WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/MA/W/18/Add.5
TN/TE/W/38
7 July 2003
(03-3670)
Negotiating Group on Market Access
Committee on Trade and EnvironmentOriginal:  English
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
U.S. Contribution on an Environmental Goods Modality
Addendum
The following communication, dated 4 July 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. In discussions in both the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) in Special Session
and the Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) Negotiating Group, a variety of views have been
expressed on how to proceed with negotiations on environmental goods.  Some Members favor eitherthe APEC or OECD lists as a starting point for nego tiations.  Others express reservations about using
either one, or both, of these lists for this purpose.  Questions have arisen about whether
“environmentally friendly” products should be included.  Still other Members have provided specific
lists of additional products (i.e., that are not on either the APEC or OECD lists) which they suggest
should be included in WTO market access negotiations on environmental goods.  Notably, several
developing countries have expressed interest in more products of export interest to developing
countries being included.  At this point, most delegations have indicated that it would not be helpful touse non-product process and production methods (PP Ms) as a basis for defining environmental goods
under the Doha mandate in paragraph 31(iii).
2. The United States welcomes the efforts undertaken by delegations to contemplate various
elements of the environmental goods negotiations.  Collectively, Members’ papers and interventionsin both the CTE in Special Session and the NAMA Negotiating Group have effectively identified the
challenges inherent in defining this sector, and the United States suggests that the time has come to
more systematically approach and address these issues.  Accordingly, we have started to outline a
possible approach to modalities for moving environmental goods negotiations forward in a creative
and flexible manner that could begin to accommodate a wide variety of views and interests.Ultimately we believe this approach can further reinforce the mutual supportiveness of trade and
environmental policies, as envisioned by Ministers at Doha.
Basic Concept
3. Participants in the negotiations could develop two lists of environmental goods: a core list
and a complementary list .  The core list would comprise products on which there is consensus that
they constitute environmental goods.  A second complementary list could be developed for additional
products on which definitive consensus could not be reached but for which there is a high degree of
acknowledgment that they can have significance for environmental protection, pollution prevention or
remediation, and sustainability.  For the core list , Members would be required to reduce tariffs and
non-tariff barriers, or, as appropriate, eliminate them altogether, within a certain period, recognizingTN/MA/W/18/Add.5
TN/TE/W/38
Page 2
that discussions regarding non-tariff barriers may also take place in other relevant WTO bodies.  For
the complementary list, however, Members would be required only to identify specific products
representing a certain percentage of the total tariff lines on the list and subject these products to the
same reduction/elimination agreed for the core list products.
Core List
4. Reflecting on lessons learned in previous attempts to develop a list of environmental goods
(e.g., in APEC), environmental goods on the core list should fall into one of two categories: 1)
environmental remediation or pollution prevention; or 2) “clean technologies.”  In TN/TE/W/34 and
TN/MA/W/18/Add.4, the United States discussed these categories in some detail in terms of thepractical difficulties associated with developing a list that could be practically implemented.
- Environmental Remediation and Pollution Prevention:   This category includes goods used to
clean the environment or to contain or prevent pollution.  Some examples of these products
are smokestack scrubbers, sewage treatment equipment and solid waste recycling systems.
- Clean Technologies:   This category includes goods designed for a particular industrial or
consumer function the use or disposal of which results in lesser impact on the environment
than alternative goods designed for similar functions.
Complementary List
5. Members should strive for a core list that is as comprehensive as possible to maximize
positive outcomes for the environment, trade and development.  In the event, however, that consensus
can not be reached for particular goods, individual Members could nominate these goods to beincluded in a central complementary list that would be available for consideration of all Members .
For purposes of liberalization, Members would be allowed to pick those goods on the list for which
they are committed to liberalize, but these goods would have to constitute a certain minimum x
percentage of the total products on the complementary list.  If such an approach were pursued,
procedures would be necessary for determining the process for nominating products and the criteria
that would have to be met for products to be incl uded.  For example, in the interests of clarity and
practicality, delegations should refrain from nominating goods based on non-product PPMs forpurposes of this negotiation since procedures used to classify goods in the Harmonized System do not
easily accommodate distinctions other than those based on physical characteristics or function.
Additionally, it should be expected that inclusion of a particular good on the list has some support
from other Members and is not merely a wish list item for a single isolated Member.
Rates of Liberalization
6. Core list :  In recognition of the attention given to this sector by Ministers in Doha and
consistent with the U.S. negotiating proposal in TN/MA/W/18, tariffs should be eliminated for all
products on the core list as soon as possible but no later than 2010.
7. Complementary list :  Individual Members would not have to liberalize all products on the
complementary list as part of the sectoral negotiations; however, in order to maximize the
opportunities for ensuring that these negotiations contribute to mutual supportiveness of trade
liberalization and environmental protection, Members would be required to liberalize a certainpercentage of these products.  The United States suggests that Members would be required to
eliminate tariffs on a certain x percent of these tariff lines by 2010, within the same time-frame as
environmental goods on the core list.  The specific products that each country chooses to include in
this percentage would be by self-selection.  The exception would be for a country that was exportTN/MA/W/18/Add.5
TN/TE/W/38
Page 3
competitive in a particular product, in which case it would be required to eliminate tariffs no later
than 2010 (i.e., over the same period as products on the core list).  This product would be counted
toward the percentage required for the complementary list.
8. Less Than Full Reciprocity:   To reflect the less than full reciprocity provisions in the Doha
mandate for NAMA, developing countries would be required to eliminate tariffs on a lesser
percentage of products on the complementary list than the x percent that would apply to developed
countries.
Conclusion
9. While it would be ideal for delegations to be able to reach consensus on a single list of
environmental goods for purposes of NAMA negotiations, discussions in the CTE in Special Session
and the NAMA Negotiating Group have highlighted many of the difficulties associated with that
effort.  For this reason, the United States suggests that it is time for delegations to consider a modality
for environmental goods that allows for some flexibility in designation of particular products.  At thesame time, we welcome suggestions from other delegations on how to incorporate an approach for
environmental goods into broader modalities to be agreed for the NAMA negotiations.
__________