WTO ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MAKES SLOW PROGRESS

In what was described as a meeting "lacking in energy", the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) convened for its regular session on 21 June, with discussions focusing on paragraph 51 of the Doha Mandate. The generally more constructive debates in the special session on 22 June revolved around approaches to clarifying the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), as well as the liberalisation of trade in environmental goods.

Direction on paragraph 51 still missing

Discussions during the two-hour regular CTE session were mainly confined to the implementation of paragraph 51 of the Doha Declaration, which mandates the CTE and the Committee on Trade and Development to ensure that sustainable development is adequately reflected in the negotiations. Members continue to lack clear ideas on how this could be done. In an effort to move the debate forward, the EC suggested holding a session with international organisations, asking them to provide their views on the sustainable development aspects of the negotiations. Members could not reach an agreement on the proposal and the EC was asked to provide further details. In addition, Chair Naéla Gabr (Egypt) will hold consultations with delegations and the Chair of the CTD before the next meeting.

MEA-WTO: Members differ on the approach

In the context of discussions under paragraph 31(i) regarding the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade obligations (STOs) in MEAs, Members debated the merits of using an 'experience-based' versus a 'conceptual' approach. In its submission (TN/TE/W/40), the US put forward a bottom-up approach, based on assessing national experiences in implementing the two bodies of law rather than focusing on abstract principles. Based on its national experience, the US stressed the importance of national coordination as well as the design and implementation of STOs in particular. The proposal was generally well received, including by the demandeurs of the need for clarification (the EC, Switzerland and Norway), who believed that both approaches could be pursued in parallel. The EC, however, stressed that simply focusing on experiences was unlikely to lead to a coherent outcome in the absence of parameters to guide the discussions.

Chinese Taipei takes on EC proposal

In response to an EC paper submitted at the April CTE meeting (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 30 April 2004), Chinese Taipei expressed disagreement with a number of the EC's points (TN/TE/W/41). Chinese Taipei opposed the EC's stance that disputes over trade measures applied pursuant to an MEA should be dealt with by the MEA in question, arguing that WTO Members should have the right to pursue their complaint in either forum. The submission also took issue with the EC's interpretation of the Appellate Body's ruling in the gasoline case, which, according to the EC, had confirmed that WTO rules needed to be interpreted in a broader context of public international law, including MEAs. Chinese Taipei argued that while the Appellate Body should apply public international law in the context of treaty interpretation, it should not incorporate the substantive norms created under MEAs to interpret WTO provisions. During the discussions and in response to the criticism, the EC and Switzerland cited other WTO rulings that supported this interpretation, such as the shrimp-turtle dispute.

Constructive discussions on environmental goods

The debate on environmental goods was generally perceived as useful, with one observer noting a growing shift from abstract to more concrete discussions. Regarding the negotiating process, the EC in its statement perceived the US proposal on modalities (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 11 July) as premature. Instead, the EC would prefer to focus first on identifying principles and criteria for environmental goods in the CTE, followed by discussions on modalities in the Negotiating Group on Non-agricultural Market Access. The EC identified two categories of environmental goods that should be included in the definition, namely goods used in pollution control and resource management; and goods that have a high environmental performance or low environmental impacts. Goods in the second category would be chosen based on objective parameters such as composition and/or environmental performance, possibly defined through standards that require certification. The EC said it would submit a more detailed proposal in the coming months.

China in its statement emphasised the need for discussing a definition for environmental goods, while stressing that "problems" such as multiple-uses, process and production methods and clean technologies should be excluded from the deliberations. China put forward the possibility of developing a "common" and a "development" list of environmental goods. The common list would include goods of interest to both developed and developing countries, with priority given to products of export interest to developing and least-developed country Members. The development list would provide for special and differential treatment, allowing developing and least-developed countries to select a list of products on the common list for no or less reduction commitment. China also stressed the importance of facilitating technology transfer when discussing trade liberalisation in environmental goods.

Members agreed to invite the OECD to give a presentation on their studies and the World Customs Organisation to speak about the harmonised system of tariff classification.

The next meeting of the CTE is currently scheduled for 11-12 October.

ICTSD reporting.