. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/W/64 
20 February 2006 
 
 (06-0703) 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
Special Session Original:   English 
 
 
CONTINUED WORK UNDER PARAGRAPH 31(III) OF THE DOHA DECLARATION 
 
Submission by the United States  
 
Paragraph 31(iii)  
 
 The following communication, dated 20 February 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States . 
_______________ 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In Hong Kong, Ministers recognized that in  the context of the Committee on Trade and 
Environment in Special Session (CTESS), "recently  more work has been carried out under 
paragraph 31(iii)", and instructed Members to "compl ete work expeditiously under paragraph 31(iii)".  
Given the urgency, Members do not have the luxury of continuing the same kind of unstructured debate that took place in the CTESS at length last y ear.  Members need a way forward that focuses on 
the task at hand.  As we continue to intensif y work on environmental goods, the United States sees 
great utility in efforts by the CTESS to clarify "param eters to fulfill the mandate in this area" through 
continued technical discussions.   
2. Two of the main concerns arising at the end of 2005 were that, while delegations had in good 
faith proposed products that could be consider ed "environmental goods":  (1) the Secretariat's 
compilation
1 of submissions had become too large and unmanageable;  and (2) several delegations 
questioned the direct environmental benefit of some  of the proposed products (e.g., compact discs).  
At the same time, many delegations have expr essed interest in having the CTESS do the technical 
work needed to identify goods with a clear environmen tal end use.  In this regard, the questions below 
are intended to be helpful to delegations as they consider the products proposed, and therefore could 
provide useful parameters for the CTESS’s di scussion of the scope of environmental goods. 
Ultimately they might help determine products potentially garnering greater convergence among 
delegations as to their qualification as "envi ronmental goods" for purposes of fulfilling the DDA 
sub-paragraph 31(iii) mandate.   
3. These questions could be applied in addressing in turn various categories of goods drawn 
from the Secretariat's compilation, without prejudi ce to further categories that may be proposed: 
• Air Pollution Control 
• Environmental Monitoring, Analysis and Assessment 
• Noise/Vibration Abatement 
• Remediation/Clean-up of Soil and Water 
• Solid/Hazardous Waste Management 
• Waste Water Management   
                                                      
1 TN/TE/W/63. TN/TE/W/64 
Page 2  
 
  • Resource Management 
• Heat and Energy Management 
• Natural Risk Management 
• Potable Water Treatment 
• Renewable Energy 
• Recycling Systems   
• Other (e.g., Environmentally Preferable  Products based on end-use/disposal) 
 
II. QUESTIONS 
Question 1: Does the product have a cl ear and direct environmental benefit? 
 
4. Based on discussions thus far, it appears that most delegations agree that the primary factor in 
determining the answer to this question is that the product has an obvious and direct environmental 
end use (e.g., the product is used to control pollution or  clean the environment).  Such environmental 
end uses appear to have the greatest potential for sa tisfying the direct envir onmental benefit question, 
and they also allow flexibility to address potentia l development-related benefits (e.g., providing 
access to clean water, electricity, etc).  Other fact ors put forward by delegations for consideration 
include that a product: advances domestic/internationa l environmental laws and policies;  is used 
often in the provision of an environmental service;  has a lesser environmental impact based on their 
end use or disposal characteristics; or is used ofte n in national or international environmental projects. 
5. If a clear and direct environmental benefit is iden tified, delegations may also need to consider 
whether the product has dual/multiple uses.  If y es, delegations should consider the following 
additional questions that have arisen in the CTESS discussions: 
Question 2: If the product has dual/multiple end uses:   
 
A. Can this dual/multiple use be addressed by  using a narrower product description at 
the national level (8 or 10-digit code);  and/or,   
 
B. Is the product so central to the delivery of key environmental and developmental 
benefits (e.g., filters for air emissions, sewage treatment equipment) that its exclusion from liberalization would significantly reduce the intended environmental benefits of this initiative and hinder sustainable development objectives?  
 
Question 3: Is the product sensitive or does it  otherwise raise concerns for delegations  
  (e.g., does it appear to be inconsistent  with sustainable development objectives)? 
 
6. This question seems necessary in order to allo w delegations to express legitimate concerns – 
either trade, environment or development -related – about a particular product.   
III. CONCLUSION 
7. These questions are not intended to be exhaustiv e.  The United States welcomes delegations’ 
reactions to these indicative questions.  Based on such  questions, and potentially other questions that 
may arise, we propose that the CTESS move forward expeditiously in its c onsideration of proposed 
products.  We also welcome dele gations’ thoughts on priority categories, such as those from the 
Secretariat’s compilation (listed above) on which the CTESS might focus its attention in future 
meetings.  The goal would be to complete our analysis of the proposed products (and any new 
proposals) by April 2006. 
__________