RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TE/R/20 
8 August 2007 
 (07-3365) 
Committee on Trade and Environment 
Special Session  
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT ON THE TWENTIETH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE 
ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT IN SPECIAL SESSION 
 
18 JULY 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  
1. The Chairman-designate
 opened the meeting in the absence of the outgoing Chairman and 
proposed that an item be added to the agenda fo r the meeting set out in the convening airgram, 
WTO/AIR/3045 regarding his appointment as Chairm an of the Committee on Trade and Environment 
in Special Session (CTESS).  The CTESS adopted the agenda with the proposed amendment.   
2. The Chairman-designate recalled that the follo wing international organizations had been 
invited to participate at the meeting as ad hoc  invitees:  the United Nations Environment Programme; 
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; the World Customs Organization;  the Organisation for Economic Co-opera tion and Development;  the Basel Convention on the Control of 
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and th eir Disposal; the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior 
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Ch emicals and Pesticides in International Trade;  
and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Orga nic Pollutants; the Convention on Biological 
Diversity;  the Montreal Protocol on Substa nces that Deplete the Ozone Layer;  and the 
United Nations Framework Conve ntion on Climate Change.   
I. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN  
3. The Chairman-designate
 recalled that in a fax dated 21 J une, the Chairman of the General 
Council, Ambassador Muhamad Noor (Malaysi a) had announced consensus regarding his 
appointment as Chairman of the CTESS, to succeed  to Ambassador Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh).  
According to this fax, the CTESS was to confirm the appointment of the Chairman at its next formal 
meeting.   
4. The CTESS agreed  to the appointment of Ambassador Mario Matus (Chile) as the new 
Chairman of the Committee.   
5. The Chairman  thanked delegations for their trust.  He also thanked the outgoing Chairman for 
his hard work and leadership in advancing the manda te of the CTESS.  He noted that there was still 
much work ahead in order for the Committee to fulfil its mandate and hoped that Members would 
continue to engage to achieve this objective.   
6. The delegations of Argentina , Australia , Brazil , Canada , Chile , China , Chinese Taipei , 
Colombia , Cuba , Ecuador , Egypt , El Salvador , European Communities , India , Japan , Korea , 
Malaysia , Mexico , New Zealand , Nicaragua , Norway , Philippines , Switzerland , United States , 
South Africa , Turkey  and Zambia  congratulated the Chairman on his appointment.   TN/TE/R/20 
Page 2  
 
  II. PARAGRAPH 31(I):  WTO RULES AND SPECIFIC TRADE OBLIGATIONS IN 
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS 
7. The Chairman
 noted that no new submissions had been  presented under this agenda item.   
8. The representative of Norway  said that Members had discussed this agenda item for several 
years.  Norway agreed with those who felt that time had come to conclude discussions under this 
agenda item.  Preferably, the outcome should be in the form of a Ministerial declaration setting out the 
conclusions that had emerged from the debate.  No rway had always been of the opinion that any 
outcome under Paragraph 31(i) should be based faith fully on the Doha mandate.  Important points in 
this regard were that the mandate was limited to  the applicability of WTO rules to specific trade 
obligations as among parties to an MEA.  Furtherm ore, the negotiations were without prejudice to 
WTO rights of non-parties to the MEA in question.   
9. These elements of the mandate imposed some limitations as to what could be achieved under 
the present negotiations.  There were also other asp ects of the WTO-MEA relationship that could be 
explored.  Some of these aspects had been discussed in the CTE before the Doha mandate.  However, 
at the present stage, Members had to focus on fulfil ling the task according to the negotiating mandate.  
Norway believed that the outcome should reaffirm basic principles, for instance, that there was no 
hierarchy between WTO rules and MEAs;  that WTO agreements and MEAs were equal bodies of 
international law, responsible and competent for issues falling within their respective and primary 
areas of competence;  and that they had to be mutu ally supportive and contri bute to agreed goals set 
by the international community, including the objectiv e of sustainable development, as also stated in 
the Preamble to the Marrakech Agre ement Establishing the WTO.   
10. A Ministerial declaration could also confirm that the relationship between these agreements 
seemed to be working well.  To ensure that this c ontinued to be the case, and in order to enhance the 
mutually supportive relationship between them and achieve sustainable development, a declaration 
could emphasise the importance of dialogue at all le vels between trade and environment officials and 
institutions, and in particular at the national level.   
11. Finally, the Ministerial declaration could rea ffirm that disputes between MEA parties over 
specific trade obligations were unlikely to occur in the WTO and that while WTO Members had the 
right to bring such disputes to the WTO, they should try to resolve them through the dispute settlement mechanisms available under the MEA in question.   
12. Finally, Norway stressed the importance of ha ving a satisfactory outcome in the discussions 
under Paragraph 31(i).  His delegati on was willing to work with other interested delegations with a 
view to achieving this result.   
13. The representative of th e European Communities
 (EC) said that his delegation was continuing 
to elaborate internally its position, which had been set out in July 2006.1  The EC looked forward to 
addressing the issue again when there would be more clarity on the overall direction of the Round.  
He noted that between his de legation's proposal and the propo sal presented by Australia and 
Argentina, there ought to be scope for finding ag reement.  At the same time, his delegation was 
expecting further elaboration on the part of Member s that had expressed some concerns regarding the 
EC proposal, in particular with resp ect to its legal implications.   
14. The Chairman  recalled that there were two main proposals for an outcome on the table, one 
from the EC and the other one from Australia and Argentina.  Delegations had commented 
substantively on both proposals in previous CTESS discussions.  He noted that a number of 
                                                      
1 TN/TE/W/68.    TN/TE/R/20 
 Page 3 
 
 
  delegations that had expressed support for the s ubmission by Australia and Argentina had also 
indicated that they would like to see more than a factual report focussing on national coordination as 
an outcome of the negotiations.  At the CTESS meeting in June, some further ideas had been mentioned in this regard.  It seemed that in orde r to make progress, Members needed to have a clear 
picture of the elements that could potentially form part of an outcome under Paragraph 31(i).  He 
therefore encouraged delegations to continue expl oring the various options for an outcome under the 
mandate.   
III. PARAGRAPH 31(II):  INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND CRITERIA FOR 
GRANTING OBSERVER STATUS 
15. The Chairman
 reported to the Committee that further consultations had been undertaken on 
the basis of a document entitled "Elements of a Draft Text under Paragraph 31(ii)".  He noted that 
there seemed to be broad support for the elements se t out in this document to provide a basis for an 
outcome under Paragraph 31(ii).  There were also so me other proposals on the table, for instance with 
respect to observer status, on which delegations w ould need to continue working in future.   
IV. PARAGRAPH 31(III):  ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AND SERVICES 
16. The Chairman  reported that based on the consultations  held with delegations prior to the 
meeting, there seemed to remain important dive rgences on solutions to respond to the mandate in 
Paragraph 31(iii).  Much useful work  had been carried out so far but e fforts would have to continue to 
deliver on the mandate entrusted to the Committee.  In  this regard, he appealed to delegations to show 
some flexibility.  
17. With respect to the way forward, some de legations had suggested that environmental 
categories or activities mentioned in various Members'  submissions could serve as a starting point for 
further discussions, and could also provide a frame work for discussing how S&D treatment and other 
issues of interest to developing countries coul d be addressed in the negotiations.  The Chairman 
encouraged delegations to further reflect on this  idea, as well as on any other ideas as to how the 
Committee could make some headway on the mandate.   
18. The delegation of Cuba  sought clarification with respect to the suggestion made by some 
delegations that the Secretariat could draw up a list of environmental categories and activities 
mentioned in Members' submissions.  In response, the Chairman  noted that the Secretariat intended to 
update document TN/TE/W/63, which compiled all Me mbers' submissions under Paragraph 31(iii).  
He noted that this document could reflect the e nvironmental activities and categories mentioned in 
Members' submissions.   
V. OTHER BUSINESS 
19. The Chairman  noted that he would submit a report to the July TNC Meeting on his own 
responsibility on the state of play of the nego tiations under the various items of the mandate.2   
20. The CTESS agreed  to the renewal of the ad hoc inv itations issued for that meeting and 
extended to international organization at the next meeting of the CTESS. 
__________  
                                                      
2 The Chairman's report was subsequently  circulated in document TN/TE/17.