Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 3 • Number 9 • 15th May 2003
MEA Secretariats Ambivalent About WTO Environment Negotiations
WTO Members convened on 1-2 May for a special (negotiating) session of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE), where discussion focussed on the relationship between the WTO and so-called ’specific trade obligations’ in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Although the question of formal observer status has yet to be decided, secretariats from six trade-related MEAs attended as ad-hoc invitees, and responded to questions from Members. Several secretariat representatives expressed frustration with the process, questioning the value of putting resources into their involvement in the discussions at the WTO if their presence might simply serve to legitimise a WTO decision.
In paragraph 31 of the Doha 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.
MEAs circumspect about CTE role
An MEA secretariat official expressed disappointment with the format after the session, saying that while secretariat representatives were happy to have been invited, they were not given an opportunity to make interventions beyond answering questions from WTO Members. “It was an experiment,” the official said, “we listened, and were given an opportunity to speak at the end. But we do not want to be there just to legitimise an eventual WTO decision.” Frustration at the process in general was evident, as one MEA source said it was not clear that MEAs had anything to gain from devoting resources to the WTO-MEA endeavour, particularly as they did not see any sign that the WTO negotiations were helping them to implement their own MEA mandates. Some MEA secretariats were further constrained in responding to queries, sources said, because they were not in a position to provide advice without a mandate from their Parties.
The MEA secretariats were asked to leave the session after the discussion around para. 31(i) on the relationship between WTO rules and STOs, and were not present for the ensuing debate around para. 31(ii) on information exchange and observer status. While 31(ii) includes the sensitive sub-topic of criteria for observer status for MEAs, the session focused rather on procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO committees. One MEA official found this to be somewhat ironic, and questioned how they were supposed to figure out how to exchange information if they were not even allowed in the room.
According to sources who attended the meeting, many developing countries were wary of granting MEA secretariats too much of an expansive role, as they would like to keep the discussions at a slower pace and fear that substantive MEA participation could speed the talks up prematurely. Egypt was also worried that the presence of MEAs beyond a purely question-answering role might prejudge the outcome of broader talks on observer status at the General Council level.
The following secretariats attended: UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the Basel Convention; the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CITES; the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO); the Montreal Protocol, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It remained unclear whether MEA secretariats would be asked back to the next session, given the ongoing impasse on observer status in the Doha negotiating sessions. The next meeting of the CTE special session on 8 July will be primarily geared toward finalising the CTE’s report to the Cancun Ministerial in September, and is therefore unlikely to involve MEA secretariats. Informal consultations will be held on 22 May, at which point it is expected that MEA representation will be addressed, particularly with regard to the October session of the CTE.
MEA-WTO: divergent approaches
At the meeting, most Members continued to press for a bottom-up, or an ‘STO approach’ that would base discussions on examples of specific trade obligations in MEAs. Members at this stage are still attempting to define what constitutes an STO, which MEAs should be considered, and ultimately how to go about clarifying the WTO-MEA relationship. A WTO Secretariat paper compiling submissions thus far on 31(i) (TN/TE/S/3/Rev.1, available on the WTO website), and an updated matrix on trade measures pursuant to selected MEAs (WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.2) were released to help underpin the discussions.
The EC and Switzerland, which were demandeurs on trade and environment at Doha, reiterated their view that broader concepts — such as the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment — should be elaborated by examples, but that a list of qualifying STOs should not be exclusive or exhaustive. A submission from Hong Kong, China (TN/TE/W/28), however, noted that it was not easy to generalise a set of common criteria for defining STOs, nor was it feasible to find a one-size-fits-all solution, and that some tailor-made solutions for identified STOs might be required.
The meeting showed that developing countries in particular have become more engaged. Most developing countries have tended to view the environment mandate with suspicion, and regard it as primarily an issue pushed by the Europeans. As a result, most are looking to limit the mandate so as to prevent it from expanding to include issues that could constrain their future market access. They are in general supported in this position by the US and Canada, who advocate that STOs be both specific and mandatory. At the CTE meeting, the support for a very specific definition of STOs was reflected in submissions by Malaysia (TN/TE/W/29), Argentina (TN/TE/W/2) and India (TN/TE/W/23).
Kenya looks to broaden discussion on environmental goods
During discussions on para. 31(iii) on environmental goods and services, countries for the most part reiterated previously-stated positions on environmental goods (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 21 February 2003). Kenya, however, suggested that Members look beyond the current definitions of environmental goods — which for the moment are based on lists from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — to include products of export interest to developing countries. Kenya referred in particular to goods such as organic agricultural products, and indicated that it planned on submitting its list at the next meeting of the CTE special session. The US told Kenya that it was interested in exploring this idea. Such an initiative would likely be supported, one trade source said, by the EC and Switzerland, and just might be acceptable to other developed countries. But some other developing countries that fear the definition could expand to include goods produced in an environmentally-friendly fashion (so-called process and production methods, or PPMs) would be likely to resist such a move, the source said.
CTE regular session
The CTE met for its regular session on 29-30 April, where delegates focused on the ‘non-negotiating’ mandate contained in the Doha Declaration. This included EC papers on TRIPs - CBD (EC, WT/CTE/W/223), and on eco-labelling based on a life-cycle approach (WT/CTE/W/225), a Japanese proposal on fisheries subsidies and over-fishing (WT/CTE/W/226), and presentations on the environmental aspects of Doha round talks on rules (WT/CTE/GEN/10) and services (WT/CTE/GEN/11). Many Members told the EC that eco-labelling should be addressed at the TBT Committee, and that ambiguity remained over life-cycle analysis. Japan was overwhelmingly asked to raise its issue in the Negotiating Group on Rules under the rubric of fisheries subsidies.
ICTSD reporting.