Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 22 • 12th June 2002

WTO Environment Committee Zeroes In On Scope Of Negotiations

Do More

Download this issue

See also

The WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment met on 11-12 June in a special (negotiating) session where Members focused on the scope of negotiations outlined in paragraph 31(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Doha Declaration (see BRIDGES Weekly, 26 March 2002). Discussion centred around proposals from Australia, Argentina and Switzerland the US and New Zealand.

Background

In paragraph 31 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Members agreed to negotiations, "without prejudging the outcome", on: (i) The relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). The negotiations shall be limited in scope to the applicability of such existing WTO rules as among parties to the MEA in question. The negotiations shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question"; (ii) Procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and the relevant WTO committees, and the criteria for the granting of observer status; (iii) The reduction, or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non- tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.

During informal consultations on 3 May, Members agreed, inter alia, to a "flexible/gradual phased" work programme that included a fourth session in 2002 on multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and to begin negotiations by examining closely the Doha mandate. There was also some movement forward on the question of observership, though this question remains unresolved (see BRIDGES Weekly, 7 May 2002).

31(i) WTO-MEA relationship

Members addressed three submissions on para. 31(i) negotiations on the WTO-MEA relationship. These came from Australia, Argentina and Switzerland.

In its paper, Australia suggested three phases for negotiations, consisting of identification of the most relevant MEAs with specific trade obligations, an examination phase, and action if necessary (TN/TE/W/4; all CTE submissions are searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org).

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 noted, for instance, that the language "specific trade obligations" should exclude all MEA non- mandatory trade measures, non-trade obligations and non-specific trade obligations. This contrasts with an earlier paper from the EC (TN/TE/W/1) that advocated for a broad interpretation of 31(i), particularly with regard to ’specific trade obligations’.

In its submission, Switzerland (TN/TE/W/4) said that there was a need to define the different categories of specific trade obligations set out (or explicitly provided for) in MEAs. According to the Swiss, this would require a detailed analysis of these categories to establish the distinction between specific trade obligations and non-specific trade obligations. The Swiss, supported by the Czech Republic, favoured an interpretative decision on the WTO-MEA question, arguing that the solution should not simply be left to dispute panels; nor should GATT Article XX (environmental exceptions) be amended.

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, with the EC and Japan further stating 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.

31(ii): MEA-WTO info exchange, observer status

There was relatively little disagreement among Members on the question of information exchange. 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 and the development of specific guidelines for MEA characteristics for granting of observer status.

Regarding the thorny issue of observer status, 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 who 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.

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. Currently, eight observership requests are pending, including from the ACP group, IMF, OECD, UNEP, and four MEAs.

Paragraph 31(iii): reduction of barriers to environmental goods and services

At the last meeting of the CTE special session in March (see related link, above), Members agreed that paragraph 31(iii) should be implemented in the context of the market access and services negotiations but that the CTE could contribute by examining what constituted environmental goods and services. To this effect, New Zealand presented a paper (TN/E/W/6) clarifying the concept of environmental goods that received broad support among the Membership. Only the EU said that in this category could also be included goods that were produced in an environmentally friendly fashion and goods that were environmentally sound (easy to recycle).

However, Malaysia, India, Korea, New Zealand were uncomfortable with this reference to production methods.

Planning of the MEA information session

The CTE meets in regular mode on 13-14 June for an information session with secretariats from relevant multilateral environmental agreements. Following this, it will focus on Doha Declaration paragraph 32 (ii) on the relevant provisions of the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), paragraph 33 on technical assistance, capacity building and environmental reviews, and paragraph 51 on identifying and debating developmental and environmental aspects of the negotiations, in order to help achieve the objective of having sustainable development appropriately reflected.

BRIDGES Weekly will report further on the CTE session in its next issue.

ICTSD reporting.