RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/18 
8 June 2007 
 (07-2411) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
3-4 MAY 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 
 
I. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 
1. The Chairman  noted that one new submission had b een presented under this agenda item by 
the delegation of Australia.  The submission, circulated in document TN/TE/W/72, was entitled 
"Proposal for an Outcome on Trade and Environm ent Concerning Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration." 
2. The representative of Australia  said her delegation had take n a strong interest in the 
Paragraph 31(i) part of the Doha mandate in the course of the CTESS's deliberations.  In its 
submission, Australia proposed an outcome on this part of the mandate which they considered not 
only conformed fully with the manda te but also accurately reflected the extensive discussions which 
had taken place in the CTESS over preceding years.  The representative added that in drawing up the 
submission, Australia had aimed to reflect comment s and concerns as heard from many delegations.  
Australia looked forward to hearing delegations ' views on the proposal and further discussing the 
approach. 
3. The representative said Australia proposed that the CTESS prepare a short, focused report of 
its discussions which would include recommendations  setting out the main conclusions and findings 
of the Committee and which would propose possible future work on the issue.  The report would 
highlight the process of the CTESS discussions as we ll as the content, including the three-phased 
approach which had been taken by the Committee:  firstly, identifying the specific trade obligations 
(STOs) in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (M EAs);  secondly, focusing on whether there had 
been particular implementation i ssues regarding those STOs;  and, thirdly, discussing issues arising 
from the first and second phases. 
4. The representative said the report could also set out the central conclusions of Members 
arising from the CTESS discussions.  Specifically, the report could emphasize:  the importance of a 
mutually supportive relationship between trade an d the environment;  the lack of evidence of 
problems in the relationship between WTO agreemen ts and STOs;  the importance of coordination 
both at the national and the international level;  a nd the value of continuing to exchange national 
experiences in the negotiation and implem entation of environmental agreements. 
5. The representative said underpinning Australia's  approach was a firm belief that the 
relationship between the WTO and MEAs was worki ng well.  Developments in the years since the 
mandate was first agreed had reinforced this pos ition.  In Australia's view, the relationship had 
improved and now worked better, both through enhan ced coordination at the national level and more TN/TE/R/18 
Page 2  
 
  cooperation at the international level.  In the CTESS, Members had engage d in cooperation at the 
international level and had been informed of numerous other exam ples of such cooperation by UNEP 
and other international organizati ons.  On this point, the representative noted that the submission by 
Canada and New Zealand under Paragraph 31(ii) of the mandate
1, which built upon important 
contributions of other Members including the Un ited States (US) and European Communities (EC), 
would serve further to enhance the cooperation.  The representative recalled the strong link Australia 
drew between effective and practical out comes under Paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii). 
6. The representative said discussions had also hi ghlighted the importance to the CTESS's work 
of national level coordination.  Like many Member s, Australia had in place a domestic system which 
worked to ensure that trade and environment issues were dealt with  by both trade and environment 
officials.  This was not something that could or should be enshrined in international law;  it was 
something that required commitment, communicati on and, in the case of developing countries, 
increased capacity. 
7. The representative said mutual supportiveness of trade and environment rules was a 
cornerstone of the Doha mandate on this issue and w as also fundamental to the approach proposed in 
the Australian submission.  In the view of her de legation, this contrasted with the approach put 
forward by the EC in its submission as contained in document TN/TE/W/68, which was discussed in the CTESS in July 2006.
2  The representative recalled Australia's serious concerns with respect to the 
EC's approach, which would see panels in disput e settlement cases "defer" to MEAs, creating, in 
Australia's view, a two-tiered system of internati onal law with the WTO at the bottom.  This was a 
rewriting of international law principles that was unacceptable to Australia.  Australia also saw it as 
unnecessary given the approach taken to date by pa nels and the Appellate Body on environmental 
issues.  The representative said the EC proposal would also present serious difficulties for WTO dispute settlement. 
8. The representative said a further concern Australia  had with the EC's approach was that it 
would potentially increase protectionism without he lping the environment – by allowing countries to 
implement restrictive trade measures on spurious environmental grounds.  Such measures would not 
then be subject to examination under usual WTO rul es.  In Australia's view, this would decrease trade 
with consequent negative effects for development.  It could also seriously undermine the benefits of 
liberalization achieved through the Doha Round; and the environment would not benefit either.  On 
the latter point, the representative commented that false environmental measures did not help the 
environment. 
9. The representative said Australia had put forward its submission in a go od spirit and with a 
willing ear.  Australia looked forward to hearing comments and questions fro m delegations.  While 
recognising that delegations had not  had time fully to study the pr oposal, Australia considered it 
useful to submit it in time for the present meeting in  order to help make progress on an outcome under 
Paragraph 31(i) of the mandate. 
10. The representative of Argentina
 thanked Australia for its submission and requested that 
Argentina be included as a co-sponsor of the paper.   The representative said the Australian submission 
started from the basic, fundamental platform whic h was an appropriate read ing of the mandate and 
how this mandate had been interpreted since the Pa ragraph 31(i) exercise had begun.  In Argentina's 
view, and as stated also on other occasions, the wo rk undertaken in the CTESS over the course of the 
past six years needed to have an appropriate r esult.  Preparation of a report reflecting the CTESS's 
debates and experiences would help Members to draw  certain conclusions.  In Argentina's view, the 
                                                      
1 TN/TE/W/71. 
2 TN/TE/R/16.  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 3 
 
 
  conclusions proposed in paragraph 11 of the Australia n submission would properly reflect the work of 
the CTESS and be compatible and consistent with the discussions held in that fora. 
11. The representative said Argentina attached importance to the exchange of national 
experiences in terms of MEA implem entation.  He added that Argentina was particularly interested in 
continuing these exchanges because past discussions ha d shown the exchanges to be very useful for 
developing countries.  It enabled them to hear  experiences from other countries that were more 
advanced or more developed in terms of national coordination.  Thus, the issue of exchange of 
national experiences and the promotion of a mutu ally supportive relationship between trade and 
environment was very important. 
12. The representative noted that several delegati ons had observed that an appropriate use of 
implementation mechanisms nationally was the most  direct and effective path towards ensuring 
mutual supportiveness between trade and environment.  In this respect, Argentina believed there was 
space to continue moving forward in terms of explor ing how developing countr ies in particular were 
undertaking their implementation tasks.  Argentina al so agreed with Australia on the importance that 
all Members work to improve developing and least-d eveloped countries' capacity for implementation. 
13. The representative noted that the Australian s ubmission opened the door to the possibility of  
some kind of recommendation.  In Argentina's view, such a recommendation should be aimed at a continued exchange of national experiences so that in  practice and in the field there could be effective 
coordination.  The representative said Australia's proposal  was the right track to take.  In this respect, 
no further rule-based mechanism was required because work needed to happen  in practice;  the 
representative added that the issue would not be  solved with more formal instruments. 
14. The representative of India
 said India supported the proposal submitted by Australia and 
agreed with Australia's approach that a report re flecting the discussions and experiences of the CTESS 
would be a practical outcome.  He added that th e mutual supportiveness of trade and environment 
policies in domestic policies and the sharing of na tional experiences would contribute to coordination 
between domestic agencies and stakeholders involv ed with international agreements to achieve 
compatibility between Members' internationa l obligations and domestic implementation. 
15. The representative said Australia had described  accurately discussions in the CTESS on 
Paragraph 31(i).  India particularly welcomed th e emphasis on the importance of coordination at the 
national level in promoting mutual supportiven ess between trade and environmental policies.  
Although domestic decision-making processes in va rious Members was different, there could be 
situations, particularly among developing countries,  where the administrative structure might not be 
clearly defined or sufficiently integrated, resulting in  problems at the implementation stage, especially 
if obligations under MEAs had WTO implications.  India agreed with the tone and thrust of the 
Australian submission and its recognition of this gap. 
16. The representative said India would like a more  focused discussion in regular Committee on 
Trade and Environment (CTE) meetings on problems faced by developing countries in implementing 
their commitments under MEAs and on the relationshi p that this had to their WTO commitments.  In 
this regard, coordination with MEA Secretariats as envisaged under Paragraph 31(ii) would be an 
important element of an integrated response to the technical assistance needs of concerned developing countries.  Such an approach would also be in k eeping with the larger development objectives of the 
Doha Round. 
17. The representative of Mexico
 said Mexico supported the communication submitted by 
Australia.  In the view of her delegation, Australia's  proposal was a concrete one and consistent with TN/TE/R/18 
Page 4  
 
  the three-phased approach of the CTESS, un like the proposal submitted earlier by the EC
3 which was 
unlimited in its scope.  Mexico fully agreed with the message contained in the Australian submission 
that the relationship between WTO rules and STOs in MEAs had been useful and good.  This message 
and other messages proposed in paragraph 11 of the Australian submission were shared by Mexico.  
This was why Mexico viewed the Australian proposal  as being on the right track;  it complied with 
the mandate and reflected the discussions that had taken place. 
18. The representative of Indonesia , speaking also on behalf of Brunei Darussalam , Malaysia , 
Philippines , Singapore  and Thailand , welcomed the new submission from Australia as one that would 
stimulate new discussion on a part of the mandate that  the CTESS had not engaged in for some time.  
Sharing initial reactions, the representative said I ndonesia was on the whole supportive of the general 
direction proposed in the submission, namely, that a practical outcome be pursued and that the 
CTESS's past discussions under Paragraph 31(i), em ploying the three-phased approach and during 
which Members were able to learn from as well as share their national experiences on implementing STOs of various MEAs, be outlined.  The representa tive further agreed that one of the important 
elements in the WTO/MEAs relationship was the capacity to achieve effective domestic 
implementation and coordination be tween different agencies.  Most  importantly, Indonesia agreed 
with Australia's point that the relationship betw een WTO and STOs contained in MEAs was working 
well. 
19. With regard to paragraph 5 of the Austra lian submission, the representative sought 
clarification as to whether the six MEAs identified as having STOs would form an exhaustive list or 
whether there might be other MEAs which also contained STOs.  The representative said the 
Australian submission would be studied further and substantive comments provided.  While Indonesia 
did not have a fixed idea as to what outcome mi ght be envisioned under the Paragraph 31(i) mandate, 
they were generally supportive of some of the elem ents in the latest submi ssion and as outlined by the 
Australian representative. 
20. The representative of China
 said China's initial reaction was that the Australian submission 
was a very good paper and his dele gation supported its general thru st.  The representative made two 
points:  first, China supported Australia's idea of a short, substantive paper as a practical outcome.  
Second, China also supported the main proposal s made by Australia in paragraph 11 of its 
submission.  In particular, the representative hi ghlighted the importance of coordination at the 
national level in promoting mutual supportiveness be tween trade and environmental policies.  He 
added it was not simply about implementation of ob ligations or coordination for the negotiations;  
China believed it was a general coordination at th e national level in promoting mutual supportiveness 
between trade and environment policies.  In ge neral, China viewed the Australian proposals as 
appropriate and correctly reflective of the feelings of the majority. 
21. The representative of Egypt  said his delegation had had a short span of time to reflect on the 
Australian submission.  Nonetheless, Egypt felt the submission went in the right direction and clearly 
embraced what his delegation had said repeatedly:  that there was no particular problem between 
WTO agreements and STOs within MEAs.  Agreeing with previous speakers, the representative said 
there was an important need to do more in terms of  raising the capacity of developing countries at the 
national level to coordinate their policies and to  be in a position to fulfil the supportiveness between 
environment, trade and development.  This was a point his delegation had made in the past.  The 
representative added that the proposal by Australia  linked with Paragraph 31(ii) and other proposals 
made by Members, particularly those referring to the importance of capacity building for developing 
countries. 
                                                      
3 TN/TE/W/68.  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. The representative said that having read the Aust ralian submission and reflected also on the 
proposal submitted earlier by the EC4, his delegation felt there was no n eed to alter international law 
nor suggest that certain obligations at the internati onal level had more weight than others.  Egypt did 
not favour this position and nor did his delegation believe it could he lp to push forward the mutual 
supportiveness that was being sought on trade and environment. 
23. Referring to recent international dialogues including French presidential debates and 
discussions in the EC, the representative said a new frontier was being suggested in which 
environment would become a conditionality in the inte rnational economic architecture.  In this regard, 
Egypt did not wish to see a situation emerge wher e instead of Members working towards a better and 
well-coordinated mutual supportiveness between environm ent and trade, one of the pillars would be a 
condition for further development in that area - whic h would be a kind of sharp sword on the throat of 
many developing countries in terms of the STOs stemming from MEAs. 
24. The representative said developing countries needed  further capacity building in their national 
coordination and continued excha nge of experiences with countries that had already put together 
national policies that were working and which we re bringing results in the environmental and 
developmental arenas and further access to enviro nmental goods and services at the trade level. 
25. The representative of New Zealand  said his delegation had long held the view that the 
Paragraph 31(i) component of the ne gotiations was important and that an outcome should be possible.  
New Zealand therefore welcomed the opportunity to  engage substantively on this component, not 
least in the context of the latest submission from Australia, which had been co-sponsored by 
Argentina.   
26. The representative noted that, like other Member s, New Zealand had appreciated and found 
useful the reviews of national experience.  When  Australia had originally proposed this process, 
New Zealand supported the concept based on a view th at sharing perspectives could help shed light 
on the way ahead on Paragraph 31(i).  New Zealand ha d learnt a great deal fro m the exchanges in the 
CTESS.  It was a rich dialogue and New Zealand appreciated particularly the written submissions 
from, among others, Australia, EC, Switzerland and Hong Kong, China.  The discussion of these 
submissions as well as the range of statements and comments had helped to inform thinking on the decision-making processes at national levels.  Above all, the exchanges had underlined the importance 
of policy coherence between trade and environment officials when working in areas touching on the 
WTO/MEA relationship.  The representative said all of this had been crisply captured in Australia's 
submission and New Zealand especially appreciated its summary of exchanges on the national 
experiences element of Paragraph 31(i). 
27. The representative said that from New Z ealand's perspective, any outcome under 
Paragraph 31(i) needed to reflect the exchanges in the CTESS.  As Australia's paper had made clear, 
this meant there should be some acknowledgeme nt of the Committee's exchanges on national 
experiences. 
28. More particularly, New Zealand supported Aust ralia's suggestion that the importance of 
national coordination should be underlined.  New Zealand further agreed with the suggestion in 
paragraph 11 of the Australian submission that  it was desirable for WTO Members to undertake 
national level coordination in the negotiation and implementation of  obligations contained in WTO 
agreements and MEAs to which they were parties.  As well, New Zealand had no difficulty with the 
proposal in paragraph 12 of the submission that there might be a recommendation to build on the 
exchanges and continue sharing experiences in the context of the CTE regular session.  New Zealand 
was attracted, for instance, to Australia's suggesti on that Members share further their experiences in 
                                                     
 
4 TN/TE/W/68. TN/TE/R/18 
Page 6  
 
  the CTE in terms of negotiating and implementing STOs.  New Zealand also believed there were 
helpful linkages between the latte r suggestion and the proposal whic h New Zealand and Canada had 
recently made under Paragraph 31(ii), on information sharing.
5 
29. The representative said there were other aspects that the CTESS might wish further to 
consider.  He asked, for example, what the CTESS might distil from its exchanges not only on 
national experiences but also on the more general elem ents such as STOs, dispute-related matters or 
the relationship between WTO agreements, rele vant WTO bodies and MEAs?  The representative 
suggested the CTESS could consider how those mo re general exchanges might help Members in 
fulfilling the mandate. 
30. For its part, New Zealand had been pleased to participate in all parts of the CTESS dialogue 
on all of the issues raised under Paragraph 31(i).  For instance, New Zealand had offered initial 
thoughts on STOs in a submission compiling informa tion on trade provisions in a number of MEAs.  
The representative added that New Zealand had also b een frank in clarifying things they were not able 
to accept, not least in terms of some of th e ideas contained in the submission by the EC.6  T a k e n  
together, New Zealand was of the view that the fu ll dialogue in the CTESS had been very useful and 
interesting and the Committee might consider how it could reflect the richness of those exchanges in 
any outcome. 
31. The representative said that against this bac kground, his delegation had undertaken some 
reflection of its own.  New Zealand's starting point had been that the scope of the negotiations needed 
to reflect the mandate.  The negotiations were, for instance, expressly limited to the applicability of 
existing WTO rules to MEA parties; further, they should not prejudice the WTO rights of any 
Member not party to the MEA in question.  More over, by Paragraph 32 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration, the negotiations under Pa ragraphs 31(i) and (ii) should not  add to, diminish nor alter the 
balance of rights and obligations of Members unde r existing WTO agreements.  A further important 
consideration, as highlighted by previous speakers,  was the need to take into account the needs of 
developing and least developed countries.  The repr esentative said these were very important elements 
and, as pointed out by Australia in paragraph 4 of its  submission, they needed to be factored into any 
consideration of outcomes under Paragraph 31(i). 
32. The representative noted that New Zealand had had recent experience in implementing STOs 
contained in those agreements refe renced in paragraph 5 of Australia 's submission.  In applying those 
STOs, New Zealand had in some cases voluntarily e ngaged in bilateral cons ultations with other 
parties.  The purpose of those voluntary consultati ons had been to establish how best to secure a good 
environmental outcome from implementation of the re levant STO.  The representative explained that 
when New Zealand had engaged in voluntary c onsultations, they had often discovered some 
interesting things.  For instance, they had learnt th at the mechanisms they were contemplating to use 
in applying an STO might work very well and very effectively in some cases, but less effectively in 
other cases.  Through voluntary bila teral consultations, New Zealand had learnt also that in order to 
improve environmental outcomes from the STO be ing applied, as required by an MEA, they 
sometimes needed to undertake technology transfer or use development assistance to fund training.  In 
other cases, improved information exchange and funding of specialized technical assistance had 
helped to create better and more efficient environmental outcomes. 
33. The representative said that from its experience, New Zealand wondered whether there might 
be some value to others in such a strictly volu ntary process – whereby discussions could be held, if 
Members wanted such, on the implementation of STOs.  The representative said such a dialogue 
might helpfully bring into focus a range of policy options, including technology transfer, development 
                                                      
5 TN/TE/W/71. 
6 TN/TE/W/68.  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 7 
 
 
  assistance and information exchange.  All of these op tions would be considered solely for the purpose 
of ensuring an efficient and effective implementation of a trade measure or an STO, such that its application would deliver the best possible environmental outcome. 
34. Given that the process would be entirely voluntary and non-prescriptive, it was 
New Zealand's view that this kind of approach woul d not stray outside the terms of the mandate.  It 
would not add to, diminish nor alter the balance of rights and obligations of Members under existing 
WTO agreements.  The representative added that it mi ght also offer a way to take into account the 
concerns and needs of developing and least deve loped countries, as outlined in the mandate.  
Moreover, the suggestion might usefully comp lement the national experience submission from 
Australia since it would offer a further way of improving domestic coordination processes. 
35. The representative said this was a suggestion Ne w Zealand wished to offer to the CTESS's 
rich dialogue.  New Zealand was considering whet her and how the suggestion might be developed 
into something more formal.  New Zealand reitera ted its appreciation for Australia's submission and 
reiterated also its view that the submission had help ed to identify some of th e core elements of any 
outcome that the CTESS might collectivel y work towards under Paragraph 31(i). 
36. The representative of Switzerland
 thanked Australia for its submission, co-sponsored by 
Argentina, proposing a report on experience sharing as a result under Paragraph 31(i).  She said since 
her delegation had received the submission only a day earlier, sh e would have only preliminary 
comments and questions. 
37. The representative recalled Switzerland's position,  as stated at previous meetings, that the 
sharing of national experiences with respect to th e negotiation and implementation of STOs in MEAs 
had been a useful exercise.  She recalled also that Switzerland had contributed to the exercise.  But, in 
Switzerland's view, this was not enough to fulfil th e mandate given by Ministers in Doha, for three 
reasons.  First, while nationa l level coordination between different domestic agencies and 
stakeholders was important to achieving compatib ility between countries' international obligations 
and domestic implementation, it would not be a sufficient condition;  policy coordination at the 
international level was needed as well in order to avoid potential conflicts. 
38. Second, experience sharing was a backward looking exercise.  Although negotiators of both 
MEAs and WTO provisions should certainly strive to  ensure mutual supportiveness so that no dispute 
would arise, there was no guarantee of success in avoi ding conflict at the implementation stage.  The 
representative added that the fact that no major conf lict had arisen between the two sets of rules to 
date did not automatically imply that there woul d be no conflict in the future, especially given a 
steady growth of interface between the two sets of law.  Third, and following from the previous point, 
with a view to ensuring the appropriate consider ation of environmental issues by WTO bodies and 
Members, such a report as proposed by Australia would not give any guidelines in case of dispute 
settlement. 
39. For Switzerland, a report on the deliberations of the CTESS would not be a sufficient result 
from the negotiations.  The representative recalled th at the EC had tabled in July 2006 a proposal  
indicating some of the principles which Ministers could agree upon in the negotiations under Paragraph 31(i).
7  Those principles were to be seen as an in terpretation and not an alteration of law.  
The representative asked Australia to explain the th inking behind having a report as an outcome of the 
negotiations.  In Switzerland's view, a report would be a useful instrument to increase transparency and towards enhancing the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, and might also be a good 
instrument for regular information exchange be tween the WTO, MEAs and the respective parties 
fulfilling the mandate of Paragraph 31(i). 
                                                     
 
7 TN/TE/W/68. TN/TE/R/18 
Page 8  
 
  40. The representative raised additional questions regarding the Australian submission.  With 
respect to paragraph 5 referring to six MEAs fo r which STOs had been identified, she asked how 
could a report take into consideration STOs of possi ble future MEAs?  With respect to paragraph 3 
referring to a decision on a "three-phased approach", how had this decision been agreed among Members?   
41. The representative said given that both syst ems – MEAs and WTO – were dynamic and 
evolving continuously over time, it was important to clarify the principles governing the relationship 
in order to ensure mutual supportiveness.  The tw o systems should not evolve  in isolation from each 
other.  Whether it was in order to improve intern ational cooperation when devising a new STO, or in 
order to ensure that an STO was implemented in a manner consistent with international obligations, 
Switzerland was of the view that a discussion and clarification of the principles governing the 
relationship between WTO and MEAs would be usef ul and necessary and in fact responded to the 
mandate given by Ministers in Doha. 
42. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 joined previous speakers in expressing appreciation to 
the Australian delegation for its proposal fo r an outcome on trade and environment under 
Paragraph 31(i).  Chinese Taipei noted that Aust ralia proposed to pursue a practical outcome under 
Paragraph 31(i) and accurately reflect the di scussions and experiences in the CTESS – through the 
preparation of a short but substantive repor t highlighting key observations from the CTESS 
discussions and setting out areas of agreement a nd recommendations.  The representative asked the 
Australian delegation to clarify whether the prac tical outcome of the Paragraph 31(i) negotiation 
would be the report per se  or if there were other arrangements or decisions required to be undertaken 
by Members. 
43. The representative said Chinese Taipei had symp athy with the position of Switzerland that 
simply because there had not been any conflicts be tween MEAs and WTO rules did not indicate that 
that there was no conflict between STOs set out in MEAs and WTO rules.  Chinese Taipei did not have a strong view as to whether the report prop osed by Australia fulfilled the Paragraph 31(i) 
mandate.  Chinese Taipei would join Members' con sensus.  If Members decided to come up with a 
report as proposed by Australia, Ch inese Taipei would reiterate that  the report should include factual 
and objective observations and reflect the discu ssions among Members in the CTESS and should not 
prejudice the positions of individual Members. 
44. The representative reiterated Chinese Taipei's a ppreciation of the Australian contribution in 
proposing the practical concepts contained in its su bmission.  She also emphasized the importance of 
having due regard for coordination at the nationa l level in promoting mutual supportiveness between 
trade and environment policies.  Chinese Taipei in tended to continue actively to engage in the 
important negotiations with all Members in the firm  belief that such negotiations should not prejudice 
the WTO rights of any Member that was not party to the MEA in question. 
45. The representative of Ecuador
 joined other delegations in thanking Australia for its 
submission, which had been co-sponsored by Argentin a.  The submission had been sent to capital.  
The representative said her delegation believed the ma ndate of Paragraph 31(i) coincided with the 
focus that had been presented by Australia and she a dded that this should lead to a pragmatic debate 
on the identification of STOs set out in MEAs. 
46. The representative recalled that as part of the CTESS's discussions, some Members had 
submitted papers to the Committee with a focus and approach on national experiences, with the aim of 
better understanding the existing links  between MEAs and WTO rules.  In this context, and as had 
been pointed out by others, coordination at the nati onal level among the various players with regard to 
coordination and implementa tion of international agreements wa s extremely important in order to 
fulfil the mandate.  The positive results, for exam ple implementation of the Montreal Protocol,  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 9 
 
 
  battling depletion of the ozone layer, and for the environment, as well as their compatibility with 
trade, were evident.  Also, as pointed out by New Zealand, there was a need for international 
cooperation in order to bring into line certain point s with respect to the environment for developing 
countries.  Internal or domestic  cooperation and international c ooperation through transfer of 
technology and strengthening of capacity building, rather than negotiations, was important for the 
compromises which might facilitate mutual supportiveness between trade and environment. 
47. The representative added that her delegation was not aware of any cases whereby a lack of 
mutual supportiveness between trade and environm ent within the WTO had taken place.  Thus, 
Ecuador believed the current manda te under Paragraph 31(i) should not amend areas of competence 
nor establish legal subordination of one body of rul es over another.  Rather, the focus should be on 
promoting mutual supportiveness in order to fulfil the mandate. 
48. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked Australia for its submission.  While his 
delegation needed time to study it further, Hong Kong, China's initial reaction was that it was a 
positive contribution.  Hong Kong, China had consistently attached importance to the Paragraph 31(i) 
mandate and considered that any ou tcome should be strictly within th e mandate.  One of the important 
aspects of the mandate was that the negotiations should not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member;  
in this regard, the Australian submission suggested  an outcome that was well within the mandate.  
Also, Hong Kong, China believed the observations in  the Australian submission accurately reflected 
the views and sentiments of Members in the CTESS, for example with respect to the importance of 
coordination at the national level a nd also that Members should continue to share national experiences 
concerning the negotiation and implem entation of STOs in MEAs.   
49. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted Switzerland's description of the reviewing of 
national experiences as a backward looking exercise.  In  the view of his delegation, this was also an 
important step for the CTESS to go forward.  As well, Hong Kong, China agreed with Australia's 
observation that the relationship between WTO ag reements and STOs in MEAs was working well;  
with this in mind, Hong Kong, China did not see the need of any measures to counteract speculative 
problems between the MEAs and WT O.  Hong Kong, China also agr eed that the national experience 
sharing exercise should continue so that Members co uld continue to learn from previous experience.  
In signalling that his delegation might have furthe r comments in the future , the representative of 
Hong Kong, China expressed the hope that the Austra lian submission could be the basis for future 
discussions on Paragraph 31(i). 
50. The representative of Norway  thanked Australia for its submission which was still being 
studied in capital.  Offering preliminary comment s, the representative said the Australian submission 
presented some useful ideas on how to fulfil the mandate on Paragraph 31(i) and in that respect was a valuable input to the CTESS's negotiations.  No rway wished to underline, however, that the 
submission needed to be seen in a context w ith other submissions already submitted under the 
mandate including, for example,  the EC's submission in 2006
8, the Swiss submission in 20059 and 
Norway's submission in 2003.10  The representative said all these submissions contained important 
elements that should be kept on the table. 
51. The representative commented on some aspects of  the Australian submission.  First, with 
respect to the idea of a report, th is could be a useful instrument inter alia  to increase transparency and 
increase the mutual supportiveness of trade and envi ronment.  However, Norway questioned whether 
a report provided a sufficient response to the manda te under Paragraph 31(i).  Regarding paragraph 5 
of the Australian submission, the representative asked  whether the listing of MEAs in this paragraph 
                                                      
8 TN/TE/W/68. 
9 TN/TE/W/61. 
10 TN/TE/W/25. TN/TE/R/18 
Page 10  
 
  was intended to constitute an exha ustive list of relevant MEAs.  In this regard, Norway might be 
concerned about any WTO process that could imply that the WTO had defining authority as to what constituted an MEA or a specific trade measure betw een parties to such MEAs.  In a similar way, 
Norway wished to point to some difficulties with the summing up of elements in paragraph 7 of the Australian submission which referred to some Me mbers and where certain elements from the CTESS 
discussions were emphasized while ot hers were not.  The representative noted also in this regard 
paragraph 2 of the Australian submission which proposed a practical outcome be pursued under 
Paragraph 31(i) reflecting the discussions and expe riences in the CTESS.  Norway questioned as well 
whether it was relevant to continue discussing in the CTE STOs between parties to an MEA, as proposed in paragraph 12 of the Australian submissi on, after the CTESS mandate had been fulfilled.  
Expressing a further point with respect to mutual  supportiveness and coordination at the national 
level, the representative agreed with previous speakers, including India and Egypt, that capacity 
building in that area should be enhanced.  Norway ha d informed the CTE of its efforts in this regard. 
52. The representative of Japan
 thanked Australia for its goo d contribution which had been 
co-sponsored by Argentina.  Referring to an earlier in tervention, he said he shared most of the views 
put forward by the New Zealand delegation. E xpressing preliminary comments, the representative 
said that while the exchange of national experien ces had been a good part of the CTESS negotiations, 
it was not enough nor sufficient to fulfil the mandate.  In his view, more could be done.  From another 
perspective, in particular the EC submission tabled  in 2006, Japan had some concerns especially with 
regard to the relationship between the obligations of MEAs and the obligations of WTO; from Japan's 
perspective, the EC submission went too far.  The representative said Japan wished to work with 
Members to try to find a way forward or some convergence.  In this re gard, the representative 
expressed interest in working with New Zealand on some future papers. 
53. The representative of the European Communities  (EC) thanked Australia for its constructive 
engagement on Paragraph 31(i), including its current s ubmission.  In the view of the EC, Australia's 
proposed report and recommendation approach was an insufficient response to issues that the EC was 
seeking to accommodate on the interface between two le gitimate bodies of international law.  In this 
regard, the representative emphasized that MEAs were a legitimate body of international law.  Thus, 
the objective was to achieve mutual supportiv eness between the two bodies of law.   
54. The representative expressed surprise at comments by  previous speakers to the effect that the 
Australian submission accurately reflected discu ssions in the CTESS.  While noting that the 
submission referred to such elements as definition of STOs and exchanges of national experiences, the 
representative said there were many other important elements of discussion in the Committee that 
were wholly absent in the submission including w ith respect to international coordination and the 
debate introduced by Switzerland on possible conf lict of law.  As well, recalling the CTESS's 
discussion in July 200611 on the EC proposal containing substantive elements on dispute settlement, 
the representative further observed that there was no reference in the Australian submission to dispute 
settlement.  In this context, the representative said he was no t convinced that the Australian 
submission accurately reflected the scope of discussions held in the CTESS. 
55. The representative said that on first reading of the Australian submission, his delegation's 
initial feeling was that the report was essentially inst ructing the Committee to be very short sighted, to 
be backward looking, and to treat tomorrow as if it were the same as today.  In this regard, he 
commented that simply because there had been no problems did not mean no problems would occur 
in the future.  The representative contrasted th e Australian submission with the EC's proposal 
(TN/TE/W/68); he described the latter as forward looki ng and an effort to get ahead of the curve.  
                                                      
11 TN/TE/R/16.  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 11 
 
 
  56. Noting that a number of speakers had referred to the EC's submission, the representative 
reminded the Committee of what was contained in the proposal and emphasized that it was not a 
revolutionary proposal but rather was essentially an e volution of existing trends in international law.  
Under the substantive provisions on dispute settlement, the EC proposal had stated that in the event of 
a dispute, a WTO panel should call for and defer to the expertise of the relevant MEA.  The 
representative reiterated that this was not a revolutiona ry principle but rather reflected legal trends in 
both bilateral and multilateral law.  In bilatera l terms, the representative gave the example of 
Article 104 of NAFTA which provided that specific trad e obligations in certain MEAs shall prevail in 
the event of any inconsistency with NAFTA provision s.  The representative added that it was not only 
NAFTA;  there were a large number of Free Trade Agreements that had been signed post-NAFTA 
which had precisely the same provision. 
57. In the multilateral legal context, the representa tive said Members needed to look no further 
than WTO agreements.  The Financial Services Agre ement stated that in the event of a dispute, 
financial services experts shall be c onsulted.  This was not as ambitious as the EC would like, but it 
was there.  The representative said the clear message  to get across was that the EC proposal was 
essentially something that already existed. 
58. The representative added that the Paragraph 31( i) negotiation was also part of a negotiation 
for a global environmental outcome and he referred in this regard to Paragraph 51 of the Doha 
Ministerial Declaration.  The representative recalled that when the EC proposal was presented in July 
2006, his delegation had talked about a "real life" dis pute in a fisheries context.  More recently, there 
had been an interesting discussion in the Negotia ting Group on Rules with the submission of a new 
paper containing dispute settlement provisions.  Th e representative said this was not an EC paper but 
it was a paper that stated clearly that in the event of a dispute on a fisheries issue, fisheries experts 
should be convened and consulted.  In this context, the repr esentative reiterated the goal of a global 
environmental outcome; he added that what was good for financial services regulation and good for 
fisheries should also be good for multilateral environmental agreements. 
59. The representative referred to the interventions  by New Zealand and Japan and said the EC 
looked forward to seeing precisely what they had in  mind with respect to voluntary consultations.  
The EC would reserve its position until it saw some thing in writing.  That said, the representative 
noted that there had been a reference to dispute se ttlement in one of those interventions and the EC 
agreed entirely that this topic ha d been an aspect of the CTESS discussions and should be reflected in 
any outcome on the Paragraph 31(i) negotiations. 
60. The representative of Brazil thanked Australia for its cons tructive document that summed up 
well the discussions that had been held in the CTESS fo r a long period.  She noted that the submission 
acknowledged the importance of coordination at the national level and recognized also each Member's 
efforts to coordinate both trade and environment policies.  She added that it provided good incentive 
to countries to continue pursuing those goals. 
61. The representative said the submission also help ed to clarify that there were two major 
positions;  one set by the EC and another set by Australia and other Members supporting Australia's 
position.  But there was also a middle ground as c ould be discerned from the interventions of some 
delegations including Egypt, New Zealand, Ecuador and others suggesting that the kind of document 
or report proposed by Australia would not be sufficient to fulfil the mandate. 
62. The representative said that from Brazil's perspe ctive, a major concern with the submission 
was that it contained no mention of the question of development.  Relatedly, and despite Australia's 
suggestion for a feasible and workable outcome fro m the negotiations, the submission did not shed 
light on what came next.  Therefore, the submission was not so much a proposal as a report and did TN/TE/R/18 
Page 12  
 
  not shed light on how to achieve sustainable development and how to strengthen the mutual 
supportiveness between trade and environmental policies. 
63. The representative said Brazil was in favour of working on proposals that would help the 
CTESS fulfil the mandate.  In Brazil's view, the EC  proposal was extreme but they had mentioned 
that there should be discussion on international coor dination.  Brazil would be comfortable working 
on the aspect of international coordination but this  would not extend to setting a hierarchy between 
the different bodies of law. 
64. Referring to the intervention by the EC, the re presentative of Brazil saw a difficulty with the 
reference to fisheries.  While the EC had said that  dispute settlement provisions could work well in 
other areas and in other agreements, fisheries was an element within the realm of the WTO.  In 
contrast, under Paragraph 31(i) the focus was on othe r organizations and other agreements.  In this 
sense, the representative agreed w ith the comment made by Egypt that environmental conditionalities 
were a new trend in the elaboration of trade la ws.  Under Paragraph 31(i), the discussion concerned 
different sets of rules, rules that were not the co re issues of the WTO.  The representative said there 
was a need to respect each country's particular needs. 
65. The representative referred to the interventi on by New Zealand and said the proposal of 
achieving the goal of development through such options as technology transfer and technical 
assistance was a valid one and should be analyzed by Members since the development issue should 
permeate all discussions in the CTESS. 
66. The representative of Chile
 thanked Australia and Argentin a for their submission which was 
being studied in capital.  He made preliminary remarks on the document.  The representative said 
Australia and Argentina's proposal of a factual re port on discussions in the CTESS – with particular 
attention to ideas related to the need or importanc e of domestic coordination – was an important idea 
and would, or should, adequately cover discussion  on one of the tracks in the Paragraph 31(i) 
negotiations.  However, as mentioned by New Zeala nd, there was also a second track of discussion 
which covered a wealth of additio nal elements.  The EC had mentioned some elements;  while Chile 
did not necessarily agree with all of them, they di d agree that there were elements from the CTESS 
discussions that were not reflected in the proposal put forward by Australia and Argentina, including 
elements that Chile would wish to see included in any possible outcome of the negotiations.  In the 
latter regard, the representative referred to the CTESS's discussion on such aspects as dispute 
settlement, the definition of an MEA, role of ME As, and regional environmen tal agreements.  These 
were areas where Chile would wish to see some kind of reflection. 
67. The representative said that Australia and Arge ntina's proposal reflected the discussion well 
and his delegation would appreciate the proposed focus on national level coordination, which was 
indispensable.  However, the outcome of the proposal would be a snapshot of a given state of time in 
mankind's history and this would not help to guide Me mbers in the future in terms of the relationship 
between dynamic elements and dynamic regimes.  In this regard, the representative recalled that the 
mandate from Ministers did not talk about achieving a specific snapshot but rather talked about a 
relationship over time between WTO rules and STOs in  MEAs.  On a related point, the representative 
asked if the list of MEAs in paragraph 5 of th e submission was exhaustive or were the sponsors 
thinking of something more? 
68. The representative reiterated that his delegation did not object to Australia and Argentina's 
proposal.  However, this would address only one of  the tracks of CTESS's discussions and Chile had 
an interest in the second track as well which c ould be another outcome of the negotiations. 
69. The representative of the United States  (US) thanked Australia  and Argentina for the 
submission.  The US appreciated the ideas outlined in the document.  The US also shared the view of  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 13 
 
 
  many other Members that it was a very good paper a nd approach to the Paragraph 31(i) aspect of the 
mandate.  This was because it full y reflected, in the view of the US, discussions held in the CTESS, 
particularly with respect to exchanges of nationa l experiences.  The representative said the "value 
added" of what Australia and Argentina had proposed was that it allowed Members to collect together 
the positive lessons learnt about the WTO/MEA rela tionship and lessons on which Members could all 
agree, as opposed to other aspects wh ere Members might not have been able to reach agreement.  The 
representative further observed that the relationshi p was working well and she highlighted a number 
of aspects that were important to the relationship,  including:  domestic coordination and ensuring that 
the negotiation and implementation of STOs in ME As was coordinated among trade and environment 
experts so as to achieve mutual supportiveness;  and ensuring the proper design of STOs, for example 
that they were science-based. 
70. The representative said the submission captured all the important lessons learnt as well as 
other issues that Members believed were important to ensuring a successful relationship, not just in the present but also into the futu re.  She further observed that the report proposed by Australia and 
Argentina would also include recommendations on ho w Members might continue to discuss the issues 
and continue to ensure there was effective dom estic coordination in capitals.  The representative 
added that the US would agree with Member s who had said international coordination and 
information sharing were also important aspects.  On  the latter, this aspect wa s explicitly reflected in 
the mandate and would be addressed when the CTESS discussed Paragraph 31(ii).  The representative said there were clearly linkages betw een Paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii). 
71. The representative said her delegation did not belie ve there was a need for abstract principles 
with respect to the WTO/MEA relationship, wh ich could have broad and unknown impacts on 
Member's WTO rights and obligations.  The US had already made clear it would have serious concerns with what the EC had proposed in July  2006 on this aspect – in terms of the impacts on 
Member's rights and obligations.  The US did not think this was a good approach to take; it was not 
warranted by the discussions held in the CTESS and was not within the mandate. 
72. The representative said a further advantage of the proposal of Australia and Argentina was 
that it respected the different competencies of the WTO and MEAs.  For its part, the US wished to 
balance the two bodies of international law and not in any way get into the competencies of other 
organizations.  Related to this aspect, the representa tive sought clarification with respect to an idea put 
forward by New Zealand on the provision of technical assistance.  Specifically, would the WTO be providing assistance to countries who were implemen ting MEA obligations or would it be the actual 
MEA secretariats providing such assistance?  For it s part, the US would have concerns about WTO 
advising MEAs or parties to MEAs on how to implement obligations under those agreements. 
73. The representative reiterated that the US was suppor tive of the type of approach proposed by 
Australia and Argentina.  It reflected the ag reement among Members in the discussions that the 
relationship was working well and also collected togeth er lessons learnt as to why this was the case.  
Those lessons could also form the basis for Member s efforts to ensure the relationship continued to 
work successfully.  The US strongly supported the approach as a basis for continued discussion and 
work under the mandate.  Further, in the US view, the approach captured the common ground among 
Members' views and positions in the Paragraph 31(i) negotiations. 
74. The representative of Nicaragua
 joined other speakers in thanking Australia for its 
submission.  The submission had been referred to capital and in the meantime the representative had 
brief preliminary comments.  In Nicaragua's view, the submission put forward by Australia was very 
important, particularly because it underscored three ma in elements:  consistency of policies at the 
national level;  exchanges of experiences in the implementation of MEAs;  and creation of capacity 
building for developing countries.  That said, Nica ragua also shared concerns expressed by Brazil 
with regard to the question of continuity and what  would happen when the report was drafted so as to TN/TE/R/18 
Page 14  
 
  ensure the mandate was addressed.  Nicaragua al so believed that the elements highlighted by 
New Zealand with respect to technology transf er and development assistance should be essential 
pillars in order to achieve effective r esults in the Paragraph 31(i) negotiations. 
75. Responding to the discussion, the representative of Argentina
 said the debate had been rich 
and substantive and would help move forward the Paragraph 31(i) negotiations .  He added, however, 
that issues and differences remained .  The representative observed that some delegations were still 
viewing the mandate from a legal and dogmatic persp ective;  in this regard, the EC had commented 
that WTO and MEAs constituted two legitimate bodi es of international law and the Committee should 
look at their interface.  The representative said ME As did indeed constitute a body of international 
law, but this was not the issue upon which the CTESS needed to focus.  In Argentina's view, the 
CTESS needed to address itself to the practical expe rience of discussions that had been held in the 
Committee.  In this regard, the discussions had pr ovided no evidence of conflict between WTO rules 
and MEAs. 
76. The representative described the EC proposal as contained in document TN/TE/W/68 as a 
work of magic to the extent that it did not re flect the CTESS discussions nor the evidence that had 
been presented.  In this regard, the representative noted that there had been six years of discussions 
and debates and that analysis had also been ca rried out with regard to MEAs and STOs.  The 
representative said his delegation was open to lear n of possible conflicts between WTO rules and 
MEAs.  However, Argentina's analysis had show n that the relevant provisions in MEAs were 
expressed in the positive form while WTO obligations we re expressed in negative form.  In his view, 
this precluded the possibility of conflict. 
77. The representative commented that the objectiv e was to achieve mutual supportiveness 
between trade and the environment.  To achieve  this objective, Members needed to work on a 
practical level in terms of coordination.  In Argentina's view, by increasing coordination at the 
domestic level, Members would contribute to mutual  supportiveness at both na tional and international 
levels. 
78. The representative said the Australian proposal woul d produce more than a static snapshot, as 
had been suggested by a delegation.  Looking at ways to enhance levels of coordination at the 
domestic level meant the proposal was dynamic.  Finally, the representative referred to other 
statements made, including by New Zealand;  he said it would be useful to learn of New Zealand's 
experience with respect to voluntary consultations .  The representative reiterated the importance of 
achieving an outcome in the Paragraph 31(i) nego tiations that was pragmatic and based on work 
undertaken in the Committee. 
79. Responding to the discussion, the representative of Australia  thanked Argentina for 
co-sponsoring the submission and thanked also tho se delegations that had provided comments and 
views.  She said her delegation had been heartene d by the level of support expressed for Australia's 
proposal. 
80. With respect to questions raised as to why paragraph 5 of the submission focused on six  
MEAs, the representative recalled that in cons idering which MEAs contained STOs, and in 
considering what came within the mandate, the CTESS received suggestions from some delegations 
that there were other MEAs with STOs.  However, Australia's analysis of other agreements suggested 
they were not multilateral in approach or did not ha ve environmental protection as a main focus or did 
not contain STOs.  Having said that, the representative added that in referring to the six specific 
MEAs in paragraph 5, Australia was attempting to reflect the discussions that had taken place in the 
CTESS and the approach did not preclude future agreem ents.  She added, however, that in order to 
deal with future agreements, a flexible outcome w as needed that did not set down rigid requirements.  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 15 
 
 
  81. Responding to a comment about whether the appr oach outlined in the Australian submission 
was forward or backward looking, the representative sa id Australia's approach looked to the future, as 
outlined by Argentina.  The representative noted the emphasis developing countries had placed on the 
importance of national coordination and exchanges of information and experience and how valuable 
those aspects would be to them in the future.  In  this regard, Australia c onsidered that being too 
prescriptive in an outcome from the CTESS would not help Members in the future and would go 
beyond the mandate.  In response to a separate ques tion, the representative clarified that the 
Australian proposal envisaged a report as an outcome  under Paragraph 31(i).  She added that it was 
further envisaged that the report would contain recommendations for future  work; on this aspect, 
Australia was open to further discussions and views. 
82. With respect to the intervention by the EC, the representative said Australia was not 
suggesting that MEAs were not an important body of international law.   Australia believed it was very 
important to reflect the mutual supportiveness be tween WTO rules and MEAs but not any hierarchy 
or differential relationship.  The representative added that it was important that the checks and 
balances that had been agreed in the WTO should c ontinue to be available and maintained so that 
environmental measures put in place by WTO Members could be challenged on the basis of trade 
disciplines.  On another aspect raised by the EC, the representative said Australia had no problem 
with WTO panels and the Appellate Body seeking expert advice.  This occurred already and was 
permissible under the DSU.  Furthermore, those bodies had shown capacity to balance the various 
expert opinions they had sought in coming to a ruling.  However, Australia could not accept the 
suggestion that in seeking expert opinions, the pane ls and Appellate Body should defer to one source 
of opinion over another. 
83. Referring to the intervention by New Zealand,  the representative said Australia looked 
forward to learning more about ideas on voluntary b ilateral consultations.  Finally, noting that many 
delegations had provided preliminary comments, the representative said Australia would welcome 
further views once Members had had opportunity to  consider its submission in more detail.  
II. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
84. The representative of Canada  introduced document TN/TE/W/71, which was also 
co-sponsored by New Zealand.  This paper w as a further reiteration of a Canadian non-paper12 
presented at an informal meeting held on 30 Ma rch 2007 and took into account comments made by 
delegations at that meeting.  The submission also built on the points raised in previous 
paragraph 31(ii) submissions by the EC, US and Switzerland, as well as input from the Secretariat's 
synthesis paper (JOB(07)/2);  it was submitted with a view to advancing the negotiations.  The paper 
suggested that broad agreement had been ach ieved among Members on key elements of the 
paragraph 31(ii) mandate, namely that proce dures for information exchange between MEA 
secretariats and WTO bodies should become a formal, institutionalized feature of WTO's work;  and 
that flexible criteria should be advanced to facilita te the granting of observer status to MEAs in WTO 
bodies. 
85. Canada welcomed the suggestions put forward by the EC, US and Switzerland on procedures 
for information exchange between MEA secretariats  and the WTO;  it believed that such procedures 
should be flexible and not overly detailed.  Informat ion sessions held on an an nual basis should form 
the central feature of regular information excha nge with MEAs.  These information sessions could be 
organized by the CTE in concert with other WT O bodies according to the subject matter or theme 
chosen in a given year.   
                                                      
12 JOB(07)/38. TN/TE/R/18 
Page 16  
 
  86. It was Canada's view that information ex change should promote mutual supportiveness of 
trade and environment, and improved coherence nati onally and internationally.  Bringing together 
trade and environment officials in a coordinated fashion through information exchange and events 
would help in developing a more integrated appr oach at the domestic level.  These information 
sessions should seek to attract the broadest po ssible representation from within WTO bodies and 
among MEAs relevant to the topic identified.  Moreover, it would be important to draw upon the 
expertise within UNEP and other UN agencies involved in trade and environment issues. 
87. Key elements for procedures for information exchange were outlined in the proposal.  
For instance, information sessions should be regular events, perhaps held once a year and their timing 
should be coordinated with other meetings as appropriate.  The topics should be decided by the CTE 
in consultation with relevant WTO bodies and ME As.  Between sessions, there would be an ongoing 
document exchange by means of the internet to enhance information exchange between the various 
bodies.  Other mechanisms for collaboration should be considered and included in the proposed procedures and tested on an ongoing basis, incl uding ways and means of incorporating technical 
assistance activities and capacity building elements to  help developing country Members foster their 
own internal, national trade and environment coordination processes.   
88. With regard to criteria for the granting of ob server status to MEAs, the co-sponsors believed 
that this could encourage cooperation at the intern ational level, in addition to complementing and 
facilitating national level coor dination between trade and environment officials.   
89. The representative recalled that at the informal  meeting in March, discussions had been held 
on a proposal to develop indicative questions to assist decision-making on granting observership, and 
their relationship to criteria.  This recommenda tion had underscored broad support for a flexible 
approach to the decision-making process.  Canada and New Zealand viewed indicative questions as 
complementary to the concept of criteria.  Ministers had directed the CTESS to develop criteria to grant observer status;  the word "criteria" was de fined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as 
"a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided."   
90. Canada agreed that a flexible approach was required for granting observer status to MEAs, 
and that criteria should not be so inflexible as to make it more difficult than it currently was for an 
MEA secretariat to gain observership to a releva nt WTO body.  The approach should be flexible 
enough to allow new MEAs to apply for observer status in the future.   
91. Canada noted that Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure for the Session of the Ministerial 
Conference and Meetings of the General C ouncil (WT/L/161) should guide and inform the 
discussions in developing criteria to grant observe r status to relevant MEA secretariats.  Using 
Annex 3 as a point of departure, the following non-exhaustive set of criteria had been proposed to assist WTO bodies in making reasoned decisions re garding applications for MEA observer status:  
(i) on relevance, is the MEA’s work relevant to  the WTO body's work and vice-versa?  (ii) on 
observer elsewhere, is the MEA currently an observer to other WTO bodies?  (iii) on 
representativeness, does the MEA reflect broad membership of the WTO?  and (iv) on reciprocity, 
will there be a reciprocal relationship between th e MEA and the WTO body with respect to access to 
proceedings, documents, and other aspects of the observer status?   
92. The representative said that these criteria and indicative questions were by no means 
exhaustive, and should be augmente d, as appropriate, by the WTO body that was approached by an 
MEA for observer status.  Furthermore, from a pro cedural point of view, the following elements 
should also be considered:  (i) the decision to grant observer status should be made on the basis of a 
written request and on a case-by-case basis for each requ est;  (ii) decisions on granting observer status 
to MEAs in relevant WTO committees should fall to th e relevant committee;  and (iii) observer status 
should be granted upon conditio n of full reciprocity.    TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 17 
 
 
  93. In conclusion, it was recommended that the Chairm an indicate in his next report to the Trade 
Negotiations Committee (TNC) that convergence was near on this item, and that the CTESS would 
welcome input from other WTO bodies, as appropriate , on specific points of agreement to date.  
With respect to the question raised  in recent discussions about how to put into practice any agreement 
achieved in this area, Canada noted that it welcomed suggestions from Members, and was prepared to 
adjust the proposal in light of these suggestions in order to meet the collective desire of the 
membership to fulfil this part of the mandate.   
94. The representative of New Zealand  said that the proposal in TN/TE/W/71 had a clear 
practical purpose.  It had been designed to draw together the exchanges and submissions under this 
mandate, and to identify both the nature and the extent of possible convergence on all of the main 
elements contained in paragraph 31(ii) mandate.  With regard to information exchange, New Zealand 
believed that there was a broad agreement on th e way forward;  there was also a good sense of 
convergence on the issue of criteria for the granting of  observer status.  The paper had tried to distil 
key criteria that might be used, supplementing these w ith indicative questions that might be useful;  
the paper also suggested that criteria be flexib le and non prescriptive.  New Zealand was ready to 
undertake the necessary work with other Members to implement any of the suggestions contained in 
the paper.   
Information Exchange 
95. The representative of Thailand , also speaking on behalf of Malaysia , Indonesia , Philippines  
and Brunei Darussalam  welcomed the new submission from Ca nada and New Zealand, which it 
believed would initiate useful di scussions on points raised rega rding the non-paper previously 
submitted by Canada.13  With regard to information excha nge, the paper presented a practical way 
forward.  Thailand supported some of the view s expressed, e.g. that procedures should be kept 
flexible and practical;  that there should be early  coordination between WTO and MEA secretariats on 
the organization of joint events and information ses sions;  and that transparency should be improved 
through various information exchange process es between the WTO and MEA secretariats.   
96. The representative noted that paragraph 6(i) of TN/TE/W/71 contained an important element 
regarding technical assistance and capacity buildin g activities to help developing countries enhance 
their respective trade and environment coordination processes;  Thailand asked for further detail on this point.  Moreover, Thailand sought further cl arification on information and document exchange 
procedures between WTO and MEA secretariats as regards to WTO Members that were not parties or signatories to an MEA;  in particular, Thailand ask ed whether this Member could have access to the 
official documents produced by that partic ular MEA as a result of these procedures.   
97. The representative of Egypt
 thanked Canada and New Zealand for the paper, which built on 
previous submissions by the EC, US and Switzerland.   In the past, Egypt had expressed the view that 
procedures for information exchange should not be t oo prescriptive, and that they should be flexible.  
He noted that Members should be in a position to assess the utility of information exchange and to 
consider how to conduct this exchange in futu re.  Egypt would not support a higher level of 
institutionalization of the information exchange pr ocess, but would encourage information exchange 
sessions that would lead to better information fl ow between the WTO and MEAs.  Members would 
need to assess the value-added of the informati on exchange before conducting further work to 
establish procedures.   
98. The representative welcomed th e capacity building component in TN/TE/W/71, and recalled 
that this point had been raised also in a prev ious US submission.  Egypt believed that national 
coordination was important with regard to the qualit y of the information that would be exchanged.  
                                                      
13 JOB(07)/38. TN/TE/R/18 
Page 18  
 
  In the case of developing country Members, there was a need to come to speed with the rest of the 
membership in national coordination capacity and the possibility of contributing to the information 
exchange.  Like Thailand, Egypt sought clarifi cation regarding document exchange as regards to 
Members that were not parties to certain MEAs.   
99. With respect to the use of th e internet as an instrument to  enhance information exchange, 
Egypt believed that further detailed discussion was needed, particularly considering the existing 
WTO's IT facility and the considerable amount of in formation already available.  Egypt was open to 
further discussions on these questions, following a ho listic approach to the various parts of the 
mandate, and in particular in light  of the important linkage between paragraphs 31(ii) and 31(i).   
100. The representative of China
 thanked Canada and New Zeala nd for their new submission, and 
also the US, EC, Switzerland and the Secretar iat for earlier papers on paragraph 31(ii).  
China believed that the document built on these previ ous papers and included useful elements for 
future work.  His delegation supported the gene ral proposals regarding information exchange.  
However, as some other delegations had pointed out, China had concerns regarding the use of the 
words "formal, institutionalized feature" of CTE's work.  China noted that it could agree with the 
wording in paragraph 6 of TN/TE/W/71 to establish procedures for information exchange between the 
WTO and MEAs.  The mandate called upon Members to  negotiate procedures for regular information 
exchange between MEA secretariats and WTO bodies, not to decide the stat us of the information 
exchange.  Moreover, the purpose of the negotiati ons was to make existing information exchange 
more effective.  China believed that informa tion exchange was extremely important, and should 
become a regular feature of WTO's work.   
101. The representative noted that technical assist ance activities and capacity building had been 
mentioned in paragraph 6(i) of th e paper, and believed that this el ement should be highlighted in the 
context of MEA information exchange sessions, ta king into account the concerns of developing 
countries.   
102. The representative of Australia  welcomed the paper put forw ard by New Zealand and Canada, 
which built on previous submissions by the US, EC a nd Switzerland.  Australia believed that this new 
submission provided a concrete basis for reaching ag reement on this part of the mandate.  It was 
important that the CTESS took the opportunity to reach an outcome on this issue, since it would establish the mechanics for achieving outcomes in othe r elements of the mandate.  Australia remained 
flexible regarding procedures for information excha nge, and believed that such processes needed to be 
effective and adaptable to ensure that th ey would remain relevant and useful.   
103. The representative of Mexico
 thanked Canada and New Zealand for the proposals which 
captured several of the elements brought forward previously by other Members.  She noted that Mexico had some reservations with regard to pa ragraph 16 of the document which referred to the 
Chairman's report to the TNC.   
104. On information exchange, Mexico agreed with  the point made by Canada, New Zealand and 
other Members regarding flexibility in the procedures.   Referring to paragraph 6(b), Mexico raised a 
concern regarding the frequency and possible auto maticity that could result from the stock-taking 
exercise.  With regard to paragraph 6(c), which suggested that "procedures should be flexible enough 
to allow for participation by other organizations or groups as appropriate", Mexico sought further 
clarification on the difference between the word s "organizations" and "groups", as well as on the 
meaning of the words "as appropriate" in this contex t.  Mexico was open to further discussion with a 
view to achieving a result on these questions. 
105. The representative of Colombia
 thanked Canada and New Zealand for the paper, which 
provided a good basis for the CTESS to continue its  discussions.  The representative suggested that  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 19 
 
 
  the proposals made in TN/TE/W/71 and the subm issions from EC, US and Switzerland should be 
compiled in a single paper.  With respect to paragr aph 6(i) of the document, Colombia believed that 
the question of technical assistance should be given gr eater emphasis;  in particular, it could become a 
standing item on the agenda of MEA information sessions.   
106. The representative of Argentina  thanked Canada and New Zealand for the submission, which 
took into account comments made in previous paragr aph 31(ii) discussions.  The representative also 
welcomed Canada's introductory statement, whic h had specifically addressed some of the issues 
Argentina had raised in previous discussions.  Ar gentina's comments took into account the fact that 
the Committee was discussing elements proposed fo r information exchange and was not yet working 
on the basis of a legal text.   
107. Argentina emphasized that the CTESS was worki ng solely within the area of competence of 
the CTE;  therefore, the final text should not be prescriptive on other WTO bodies.  This did not preclude the possibility for the CTE to organize jo int MEA information sessions with other bodies or 
to otherwise collaborate with other bodies in the identification of topics for the information exchange.  
However, it was for the membership - either in the CTE or in other bodies - to take decisions on these 
issues.  At the appropriate time, the Committee would need to be more specific with respect to the 
actual language used;  for the time being, his dele gation considered that the paper was useful.   
108. Finally, with respect to paragraph 16, Argentina agreed with Mexico that it would be 
premature for the Chairman to indicate in his next report to the TNC that Members were near convergence on this item.   
109. The representative of the European Communities
 thanked Canada and New Zealand for their 
effort which took the Committee one step furthe r towards finding common ground on the mandate.  
It was the EC's view that the negotiation on inform ation exchange was near convergence.  The EC had 
little to add with respect to the elements proposed , but emphasized the need to avoid overly detailed 
or prescriptive procedures.   
110. The EC supported the proposal that inform ation exchange should become a formal, 
institutionalized aspect of the CTE's work.  The EC also supported the stocktaking mechanism 
proposed by Canada and New Zealand.  The represen tative recalled that China had raised concerns 
with regard to the use of the words "formal or in stitutionalized feature of CTE's work", and preferred 
the word "regular".  The EC would reflect further on this point, but did not believe that it would be a 
particularly difficult issue to resolve.  
111. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegati on believed that improving 
cooperation between WTO bodies and MEA secretaria ts through information exchange and observer 
status could contribute to the important objective of enhancing mutual suppor tiveness of trade and the 
environment.  The representative noted that ther e was a high degree of convergence in Members' 
views, as summarized in the proposal.  This conv ergence should be used as the basis for further 
intensified work.   
112. It was important that WTO be able to discu ss environmental issues to ensure the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and the environment;  inform ation exchange was crucial in facilitating this 
work.  However, she noted that both the WTO and the MEAs needed to ensu re that the information 
exchanged truly reflected the proponents of original  WTO documents in their entirety and integrity.  
Any information exchange or t echnical assistance should be inclusive and available to all WTO 
Members, including Members that were not parti es to MEAs, so as not to prejudice the rights and 
obligations of any WTO Member or any MEA signatory.   TN/TE/R/18 
Page 20  
 
  113. The representative of India
 welcomed the effort by Canada and New Zealand to further this 
aspect of the Doha mandate building on earlier subm issions.  India agreed with the suggestions 
regarding the frequency and the means of informati on exchange.  India believed that this was a good 
way to advance the mandate on information exch ange between MEAs and WTO bodies.  However, 
India shared the view of other delegations with regard to paragraph 16 of the proposal.  While the 
Chair could communicate to the TNC the nature and progress of the discussions, it would be 
premature to suggest that the negotiations were "near convergence".  
114. The representative of Ecuador  thanked Canada and New Zealand for document TN/TE/W/71, 
as well as the US, EC and Switzerland for their previ ous input.  Ecuador believed that within the 
framework of this mandate, regular exchange of in formation was important and useful;  it should be 
carried out with flexible procedures and mechanisms to ensure the participation of MEA secretariats.  
Information exchange carried out through events, se minars and workshops coul d be organized by the 
WTO secretariat in coordination with relevant WTO committees and MEAs with the objective of 
strengthening the mutual supportiveness of trad e and environment, which was the underlying 
objective of the mandate.  If Members so agreed, representatives of the UNEP and other UN agencies, 
such as UNCTAD, could also be invited.   
115. Ecuador believed that the key elements of th e proposals relating to information exchange 
were acceptable;  however, giving a formal or in stitutional dimension to the information exchange 
could actually affect the operation and effectiv eness of the information exchange.  Regarding 
paragraph 6(i), Ecuador noted that mechanisms for collaboration, including technical assistance, could 
assist developing countries to better fulfil their envi ronmental commitments and to play a more active 
participatory role.  Finally, Ecuador emphasized th e linkage between the manda te in paragraphs 31(i) 
and 31(ii) of the Doha Declaration.   
116. The representative of Switzerland  thanked Canada and New Zealan d for their effort to convert 
the non-paper14 into a formal submission with a view to advancing CTESS discussions under 
paragraph 31(ii).  The proposal usefully built on the formal proposals made to date.  It showed that 
there was wide agreement on the issues of info rmation exchange and observer status, and that 
Members' deliberations under this mandate were near convergence.   
117. With respect to information exchange, Swit zerland believed no further elaboration of its 
position was necessary, since it had made its points at length on previous occasions.  In general, Switzerland concurred with the approaches proposed that information exchange sessions needed to 
become a formal and institutionalized feature of  WTO's work.  Switzerland also agreed that 
procedures should not be overly deta iled and should be flexible so as to avoid putting additional 
burden on the secretariats involved, as well as on WTO Members and MEA Parties.  Switzerland 
supported efforts in achieving agreement in this area of the mandate.  
118. The representative of the United States
 thanked Canada and New Zealand for their paper.  
The US supported many, if not all, of the ideas outlined in TN/TE/W/71;  in fact, most of them 
reflected ideas which the US had put forward in its earlier paper.15  Referring to a point raised by 
several delegations on procedures for inform ation exchange between MEAs and the WTO 
secretariats, the representative clarified that what  the US had proposed was merely to agree on a 
general structure for this informati on exchange.  It was the US' view that the wording contained in the 
mandate, i.e. "regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and the relevant WTO 
committees", did not mean that every WTO comm ittee would need to hold annual information 
exchange sessions or to follow a set of procedures that the CTESS might choose to outline.  Rather, as 
                                                      
14 JOB(07)/38.  
15 TN/TE/W/70.   TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 21 
 
 
  it had been the practice in the CTE, the WTO Secr etariat could organize the information sessions and 
liaise with WTO bodies as appropriate.   
119. Moreover, any information from the MEAs coul d be communicated to relevant WTO bodies.  
Likewise, information received by delegations c ould also be shared among delegations or with 
colleagues in other WTO bodies.  There was no inte ntion to create a series of procedures for the 
various committees, but rather to agree on a ge neral structure for information sharing.   
120. The representative of Brazil  said that the paper was useful to move the CTESS work forward 
on this less controversial item of the agenda.  On regularization of information exchange sessions, 
Brazil had doubts as to whether annual sessions would be sufficient to deal with all the pertinent 
issues related to the work of MEAs.  Brazil propo sed to hold these sessions twice a year, given the 
considerable amount of information that MEAs c ould provide.  In Brazil's view, once procedures 
would be created and the expertise established, it would not be more burdensome to hold two sessions 
a year.   
121. Referring to paragraph 6(c) of the proposal regarding the kind of information presented by 
MEA secretariats, the representative noted that there could be cases where views would differ 
between the secretariat of an MEA and the Parties to that MEA.   
122. The representative of Japan  thanked New Zealand and Canada for their paper.  Japan's 
position had been explained in previous meetings , and those points had been well reflected in 
TN/TE/W/71.  Therefore, Japan generally supported the proposals contained in this new submission.   
123. The representative of Canada  said with regard to the comment s made on the use of the word 
"regularize" as opposed to "formalize" or "institutiona lize" that the issue could be further discussed;  
Canada did not believe that this  question would create particular difficulties among Members.   
124. The representative took note of the points made  on paragraph 6(i), and said that technical 
assistance could be further emphasized in the procedur es.  Various questions had been raised in this 
regard and there seemed to be an interest in a ddressing them;  these could, for instance, be discussed 
further at a particular information session with MEAs.  
125. Regarding document exchange, and whether these would be made available to non-parties to 
an MEA, Canada noted that the documents ma de available to Members would be essentially 
non restricted or de-restricted documents already ava ilable in the public domain.  In this regard, he 
noted that the internet could provide a user-friendly fo rmat to consolidate or make links to the various 
papers.   
126. In response to the question by Mexico regardi ng paragraph 6(c) of the proposal, relating to 
participation by other organizations or groups, th e representative clarified that the organizations 
should be international organizations.  The proposal  sought to provide a flexible approach whereby 
these organizations would be invited, as appropriate , depending on the particular theme selected in a 
given year.   
127. Finally, with respect to paragraph 16 and the state-of-play of paragraph 31(ii) negotiations, 
he noted that it would be a matter for the Chairman  to decide when reporting to the next TNC.   TN/TE/R/18 
Page 22  
 
  Observer Status 
128. The representative of Japan
 recalled that the US had proposed in a previous submission16, that 
in the event a decision could not be arrived at with  respect to a particular, yet relevant, MEA request, 
WTO bodies be encouraged to invite the relevant MEA to participate as an observer on an ad hoc 
basis.  Japan asked whether there was any particular  reason for not having included this suggestion in 
document TN/TE/W/71.   
129. The representative of Thailand , also speaking on behalf of Malaysia , Indonesia , Philippines  
and Brunei Darussalam , noted that the proposal in Paragraph 15 that certain MEAs be granted 
automatic observer status in the CTESS for the rema inder of the DDA negotiations was not within the 
mandate.  The negotiations under Para graph 31(ii) should focus on developing criteria for the granting 
of observer status to MEAs.   
130. The representative of Chile  said that his delegation broadly supported the elements outlined in 
the submission by Canada and New Zealand on the issue of observer status.  With respect to the second criteria proposed in paragraph 10 of the document, on whether the MEA was an observer elsewhere, Chile noted that if an  organization was granted observer status in one WTO body, it should 
be given automatic access to other bodies, wit hout having to submit any additional request.   
131. Chile asked where the burden of proof lied in the examination of MEA requests for observer 
status, i.e. whether it would be for the MEA to estab lish that it met the relevant criteria, or for any 
Member objecting to a request to establish that an MEA did not meet the criteria.  This question depended on whether Members wished to facilitate or  not the granting of observer status for MEAs.  
Chile also requested the co-sponsors to clarify wh ether there was any difference between the criteria 
of reciprocity in Paragraph 10(d) , and Paragraph 12(c), where reciprocity appeared to be a condition 
rather than a criterion.  It was Chile's understa nding that observer status would be granted under the 
conditions of reciprocity;  this problem, how ever, could be of a semantic nature.   
132. Finally, with regard to Paragraph 16 of the proposal, Chile agreed with the point made by 
Canada that the TNC should be informed of the st ate of the discussions;  if progress had been made, 
this should be reflected in the Chair's report.  
133. The representative of Norway
 welcomed the submission by Canada and New Zealand, which 
it considered as a constructive step forward to fi nd a solution to the mandate.  Norway believed that 
criteria or indicative questions should not be too rest rictive or inflexible, so as to enhance the mutual 
supportiveness of trade and environment.  The criteria of relevance, observer elsewhere and 
reciprocity seemed appropriate.  However, with rega rd to the criteria of representativeness, Norway 
was of the view that even if the membership of an MEA did not fully correspond to that of WTO, it 
could still be of interest for WTO to be informed of relevant developments within that MEA.  She 
noted that this criteria would need to be further refi ned.  Norway also shared the view that decisions 
on the granting of observer status to MEAs in re levant WTO committees should fall to the relevant 
committee, as suggested in Paragraph 12(c) of th e proposal.  In addition, Norway supported the 
proposal that MEAs, as well as UNEP, be granted observer status for the remainder of the 
negotiations in the CTESS.   
134. The representative of the European Communities  said that the criteria proposed were not 
problematic, but that there were some questions re garding their application.  With respect to the 
criteria of relevance in Paragraph 10(a) of the pr oposal, the EC noted that the language should be 
consistent with that of Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure, which provided that "requests for observer 
                                                      
16 TN/TE/W/70.   TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 23 
 
 
  status shall accordingly be considered from organizat ions which have competence  and a direct interest 
in trade policy matters".17   
135. Regarding the criteria of "observer elsewhere", the EC reiterated that there should be scope 
for new MEAs that would not be observer in ot her bodies.  The EC emphasized that the guiding 
principle for any of the criteria was that they shou ld not make it more difficult than was already the 
case for MEAs to obtain observership.   
136. The EC recalled its own proposal that criteria should be deemed fulfilled for the MEAs that 
had take part in the work of the CTE.  Regard ing the comments made on Paragraph 12(b) that the 
granting of observer status to MEAs in releva nt WTO Committees should fall to the relevant 
Committee, he noted that if the relevant Committee w ould adopt these criteria, it would also be able to 
take a decision to deem these crite ria fulfilled in certain respects.   
137. Finally, the EC supported the proposal in pa ragraph 16 of TN/TE/W/71 that the Chairman 
indicate in his report to the TNC the degree of convergence emerging from the discussions.  
138. The representative of Egypt  recalled that the mandate called upon Members to agree on 
criteria for granting observer status, and did not provide scope for automatic granting of observer 
status to MEAs.  Criteria should be applied in a co nsistent manner and should not be left to too many 
interpretations.  Egypt's position in this regard ha d been clearly stated in other WTO bodies, including 
the General Council.  Moreover, Egypt disagreed w ith the suggestions made by some Members to 
grant MEA ad hoc invitees observer status in th e CTESS for the remainder of the negotiations.  The 
question of consistency in the application of criteri a was of particular importance to his delegation, 
and for the credibility of the process in WTO.   
139. The representative of Argentina  was of the view that instead of focusing on whether criteria 
would facilitate or hinder MEA observer status , Members should focus on establishing reasonable 
criteria to guide WTO bodies in making a decision on  observer status.  Argentina had made comments 
in previous discussions on the formulation of criteri a.  His delegation welcomed the fact that the 
criteria proposed by Canada and New Zealand were formulated in a positive manner.  He noted that 
while a list of indicative questions could be useful , it could not be a substitute for positively phrased 
criteria.  Argentina supported the view that the lis t of criteria should be non-exhaustive and allow for 
the consideration of additional criteria by re levant WTO committees.  Moreover, Argentina 
understood the criteria to be cumulative and not alternative. 
140. Regarding the criterion in paragraph 10(b), Ar gentina expressed the view that there should 
not be any automaticity related to the fact that  an MEA was already an observer in another WTO 
body.  The competence and interest of an MEA ha d to be assessed in respect of the work of each 
body.  With respect to the question raised by Chile  on the burden of proof, the point had been clarified 
in paragraph 12 of the proposal:  the MEA should submit its request to the WTO body in which it was 
interested to obtain observer status, provide the necessary information for the WTO body to assess its 
compliance with the criteria, and on this basis, th e competent body would then decide on whether or 
not to grant observer status to the MEA.   
141. The representative of China  supported the idea in Paragraph 3 of the proposal that flexible 
criteria should be advanced to facilitate the granti ng of observer status in WTO bodies.  While China 
agreed with the main thrust of the paragraph, it supported the view expressed by other delegations that 
there was no question of making criteria more lenient, stringent or flexible.  Criteria simply needed to be formulated in a clear, transparent, and prag matic manner with the objective of enhancing the 
mutual supportiveness of trade and environment.   
                                                     
 
17 WT/L/161, Paragraph 2 of Annex 3.   TN/TE/R/18 
Page 24  
 
  142. The representative of the United States
 appreciated the fact that the submission by Canada 
and New Zealand built on previous ideas proposed.  Th e US reiterated its proposal that in the event a 
decision could not be arrived at on a particular re quest, WTO bodies should be encouraged to consider 
granting observership to the MEA on an ad hoc basis;   in the US' view, this offered a pragmatic and 
useful approach, particularly in the current situa tion regarding observership in the WTO.  The US was 
flexible with regard to the formulation of criteria or indicative questions to guide the consideration of 
MEA requests.   
143. The US noted that many of the points containe d in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the proposal were 
already covered in Annex 3 of the Rules of Proce dure.  The US therefore wondered whether Canada 
and New Zealand intended anything different from wh at was called for in Annex 3, or whether they 
had tried to capture the main aspects contained in An nex 3.  In the US' view, Annex 3 should serve as 
the point of departure;  any additional criteria or indicative question would inform a Committee's 
thinking on whether or not a particular MEA met the general criteria of competence and direct interest 
set out in Annex 3. 
144. On the issue of automaticity suggested by the EC, the United States asked the EC to clarify 
whether the granting of observer status would be done by the WTO body following an examination of 
MEA observer requests in light of criteria or indicativ e questions to be agreed, or whether the requests 
would automatically be granted for a certain list of  MEA secretariats regardless of the discussion of 
criteria or the answers to the indicative questions.  While the US believed that criteria or indicative 
questions should not make it more difficult for the MEAs to get observership in relevant WTO bodies, 
it also considered that WTO bodies should be allo wed to make the final decision on who receives 
observer status in their Committee.   
145. The representative of Brazil  noted that a non exhaustive list of criteria could lead to a lack of 
transparency and predictability, as it meant that di fferent criteria could be applied to different MEA 
requests.  She noted that criteria needed to be app lied in a uniform manner, i.e. in a way that did not 
create further difficulties for the MEA to obtain observe r status in a particular body.  There was also 
the question of how to deal with an MEA request  in cases where the MEA did not meet all of the 
criteria.  Brazil believed that a negative answer to  one of the questions should not preclude the MEA 
from participating in the work of a WTO body.  Moreover, Brazil agreed that the criteria of 
competence and direct interest should serve as a point  of departure, as these criteria were broader than 
the four criteria set out in paragraph 10 of the pr oposal.  She noted that flexibility was a key issue, 
given that the objective was to promote the participa tion of the MEAs in WTO bodies.  In this regard, 
Brazil believed that shifting the burden of proof to th e MEAs would not facilitate their participation.   
146. The representative of Colombia  said that his delegation agreed that criteria should be flexible 
and non exhaustive.  The criteria should serve as guidance for the relevant committees in their 
consideration of MEA requests for observer status, a nd should not limit their ability to take decisions 
in this regard.  Furthermore, flexible crite ria could promote a dynamic relationship between 
environmental bodies and WTO committees.  His de legation also believed that indicative questions 
could be a useful instrument for WTO bodies in th eir examination of observership requests, provided 
these were only indicative and non exhaustive.  Colombia agreed that observer status should be 
granted to the MEAs that had a longstanding history of collaboration with the WTO.  However, the representative noted that the final decision regarding the granting of observer status should be left to 
each committee on the basis of the criteria to be agreed.   
147. The representative of Mexico
 said that her delegation was in favour of MEAs participating as 
ad hoc invitees in the work of the CTESS.  With re gard to the proposal by Canada and New Zealand, 
Mexico noted that it was important to find the right balance between, on the one hand, adopting 
flexible criteria that would not be restrictive for MEA observership, and on the other hand, not 
limiting the capacity of Members to make decisions w ith regard to observer status.  Mexico was still  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 25 
 
 
  analyzing the proposal in paragraph 15 to gran t observer status to MEA ad hoc invitees for the 
remainder of the negotiations in th e CTESS.  As other delegations, Mexico believed that the proposal 
to automatically grant observer status to certain  MEAs was outside the mandate and represented an 
additional concession for delegations.  Her delegation however remained  open to finding a solution to 
this question.   
148. The representative of Ecuador  considered that the criteria for granting observer status should 
be flexible and ensure transparency and predicta bility.  She noted that given the mandate, indicative 
questions could serve as a complement to the criteria,  but should not replace the adoption of criteria.  
Her delegation also believed that it was for e ach WTO body to decide whether an MEA had 
competence and direct interest in the work of that particular body.  
149. Ecuador was still considering the criteria proposed , but had already some questions regarding 
the concept of reciprocity in paragraphs 10(d) and 12(c), where it was suggested that observer status 
would be granted upon condition of  full reciprocity.  Ecuador aske d Canada and New Zealand to 
further elaborate on this point, particularly sin ce it was also being suggested that criteria should 
somehow facilitate the participation of MEAs as observers.   
150. Ecuador believed that paragr aphs 13, 14 and 15 exceeded the mandate in paragraph 31(ii), 
which was to establish criteria for the granting of observer status.  Regarding the proposal in paragraph 16, Ecuador noted it would be important to reflect the state of play in the negotiations as a 
whole, and not only the positive results or po ssible convergence under paragraph 31(ii).   
151. The representative of Canada
 appreciated the comments made by other delegations on 
document TN/TE/W/71.  On the issue of applicati on of criteria, as suggested by Egypt and others, 
Canada agreed on the need to find the right ba lance.  His delegation had proposed a non exhaustive 
set of criteria to provide the necessary flexibility to  WTO bodies.  The representative was of the view 
that criteria had to be flexible enough to adapt to the particular body considering a request for 
observership.  In addition, Canada agreed that a flexible and pragmatic appr oach had to be followed 
when applying the criteria, as China had suggested.  
152. Canada echoed the question posed by the US  to the EC regarding its proposal for 
automatically granting observer status to certain ME As in the CTE.  The submission by Canada and 
New Zealand recognized that the MEAs listed in para graph 13 were likely to fulfil the criteria to be 
accorded observer status.  However, the paper also  noted that it would still be appropriate for WTO 
bodies to make decisions on participation following receipt of a written request by the MEA interested in being granted observer status. 
153. The representative of Canada pointed out that  the suggestion by Argentina to rephrase some 
of the indicative questions in a positive manner was a useful one.  Canada also welcomed the EC's 
suggestion that instead of asking if the MEA was an observer elsewhere, it could be asked whether 
there was scope for cooperation between the MEA and the WTO body.  Regarding the point on duplication between the criteria identified in TN/ TE/W/71 and those contained in Annex 3, Canada 
noted that the former were intended to complement the latter.  Moreover, he noted that there was no 
specific reason for reiterating in the proposal some of the elements contained in Annex 3, except to 
highlight that these were key aspects, especially with r espect to the issue of reci procity.  On the issue 
of observer status being granted to MEAs in one  body and extended automatically in other bodies, 
Canada noted that Annex 3 clearly established that th e granting of observer status in one body did not 
and should not automatically lead to observer stat us in another body.  In this regard, Canada 
supported the view expressed by other delegations th at the decision should not be taken away from 
WTO bodies.  TN/TE/R/18 
Page 26  
 
  154. Finally, his delegation supported the suggestion by the US that in th e event a decision could 
not be reached with respect to a particular MEA request, WTO bodies should be encouraged to invite 
the MEA on an ad hoc basis.   
155. The representative of the European Communities
 noted that in the EC's perspective, 
automaticity did not mean that once an MEA was granted observership in a particular committee, it 
therefore had an automatic right to observership in  other WTO committees;  nor did it mean that the 
MEAs listed in paragraph 13 of the submission by Canada and New Zealand should have an 
automatic right to observership in all WTO comm ittees.  What the EC had suggested was that 
"core MEAs", namely those that had taken part in  information exchange sessions, should be granted 
observership in the CTE.  
156. The EC could go along with the criteria and indicative questions proposed, provided these did 
not make observership more difficult for MEAs.  Therefore, in respect of the MEAs listed in 
paragraph 13 of the proposal, the EC considered th at these particular criteria or questions should be 
deemed fulfilled in the case of these selected ME As and in respect of the CTE only.  Regarding 
Paragraph 12 of the proposal, the EC agreed that  it would not make sense for automaticity to apply 
with respect to the selected MEAs in the absence of  a written request.  The EC agreed with the point 
made in paragraph 12(b) that decisions on the gran ting of observer status to MEAs in relevant WTO 
committees should fall to the relevant committee.  However, the CTE in Special Session could take 
that decision with regard to the CTE in Regular Session;  the EC was not suggesting that the CTESS 
could take such a decision in respect of other bodies than the CTE.   
157. The Chairman  thanked Canada and New Zealand for their new submission, as well as other 
delegations that had made earlie r contributions under Paragraph 31(ii).  Discussions were moving 
towards convergence on many of the ideas put forward.  It seemed that the clarifications that had been 
sought and the few points made by  delegations in respect of th e most recent proposal could be 
addressed as the committee proceeded with its work.   
158. On the information exchange part of the ma ndate, the elements of an outcome had been 
identified.  On observer status, the Chairman was also  of the view that the basic elements were on the 
table;  the mandate in Paragra ph 31(ii) called upon Members to negotiate criteria for the granting of 
observer status and Members had made useful propo sals in this regard.  However, the Chairman 
noticed that certain elements of the proposals by Me mbers did not generate consensus at that stage.  
Those elements should not prevent the Committee from  moving forward.  The Chair believed that the 
time had come for the Committee to consider how the various proposals that were considered as 
acceptable could be brought together in a text.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31(III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
159. The Chairman  noted that a non-paper had been subm itted under this agenda item by a group 
of countries, namely:  Canada, the European Co mmunities, Japan, Korea,  New Zealand, Norway, 
Chinese Taipei, Switzerland, and the United Stat es.  The non-paper, circulated in document 
Job(07)/54, was entitled "Continued Work under Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration". 
160. The representative of New Zealand  said that the non-paper was intended to contribute further 
to the intensification of the negotiations on envi ronmental goods and to gather momentum.  The non-
paper was co-sponsored by a number of Members including Members that had proposed specific 
environmental goods.  Because of the late submissi on of the non-paper, the representative of New 
Zealand acknowledged that Members only had a limite d time to reflect on its content and therefore 
would only be in a position to offer initial views.  He expected however to have a more detailed and  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 27 
 
 
  substantive exchange at the next formal meeting,  in particular on specific items, their customs 
workability and their environmental benefits.   
161. The non-paper had three inter-related components:  (i) a set of carefully selected items which 
offered the potential for a high degree of converg ence among Members;  (ii) a part on special and 
differential (S&D) treatment;  and (iii) a part on the review mechanism.   
162. First, on the selection of items, the annex to the paper contained the HS descriptions of 
153 environmental goods along with an updated id entification of each product's environmental 
benefits.  These items were all chosen from the or iginal Secretariat's compilation list, which contained 
some 480 products.  Therefore, the selection of ite ms represented a sharp narrowing of the scope of 
the negotiations, by nearly 70 per cent.  The items had been selected by taking careful note of all 
technical and information exchanges that had taken place to date.   
163. Over the past eight months, New Zealand and many of the other co-sponsors had engaged in 
intensive bilateral and plurilateral discussions with other Members on pa rticular items.  In the case of 
New Zealand, the selection process had been furthe r informed by extensive consultations with 
domestic stakeholders including from the private a nd non-governmental sectors.  As indicated in 
Paragraph 3 of the non-paper, th e co-sponsors had considered each item in the compilation document 
on the basis of its importance for the environment, its customs workability and the prospect of a possible convergence on each item.  The co-sponsor s had used the selection process to update and 
clarify the environmental benefits of each item and to verify the HS descriptions of entries.   
164. Concerning customs workability, a significant number of ex-outs had been revised and more 
precision about the products had been provided.  In particular, the paper proposed that once the 6-digit 
HS code and the ex-out description of a produc t were agreed upon in  the negotiations under 
Paragraph 31 (iii), implementation would be left to individual Members.  For some items, it was also 
left to individual Members to make their own judgmen t as to the value and the utility of an ex-out.  In 
such instances, ex-outs were identified as "optiona l".  This would allow Members to decide whether 
to liberalize the entire 6-digit category for administ rative simplicity or to liberalize the sub-category 
for a specific product through the ex-out at the 8- or 10-digit level.  The optional nature of the ex-out 
was a recognition of some Members' concerns regard ing the potentially high levels of administrative 
complexity and transaction costs of establishing and implementing "ex-outs" for a large number of products.  The co-sponsors acknowledged that further work was needed to operationalize the ex-out in 
a manner that could work for traders and custom s administrations and looked forward to more 
detailed discussions on this aspect. 
165. The representative of New Zealand pointed out th at many of the items that the co-sponsors 
had originally proposed were not included in this  potential convergence set.  For instance, more than 
half of the environmental goods originally propo sed by New Zealand were not included in the non-
paper.  For New Zealand, this was the price to pay for progressing in the negotiations.  The 
representative of New Zealand was of the view, howev er, that the goods originally proposed remained 
critical to ensuring positive environmental outcomes, including for instance, improving air or water 
quality, enhancing fuel efficiency or transport sust ainability, or encouraging effective management of 
waste water treatment processes.  These goods played a particularly central role in such processes 
because of their significant impact on the achievement of a range of international environmental and development goals, such as those contained in th e WSSD or the Millennium Development Goals.  
Despite their clear role in addressing environm ental problems, Paragraph 7 of the non-paper 
acknowledged that the items originally proposed might not necessarily secure a consensus at that 
point in time in the negotiations.  These items had th erefore not been included in the non-paper.  New 
Zealand pointed out however that the failure to sel ect these products might in the view of the wider 
Membership limit the scope of a development, trad e or environmental outcome for these negotiations.  TN/TE/R/18 
Page 28  
 
  For this reason, New Zealand and the co-sponsors encouraged Members to propose additional items 
or to reintroduce others.   
166. Second, co-sponsors were of the view that S&D treatment needed to be addressed in a 
meaningful manner in the negotiations.  In this regard, New Zealand had co-sponsored the May 2006 
proposal on modalities tabled in the CTESS and the NAMA Negotiating Group.
18  Paragraph 9 of the 
current non-paper recalled the flexibilities for de veloping country Members contained in that 
proposal.  Co-sponsors looked forward to further e ngagement and specific suggestions on ways to 
implement S&D treatment. 
167. Third, concerning the establishment of a review mechanism, the representative of 
New Zealand recalled that the OECD had estimated that half of the environmental goods likely to be 
in use within the coming decade did not currently  exist.  The negotiations in the CTESS further 
underlined that environmental goods were contin ually developing in new and often unexpected 
directions.  It was therefore important to ensure that any agreed set of environmental goods did not 
remain static by periodically reviewing and up dating the product coverage.  The co-sponsors looked 
forward to further discussions on ways to implement this part of the proposal.  
168. In conclusion, through the tabling of th is potential convergence set, the co-sponsors 
substantively and significantly tightened the focus of the CTESS work.  The changes were made with 
a view to encouraging the intensification of th e work of the CTESS and the selected items were 
considered capable of offering the best prospect  to move the process forward.  The co-sponsors 
regarded this non-paper as a work in progress;  this  was not the end of the process but rather a new 
phase.  The co-sponsors were taking the necessar y steps to accelerate the negotiations under 
Paragraph 31(iii) and certainly ho ped other Members would join them in that spirit.  New Zealand 
stressed that the purpose of these negotiations and of the non-paper was to demonstrate the ability of 
the WTO to contribute to global sustainability.   
169. The representative of Cuba  indicated that she had not yet received inputs from capital on the 
non-paper.  She noted that the document avoided repe titions contained in previous lists.  Cuba also 
acknowledged that the section on S&D treatment s howed that the efforts of developing country 
Members had borne fruit.   
170. The representative of India  thanked the proponents for the attempt to further the negotiations 
under this part of the mandate.  His delegation recognized the e fforts made in rationalizing the 
selection of products and indicating the environmenta l benefits.  Moreover, the suggestion that this 
list was only a basis for negotiations was welcom e.  His delegation's understanding was that the 
environmental benefits indicated in  the list were also negotiable.  
171. While the non-paper improved the list approach, it did not entirely address the concerns that 
India and a number of other developing country Members had raised in the past.  In particular, such an approach did not address the underlying objective of the mandate to improve the environment and 
promote sustainable development.  India had caref ully reviewed the revised list and noted that a 
number of products on the list had other uses than  environmental ones, for instance entries n°175, 
177, 244, 245, 249 and 279.  India was of the view that the objective of the mandate would not be met 
unless the goods receiving tariff concessions were actually used for environmental purposes.   
172. India disagreed with the premise in Paragr aph 2 of the non-paper concerning previous 
technical discussions.  During these discussions, India had repeatedly emphasized that the majority of 
goods that were being discussed had clear multiple uses and that this exercise did not help with the 
identification of single use environmental goods.  In dia maintained that there were few environmental 
                                                     
 
18 TN/TE/W/65.    TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 29 
 
 
  goods as such and that goods became environmenta l only when they were used for environmental 
activities.  The list approach did not ensure th at goods which received tariff concessions would 
actually be used for improving the environment.  
173. India had submitted earlier a proposal on the envi ronmental project approach.  His delegation 
was working on additional elements in an attempt to  respond to concerns raised on India's proposal 
both in the CTESS and in bilateral discussions with  the proponents of the present non-paper.  These 
additional elements would be based on an ag reement on environmental activities and importing 
entities, thereby retaining the link between tariff  concessions and the environmental use of goods.  
Finally, India continued to believe that tryi ng to agree on a single list without guaranteed 
environmental use only served to improve market a ccess and did not fully achieve the objective of the 
Doha mandate.   
174. The representative of Norway  noted that all Members faced challenges with regard to the 
protection of the environment.  By fulfilling th e Doha mandate under Para graph 31(iii), all Members 
had a chance to make a positive contribution to both the environment and economic development.  
Improving access to environmental goods would give an opportunity to governments and industry to 
meet environmental and developm ent goals.  The convergence list re presented a major change and 
constructive step to move the negotiations forwar d.  These aspects had prompted the Norwegian co-
sponsorship. 
175. Norway acknowledged that all approaches tabled by Members had merit.  However, Norway 
was of the view that the list approach would contribute most constructively to fulfilling the mandate.  Such an approach would create a more predictable result for exporters and importers and even more 
importantly, it would set up a predictable framework  for businesses and industries in their planning 
for future investments and technologies.  Environmen tally beneficial products at a lower price would 
stimulate long term planning for more sustainable solu tions.  In the present list, considerable work had 
gone into eliminating products where multiple use was the problem.  Co-sponsors of the list also 
provided ex-outs that gave a clearer environmental profile to the goods.  Even though ex-outs might 
be further elaborated and clarified, Norway believe d that the environmental credibility of the list had 
significantly improved.  
176. Norway considered that the list was a b asis for negotiations and looked forward to 
engagement from devel oping country Members.  Norway calle d upon other Members to define and 
present their interests.  In this regard, Members c ould use available expertise and other assistance as 
appropriate.  In the negotiations , S&D treatment should play a central role and some thoughts on 
implementation were already included in the non-pa per.  Norway reiterated the importance of finding 
solutions and addressing the need for flexibility with regard to, inter alia , time period of 
implementation and exclusion of a limited number of products.  For Norway, a review mechanism 
was necessary to update the list and avoid a situ ation where new improved products would be at a 
disadvantage with respect to competing products  already benefiting from tariff reductions or 
eliminations.  Norway looked forward to exch anging views on a possible review mechanism.   
177. The representative of Colombia
 thanked the co-sponsors for this important proposal.  
However, Colombia pointed out that regardless of the approach, it was necessary to establish criteria 
for the identification of environmental goods.  In this regard, Colombia drew the Committee's 
attention to its proposal contained in document Job(06)/149 which established some criteria for the 
identification of the final use of environmental goods.   With regard to the identification of multiple 
environmental goods, the establishment of criteria was fundamental.   
178. The representative of Egypt  thanked the co-sponsors for their effort to present a common list 
given the divergence of interests covered in the previ ous individual lists.  This effort of convergence, 
however, was limited to the proponents;  for Egypt, it had only confirmed that many of the goods TN/TE/R/18 
Page 30  
 
  presented in the individual lists were purely industrial goods that had nothing to do with the 
environment and did not pass the test of single envi ronmental end use.  For a number of Members, it 
also did not even pass the test of a clear environmen tal benefit.  However, Egypt recognized the effort 
to take into account some of the concerns expr essed by Members, including Egypt. For instance, the 
discussions on hazardous wastes had led to the remova l of related products from the list, at least for 
the time being.  However, the representative of Egypt had concerns rega rding the possibility of 
reintroducing goods and the notion of a li ving list proposed in the non-paper.  
179. Although the title of the non-paper referred to convergence, it did not converge towards other 
suggested ways of fulfilling the mandate as proposed  by Colombia.  Members were still struggling to 
find the right criteria and the proper way forward under Paragraph 31(iii).  Other approaches on the 
table and other ideas needed to be considered in conjunction with the list approach.  Egypt expected 
the discussion to go further and to look at the prod uct coverage of the new list in light of other 
approaches that were on the table, in particular  the Indian project approach, the Argentinean 
integrated approach and the Colombian ideas about cr iteria.  Elimination or reduction of tariffs was 
only one part of the holistic mandate of the CTESS.  Other areas also needed to be dealt with, namely 
non-tariff barriers (NTBs), technology transfer and S&D treatment.  The non-pa per contained a small 
part on S&D treatment which, in Egypt's view, fell s hort of the ambitions of the developing world in 
the CTESS discussion.  Egypt believed that S&D treatment was complex and implied more that a different time period for developing coun try and least-developed country Members. 
180. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the co-sponsors for their work.  She asked about the 
number of products that were covered in the 153 entries contained in the new list.  Ecuador had 
requested a cleaning up exercise of the list to provide  these negotiations with greater credibility:  on 
one hand the present version of the list appeared to  be a step forward;  on the other hand, some 
uncertainty remained as additiona l products could still be reintro duced.  Ecuador pointed out that 
other proposals and approaches introduced by devel oping country Members were still on the table.  
While Ecuador considered that the non-paper had th e advantage of shortening the list, there were 
other inherent problems in the list that had not b een resolved.  With the list approach, Members only 
discussed tariff questions and did not deal with NTBs or S&D treatment for developing country 
Members.  For the negotiations to achieve a balanced  outcome for trade, it n eeded to offer something 
to all WTO Members and this could not be achie ved by simply reducing tariffs.  As already 
mentioned by Ecuador, the list approach raised othe r problems, including the lack of criteria to assess 
the environmental credentials of the goods.   
181. The problem of dual or multiple uses of goods was inherent to a list approach.  In most cases, 
the use of an environmental good in an environmenta l project would ensure that its final use be in 
favour of the environment.  For Ecuador, this was the only valid criterion.  Ecuador also disagreed 
that modalities that would apply to environmental goods should be channelled through an obligatory 
sectoral approach.  In the NAMA negotiations, a vo luntary and flexible parameter for developing 
country Members still needed to be defined;  th e NAMA Negotiating Group did not say that countries 
needed to eliminate their tariffs in  the framework of S&D treatment.   
182. Ecuador also disagreed with the establishment of  a review mechanism to reflect technological 
innovations.  This would be tantamount to signing a blank cheque and would be burdensome for many 
developing country Members.  Many of these go ods could be in competition with domestically 
produced goods which would thus be excluded from th e market.  Moreover, the issue of ex-out and 
the 6-digit level HS criterion were still rather unc lear to Ecuador's delega tion and would be a very 
cumbersome matter to deal with for customs aut horities.  The representative of Ecuador was of the 
view that there was a need to establish criteria a nd parameters to address the mandate as a whole and 
in this respect, Ecuador shared many of the points raised by India.  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 31 
 
 
  183. The representative of South Africa  thanked the co-sponsors of document Job(07)/54 for their 
efforts.  She noted that her delegation would need mo re time to review the products on the list.  The 
work done on the ex-outs, environmental uses and HS codes would be useful even for the 
identification of products in the context of an  environmental project.  The representative of 
South Africa was puzzled by Paragraph 6 of the non-pa per.  In the name of administrative simplicity, 
South Africa could not accept the creation of larg e loopholes in which goods with no link to the 
environment would free-ride.  In reply to Norway's po int that many of the products with multiple uses 
had been removed, South Africa said this was not enough to solve the issue of multiple use.  The 
non-paper proposed that the decision to liberalize at  6-digit level be entirely left to Members for 
reasons of administrative simplicity.  In other words,  this option seemed to be directed at developing 
country Members that had difficulty implementing or  administering at ex-out level.  Therefore, 
according to South Africa, not only would a loophol e be created, but in all likelihood developing 
country Members would be the largest contributors.   As proponents continued to insist that the 
modalities be discussed in the NAMA Negotiating Gr oup, the representative of South Africa drew 
their attention to the principle of "less than full reciprocity".  An advantage of a non-list approach 
remained that it did not raise issues related to market access negotiations.   
184. For South Africa, a significant outcome of th e CTESS negotiations would be that increased 
access to environmental goods and services facilitate the developments of environmental sectors in 
developing country Members.  Under the scenarios envisaged in the non-paper, this was not going to 
happen as these scenarios seemed to undermine prosp ects for a win-win-win situation and might even 
create a lose-lose-lose situation.  A list approach di d nothing to address issues of technology transfer 
and would lead to a dependency on developed count ry Members for their products and technologies. 
185. South Africa noted the call for further ideas on S&D treatment contained in Paragraph 9 and 
the point that much more was needed on S&D treatme nt.  The only response to the call of Ministers in 
Doha that S&D be an integral element of all pa rts of the negotiations was a longer implementation 
period for some developing country Members and not even lower tariff rates.  The CTDSS was 
addressing ways to strengthen existing S&D provisions  by making them more precise, effective and 
operational.  It would be incumbent upon the CTESS to use the same criteria when identifying S&D 
provisions in these negotiations.  A problem inherent in the list approach was that the elimination of tariffs, especially at the 6-digit level, would amount  to requiring developing country Members to give 
a blank cheque. 
186. Finally, the representative of South Africa thanked Colombia for recalling its proposal 
submitted last year.  At that time, South Africa a ppreciated the idea of using criteria as a means of 
identifying environmental goods and services within th e context of a project.  South Africa was still of 
the view that this was an idea worth pursuing and th at could possibly move the process forward.  In 
that respect, she asked the co-sponsors to provide  more detail on the basis used to assess the 
importance of the products to the environment.   
187. The representative of Mexico
 thanked the co-sponsors for thei r effort to shorten and reduce 
the list.  Mexico supported many of the obser vations made by Ecuador, Colombia, India and 
South Africa.  Mexico underlined in particul ar the statement made by Colombia concerning a 
document tabled in July 2006 on criteria.  Like In dia, Mexico was of the view that unless the goods 
included on the list were being used for environm ental purposes, the Doha mandate would not be 
fulfilled.  Therefore, Mexico was ready to liste n to good arguments and be convinced that the 
industrial goods included on the list by the co-sponsor s were destined to environmental activities.   
188. The representative of China  thanked the co-sponsors for the non-paper;  he also thanked India 
for its effort to search for an alternative approach  to fulfil the Doha mandate.  The non-paper prepared 
by the co-sponsors and India's approach could be the basis of the future work of the CTESS.  He 
welcomed India's intention to submit a revised pa per and believed that the Indian proposal was TN/TE/R/18 
Page 32  
 
  attractive for at least three reasons.  First, the Indi an proposal would be more credible, predictable and 
transparent.  Second, it would focus on environm ental performance rather than environmental goods 
and services.  Third, it might meet the actual concerns of many developing country Members in specific areas, such as air pollution control, water and waste water management , soil conservation;  it 
also had the potential for convergen ce with the areas mentioned in th e non-paper.  The representative 
of China fully agreed with South Africa's comme nt on the triple-win objective and believed that, 
irrespective of the approach, the development element was a major issue that n eeded to be integrated 
into the final results of the negotiations on trade and environment.  This was a major concern for 
China and included issues of S&D, transfer of technology and NTBs.  China would make specific 
comments on the new proposal made by the co-sponsors at a later stage. 
189. The representative of Malaysia
, on behalf of Brunei , Indonesia , Malaysia , Philippines  and 
Thailand , thanked the co-sponsors for their new subm ission on Paragraph 31(iii) and welcomed the 
suggestion to reflect the views of other Members in the discussions on environmental goods.  As this 
was a recent submission, his delegation would need to review it further and come back with more substantive comments at a later date.  In gene ral, he considered th e document as a welcome 
movement to bridge the divergence among Members on this issue.  However, other approaches were 
still on the table including new or amended appr oaches that might be submitted by Members.  
Members needed to continue to carefully consider  and remain open to all present and forthcoming 
proposals, and work together on reaching a consensus which would reflect elements of different approaches. Such a consensus would be most benefi cial to all Members and the technical aspects of 
the negotiations would then be able to proceed.  He expressed the readiness of his delegation to work 
with the Chairman, to actively engage with other Members to realise the objectives of the negotiations 
under Paragraph 31(iii) and under lined his delegation's commitment to finding a satisfactory and 
balanced outcome to this important mandate. 
190. The representative of Nicaragua
 thanked the co-sponsors for their effort to reduce the number 
of products.  However, as pointed out by South A frica, this process was not complete as some goods 
still raised questions concerning their multiple us e and environmental bene fits.  Nicaragua would 
provide further comments once the new list was revi ewed in capital.  For Nicaragua, environmental 
goods and services needed to be selected in complian ce with a clear sustainable development criteria 
and the link to the improvement of the environment ha d to be explicit.  Moreover, for the mandate to 
be effective, it was crucial to ta ke into account the life cycle pers pective;  in other words, the non-
renewable or renewable source used in the production of an environmental good as well as its 
recycling or contamination potential were importa nt elements to ensure a positive and long term 
impact.  Finally, Nicaragua underlined the importance of technology transfer, capacity building and promotion of innovation in order to make a clear  contribution to sustainable development.   
191. The representative of Singapore
 thanked the co-sponsors for their effort and political will to 
submit a convergence set of products.  This gave some  hope that this work could be pursued with the 
wider membership at some stage.  Singapore suppor ted the non-paper because it reduced the length of 
the list, rationalized the categorization of products a nd cleaned up the ex-outs.  It was an important 
step in trying to bridge the gap that currently  existed in the CTESS and showed the tangible and 
practical aspects of the list approach.  Nonetheless, this was just one step albeit a critical one.  There 
were other environmental goods, such as biofuels, wh ich could be beneficial to both developing and 
developed country Members and which were not curr ently on the list.  Singapore looked forward to 
discussing the inclusion of such items and the issu e of S&D treatment, which was another important 
area for developing country Members.  To c onclude, Singapore supporte d the paper and looked 
forward to working on it with other Members as a means of bringing the negotiations on Paragraph 31(iii) to a successful conclusion.   
192. The representative of Argentina
 thanked the co-sponsors for their efforts to reduce the number 
of products.  The main challenge was now to capitali ze on the proponents' efforts.  To do so, this set  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 33 
 
 
  of products needed be part of a specific context,  as originally proposed by Argentina's integrated 
approach explained in document TN/TE/W/62.  Th e process would fail if these products were only 
included in a list, as it seemed to be the intention of  proponents.  For the representative of Argentina, 
the word "set" in the expression "Potential conve rgence set" was only a synonym for list.  The 
potential convergence set included different typ es of products, different modalities and different 
names but, structurally, it was still a list.  Argentina w as ready to work to identify products or criteria 
but within a specific context.  Many problems  identified by Ecuador, South Africa and other 
delegations could be resolved in a context and not within a pure list.  Argentina acknowledged the 
effort made but was of the view that the wrong path had been followed.    
193. The representative of Chile  thanked the proponents for their effort to reduce the number of 
products and for the work done on ex-outs.  He asked for clarification on the fact that not all Members 
were mentioned in the last column of the list.   For instance, entry n°210 only referred to the 
United States.  It was his understanding that the list was based on consensus and that all proponents 
agreed on the inclusion of these goods.   
194. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the co-sponsors for their constructive move 
which would hopefully encourage a focussed enga gement and spur further momentum in the 
negotiations, as highlighted in Paragraph 3 of the non-paper.  Although Hong Kong, China was not a 
proponent of any of the items contained in the potential convergence set, it supported the list 
approach.  A list approach would provide certainty to traders and was a better way to deliver on the 
mandate of Paragraph 31(iii).  Hong Kong, China disagreed with Ecuador's statement that the list 
approach was not able to deal with NTBs and S&D treatment.  Hong Kong, China was of the view 
that a clear list of products would facilitate the identification of NTBs, their adjustment and help 
identify the S&D treatment that should be applied.   
195. In previous meetings, some Members raised concerns about the number of products on the 
proposed list.  Hong Kong, China was pleased that  proponents addressed such concerns by submitting 
a potential convergent list with a reduced number of products.  Hong Kong, China did not expect the 
list to be accepted by all Members immediately as many Members had already expressed concerns 
about it.  However, Hong Kong, China did not think that the original project approach was the solution:  it was more an approach based on tari ff exemptions rather than the tariff reduction and 
elimination mandated in Paragraph 31(iii).  For H ong Kong, China, many of the concerns expressed 
could be addressed on the basis of a list for example,  by adding products of particular interest to 
developing country Members, by removing some of  the products or by providing suitable S&D 
treatment as well as an effective review mechanism.  Hong Kong, China agreed with New Zealand 
that the list was not the end of the process but ra ther the beginning of a new phase of discussion.  
Hong Kong, China looked forward to working with Members in this phase of the discussions.  In 
reply to Argentina's statement, Hong Kong, China pointed out its interest to see how the project approach and the list approach could be combin ed and whether this would address the concerns 
raised.   
196. The representative of the United States
 thanked delegations for their initial reactions and 
concurred with the views expressed by Hong K ong, China, New Zealand and Norway.  It was 
encouraging to hear that many delegations had al ready sent the non-paper b ack to capital for further 
analysis.  The representative of the United States poi nted out that the non-paper contained a set of 
goods because Paragraph 31(iii) mandated Members to work on the reduction, or as appropriate 
elimination, of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.  On services, she 
mentioned the extensive discussions that had taken place on this topic the week before.  She noted 
that several delegations found it important to have cr iteria to evaluate the e nvironmental benefits and 
credentials of these goods.  The representative of New Zealand had already given some information 
on the criteria or parameters that had been used by co-sponsors when reviewing the full set of 
products.  The co-sponsors had also updated the envi ronmental benefits and credentials of these TN/TE/R/18 
Page 34  
 
  products, essentially providing the reason for keeping them in the selection.  The United States looked 
forward, hopefully at the next meeting, to recei ve some feedback from other Members on the criteria 
they used in reviewing the list and on goods they felt could meet their own criteria.    
197. In addition, the United States looked forward to th e identification of any NTBs with respect to 
any of the goods that were part of the non-paper as it had not been able to identify so far any specific 
NTBs.  The United States also fully recognized that some of the ex-outs and other descriptions needed 
additional work and looked forward to Members' spec ific reactions to those and to any improvements 
which could be made.  The United States was also trying to explore other flexibilities and was open to 
any ideas concerning the liberalization of optional ex- outs, ways to deal with administrative burdens 
or define further ex-outs.  The United States looked forward to hearing more on products of interest to 
other Members that did not appear in the non-paper,  including on the few additional products that had 
just been mentioned.  Some delegations had sai d that the S&D treatment outlined in the non-paper 
was insufficient or did not meet the needs of developing country Members.  The United States 
understood that this was an importa nt element and was open to concrete and pragmatic proposals for 
flexibility or S&D treatment for developing country Members.   
198. The representative of the United States also tha nked all the co-sponsors for their hard work 
over the last few months.  A constructive peer re view process had taken place and a great deal of 
work had been carried out in capitals.  The United States hoped this work would provide a 
constructive basis for further discussions under this  mandate and looked forward to hearing more 
specific and detailed reactions at the next meeting.   
199. The representative of Australia
 thanked the co-sponsors for the non-paper.  It seemed to 
Australia that the co-sponsors had listened closely to the views and concerns expressed by Members 
in previous discussions and made significant compromises to try and accommodate these concerns.  Australia considered that the new revised list was a very useful basis for developing a consensus list 
of environmental goods, thereby contributing signif icantly to the achievement of an outcome under 
Paragraph 31(iii).  The list was now more user fri endly with overlaps largely admitted and more 
clarity in the description of products.  Australia welcomed the deletion of a number of products which 
were of concern to many Members, including Aust ralia.  Australia remained concerned however with 
some environmentally preferable products (e.g. en tries n°104, 106, 107, 117, 118 and 126).  It was 
encouraging that most products were now distinguish able by their use through ex-outs rather than a 
specific level of performance.  On this basis many  of the product lines on the list would be acceptable 
to Australia.  
200. On ex-outs, Australia welcomed the additional precision provided by the co-sponsors to many 
product lines.  Australia continued to consider this to be an important issue not only for the 
workability of the list at the customs level but also  for presentational purposes.  An environmental list 
needed to look like an environmental list and could not include too many non-environmental goods. 
However, Australia was not opposed to optional ex-outs as this would not change Members' rights 
and obligations and would not require Members to liberalize goods on the basis of them being 
environmental when they were not. Australia also welcomed the co-sponsors' recognition that further 
work on ex-outs was needed.  While some ex-outs s hould be relatively straightforward to implement – 
for example, entry n°344 on photosensitive semic onductor devices with ex out photovoltaic cells and 
modules – other seemed more challenging – for exam ple, entry n°307 on AC generators and ex-out 
for renewable energy plants.  Moreover, some ex-out s did not seem to relate directly to the HS codes 
cited.  Australia also welcomed the increased a ttention given to the environmental benefit of the 
products.  For Australia, focussing Members' attenti on on this element would be useful to further 
refine the list.  On this point, Australia noted  the statement by Colombia, supported by others, 
regarding the identification of environmental goods.  The additional explanation of the environmental 
benefits of specific products could address the questi on of criteria, as well as some of the concerns 
raised.    TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 35 
 
 
  201. Australia noted that there were three product descriptions of condensers with essentially the 
same environmental benefit, yet differently descr ibed.  It was unclear whether all the categories 
actually achieved the stated environmental benef it or whether there was one product line which 
appeared more relevant than others.  On that poi nt, some product lines still ra ised concerns regarding 
their multiple use and the fact that they could be used more broadly for non- environmental effects.  
This concern could be addressed, at least in part, w ith a closer attention to ex-outs and environmental 
products.  On this point, Australia believed that  it would be useful to link the ex-out to the 
environmental benefit, especially in item 252. 
202. To conclude, Australia endorsed the idea of a review mechanism:  environmental solutions 
were constantly evolving  and the outcome under Paragraph 31(iii) would be enhanced if a mechanism 
for expanding and updating the list was included.  However, Australia understood Members' concerns 
and believed that the design of a review mechanism would have to be looked at carefully.  Australia 
finally pointed out that it had some concerns about  including biofuels on the list as there were real 
question marks over the environmental nature of th ese products.  Australia looked forward to working 
with the co-sponsors and other delega tions to improve the list and to develop a concrete and effective 
outcome under this part of the mandate.   
203. The representative of Korea  thanked Members for their constr uctive and valuable comments.  
Korea considered that the submission of the pot ential convergence set of environmental goods had 
been made at the right moment for the negotiations  to move into the next stage and hoped that it 
would expedite the negotiation process.  For Kor ea, environmental goods enjoyed a unique position in 
the Doha Development Agenda;  all Members agreed  that trade in environmental goods would result 
in a triple-win outcome for trade, development and the environment.  Korea had co-sponsored the 
potential convergence set with a view to harvesting these potential benefits. 
204. As indicated in the non-paper, the list contai ned goods which had a high probability of being 
identified as environmental goods and that could serve  as a basis for negotiations.  This list was not a 
fixed one but a living one, which would be expand ed or reduced during the discussions.  Members' 
active participation in the discussions would greatly enhance the quality of the list.  Korea had long 
maintained that environmental goods should be as specific as possible for customs operations.  Korea 
believed that the potential convergence set had a high degree of specificity and even introduced an 
innovative concept of optional ex-outs.  Korea did not believe that this potential convergence set of 
environmental goods was perfect, but it hoped that it would play a constructive role in facilitating 
discussions and building consensus on specific goods a nd that Members would be able to agree on a 
list of environmental goods which would contribute to sustainable development of all Members.   
205. The representative of Brazil  thanked the co-sponsors for their effort to present a renewed list.  
Brazil considered it an important display of negotia ting flexibility and a welcome step in the process.  
The representative of Brazil made preliminary comment s on the non-paper.  As the issue of biofuels 
had been mentioned by other delegations in the di scussion, Brazil recalled that it had tabled document 
TN/TE/W/59 in July 2005.  Paragraph 10 of this do cument noted that "a definition of environmental 
goods should cover products such as natural fibres and colorants and other non-timber forest products, 
renewable energy including ethanol and biodiesel ."  Brazil stood by this position and said that 
renewable sources of energy were certainly environm ental products.  It was very difficult to sustain 
the argument that biodiesel and ethanol were not  part of the environmental package.   
206. As part of his specific comme nts on document Job(07)/54, he pointed out that Paragraph 1 
stated that a triple-win outcome would lead to  greater access to products that supported Members' 
environmental and development goals.  This statement seemed to involve a hierarchy:  first, market 
access, then through market access,  development and environmental protection would be supported.  
For Brazil, there was no hierarchy between the three parts of the win-win-win.  TN/TE/R/18 
Page 36  
 
  207. The second paragraph of the non-paper said that the large range of products appeared to have 
been overwhelming to many Members in their effort to analyse their respective needs and priorities.  
The representative of Brazil strongly disagreed with this statement.  Brazil kne w perfectly well how to 
analyse its needs and priorities and was not overw helmed by a list of 400 products.  It was not a 
problem of technical ability;  it was a problem of conceptual opposition.  Brazil opposed the notion of 
a list.   The second paragraph also illustrated so me of the points that were complex in these 
negotiations, e.g. the issue of definition of envir onmental goods.  The representative of Brazil recalled 
that at some point, it had been suggested to "def ine by doing";  now, these goods were redefined by 
redoing, which clearly showed the difficulty to agree on a potential convergence set.   
208. Still on the issue of criteria, Paragraph 3 included a set of three criteria, namely the 
importance for the environment, the customs work ability – which was nowhere to be found in the 
mandate – and a high degree of convergence among Members.  For Brazil, the convergence among 
Members that proposed the list was clear but the possibility of reaching convergence among the broad 
membership remained to be seen. 
209. On Paragraph 4, reference was made to a basi s for negotiation;  for Brazil, the word basis 
needed to be understood as a floor, not a ceiling.  About 153 HS 6-digit subheadings represented this 
basis.  It was very difficult to estimate the actua l number of tariff lines these would cover:  probably 
something around 400 or even 500 specific products at the 8-digit level.   The fact that the list was a basis and that it was intended to be enlarged later on in the negotiation was confirmed in Paragraphs 7 
and 10.  Paragraph 7 read "the co-sponsors do not  wish to discourage Members from re-introducing 
items that are not contained in the Annex".  Ther efore, the 153 HS 6-digit subheadings were only a 
basis and at any point in time, it would be possible to revert back to the 400 HS 6-digit entries.  
Moreover, Paragraph 10 reintroduced the notion of a living list.  The representative of Brazil was not 
ready to issue a blank cheque on this.   
210. Paragraph 9 dealt with S&D treatment, but the only concrete reference to S&D treatment was 
the notion of different implementation periods.  Fo r Brazil, that was not enough.  The issues of 
technology transfer and NTBs were also important.  Technology transfer was one of the reasons why 
Brazil supported the initiative put forward by India.   Brazil would discuss bilaterally with India any 
potential problems but in general Brazil suppor ted the direction followed by India. 
211. Finally, the representative of Brazil made some general comments on the state of play in the 
negotiations.  The delegate from the United States e xpected Members to discuss the content of the list 
at the next meeting.  For Brazil, this was not the ri ght direction:  the next meeting should not take for 
granted the concept of list and focus on its contents .  Brazil had concerns about the concept itself; 
before moving to the content, Members needed to  discuss the concept of a list.  From a broader 
perspective, Brazil thought that it was important to refocus the discussion bearing in mind the 
development dimension of the Doha Round.  There was a need to strike a balance between trade, 
environmental and development concerns.  The discu ssions of this Committee should make sure that 
developing country Members were able to produce e nvironmental goods and gain a larger share of the 
international market for environmental goods. 
212. The representative of Brazil recalled that in the history of the GATT/WTO it had taken 
decades for two crucial sectors – agriculture and tex tiles –to be fully integrated into the multilateral 
system.  The WTO had learnt over time to deal  with new initiatives and environmental goods were 
clearly a new sector.  The important mandate containe d in Paragraph 31 had to be fulfilled taking into 
account the facts of history.  He pointed out that the avoidance of mandatory sectors was clear in the 
NAMA package.  However, for Brazil, the list had been conceived as a mandatory sector.  To 
conclude, the representative of Brazil recalled th at this was a development round and that trade 
liberalization had a history that needed to be resp ected, which could give examples of ways to move 
forward.    TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 37 
 
 
  213. The representative of Pakistan  also appreciated the effort of  the co-sponsors to reduce the list 
of products.  He noted that in the industriali zed world, tariffs on these products were almost 
insignificant while tariffs in developing country Memb ers were considerably high.  This did not mean 
that developing country Members did not have an interest in promoting environmental mitigation 
efforts.   He pointed out that most developing country Members did not have the capacity to invest in 
this sector as the priority was on poverty, which had detrimental effects on education, health and other 
social priority areas.  The list in its present form , no matter its length and its content, still reflected 
commercial concerns of a few Members.  The representative of Pakistan asked the proponents 
whether they could demonstrate that the impact of  the list was equally positive on promoting trade 
gains and addressing development concerns of developing country Members.     
214. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the constructive engagement 
among Members.  However, he pointed out that none  of the questions raised so far in the discussion 
were new;  this was a sign that the key difficulties in this negotiation had already been identified.  
Questions relating to product covera ge, liberalization at 6, 8 or 10 digits remained and the co-sponsors 
had worked hard to accommodate many of the c oncerns.  The fact that there was a possible 
convergence set of 153 tariff lines demonstrated that many of these concerns had been incorporated. 
The European Communities encouraged Members to apply these questions to the tariff lines 
proposed.  This would allow for a serious negotia tion on the coverage of the convergence set, the 
environmental benefits and the leve l of liberalization.  He encourag ed delegations to work further on 
these aspects for the next meeting.   
215. The representative of Egypt  said, in response to the Europ ean Communities, that there were 
no new questions because a number of delegations refu sed the approach altogether and had repeated 
these questions to the proponents during a year and a half of technical discussions.   Members had also indicated the difficulties they had with many of the products contained in the individual lists which were mostly of an industrial nature.  Egypt had made the point that these were not 
environmental and did not fulfil the mandate.  WTO Members were in uncharted waters as Brazil, 
South Africa, India and Pakistan also made it cl ear.  There were no new questions because the issue 
had been discussed at length in the CTESS and the lack of definition remained the main problem. 
216. There was no easy and straightforward answer to  the definition of an environmental good.  
The mandate of the CTESS was not to discuss ma rket access for some goods proposed by a few 
Members.  This was not a NAMA plus negotiation.  The mandate of the CTESS was to come to terms 
with the creation of a win-win-win situation for the environment, development and trade.  As 
mentioned by Brazil, it was not an easy task for this group and a convergence among proponents was 
not enough.  There was a need to converge with  other approaches that were on the table.   
217. Egypt understood some of the difficulties mentioned by Members concerning the project 
approach but other and new ideas had been advanced by Argentina, Colombia and India.  This would 
help move the process forward rather than proposin g again a single minded approach to Members.  
The future discussions should not only be about the repackaged list.  Delegations needed to 
understand the difficulty of developing country Member s and try also to reach out to the other ideas 
on the table in order to move towards a holistic outcome. 
218. Egypt also noted that the discussions so far on th e content of the previous individual lists had 
shown that very few products had really passed the test of the single environmental end use, suggested 
by proponents of the list themselves. This was a difficulty that remained on the table.  The 
representative of Egypt welcomed the fact that th e United States showed willingness to engage on all 
of these issues.  However, the expectation that Members would only discuss one approach in this 
Committee was unrealistic and was not going to move th e work forward.  There was a need to balance 
the development objective of the Doha Round with th e trade concerns of Members but also with the TN/TE/R/18 
Page 38  
 
  environmental issues at hand which were quite  complex and did not provide simple and 
straightforward answers.   
219. The representative of New Zealand
 welcomed comments on the non-paper and identified four 
areas of concern for delegations.   First, on the mandate, he understood Members had concerns on 
environment, development and NTBs.  He pointed ou t that the update of the environmental benefits 
had been tested not only with the group of co -sponsors, but also with other Members.  The 
representative of New Zealand was ready to justify an y item on the list.  For instance, he was ready to 
answer Australia's question on condensers even if his explanation might not be convincing for some 
delegations.  In New Zealand's view, there was a need to discuss these questions in the CTESS.   
220. On development, the representative of New Zeala nd agreed that this topic should represent a 
central part of the discussions.  He recalled th at two documents put forward by New Zealand 
(Job(06)/140 of 8 May 2006 and Job(06)/170 of 7 June 2006) provided so me information on the 
development benefits of the produc ts in a range of categories.  At the time, a good discussion had 
taken place on these development benefits.  In te rms of trade benefits, the representative of 
New Zealand understood the concerns on tariffs and trade interests raised by some Members.  He 
recalled New Zealand's argument, in document TN/TE/ W/49/Suppl.1, that the items proposed were of 
significant trade interest to developing country Memb ers.  At this point in the negotiations, it would 
be useful to actually discuss these concerns as well as  ways to weigh together the environmental, the 
development and market access benefits.  For New Z ealand, there was a need to get specific and to 
look at products without prejudice to the approach.  New Zealand's list had been reduced by half as 
some of the initially proposed goods did not have, in some Member's view, an environmental or 
development benefit.  For many co-sponsors, diffi cult decisions had been taken in order to delete 
some items from the potential convergence set. 
221. On NTBs, the representative of New Zealand shared the concerns raised by a number of 
delegations.  He recalled New Zealand's position th at the project approach was an NTB for its 
exporters and small and medium enterprises (SMEs).  While large economies and companies with 
major trading interests and administrative resour ces could deal with a project approach, small 
companies would have more difficulties to deal with it.  He noted that a number of delegations talked 
about criteria and recalled that Members in the C TESS had had long exchanges about this since 2001.  
Although those discussions showed a good level of e ngagement, it was not possible to move forward 
on that basis.  This did not mean there should not be criteria.  In fact, Members should review the list using their own criteria. The representative of New Zealand looked forward to discussing with 
Members the criteria they used and the reasons for cer tain products to meet or not their criteria.   
222. The second area of concerns was about products, du al use and ex-out questions.  On products, 
he recalled that the WTO Secretariat's compilati on list contained 480 entries while the convergence 
set included 153 entries;  that represented a 70 per cent reduction.  New Zealand had to make some 
difficult decisions and lost, for instance, methanol  and biodiesels.  The representative of New Zealand 
was encouraged by the fact that some Members ha d expressed their interest in those products at the 
meeting.  That was the reason why the paper includ ed the possibility to reintroduce items that other 
Members thought were good for the environment and development.  He also acknowledged that the 
issue of dual and multiple use was important.  For New Zealand, if the majority of the products at the 
HS 6-digit level served an environmental purpose or were key to an environmental sector – for 
instance sewerage treatment equi pment – then all those products should be liberalized.   
223. On the question of ex-outs, the co-sponsors had done a lot of work by tidying them up, 
making them more specific and consulting with customs administrations.  New Zealand hoped that 
other Members could also consult with their customs administrations before the next meeting in order 
to engage in a dialogue on these issues.  He also acknowledged Australia's point that the ex-outs still 
needed some work.  Concerning the language of Pa ragraph 3 of the non-paper,  he explained that the  TN/TE/R/18 
 Page 39 
 
 
  set of items was put forward because co-sponsors th ought that it might offer the potential for a high 
degree of convergence.  New Zealand would like to discuss concerns on products, such as those raised 
by Australia on condensers and India on a whole ra nge of items (entries n°244, 245, 249, 279, 175, 
177) and try and persuade delega tions of their relevance.  
224. Concerning environmentally preferable products , the representative of New Zealand noted 
that the group of co-sponsors had discussed this issue at length.  Although none of the co-sponsors 
had a trade interest in these products, the convergen ce set included some of them because at least five 
other Members had a significant interest in them, fo r trade, development and environmental reasons.  
He was open to a discussion about these products, in pa rticular with those Members that had a trade 
interest.  
225. On Chile's question about the reference in the last  column of the list to particular Members, he 
explained that it was intended to remain faithful to  the compilation list and reflect Members that had 
initially proposed products.  He c onfirmed however that the list was a potential convergence set.  He 
also welcomed the discussion on potential additiona l products and noted Australia's concerns on these 
products.  In his view, this was exactly the type of  discussions that was needed  in this Committee.  
226. The third area concerned S&D treatment which was a critical element of this negotiation but 
also more generally.  He recalled that New Zeal and had co-sponsored a proposal put forward in the 
NAMA Negotiating Group, which addressed this issue.  New Zealand was ready to discuss S&D treatment and listen to sensitivities and concerns of Members, and to consider ways of reflecting S&D 
treatment, including phase outs.   
227. The last area related to the review mechanism.  He pointed out that a review mechanism was 
different from a living list.  In response to some  delegations' concern that this would amount to 
signing a blank cheque, he pointed out that New Zeal and was ready to discuss this issue further with 
Members.   
228. To conclude, the representative of New Zeala nd suggested to divide the discussion in three 
parts:  (i) products, including their environmental and development benefits, issues of dual use, ex-
outs and any sensitivities – without prejudice to the approach;  (ii) S&D treatment;  and (iii) the 
review mechanism.  For New Zealand, some of t hose discussions could be held in smaller groups.  
A new phase had started with this non-paper and its 70 per cent reduction in scope was a step that 
could generate momentum in this process. 
229. The representative of South Africa
 recognized the effort made by the co-sponsors to shorten 
the list.  Concerning the invitation to discuss, she point ed out that this needed to be done both ways.  
She found it difficult to discuss the list when f undamental problems regarding the list remained 
unaddressed.  South Africa did not like the list any more than the proponents the project approach.  There was a need to engage on both approaches in a way that moved the process forward.  For South 
Africa, a list presupposed a certain way of dealing with S&D, e.g. longer im plementation periods and 
lower tariff reductions.  The representative of South Africa informed the Committee that in the near 
future South Africa was going to develop a strategy in the environmental sector.  The South African 
government wanted to ensure that this negotiatio n would not undermine that domestic process as this 
was intended to be a win for its economy, its envi ronment and its development.  She noted that 
South Africa worked very closely with SADC c ountries on these issues.  Even though the project 
approach had its difficulties, many aspects appealed to South Africa.  It was difficult to see ways to 
find a solution which would be satisfactory to all and deliver a win-win-win outcome. 
230. The representative of Japan
 thanked Members for their comments on the co-sponsored non-
paper.  It welcomed South Africa's environmenta l development plan and looked forward to starting 
discussing this kind of issues in detail, including on products, in order to move the process forward.   TN/TE/R/18 
Page 40  
 
  231. The Chairman
 thanked the co-sponsors of the non-paper for their significant contribution.  
This was the result of intensive wo rk on their part.  From the discussion, it was clear that Members 
acknowledged these efforts.  Comments had been made  on the elements of this paper as well as the 
need for flexibility.  One delegation mentioned the possibility of coming forward with a new paper in 
the near future.  If Members wanted to bring new ideas or proposals for discussion, they needed to do 
so quickly.  As in other parts of the mandate, it was necessary to start focussing on outcomes.  This 
would require a vigorous effort from all delegations  to address the needs and concerns of others as 
they pursued their own interests. 
IV. OTHER BUSINESS 
232. The Chairman  was of the view that the meeting had been most productive.  The new 
submissions on all parts of the mandate had been purposeful and clear and helped the CTESS hold 
focussed discussions.  The CTESS was now in a positi on to explore the framework of an outcome on 
certain parts of the mandate.  On Paragraph 31(ii) in  particular, there seemed  to be broad agreement 
on the basic elements for an outcome.  Time had co me to bring these elements together in a textual 
form in order to have a concrete basis for the fo rthcoming discussions.  On Paragraphs 31(i) and (iii), 
important progress had been achieved, in particular with the recent submissions tabled by Members.  
Next, the CTESS would need to start developing conve rgence in order to be able, at the appropriate 
time, to move towards an outcome in these two areas as well.  The Chairman stressed that the CTESS 
should not be left behind other groups.   
233. The Chairman intended to hold two formal mee tings before the summer recess, in June and 
July.  He would also engage in a process of consulta tions with delegations in different configurations.  
For transparency and inclusiveness, he would repor t on these consultations to the broad membership 
in the formal meetings.  Depending on the pr ogress of the negotiations, he would call other 
open-ended meetings to di scuss new developments.   
234. The CTESS  agreed to the renewal of the ad hoc invita tions issued for that meeting at the next 
meeting of the CTESS.19 
__________ 
                                                      
19 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).