Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 3 • Number 13 • 11th July 2003
WTO Environment Committees Stuck on Role of MEAs, Eco-Labelling
WTO Environment Committees Stuck on Role OF MEAS, Eco-Labelling
On 7 and 8 July, WTO Members convened for the final meetings of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) before the Cancun Ministerial Conference in September. Proposals by the EC for trade ministers at Cancun to endorse the participation of observers in CTE Special Sessions and formalise the currently informal MEA [multilateral environmental agreement] information sessions received a mixed welcome, but no consensus. Another EC proposal that the CTE hold three dedicated sessions on eco-labelling was opposed by other Members.
Also at the meeting, China, Chinese Taipei and Australia submitted papers on the MEA-WTO relationship (TN/TE/W/35/Rev.1, TN/TE/W/36, TN/TE/W/37), following up on previous discussions on this point at the last special session on 1-2 May (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 15 May 2003).
Mandate
In paragraph 31 of the WTO’s Doha Ministerial Declaration, adopted in November 2001, Members agreed to negotiations on: (i) the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in MEAs; (ii) procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO committees, and the criteria for granting of observer status; and (iii) liberalisation of trade in environmental goods and services. These issues are being addressed in the special CTE sessions. Paragraph 32 instructs the CTE to focus on issues around market access, intellectual property rights and eco-labelling, with a view to making recommendations, where appropriate, with respect to future action, including the desirability of negotiations.
EC proposals meet with resistance
The question of observer status for MEAs continues to be blocked for political reasons at the level of the General Council. Meanwhile, the CTE has opted to invite UNEP and certain MEA secretariats (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 15 May 2003, referenced above) on an ad-hoc, informal basis to participate in certain parts of its special session. The EC proposed that trade ministers in Cancun invite UNEP and MEAs to regularly attend the special sessions rather than to continue inviting them on an ad hoc basis. The EC also proposed that trade ministers formalise the currently informal annual MEA information sessions. While Canada and Norway agreed with the EC that a strong signal should be sent on MEA relations in Cancun, others, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Pakistan and Egypt, said that the EC’s suggestion would circumvent the para. 31(ii) mandate to establish criteria on observership. Malaysia, Pakistan and China also told the EC that they had no interest in formalising the current MEA information sessions. Due in part to disagreements over whether the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) qualified as an MEA, delegates at the special session did not agree as to whether they would extend the invites again for its next meeting in October.
At the 7 July regular CTE session, the EC, supported by Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, proposed that the group hold three ‘dedicated sessions’ on governmental and non-governmental eco-labelling schemes. While Japan and Canada said that this could be a useful basis for discussion after Cancun, a number of other Members — notably Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and the US — opposed the EC’s suggestion. They also expressed concern that a discussion on labelling would duplicate ongoing work in the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). In particular developing countries are also reluctant to revive the sensitive discussion on process and production methods (PPMs).
US papers on environmental goods
In discussions at the special session under para 31(iii), the US presented two papers on environmental goods. In its first paper (TN/TE/W/34), the US suggested that Members use the list of environmental goods emanating from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum as a starting-point in the negotiations. The US noted that APEC countries did not include goods produced in a manner that is “environmentally friendly” due to “the practical and WTO-legal issues” surrounding discrimination on the basis of PPM criteria. In its second submission (TN/TE/W/38), the US proposed that two lists be established: a core list of goods that everyone agrees are environmental (i.e. sewage treatment equipment); and a second list of other proposed environmental goods. Tariffs would be eliminated on the core list of goods by 2010, and countries would be required to liberalise a certain percentage of products from the proposed list by 2010. Due to time constraints, there was no discussion on these papers.
The CTE special session’s final report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/TE/6), which was also discussed on 8 May, will be circulated next week. The regular session adopted its reports to the General Council (WT/CTE/W/230) and to ministers in Cancun (available shortly). The next meeting of the CTE is currently scheduled from 30-31 October.
ICTSD reporting.