Description
Para
31 (iii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration which calls for the “the
reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers
to environmental goods and services” has raised more questions
and speculation on possibilities than any other item in the WTO’s
negotiating agenda on trade and environment The evolution of the debate
and statements and proposals made by WTO Members indicate that the issue
has taken on dimensions that might not have been anticipated at the
time EGS was, for the first time, singled out for liberalisation as
part of a formal WTO mandate. There is no clear definition of what ‘environmental
goods’ are and the mandate did not give any precise guidelines
as to targets and timelines.
While
the special sessions of the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE)
and the Negotiating Group on Market Access (NAMA) mandated to discuss
Environmental goods have seen some constructive discussion and submissions,
many WTO Members still seem to be uncertain about how to proceed. Rather
than attempt to define environmental goods, most Members seem to prefer
an approach whereby they would submit ‘lists’ of environmental
goods for consideration. However there have also been been demands by
some Members for the ‘environmental’ justification behind
including a particular good. Submissions on both procedural modalities
and substantive aspects have taken place in parallel mode. One of the
biggest obstacles to progress in the negotiations are the concerns expressed
by many developing countries as to the ‘real-value’ of these
negotiations for them. While the environmental benefits appear obvious
(but which many developing countries could lower barriers autonomously
anyway) most of the trade benefits going by the ‘conventional’
approach to environmental goods (particularly those included in the
OECD and APEC lists) appear to favour only developed countries. This
is because most developing countries are net importers of these goods.
Hence, a need was felt to study some of the options whereby developing
countries could benefit from these negotiations and to analyse the legal
implications of doing so. This may involve tackling problems such as
inclusion of possible ‘exportables’ such as environmentally
preferable products, particularly those based on Process and Production
Methods (PPM), transfer of technology and issues of non-tariff barriers.
All of these may require innovative approaches to the ongoing negotiations.
The
study entitled “Options for Liberalization of Trade in Environmental
Goods in the Doha Round” by Professor Rob Howse is an attempt to
find out what some of these approaches might be. The study proposes
some interesting ideas but also throws up new questions and it is clear
that further research will be required if some of these questions are
to be answered.
Professor
Howse presented various options for developing countries to identify
environmental goods of export interest as part of the ongoing WTO negotiations,
under Paragraph 31 (iii) of the Doha Mandate. Professor Howse also seeked
to clarify what the legal implications of these various options might
be and to craft meaningful and policy oriented analytical work that
will serve as a constructive input into the ongoing negotiations on
environmental goods at the WTO, particularly in the lead-up to the HongKong
Ministerial Conference.
Key
trade delegates from developing countries were invited to listen to
and have a free and frank discussion with Professor Howse on this complex
and significant negotiating theme. The comments and suggestions made
by the delegates during the course of the discussion will be taken into
account by Professor Howse in finalising his research. The outcomes
from the research and this discussion will be reflected in a final paper
that will be disseminated to all stakeholders including Geneva-based
trade delegates.
Professor
Howse's thought-provoking ideas will be based on research commissioned
by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)
as part of its ongoing project on environmental goods and services.
.
