Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 16 • 24th October 2002

TOP-DOWN OR BOTTOM-UP? MEMBERS DELIBERATE HOW TO ADDRESS WTO-MEA RELATIONSHIP

Do More

Subscribe to the BioRes

* Required Field

Email Address: *

Country: *
Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua And Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democractic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Islands Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia, The Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong S.A.R. Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Korea, North Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau S.A.R. Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, The New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua new Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts And Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent And The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia And The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard And Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad And Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks And Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State (Holy See) Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Wallis And Futuna Islands Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe

Employment Sector (Academia, Govt., Private Sector, NGO, IGO): *

First Name:

Last Name:

Organisation:

Enter the letters shown above:*

Download this issue

See also

TOP-DOWN OR BOTTOM-UP? MEMBERS DELIBERATE HOW TO ADDRESS WTO-MEA RELATIONSHIP

At the third meeting of the special (negotiating) session of the WTO Committee on Environment (CTE) on 10-11 October, WTO Members continued to disagree on how to examine the relationship between the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Major discussions took place over whether Members should adopt a ‘top-down’ approach, such as that favoured by the EC and Japan, or a ‘bottom-up’ approach, such as that advocated by Australia and a number of other Members.

Background

In paragraph 31 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, Members agreed to negotiations, "without prejudging the outcome", on: (i) the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in MEAs. The negotiations shall be limited in scope to the applicability of such existing WTO rules as among parties to the MEA in question. The negotiations shall not prejudice the WTO rights of any Member that is not a party to the MEA in question; (ii) procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and the relevant WTO committees, and the criteria for the granting of observer status; and (iii) the reduction, or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.

At the last special session on 11-12 June (see BRIDGES Weekly, 12 June), there was wide support for an Australian proposal that the MEA-WTO negotiations be undertaken in three phases: analysis, discussion, and negotiations. WTO sources indicated on 11 October that Members were still in the study, or analysis, phase, and that it was not clear when this would graduate to the next stage.

A top-down approach

In its submission on the relationship between MEAs and the WTO (TN/TE/W/10, searchable at http://docsonline.wto.org), Japan proposed identifying and categorising specific trade obligations under MEAs according to their specificity, stating up front whether or not they should be considered compatible with WTO rules. Japan’s paper proposed four categories for trade-related MEAs. As examples, it looked at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and at a number of regional fisheries agreements. It further stated that a possible outcome of negotiations could be the adoption of a binding interpretive understanding on MEAs and WTO rules. According to Japan, WTO Members must make clear when it is permissible or not for governments to impose trade-restrictive measures intended to meet their obligations under MEAs.

The Japanese proposal was welcomed by the EC, Norway and Switzerland. The EC said that on para 31(i), the WTO should first discuss principles and parameters, then look at applying these to specific trade measures in MEAs.

A bottom-up approach

Australia countered the EC-Japan perspective, arguing that Members should first identify the specific trade obligations in MEAs to be addressed and the appropriate WTO rules, then discuss these provisions with the relevant MEA secretariats, then move on to a negotiating phase. Such an approach fits with the view of the US, which has said that in its view, the Doha mandate points to talks that examine the relationship between the two sets of rules and then simply describes that relationship.

Due to concerns around its non-membership in agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and to the Biosafety Protocol of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the US at Doha successfully resisted negotiations on MEAs that could lead to changes in the WTO rights and obligations of non-parties to MEAs. Earlier in September, a US official warned that a push to formalise MEA-WTO linkages could result in developing countries questioning the basis for existing cooperation. Notably, the Australian perspective was supported by the US, Brazil, China, India, S. Korea and Taiwan at the October meeting.

In an effort to move the debate forward in the area of a bottom-up approach, a submission from New Zealand (TN/TE/W/12) compiled existing information on trade provisions of the Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol and CITES, together with existing information regarding WTO rules that are potentially relevant to these MEAs.

According to sources present at the meeting, approximately 40 delegations made substantive interventions on top-down vs. bottom-up perspectives. As such, the source said, despite the differences in approaches, the CTE special session showed that substantive discussions were possible on both perspectives. Indeed, the EC said that its intention was to "complement" the Australian approach. For its part, Norway cautioned Members that the CTE needed to be careful that para. 31 (i) would not be used to weaken MEAs.

The issue of agriculture, which many see as the make-or-break issue of the Doha negotiations, reportedly cropped up frequently in Member interventions, particularly with reference to messages emerging from the World Summit on Sustainable Development advocating progress on reducing agricultural subsidies. The EC and Japan are often targeted by Members such as Australia, Brazil and others for maintaining high levels of support for their agriculture sectors. Sources indicated that the trade and environment negotiations are likely to be linked eventually with talks on agriculture.

Environmental good and services

Regarding para. 31(ii), agreement now exists in the CTE that negotiations on environmental goods are to be addressed in the Negotiating Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access, while environmental services are to be addressed in the Services negotiations, with the CTE adopting a clarification and monitoring role. However, Members are not yet decided on how this role will be exercised. The US proposed that there could be joint sessions between the CTE and the Goods Negotiating Group. For its part, Qatar proposed including goods involving natural on an eventual list of environmental goods. A combined list of environmental goods elaborated by both the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (TN/MA/S/6) on 7 October was forwarded by the WTO Secretariat to the Negotiating Group on Market Access.

MEA observership still blocked

On the continuing question of MEA observership, participation of MEA secretariats in the special CTE sessions remains blocked at the higher political level at the WTO (see related story, this issue). At last week’s meeting, the EC proposed an early decision to give observer status to MEAs and to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Making reference to ‘the spirit of Johannesburg’, the EC argued that there was an urgent need for the WTO to open up to key MEAs and to UNEP, as the CTE negotiations could affect their future. Concerns voiced by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and by UNEP at the 8-9 October regular CTE session (see related story, this issue) reinforce the EC’s arguments.

To get around the current observership blockage, an informal special ‘MEA information session’ of the CTE is scheduled for 12 November, where MEA secretariats will engage with Members. However, this remains an informal meeting, and MEA representatives reportedly remain sceptical that it can replace substantive input in a formal session.

ICTSD reporting; "EU Calls For UNEP To Be Given Observer Status In WTO Talks," UN WIRE, 11 October 2002; "Update On The Environment Talks At The WTO," FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL, 10 October 2002.