WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/TE/INF/3
23 December 2002
(02-7081)
Committee on Trade and Environment
Special SessionOriginal:  English
UNEP-MEA MEETING ON ENHANCING MEA AND WTO INFORMATION EXCHANGE
PALAIS DES NATIONS, GENEVA, 11 NOVEMBER 2002
CHAIRMAN’S SUMMARY
Submission by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This meeting, co-sponsored by UNEP and a number of multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs) on 11 November 2002, was organized to explore ways to enhance information exchange and
achieve reciprocal observer status between the WT O, MEAs and UNEP.  It was held immediately
prior to the CTE Special Session MEA Information Exchange Session, with the aim also of
contributing additional perspectives and ideas to that meeting.
2. The goal of this UNEP-MEA meeting was to provide opportunities for trade and environment
officials to explore how information exchange and reciprocal observer status could help develop
synergies between MEAs and the WTO.  The meeting brought together trade and environment
officials from capitals and Geneva-based missions, as well as representatives of the WTO Secretariat,
UNEP, seven MEA Secretariats, other intergovernmental bodies and NGOs.  Briefings on
trade-related environmental measures and the role of MEAs in regulating trade were made by theSecretariats of the Convention on Biological Divers ity (CBD), its Biosafety Protocol, the UN Climate
Change Convention and the Basel Convention in the mo rning.  Presentations by the last two of these
MEA Secretariats, the Ramsar Convention, the WTO Secretariat and UNEP in the afternoon, focused
on information exchange and reciprocal observer status.
3. This meeting builds on a process facilitated by UNEP since 1997 that has focused on
enhancing the synergies between WTO, MEAs and UNEP.  This process is founded on UNEP’s
mandate, formulated at its 21
st Governing Council, which includes further analysis of the relationship
between MEAs and the WTO, with a view to making trade and environment policies mutually
supportive (GC 21/14).  It also reflects the renewed emphasis on cooperation between trade and
environment institutions given by trade ministers at the WTO’s Ministerial Conference in Doha, and
by Heads of State and Ministers at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
• In Doha, Ministers welcomed “the WTO’ s continued cooperation with UNEP and
other inter-governmental environmental organizations” and “encouraged efforts to
promote cooperation between the WTO and relevant international environmental and
developmental organizations.”
• At the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) the Plan of
Implementation agreed by Heads of State identifies the need to “strengthen
cooperation among UNEP and other United Nations bodies and specialized agencies,the Bretton Woods institutions and WTO, within their mandates.”TN/TE/INF/3
Page 2
4. Information exchange and cooperation are keys to developing practical tools for enhancing
synergies between the multilateral trade and environment regimes.  Consequently, the meeting was
structured to provide opportunities for focused dialogue between governments, the WTO, MEA and
UNEP secretariats, and other stakeholders.  UNEP gratefully acknowledges funding from the
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada and Environment Canada thatsupported the presence of 14 officials from developing country capitals at the meeting and the
subsequent CTE Special Session.  Their participation brought new perspectives to the discussions, and
contributed to policy coordination and information exchange at national and international levels.
5. This document represents a Chairman’s summa ry of the meeting.  Without attempting to
itemize the many important contributions made, it pr ovides an overview of the main issues raised by
participants and a list of future work that were suggested by some government representatives.  This
summary does not represent a consensus document by Governments attending the meeting.  Rather, itis offered by the Chair as a source of information for Governments, and to seek their further input and
guidance as part of an ongoing, informal and collabor ative initiative to foster synergies between trade
and environment policies, rules and institutions.
II. MEA BRIEFINGS ON TRADE-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES AND
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
6. The morning session was dedicated to briefings by three MEA Secretariats on trade-related
environmental measures and trade implications of the agreements.
7. Convention on Biological Diversity and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.  The briefings of
the CBD Secretariat on the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Biosafety Protocol focused on
trade-related measures used in the implementation of these agreements.  In relation to the Convention,it was noted that while there were no trade measures in the agreement, trade-related measures would
include measures related to identification, monitoring and policy responses;  incentives – positive,
negative and indirect – for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including the removal or
mitigation of perverse incentives;  measures to control alien invasive species;  issues relating to
benefit sharing and traditional knowledge;  and technology transfer.  In relation to the Protocol, thepresentation focused on measures and their potential trade implications relating to transboundary
movements, handling and use of living modified organisms.
8. Questions from participants focused on the status of implementation of the
Biosafety Protocol, including when trade-related pr ovisions would come into force, what capacity-
building is available to developing countries for implementation, and the nature of work being done
on incentive measures for sustainable use of biodiversity.  The Secretariat’s responses emphasized
that the implementation-related activities of the Biosafety Protocol are mainly related to its BiosafetyClearing House, focusing on the development of national biosafety frameworks and national level
implementation projects;  and that in the CBD most emphasis on incentive measures was being placed
on positive incentives as well as perverse incentives and their removal or mitigation.
9. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The presentation by the
Secretariat of the UNFCCC noted that while there were no trade measures in the agreement, someimplementation measures such as legally binding emission reduction commitments could have trade
effects.  The secretariat noted a need for innovation in addressing institutional overlaps between this
agreement and the WTO, with the aim of achieving the common goal of sustainable development.
Information exchange and cooperation should engage the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties and its
subsidiary bodies on the one hand, and the WTO Members, subsidiary bodies and mechanisms suchas the CTE and the DSU.  More exploration was required of specific issues and policy tools on the
interface between the two agreements, including technology transfer, dispute settlement and
compliance procedures, and trade effects of implementation measures for the Convention.TN/TE/INF/3
Page 3
10. Questions from participants focused on the potential effects of implementation measures on
competitiveness, whether emission trading is an is sue to be considered in the context of future
discussions of environmental goods and services developed in the WTO, and whether there are any
real conflicts between measures in the UNFCCC or its Kyoto Protocol and WTO rules.  It was noted
by both the Secretariat and one participant in the meeting that policy coordination at the national levelis a key to avoiding tensions or potential conflicts between these agreements.
11. Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes.  The presentation of
the secretariat emphasized that the Convention has successfully put in place a worldwide control
system for transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.  The 1999 Basel Ministerial Declaration
on Environmentally Sound Management has provided a vision and a solid foundation for moving into
concrete implementation at the regional, national and international level, of activities to protect human
health and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous and other wastes.  The secretariatstressed the pressing need for having comprehensive policies to achieve these environmentally sound
management goals taking into account their social, environmental and economic dimensions.
Reference was made to particular policy challenges to ensure proper dismantling of ships, the
recovery of used lead-acid batteries, the disposal of electronic wastes and cleaning up or removal of
asbestos.  The potential high economic and developmental costs associated with unsound managementof wastes was emphasized.  The secretariat further noted that efforts to build the institutional and
technical capacity of States to prevent, minimize and manage wastes in an environmentally sound
manner should be carried out in phase with the development of the multilateral trade regime.
12. Questions and comments from participants focused on what measures could be taken under
the Basel Convention to address working conditions at the local level, how to control illegal dumpingof hazardous waste, the need to reduce the generation of waste rather than dispose of it, and the
importance of partnership in establishing ESM of hazardous waste.  The Secretariat gave an
illustration of the effective cooperation with ILO to address environmentally sound management with
a view to improving working conditions at the local level.  The secretariat affirmed the importance of
governments cooperating with each other to enha nce their capacities to enforce the Convention’s
provisions, and that multistakeholder partnerships such as the African Stockpiles Project on the clean
up and prevention of obsolete stocks of pesticides are potentially powerful tools to achieve
environmentally sound management.
III. THE ROLE OF INFORMATION EXCHANGE IN ENHANCING COOPERATION
13. The afternoon session focused on information exchange and observer status.  A first step
towards genuine cooperation and collaborative policy making is open information exchange .  To
facilitate dialogue in the meeting, Annotation I of the agenda posed some questions on the modalitiesrequired to achieve this.  These included the following issues:
• How information exchange at the international level might stimulate more
information exchange and coordination on trade and environment policies at the
national level;
• whether Information Sessions like that of today can be formalized, regularized and
increased in frequency;
• how a focus on specific issues might enhance the value of information exchange;
• whether UNEP, WTO and MEA Secretariats should continue to provide focused
background papers to support future information exchange exercises;  and
• what opportunities exist to further strengthen cooperation between officials
representing the secretariats of the WTO, MEAs and UNEP, and in what areas?TN/TE/INF/3
Page 4
14. Participants in the meeting raised a number of points including that:
• Back-to-back meetings organized by UNEP and the MEAs have made a very
constructive contribution to discussions in the WTO, and could continue to play auseful role in the context of the Doha Work Programme and the WSSD’s Plan of
Implementation;
• focusing information exchange and meetings on specific topics, timed to be of
relevance to WTO discussions and negotiations, could enhance the value of these
meetings.  A number of participants cited the example of the meeting organized by
UNEP in June 2001 on compliance and dispute settlement in the WTO and MEAs;
• information exchange is not an end in itself, but should lead to more cooperation
between MEAs, UNEP and the WTO;  and
• a key objective of these meetings and information exchange at international level is to
enhance coordination of trade and environment policies at national level.  Whilegovernments should take the lead on this issue at the national level, enhanced
international dialogue, and capacity building which grows out of information
exchange can strengthen national policy coordination.
15. A number of participants supported the production of more joint papers on specific topics by
the WTO, UNEP and MEA Secretariats, as a way of focusing information exchange and deepening
analysis of inter-linkages and potential synergies.  It was noted that a combination of formal meetings
such as this one, exchange of documents, better national level coordination and secretariat-to-
secretariat cooperation would also contribute to enhancing synergies.  Exchange of papers throughweb-sites, created by the WTO and MEA Secretariats and UNEP, could also make a valuable and
readily accessible contribution to more focused information exchange.
16. A number of participants commented on the value of the annotated agenda prepared for this
meeting, in stimulating focused discussions.  The representative of the UNFCCC Secretariat
welcomed WTO side events held in this MEA’s COPs.  The representative of the CBD Secretariatnoted that the TRIPS Council had recently requested a briefing note on the “activities of the
Convention on Biological Diversity of relevance to the review of Article 27.3(b) of the
TRIPS Agreement, the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and
the TRIPS Agreement, and the protection of tr aditional knowledge and folklore”, from the
CBD Secretariat.  The representative suggested th at this could be a useful information exchange
mechanism in the context of other WTO bodies.
17. A number of participants underlined that an innovative approach to information exchange was
necessary to make the most of this tool, and that ways should be explored to increase communication
between governing bodies and relevant subsidiary bodies of MEAs and the WTO.  Some delegations
also emphasized that information exchange should focus on issues of particular relevance todeveloping countries, and that this exchange sh ould also be used to enhance inter-ministerial
coordination at the national level.
18. There was considerable discussion on the issues of regularizing and taking steps to further
institutionalize information exchange between ME As and the WTO.  Whereas there seemed to be
broad support for more regular information exchange, including through meetings such as this one,
opinions differed on whether or not greater formalization or institutionalization is necessary.  One
participant suggested that the views of MEA Secretariats should be sought on the issues of bothstructuring and institutionalizing information exchange.TN/TE/INF/3
Page 5
IV. SUBSTANTIVE AREAS FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE
19. Discussions at the meeting also explored some of the substantive policy areas that would
benefit from further information exchange.  A non-exclusive list of areas was provided in Annex I of
the annotated agenda, among which the following attracted the interest of participants:
• Technology transfer.  Some participants noted the value of investigating the potential
synergies between provisions on technology transfer in MEAs and the WTO, with a
view to enhancing them.  Provisions on te chnology transfer exist in the Basel and
Climate Change Conventions, the Montreal  Protocol, the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  It was noted that technology transfer will
be a theme for in-depth discussion at the next COP of the CBD.
• Promoting sustainable trade .  The promotion of trade in sustainably produced
products was identified by some participants as way both to promote implementation
of MEAs, and to enhance the contribution of trade to sustainable development moregenerally.  Information exchange between trade and environment officials could help
combine expertise to integrate these policy objectives, and support WTO discussions
on the liberalization of trade in environmental goods and services.  Information
exchange could help identify new market access opportunities in this sector for
developing countries.  The representative of the Ramsar Secretariat described anumber of national level projects (in Brazil, Ecuador, the Comoros, Namibia,
Botswana and South Africa), which are promoting trade in sustainably produced
products from wetlands, achieving both poverty alleviation and nature conservation
objectives.
• Trade-related measures in MEAs.  Some participants noted that information
exchange on the role of trade-related measures in MEAs could contribute todiscussions at the WTO, including the negotiation on specific trade obligations in
MEAs.  It was noted by one participant that trade needs to take place within social
and environmental parameters if it is to contribute to sustainable development.
Trade-related measures can play an important role in defining those parameters.   
• Integrated assessment .  Some participants noted that cooperation in the area of
integrated assessment could assist countries to undertake national assessments of
trade policies on a voluntary basis, and to share experiences.  Collaboration between
MEAs, the WTO and UNEP in this area could deepen the analysis and help spread
the experience and expertise more widely, enabling countries to identify importantlinkages between trade, environment and development.  Some participants noted that
assessments can be a valuable way to enhance cooperation and coordination between
trade and environment officials at the national level.
• Economic incentives.  The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity has underlined the need for further work on positive incentives as well as
on perverse incentives and their removal or mitigation.  It was noted that these
substantive initiatives could be served by more detailed information exchange
between the CBD and the WTO, raising the potential for closer collaboration on both
positive and perverse incentives.
20. A number of participants stressed that information exchange will need to take place between
multiple actors, including ministries at the national level, MEA and WTO negotiators, Secretariats, aswell as the Conference of Parties of MEAs a nd relevant WTO Committees and Councils.  One
participant suggested that a collaborative effort by MEAs to compile their respective objectives into aTN/TE/INF/3
Page 6
consolidated list, could help identify where measures taken by other institutions might impede the
achievement of those objectives.
V. THE ROLE OF RECIPROCAL OBSERVER STATUS IN ENHANCING
COOPERATION
21. A second issue addressed by presentations and by participants during the discussion is the
role of reciprocal observer status in WTO and MEA bodies in enhancing cooperation.  This issue was
emphasized by some presenters and discussed by participants.  A number of participants felt that
reciprocal observer status has a crucial role to play in ensuring accurate, relevant and timely
information exchange and cooperation between these bodies.  Some also noted that reciprocal
observer status would also complement and facilitate national level coordination and cooperation
between trade and environment officials.
22. It was noted by some presenters and participants that the WTO Secretariat already has broad
access to international environmental negotiations and deliberations, whereas MEAs and UNEP have
yet to be granted observer status to the CTE’s Special Session (SS-CTE).  A number of participants
expressed concern at this situation, especially in the light of the mandated negotiations on the MEA-
WTO relationship.  However, one other considered it premature to address this issue in the SS-CTE.
One participant suggested the granting of ad hoc obs erver status to the SS-CTE, to those MEAs that
are already observers to the regular CTE, or which have pending observer status.  Thus, while some
participants felt that the question of observer status was an urgent matter for resolution in the context
of the SS-CTE, this was not a view shared by all.
VI. THE IMPORTANCE OF CAPACITY BUILDING
23. A theme that came up consistently in the discussions was capacity building.  Participants and
presenters noted that converting the opportunities identified through information exchange into reality
requires capacity.  The importance of capacity building for achieving mutually supportive policies on
trade and environment was also recognized by many participants.  It was also recognized that capacity
building can help to increase the joint contribution of these regimes not only to environmental
protection, but also to poverty alleviation.  The need for it to occur at all levels – national, regionaland international – was broadly recognized by meeting participants.  In particular, capacity building
can play an important role in:
• Strengthening the coordination of national policy makers and negotiators of
multilateral agreements and their capacity to develop mutually supportive policies;and
• enhancing the ability of the Secretariats and of other relevant bodies, including
UNEP, to serve their members.
24. At a regional level, the value of WTO regional seminars on trade and environment including
the participation of MEA Secretariats and UNEP was emphasized by a number of participants.  A
number of participants noted the value of jo ining these with back-to-back UNEP-UNCTAD
workshops under the auspices of the Capacity Building Task Force on Trade Environment and
Development (CBTF).
25. The design and implementation of collaborative capacity building  activities between MEAs
and the WTO, to enhance their synergies, was recognized as an important objective by some
participants.  UNEP believes that these should be developed into a long-term programme, coordinated
with the activities of other institutions, designed to respond to developing countries’ needs and policy
priorities.  Such capacity building could more effectively support sustainable development if it goesbeyond trade facilitation, to address the environmental and developmental effects of trade.TN/TE/INF/3
Page 7
VII. POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
26. In summing up the meeting the Chairman drew attention once again to the fact that the WSSD
identified trade as a central means of implementation for sustainable development.  Given that
recognition, UNEP believes that it is important to work closely with Governments to develop the
synergies between the two legal systems, as well as on enhancing our understanding of the linkagesbetween trade, environment and sustainable developm ent.  The Chairman remarked that information
exchange and cooperation are keys to developing practical tools for enhancing synergies between the
multilateral trade and environment regimes, which continue to operate in relative isolation from each
other.  Enhancing synergies and cooperation is a key to increasing the joint contribution of these
regimes to human well-being and to achieving the social, economic and environmental goals set out in
Agenda 21 and other international agreements, including alleviating poverty and protecting the
environment for future generations.
27. In light of these challenges, UNEP will continue to work closely with Governments to
identify opportunities to enhance cooperation between the WTO, MEAs and UNEP.  UNEP is seeking
guidance and input from governments and other participants at the meeting on its future work.
Possible areas for future work to enhance MEA-WTO synergies that were identified by some
participants at the meeting include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Increasing Secretariat-to-Secretariat info rmation exchange and cooperation between
MEAs, the WTO and UNEP, including on the timing, organization and developmentof agendas for meetings such as this;
• holding meetings similar in format to this one, back-to-back with Special Sessions of
the CTE in 2003, with the aid of annotated agendas and background papers.
• focusing future meetings on specific issues.  Participants raised a number of potential
topics for future meetings.  These include promoting sustainable trade, technologytransfer, trade-related measures in MEAs, and best practices for national-level
cooperation between trade and environmental officials;
• preparing new joint papers, such as that developed for the compliance and dispute
settlement meeting in June 2001, including potentially on that issue;
• developing a web-site on which to plac e trade-related papers from MEAs, MEA-
related papers from the WTO, and papers from other analytical sources on this
inter-relationship;
• holding briefing sessions for Geneva Permanent Missions on these and related issues,
to ensure UNEP has access to all relevant perspectives and views;
• in cooperation with MEA Secretariats compiling a list of implementation measures,
including trade-related ones, so as to develop a reference document which would
enable policy makers working in other institutions to avoid designing measures which
impede the effectiveness of these measures;
• exploring ways to enhance information exchange between MEA Secretariats and their
subsidiary bodies and those of other relevant WTO bodies, such as the Committeeson Agriculture, Technical Barriers to Trade, Trade and Development, Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures and the TRIPS Council;TN/TE/INF/3
Page 8
• exploring ways to enhance national level coordination of trade and environment
policies, which in turn to can feed back into developing synergies between MEAs andthe WTO;  and
• undertaking further back-to-back meetings with WTO regional seminars, in
collaboration with MEAs, the WTO and UNCTAD.
28. UNEP looks forward to hearing ideas generated by those reading this summary or the
meeting’s annotated agenda, or following the subsequent CTE Special Information Session, and to
realizing opportunities to strengthen information exchange and enhance synergies between MEAs, the
WTO and UNEP.
__________