Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 9 • Number 7 • 2nd March 2005
Environmental Goods Dominate CTE Agenda
Delegates at the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) on 24-25 February focused their discussions almost entirely on environmental goods, with new submissions by Korea, New Zealand and the EU. Several developed countries urged Members to pick up the pace of the negotiations with the aim of agreeing on a list of environmental goods by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference in December. This raised some resistance among developing countries, which argued that they had not yet seen anything of interest to them coming out of the negotiations.
The short regular session of the CTE on 22 February followed informal consultations, and focused on how to structure discussions under Paragraph 32(i) of the Doha Declaration (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1) regarding the effects of environmental measures on market access. Members also agreed to hold a workshop on Paragraph 51 in October 2005.
EU submission proves controversial
The EU submission on environmental goods (TN/TE/W/47) met with the greatest resistance, in particular its suggestion to not only include goods used in pollution control and resources management, but also "goods that have a high environmental performance or low environmental impacts." The EU acknowledged that some of these products might need to be defined through standards, which require certification, and proposed using schemes included in the existing international Global Ecolabelling Network. The proposal was widely rejected by many developing countries, which resisted the inclusion of process and production method (PPM) based environmental goods as well as eco-labels. The EU expressed disappointment with the unfavourable reception, noting that at this point few alternatives had been put forward. They also stressed that not all environmentally preferable products would necessarily be distinguished on the basis of the process through which they had been produced.
Among the three new proposals, Korea’s submission (TN/TE/W/48) attracted the most support as a practical way forward. Korea stressed the need for "practical and simple" criteria for the identification of environmental goods, suggesting a number of criteria they had used to draw up their proposed list. These include that the end use of the products should be primarily for an environmental purpose; that products should be classifiable under existing (HS) codes for goods; and that environmentally preferable products and goods that are defined by PPMs or superior environmental performance should be excluded "for practical reasons." The submissions also includes a proposed list of 89 products primarily related to "pollution management".
In its generally well-received submission (TN/TE/W/47), New Zealand proposed using certain "reference points" to initiate "a discussion about the environmental credentials of a specific good," such as the OECD definition of environmental industries, APEC’s conceptualisation of environmental goods, or approaches to environmental goods agreed through "high quality and comprehensive regional or bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)." Several delegations remained sceptical about the use of FTAs, questioning in particular what entailed a "high quality" FTA. New Zealand also supported the US’ proposal to identify a ‘core list’ and a complementary list of goods (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 30 April 2004). Such lists should be "living lists," New Zealand suggested, which could be updated at a later stage to respond to the dynamic nature of environmental goods. Several Members requested further clarification on how a living list would work and how long it would continue to "live."
The committee discussed the possibility of holding intersessional meetings in addition to the two sessions of CTE meetings scheduled (in July and October) before the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting in December. Developed countries in particular would like to see the list finalised by Hong Kong. Many of the developing countries, however, resisted pressure to speed up the discussion and set concrete deadlines, expressing concerns that the negotiations so far did not contain anything of interest to them. Canada urged these countries to come forward with their proposed lists, including goods of interest to them.
On Paragraph 31(i) regarding the relationship between the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the Secretariat presented its revised matrix of trade measures in MEAs: (http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/mea_database_e.htm). Little discussion took place on this negotiating item.
Regular CTE session
At the regular session of the CTE, the Chair presented a proposal for how to structure the discussions under Paragraph 32(i), suggesting four elements which included: the effect of environmental measures on market access; process issues (transparency, notification and consultations); technical assistance; and issues concerning the preparation of environmental measures.
Members also agreed to hold a workshop on Paragraph 51 (which mandates the CTE and the Committee on Trade and Development to ensure that sustainable development is adequately reflected in the negotiations) on 10-11 October, but failed to adopt the proposed agenda for the meeting. Qatar, supported by Venezuela, suggested that energy-related issues should be discussed in this context.
For a collection of trade and environment-related submissions, see http://www.trade-environment.org/page/theme/tewto/wtosubmissions.htm.
ICTSD reporting.