Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 35 • 17th October 2002
WTO Environment Committee Stumped On Labelling
Meeting for 2002’s last session of the regular WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) on 8-9 October, Member delegates remained far from agreement over how to address labelling issues. Some little progress was made on the mandate of identifying and debating environmental aspects of ongoing trade negotiations to reflect sustainable development, but Members continued to struggle with an appropriate procedure for the CTE to follow.
Labelling
The focus of the 8-9 October CTE meeting was on labelling requirements for environmental purposes, as outlined in paragraph 32(iii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. According to WTO sources, discussions around labelling remain "completely stuck" at the CTE, in the sense that the body is struggling with how it can add value to an issue-area which most Members prefer to deal with at the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) (which meets this week). Switzerland submitted a paper (WT/CTE/W/219, searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org) that aimed to move the ecolabelling process forward. The Swiss paper set out two main points: firstly, that the WTO Secretariat should look at and compile definitional aspects around eco-labelling, for instance by referring to work done at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO); secondly, that the CTE could look at work done in the TBT Committee on specific trade concerns relevant to environmental labelling.
The Swiss submission garnered little support amongst many developing country and some developed country Members, most of whom argue that the relevant work around specific trade concerns and eco-labelling should be looked at through the TBT Committee. The Swiss replied that the CTE nevertheless had a mandate from Doha to address labelling concerns. Surprisingly, the EC did not make any major substantive interventions on this item, leaving Switzerland, according to one source who attended the meeting, "quite isolated" on this issue. At the June CTE session the EC had submitted a paper to both the TBT Committee and the CTE (WT/CTE/W/212), in which the EC proposed, inter alia, that the two Committees work towards devising guidelines or interpretation of the TBT Agreement with respect to labelling requirements for environmental purposes.
Many developing — and some developed — countries are wary of engaging too heavily at the CTE on eco-labelling, as they are concerned that stronger eco-labelling regimes could prove a barrier to their market access. One expert in this area commented after the meeting that the eco-labelling discussion at the CTE could be jump-started by approaching the issue from a market access perspective.
Para. 51: Reflecting sustainable development in the negotiations
Discussions inched forward on the CTE’s para. 51 Doha mandate of "identifying and debating developmental and environmental aspects of the negotiations, in order to help achieve the objective of having sustainable development appropriately reflected. While modalities or procedures have still not been established, Members agreed to begin a substantive discussion under para. 51 on market access — particularly environmental goods — and agriculture for the next CTE session. This, according to sources, represents a move forward from the last meeting, where resistance from Australia around including agriculture (and services) meant there was little chance to discuss substance around para. 51 for this meeting. In its intervention on para. 51, the US advocated following agriculture, services and fisheries, while New Zealand proposed that the CTE focus on environmental goods. The EC repeated its desire for the CTE and the WTO Committee on Trade and Development to convene jointly on para. 51, or to hold an outreach event, but CTE Chair Oguz Demiralp said that the timing was not yet right.
MEA observer status pushed
Both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), who attended the CTE as observers, expressed their disappointment that observer status for multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) secretariats at the CTE special negotiating sessions was still blocked. This issue remains at the level of the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), where it continues to be held back by political conflicts around approving the League of Arab States as an observer at the WTO (see BRIDGES Weekly, 20 June 2002). At the CTE, ISO presented a statement updating Members on its activities on ISO 14000. There are currently 25 approved observers to the CTE; however, usually only those with a direct interest in the discussions participate.
Also at the CTE session
Market access and the relevant provisions of the agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) (Doha Declaration paras. 32(i) and (ii), respectively) were also on the agenda for this CTE session, but received no new submissions and little discussion due to its focus on labelling. On market access, some countries referred back to India’s proposal (WT/CTE/W/207) discussed at the last CTE session on 13-14 June that had been enthusiastically received by a number of developing country delegations (see BRIDGES Weekly, 20 June 2002). India’s paper, inter alia, highlighted how environmental measures in developing countries’ export markets hampered the entry of developing country exports that may themselves be environmentally friendly. On TRIPs, India referred back to the last TRIPs Council meeting (see BRIDGES Weekly, 25 September 2002).
The next regular CTE meeting is scheduled for late January - early February 2003.
ICTSD reporting.