Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 8 • Number 14 • 22nd April 2004
WTO Environment Committee Considers Environmental Goods
The WTO special (negotiating) session of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) met on 19 April, and a regular CTE session took place on 20 April. The CTE special session considered an EC submission on the CTE and global governance, and continued discussions on environmental goods. The regular session of the CTE focused on how to move on the mandate to consider sustainable development implications of negotiations in all areas of the Doha round. Delegates also considered a Canadian proposal for how to create a more focused debate in the CTE.
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 multilateral environmental agreements (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.
Special session focuses on global governance
Chaired by Ambassador Toufiq Ali (Bangladesh), the CTE special session (CTESS) considered a document submitted by the EC on the relationship between WTO rules and MEAs in the context of the global governance system (TN/TE/W/39, searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org). The EC outlined basic principles for the relationship between WTO rules and MEAs in this regard, including: the recognition of the importance and necessity of MEAs; the fact that multilateral environmental policy should be made within MEAs; the need for close cooperation and information exchange to enhance the mutual supportiveness between international trade and environment policies; and the recognition that MEAs and the WTO are equal bodies of international law.
While some Members supported the EC paper, many others, and developing countries in particular, felt that the question was beyond the scope of the CTESS mandate. They also said that the paper was unclear, and they did not understand where the EC wanted to go with it. According to trade sources, Norway and Switzerland said the document provided a good basis for the examination of questions on how to improve the exchange of information between the WTO and MEAs and the issue of MEAs obtaining observer states at the CTE. They also felt the paper offered some useful insights on the coordination between trade and environment officials nationally. Venezuela asked whether a reference in the paper to common but differentiated responsibilities between developed and developing countries meant that this principle was acceptable as the basis for negotiations.
Goods discussion continues
On the liberalisation of environmental goods, the US presented a submission it originally had made in July 2003 on modalities for moving environmental goods negotiations forward (TN/TE/W/38). The US proposed that two lists be established: a core list of goods that everyone agrees are environmental (e.g. sewage treatment equipment); and a second, complementary 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 complementary list by 2010 (see BRIDGES Weekly, 10 July 2003).
Members did not have the time to discuss the US proposal during the last CTE special session in July 2003, and now took the opportunity to ask the US for further clarification on the thinking behind the paper. In particular, developing countries asked for more information on possible special and differential treatment, which had not been included in the core list, and only insufficiently in the complementary list. The US said it would return with answers at the next session. Developing countries including Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and China preferred a "more balanced" list containing products of export interest to them, as they felt that the US list focused on industrial goods exported by developed countries. China said it was considering creating a list of its own towards this end. Some Members preferred relying on existing lists produced by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Regular session seeks to move on para. 51 mandate
In the regular CTE session on 20 April, Members discussed how to further address para. 51 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, requesting Members to consider how sustainable development is being reflected in the negotiations. While the Secretariat has provided briefings on the environmental aspects of negotiations in other groups, such as agriculture and industrial market access, not many Members have made submissions. During the meeting, the EC said it was surprised Members had not made submissions on the topic. Some Members called for technical assistance and coordination among developing countries in this regard, and said developing countries needed to provide input on this "development" issue.
The Chair Naéla Gabr (Egypt) will consult with the Chair of the Committee on Trade and Development, in order to better coordinate work under the para. 51 mandate.
Also at the meeting, Canada made a suggestion for changing the CTE work programme in light of changes that have taken place since it was first agreed ten years ago and with the goal of revitalising the CTE (WT/CTE/W/234). In Canada’s view, the Committee would benefit from more focus to its work, with each meeting addressing a particular part of the CTE mandate, rather than delegates struggling to deal with all issues at once. With specific meeting themes, delegates would be able to come better prepared to the meetings, setting the stage for a substantive debate. Not all Members agreed with the Canadian suggestion, however. Some Members took a cautious stance and preferred not to make any change to the existing CTE work programme.
The EC also brought up the issue of labelling for environmental purposes, but other Members said this discussion belonged with the Committee for Technical Barriers to Trade.
The next meeting of the CTE will be held on 21 June, and the next special session on 22 June.
ICTSD reporting.