Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 11 • 13th June 2002
WTO Environment Committee Focuses on MEA-WTO Relationship
WTO environment committee focuses on MEA-WTO relationship
The WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) met on 11-12 June in a special (negotiating) session where Members focused on the scope of negotiations outlined in paragraph 31 of the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha last year. These include the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), WTO-MEA information exchange, and reduction of barriers to environmental goods and services (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 4 April 2002).
Which MEAs, and which provisions within MEAs?
Discussions on the MEA-WTO relationship focused on the scope of the negotiations, including which MEAs should be addressed and what the modalities of the negotiations should be. In its submission, Australia suggested three phases for negotiations that would include an identification of the most relevant MEAs with specific trade obligations, an examination phase, and action if necessary (TN/TE/W/4; CTE submissions are searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org).
For its part, Argentina argued for a narrow interpretation of the Doha WTO-MEA language, advocating a study phase to define the negotiation mandate precisely. The Argentinean submission (TN/TE/W/2) said that the WTO talks should not address any MEA provisions that were not trade-specific or mandatory. This contrasts with an earlier paper from the EC (TN/TE/W/1) that had suggested a broad interpretation of this issue, particularly with regard to language in the Doha mandate outlining what constituted “specific trade obligations” in MEAs (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 4 April 2002)
There was some resistance by the US, Mexico and Bolivia with regard to establishing a definition to determine which MEAs should be addressed. The EC, Chile and Japan supported including regional MEAs in the discussion. The EC and Japan further stated that they should not be limited only to those MEAs currently in force, as argued by Argentina in its submission.
Delegates broadly agreed that the outcome of the negotiations should have no impact on WTO Members who were non-parties to MEAs, as also stated in the Ministerial Declaration.
Observer status still unresolved; MEA-WTO info exchange
Regarding the thorny issue of observer status for MEA secretariats at the special sessions, a number of developing countries (Brazil, Cuba, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan and Thailand) said that this is being addressed at the General Council level, while the Trade Negotiations Committee is looking at whether organisations that have observer status in regular WTO bodies should also have it in special sessions. As such, they said, it was not the place of the CTE special session to rule on the question. Currently, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) maintains observer status at the CTE but not in the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).
Despite these sentiments, Switzerland, Korea and Norway told the Committee that the CTE special session had a mandate to look at this issue; Switzerland said it was imperative that MEAs be granted observer status in order that the CTE special session could carry out its work. The US suggested the development of specific guidelines for MEA characteristics for granting of observer status. Currently, eight observership requests are pending, including from the ACP group, IMF, OECD, UNEP and four MEAs.
There was relatively little disagreement among Members on the question of information exchange between the WTO and MEAs. Most observers say this issue tends to be one of the less-contentious areas of negotiations. Some countries, including Canada, Indonesia, Mexico and Switzerland, supported the idea of institutionalising information sessions. This was also reflected in a US proposal (TN/TE/W/5) that further advocated providing access to restricted documents by MEA secretariats.
New Zealand supported on environmental goods
In the context of discussions on environmental goods and services, New Zealand presented a paper (TN/TE/W/6) clarifying the concept of environmental goods that received broad backing among the Membership. Referring to previous work “that may help clarify the concept of environmental goods”, the paper set out proposed “categories of environmental goods” as well as details of proposed product coverage.
The EC was the only country to propose that “environmental goods” should also include those goods that were produced in an environmentally friendly fashion and goods that were environmentally sound (i.e. easy to recycle). Malaysia, India, Korea and New Zealand, however, were uncomfortable with the EC’s reference to production methods. At the last meeting of the CTE special session in March, Members agreed that this item of the environmental negotiating mandate should be implemented in the context of parallel WTO market access and services negotiations, but that the CTE could contribute to these by examining what constituted environmental goods and services.
Linkage with the CBD
Discussions on the relationship between the WTO and the CBD have been underway in the CTE since 1996, primarily under Item 8 of the CTE’s work agenda - ‘the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)’. Issues discussed under this item include the relationship of the TRIPs Agreement to the environment; transfer of environmentally-sound technology; environmentally-unsound technologies; indigenous and traditional knowledge; and certain MEAs, in particular the CBD. For further details, see also BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 4 April 2002.