to modify or expand existing ones. 
123. The representative of the Convention on Intern ational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora  (CITES) recalled that in 2000, the Conference of the Parties to CITES had 
unanimously adopted a Strategic Vision, which ha d as one of its objectives "to ensure continuing 
recognition and acceptance of CITES measures by WTO and to ensure the mutual supportiveness of 
the decision-making processes between these bodies."  In  this regard, the representative welcomed the 
EC submission in document TN/TE/W/68, whic h contained similar language in operative 
paragraph 2(a).  Also, operative pa ragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) were comparable to a CITES Memorandum 
of Understanding that would shortly be c oncluded with FAO on fisheries issues.   
124. With respect to operative paragraph 2(d) on transparency, the represen tative noted that the 
CITES Secretariat was willing to participate in any mechanism for information exchange, be it in the 
Committee or through any other means.  For exampl e, the representative felt it would be possible for 
the WTO and CITES Secretariats to create links on th eir respective websites;  for its part, CITES was 
considering improvements to the section of their website  related to trade issues – so that information 
on trade measures in CITES, either through sta nding committee decisions or decisions of the  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 23 
 
 
Conference of Parties, could be readily available to everybody including WTO Members and committee members. 
125. Regarding the issue of observer status, the CI TES Secretariat welcomed the reference in the 
EC submission to the issue of observer status a nd referred also to the separate EC submission in 
TN/TE/W/66, which mentioned about such status be ing granted upon condition of full reciprocity.  
Noting that WTO could participate in Standing Comm ittee meetings of CITES and also in meetings of 
the Conference of Parties, the representative t hought reciprocity should be applied and MEA 
secretariats and MEAs should have access as observe rs to WTO committees and be granted observer 
status in all WTO bodies including decision-making bodies.  Concerning market access, he noted that CITES allowed countries to adopt stricter measures, which was an aspect that was also mentioned in 
the EC proposal.  It was important, however, that such measures be adopted in consultation with 
countries that could be affected by these measures. 
126. On a point of procedure, the representative of Argentina
 said his delegation had been open to 
inviting the MEA secretariats on an ad hoc basis and considered such participation useful.  However, 
he recalled that there were some procedural parameters to extending invitations to MEAs.  
Specifically, observers were present to give inform ation and factual accounts of their activities, as 
well as to answer specific questions raised by an y delegation.  The representative expressed concern 
that an MEA secretariat would give its appreciati on of a proposal currently before the CTESS.  
Argentina wished to underline the importance of re specting some fundamental parameters in this 
regard, and noted that this could be a consid eration when the CTESS next considered extending 
invitations.  
127. The representative of the Basel Convention Secretariat  said unsound practices in hazardous 
waste management could have dras tic consequences on human health and the environment.  Also, he 
noted that it was difficult to separate the environmen t, health, trade, social  or economic dimensions 
from an operational point of view.  This was why the Basel Convention had promoted international 
cooperation and multi-stakeholders partnerships to address problems and improve the situation on the 
ground.  WTO was a critical partner and the Confer ence of Parties had taken the decision to promote 
cooperation with WTO.  The Basel Convention Secretar iat also appreciated being able to participate 
in WTO regional seminars on trade and environmen t;  he noted that they had benefited from the 
information-sharing and would be happy to continue the cooperation.  Whether the CTESS wished to 
engage the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in a more formal dialogue to progress on trade and environment issues, or to exclude the Basel Conve ntion from such formal arrangement, was a choice 
and decision for the Committee.   
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
128. The Chairman
 noted that one new submission had been  tabled under this agenda item by the 
EC in document TN/TE/W/66.   
129. The representative of the European Communities  said that its submission was the 
continuation of the previous EC submissions on paragraph 31(ii).  The EC acknowledged that the 
debate had been very slow to unfold since the Canc un Ministerial meeting.  Its submission was not an 
effort to kick-start the negotiations, but actually to  conclude the negotiations, since paragraph 31(ii) 
was a straightforward issue.  He noted that with  a little effort and imagination, wrapping up on 
paragraph 31(ii) should be relatively unproblem atic.  The submission demonstrated the EC's 
commitment to reaching substantive outcomes on all parts of the paragraph 31 negotiations.   
130. He recalled that Paragraph 31(ii) had two very distinct elements, one of which dealt with 
information exchange.  In its previous submission,  the EC had examined at length the way in which 
information exchange could work.  The Swiss a nd US submissions under paragraph 31(ii) also TN/TE/R/16 
Page 24  
 
considered and examined ways in which informatio n exchange could work.  The EC had reached the 
conclusion in its submission that it was not necessary to finalize all the administrative provisions that 
would underpin the workings of the information excha nge.  The EC proposed instead to agree that the 
ad hoc  information exchange which had taken place over the previous years be formalized and 
institutionalized as part of the normal operating pro cedures of the regular sessions.  The EC therefore 
had a very clear operational objective.   
131. The second part of the Paragraph 31(ii) manda te dealt with observer status of MEA 
secretariats in WTO committees.  The EC had set out in paragraph 8 of its su bmission four conditions 
which it believed should underpin the way in whic h observer status of MEA secretariats could 
function and to some extent vice versa.  Firs t, questions regarding MEA observership in WTO 
committees should be decided by the relevant WTO committee.  This was set out very clearly in 
paragraph 3 of Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and 
Meetings of the General Council  in document WT/L/161.  Second, decision-making should be 
without prejudice to the procedures set out in Annex 3 of WT/L/161.  Third, as regards paragraph 4 of 
Annex 3 of WT/L/161, there should be a strong presumption that MEA secretariats were associated to 
the work of the contracting parties to GATT 1947.  This implied a strong presumption in favour of 
MEA observer status in WTO committees.  Fourth, observer status should be granted on condition of 
full reciprocity.   
132. The EC drew several conclusions  from the above as set forth in paragraph 11 of its paper:  
Firstly, information exchange sessions between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO committees 
should be formalized and institutionalized.  Administ rative provisions could be dealt with at a later 
date, but the mechanism should be institutionalised  forthwith.  Secondly, residual core MEAs should 
be granted observer status in the CTE.  These resi dual core MEAs should be considered to fulfil the 
conditions set out in paragraph 8 of the EC submissi on.  Other requests for observer status in the CTE 
from non-core MEAs should be considered in a ccordance with the conditions of paragraph 8 and 
again under the presumption that their work was asso ciated with the work of those WTO committees.  
There should be a strong presumption that observer st atus be granted.  Thirdly, UNEP and all core 
MEAs should be granted observer status in the C TESS forthwith.  If this were not possible, they 
should be granted ad hoc  observer status for a renewable period of one year.  Fourthly, requests for 
observer status in any other WTO committee, whet her from UNEP, core MEAs or any other MEA, 
should be considered in accordance with the conditi ons set out in paragraph 8 and there should be a 
strong presumption that their work was associated w ith the contracting parties of the GATT and that 
observer status be granted.   
133. The EC then turned to the relationship betw een sections of its pa per on Paragraph 31(i) 
addressing comments made by Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia on paragr aph 3(a), specifically 
whether observer status should operate on the basis of  automaticity.  He noted that automaticity would 
only operate for residual core MEAs in the CTE.  The paragraph 8 conditi ons would apply for all 
other MEAs, but there would be a strong presumption that MEA secretariats were "associated with the 
work of the contracting parties of the GATT 1947".  A strong presumption did not equal automaticity.  
The EC acknowledged that pa ragraph 3(a) of its pa ragraph 31(i) submission may need a small amount 
of tweaking to reflect that point more clearly.   
134. The fact that the EC's objectives under paragraph 31(ii) were reflected in its 31(i) paper did 
not mean that the EC was looking to collapse th ese two elements of the mandate.  These elements 
were distinct and independent elements of the ma ndate.  Transparency in MEA observership in WTO 
committees was a very necessary condition to fulfil th e mandate.  However, it was not sufficient and 
more was needed.  This was why the EC had ma de its proposal for a Ministerial Decision.  
Paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii) could not  be collapsed – they were separ ate mandates, separate issues, and 
the EC wanted separate substantive outcomes.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 25 
 
 
135. The representative of the United States  welcomed the EC paper and the opportunity for 
renewed discussion under paragraph 31(ii).  The US recalled that it had been some time since there 
had been a substantive discussion of paragraph 31(ii) and that the US had put in a paper in June of 
2002 (TN/TE/W/5).  The US thought it might be useful to reiterate some of the proposals that it had put on the table and perhaps add some meat to the bones of those proposals. 
136. The US noted that although its proposals and its approach was, in some respects, different to 
that of the EC, the US shared the EC 's desire for a substantive outcome to the negotiations in this area.  
The US concurred with the EC that information sessions involving MEA secretariats should become 
formal institutionalized aspects of CTE meetings.  The US also agreed th at procedures for these 
sessions did not need to be overly detailed, but th at there had to be an agreement on the general 
structure for conducting future information sessions.  In 2002, the US had proposed that information 
sessions within the CTE take place on a regular basis, preferably at least annually;  that they be frequent enough so that all relevant MEA secretariats would have an opportunity to participate;  and 
that these sessions be coordinated with MEA secretari ats in order to facilitate active participation by 
relevant MEAs.  The US stressed the importance of sessions being well organised, on topics of broad 
current interest to Members, with useful background papers prepared by the WTO and MEA 
secretariats, as appropriate, for advanced distribu tion.  The EC and Switzerland had proposed holding 
such sessions twice per year.  The United States wa s not necessarily opposed to such a schedule, but 
was of the opinion that it would be best to avoi d rigidly fixing any specific number of sessions until 
there was more experience in conducting such sessions.   
137. The US also recommended a mix of topics or th emes that would be on cross-cutting issues. 
For example, in 2001 the session theme was compliance and dispute settlement which was of interest 
to several MEAs.  The target audience for such presentations would be national government officials 
from trade and environment, MEA secretariats, and WTO representatives (not limited to CTE representatives).  As pointed out by the EC in its initial paper, these information sessions should 
involve a two-way flow of information with WTO Members and the Secretariat learning about 
trade-related MEA activities as well as MEA Secretariats becoming better apprised of WTO issues 
and perspectives.  Members should take stock of this  programme after an initial period of 3-5 years to 
see whether they were reaping the expected benefits  from more formalized information exchanges.  
138. On document exchange, which is another piece of the paragraph 31(ii) mandate, the US had 
stressed that document exchange between trade and environment offi cials should occur in the first 
instance at the national level.  The best way for nati onal environment officials and experts to learn of 
relevant WTO documents was directly from their tr ade counterparts and vice versa through internal 
trade and environmental coordination procedures at th e national level.  It was up to each Member to 
foster the internal communication links n ecessary to enable such coordination.   
139. While improved information exchange between WTO committees and MEA secretariats was 
also important, the US believed it would be ineffi cient to rely exclusivel y on the MEA or the WTO 
secretariats as a primary source for such material.  The US agreed with the EC and Switzerland that 
the area of document exchange remained ripe for improved cooperation, and noted that the internet 
afforded efficient mechanisms to  enhance information exchange be tween the WTO and MEAs.  Thus 
Members should look for ways to utilise the inte rnet so as to improve information exchange.  
140. The US reminded participants that the issue of observer status was the primary concern of the 
EC paper.  The US had previously noted that the mandate of paragraph 31(ii), with respect to the 
granting of observer status was limited to the question of observer status for relevant MEA 
secretariats.  The mandate did not extend to the more  general issue of the status of international 
organizations in the WTO, which was the responsibility of the WTO General Council.  
141. The US representative recalled th at the mandate of paragraph 31(ii) was being negotiated in 
the context of the existing Rules of Procedure of the Ministerial Council and Meetings of the General TN/TE/R/16 
Page 26  
 
Council.  This specifically included Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial 
Conference and Meetings of the General Council  (WT/L/161) which addressed observer status for 
international intergovernmental or ganizations in the WTO.  Annex 3 set the framework for this 
discussion.  It provided for consideration of request s for observer status from organizations that had 
competence and a direct interest in trade policy matte rs.  It also called for requests to be made in 
writing to each WTO body from which observer status was sought.  Requests were to be considered 
on a case-by-case basis by each WTO body.  Annex 3 provid ed an illustrative list of factors that could 
be taken into account:  the nature of the work of  the organizations requesting observer status;  the 
nature of the organization's membership;  the number of WTO Members in the organization;  
reciprocity with respect to access to proceedings, doc uments and other aspects of observer status;  and 
finally, whether the organization had been associated  in the past with the work of the Contracting 
Parties to GATT 1947.  
142. Within these parameters of Annex 3, the US reminded participants that WTO Members had 
been tasked with considering specific criteria that  could constitute a basis for inviting MEAs to 
participate as observers in WTO committees.  Th e EC had proposed in 2002, as well as in its most 
recent submission, that certain core MEAs be gran ted observer status in the CTE without prejudice to 
the procedures set out in Annex 3, provided that the MEA had participated in a previous informal 
information exchange session.  The EC had also  proposed that there be a strong presumption of 
eligibility for observer status in two other situati ons, namely for other MEAs seeking observer status 
in the CTE, and for core and other MEAs seeking observer status in other WTO committees.  
143. In the US' view, this approach did not conform to  the mandate.  At least with respect to other 
MEAs, the mandate specifically identified the need  to agree on criteria for the grant of observer 
status.  For those identified as core MEAs, the EC had not proposed criteria for the granting of 
observer status in the CTE, but had suggested instead that MEAs be automatically granted such status.  
Although the EC maintained that a strong presump tion did not guarantee automaticity, the EC text 
suggested otherwise.  Moreover, for the remaining MEAs, and for observer status of core MEAs in 
other WTO committees, the US was of the view that the EC proposal did not appear to rely on any 
criteria, but instead reduced the decision essentially to a strong presumption in favour of granting 
observer status to any MEA identified on a list. The broad conditions referred to by the EC were in 
fact very broad, and in most cases were already reflected in Annex 3.  
144. The first EC condition was not so much a c ondition but a self-evident statement which was 
already reflected, as had been observed earlier, in Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of 
the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council .  The second condition merely 
appeared to be an incorporation of Annex 3, as we ll as guidelines that already existed, and which did 
not serve to further the mandate under paragraph 31( ii).  The third condition asserted that there should 
be a strong presumption that an MEA was associated with the work of the Contracting Parties of 
GATT 1947.  The US delegation noted that instead of providing a criterion by which a requesting 
MEA might be evaluated, the EC appeared to take an existing criterion from Annex 3, stating that this 
criterion was essentially satisfied without further i nquiry into the requesting MEA.  The fourth 
condition required full reciprocity and observer stat us, applying conditions that appeared to be 
referenced in Annex 3.  
145. The United States expressed some concern with th is approach, namely that it did not appear 
to help in the assessment of whether an MEA shou ld be granted observer status.  The EC did not 
propose criteria in addition to those that already existed as instructed by the mandate.  The EC 
appeared to have chosen to restate certain existi ng criteria, and asked the Committee to presume that 
the criteria would be met by the MEA without clo ser scrutiny, or simply request that it bypass the 
establishment of criteria for the core MEAs and deem them to be observers per se .  
146.
 The US recognized that Members could share ma ny of the EC's views on the suitability of 
certain MEAs for observership in the various relevant WTO committees.  The US's view, however,  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 27 
 
 
was that decisions should be based on clearly establis hed criteria as required by  paragraph 31(ii) so as 
to guide members in the relevant WTO committees  in whose hands the ultimate decision properly 
rested.    
147. The US proposed, instead, that the CTE develope d a flexible list of indicative questions or 
criteria to aid WTO committees to make reasoned decisions on MEA observership on a case-by-case 
basis, MEA by MEA and WTO committee by WTO committee.  These factors would be in addition to 
the non-exhaustive list of factors identified as potentially relevant in Annex 3 of the Rules of 
Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council .  This 
approach was viewed by the US as being in line with  the mandate, and as flexible enough to deal with 
new MEAs that could apply for observer status in future.  These criteria could include the following 
indicative questions:  Does the MEA contain specif ic trade obligations or other trade-related 
obligations?  If so, are they relevant to the WTO committees scope of work?  Is the MEA currently an 
observer to other WTO committees?  Does the WT O Secretariat attend as an observer the MEA 
meetings?  If so, does the particip ation relate to issues addressed by the relevant WTO committee?  
Have the WTO committee and the MEA secretariat worked together on reports, workshops or 
seminars?  The US felt that these indicative questions , while by no means exhaustive, could help form 
a basis for WTO committees to determine if a particul ar MEA had a direct interest in matters before 
the committee.  MEAs could be invited to particip ate as observers for a period to be determined by 
that WTO committee, subject to extensions.   
148. Finally the US noted that the lists of MEAs put forward in various submissions were not 
consistent.  The US did not believe it was necessa ry to agree on a definitive list of MEAs, rather 
Members should be looking at criteria for granti ng observer status.  This was in line with the 
paragraph 31(ii) mandate and created a structure by  which relevant WTO committees could consider 
observer requests.  If any presumption, strong or ot herwise were to be utilised, WTO Members would 
have to determine the entity to which the presumption applied.   
149. The US explained that the proposals regarding information exchange and observer status had 
the potential to enhance mutually supportive relati ons between the WTO and MEAs, and in so doing, 
could further the achievement of sustainable de velopment goals.  While this kind of enhanced 
international coordination was undoubtedly useful and important, the US noted that it did not take the 
place of much more direct and efficient means of intra-governmental coordina tion which should occur 
on an ongoing basis at the national level between trade and environment officials.   
150. The US strongly endorsed and itself strive d for effective domestic coordination and 
information exchange among trade and environm ent officials, as well as improved procedures for 
information exchange at the international le vel between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO 
committees.  The US believed that establishing crite ria for granting observer status would help MEA 
secretariats keep up-to-date on WTO rules and WTO work, and would help to enhance the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and environment.  In that c ontext, the United States reaf firmed its desire for a 
productive outcome to the paragraph 31(ii) negotia tions and expressed its appreciation for the recent 
EC paper, which it hoped would revitalise the Comm ittee's discussions in this area of the mandate.  
The US looked forward to exploring some of the synergies between the paragraph 31(ii) and 
paragraph 31(i) mandates, but probably not in the manner set forth in the EC paper, with which the 
US had some concerns.   
151. The representative from Chinese Taipei  thanked the EC for tabling its proposal which was 
aimed at delivering a rapid and substantive ou tcome to the paragraph 31(ii) negotiations.  
Chinese Taipei was pleased to offer its support for the EC proposal, more specifically for the 
suggestion that information exchange sessions become  a formal institutionalized feature of the WTO's 
work, and that core MEAs be granted observer status  in the CTE.  Chinese Taipei agreed with the EC 
that these proposals should help to ensure that re lations between the multilateral trading system and 
MEAs become mutually supportive.  The representati ve asked, however, for the EC to clarify what it TN/TE/R/16 
Page 28  
 
meant in paragraph 8(d) of its paper where the EC proposed that observer status should be granted 
upon conditions of full reciprocity.   
152. The representative believed that during its examination of whether an MEA had satisfied the 
requirements of full reciprocity, WTO committees should consider how Members of the WTO and parties to the MEAs could address their respective and substantial interests and concerns.  By so 
doing, Members could deepen and further the meaning of the full reciprocity requirement.  In Chinese 
Taipei's view, there should be certain conditions a nd requirements attached to the WTO's granting of 
observer status to MEAs.  The representative asked  the EC to comment on the following practical 
criteria.  First, MEAs should be required to provide reports regardi ng adopted or initiated STOs to the 
WTO upon request.  The commitment of an MEA to do so should be positively taken into 
consideration when granting observer status.  Second, MEAs should notify the WTO of any 
workshops, seminars or training courses they were ho sting on the subject of trade and environment or 
trade and sustainable development, and allow all WT O Members to participate in these events.  Third, 
MEAs should provide reports to the WTO of relevant background documents and minutes of 
meetings to facilitate acce ss to these documents.   
153. The representative of Chile
 viewed paragraph 31(ii) as a means to facilitate the participation 
of MEAs as observers.  He noted that there were already a series of prerequisites and conditions for 
the recognition of observers, and that to add criteri a and conditions to Annex 3, as the US delegation 
had proposed, would be going against the Committ ee's mandate.  Chile noted that the Committee's 
mandate was to favour the partic ipation of MEAs.  Committee members were grateful for the 
participation of MEAs in information sessions, and they had always welcomed the participation of 
MEAs in Committee meetings.  Chile saw some diffic ulty with trying to impede their participation, 
particularly given that the Committee had discussed the principle of no subordination at the current 
meeting.  It would be going beyond the mandate if ME As were asked to comply with more criteria in 
order to participate.  Instead, Chile thought that  the Committee should make the lives of MEAs easier 
and facilitate MEA participation as observers when a ppropriate.  In this regard, Chile welcomed the 
EC proposal in paragraph 8(c) of its submission, which would favour MEAs participating as observers 
in the work of the CTESS, as well as  in other relevant committees.   
154. The representative asked the EC to clarify whether, when it spoke of a strong presumption 
that observership be granted under paragraphs 11(b) and 11(d), this  was different from the strong 
presumption in paragraph 8(c).  In this respect, Chile sought to associate itself with comments from 
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand on the EC's para graph 31(i) submission.  Paragraph 11 envisioned 
automaticity and that could be different from th e treatment accorded in paragraph 8(c) which 
presumed that MEAs should be associated with the Committee's work.   
155. The representative then asked a clarifying ques tion on information exchange.  Chile agreed 
with the United States that the Committee should not formalise or institutionalise information 
exchange.  His delegation agreed that the Comm ittee should undertake information exchanges on a 
regular basis and should also facilitate particip ation in a very general sense.  Chile compared 
paragraph 4 of the EC proposal, which dealt with in stitutionalisation of partic ipation in information 
exchange in the CTE, with paragraph 11(a), which referred to formalization of information exchange 
in relevant WTO committees.  Chile thought th at the EC was seeking to broaden the scope of 
information exchange in its conclusion in paragra ph 11(a).  Nevertheless, Chile supported the thrust 
of the EC proposal.  Chile was looking for a simple and speedy procedure to continue information 
exchanges on a regular basis and to grant observe r status to relevant MEAs in WTO Committee 
meetings.   
156. The representative from Switzerland  noted that the paragraph 31(ii) negotiations had long 
been neglected and that not a lot had been achieve d.  Switzerland thanked the EC for its submission 
on paragraph 31(ii) which it found timely and conc rete.  Switzerland was among those delegations 
which had proposed some practical steps under this pa rt of the mandate.  Switzerland agreed with the  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 29 
 
 
EC that a separate substantive outcome was ne eded on each item of paragraph 31, and further 
welcomed the detailed proposal of the EC which ex amined both information ex change and the criteria 
for observer status.  
157. On information exchange, Switzerland believe d that the mode of information exchange 
developed by the WTO, UNEP and MEAs in the past  few years had proven to be very useful and 
worked well and should be pursued on a permanent and structured basis.  Switzerland agreed with the 
US that a certain degree of flexibility should be main tained with respect to information exchange in 
order to avoid additional burden on the secretariats, the Members of the WTO, as well as the Parties 
to MEAs.  Switzerland concurred with the EC that it was not necessary to agree on detailed 
operational and administrative func tions related to the running of information exchange sessions in 
order to satisfactorily fulfil the mandate.  On cr iteria for observer status, Switzerland supported the 
Chilean position that the CTE had received a specific mandate in paragraph 31(ii) to establish criteria 
for observer status.  The CTESS had therefore to wo rk towards a concrete outcome, namely criteria 
for granting observer status.  Switzerland fully supported the EC proposal on this item.   
158. The representative from Argentina  thanked the EC for its submission.  Paragraph 31(ii) was 
an area where the CTESS could do substantive work without many drawbacks.  Argentina had a broad 
vision on information exchange a nd believed that a mechanism for information exchange would be 
productive and useful.   
159. With respect to observer status, Argentina shar ed some of the ideas expressed by the US.  
Argentina noted that the mandate of paragraph 31(ii ) was clear;  it dealt with criteria for granting 
observer status.  In no part of the mandate did paragraph 31(ii) say that the negotiations should 
facilitate or impede the granting of observer status to any MEA secretariat.  The mandate stated that 
the Members had to establish criteria and this was th e way the Committee had to take up this mandate.  
In other words, the Committee should establish criteria, i.e. clear parameters that should be applied in 
the decision of whether or not to grant observer status.  The criteria that the Committee had to 
negotiate would be in addition to those of Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the 
Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council .   
160. Argentina inquired what were the prerequisites fo r such criteria.  Argentina argued that they 
should be parameters of the type listed by the Un ited States.  Argentina did not agree with the EC 
proposal to have temporary criteria, e.g. if an MEA participated once in a Committee meeting that 
would be sufficient to obtain observer status.  Inst ead, the criteria should be general and not related to 
MEA participation.  Argentina emphasised that th e CTESS should not read things into its mandate 
that were not there and which would lead the CTESS to  results that would run counter to its mandate.   
161. The representative from Norway  joined other delegations in th anking the EC for its effort not 
only to kick-start the negotiations on paragraph 31 (ii), but also to begin finalising the Committee's 
efforts to solve this issue.  Norw ay agreed with the EC that with respect to paragraph 31(ii) there was 
a solution within reach.  Norway submitted that the Committee had benefited on a number of 
occasions from the in-depth knowledge, expertise and practical experiences of the MEAs, most 
notably UNEP.  Allowing for MEA and UNEP par ticipation in the CTE and relevant committees 
would also help to build transparency in multilate ral cooperation, and ultimately also build mutual 
supportiveness between trade and the environment.   Norway expressed its general support for the 
granting of observer status to the MEAs as presented in the EC paper.  Norway agreed with the EC 
that information exchange between MEA secretariats and the CTE should be a formalised and 
institutionalised aspect of CTE meetings in form al session, and that MEAs and UNEP should be 
granted observer status for the duration of the negot iations in the CTESS.  Norway generally agreed 
with the EC proposal, but sought to obtain more f acts and details with regard to the practical 
implications of the proposal.   TN/TE/R/16 
Page 30  
 
162. The representative from Malaysia
 thanked the EC for its new submission on paragraph 31(ii).  
With regard to the second part of the proposal on criteria for granting observer status, Malaysia's 
understanding from the EC's explanation in resp onse to questions by Malaysia, Thailand and 
Indonesia was that all residual core MEAs would auto matically be granted observer status in the CTE 
forthwith, while requests for observer status from other MEAs would be subject to conditions under 
paragraph 8 of the EC proposal.  The EC had propo sed that there should be a strong presumption that 
observer status be granted.  In Malaysia's view , this would create a tendency towards the automatic 
granting of observer status.  Malaysia expressed concern, finding it difficult to accept the proposal 
that all residual core MEAs be given automatic obser ver status based on their participation in previous 
informal information exchanges.  Malaysia echoed th e statement by the United  States that all requests 
for observer status in the CTE or CTESS should be examined on a case-by-case basis.   
163. The representative from Chile  said that while he agreed with  Argentina's comment that the 
Doha mandate did not refer to facilitating the gran ting of observer status to MEAs, the mandate did 
not call upon Members to establish criter ia that went beyond Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for 
Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council .  If observer status could 
not be granted to MEAs pursuant to Annex 3 or for other reasons, the CTESS should seek an 
alternative wording to achieve MEA participa tion in the Committee on Trade and Environment 
relevant WTO committees.  If the idea was to add stum bling blocks to Annex 3,  this would work even 
less and there would be no observer status granted to MEAs.   
164. The representative of Venezuela  said that the trade and MEA regimes were two different legal 
frameworks that had been built for different aims, and therefore should not be merged.  If there was a 
difference between the MEA parties, it should be resolved within the MEA and not at the WTO.  
In Venezuela's view, it was not necessary to put th e standard-setting process at the MEA before the 
dispute settlement body.  As far as MEA observershi p was concerned, her delegation agreed with the 
point by Argentina that the mandate was not about granting observer status, but was rather focused on 
criteria for granting observer status.   
165. The representative from the European Communities  welcomed the constructive engagement 
of other delegations and the support expressed for the EC proposal.  The EC also noted that there were 
some concerns, and said it would try to address eith er at this meeting or at a later date.   
166. With respect to the question by Chile with rega rd to paragraph 11(a), the EC recalled that the 
mandate referred to regular information excha nge between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO 
committees, rather than the CTE per se , so in this regard, the EC proposal was in line with the 
mandate.  Chile's second question dealt with the relationship between paragraphs 11(b), 11(d) and 
paragraph 8(c), and whether there was a contradic tion between a strong presumption and automaticity.  
The EC did not see a contradiction between paragra phs 8(c) and 11(b) and 11(d), but it acknowledged 
that some tweaking to the language in paragraph 3( a) in TN/TE/W/68 could be necessary to reflect the 
fact that the EC was only talking about automatic ity for residual core MEAs in the CTE.  The EC 
would return to that question which it had duly noted.   
167. The EC also thanked the United States for its constructive engagement and comments, 
particularly on information exchange, where the US  set out once again its views on the administration 
of institutionalised information exchange.  The US  was right to set out these views, as the EC and 
Switzerland had done before.  The EC believed, broadly speaking, that the Committee could reach 
agreement on many of the administrative decisions in  advance, but if the Committee wanted to take a 
decision on the totality of paragraph 31(ii), it should not be held back by the discussion on 
administrative arrangements.   
168. Turning to the status of Annex 3 to the Rules of Procedure for Sessions of the Ministerial 
Conference and Meetings of the General Council , the EC noted that the Committee's mandate was to 
negotiate criteria for granting observer status to ME As.  The EC did not accept the view that because  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 31 
 
 
Annex 3 was an annex to a document of the Mini sterial Conference, any conditions derived from 
Annex 3 could not apply in a different cont ext.  The EC had drawn the conclusion under 
paragraph 8(a) that it was for relevant WTO comm ittees to take a view on MEA membership, and not 
the General Council.  In the EC's view, such a conc lusion was perfectly consistent with the mandate.   
169. The representative of UNEP , on behalf of the Convention on Biological Diversity , noted that 
the Eighth COP meeting of the CBD had reached a decision on cooperation w ith other conventions 
and international organizations, wh ich was relevant for the CTESS' wo rk under paragraph 31(ii).  The 
decision requested the CBD's Execu tive Secretary to liaise with the WTO secretariat on relevant 
issues, including trade-related intellectual propert y rights, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and 
environmental goods and services, with a view to  identifying options for closer collaboration, 
including developing a memorandum of cooperation to promote the three objectives of the CBD.  
A meeting between the Executive Secretary of the CBD and the WTO Director-General had already 
taken place with a view to advancing the good work ing relationship between the two secretariats and 
exploring further opportunities for cooperation.   
170. The Parties at the Third Meeting of the Parti es to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety had 
requested the Executive Secretary to  intensify efforts to gain observer status in the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary (SPS) and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committees.  As a result, the 
Secretariat of the CBD had recently renewed its re quest for observer status in several relevant 
WTO committees, in particular the TRIPS C ouncil and the SPS and TBT Committees.  Positive 
consideration of these requests would contribut e to strengthening cooperation and understanding 
between the two organizations, thus providing a better basis for further enhancing the mutual 
supportiveness between trade and environment agreements.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31 (III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
171. The Chairman  said that the following documents had been  circulated under this agenda item:  
a submission by the delegations of Canada, the EC, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland 
and the United States entitled "Mark et Access for Environmental Goods" (TN/TE/W/65);  a paper by 
Uruguay entitled "Negotiations on Environmental G oods" (Job(06)/144);  a non-paper by Colombia 
entitled "Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declarati on - Environmental goods:  Technical discussion 
meeting in CTE - Priority Categories" (Job(06)/149) ;  a submission by India entitled "Environmental 
Project Approach:  Compatibility and Criteria" (TN/TE/W/67);  a submission by Cuba entitled "The dimension of development as an integral pa rt of the negotiations on environmental goods:  the 
principle of special and differential treatment" (TN/TE/W/69);  submissions by New Zealand 
(TN/TE/W/49/Rev.2) and Canada (TN/TE/W/50/Rev. 1), which both presented a revision of their 
environmental goods list;  and a non-paper by Japan  entitled "Refinement of Japan's environmental 
goods list" circulated as a room document.   
172. The Chairman noted that Colombia's non-pape r, which had been presented at the technical 
discussion held in June, would not be reintroduced at the meeting.  The Chairman suggested to 
take up first the papers by Uruguay and India, then move to the consideration of the submissions by 
New Zealand, Canada and Japan, as they all focused on th e revision of the lists, and finally, to take up 
the two papers on modalities starting with document TN/TE/W/65, followed by Cuba's submission.  
The Chairman also announced that he would make a statement on the technical discussions under Paragraph 31(iii) at the end of the discussion.   
173. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation preferred to follow the 
sequence of the annotated agenda8, which reflected the order in whic h the papers had been submitted, 
or at least to give priority to the papers that had been tabled as formal submissions, as this was a 
                                                      
8 Job(06)/219.   TN/TE/R/16 
Page 32  
 
formal meeting of the Committee.  The US wished to start by introducing the submission in document 
TN/TE/W/65.   
174. The Chairman
 said that he had suggested to group the submissions according to their 
substantive focus in order to facilitate the discussi on.  However, it was up to Members to decide how 
they wished to proceed.   
175. The representative of the United States  introduced the submission in TN/TE/W/65, also on 
behalf of the delegations of Canada , EC , New Zealand , Norway , Singapore  and Switzerland .  
The paper had also been submitted to the nego tiating group on market access for non-agricultural 
products (NAMA) and had already been discussed th ere.  While the CTESS had been busy attempting 
to identify environmental goods, the task of deve loping modalities for tariff reduction or elimination 
fell upon the NAMA Group, for which the envir onmental goods mandate presented particularly 
compelling policy incentives.  Researchers had found th at countries which traded more environmental 
goods had less pollution and consumed energy more efficiently.  High tariffs and other barriers to 
environmental goods impeded access to these important technologies;  by reducing the prices of environmental goods through substantial reduction or elimination of import tariffs and specific 
non-tariff barriers (NTBs), WTO Members could take  concrete and effective action to improve access 
to products needed to prevent pollution and meet their sustainable development goals.   
176. The objective in putting forward the paper was tw o-fold, namely to advance the negotiations 
on environmental goods in both the NAMA Group and CTESS, and to inform CTESS' work by 
offering a clear outline proposal for modality, in cluding options for S&D treatment.  Several 
Members had noted that the task of identifying environmental goods was made more difficult without 
an indication of what the eventual modalities would be for liberalisation.  The paper proposed that 
Members eliminate tariffs on environmental goods by 2008, recognizing the need for flexibility in the case of developing countries.   
177. In this regard, the paper set out some options  providing flexibility for developing countries, 
such as longer implementation periods for all or cer tain products, as well as exclusions for a limited 
number of products.  However, th e US delegation welcomed othe r ideas for operationalizing S&D 
treatment for developing countries.  The paper took on board the concept of limited product exclusion 
building on previous proposals made in the CTESS.  The US recalled that it had tabled a proposal for 
a complementary list where Members would not have to liberalise all of the products
9;  New Zealand 
had also made a similar proposal.  Moreover, Ch ina had made a proposal for a development list, 
which would contain products selected by developi ng and LDCs for exemption or lower level tariff 
commitment.10   
178. The submission in TN/TE/W/65 also addressed the issue of NTBs, suggesting that any 
specifically identified NTB would be considered and reduced to the maximum extent possible so as to 
facilitate trade in environmental goods.  The US welcomed other delegations' efforts to identify 
specific barriers to trade in environmental goods.  On e area that had not been addressed in detail in the 
proposal was that of product coverage, in order to avoid pre-empting discussions on this issue in 
CTESS.  However, the paper favoured a product covera ge that was as comprehensive as possible, and 
based upon the work undertaken in the CTESS.  Whil e the co-sponsors of the paper had been careful 
not to pre-empt CTESS work on this matter, it was important to recognise that if the Committee was 
unable to provide any definitive guidance on produc t coverage, this should not prevent the NAMA 
Group from moving ahead in its discussion of a m odality for liberalizing environmental goods.  
The US believed that the CTESS had a real opportuni ty to contribute substantively to the Doha 
Development Agenda through this  mandate, and to sustainable development more broadly, 
by delivering a concrete result under Paragraph 31(iii).  Her delega tion hoped that the proposal would 
                                                      
9 TN/TE/W/38.   
10 TN/TE/W/42.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 33 
 
 
inform the work in both the NAMA Group and CTESS and would enable discussions to move 
forward expeditiously.   
179. The representative of Cuba  said that by submitting its paper in document TN/TE/W/69, his 
delegation wished to emphasize the need to discu ss S&D treatment modalities in order to make 
progress in the negotiations, since de veloping country Members wanted to be clear as to what they 
could expect from the negotiations.  The paper did not prejudge whether Cuba was willing to proceed 
on the basis of a list or project approach, although his delegation favoured the latter.  Cuba had tried 
to specify and suggest modalities irrespective of the form that the final outcome would take.  
Cuba believed that in order to achieve a balan ced result under Paragraph 31(iii), it was essential for 
developing country Members to have the option of reducing tariffs according to their economic 
development, social and environmental needs.   
180. The representative of South Africa , speaking also on behalf of Argentina , Brazil , Egypt , 
India , Indonesia , Namibia , the Philippines , Tunisia  and Venezuela  ("NAMA 11" Group) thanked the 
co-sponsors of the document in TN/TE/W/65.  South Africa agreed with the observation in 
paragraph 2.2 of the paper that all Members were looking for a "win-win-win" outcome for trade, 
development and the environment.  She also believe d that an important objective of the negotiations 
was the dissemination of environmental technol ogies and know-how, as most developing country 
Members were still developing their environmental sect or.  She noted that the outcome of the mandate 
would have to be supportive of that objective in  order for Members to reap environmental and 
developmental gains.  South Africa agreed that environmental goods was a growing sector.  However, 
the references in paragraph 4.1 of the paper to global trade in environmental goods based on the 
OECD and APEC lists did not provide the full picture.  According to an analysis of these lists, 
in 2000, developing countries as a group were net exporte rs for only 26 of the 182 goods on both lists.   
181. With respect to product coverage, she noted  that the CTESS had been working hard at 
identifying indicative parameters with a view to  reviewing the products that had been proposed 
mostly by developed country Members.  This process was aimed at ascertaining which of these 
products could constitute environmen tal goods.  The work indicated that the vast majority of the 
products had dual or multiple uses beyond that of dir ectly benefitting the environment.  This meant 
that unless the practical issues relating to th ese products were addressed, there was little to 
no guarantee that liberalizing these goods would in fact  benefit the environment, or that the solution 
could be meaningfully implemented.  These issues were not new;  they had also characterized 
negotiations for the liberalization of environmenta l goods in other fora.  In South Africa's view, 
it would not be easy for the Committee to succeed where others had failed.  Nevertheless, her 
delegation remained committed to ser ious engagement on these issues.  It was hard to envisage any 
agreement on modalities without a better appreciation of the implications of the negotiations, which 
meant more clarity with respect to product covera ge;  this was why the wo rk undertaken in CTESS 
was so fundamental.   
182. South Africa looked forward to the efforts by some of the co-sponsors of TN/TE/W/65 to 
respond to the comments and questions raised by developing country Members in the course of the technical discussions.  She welcomed the fact that these discussions had already resulted in the tabling 
of two revised lists of products.  Her delegation believed that the alternative proposals to the lists 
reflected more faithfully the mandate under Pa ragraph 31(iii), as they not only referred to 
environmental goods but also to services.  These prop osals would ensure that the environment would 
benefit from trade liberalization and that the de velopment imperative of the Doha Round would be 
fulfilled.  It was therefore clear that for ther e to be a "win-win-win" outcome, the NAMA Group 
would have to defer to the CTESS as the competent body on this issue.   
183. South Africa agreed with the co-sponsors that this was a ground-breaking mandate.  
The chapeau of paragraph 31 stated that negotiations were to be undertaken "w ith a view to enhancing 
the mutual supportiveness of trade and environmen t" and provided the overriding guidance for the TN/TE/R/16 
Page 34  
 
conduct of the negotiations.  Her de legation believed that this objec tive would be jeopardized if the 
CTESS failed to complete its work on product coverage before the NAMA Group considered the need 
for additional modalities with regard to non-agricultural environmental goods.   
184. With respect to the paper by Cuba, South A frica believed that it addressed the fundamental 
issue that was lacking in TN/TE/W/65, namely S&D treatment.  While the paper invited further inputs 
and ideas with respect to S&D treatment, it also ac knowledged that more needed  to be done in this 
regard.  Based on the discussion in the NAMA Group,  there had been some questions as to what 
would be appropriate S&D treatment.  Paragraph 50 of the Doha Declaration clearly stated that S&D 
treatment applied to all aspects of the negotiati ons.  The modalities proposed in TN/TE/W/65 were 
not a faithful reflection of S&D treatment sin ce the same tariff concessions would apply for 
essentially all Members except for LDCs.  For the ne gotiations to deliver sustainable development 
outcomes, developing country Members had to be allowed to develop their environmental sector.  
In this regard, the environmental project approach (EPA) and the integrated approach offered a more 
realistic solution.   
185. The representative of India
, commenting on the proposal in TN/TE/W/65, noted that the 
CTESS had not yet reached any consensus or agreement on the issue of approach to address the 
mandate, even with respect to the identification of  environmental goods.  It had become clear in the 
course of the technical discussions that most of the products tabled did not pass the test of what may 
constitute an environmental good.  Therefore, in this  context, it was premature to have a discussion of 
modalities.  India noted that the paper could pr ovide a basis for future work but did not seem 
appropriate at the time.   
186. With respect to the Cuban paper, India appr eciated the submission and the issues it 
addressed, including the fact that S&D treatment w as of great consequence in the Doha Round.  
The paper focused on the concept of common but differentiated responsibility, which in India's view needed to be taken more carefu lly into account in the discussions.   
187. The representative of Argentina
 said that the submission by Cuba had set out the parameters 
that Members would need to take up in the ne gotiations, namely how to take into account the 
development dimension in the trade and environmen t negotiations.  The substantive concern of his 
delegation was captured in paragr aph 15 of the paper, which defi ned the policies and objectives of 
sustainable development and how they should be de termined by each developing country Member.  
Argentina found this perspective extremely useful .  The second bullet in paragraph 15 dealt with 
mutual recognition and financial and technological  support for addressing NTBs, and the third bullet 
introduced the concept of technology transfer.  Arge ntina believed that these elements could guide the 
discussion on this aspect of the negotiations.   
188. The representative of Israel  said that his delegation recognised the importance of addressing 
modalities for the treatment of environmental goods at  that point in the discussions.  This was also 
relevant to the discussions in the NAMA Group.  Isr ael shared the objective set out in TN/TE/W/65 to 
discuss modalities for the treatment of environmenta l goods while remaining supportive of efforts in 
CTESS to identify those goods.  His delegation be lieved that this endeavour of identifying 
environmental goods should carry on in the CTESS and feed into the results of the discussion on 
modalities.   
189. The representative of Australia  welcomed the modalities paper presented by the United States 
and other Members as a good basis for furthering th e discussions under paragraph 31(iii).  The paper 
provided some clarification in terms of what Members were aiming to achieve.  Australia had 
supported the development of a cred ible list of environmental goods a nd considered that the technical 
discussions had provided the basis for developing such  a list.  Australia noted that it would welcome 
modalities for environmental goods that went beyond those agreed in the context of the NAMA negotiations.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 35 
 
 
190. Australia believed that a number of products  on the list did not qualify as environmentally 
beneficial.  These products needed to be removed in order to get to a credible outcome that would be 
more broadly acceptable to the membership.  In her delegation's view, the proposal in TN/TE/W/65 
provided a good basis to advance the mandate in pa ragraph 31(iii).  Australia supported the view that 
developing country Members should be provided w ith additional flexibility in implementing their 
obligations, specifically in terms of longer time frame s.  Her delegation was also prepared to examine 
further flexibilities for developing country Members based on their specific needs and priorities.  
Flexibilities for LDCs were also of particular importance given the vulnerable nature of their 
economies and their sustainable de velopment needs.  With regard to NTBs, Australia welcomed 
advice from any Member on specific barriers face d in the exportation of environmental goods.   
191. The representative of Norway  said that as a co-sponsor of the paper in TN/TE/W/65, her 
delegation attached great importance to finding a way of reaching a credible environmental result in the negotiations.  She recalled that the mandate in paragraph 31(iii) entailed the reduction or, as 
appropriate, the elimination of tariff and non-tari ff barriers on environmental goods.  The process in 
CTESS needed to be supported by discussions of environmental goods in NAMA, since modalities 
would be established in the NAMA Group.  Howeve r, Norway did not regard environmental goods as 
a traditional NAMA sectoral.  Product coverage for environmental goods would need to be 
determined in CTESS.  Norway hoped that the Co mmittee would be able to deliver a revised and 
credible result on defining environment goods in a time ly fashion and that in this process, due account 
would be given to environmental goods of export inte rest to developing countries.  In this regard, 
S&D treatment was of utmost importa nce, as Cuba had emphasized in its paper.  This question would 
need to be discussed in detail when modalities would be agreed.  Finally, No rway stressed the need 
for information exchange between the CTESS and NAM A Group in future work to fulfil the mandate 
in paragraph 31(iii). 
192. The representative of Brazil
 said that the submission in TN/TE/W/65 made clear that its 
co-sponsors viewed negotiations unde r paragraph 31(iii) as a NAMA exer cise.  Brazil noted the view 
expressed in the paper that the difficulties of the CTESS in defining prod uct coverage should not 
prevent the NAMA Group from advancing in its work.  In his delegation's view, it was not clear that 
there was a mandate for discussing specific modaliti es for environmental goods.  This was a question 
that needed to be addressed by Members before enga ging in any exercise of the type suggested in the 
submission.  For this reason, Brazil believed that  the paper went beyond the mandate and did not 
provide an appropriate basis for future work.  He noted that the report submitted by the Chair of the 
NAMA Group in Job(06)/200/Rev.1 had recognised that it was premature to discuss specific 
modalities for environmental goods since there was no consensus among delegations on this matter.  
Brazil noted that even if there were a clear mandate  to discuss this issue, the definition of modalities 
would be contingent upon the de finition of product coverage.   
193. With regard to the Cuban paper, Brazil welcom ed it as a positive contribution and agreed with 
Argentina that important parameters to the work  were set out in the submission, especially in 
paragraph 15.  His delegation hoped to come back to this discussion at a later stage. 
194. The representative of China  said that a discussion of modalities was premature, given that the 
CTESS was still debating the issue of approach in  the negotiations.  China welcomed the Cuban 
submission, which was the first submission addressing the issue of S&D treatment in a systematic fashion.  More specifically, China shared the view  expressed in paragraph 13 of the paper that S&D 
treatment was naturally built into the project appro ach, which was not the case for the list approach.   
195. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation supported many of 
the constructive comments made by South Africa on behalf of the NAMA 11.  The EC agreed that clarifying product coverage was impor tant and that this exercise had to be completed expeditiously.  
However, his delegation did not agree with the views expressed by the NAMA 11 regarding the 
timing for addressing the issue of modalities.  As stated in TN/TE/W/65, the slow progress on product TN/TE/R/16 
Page 36  
 
coverage in CTESS should not prevent the NAM A Group from taking forward the question of 
modalities for environmental goods.  The EC noted th at the paper had been submitted in response to 
calls from a number of delegations, including Members from the NAMA 11 for more clarity with respect to modalities in order to assist the discussion of product coverage.   
196. The EC welcomed the submission by Cuba, which in its view was a credible attempt to 
address the question of modalities.  He noted that some delegations had we lcomed the submission by 
Cuba, while qualifying the paper in TN/TE/W/65 as pr emature.  In the EC's view, both papers put 
forward elements aimed at solving the issue of modalities.   
197. The representative of the Philippines
 said that as a member of the NAMA 11, his delegation 
fully supported the intervention by South Africa and other members of that group.  The Philippines 
believed that the results of the trade and environm ent negotiations should not be prejudged by viewing 
the mandate as merely a market access or tariff e limination initiative.  The environment mandate was 
more of an attempt to make the interface between  trade, development and environmental policies 
coherent and effective.  With regard to Cuba's contribution, he noted that the paper emphasized an 
important element of the negotiation, which was th e effective implementation of S&D treatment and 
the achievement of the developmen t goals of the negotiations.   
198. The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation fully asso ciated itself with the statement 
by South Africa and shared some of the concerns ex pressed therein.  Nigeria supported the view that 
trade and environment policies should be mutual ly supportive and guided by a developmental 
approach.  He welcomed the submission by C uba as a good basis to incorporate a development 
dimension to the discussion and called upon Member s to achieve a win-win-win outcome in the 
negotiations.   
199. The representative of Mexico  thanked Cuba for its paper, wh ich focused on the importance of 
S&D treatment and non-reciprocity in favour of al l developing country Members.  Regarding the 
paper in TN/TE/W/65, Mexico subscribed to the vi ews expressed by other delegations that there was 
an underlying problem with the way the co-spons ors interpreted the mandate.  The mandate in 
paragraph 31(iii) called for negotiati ons without prejudging the outcome, including with respect to the 
reduction and elimination of tariffs  on environmental goods, an aspect that the paper in TN/TE/W/65 
had focused on.  Mexico had a systemic concern with  the proposal in paragraph 5.1 of the paper that 
tariff elimination be undertaken by "developing countries declaring themselves in a position to do so".  She noted that similar language had been used in  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration concerning 
LDCs.  Her delegation could not accept that such lan guage be used in the context of the negotiations 
under paragraph 31(iii), which did no t have the same objectives.   
200. Mexico noted that there was still no understandi ng on the issue of product coverage.  In fact, 
the CTESS was far from achieving such an understandi ng, as it had not yet been able to agree on a 
single product.  The Chairman of the NAMA Group had noted this lack of consensus in his recent 
report (Job(06)/200/Rev.1).  Mexico believed that the CTESS needed to continue its discussion on the 
issue of product coverage since much  work still remained to be done. 
201. The representative of Ecuador
 said that her delegation wished to associate itself with the 
statement by South Africa on behalf of the NAMA 11.  From the technical discussions, it was clear that the outstanding work in the CTESS concerne d product coverage.  Wit hout an understanding on 
product coverage, any discussion on the establishment of modalities would be premature.  Moreover, 
parameters and criteria would be necessary in orde r to define or limit the number of products.  
Ecuador agreed with Australia th at it was necessary to reduce the number of products on the list in 
order to achieve a credible outcome to this process.   However, her delegation was not clear as to what 
would guarantee a balanced result.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 37 
 
 
202. Ecuador welcomed the submission by Cuba, wh ich in its view contained some innovative 
ideas.  Her delegation believed that it was not premature to discuss S&D treatment, which was a cross-cutting issue in all negotiations of the Doha  Round.  However, the submission in TN/TE/W/65 
was considered premature because it seemed to anticipate a very broad product coverage.  
Furthermore, the fact that the paper discussed flex ibilities, exceptions as well as a deadline for tariff 
reduction seemed to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations.  The sense of urgency in the 
paragraph 31(iii) negotiations  could only be considered in the framework of the single undertaking.  
According to Ecuador, this involved that priority  be given to reaching agreement in other areas, 
including on modalities in agriculture.   
203. The representative of Egypt
 said with regard to the submission in TN/TE/W/65 that it was 
premature to discuss modalities since Members had not yet agreed on the issue of approach to identify 
environmental goods.  He recalled that the Doha D eclaration had not specified any timeframe for the 
mandate, or for the work of the CTESS.  Even w ith an agreement on the list approach, there would 
still be many outstanding problems to resolve.  E gypt further noted that the paper seemed to focus on 
the elimination of tariffs, while the text of the Doha Declaration referred to the reduction or 
elimination.   
204. The representative of Singapore  said that his delegation was encouraged by the statement 
made by South Africa on behalf of NAMA 11.  As was evident at the last TNC meeting, there was a strong commitment from Members to conclude the Round before the end of 2006.  His delegation 
therefore welcomed the intensification of the work in CTESS under para graph 31(iii).  Singapore 
encouraged other Members to work towards an outcome on both environmental goods and services 
that was true to the mandate in paragraph 31(iii).  A positive outcome in both areas would help deliver 
development benefits and facilita te environmental protection.   
205. Singapore had agreed to co-sponsor the pa per in TN/TE/W/65 because it recognised the 
mutually supportive role that trade and environment played with respect to sustainable development.  
This proposal set out an ambitious goal for devel oped countries to eliminate tariffs on environmental 
goods by 2008.  Developing country Members could ha ve a longer period of time to eliminate tariffs 
on environmental goods, as well as further flexibiliti es.  The proposal provided a good framework and 
a catalyst for deliberations within the NAMA Grou p.  There was no need for a sequential process 
where the work of one negotiating group had to wait for an outcome in the other group.  The work of the CTESS and NAMA Group should proceed in pa rallel in accordance with the July 2004 
Framework.  The proposal would also help inject ne eded impetus into the work of the CTESS.  At a 
minimum, the paper gave Members a sense of what  could be achieved for the environmental goods 
identified in the CTESS.  Finally, Singapore thanke d Cuba for its submission, which it was still in the 
process of examining.   
206. The representative of Uruguay
 thanked the delegation of Cuba for its proposal, which 
contributed to the discussion on the development dimension of the negotiations.  As Ecuador had 
stated, the Cuban proposal was not an attempt to prematurely discuss modalities but a reminder of 
developing countries' needs with regard to importa nt issues such as transfer of technology and the 
opening of markets for products of interest to these Members.   
207. As regards the proposal in TN/TE/W/65, Uruguay shared the view of other delegations that 
the document was premature and did not provide an appropriate basis for future discussions.  
Her delegation shared many of the ideas expressed by Brazil regarding how the situation in NAMA 
should be taken into account in the CTESS discussions.  Uruguay regretted that some of the 
proponents were not showing a similar level of am bition in other areas of the negotiations which her 
delegation considered as fundamental.   
208. With regard to the question of sequenci ng between the work of the CTESS and NAMA 
Group, Uruguay emphasized that there could be no discussion of treatment for environmental goods TN/TE/R/16 
Page 38  
 
without clarity on product coverage.  She noted th at the mandate did not differentiate between the 
work of CTESS and the NAMA Group with respect to  environmental goods.  The mandate referred to 
the reduction of tariffs on environmental goods;  however, for progress to be made in this area, 
Members would need to have an idea of the level of  reduction that would apply in the NAMA context.  
Uruguay did not consider that the paper provided a sound basis for further work, neither in CTESS 
nor in NAMA, and reserved the right to make furt her comments on the paper at a later stage.   
209. The representative of New Zealand
 said that in paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration, 
Ministers had singled out environmental goods as a distinct group of products because they believed 
improving access to these goods could assist countries in tackling many of the sustainable development challenges they were facing.  As on e of the co-sponsors of TN/TE/W/65, New Zealand 
emphasized that the paper had been prepared in r esponse to the request by many Members for greater 
clarity on what could be the modality for environm ental goods.  New Zealand believed that given the 
environmental benefits of this trade, the st andard NAMA modality would not be sufficient.  
The modality on environmental goods had to provide for a more rapid and co mplete elimination of 
tariffs than would be the case for other non-agricu ltural products.  New Zealand was ready to make its 
contribution to this process and to eliminate ta riffs on environmental goods by 2008;  the paper 
further encouraged developing country Members that were in a position to do so to also make their 
contribution towards this objective.   
210. Moreover, New Zealand noted that the paper offered some thoughts on S&D treatment in 
response to the specific interest expressed by several  Members.  The submission stated that tariffs 
applied by developing countries should be eliminat ed by "x" years after 2008.  New Zealand believed 
that given the possible environmental benefits of th is negotiation, tariff elimination should be as soon 
as possible;  however, this was a matter to be clar ified in the NAMA negotiations.  The proposal also 
suggested flexibilities for developing country Member s, including possible exclusions for a limited 
number of products.  One option was the idea of a " dual list" proposed by New Zealand.  In this 
regard, his delegation had provide d a specific numerical target for the second list, which was 
85 per cent self-selected.   
211. He noted that the environmental goods sector w as continually developing in new and often 
unexpected directions.  The OECD, for instance, ha d estimated that half of the environmental goods 
likely to be in use within the coming decade did not currently exist.  In this context, New Zealand 
strongly believed that given the dynamic nature of that trade, it would be important to review and 
update the product coverage.  New Ze aland expected to table a paper in the near future that would 
operationalize the process of review.   
212. New Zealand had listened with interest to  the statements by the NAMA 11 group and 
a number of other delegations, and had also listened to comments by several Members under 
paragraph 31(i) on the importance of market acces s.  His delegation was surprised that some 
delegations were not following the same approach in the context of paragraph 31(iii).  New Zealand 
welcomed the fact that Members of the NAM A 11 had expressed their commitment to engage 
substantially on the issue of product coverage.  New Zealand welcomed this kind of engagement also 
in the technical discussions, which had resulted in a significant movement on the part of his 
delegation to reduce its e nvironmental goods list.  
213. New Zealand shared the view expressed by the NAMA 11 regarding the importance of S&D 
treatment.  However, some further precision was needed on what Members had in mind specifically.  
The paper by Cuba, for instance, did not mention an y numerical target.  In response to the comment 
expressed by certain delegations on prejudging the outcome of other processes, New Zealand pointed 
out that the paper in TN/TE/W/65 had been circulat ed precisely in response to the comments by some 
delegations that they found it difficult to engage in  the discussion of product coverage without having 
an idea of the modality that would apply.  His dele gation believed that there was a certain urgency to 
the process, especially since all Members seemed to agree that the negotiations needed to be  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 39 
 
 
completed by the end of 2006.  This meant that  the time frame for considering modalities and the 
scope of product coverage was rather limited.  In concluding, he noted that the purpose of the 
negotiations was to demonstrate that the WTO c ould make a meaningful contribution to global 
sustainable development.  With regard to modalitie s, all contributions by Members would help make 
substantive progress towards this shared objective.   
214. The representative of Qatar  said that his delegation remain ed committed to the mandate in 
paragraph 31(iii).  He noted that Qatar's positi on had been set out in document TN/TE/W/19 and 
Corr.1.  His delegation believed that neglecting clean er energy and products in environmental goods 
negotiations would undermine the spirit of the D oha Declaration.  The linkage between energy, 
environment and sustainable development was obvious.  He noted that there were almost 2.4 billion 
people world wide who still relied on traditional biom ass for their basic energy needs, and that more 
than 1.6 billion people in developing countries had no access to electricity.  The energy divide entrenched poverty by limiting access to information,  access to education, economic opportunities and 
healthier livelihood, in particular for women and ch ildren.  Furthermore, it affected negatively the 
environment at the local, national and global level.   
215. The environmental goods proposed by Qatar had been chosen on the basis of their 
environmental and developmental benefits, also taking into account issues such as climate change 
mitigation;  air pollution and toxic waste generation;  effects on human health;  energy efficiency;  as well as wider issues related to sustainable develo pment.  Qatar believed that these technologies and 
products offered sustainable devel opment benefits and that maintaining barriers to their trade would 
be incompatible with the goals of sustainable de velopment.  In Qatar's view, discussions in the 
CTESS and other relevant WTO bodies should result in the liberalization of trade in efficient low 
pollution emitting technologies and products.  In a ddition, issues such as S&D treatment and NTBs 
should also be addressed as part of the negotiations.   
216. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation had agreed to co-sponsor the paper in 
TN/TE/W/65 to provide a direct response to the qu estions and concerns ra ised regarding possible 
modalities.  Canada had commented on previous occasions that it considered negotiations under 
paragraph 31(iii) as a "NAMA plus" exercise.  Minist ers would not have agreed on this mandate to 
simply identify a list of goods that would be subj ect to a NAMA formula or modality.  Canada did not 
consider environmental goods as a NAMA sectoral, but rather as a unique opportunity presented to 
the Committee to identify environmental goods with a vi ew to liberalizing their trade.  With respect to 
the submission by Cuba, Canada did not have specif ic comments at this time but welcomed the views 
expressed therein.   
217. The representative of South Africa  said that the point made on behalf of the NAMA 11 was 
not that the paper in TN/TE/W/65 was premature, but rather that it was inappropriate to suggest tariff 
elimination in a context where product coverage had not been agreed.  In South Africa's view, there 
was nothing in the mandate that stated that the tariff treatment for envi ronmental goods should be 
"NAMA plus".  Environmental goods would be subj ect to the modalities agreed by the NAMA group 
and, if necessary, by the Committee on Agriculture.  Looking at the level of ambition in the NAMA 
discussions, it would be going too far to accept even a proposal on tariff elimination without further 
discussion of S&D treatment, especially since Memb ers wanted the environment to benefit in a 
sustainable, long term manner.  This meant th at Members should be permitted to develop their 
environmental sector.  In WTO, it was accepted that tariffs remained a legitimate way of protecting 
infant industries, and this was the point that NAMA 11 Members had tried to emphasize.  These 
delegations were hoping to see the same level of ambi tion exhibited in other areas of the negotiations, 
particularly because the mandate in Paragraph 31( iii) was not about the inherent benefits that 
environmental goods and services liberalization would bring.   
218. The representative of Pakistan  thanked the co-sponsors of TN/TE/W/65, as well as Cuba for 
their submissions.  Pakistan was not clear if what other delegations wanted to achieve as an outcome TN/TE/R/16 
Page 40  
 
to the mandate under paragraph 31 was additional market access, or sustaining and upgrading 
environmental health for developing country Members.  In Pakistan's view, Members' priorities had to 
be straightened in this regard.  He noted that para graph 31(iii) could not be in terpreted in isolation and 
had to be addressed in a holistic manner.  Th e co-sponsors of TN/TE/W/65 considered that 
liberalization of trade in environmental goods w ould facilitate access to and encourage the use of 
environmental technologies, which could in turn  stimulate innovation and technology transfer.  
Pakistan was not convinced that such  a proposal would lead to a triple win situation;  instead, it could 
result in a dependence vis-à-vis developed countries,  a deprivation of revenue, and an added debt 
burden on developing countries;  the damage c ontrol would have both political and technical 
consequences.   
219. As far as product coverage was concerned, Pa kistan supported the statement by South Africa 
on behalf of NAMA 11.  Regarding S&D flexibilities fo r developing countries, and more particularly 
with respect to paragraph 5 of TN/TE/W/65, Pakist an was not satisfied with the proposal for a longer 
implementation period since the value of "x" could not  be constant and univer sal for all developing 
countries all the time.  Furthermore, this could lead  to rising prices for environmental technologies, as 
the major producers and manufacturers could form cartels and monopolize supply chains to exploit 
developing countries.  If such an approach were  adopted, there was a likelihood that the major 
suppliers of these goods and services would refrain fro m expanding capacity in order to make profits 
at a later stage.  The second option mentioned in TN/TE/W/65 was the exclusion of a limited number of products.  Pakistan believed that this option al so contradicted the basic principle of taking due 
account of the environmental and sustainable needs of developing countries.   
220. With regard to the Cuban paper, Pakistan noted the technological gap caused by impaired 
access to technologies and know-how.  Before pr oposing any quantitative S&D treatment measures, 
Members had to consider on the basis of certain parameters the constraints on human, financial and 
resources of developing countries.  In this regard, his delegation agreed with Cuba's view that the 
concept of common but differentiated responsibiliti es endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable 
Development needed to be taken into account.   
221. Going beyond the US and Cuban proposals with respect to S&D treatment for developing 
country Members, Pakistan believed that market  access for environmental goods and services should 
be made conditional upon the following:  first, the international prices of all environmental goods and 
services should be kept to some level at some stage to check any trend of undue monopolization by 
major players;  and second, the governments of the countries supplying such goods and services 
should take up a substantial part of the cost of s upply when destined to developing country markets.  
This would be in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and would 
support global environmental health objectives instead  of enhancing environm ental imbalances.   
222. The representative of Switzerland
 said that as one of the co-sponsors of the paper in 
TN/TE/W/65, her delegation fully supported the st atement by the United States.  Switzerland noted 
that the paper had been tabled especially in resp onse to the request by some delegations for more 
clarity regarding possible modalities for environm ental goods.  Moreover, she recalled that the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration had given clear in structions to the CTESS to advance the work on 
paragraph 31 (iii) in an expeditious manner.  In addition, Switzerland agreed with the view expressed 
by Norway and Canada that the environmental goods  negotiations should not be seen as a traditional 
NAMA sectoral.   
223. With regard to the Cuban submission, Switzerland agreed that S&D treatment was important, 
especially for LCDs;  however, her delegation was no t convinced by the reasoning in paragraph 15 of 
the paper.  In Switzerland's view, the purpose of  the mandate was precisely to provide increased 
market access for environmental goods, which would in turn result in  greater access to environmental 
technologies and products at lower costs.  The wide use of environmental goods would reduce the 
negative externalities in the form of detrimental ef fects on the environment that would probably have  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 41 
 
 
to be addressed at a later stage at even greater ec onomic cost.  With respect to the argument regarding 
the promotion of emerging industries, Switzerland referred to Article XVIII of GATT 1994.  Finally, 
Switzerland asked Cuba to develop further on the cr iteria by which exemptions should be defined.   
224. The representative of Venezuela  recalled that there was no agreed definition of environmental 
goods in CTESS to guide the membership in the nego tiations.  Members continued to work without an 
overall sketch to follow.  In this context, Ve nezuela asked how Members could discuss modalities for 
market access for environmental goods  when such goods could not be identified.  Venezuela shared 
the view expressed by Argentina, Brazil, China a nd India that the Cuban paper could provide a good 
basis for further work in the CTESS.   
225. The representative of the United States  thanked delegations for their comments on 
TN/TE/W/65.  In response to a question by Pakistan, she pointed out that the mandate 
in paragraph 31(iii) was aimed at achieving the ob jective of promoting sustainable development 
through the liberalisation of environmental goods and services.  In response to the view expressed by 
some delegations that the paper was premature, she noted that the proponents were concerned the 
paper actually came too late.  The deadline given by  Ministers was close, and like other co-sponsors 
of the proposal, the United States believed that the wo rk had to be carried out in tandem in all WTO 
committees, as quickly as possible.  This was why her delegation had tabled  the paper in both the 
NAMA Group and CTESS, which were the two groups that had competence over the issue of environmental goods.   
226. Some delegations had questioned whether or not the NAMA Group had a mandate with 
regard to environmental goods.  In her delegation' s view, it was clear that the NAMA Group did have 
a mandate, as it had been recognized by the Ch airman of the NAMA Group in his recent report 
(Job(06)/200/Rev.1).  Delegations woul d not have made proposals to the Chairman for his text if they 
did not consider that environmental goods were c overed by the work of the NAMA group.  At the 
same time, the CTESS had an important role to play  in identifying environmental goods and in trying 
to clarify the concept.   
227. Some delegations had commented that they were  not supportive of the modality set out in the 
paper, particularly the tariff elimination aspect, and that they were not satisfied with the S&D 
treatment options.  The US welcomed those co mments, as well as delegations' views on any other 
S&D treatment option that should be considered.  She noted that several delegations had made the 
point about the need to protect certain industries.  A longer implementation period for a phase out of tariffs would give developing country Members an opportunity to retain tariffs for some period of 
time.  In the US' view, the mandate given by ministers required more ambitious treatment for 
environmental goods from a liberalis ation perspective.  Therefore,  reductions would need to be 
considered in the context of a phase out, and there w ould need to be some date by which tariffs would 
be eliminated.  The paper suggested in this rega rd that developed country Members would proceed 
immediately with the liberalization, while devel oping country Members would benefit from a longer 
implementation period.   
228. In response to comments made concerning the fact  that the list of goods put forward was too 
long, she noted that some delegations had revised th eir list by taking off items that had been criticized 
in the course of the discussions.  There was therefore movement in the direction of reducing the number of products proposed.  Moreover, none of th e proponents had implied that their list was a 
"take it or leave it" list.  As this was a negotiation,  Members had to work together to find the products 
that could garner widespread support among the member ship.  In parallel, delegations needed to agree 
on a modality for liberalising those products to he lp further the market access objectives of all 
Members, including developing countries.  Statistic s showed that environmental goods was a sector 
that was growing more rapidly th an any other industrial manufactured sector.  Her delegation was 
ready to work further on the issue of modality, wh ich would be decided in the NAMA Group, but also 
on identifying in CTESS a set of environmental go ods that could have widespread support among TN/TE/R/16 
Page 42  
 
Members.  However, work would have to progr ess in tandem in CTESS and in NAMA so as not to 
create any hierarchy among the negotiating groups.   
229. The representative of Cuba
 thanked delegations for the comments on their submission, 
in which Cuba had tried to clarify its understanding of  the term "S&D treatment ".  In his delegation's 
view, S&D treatment was a fundamental principle that  should govern the negotiations.  With regard to 
TN/TE/W/65, and in particular paragraph 5.1 of the paper regarding the rates of liberalization, Cuba 
said that it was not convinced that liberalisati on per se would guarantee sustainable development, 
unless there was a recognition of the economic, social  and environmental differences that existed 
between Members.  Cuba observed that a good cons idered as environmental in a developed country 
might not be considered as such in countries with  different levels of de velopment.  The paper 
addressed S&D treatment only in terms of deadlin es for implementation.  However, the loss of 
revenue resulting from a phase out of the tariffs for de veloping country Members also had to be taken 
into consideration in view of its su stainable development implications.   
230. In response to the question raised by New Zealand, Cuba pointed out that in paragraph 15 of 
its paper, his delegation had set out a clear moda lity for S&D treatment.  The objective was to reduce 
tariffs for products that were genuinely environmenta l, which were also of interest to developing 
country Members from the perspective of their ec onomic and social development.  Cuba asked 
developed country Members if they could accept such  a modality.  Regarding the question raised by 
Switzerland, Cuba noted that it would reflect on it furt her, but that this did not change the fact that 
developing country Members would have to decide wh ich goods they wished to liberalize in view of 
their own interests.   
231. The representative of New Zealand  introduced his delegation's revised list of environmental 
goods, which he hoped would contribute to the fu rther intensification of the negotiations under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  New Zealand recalled that Members had had numerous opportunities to comment 
on New Zealand's initial list tabled in May 2005.  There had been three formal sessions and five 
informal meetings since then where specific envi ronmental goods had been considered, including all 
the products proposed by New Zealand.  The formal  meetings of the CTESS were held on 7-8 July 
2005, 15-16 September 2005 and 21-22 February 200 6.  The informal meetings included two 
information exchange sessions on 12 October and 1 November 2005 and three technical discussions 
on environmental goods that were held in the post-Hong Kong Ministerial phase, namely on 
4-5 April, 10-12 May and 12-13 June 2006.  Each of  the technical discussions had considered specific 
categories of environmental goods.  New Zealand had participated actively in all meetings and had 
sought to respond substantively to all questions ra ised by Members about the items it had proposed.  
New Zealand further recalled that it had introduced a new "Environmental Benefits" column to its list 
of products contained in TN/TE/W/49/Rev.l.  The id ea was to assist Members in the more technical 
discussions by providing specific information about th e environmental benefits of particular goods.  
Like many Members, New Zealand also believed that there was a third "win" for development in 
these negotiations, which supplemented the "wins" for environment and trade.  He recalled in this 
regard that New Zealand had formally outli ned in some detail in its submission in 
TN/TE/W/49/Suppl.1 the numerous developmental bene fits that it considered could be secured as a 
consequence of the liberalization of trade in environmental goods.   
232. Cross-cutting issues had been addressed at the various meetings held on environmental goods, 
including for instance on the linkages between en vironmental goods and environmental services.  
New Zealand had reported in some detail in the in formation exchanges on the linkages it considered 
existed between the delivery of environmental ser vices related to the environmental goods it had 
proposed.  New Zealand noted that it was a co-spons or of a plurilateral re quest on environmental 
services, which was being pursued as part of the complementary approaches to the services market 
access negotiations, as mandated by the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 43 
 
 
233. New Zealand had also commented on the question of technology transfer, noting that some of 
the items on its list were currently being provided through technology transfer from New Zealand to 
developing countries, particularly in the South Paci fic region.  This was being implemented through 
the New Zealand Aid Programme.  With regard to NTBs, New Zealand had proposed on numerous 
occasions that the discussions needed to move fro m the abstract to the specific.  Therefore, 
New Zealand looked forward to the identification of  specific NTBs and reiterated its commitment to 
engage in those discussions.  With regard to S& D treatment, New Zealand had co-sponsored the paper 
in TN/TE/W/65 to clarify its thinking on this issue.   
234. New Zealand had not confined its participation to verbal comments at the various meetings.  
For instance, New Zealand was one  of the co-sponsors of a paper in Job(06)/140 of 8 May 2006 
which focused on products proposed under the categor ies of Waste Water Management and Solid and 
Hazardous Waste Management.  The paper had been prepared in response to the Chairman's request 
to provide "detailed explanations on the environm ental and developmental as pects of products that 
have been identified under the two new categorie s".  More recently, New Zealand had presented 
Job(06)/170 of 6 June 2006 on the category of Reme diation and Clean-Up of Soil and Water.  This 
responded to the Chairman's request that Members who had proposed products for the negotiation 
provide as far as possible a description of the environm ental, trade and developmental benefits of the 
products/systems in question.   
235. Throughout the negotiations, New Zealand had sought to do what it could to contribute to the 
discussion of dual and multiple-use items.  New Zealand considered that a practical approach on this 
matter should be adopted.  This needed to take into account the broader commitment of Members 
contained in the Doha Declaration to "maintain the process of reform and liberalization of trade 
policies, thus ensuring that the system plays its full part in promoting recovery, growth and development".  It was clear that in most of the categories proposed for the current negotiations, there 
were generally less than a handful of products which could be defined according to the narrower 
criteria of what some Members described as "single environmental end-use" items.  Discussions held 
since the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference had also revealed that there were a range of views on 
how this particular criteria could be  applied.  New Zealand did not be lieve that it would be possible to 
secure a consensus on which items could readily be  identified by the term "single environmental 
end-use."  In this regard, New Z ealand shared the view of many Members that products with dual or 
multiple uses that could deliver e nvironmental benefits were an intr insic part of the negotiations.  
They had a critical role to play in measuring,  preventing, limiting, minimizing or correcting 
environmental damage to water, air and soil, as well as problems related to waste, noise and 
eco-systems.  In fact, many environment-related activities, including those on the New Zealand list, 
could not be undertaken without access to dual or multiple use products.   
236. Against the background of the constructive ex changes held before and after Hong Kong, 
New Zealand had considered it appropriate in the spirit of the work of the CTESS to take into 
consideration the comments made on some of the items proposed by New Zealand.  His delegation 
had promised at the June 2006 meeting to try to deve lop a revised list so as to help move the process 
forward in July.  New Zealand had delivered on this  commitment by circulating its revised list in 
TN/TE/W/49/Rev.2.  He noted that the review process had not been easy, having to deal with stakeholders both from the private and non-governme ntal sectors.  However, as a result of this 
process, his delegation had managed to reduce the lis t by a quarter.  Products had been eliminated 
from a range of categories including Air Pollution Control;  Potable Water Treatment;  Wastewater 
Management;  and Cleaner or more resource efficien t technologies.  In addition, two entire categories 
had been removed completely from the New Zeala nd list, namely Scrap and Waste Utilization and 
Natural Risk Management.   
237.
 New Zealand had also reflected further on its Harmonized System (HS) descriptions and had 
used the opportunity with the revised list to clarify fu rther the ex-out that had been suggested for some 
of the products.  Among the items removed from Ne w Zealand's list were chemicals falling in the TN/TE/R/16 
Page 44  
 
categories of Air Pollution Control, Potable Water and Wastewater treatment and Cleaner or More Resource Efficient Technologies.  New Zealand believed that these products were central to 
addressing environmental problems effectively, an d were critical to ensuring water quality and the 
effective management of wastewater treatment pr ocesses.  Moreover, the role these goods played in 
such processes indicated that they had significant and positive development-related impacts in terms 
of a range of international goals related to water and sanitation.  These development-related objectives 
were outlined in detail in Job(06)/140.  It was New Zealand's view that these should be considered as 
environmental goods subject to ne gotiations under paragraph 31(iii).  However, these items had been 
removed from New Zealand's list as they did not appear as likely to secure a consensus.   
238. The other large category that had been eliminat ed from New Zealand's list was the scrap and 
waste recycling items.  New Zealand believed that encouraging the recycling of waste and scrap items 
had intrinsic environmental benefits.  New Zeala nd believed that the elimination of these goods from 
the list could limit the environmental benefits th at would arise from the negotiations.  However, 
New Zealand understood as a result of the inform ation exchange sessions and technical discussions 
that those items would not necessarily secure a consen sus.  In light of its commitment to facilitating 
progress in the negotiations, New Zealand had theref ore removed all of these entries from its current 
list of environmental goods.   
239. In sum, through the revision of its list, New Zealand had reduced substantively and 
significantly the number of environmental goods it was proposing in the negotiations.  The changes 
and consequent reduction of its lis t had been made with the expectation that more rapid progress 
would be possible.   
240. The representative of Canada
 said that the CTESS had devoted a significant amount of time 
and energy to discussing environmental goods under pa ragraph 31(iii) of the mandate.  In Canada's 
view, considerable progress had been achieved, despite  the difficulties that rema ined.  In that spirit 
and in order to help maintain the momentum and further the negotiations, Canada had circulated a 
revised list of environmental goods.  His delegation continued to belie ve that substantially improving 
market access for environmental goods through the reduction or, as appropriate, the elimination of 
tariffs and NTBs would achieve what had been re ferred to as a "triple win" outcome for all WTO 
Members.  Canada continued to see this as an impor tant contribution to sustainable development.  
In his delegation's view, this would be achieve d through reduced cost to importing countries for 
products and technologies used to improve domestic  environmental conditions  and manage natural 
resources.  Canada was particularly interested  in ensuring that developing country Members' 
participation was meaningful and would be reflect ed in the outcome of the negotiations through an 
agreed set of environmental goods.  Canada had ta ken these various considerations and objectives into 
account when revising its environmental goods list.   
241. In its covering note, Canada had identified a number of issues that had been taken into 
account in the revision of its list.  With regard to the issue of single versus dual use, Canada had taken 
careful note of the discussions related to paramete rs to help identify environmental goods.  Canada 
did not believe that the single use parameter would be helpful to identify environmental goods.  It was 
clear that many environmental goods had non-envir onmental uses.  The main question was therefore 
the relative importance of the good in addressing the environmental issue, namely whether the 
non environmental use of the good was benign.   
242. Canada agreed with the point made by some Me mbers that a more balanced and holistic view 
of environmental goods was required,  and considered that excluding dual use items by applying the 
criterion of single environmental end use would not be in keeping with this ba lanced approach to the 
negotiations.  Canada considered environmental goods as the tool to  achieve multiple environmental 
objectives such as pollution remediation and energy and resource conservation, as well as domestic 
and internationally agreed environmental goals.  E nvironmental goods could be used to improve local 
environmental conditions, which in turn coul d lead to improved living conditions and the  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 45 
 
 
conservation of scarce natural resources.  Contrary to what some Members had argued, many of the environmental goods put forward were in fact low tech , affordable products;  or if they were high tech 
products, they presented readily accessible and affordab le solutions to environmental problems.   
243. With these issues in mind, Canada had taken a number of comments on board in revising its 
list.  He recalled that Canada had included in its  initial list a number of chemicals and recyclable 
materials.  These items had been put forward becaus e they had the potential to contribute to a better 
environment.  Recyclable material, for instance, could be used to produce new goods or to divert 
waste from landfills.  Furthermore, they required less energy and released less greenhouse gas emissions than primary inputs.  Canada had also put forward certain chemicals on the basis that they were key components in environmental processes, includi ng waste water treatment.  At the same time, 
Canada had outlined that the envi ronmental benefits could be achie ved only when such items were 
managed in an environmentally sound manner throughout their life cycle.   
244. In the course of the discussions, Canada had ta ken careful note of the comments and concerns 
that had been raised.  As a result, Canada had re moved all recyclable materials and chemicals from its 
list of environmental goods, as it was clear that th ese goods did not have the requisite consensus at 
that stage of the negotiations to be included on a list of environmental goods.  Canada looked forward 
to the further intensification of th e negotiations under paragraph 31(iii).   
245. The representative of Japan
 said that at the last formal CTESS meeting on 
21-22 February2006, Members had agreed to launc h the technical discussions under paragraph 31(iii) 
by applying indicative parameters to products, categories of products, or projects aimed at particular 
environmental objectives.  Since then, the CTESS had held three technical discussions covering 
various categories, namely Renewable Energy and Air Pollution Control on 4-5 April, Waste Water 
Management and Solid and Haza rdous Waste Management on 10-12 May, and the rest of the 
categories, including Monitoring An alysis and Assessment Equipment, Remediation and Clean-up of 
Soil and Water, and Cleaner Technol ogy and Products on 12-13 June.  In order to facilitate the 
technical discussions, Japan had submitted a non-pa per (Job(06)/74) on the categories of Air Pollution 
Control and Renewable Energy, and had also co-s ponsored another non-pape r (Job(06)/140) on Waste 
Water Management and Solid and Hazar dous Waste Management Products.   
246. In the course of the technical discussion, Japan had tried to explain how those products 
benefited the environment.  For example, filteri ng or purifying machinery and apparatus for gases 
(HS 842139) could be used solely for air pollu tion control;  hydraulic turbines and water wheels 
(HS 841011, 12 and 13), as well as solar electric gene rators, solar panel, a nd solar cells (HS 854140 
with ex-outs) could be used solely for renewa ble energy;  ozone production system (HS 854389 with 
ex-outs) could be used solely as disinfecting equi pment for purifying water;  refuse disposal vehicle 
(HS 870590 with ex-outs) could be used solely for the transport of solid waste;  and inflatable oil spill 
recovery barges (HS 890710 with ex-outs) could be used solely for remediation and clean-up of 
water.  Japan had also tried to explain how low em ission vehicles such as hybrid vehicles and electric 
vehicles could benefit the environment, specifica lly air pollution control, without sacrificing 
development objectives.  Althoug h these products had not received  broad support, the technical 
discussions on these items had been useful and Japan hoped that these could provide a basis to explore 
points of convergence.   
247. The technical discussions had provided useful inputs that facilitated the review process of 
Japan's list, which was still underway.  Japan wish ed to share with other delegations what it had 
decided to remove from its initial list;  the list of goods circulated by Japan as a room document was 
only tentative and did not constitute a formal revision of Japan's list.   
248. The representative of India  said that his delegation was not convinced by the arguments 
presented in the revised lists tabled.  New Zealand ha d stated that one quarter of the items on its initial 
list had been withdrawn, including the entire scrap a nd waste category.  India asked what the rationale TN/TE/R/16 
Page 46  
 
was for putting these products forward in the first place.  He noted that both the papers by New Zealand and Canada seemed to have abandoned the concept of "s ingle environmental end use".  
Many of the items put forward were multiple and du al use items.  While many of the proposed items 
could be used in a system or to remedy an envi ronmental problem, they were not environmental goods 
per se  that would justify large tariff cuts.   
249. Moreover, there was an important developmental as pect related to this issue.  Many of the 
items discussed were being produced by small sc ale industries and SMEs in developing countries 
such as India, and the reduction or elimination of  tariffs on these goods would expose them to undue 
pressure.  Therefore, India was not convinced th at the proposals tabled would help meet the 
development angle of the negotiations.   
250. Regarding the issue of ex outs, which had been  addressed to some extent in the technical 
discussions, India noted that a group of developing country Members had examined the issue and had 
set out their views on the subject in a room document.  This paper highlighted, for instance, that the HS code as such was not specific enough to capture  environmental goods, and that using ex outs to 
identify environmental goods was not an option for these delegations.  India noted that there was no 
harmonization of the ex outs at country level.  The id entification of goods at 8-, 9- or 10-digit level for 
the purpose of domestic implementa tion would be cumbersome and costly for developing country 
Members.  The liberalization of entire tariff lines was more than developing country Members could 
bear, and ex outs did not seem to address the real problems that Members were facing.  In India's view, the submission of environmental goods lists was not taking the work in the right direction.   
251. The representative of Korea
 said that to facilitate the iden tification of environmental goods, 
his delegation considered it necessary that the proponents submit revised lists of goods which 
reflected the comments made during the technical di scussions.  Korea noted that the submissions by 
New Zealand, Canada and Japan were encouraging,  and that it was also considering submitting a 
revised list for the next round of discussions.  In  Korea's view, the problems linked to the list 
approach were not insurmountable and were in any case less important than with the project approach.  
In addition, the list approach was faithful to  the Doha mandate and to the essence of the 
WTO Agreements.  Korea was convinced that the issue of dual or multiple uses could be addressed 
through the appropriate ex-outs under the HS 6-digit c ode.  He noted that it would be more efficient to 
focus on finding solutions to the multiple use issue on the basis of a list of environmental goods.   
252. The representative of Egypt  said that discussions gave the impression of a pure market access 
exercise, which was not the purpose of the work in  the CTESS.  For his delegation, discussions were 
moving around in circles without consideration of th e views put forward by many developing country 
Members.  The aim of the work in CTESS was to  find an approach that was acceptable to the 
membership as a whole.  For Egypt, there was no suppor t for continuing the work on the basis of lists 
alone.  At that stage of the discussions, there wa s still no common understanding of the mandate, and 
more attention had to be given to other a pproaches put forward in the negotiations.   
253. The modalities paper in TN/TE/W/65, which had also been presented in the NAMA Group, 
was not helpful in terms of clarifying how Members would conclude their work in the CTESS.  It was 
true that some developing country Members had indicated in the past that it would be useful to understand what the proponents were aiming for with their lists.  However, since then, this point had 
become clear and the work had not gone in the di rection that his delegation wanted to follow.  
Discussions on environmental goods in CTESS had focused on the highest level of ambition possible, 
while negotiations were staled in many other areas.   
254. With regard to the revised lists tabled by New Zealand and Canada and the room document 
circulated by Japan, he noted that several revisi ons of the lists might be necessary before his 
delegation would be in a position to consider them.  The revised lists  still contained many items that 
did not fulfil any specific criteria.  Egypt encouraged  the proponents to continue revising their lists,  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 47 
 
 
but said it was not in a position to consider them as they currently stood.  The room document introduced by India reflected much of Egypt's thinking about the shortcomings of the HS system and the problems related to dual and multiple use items.  Egypt continued to believe that this was not 
enough to get out of the stalemate in the CTESS.  Members needed to consider other approaches in 
the negotiations, since the discussions of the lis ts had not been conclusive so far.   
255. The representative of Brazil
 said that his delegation was one of those that had called for the 
revision of the lists in previous meetings, but that  it was disappointed by the results presented.  Many 
proponents in the past had explicitly stated that  end use was a useful concept.  However, the 
proponents were now saying that there were only a ha ndful of products that had an environmental end 
use.  Some delegations had also expressed the view that the end use criterion was not a helpful one 
and that Members should focus instead on the envir onmental benefits of a pr oduct.  Brazil had never 
denied that dual use products could produce a benef it for the environment.  However, the technical 
discussions had shown that dual use products could be  used in ways that were detrimental to the 
environment.  The question of the environmental impact of dual or multiple use goods during their 
life cycle had not been answered, nor did it seem to have been taken into account in the revision of the 
lists.   
256. Although the proponents had stated that the views and concerns expressed by developing 
country Members had been taken into considerati on, this had been done only in a selective and 
fragmented way.  Only a handful of products ha d been excluded from the revised lists tabled, 
including the most obvious ones such as chemicals, which were known to be toxic.  Despite this, the 
delegations that had circulated revised lists had st ated that they still considered these products to be 
environmental goods and that their exclusion had b een difficult for them.  While Brazil was grateful 
for the submission of revised lists, it continued to be of the view that the list approach was not 
appropriate for the purpose of the work in CTESS.  The lists showed an excessive level of ambition 
that could not be justified in light of the mandate .  The list approach could also lead to further 
complications in terms of feasibility and costs for customs officials, as noted in the room document 
introduced by India.  Finally, Brazil noted that th e mandate in paragraph 31 did not call for specific 
modalities for environmental goods.   
257. The representative of China  said that his delegation agreed with the comments expressed by 
India, Egypt and Brazil with regard to the revised  lists.  He noted that both the Canadian and New 
Zealand papers used environmental benefits as the parameter or criteria for identifying environmental 
goods.  However, with such a criteria, most products could qualify as environmental goods in a 
comparable way.  In China's view, this kind of ex ercise had not proven to be workable so far.   
258. The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked Canada and New Zeal and for their revised lists, 
which his delegation had found very encouraging.  He noted that goods had been eliminated from the 
lists based on an emerging consensus for their excl usion.  In his delegation's view, Members should 
build upon this emerging consensus and take  relevant decisions in due course.   
259. The question had been raised as to whether ex out s provided a feasible tool to tackle the issue 
of dual and multiple uses.  His delegation had no ted from the comments made in the course of the 
technical discussions that the use of ex outs w as not new.  Although there was no harmonization of 
ex outs at 8- or 10-digit level, Members could ai m at reaching consensus on product description based 
on ex outs at 6-digit level;  this seemed to be an appropriate and feasible way of tackling the dual and 
multiple use issue.  Delegations could seek the assistance of the World Customs Organization (WCO) 
in this regard.  Like Korea, Chinese Taipei was also  considering the revision of its list.  His delegation 
looked forward to moving to a cons tructive and expeditious stage of  the negotiations as soon as 
possible. 
260. The representative of Australia  said that her delegation welcomed the efforts by 
New Zealand, Canada and Japan to narrow down the scope of their lists.  This was a meaningful TN/TE/R/16 
Page 48  
 
contribution to the discussion towards fulfilling the mandate  in this area.  It was particularly important 
that in narrowing down their lists, the proponents had listened carefully to the general and more 
specific comments provided.  Australia understood that this was indeed the basis on which 
New Zealand and Canada had proceeded.  Her dele gation agreed with Korea's comment that other 
proponents also needed to work on their lists.  Au stralia looked forward to continuing the discussions 
on the basis of the revised lists tabled, as well as on future revisions.  
261. Concerning the definition of envi ronmental goods, she noted that there would always be an 
element of subjectivity in developing a list of e nvironmental goods.  Some delegations had discussed 
parameters such as "direct and clear environmenta l benefit", which her delegation found useful and 
instructive.  However, Members needed to reach agreement on a credible list in order to progress in 
the work.  Australia believed that the single use pa rameter was too limited.  Therefore, her delegation 
welcomed the fact that some furt her work had been done on revising ex  outs.  This was an important 
issue in terms of coming up with an agreed list.  Fi nally, Australia noted its interest in finding out 
more about how ex outs were being used nationally.   
262. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the new submissions tabled 
demonstrated that the information exchange sessi ons and technical discussions had been successful.  
The revised lists also demonstrated that the proponents were serious about creating a list of 
environmental goods that would garner widespread support among the membership.  At one of the technical discussions, Egypt had submitted a room doc ument that raised some concerns regarding 
hazardous waste, and the revised lists by New Zeala nd and Canada had provided a direct response to 
these concerns.  His delegation wished to see more of  this constructive engage ment in future, not only 
for products that did not generate widespread s upport, but also for products on which Members could 
agree.  In this vein, the EC would continue to re flect on its own submission and would work hard to 
generate a list of products that  could garner more support.   
263. Regarding the suggestion that Members should wo rk on the basis of the parameter of single 
environmental end use, he noted that while some of the discussions had been structured around this 
parameter, it was certainly not the only parameter.   Many of the non-papers tabled by the proponents 
had focused on dual or multiple use products whic h had clear environmental benefits.  The EC 
continued to believe that dual and multiple use pr oducts that had a clear and direct environmental 
benefit should be included on a list of environmental goods.  His dele gation recognized that not all the 
goods proposed would make it to the final list, a nd it was for Members to determine which dual and 
multiple use products deserved to be considered as environmental goods.  Furthermore, he noted that 
the single environmental end use parameter had never been proposed as a parameter in the context of 
the project approach.   
264. On the question of ex outs and whether they provided a workable solution, the EC agreed 
with Chinese Taipei that WCO's contribution to  the technical discussions had been extremely 
valuable.  The discussions had made clear that ex outs were indeed a workable solution for dual and 
multiple use products.  His delegati on would continue to reflect on the issue with respect to the 
products it had put forward.   
265. The EC disagreed with the comments made with  respect to the impact of further trade 
liberalization of environmental goods and services on SMEs.  In the EC's view, such comments were 
not constructive to the debate.  This negotiation was not simply a market access negotiation.  The EC 
wanted to focus on increased acc ess to environmental goods and technologies based on what had been 
agreed in Rio and Johannesburg, as well as more broadly in the Millennium Development Goals. 
266. The representative of Mexico
 thanked Canada, New Zealand and Japan for their 
presentations.  Although her delegation appreciated the efforts to revise the lists, Mexico noted that 
the content of the lists continued to be problemat ic.  One important question that remained with 
respect to the majority of the products put forw ard was why an industrial good should benefit from  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 49 
 
 
better tariff treatment as a result of negotiations in the CTESS.  In Mexico's view, the revised lists did 
not provide a satisfactory answer to this question.   
267. With regard to the criteria of single environmen tal end use, Mexico noted that there would not 
be a balanced result in the negotiations unless the envi ronmental use of the products was clear.  In this 
regard, criteria and parameters c ould help Members find a compromise.  The delegation of Canada 
had referred to the benign non environmental use of an industrial good;  however, her delegation did 
not see how such a criteria could justify the inclus ion of a good on a list of environmental goods for 
the purpose of the negotiations.  Mexico noted th at there remained several dual and multiple use 
products in the revised lists that were subject to NAMA negotiations.  Her delegation appealed to the 
proponents to further revise their lists, while Member s would continue seeking a practical approach to 
the mandate.   
268. The representative of the United States  said that in the interest of transparency in the 
negotiations and particularly in the context of formal meetings where summary reports would be 
made available to the public, delega tions should table formal submissions instead of circulating room 
documents.   
269. The US thanked New Zealand and Canada for pu tting forward revised lists of environmental 
goods.  Her delegation appreciated the work and the in ternal consultations that had gone into such an 
exercise.  The US further appreciated that these delegations had responded to the comments made on 
their initial list of goods.  Her de legation hoped that these efforts to  remove the most controversial 
items from the lists, including chemicals and scrap ma terials, would help to move the negotiations 
forward and to bring Members one step closer to a set of products that had widespread acceptance in 
the WTO.   
270. However, as a delegation that had submitted a list and was considering revising it, the US had 
not found the reactions particularly  encouraging.  This raised the question of the desirability of 
undertaking an extensive consultation process with st akeholders to come up with a revised list that 
may not be considered as good enough by other Me mbers.  The US welcomed additional comments 
on the products it had proposed, in par ticular with respect to the products  that could be considered as 
legitimate.   
271. With regard to dual use, the US noted that the issue was a legitimate one, given the nature of 
environmental goods and the industrial processes they often involved.  Discussions so far had focused 
on ex-outs and on the overall benefits  of liberalizing trade, which w as the overarching objective of the 
negotiations.  Another important aspect mentioned w as how to obtain a balanced result that reflected 
developing country export interests in the negotiations .  According to trade data, developing countries 
had export interests mainly in the dual or multiple  use products, and not in the single environmental 
end use items.  Members would need to be cognizant of the balance of export interests of all Members 
when handling dual use products.  The US hoped that other delegations would further engage in the 
discussions and that the revised lists would bring Members closer to an agreement on a set of 
environmental goods.   
272. The representative of Norway  said that her delegation welcomed the revised lists of 
environmental goods submitted by New Zealand, Cana da and Japan as a constructive step forward in 
the negotiations.  These lists demonstrated that th e technical discussions had been fruitful.  Various 
proposals had been made by delegations on how to deal with the mandate under paragraph 31(iii).  
Norway was still of the opinion that the list appr oach was the most suitable way to achieve an 
environmentally sound outcome with a multilate rally agreed set of environmental goods.   
273. Norway agreed with Australia on the need for the negotiations to result in a list of goods that 
would deliver clear environmental benefits a nd that would be broadly recognized across the 
membership.  Norway was not convinced that the re vised lists that had been tabled fully met these TN/TE/R/16 
Page 50  
 
objectives, as they still contained goods used mainly  for other purposes than environmental ones.  The 
technical discussions had contributed to identify product categories that had limited support among 
Members, but further work was required to narro w down the product coverage.  Norway urged the 
proponents of the lists to substa ntially reduce the number of items on their lists.  Her delegation 
looked forward to engage with ot her delegations in developing a list of environmental goods that 
would help reach a credible environmental result while ensuring trade and development gains for all 
Members, especially developing countries.   
274. The representative of Cuba
 thanked the delegations that  had submitted revised lists.  
Cuba welcomed the fact that waste and chemicals ha d been eliminated from the initial lists.  However, 
his delegation agreed with India, Brazil and Mexico  that the situation was still inadequate.  Members 
needed to be more precise about the definition of environmental goods based on the criteria of single 
environmental end use.  Some of the items proposed  were still problematic for Cuba, including entries 
number 361 and 362 in the New Zealand list (HS codes 870322 and 870390, motor cars and other 
motor vehicles).  Any good classified under these tari ff lines could be considered as environmental an 
good, including racing cars.  Members needed to wo rk on the list bearing in mind the objective of 
sustainable development.  Finally, Cuba fully supported the views expressed in the room document 
presented by India, Brazil, South Africa and China.   
275. The representative of South Africa  recalled that there was still no agreement to follow a list 
approach.  In fact, her delegation was concerned that a list may not lead to a result that would 
adequately represent the interests of all Members.   She thanked New Zealand and Canada for their 
revised lists.  Her delegation welcomed the fact th at some of the comments made on specific products 
had been taken into account resulting in the removal of these products.  However, as other delegations 
had pointed out, this did not solve all of the problem s.  In South Africa's view, the environmental use 
of the vast majority of the products put forward wa s not clear.  A wide range of products on the lists 
were dual or multiple uses items and it was difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the extent to which 
these products could be used for environmental purposes.  Until this problem was solved, she noted 
that it would be difficult for her delegation to accept the list approach.   
276. South Africa believed that the single environmen tal end-use parameter ensured that the goods 
identified would have a verifiable benefit for the environment.  New Zealand had pointed out that 
consensus on single environmental end use would be hard to achieve, but according to South Africa, it 
would not be any easier to reach consensus on th e issue of dual and multiple use.  While her 
delegation wished to be constructive, it continue d to have fundamental issues with the underlying 
approach;  specific criteria beyond that of environmen tal benefit would be needed if the list approach 
was ultimately followed.   
277. The representative of Ecuador  thanked the delegations of Jap an, Canada and New Zealand for 
their efforts to revise their lists, which her dele gation considered was a proper step forward.  
However, as noted by other delegations, much work remained to be done with respect to revising the 
lists.  For Ecuador, this was not merely a question of agreeing on a number of products but rather of 
developing a vision on the meaning of sustainabl e development in the context of the Doha 
Development Round.  For Ecuador, the notion of sust ainable development had to take into account the 
primary source of environmental deterioration, which was poverty.  Members had a particular 
mandate to fulfil under Paragraph 31(iii) and for Ecuador, this mandate did not mean business as 
usual.  There had to be an added value to these negotiations so as to differentiate them from NAMA 
negotiations.  In this context, Ec uador believed that the criterion of  final environmental use ought to 
guide the paragraph 31(iii) negotiations.   
278. Ecuador noted that the issue of multiple uses raised many problems for which no solution had 
been proposed.  In this regard, the project appr oach addressed the mandate more holistically and 
provided a pragmatic way of dealing with the prob lem of multiple uses.  Moreover, Ecuador shared 
many of the concerns expressed in the room doc ument presented by India regarding the use of  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 51 
 
 
ex outs.  In particular, Ecuador agreed with th e view that the costs implications for developing 
countries of implementing ex outs could run counter to  the objective of the negotiations in the area of 
trade facilitation.  For her delegation, ex outs had to  remain the exception rather than the rule.   
279. The representative of Switzerland  thanked New Zealand and Cana da for their revised lists, 
as well as Japan for its non-paper which indicated th e items that Japan was willing to remove from its 
list.  This was a constructive approach after the technical discussions and consultations that Members 
had held.  These delegations had been attentive to other delegations' comments and had removed 
controversial items from their lists.  Switzerland supported the point made by Chinese Taipei, the 
European Communities and other delegations regardi ng the use of ex outs.  Switzerland was also in 
the process of revising its list based on the views expressed in the technical discussions.  
Her delegation had proposed goods of interest to de veloping countries and it was difficult in the 
revision process to take off items that could be key for developing country Members.  Switzerland 
hoped that these delegations would indicate clearly th eir interests in order to achieve a credible and 
balanced outcome both for developing and developed country Members.   
280. The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation was encouraged by the spirit of 
constructive engagement.  With regard to the paper by New Zealand, he noted the suggestion 
regarding the concept of a living list and its application to developing country Members.  
His delegation wished to see products of export inte rest to developing countries given prominence in 
the final list that would emerge from the negotia tions.  Nigeria hoped that major players would 
recognise the need for flexibility to promote th e common good and welfare of all Members.   
281. The representative of Malaysia , also on behalf of Indonesia  and Thailand  said that in the 
absence of an understanding on the scope or crite ria for identifying environmental goods, agreeing on 
a single list of environmental goods could prove di fficult.  Malaysia noted that the environmental 
goods lists that had been submitted varied gr eatly.  Some Members had submitted a limited and 
clearly defined environmental goods list, while ot hers had presented extended lists which included 
many dual use goods, as well as others that did not bear much significance from the point of view of 
environmental protection or clean up.   
282. Malaysia thanked New Zealand and Canada fo r their efforts in revising their lists.  
His delegation believed these efforts would assist Members in the negotiations under 
paragraph 31(iii).  Some of the products that had been removed or would be removed from the lists 
were products that had raised concerns for sever al Members.  However, the revised lists still 
contained dual and multiple use pr oducts.  Malaysia had concerns w ith respect to these products since 
it was not possible to precisely and effectively captu re the concrete developm ental and environmental 
benefits of these products.  His delegation supported further discussions on the revision of the list 
bearing in mind the single use criteria.  Malaysia lo oked forward to working with other delegations in 
achieving meaningful and beneficial results from paragraph 31(iii) negotiatio ns, which would take 
into account the development and envi ronmental dimensions, in addition to trade interests.  This was 
the only way to achieve a result that would promote the objective of sustainable development.   
283. The representative of New Zealand  welcomed the comments by other delegations on their 
revised list.  New Zealand had tried to be specifi c in its response to the comments that had been 
previously made by eliminating 25 per cent of the goods from its original list.  The membership had 
spent considerable time, both before and after Hong Kong in the information exchange sessions and 
technical discussions, where his delegation fe lt good progress had been made.  While it was 
disappointing from New Zealand's perspective to reali ze that it would be unsustainable to retain some 
of the goods on their list, the discussions had led to a positive outcome.  New Zealand did not agree 
with the comment that the negotiations were borderle ss.  In fact, with some 143 items left on its list, 
New Zealand believed the border was tightly define d.  In New Zealand's view, the discussions had 
brought Members one step forward in the direction of getting more clarity as to what may constitute 
"environmental goods". TN/TE/R/16 
Page 52  
 
284. New Zealand had gathered detailed technical information about the specific environmental 
benefits of every item on its list.  However, his delegation understood that this was a negotiation and 
that not everything New Zealand believed had an environmental benefit would necessarily get 
consensus among Members.  For in stance, New Zealand believed that  there was an environmental 
benefit to scrap waste.  However, in order to  help move forward the process of negotiations, 
New Zealand understood that it had to take off some items from its list.  As for the chemicals that had 
been included initially on the list, New Zealand noted that these were essential for instance in 
wastewater treatment.  His delegation had taken off chemicals from its list after hearing other 
delegations' concerns with respect to these products.   
285. Like most developing country Members, New Z ealand did not have a commercial interest in 
any of the goods that could potentially fall into the single environmental end use category.  
If environmental goods were to be identified on th e basis of this criteria alone, only a handful of 
Members would actually benefit from the negotiations.  Focusing strictly on single use items would not only limit the environmental benefits of the ne gotiations;  it would also leave out a significant 
portion of the trade to the detriment of the wi der developmental dimens ion of the mandate.   
286. In response to a question by Cuba regardi ng entry numbers 361 and 362, he noted that 
New Zealand had proposed some ex outs for hybrid and electric vehicles, and that it did not have in 
mind racing cars.   
287. New Zealand invited other delega tions to continue to engage with an open mind, recognize 
that the process was a negotiation an d work together with a view to fulfilling the mandate.  His 
delegation hoped that by submitting a revised list, it had made a contribution towards this objective.   
288. The representative of Canada
 said that the comments on his delegation's revised list reflected 
a constructive engagement.  As Ca nada had indicated in its cover note, the products removed from the 
list had initially been put forward because Canada be lieved they had the potential to contribute to a 
better environment.  For instance, he recalled that recyclable materials could be used to produce new 
goods and divert waste from landfills, and requi red less energy and released less greenhouse gas 
emissions than primary inputs.  With regard to the chemicals, these were considered as key 
components in a number of environmental processes.  Canada had taken these products off the list in 
the spirit of compromise required of a negotiation.   
289. Canada believed that a number of different criteri a could be used in the process of identifying 
a set of environmental goods acceptable to all Me mbers.  Such criteria could take into account 
arguments related to market sensitivities or emergi ng industries.  However, in Canada's view, the 
suggestion that single environmental end-use should be the only criterion in the negotiations was not 
acceptable.   
290. As for the process of narrowing down the list, Canada viewed this as a peer review process 
whereby Members looked at the various products an d discussed them with the objective of agreeing 
on those that should be included on a list.  In this process, each Member had to take other delegations' 
comments into consideration and adjust their position accordingly.  Canada hope d that the tabling of 
its revised list would be considered by other dele gations as a positive step forward.  Canada also 
hoped that Members could start agreeing on products, rather than continually focusing on products on 
which they could not agree.  To this end, it w as important to consider the various parameters and 
criteria in a flexible manner and to continue sharin g information on the products put forward.  Canada 
stressed that it was giving due consideration to all approaches.  However, regardless of the approach 
that Members would choose to follow, there was a need to start agreeing on a set of environmental 
goods.   
291. The representative of Japan  recalled that the list of products circulated as a room document 
was not Japan's formal revised list.  With regard to the use of ex-outs, Japan noted that it provided one  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 53 
 
 
way of dealing with environmental goods that could not be identified at  6-digit level.  In addition, 
Japan noted that their customs authorities were also  reviewing the list so that the ex outs would be 
workable from their perspective.  His delegation wa s open to further discussions on whether the use of 
ex-outs would be a workable option to identify environmental goods under Paragraph 31(iii).  Japan 
felt that any difficulty associated with ex out should not prevent Members from identifying 
environmental goods.  If the goods had a clear environmental benefit, Members should accept to 
liberalize them.   
292. The representative of Egypt  said that since there had already been three sessions dedicated to 
looking at all the items on the proponents' lists, th ere was no need to look at these items again, as 
Canada had suggested.  Instead, Members should fo cus on finding a way forward that was acceptable 
to all Members.   
293. The representative of Argentina  said that his delegation agreed with the comments made by 
Egypt.  Although Argentina was committed to these ne gotiations, it believed that the list approach did 
not meet the needs and flexibilities of many develo ping country Members.  Some flexibility would 
therefore be needed in order to reach a compromise.   
294. The representative of India  said that his delegation also suppor ted the statement by Egypt.  He 
recalled that the room document presented by Indi a, Brazil, China and South Africa focused on the 
difficulties of implementing a list of environmental goods under the HS system.  This did not mean that India and others accepted the list approach.  With this document, these delegations wished to 
highlight some technical issues that were likely to arise under the list approach.   
295. The first point related to the fact that any ch anges to the classification system to implement 
ex outs at 8- or 10-digit levels for Members curre ntly operating at HS 6-digit level would involve 
significant costs.  This put several delegations in the difficult position of having to choose between liberalising the entire HS tariff line at 6-digit leve l, which would entail unint ended liberalisation for 
many non environmental goods, or facing signifi cant additional costs.  The room document 
highlighted other similar difficulties that Member s had faced in the context of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA).   
296. The second point raised in the room document w as that even where an ex out was created in 
the cases where the product had some characteristics th at made it suitable for environmental uses, the 
customs authorities would still need to determine at the border whether the product satisfied those 
characteristics.  This process could involve additiona l complications, particularly since most Members 
were moving towards a more simplified HS classification system.   
297. Finally, India noted that some delegations had referred to the clarifications provided in the 
technical discussions regarding the use of ex outs, su ggesting that this was not a real problem.  India 
considered that the issue had not been resolved.  For in stance, his delegation had raised a question 
regarding specifically products that were classified under the HS on the basis of their end use.   
298. The representative of Egypt
 expressed his delegation's support for the room document 
submitted by Brazil, China, India and South Africa a nd noted that his delegation had also participated 
in the elaboration of the ideas and the conclusions presented therein.   
299. The representative of the United States  made a comment regarding the circulation of room 
documents, noting that if delegations wanted their id eas to be reflected in the record of the meeting, 
they would have to submit them in a formal paper.  In the US' view, the formal submissions that were 
listed on the annotated agenda for the meeting should be taken up first in the discussions.   
300. The representative of China  said that the three technical discussions in the CTESS had been 
helpful in terms of understanding better the list approach.  These discussions had raised a number of TN/TE/R/16 
Page 54  
 
difficulties, including questions of a cross-cutting natu re, such as the issue of multiple uses.  The room 
document circulated by China, India, Brazil and South Africa only addressed one of these technical 
difficulties, namely those that related to the HS syst em.  China believed that there were other concerns 
related to the identification of environmental goods , such as the problems linked to the concept of 
environmental benefit and environmentally prefer able products.  He emphasized that there were 
inherent difficulties in drawing a clear cut envir onmental line between one product and another, and 
this had naturally led to the divergence of views ove r the issues of dual or multiple uses.  Moreover, 
the list approach did not appropriately deal with  services, transfer of technologies and NTBs.   
301. The representative of India
 said that Members should be free to express their opinions on any 
particular subject in the Committee, and that it was important that such opinions could be spelt out in 
a document so that Members could debate and unders tand the issues.  India offered to read out the 
content of the room document for the benefit of the discussion at the meeting.  The authors could submit it later on as a formal document should there be  a procedural problem with it being circulated 
as a room document.   
302. The representative of Argentina
 thanked India for circulating the room document and said that 
his delegation endorsed the conclusions presented therein, namely that based on the technical 
discussions that were held between April and June  it appeared that multiple use had emerged as a 
problem in the discussions on product coverage;  fo r the majority of environmental goods, multiple 
use was a function of their ubiquitous nature for u ses other than environmenta l;  ex-outs could not be 
used to effectively "design in" single environmen tal use into the HS;  ex-outs would in most cases 
lead to additional costs and other problems relate d to implementation;  and finally, without an 
adequate solution to the problem of multiple use, a large loophole would be created, which would 
undermine the credibility of the negotiations.   
303. The representative of Egypt  said with regard to the procedural  questions raised by the US that 
the room document circulated at the meeting set out  the views of a number of delegations on a set of 
issues addressed in the debate.  His delegation did not see a difference between these views being 
presented in a paper or in a statement delivered at the meeting.  It was not unheard of within the WTO 
that documents be circulated at the last moment, and in any case after the circ ulation of the convening 
notice announcing the meeting.   
304. The representative of Mexico  thanked the delegations of Brazil, China, India and 
South Africa for introducing their document.  Mexico  shared the concerns of a technical nature 
highlighted in the room document, namely, those rela ted to multiple use products.  Mexico wished to 
associate itself with the appeal formulated in the room document to find a solution to the issue of 
multiple uses, which could have a negative impact on progress in the negotiations.  With regard to the 
issue of procedures, Mexico had an open mind, especi ally since it shared most of the concerns raised 
in the room document.   
305. The representative of Ecuador  expressed her delegation's support for the statement presented 
by China, India and South Africa, as well as th e comments made by the delegations of Egypt, 
Argentina and Mexico on the various problems highlight ed in the technical discussions with respect to 
the list of environmental goods. 
306. The Chairman  suggested that the text of the room docum ent be incorporated into the record of 
the meeting.   
307. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation could not agree to the Chair's 
suggestion that the room document be reflect ed in the record of the meeting.   
308. The representative of India , also on behalf of Brazil , China  and South Africa  proceeded to 
read out the room document circulated at the meeti ng.  He first recalled that this document was based  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 55 
 
 
on the informal technical discussions of the CTESS th at had been held between April and June 2006.  
These discussions were intended to focus on goods with  single environmental use.  He noted that of 
the 443 entries appearing in th e Secretariat's compilation11 for which HS codes had been provided, 
very few items met the criterion of single environmen tal end-use.  This also confirmed the findings of 
the OECD/Eurostat Informal Working Group that the industrial product classification codes were not 
a particularly usable system for attempting to speci fically or uniquely classify environmental goods.   
309. The issue of multiple uses arose because the HS was not specific enough to capture 
environmental goods.  Using ex-outs to "drill down" to single use from multiple use was not an option.  Extensive recourse to ex-outs could actuall y give rise to further problems, especially at the 
implementation stage where the individual WTO Member s would need to do further work to apply the 
WTO commitments at the border.  In India's view, it was up to each Member to determine the most 
suitable way to implement the concessions based on its  experience, practice, legal constraints and the 
organization of its customs service.   
310. The use of 8-, 9-, and 10-digit HS codes for domestic implementa tion could be quite 
straightforward and transparent when a Member ha d such definition in its national nomenclature.  
However, for many developing country Members w hose tariff structure was simple, i.e. at the HS 
6-digit level, codes at the 8-, 9-, or 10-digit leve l were non-existent or we re beyond their capabilities 
to create.  Thus, these countries faced a choice either  to make the necessary ch anges in their national 
tariff nomenclature and follow through with adequate  implementation measures and procedures, or to 
liberalize the corresponding HS 6-digit tariff line in its entirety.  Taking such a decision required comparing the costs of complex implementation to the costs of foregone tariff revenue in the case of 
"wholesale" liberalization.  
311. The relevant questions, therefore, were as follo ws:  how much of the HS 6-digit tariff line was 
accounted for by the underlying (environmental) good, a nd what was the value of trade in this good.  
While the latter question could be answered relativ ely easily, the former required in-depth analysis 
based on information that may not be readily available.   In other words, extensive recourse to ex-outs 
actually meant that many developing country Member s could end up liberalizing more than what was 
required by the agreement that they would have negotiated.  Being cognizant of this risk, some 
Members could put in place special provisions, e.g. in the form of licensing or end-use certificates, which were often described as NTBs.   
312. Concern about the difficulties stemming from implementing ex-outs domestically was the 
main reason for keeping those to an absolute minimum in the WTO negotiations.  The ITA was an 
important reference in this regard.  India noted  that while one list in the ITA was relatively 
straightforward and contained few ex-outs, there had been extensive on-going technical work to 
correct some of the problems created by a second list, which contained essentially only ex-outs.  Experience with the ITA had revealed the difficulties of ensuring consistent interpretation of customs 
classification, leading to disagreements among trade negotiators as well as between customs 
authorities and traders.  If there was an overall le sson to be drawn from th is and other relevant 
experiences, it was that ex-outs had been and shoul d remain the exception rather than the rule.   
313. Based on the above, India inferred that:  (1) Mu ltiple use had emerged as a main problem in 
the discussions on product coverage;  (2) For the ma jority of "environmental goods", multiple use was 
a function of their ubiquitous nature for uses other th an environmental;  (3) Ex-outs could not be used 
to effectively "design in" single environmental use into  the HS;  (4)  Ex-outs would in most cases lead 
to additional costs and other problem s related to implementation;  (5) Without an adequate solution to 
the problem of multiple use, a large loophol e would be created, which would undermine the 
credibility of these negotiations.   
                                                     
 
11 TN/TE/W/63.   TN/TE/R/16 
Page 56  
 
314. The delegations of Egypt
 and Cuba  asked that the name of their delegation be added to the list 
of co-sponsors of the room document.   
315. The representative of Chile  said that his delegation did not understand from the rules of 
procedure that a room document had to be read out in  order for it to be included in the minutes of a 
meeting.  Chile therefore wished to reserve its pos ition with respect to the procedural points raised by 
the US.   
316. The representative of the United States  asked whether the document that had been read out 
could be filed as a formal document in order to be more easily retrieved.   
317. The representative of Bolivia  said that her delegation sup ported the statement by the 
delegation of India.   
318. The representative of Thailand , also on behalf of Malaysia  and Indonesia , thanked the 
delegation of India for its room document which outl ined the lessons learned from attempts to capture 
environmental goods through national HS codes.  He  agreed that the technical discussions had shed 
light on the usefulness of using ex outs as a tool for defining environmental goods under Paragraph 31(iii).  In his view, this was further complicated by the fact th at the majority of goods 
proposed were multiple use items.  This raised furthe r concerns in that for some of these multiple use 
items, there was no reliable data sep arating the environmental use fro m other industrial or commercial 
uses.  Thailand also agreed that th e use of ex outs should remain the exception rather than the rule.   
319. Thailand was concerned that the issue of multiple use presented a potentially large loophole 
which could not be adequately dealt with.  It was only when his delegation would be fully convinced 
that the ex-out approach could solve this problem that it would consider the goods identified on the 
basis of this approach.  In Thailand's view, the ex -out option did not seem to provide a solution that 
would lead to a win-win outcome in the negotiati ons.  Nevertheless, his delegation was committed to 
engage further with other delegati ons with a view to achieving an acceptable outcome on this matter.   
320. The representative of the EC
 asked India about the conclusion presented in the room 
document that ex outs could not be used to effectivel y design in single environmental use into the HS.  
The EC sought the views of the WCO on whether ther e was a practical problem to effectively identify 
single environmental use with an ex out under the HS .  With regard to the suggestion that ex outs 
would in most cases lead to additional costs and othe r problems related to implementation, he agreed 
that ex outs could be an additional burden for custom s officials.  However, in the EC's view, this 
would be less significant than the burden of implementing the project approach, since the national authority clearance required under the EPA would be more costly, more administratively cumbersome 
and could run counter to the negotiations in the area of trade facilitation. 
321. The representative of Uruguay
 introduced her delegati on's non-paper in document 
JOB(06)/144 entitled "Negotiations on Environmental Goods:  Proposal by Uruguay".  This document 
recognized that despite much effort, the discu ssions in the CTESS on a possible definition of 
environmental goods had not led to any conclusion.  Uruguay wanted to contribute to the debate by 
presenting its perspective as a developing country th at gave great importance to the environment both 
in its national policies and at the international level.   
322. Uruguay believed that the lists put forward to date had not led to any progress in the 
negotiations, in particular due to their size and the di versity of definitions used by the proponents in 
identifying environmental goods.  These lists ha d not brought any balanced progress in the 
negotiations since the products they contained we re for the most part industrial goods of export 
interest to developed country Members.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 57 
 
 
323. The CTESS had been entrusted with the difficult task of establishing criteria that would be 
comprehensive enough to encompass the various con cepts of environmental goods and services, as 
well as the aspirations of all Members.  In Ur uguay's view, the Committee should aim at selecting a 
limited number of environmental goods with the objec tive of drawing up a reduced list on the basis of 
agreed criteria in order to ensure transparency to  this process.  The discussions should not be limited 
to goods whose liberalization could contribute to improving the environment;  it should also extend to 
goods that could contribute to the social developm ent of developing country Members.  As the Doha 
Round had been named the "Development Round", the de velopment aspect could not be left out of the 
discussions in the CTESS.   
324. According to her delegation, there was a very  important road already travelled at the 
international level in terms of environmental agre ements and understandings, which should be taken 
into account in the negotiations under Paragrap h 31(iii).  Moreover, the determination of the 
environmental or non-environmental nature of a good or service required mutual support by the WTO 
and other international organizations  competent in the area of environment, and in particular MEAs.  
Uruguay hoped that the WTO and MEAs could coopera te and interact in order to establish how to 
define environmental goods and services  for the purpose of the negotiations. 
325. To this end, Uruguay had proposed that the CTESS first identified e nvironmental goods and 
services on the basis of the concept of "environmen tal activities", consisting in the activities of an 
MEA, or recognized as such through certain methodologies or approval of projects.  Uruguay also suggested that the exportable goods and services de rived from such environmental activities be listed 
by the CTESS as environmental goods that would be s ubject to reduction or elimination of tariff and 
non-tariff barriers established in compliance with  the Doha mandate.  Furthermore, these 
environmental projects or activities would require inte rnational certification, as the mere declaration 
by a national authority would not be sufficient.   
326. According to Uruguay, this proposal presented sever al advantages:  first, the liberalisation of 
environmental goods and services under paragra ph 31(iii) would reflect the commitments and 
understandings already agreed upon in the context of MEAs;  second, the MEA system would provide 
a guarantee to the multilateral trading system in r espect of this specific matter thereby strengthening 
cooperation and synergy between the two regimes;  third, Members would have an opportunity to 
export selected environmental goods and services derived from their own projects or plans in 
accordance with their national inter ests and needs, which would be be neficial to developing country 
Members;  finally, this would open the door to a negotiation based on the offensive interests of all 
Members.   
327. The representative of India
 said that its submission in TN/TE/W/67 was aimed at responding 
to some of the questions that had already been ra ised with respect to the EPA.  According to this 
approach, Members would give reduction or concessi ons with regard to tariff and non-tariff barriers 
on environmental goods and services included in nati onal projects.  These projects would be for any 
environmental objective that would be decided in the CTESS.  The EPA was aimed at addressing both 
the environmental and developmental goals of the Doha Development Agenda and Agenda 21 
through trade liberalization.   
328. India had already provided at a previous CTESS meeting a country-specific example of this 
approach.  His delegation had also explained that  the EPA would help achieve the objectives of the 
mandate in a more effective and comprehensive ma nner than the list approach.  In pursuance of its 
continued engagement and with a view to convince other delegations, India ha d submitted this fourth 
contribution on the subject to demonstrate that the EPA was in line with the overall goal and workings 
of the WTO, that it would help achieve sustaina ble development objectives and that it would bring 
synergy between trade and the environment.   TN/TE/R/16 
Page 58  
 
329. India further emphasized that a project-based or  sector-specific approach was not new to the 
WTO.  The Uruguay Round negotiations, for instance, had addressed sector-specific issues, namely in 
the field of chemicals and pharmaceutical products, me dical equipments, and in formation technology.  
Another example was the Doha Declaration on th e TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which 
focused on finding solutions to public health  issues relating to diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, malaria and other ep idemics.  The WTO thus provided a regulatory framework to find 
common solutions, such as the elimination of tari ffs, or to create necessary policy space for Member 
countries to address problems unilaterally, such as by recourse to compulsory licensing of patented drugs.  These were not limited to exemptions onl y by means of specific sector-related waivers 
adopted on the basis of Articles IX.3 and IX.4 of the WTO Agreement.  Rather, they predominantly 
consisted of rules defining policy space and limit ations that Members needed to observe.  India 
thought that these decisions showed that Members were able to address sector-specific objectives 
within the general WTO regulatory framework and th at the EPA was therefore not an exception.  The 
EPA was in line with the general structure of the multilateral trading system and provided an appropriate answer to addressing the specific environmental problems of Members.   
330. In response to the argument that the EPA did not provide predictability or transparency by 
failing to bring about binding commitments, Indi a noted that the underlying philosophy of the EPA 
actually addressed these objectives.  According to India, the EPA multilaterally defined policy space 
for Members to tackle and address their environmental problems in a manner that was efficient and commensurate with their needs and levels of de velopment.  Moreover, the EPA defined the WTO 
framework within which Members would undertake a nd implement specific projects.  It sought to 
define the boundaries and parameters by which pr ivileged market access could be granted for the 
products required in the environmental projects.  The EPA also included parameters within which 
such projects could be undertaken, as well as crit eria that would be applied by any Designated 
National Authority (DNA) to determine whether a proposed environmental project qualified for tariff 
concessions on environmental goods and services.  Indi a thought that these criteria could be laid out 
by the CTESS or negotiated ex ante and enshrined in an appropriate instrument, and that this 
framework, whatever its appropriate form, w ould be binding upon national authorities. 
331. Concerning the arguments related to the lack of novelty offered by the EPA, given that 
Members would unilaterally undertake and implemen t the environmental projects, India noted that 
unilateral action by Members did not ensure privilege d tariff access to other Members.  Furthermore, 
the importance and value of creating an appropria te legal framework in the WTO needed to be 
recognized in this context.  Any agreement in CTESS on definitions and criteria for environmental 
projects would create predictability and legal security  to this arrangement.  In addition, it would not 
only address global environmental objec tives but also individual national environmental goals.  In this 
regard, the EPA was both needs-based and objective- oriented.  Finally, since the adopted global 
projects would be as per agreement in the CTESS,  the domestic implementation of the framework 
would be subject to dispute settlement, as in other areas of WTO law.  Administrative decisions could 
be reviewed as was the case for determinations  of anti-dumping and countervailing measures under 
the relevant WTO Agreements by pa nels and the Appellate Body.  This  would enable traders to assess 
conditions for participation and market access.  The se legal commitments enhanced legal security of 
the EPA.   
332. On the question as to whether the EPA provi ded transparency, it was clear from India's 
submission that the DNA would "perform the function of a nodal information point for all aspects of 
trade in environmental goods and services involved in  environmental projects".  Suppliers of products 
would therefore be able to address queries and obtain information from DNA as an enquiry point, comparable to the ones established under Article 10 of the TBT Agreement.  According to India, these 
facilities would be beneficial to all traders and investors alike.   
333. The operation of enquiry points did not present any disadvantages for SMEs.  All interested 
parties would be in a position to make  offers relating to products and technology on sale.  In addition,  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 59 
 
 
it could be suggested that the adopted project s be formally notified to the WTO, providing 
information on scope and duration.  This, in turn, would further enable traders to assess conditions for 
participation and market access, and would also render the support of governments more feasible in 
disseminating information relating to the EPA taking  place abroad.  All these elements amounted to 
legal commitments which Members could take with in the EPA, thereby enhancing legal security and 
predictability.  In India's view, it would be wrong to reduce the concept of commitments to formal 
tariff reductions and bindings. 
334. With respect to the comment that the EPA ope rated within bound commitments and did not 
offer additional bound tariff concessions, India pointed out that environmental goods were in any case 
included in the product coverage of the ongoing ta riff negotiations in both NAMA and Agriculture, 
and that the EPA offered additional binding ta riff concessions.  The CTESS would agree on the 
appropriate criteria, definition, and types of e nvironmental projects, and the goods imported for the 
projects would be eligible for appropriate tariff c oncessions.  This would provi de predictability to the 
exporting countries, and Member countries impl ementing such environmental projects would 
therefore guarantee additional market access on agreed terms for the duration of the project.  This 
binding would also be available for spare parts for the equipment or goods used in the project.  
Regarding scheduling of Members' commitments under this approach, the format could be finalized 
by taking into consideration the different kinds of  schedules used in the WTO under different types of 
agreements, such as the GATT or GATS.   
335. According to India, the EPA was fully comp atible with the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) 
principle under GATT.  In fact, specific products were often given privileged market access, but the 
origin of these product was not relevant.  Pref erential access was not granted because the product 
originated in a particular Member country, as it wa s the case under a FTA;  it was granted because it 
complied with the conditions and requirements of the project.  Therefore, products from all Members were equally qualified to compete and the privile ge only applied to the products chosen for the 
project.  India noted that the EPA adhered to the MFN principle better than several practices presently 
followed by Members, such as country specific ta riff rate quotas, where the same product received 
different tariff treatment depending on its origin  and on the quantity of imports.  In any case, 
Members were entitled to rely upon the criteria relati ng to the end-uses of products in a given market, 
and to that extent, a product used for a specifi c environmental purpose could be distinguished from 
the same products used for a different purpose.  India referred in this regard to the Border Tax 
Adjustment Report adopted on 2 December 1970.   
336. In summary, the EPA was in line with the ove rall goal and workings of the WTO.  This 
approach was best suited to achieve the objectives  enshrined in the preamble to the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the WTO.  The role of the Designated National Authorit y could be defined in 
a manner that provided transparency and access to pr oject-related information.  Moreover, any other 
legal concerns could always be taken into account  while negotiating an appropriate framework and 
agreement on the subject.  India invited Members to  be forward looking and to recognize the need to 
address the mandate in a holistic manner.  By adopt ing a pragmatic and innovative approach such as 
the EPA, Members could reap both environmental a nd developmental benefits from the negotiations 
under Paragraph 31(iii).  India looked forward to the further engageme nt of other delegations on the 
subject. 
337. The representative of Korea
 thanked Uruguay and India for presenting their documents.  
With regard to the proposal by Uruguay, Korea noted that defining "environmental activities" could 
be just as difficult as defining environmental goods.  In addition, issues relating to the definition or 
scope of MEAs could also arise.  With respect to Uruguay's focus in its proposal on exportable goods, 
Korea noted that win-win-win results under the mandate could also be  generated by imported 
environmental goods.  Moreover, Korea noted that  the requirement regarding the international 
certification of national projects or plans called fo r a new international mechanism that could be 
cumbersome and superfluous.   TN/TE/R/16 
Page 60  
 
338. With regard to the submission by India on th e EPA, Korea noted that establishing criteria, 
definition, or types of environmental projects would not be an easy task for the CTESS.  Even if Members could agree on criteria for identifying environmental projects, the decision regarding the application of such criteria as well as the selection of relevant projects would still be taken by the 
designated national authorities.  This could create problems of arbitrariness and lack of reliability.  
Moreover, the temporary nature of the concessions  under the EPA would create unpredictability for 
the producers of environmental goods.   
339. The representative of Cuba
 said that his delegation consider ed India's EPA to be the most 
effective way of fulfilling the mandate under paragra ph 31(iii).  With regard to Uruguay's paper, Cuba 
noted that Members should consider more carefu lly the proposal that MEAs could assist in the 
process of defining environmental goods.  However, Cuba noted that the MEAs dealt with global 
environmental problems and that national environmenta l considerations would also need to be taken 
into account in order to fulfil the mandate.   
340. The representative of the US  thanked the delegation of Urugua y and India for their papers.  
With regard to the EPA, the US delegation noted th at it considered it as a modality proposal.  The US 
continued to believe that a bottom-up, list-based approach was best suited to help achieve real, 
long-term results under the paragraph 31(iii) manda te.  The US acknowledged that the list approach 
was not perfect;  however it was the most pragmatic , WTO-consistent approach on the table and one 
that would allow Members to advance trade and environment objectives simultaneously.  The US also believed that the discussions to date had undersco red for many delegations the importance of being 
true to the mandate and to the basic principles of the WTO. 
341. Despite this latest effort by India to elabor ate on its proposal, the US remained unconvinced 
that India's proposed approach could deliver the kind of long term benefits that WTO Members and their exporters, consumers and ot hers had come to expect from WTO and from the Doha Agenda.  
Furthermore, the US was still not convinced th at India's proposed approach could deliver 
environmental benefits.  The US believed that  the EPA not only failed to deliver trade and 
environment benefits, but that it also continued to raise questions about the WTO compatibility of 
such programs generally.   
342. Her delegation had already set out in previous meetings its concerns regarding India's EPA, 
including the lack of transparency  and predictability, as well as the crippling bureaucracy related to 
such an approach.  While all of these concerns rema ined, the US wished to focus its intervention on a 
few specific points.  First, the US noted that India's proposal did not and could not deliver on the 
mandate.  The EPA called for the designation of pa rticular projects as "environmental" and then, 
based on that designation, allowed the imports for that project to be subject to reduced tariffs that had 
not been specified.  In other words, as India itself described, the concessions granted would be 
entirely project-driven.  In the US' views, this focu s on the project as the sole determinant of whether 
an import would receive duty reduction for its e nvironmental benefit was not consistent with 
paragraph 31(iii), which called upon Members to consider means to eliminate barriers to 
"environmental goods and services".  The mandate wa s clear in its use of "environmental" as the 
qualifier.  It was therefore the goods and services, in and of themselves, that were to serve an 
environmental purpose, and not a project where so me good would be utilized.  The US also thought 
that the ministers did not envision temporary reducti ons of tariff and non-tariff barriers that would be 
limited to the duration of certain projects.  Instead , they intended binding, long-term commitments to 
reduce or eliminate these barriers to trade in envi ronmental goods in accordance with the workings of 
the WTO.   
343. Second, the US remained concerned about the WTO compatibility of the proposal more 
generally.  Specifically, the US was not convinced by India's assertion that its approach did not conflict with the MFN principle set out in Article I of the GATT 1994.  It was the US' understanding 
that under the EPA, a given product, if used fo r an environmental project pre-approved by the  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 61 
 
 
Designated National Authority, would receive a lower tariff rate than the exact same product used for 
some other purpose, or imported by a direct consum er.  India had suggested that this approach was 
consistent with the MFN obligation because the tari ff reductions were given without reference to the 
origin of the imported product.  However, even wit hout such explicit reference to origin, the identical 
product from two different sources could be subject to differential tariff treatment:  a lower tariff for a 
product used in an environmental project, and a higher tariff for the same product not used in the 
project.   
344. India had noted that according to the Border  Tax Adjustments Working Party Report, the 
"end-uses of a product in a given market" could serve as a basis to distinguish one product from 
another, in particular, to distinguish a product used for an environmental project from a product not 
used in that context.  The US was interested in  hearing more about this legal rationale.  Along the 
same line, the US noted that when seeking to elaborate how a "like product" might be defined, the cited portion of the BTA Working Party Report referre d to "[s]ome criteria" that might be used, only 
one of which was a product's end-use.  This, in the US' view, was followed in GATT and WTO panels 
and Appellate Body Reports, which had refused to make a "like produc t" determination solely on the 
basis of one characteristic but rather had examined a number of criteria, including end-use.  
Therefore, the US thought that it was not clear how India's suggestion to distinguish products solely on the basis of end-use would fit w ith this established practice.  In addition, it appeared that even 
when end-use was considered as a criterion in dis pute settlement cases, this criterion did not refer to 
the specific project that the imported product would be used for;  rather, "end-use" was determined on the basis of the general activity for which that product was typically employed.  The US sought 
further explanation from India on how such differe ntial treatment to identical products would be 
consistent with the MFN obligation.  
345. Concerning customs procedures, the US was of  the view that the details of domestic 
implementation of the project approach remained  unclear.  The US once again invited India to 
elaborate on its experience in implementing its own program.  To this end, the US sought answers to 
the following questions:  once a project was approve d by the Designated National Authority, how was 
the tariff concession bound as suggested in paragraph 5 of the Indian paper?  Moreover, once the 
project was approved, was the relevant product perm itted to enter simply by the importer presenting a 
certification of end-use with the bill of lading or  were there any additional requirements?  Would 
India consider these additional steps appropriate in  light of the trade fac ilitation negotiations being 
conducted "with a view to further expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods"?   
346. The US also expressed concern about how India envisioned the EPA would interact with the 
WTO dispute settlement mechanism.  The US no ted India's suggestion that the CTESS would 
formulate criteria to be employed by the Desi gnated National Authority in  determining whether a 
particular project qualified for tariff concessions.  The US also noted that India appeared to 
acknowledge that the failure of the Designated Nationa l Authority to grant concessions to a particular 
project, in accordance with the established criteria,  could be challenged before a WTO panel.  
However, the US thought that a favourable ruling from a panel or the Appellate Body would be an 
empty victory, to the extent that projects were inherently time-bound and could not afford to wait for 
the completion of dispute settlement proceedin gs before importing their necessary inputs.  
Furthermore, given the case-by-case nature of the project approach, it was unlikely that any dispute settlement decision would positively influence in any meaningful way subsequent decisions made by 
the Designated National Authority.  This, in the US' view, reinforced the notion of unpredictability 
and increased transaction costs inherent in the EPA. 
347. India had suggested that administrative decisions on the designation of projects and the 
consequent tariffs imposed on imports could be re viewed along the lines of reviewing determinations 
of anti-dumping and countervailing measures under th e WTO Agreements by dispute panels and the 
Appellate Body.  This suggestion appeared to be pr emised on the existence of a particular type of 
review accorded to anti-dumping and countervailing measures in dispute settlement.  The US invited TN/TE/R/16 
Page 62  
 
India to articulate what sort of review this would en tail and, in particular, how  this review might differ 
in cases involving other trade-related measures.   The US also asked what were the common 
characteristics shared by anti-dumping and counter vailing measures on the one hand, and decisions 
taken pursuant to the project approach, on the other ha nd, so as to warrant the same type of treatment 
by dispute settlement panels.  For example, did India envision the Designated National Authority to 
arrive at its decisions on particular projects followi ng a quasi-judicial or inv estigative process akin to 
that followed by investigating authorities in dumpi ng and subsidy cases?  If so, the US wondered if 
such an exhaustive process would be practical an d cost-effective for companies to employ when 
seeking to import goods at reduced tariffs, and if su ch a procedure would be  consistent with the 
objective of the mandate to encourage and to re duce barriers to trade in environmental goods and 
services. 
348. These questions and concerns raised by the US we re in addition to those already raised in 
respect of previous submissions related to the pr oject approach.  The US underscored that these were 
not technical issues such as how one might compose a particular ex-out from its tariffs schedule, but rather, these were fundamental questions that stroke  at the core of the WTO agreements.  The US 
delegation noted it had only grown more concerned a bout this type of approach with each new paper 
put forward, and that it did not see any future  for this type of unilateral import scheme for 
environmental goods or in the WTO system more generally.   
349. Turning to Uruguay's paper, the US said that it agreed with many of the points highlighted, 
including Uruguay's assessment that the idea of determining environmental goods on the basis of projects that rested exclusively on national criteria w as in principle contrary to the mandate and to the 
essence of the WTO agreements.  The US also ag reed that it would be difficult for the CTE to 
establish a criterion that would cover all of the di fferent conceptualizatio ns and aspirations of 
Members, and expressed its interest in exploring Ur uguay's alternative to use the broader concept of 
environmental activities.   
350. The US believed that the categories that Memb ers had used to identify individual products 
could be considered as "environmental activities", in cluding for instance the categories of waste water 
treatment, hazardous waste management, air pollution control, renewable energy, natural resources 
protection, and remediation and clean up of soil a nd water.  The US further agreed with Uruguay's 
observation that many of these categories consisted of activities covered by MEAs.  For example, the 
US had proposed devices which were effective at reducing sea turtle mortality and preserving 
endangered species, which was completely in line with the objectives of CITES.  However, the US 
did not agree that goods which fell within these e nvironmental activities or categories should qualify 
for tariff reduction or elimination only in the event that they were used in internationally certified 
projects.  In fact, the US did not understand why Members would want to limit liberalization of these goods to special projects, nor did it understand ho w the added bureaucracy of an international 
certification or administration as such would be desi rable or workable.  Such bureaucracy, in the US' 
view, would appear to stunt any potential trade or environmental gains.   
351. The US reiterated that many of the ideas cont ained in Uruguay's paper could help identify a 
set of environmental goods that Members would be in terested in exploring further.  However, once 
identified, the US felt that these goods should not face increased bureaucracy or market access hurdles 
but should rather be given improved market access so  that they could rapidl y deliver environmental 
and other benefits to the widest group of consumers.   
352. The representative of Chile
 thanked the delegations of I ndia and Uruguay for their proposals 
and said his comments would focus on the latter.  First, Chile thanked Uruguay for its interesting 
approach based on the relationship between th e WTO and MEAs, which seemed to address the 
mandate of paragraph 31 in a more a holistic manner.   Second, regarding the last paragraph of the 
introductory part of the document where Uruguay po inted out that a project-based approach was not 
only contrary to the mandate but to the very essence of the WTO agreements, Chile sought more  TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 63 
 
 
elaboration from Uruguay.  In Chile's view, the proposal by Uruguay seemed to incorporate certain aspects of a project-based approach.  Third, like Korea, Chile noted that the identification or 
definition of "environmental activities" would raise problems similar to those faced by Members with respect to the identification of environmental goods, or the identification of "specific trade 
obligations" under Paragraph 31(i).  Fourth, with regard to Uruguay's suggestion that exportable 
goods which derived from the said environmen tal activities would be listed by CTESS as 
environmental goods and would therefore qualify for the reduction or elimination of tariffs and NTBs 
in accordance with the Doha mandate, Chile wanted to know what would happen with respect to the 
goods that would not be listed by the CTESS.  Ch ile presumed that these goods would nevertheless 
qualify for a tariff reduction pursuant to the Doha mandate on non-agricultural products in the context 
of the NAMA negotiations. Lastly, Chile asked Uruguay to elaborate further on the concept of 
international certification.  Chile agreed there was some justification for not leaving it up to the 
national authority to define what were the rele vant environmental activities or environmental goods 
covered by the mandate.  However, his delegation w as not clear as to what Uruguay had in mind with 
regard to an international certification process.   
353. Chile hoped delegations could find a constructive way forward in the discussions under 
paragraph 31(iii).  Members needed to keep an open mind with respect to the list and project approach 
in order to find an intermediary solution, since bot h approaches seemed to have their own merits and 
drawbacks.  Chile hoped that the next meeting woul d see a constructive engagement on the part of all 
delegations.   
354. The representative of Mexico
 thanked the delegations of India and Uruguay for presenting 
their documents.  In her delegation' s view, both papers had merits in seeking to offer a response to the 
question of how to guarantee that a good that would receive better tariff treatment would in fact be used for an environmental purpose.   
355. With regard to the Indian proposal, Mexico had questions regarding how the EPA could be 
implemented within the rules of the multilateral tr ading system, for instance in how it would interact 
with the DSU.  Furthermore, Mexico noted India' s assertion in the last part of paragraph 6 that 
"Members are entitled to rely upon the criteria relati ng to the end-uses of products in a given market, 
to that extent a product used for a specific envi ronmental purpose could be distinguished from the 
same products used for a different purpose."  Ac cording to Mexico, this was the basis of the 
discussion under paragraph 31(iii).  
356. Mexico thanked Uruguay for its efforts to pr opose criteria that could guide Members in 
fulfilling the mandate.  Her delegation had some questi ons with respect to the proposal.  With regard 
to the question of international certification, Me xico asked how such a procedure would work.  
Moreover, Mexico was not clear how the criteria based on environmental activities covered by MEAs 
would help channel the environmental goods discussion.   With regard to paragraph 4 of the paper, 
which provided that "environmental activities would consist in those activities covered by an MEA 
and recognized by this MEA through the recognitio n of methodologies or the approval of related 
projects", Mexico asked how this concept relate d to Uruguay's assertion that one of the stated 
advantages of this negotiating approach was that  "the reference for the definition and trade 
liberalization of environmental goods and services under Paragraph 31(iii) would be the commitments 
and understandings already agreed on in the context of the MEAs."  More concretely, Mexico wanted 
to know whether Uruguay understood environmental ac tivities to be part of the commitments and 
understandings achieved in MEAs, or synonymous with them.   
357. The representative of Australia
 thanked both Uruguay and India for their papers.  She noted 
that Australia shared many of the sentiments e xpressed in the paper by Uruguay.  For instance, 
Uruguay seemed to share Australia's view that some of the products put forward did not warrant their 
inclusion on a list of environmental goods.  Austra lia shared Uruguay's concerns that including goods 
on a list on the basis of PPM criteria carried with it  the risk of creating unjustified NTBs, which her TN/TE/R/16 
Page 64  
 
delegation recognized had particular  implications for developing c ountry Members.  Australia also 
noted that EPPs could have environmental costs of production that Members needed to consider when 
analyzing proposals for inclusion of such products on a list of environmental goods.  Australia further 
shared Uruguay's concern that the project approach appeared to rest on determination by individual 
Members and was contrary to the principles of th e multilateral trading system enshrined in the WTO 
agreements.   
358. In relation to the specific question regarding the need for criteria, Australia believed that the 
criteria of clear and direct environmental benefit was extremely useful.  The categories that Members had been examining also provided a useful basi s for the discussion of goods on the lists.  While 
Australia agreed that MEAs could contribute usefu lly to the discussions, for instance, by providing 
information to the CTESS in their role as ad hoc i nvitees, Australia was less  clear that identifying 
environmental goods on the basis of activities cove red by MEAs would progress the discussion.  
In particular, Australia noted that often MEAs cove red specific issues, such as biodiversity or ozone 
depletion but not, for example, monitoring of environmental degradation, or soil and water 
remediation.  Many of the issues that Australia thought should be covered in  a list of environmental 
goods were more nationally based and were theref ore not covered by international environmental 
agreements.   
359. Australia noted that MEAs often provided a nega tive list, for instance in the context of the 
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and it was not clear to Australia 
whether the proposal by Uruguay would extend beyond those products covered in the list or whether 
it would extend to all environmental goods having any relationship to the protection of the ozone 
layer.  In Australia's view, the process would genera te a substantial work load for MEA Secretariats, 
which existed to manage the operation of the agreem ent rather than to act as a certifying agent for 
trade purposes.  
360. Australia thanked India for its recent submission and for the further clarification it provided to 
the project approach.  However, Australia continued to have serious reservations regarding the project 
approach.  Despite the clarifications offered in the paper, Australia still had difficulties understanding 
how India's proposal would fit within the WTO multilateral rules-based system, particularly with respect to the MFN principle.  Australia also shared the views expressed by other delegations 
regarding the need for transparency  and certainty for business.  More  specifically, Australia remained 
concerned about how SMEs would find the resources to get projects approved, even with some kind 
of fast-track approval process, or how they would secu re the benefits of projects in other countries.  
Australia was worried about the transaction costs and red tape created for businesses of all sizes in 
having to participate in a project approval pro cess overseen by a Designated National Authority to 
qualify for tariff reductions.   
361. Australia asked how the EPA would provide additional binding tariff concessions when no 
Member would be forced to undertake environmenta l projects.  In this regard, Australia was not 
convinced the EPA would really contribute to  fulfilling the mandate under paragraph 31(iii).  
Furthermore, Australia had some concerns regardi ng the application of the dispute settlement system 
to the EPA.  In her delegation's view, this could operate as a significant disincentive to both Member 
countries and businesses, with the potential threat of  dispute settlement action and the consequent 
uncertainty that this would produce.  Australia furthe r noted that it would not be a simple task for the 
CTESS to develop any criteria, definitions or types of  environmental projects.  Lastly, Australia asked 
how the EPA could be effectively scheduled in the manner that scheduling commitments currently 
operated.   
362. The representative of China
 thanked Uruguay and India for their efforts and contribution to 
the negotiations.  China welcomed India's paper, wh ich provided further clarif ications regarding the 
EPA.  The Chinese delegation believed that the EPA would be helpful to promote a solution on the 
environmental goods and services mandate and la id a good basis for future negotiations.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 65 
 
 
363. China further welcomed Uruguay's efforts to bri dge the gap between the different approaches 
and to explore possible solutions for the negotiations .  China shared Uruguay's analysis of the current 
difficulty in defining "environmen tal goods" and in assessing the envir onmental risks and benefits of 
these goods.  In order to avoid the difficulties of having to define envir onmental goods, Members had 
agreed to the principle of "defining by doing".  However, after three technical discussions, it seemed 
that the lack of definition or criteria for identif ying environmental goods was a barrier that prevented 
Members from moving forward in the negotiations.   
364. Uruguay had proposed that the CTESS identified environmental goods and services based on 
"environmental activities" covered or recognized by MEAs.  In China's view, if Members could reach 
consensus on their understanding of "environmental activities" related to MEAs and agree to judge 
environmental goods and services based on this  criterion, Uruguay's proposal could be an 
intermediate solution.  Furthermore, this pr oposal would also be conducive to enhancing the 
communication and cooperation between WTO and MEAs .  Nevertheless, China shared the concerns 
expressed by Chile and Mexico regarding Urugua y's proposal on international certification.  
Specifically, China sought further clarification fro m Uruguay on how international certification would 
be undertaken in practice, and which orga nization or entity would carry it out.   
365. The representative of South Africa  thanked Uruguay and India for their papers and said that 
she would focus her comments on the paper by Uruguay.  First, she noted that one of the fundamental problems with the list approach was its expansive coverage.  South Africa therefore welcomed the 
additional criteria proposed by Uruguay, and particularly how such criteria envisaged to reflect the interests of developing country Members.   
366. Regarding the linkage between the CTESS wo rk and the work undertaken in other 
international bodies, and particularly MEAs, Sout h Africa noted it was still reflecting on the possible 
implications of the proposal.  Although the areas of work undertaken by these organizations were 
considerable, South Africa pointed out that it w ould not necessarily cover all environmental activities 
undertaken nationally.  At the same time, it coul d also expand the coverage significantly, which 
would raise problems similar to those raised by the list approach.  South Africa asked how Uruguay's 
proposal would help refine the list of products rath er than expanding it.  In addition, South Africa 
sought clarification regarding the international certification process proposed by Uruguay, namely 
whether such a certification system would be sim ilar to a multilateral verification procedure, and how 
it would help Members deal with the complex issue of multiple uses.   
367. The representative of Egypt
 said that the value added of the submissions by India and 
Uruguay was that they focused discussions on the e nvironmental end.  As noted by South Africa, 
Egypt believed that the list approach had proven to be quite vast and expansive.  With respect to 
Uruguay's paper, Egypt wished to know how Member s would define "environm ental activities", given 
that Uruguay tied "environmental activities" entirely to MEAs.  He noted that the membership of 
these agreements was diverse and often different fr om the membership of the WTO.  Furthermore, 
Egypt felt that trying to agree on a definition of en vironmental activities would give rise to the same 
difficulties as those raised in the discussion of e nvironmental categories under the list approach.  
Therefore, Egypt asked for further clarification on the process of defining such activities.  For instance, he asked whether Members could be  selective about these activities or whether they 
would need to look at all environmental activities rela ted to the MEAs.  With respect to the issue of 
international certification, Egypt also sought some  clarification regarding the designated body that 
would undertake the certification.   
368. With regard to the Indian paper, Egypt thought that it clarified many of the questions that had 
been raised in previous discussions concerning th e EPA.  This approach provided a solution with 
respect to the identification of environmental goods, an issue that remained controversial under the list 
approach.  The EPA allowed Members to see the benef it of a product within a certain context, taking 
into account the environmental situation in different parts of the world.  Moreover, in Egypt's view, TN/TE/R/16 
Page 66  
 
India's paper allowed Members to look at the issu e of policy space and to address NTBs.  Egypt noted 
that it had been implementing environmental proj ects together with donor countries and had been 
successful so far in managing such projects, including from an administrative point of view.  In conclusion, Egypt believed that the contributions  by India and Uruguay would help refine the work 
of the Committee by bringing Members closer to an understanding of the end use of the products that 
were being examined.   
369. The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation consider ed the paper by Uruguay to be a 
valuable and significant contribution to the negotiatio ns.  Canada recognized the merit of the broader 
concept of environmental activities proposed by Ur uguay, which could be seen as complementary or 
similar to the categories of goods proposed, such as air pollution control;  water cleaning;  waste 
management;  and monitoring and assessment equipmen t, which was invaluable in the identification 
and remediation of environmental issues that many MEAs sought to address.  Canada noted 
Uruguay's suggestion that environmental activities would consist of activ ities "covered by an MEA 
and recognised by that MEA through the recognition of the methodologies or the approval of related 
projects."  Moreover, Canada agreed with Uruguay's view that the idea of determining environmental 
goods on the basis of projects resting exclusively on national criteria was in principle contrary not 
only to the mandate but also to the very essence of the WTO Agreements. 
370. Canada asked what tools and services could be us ed in this context to implement the actions 
of MEAs.  Additionally, Cana da asked how the identification of goods and services under 
paragraph 31(iii) would proceed on this  basis.  Canada also wished to know whether the concept of a 
"living list" would have any role to play in this process, especially given that the MEAs were 
addressing environmental issues on an ongoing basis.  Canada sought clarification as to why the paper 
focused on exports of environmental goods and not on imports.  Canada also appreciated the general 
principle that environmental activities would be conduc ive to the alleviation or eradication of poverty 
and promotion of health and sustainable devel opment and welcomed further discussions in this 
regard.  However, Canada expressed its reservati on concerning the requirement of international 
certification for environmental activities or progra mmes as this could be administratively burdensome 
and contrary to the goals of the mandate.   
371. Canada observed that Uruguay's focus on activ ities or projects seemed to exclude consumer 
products as environmental goods.  His delegation considered that indi vidual consumer choices played 
an important role in environmen tal protection and could help to address some of the international 
environmental and global issues that Members faced.   
372. With regard to India's submission, Canada sh ared many of the points raised by the US 
delegation.  Canada noted that the sector-specific agreements on market access mentioned by India, 
including on chemicals, medical equipment and in formation technology, seemed in fact to lend 
support to the list approach, since these various ag reements were based on a list of goods that had 
been identified for liberalisation.  With regard to the policy space and unilateral action underlying the 
Decision on TRIPS and Public Health cited by Indi a as an example supporting the project approach, 
Canada noted that it was appropria te to differentiate between the special circumstances of major 
public health problems that would need to be addressed in this context, and the broad-based, 
long-term environmental conditions that Members were seeking to address through paragraph 31(iii) 
negotiations.  Finally, Canada asked India to ela borate on the basis of a concrete example on how the 
EPA would offer predictability to SMEs in terms of market access opportunities for their exports of 
environmental goods.   
373. The representative of Argentina  thanked Uruguay and India for their submissions.  His 
delegation considered that the tw o papers provided useful elements  that could help progress in the 
negotiations.  Argentina asked Uruguay to explain with  a concrete example how its approach could be 
implemented.  More specifically, his delegation sou ght further clarification regarding the scope of 
"environmental activities".    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 67 
 
 
374. With regard to the Indian proposal, Argentina c onsidered that the paper clarified some of the 
issues and criticisms made by some delegations on the EPA.  Argentina had specific comments on 
paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Indian paper.  With re gard to India's suggestion in paragraph 4 that the 
domestic implementation of the framework would be subject to dispute settlement, Argentina agreed 
with India that this would give greater predictabilit y.  With respect to para graph 6, Argentina did not 
see any inconsistency between the EPA and the MFN pr inciple, given that the final use was also a 
distinctive factor in the identification of a product, as had been recognized in the jurisprudence of the 
Appellate Body.  If the determination of "like pro ducts" was based only on physical characteristics, 
Members would need to restrict themselves to th is criterion and to exclude from the discussions dual 
or multiple use products.  This was an issue that Members had been discussing for some time and for 
which no solution had been found.  In Argentina' s view, Members needed to explore new ideas such 
as those proposed by Uruguay and India in or der to find a way forward in CTESS discussions. 
375. The representative of New Zealand  first noted, with regard to the paper by Uruguay, that his 
delegation agreed with the assertion that "determini ng environmental goods on the basis of projects 
that rest exclusively on national criteria is, in prin ciple, contrary not only to the mandate, but to the 
very essence of the WTO agreements."  New Zealan d welcomed Uruguay's view that the negotiations 
would need to be informed by a list of e nvironmental goods.  Concer ning the reference to 
environmental activities, New Zealand sought clar ification from Uruguay as to how these would be 
identified, in particular as regards to Uruguay' s suggestion that "at the same time all activities 
conducive to the alleviation or eradication of po verty, health programmes, activities that promote 
sustainable development would also be considered environmentally relevant."  He noted that this 
language suggested a sufficiently broad basis on wh ich to engage, as it seemed to extend beyond the 
criterion of single environmental end use.   
376. New Zealand was hesitant about aspects of Uruguay's proposal regarding international 
certification.  In New Zealand's view, plans or  projects were the business of sovereign national 
governments and not something that should be assessed by the WTO or that was within the 
competence of the CTESS.  New Zealand was unclear about the value of subjecting national plans to 
an assessment by a trade-focused body such as WTO.  In sum, while New Zealand had certain queries 
regarding the specifics of the proposal, it welcomed  Uruguay's constructive and focused approach to 
the negotiations.   
377. With respect to India's paper, his delegation a ppreciated India's efforts to respond to some of 
the questions that had been posed regarding the EPA .  New Zealand particularly welcomed the formal 
confirmation that India's proposal was designed to  meet the collective objective of Members to 
improve transparency, predictability and commercial certainty of global trade.  In this regard, 
New Zealand welcomed India's unequivocal assuranc e that this was the case for its approach.   
378. New Zealand had already commented on earlier papers focusing on the EPA but wished to 
offer some additional comments, b ased on the concrete experience of New Zealand companies.  His 
delegation welcomed discussions of all Member s' approaches and experiences with regard to 
environmental goods.  In this context, India's fu rther elaboration of its own experience with the 
project approach had added richness to the dialogue, in  particular as part of the information exchange 
in the CTESS.  New Zealand believed that this pro cess had been particularly useful to those Members 
that were already implementing the project approach.  While New Zealand appreciated India's suggestion that legal certainty would be enhanced through the formal adoption of the project 
approach, it noted that in paragraph 3 of its paper, India had also pointed out that the project approach 
already addressed the objectives of pr edictability and transparency.   
379. On a related point, New Zealand was not entirely clear about India's suggestion in 
paragraph 4 of its paper that administrative deci sions under the EPA could be reviewed "along the 
lines of reviewing determinations of anti- dumping and countervailing measures under the TN/TE/R/16 
Page 68  
 
WTO agreements".  More specifically, it was not clear to New Zealand how the project approach 
would fit within the scope of the relevant WTO disciplines.   
380. New Zealand would continue seeki ng to understand how this appr oach could help clarify the 
scope of environmental goods, since in its view this  was a proposal for a modality rather than one that 
actually addressed the definition or the scope of prod ucts.  New Zealand fully understood India's point 
about the environmental benefits provided by the pr oject approach.  New Zealand also recalled India's 
helpful presentation on its approach with respect to specific products.  However, New Zealand's 
experience in trading into the project approach in the context of small projects of less than 
US$1 million, or even projects as small as US$250,000, was somewhat more difficult to align with the approach as elaborated in India's submission.   The experience of New Zealand companies with 
such projects showed that the cost advantages cited for the project approach were simply insufficient 
to meet the cost of compliance with administrativ e procedures required for these companies to obtain 
the tariff benefit.  In some cases, it had been diffi cult for New Zealand comp anies to accept that while 
their products were being used in a project, they  would face a higher tariff rate because the company 
had failed to meet the requirements of project appr oval, while the same product provided by a larger 
company that had more means to secure the concess ion attracted the preferential rate.  New Zealand 
struggled to see how this differential treatment fit with India's point in paragraph 6 of the paper 
regarding the MFN principle.   
381. The representative of Japan
 thanked Uruguay and India for their papers.  With regard to the 
paper presented by India, Japan shared the concer ns expressed by Korea, the United States, Australia, 
Canada and New Zealand.  Japan asked India to explain how Members would bind tariff concessions 
under the EPA, and whether India had closed the door to considering any consumer products as 
environmental goods. 
382. The representative of the EC  said that his delegation shared most of the concerns raised by 
other delegations regarding India' s submission, namely with respect to the compatibility with the 
MFN principle, despite India's assurances in paragraph 6 of the paper.   
383. The EC appreciated Uruguay's creative attempt to bridge the gap between the different 
approaches, and was especially sympathetic to Urugu ay's holistic approach which aimed at finding 
synergies between the different parts of the mandate .  However, the EC remained sceptical about the 
compatibility of this approach with Article II of the GATT, especially taking into consideration the 
temporary nature of the lowering of tariffs under the EPA.   
384. The representative of Indonesia  thanked India and Uruguay for their papers, which gave a 
new flavour to discussions on envir onmental goods, particularly by focusing on countries' needs to 
implement MEAs.  These submissions had also reminded Members of the fact that the list-based approach was not the only, nor the most effec tive way of dealing with the negotiations under 
paragraph 31(iii).  He noted that for many de veloping country Members, including Indonesia, 
participating in the list approach presented a real  dilemma, and this partic ipation had resulted in 
questioning how the environmenta l goods list could contribute to th e development and environmental 
dimensions of the mandate.  In this context, Ind onesia thought that an alternative or complementary 
approach to the list such as the EPA would be n eeded to ensure a "triple win" outcome in the 
negotiations.  
385. Indonesia welcomed the new submission by India on the EPA.  In his delegations' view, the 
mandate under Paragraph 31(iii) was sp ecific and limited;  it was therefore necessary to ensure that 
the approach followed did not result in expanding th e mandate by including goods that were not truly 
environmental.  At that stage, Indonesia felt th at the EPA would enable Members to draw the 
necessary linkages to bring about the environmental and developmental dimensions of the mandate.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 69 
 
 
386. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the delegations of Uruguay and India for 
submitting their proposals.  Switzerland shared the view expressed by Uruguay in its paper that 
determining environmental goods on the basis of pr ojects that rested exclusively on national criteria 
was not only contrary to the mandate but to th e very essence of the WTO agreements.  Moreover, 
Switzerland welcomed Uruguay's suggestion that envi ronmental goods should be identified in relation 
to MEAs.  Switzerland had proposed in its subm ission in TN/TE/W/57 that environmental goods 
should contribute to globally agreed environm ental goals, such as the Johannesburg Plan of 
Implementation.  At the technical discussions, Switzer land had also made this linkage with respect to 
all products proposed on their list.  Like other delegations, Switzerland wa nted to know how Uruguay 
suggested to define "environmental activities".   
387. Switzerland acknowledged India's efforts with its recent submission to explain the project 
approach further, but noted her de legation's continued reservations with  this approach, including with 
regard to its compatibility with the WTO multilateral trading system.  Switzerland shared most of the 
concerns raised by Korea, the United States, Cana da, EC, New Zealand and Japan in this regard.  
For instance, her delegation did not agree with the pa rallel drawn by India in paragraph 2 of the paper 
between the project-based approach and sector-specifi c agreements, since some  of the sector-specific 
examples cited by India, e.g. information technol ogy, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, were indeed 
agreements based on a list of goods agreed upon by Members.   
388. Furthermore, Switzerland agreed with Canada's point regarding the reference to the Decision 
on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, wh ich provided that the TRIPS Council could upon 
request look at the possible flexibility within th e TRIPS Agreement for those countries facing public 
health problems such as AIDS, malaria or tubercul osis that needed to have access to affordable 
medication.  The decision provided a waiver from th e obligations of the TRIPS Agreement which was 
automatically granted to the countries meeting tho se requirements.  This was an exceptional case for 
which an exceptional solution had been found as a result of long and cumbersome negotiations.   
389. Furthermore, Switzerland pointed out that the EPA did not provide transparency and 
predictability, and could exist i ndependently of the multilateral trading system.  Switzerland also 
believed that SMEs could be disadvantaged as a result of the burdensome administrative process 
under the EPA.  As several other delegations ha d mentioned, Switzerland also thought that the 
proposal would not be in line with the trade f acilitation objectives pursued in the Doha Round.   
390. Lastly, the paper had made reference to the fact  that the list approach was static.  On this 
issue, Switzerland recalled the proposals made by  New Zealand and Switzerland regarding the living 
list approach.  According to this proposal, a list of environmental goods established in the CTESS 
could evolve over time in order to reflect th e rapid technological trends in this sector. 
391. The representative of the Philippines  welcomed India's paper which it considered as a positive 
contribution that provided greater clarity on the EPA.  The Philippines had also considered with interest the proposal by Uruguay based on the con cept of "environmental activities", which tried to 
incorporate some of the elements of the list and pr oject approaches.  The Philippines welcomed some 
of the positive ideas contained in the paper, such as the suggestion that Members should pay particular 
attention to technical assistance and cooperation,  technology transfer and S&D treatment.   
392. His delegation requested further elaboration from Uruguay, first on the term "recognition of 
the methodologies", which was one of the suggest ed means of qualifying MEAs' environmental 
activities aside from approval of related projects;   and second, on the need for international 
certification of national environmental projects or plans and how such certification would be 
carried out, including whether criteria, definiti on and types of environmental projects agreed by 
CTESS would be sufficient, as proposed by India.  With respect to Uruguay's focus on exportable 
goods, the Philippines noted that importable goods coul d also help developing country Members meet 
their trade, environmental and developmental requirements.   TN/TE/R/16 
Page 70  
 
393. Finally, his delegation agreed with Uruguay that one of the main difficulties in the 
Committee's task of identifying environmental goods w as that many goods had multiple uses.  In this 
regard, the Philippines sought Uruguay's views with respect to focusing on single environmental end use under its approach in order to establish a list in the CTESS. 
394. The representative of Uruguay
 thanked delegations for thei r constructive comments.  She 
noted that her delegation's intention with this proposal was to contribute to the progress of the 
discussions in the Committee by introducing an ap proach that would serve as a basis for reaching 
agreement on a criterion for identifying environmenta l goods and services.  Uruguay said that the idea 
behind the proposal was to obtain environmental be nefits from the liberalization of these goods and 
services, but also to achieve a more global vision of the concept of sustainable development.   
395. Uruguay hoped that many of the questions ra ised would continue to be discussed among 
delegations so that progress could be made in the negotiations.  As for the question of the approach 
followed in the paper, particularly its focus on exportable goods, Uruguay said that it had attempted to 
incorporate the interests of developing country Memb ers, but also to include goods that were required 
to carry out environmental activities.  Uruguay had noted the comments regarding the issue of 
international certification, in particular how such  a proposal could be impl emented.  Her delegation 
would continue to reflect on these comments and woul d come back with a more detailed response at a 
later stage.   
396. The representative of India  said his delegation was thankful for the comments provided on its 
most recent submission.  The paper was intended to  respond to some of the questions and concerns 
previously raised with respect to the EPA.  In Indi a's view, the EPA allowed Members to deal with the 
various aspects of the mandate in a more compre hensive manner.  He re called that the overall 
objective of the negotiations was to benefit not only trade, but also the environment.  India believed 
that Members needed to show the same openness in their approach in WTO as they were showing in 
other fora dealing with environmental issues.   
397. India's paper attempted to review the WTO m echanisms that could est ablish the compatibility 
of the EPA with the multilateral trading system.  To  this end, the paper gave some examples from the 
Uruguay Round where Members had agreed to focus on sector-specific issues.  India considered the 
environment as one of the sectors that Members n eeded to specifically address.  Proceeding on the 
basis of a list was only one of the various mechanis ms or methods available to achieve the objective 
of the mandate;  this was why India had provided the example of the Decision on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.  In his delegation' s view, the environment was as important as public 
health issues.  Members needed to consider these issues in a more  constructive and forward looking 
manner in order to achieve genuine benefits from the negotiations.   
398. In its first submission on the EPA
12, India had suggested that the broad criteria for identifying 
environmental projects could be agreed upon in the CTESS.  By way of example, the paper mentioned 
that the project could focus on air pollution c ontrol, water waste management, solid waste 
management, etc.  These criteria embraced a broad range of global environm ental considerations.  
In addition, the EPA gave space to respond to local concerns.  In that sense, the approach addressed 
both Members' common and differentiated responsibilities.   
399. Regarding the issue of whether the EPA involved long-term commitments, India noted that 
once agreed, the tariff reduction on goods used in pr ojects would be permanent.  Such tariff reduction 
would be decided upon in CTESS and would be implemented by the national authorities.  With regard 
to the arguments on the lack of transparency, India noted that there were many ways of bringing more 
transparency in the implementation of projects and that each country could decide on the kind of structure they wanted.   
                                                     
 
12 TN/TE/W/51, paragraph 14.   TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 71 
 
 
400. As India had already pointed out in a previous submission13, the EPA did not require a heavy 
bureaucracy.  The Designated National Authority could comprise of representatives from Government, private sector, civil society or an y other entities deemed appropriate by national 
governments.  It could be an independent body;  its  main function could be to determine the products 
required in a particular project and give instructions to the customs authorities to let the goods in 
without charging the tariff duty.  This process w ould be necessary only the first time the goods would 
be considered for preferential rate, and the approva l could be automatic thereafter, unless the project 
authority felt that a product had to be replaced by a new technology or product.  India did not see how 
such a procedure would be particularly costly or burdensome for Members.   
401. With regard to the comments on dispute settlement , India said that what was suggested in its 
proposal was that administrative decisions taken could be reviewed along the lines of reviewing 
determinations of anti-dumping a nd countervailing measures.  For example, if a national authority 
took a decision which was not in line with the agreem ent in WTO, such a decision could be reviewed.  
India encouraged Members to think constructively ab out this review process rather than dismissing it 
at the outset.  His delegation would continue to refl ect on some of the comments made and revert back 
to the issues at a later stage.   
402. The representative of Colombia
 recalled that his delegation had submitted a document in the 
course of the technical discussions, which had been  circulated in Job(06)/149.  He noted that 
constructive comments had been made on this paper by several delegations in the context of the 
technical discussions.   
403. The Chairman  said that he wished to make some remarks on the technical discussions that had 
been held on 4-5 April, 10-12 May and 12-13 June 2006.  He recalled that at Hong Kong, Ministers 
had instructed Members to intensify the negotiations  and to "complete the wo rk expeditiously" under 
Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Declaration.14  The CTESS had therefore agreed at its February 2006 
meeting to start a process of technical discussions  to examine products, systems or projects with a 
view to clarifying the scope of the work under Para graph 31(iii).  Members had agreed to engage in 
this exercise on the understanding that it would not prejudge the issue of approach to be followed to 
fulfil the mandate.   
404. The technical discussions had been organized on th e basis of categories identified in the lists 
of goods submitted by the proponents.15  The first meeting had focused on the categories of 
Renewable or Clean Energy and Air Pollution Control;  the second meeting had covered two 
additional categories, namely Waste Water Management and Solid and Hazardous Waste 
Management;  and finally, at the third meeting, delegations had examined the remaining categories 
identified in Members' submissions, including Envi ronmental Monitoring, Analysis and Assessment 
Equipment;  Remediation and Clean-Up of Soil a nd Water;  Cleaner Technology and Products;  
Environmentally Preferable Products Based on End-Us e or Disposal Characteristics;  Products with 
High Environmental Performance or Low Envi ronmental Impacts;  as well as Others.16   
405. The Secretariat had circulated before each meeting a document containing the relevant 
sections of the compilation list of products for the categories to be discussed.17  In addition, a number 
                                                      
13 TN/TE/W/60.  
14 WT/MIN(05)/DEC, Paragraph 32.  
15 Canada (TN/TE/W/50), Chinese Taipei (TN/ TE/W/44 and Corr.1), European Communities 
(TN/TE/W/56), Japan (TN/TE/W/17 and Corr.1), Kor ea (TN/TE/W/48), New Zeal and (TN/TE/W/49/Rev.1), 
Qatar (TN/TE/W/19 and Corr.1), Switzerland (TN/TE/W/57 and Corr.1), United States (TN/TE/W/52).  The 
nine lists of environmental goods were compiled in a Secr etariat Note circulated in document TN/TE/W/63.    
16 Noise and Vibration Abatement; Resource Management; Heat and Energy Management; Natural 
Risk Management; Potable Water Treatment; Recycling Systems; Soil Conservation. 
17 JOB(06)/58, JOB(06)/81, JOB(06)/162. TN/TE/R/16 
Page 72  
 
of non-papers had been circulated by the proponents.
18  Furthermore, the delegation of Egypt had 
circulated a room document addressing various issu es related to trade liberalization in hazardous 
waste.19  At the technical discussion in June, other pape rs had also been introduced by the delegations 
of Colombia on "Priority categories" and by India on the Environmental Project Approach.20   
406. Invitations had been extended to a number of  international organizations at the second and 
third technical discussions, namely UNCTAD, UNEP,  the World Customs Organization, the OECD, 
the Basel Convention and the Montreal Protocol on  Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.   
407. The Chairman noted that the technical discussions had engaged Members in an examination 
of a wide range of products proposed as envir onmental goods, and had allowed for a more focused 
debate on the potential benefits li nked to these products.  However, these discussions had not led to a 
common understanding on the most appropriate way of addressing the mandate.  One point on which 
delegations seemed to agree, at least in principle, was that the mandate in Paragraph 31(iii) provided a 
unique opportunity in the Round to achieve a triple win outcome for trade, the environment and development.   
408. It had been noted at the technical discussions that improved conditions for access to 
environmental goods and technologies could make a contribution towards meeting internationally 
agreed objectives and global sustainability goals.  Many provisions of international instruments, 
including the WSSD Plan of Implementation, the Millennium Development Goals and Agenda 21, for 
instance, had been cited as being of direct releva nce to the various categories discussed.  It had been 
emphasized that trade was only one of the enabling factors that came into play in the complex and 
challenging process of finding solutions to meet the se objectives.  As some delegations had pointed 
out in the course of the discussions, trade was not a "silver bullet".  However, it was noted that trade 
was nonetheless a key component in the equation, and most importantly, it was the area that Members 
in the WTO could most directly contribute to shape.   
409. References had also been made in the discussions  to the objectives of certain MEAs, such as 
the Basel Convention, and their potential synergi es with the Committee's work.  While the questions 
raised in this context could benefit from furthe r discussion, delegations seemed to agree that the 
outcome of the negotiations under Pa ragraph 31 (iii) should be consis tent with ongoing efforts at the 
international level to meet these environmental objectives.  Members also had to ensure that work in 
this area was consistent with ot her components of the mandate in Paragraph 31, and with the overall 
objective of enhancing mutual supportiven ess of trade and the environment.   
410. The Chairman further noted that considerab le information had been presented by the 
proponents on the environmental use and potential benefits of the goods proposed, building on the 
information contained in Members' lists and provi ded at the Information Exchange Sessions held 
before the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  The proponents had responded to many questions put 
to them, and had also expressed their readiness to follow-up with other delegations on any specific 
issues related to their products.  Nevertheless, many developing country Members had expressed the 
view that not enough evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed products qualified 
as environmental goods.  These delegations did not indicate clearly, however, which products they 
considered as environmental goods.   
                                                     
 
18 JOB(06)/70, JOB(06)/73, JOB(06)/74, JOB(06)/75, JOB(06)/140, JOB(06)/169, JOB(06)/170, 
JOB(06)/177, JOB(06)/178, JOB(06)/179.   
19 Room document by Egypt, "Liberaliz ing Trade in Hazardous Waste".   
20 "Paragraph 31(iii) DMD – Environmental Goods:  Technical discussion meetings in CTE – Priority 
Categories", paper by Colombia (JOB(06)/149);  "Environmental Project Approach – Compatibility and 
criteria", Submission by India (TN/TE/W/67).    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 73 
 
 
411. Moreover, several developing country Members had made the point that the environmental 
attributes of products were often determined by the context in which these products were used.  It had 
been further noted that what could be considered as environmentally beneficial in one country would 
not necessarily be so in another.  In this regard, th ese delegations had reiterated their interest in further 
exploring project-based approaches.  As it had been noted, Members' had different needs and 
priorities when it came to the protection and conservation of the environment, and would necessarily 
have different ways of responding to these prior ities nationally.  According to the Chairman, an 
appropriate balance had to be found in the nego tiations to take into account these different 
perspectives and interests, and this would require that Members make certain choices.   
412. The technical discussions had also covered the developmental and trade aspects associated 
with products in the various categories, and the pot ential sustainable developm ent benefits related to 
the use and improved access to environment-related goods and technologies.  At the same time, questions had been raised concerning the export inte rest of Members in the products discussed.   
413. There were many challenges inherent to defini ng the scope of the environmental goods sector.  
While these technical discussions had not succeeded  in bringing delegations closer to a common 
understanding of the scope, they had nevertheless c ontributed to flesh out the practical issues that 
would need to be addressed by delegations in fu lfilling the mandate.  Ultimately, it was for each 
Member to make its own assessment of the potential  environmental and devel opmental benefits that 
could result from these negotiations, and to forg e its position on that basis.  Despite existing 
divergences, Members had to remain committed to fi nding a balanced outcome that would reflect the 
different perspectives and interests. 
414. The Chairman recalled that Members had also discussed indicative parameters or criteria to 
be applied in the examination of products, categories of products, or projects.  In the non-papers that 
they had presented at the first and third technical  discussions, the proponents had sorted the products 
under the various categories according to different para meters or criteria.  In this context, developing 
country Members had expressed their preference for first identifying goods on the basis of the "single 
environmental end use" parameter.  To the extent possible, the parameter of single environmental end 
use had been applied, but the scope of the discussions  had also broadened to th e consideration of other 
parameters, such as, for instance, whether goods were predominantly used for an environmental 
purpose;  whether they had a "clear and direct environmental benefit";  or whether they were 
otherwise environmentally beneficial.  In the prop onents' view, applying single environmental end use 
as the sole parameter in defining product coverage would be too limiting, as it would leave out many 
goods that they considered critical to securing the sustainable development outcomes expected from 
the negotiations. 
415. One point that seemed to have emerged from this discussion was that it would be difficult for 
the Committee to agree on a set of parameters  to apply in determining whether a good was 
environmental for the purpose of the negotiations.  In the Chairman's view, the parameters could be 
helpful as tools to determine what produ cts could be acceptable to delegations. 
416. The Chairman said that the discussions had revealed that a majority of the products proposed 
by Members had dual or multiple uses.  In his view , the issue of how to deal with such products 
remained among the main challenges to fulfilling the mandate in Paragraph 31 (iii).  The technical 
discussions had contributed to sketch out a number of issues in this connection that would require 
further attention by Members for the negotiations to  proceed on the basis of a list of environmental 
goods. 
417. The Chairman noted that among the issues most debated in the technical discussions were 
classification-related issues and the use of ex out s.  Unless Members could agree to confine product 
coverage to goods identified under the Harmonized Syst em (HS) at 6-digit level, they would have to 
decide on a more specific product description based on the environmental app lication or particular TN/TE/R/16 
Page 74  
 
characteristics of goods.  It was noted that the u se of ex outs was not new, and that there were 
precedents in sectoral liberalization agreements , such as the Information Technology Agreement 
(ITA).  However, some concerns had been express ed regarding the administrative burden related to 
the implementation of ex outs in national tariff line codes.  Questions had also been raised with regard to the ability of customs authorities to screen out at  the border goods identified on the basis of their 
environmental end use.  Moreover, a number of ques tions had also been raised with respect to the 
classification of entire plants or systems under the HS, as well as the classification of parts and accessories to products proposed as environmental goods.  In had been noted that classification issues 
related to the products put forw ard would probably have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. 
418. The Chairman said the WCO had shared usef ul information with the Committee in the 
technical discussions that it had been invited to, a nd that its expertise, as well as that of other 
international organizations that ha d conducted work in this area, woul d be valuable to Members in the 
further consideration of these issues. 
419. Apart from the product discussion, the Chairman said that a number of important issues had 
also been touched upon in the technical discussions.  For instance, some delegations had reiterated the 
importance of the issue of non-tariff barriers, which was specifically referred to  in the mandate.  The 
point had been made that the NTB discussion could not  take place in the abstract, and that there was a 
need to identify specific NTBs in connection to the goods that were being considered.   
420. On S&D treatment, the Chairman noted that re ference had been made to the proposal by a 
group of Members, including some of the propone nts as well as other delegations, on modalities for 
the liberalization of environmental goods (TN/TE/W/ 65).  This proposal had introduced some ideas 
on how the principle of special and differential treat ment could be reflected in the negotiations under 
Paragraph 31(iii) in the context of a liberalization exercise in NAMA.   
421. With regard to transfer of technology, the Chairman said that many developing country 
Members had identified the issue as an integral  part of the development component of the 
negotiations.  In their view, the outcome for deve lopment would be greater if liberalization of 
environmental goods was associated with some form of  technology transfer.  It had been noted that 
technology was the main driving force behind the selection of goods put forward, and that it was 
precisely the area where there was the greatest ga p between developing and developed countries.  
While noting that the mandate did not specifically re fer to transfer of technology, other delegations 
had pointed out that facilitating access to and encouraging the use of environment-related 
technologies could stimulate innovation and technology transfer.  Examples had been mentioned in 
this regard of how some of the products listed had been provided to developing countries through 
projects that involved technology transfer. 
422. As regards environmental services, the Chairman said that it had been noted that the delivery 
of services was intrinsically linked to some of th e products being considered , and that environmental 
services should be discussed along with the goods .  References had also been made to the 
liberalization of environmental services under way in  the Special Session of the Council for Trade in 
Services.  In the view of some delegations, ther e had not been sufficient analysis of these various 
issues, and how they could be reflect ed concretely in the negotiations. 
423. With regard to the way forward, the Chairman  noted that the technical work that Members 
had undertaken had allowed for a useful survey of the products put forward in the proponents' lists.  
In this exercise, Members had further examined and discussed the potential benefits associated with 
various products.  On many occasions, the propone nts had indicated that the comments received in 
these discussions would be useful for their intern al process of reviewing the lists.  A number of 
developing countries had stressed the importance of  also considering alternative approaches to 
address the mandate, such as the environmental pr oject and integrated approaches, instead of 
proceeding only on the basis of the list approach.    TN/TE/R/16 
 Page 75 
 
 
424. In concluding, the Chairman noted that all Members seemed to agree that, ultimately, 
negotiations had to reach an outcome that would be  faithful to the mandate and deliver triple-win 
opportunities for the whole membership.  However, there was still no convergence on how to achieve 
that result.  The technical discussions had contributed to Members' thinking on what could potentially be acceptable to delegations within  the scope of the negotiations.  In that sense, the Chairman hoped 
that Members would look back on this phase of their work as an important step towards the fulfilment 
of their mandate.  The Chairman noted, however , that delegations still had a long way to go in 
effectively addressing the mandate in its entirety. 
425. The delegations of Argentina
, Brazil , Mexico , Cuba and Ecuador  asked the Chairman to 
confirm that the summary of the technical discu ssions had been made under the Chairman's own 
responsibility.  These delegations recalled that th ey had taken part in th e information exchange 
sessions and technical discussions with the understa nding that these discussions were informal and 
without prejudice to Members' positions.  The delega tions wished to reserve their right to comment 
later on the issues raised by the Chairman in his summary.   
426. The Chairman  said that his report on the technical discussions had been made on his own 
responsibility and any of the issues raised could be taken up by Members in future discussions.   
IV. OTHER BUSINESS  
427. The CTESS agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc i nvitations issued for that meeting at the next 
meeting of the CTESS.21   
__________ 
                                                      
21 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).