RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/M/32
4 March 2003
(03-1243)
Committee on Trade and Environment
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 FEBRUARY 2003
Note by the Secretariat
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA....................................................................................................... .........2
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON..................................................................................................... .........2
III. PARAGRA PH 32............................................................................................................... ......................3
A. P ARAGRAPH 32(i) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (MARKET ACCESS )....................................3
1. Market Access ................................................................................................................ .......................3
2. Sector analysis ("win-win-win").............................................................................................. ..............4
B. P ARAGRAPH 32(ii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (TRIPS).................................................11
C. P ARAGRAPH 32(iii)  (L ABELLING )............................................................................................................14
IV. OTHER ITEMS ON THE CTE AGENDA .........................................................................................14
B. I TEMS 1 AND 5.............................................................................................................................. ............15
C. I TEM 10 ............................................................................................................................. .......................15
V. PARAGRAPH 33................................................................................................................. ......................15
A. T ECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING .............................................................................15
B. E NVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................16
VI. PARAGRAPH 51................................................................................................................ ...................18
VII. "CANCÚN RE PORT"............................................................................................................ ..............19
A. C HAIRMAN 'S INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................19
B. D ISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... ...............20
C. C ONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... .............24
VIII. SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS FOR 2003.......................................................................................24WT/CTE/M/32
Page 2
1. The Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE Regular) met on 14 February 2003 under
the Chairmanship of Ambassador Peter Br ňo (Slovak Republic).  The documents submitted for
discussion at the meeting were set out in the Annotated Draft Agenda (Job(03)/18, circulated on
5 February 2003).1
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. With a minor change, the proposed age nda in WTO/AIR/2017/Rev.1 was adopted.2
3. The Chairman invited observer organizations to report on matters of interest arising from their
work under the relevant items of the Committee's work programme.  He welcomed the representatives
from the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), the United Nations Co nference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC).
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
4. The Chairman noted that at its meeting on 10 February 2003, the General Council had taken
note of the consensus on a slate of names for Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies, including the
CTE Regular.  On the basis of the understanding reached by the General Council, his name hadbeen proposed for the CTE Regular.  In light of this, the Committee agreed on the election of
Ambassador Peter Br ňo (Slovak Republic) by acclamation.
5. On a personal note, the Chairman recognized the important work done by his predecessor,
Ambassador Demiralp (Turkey), and, speaking for all Members, expressed his gratefulness for the
smooth and eloquent way in which Ambassador Demira lp had guided the work of the CTE in 2002.
6. In thanking Members for the trust put in him, the Chairman considered the broad agenda
ahead.  The work of the CTE Regular covered the ten traditional items of the CTE work programme3,
with the additional requirement, since November 2001, to give "particular attention" to three of them:
(a) "market access", (b) the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and (c) labelling for environmental purposes (paragraph 32).4
In addition, there were other key issues such as technical cooperation, capacity building
(paragraph 33) and sustainable development (paragraph 51).  Considering that many of these elements
involved close cooperation with other bodies in the WTO, perhaps a key issue for the CTE would be
to find ways of adding value to work done elsewhere.
7. Perhaps a special challenge for the CTE Regular in 2003, and a particular responsibility for
the Chair, would be the preparation of the Committee's report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference in Cancún ("Cancún Report").  The CTE Regular had a specific reporting requirement toCancún contained in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  This would be a
particular focus of the current meeting.
                                                     
1 An updated list of all documents circulated in the CTE Regular and CTE Special Session until 31 January 2003 is
contained in WT/CTE/INF/5/Rev.1, dated 5 February 2003.
2 Before adoption of the agenda, a minor change was made so as to enable the CTE to elect the new Chairman at
the beginning of the meeting instead of at the end.
3 The original terms of reference and mandate for the CTE are contained in the 1994 Decision on Trade and
Environment.
4 All paragraph numbers refer to the Doha Ministerial Declaration unless otherwise stated.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 3
III. PARAGRAPH 32
A. PARAGRAPH 32(i) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (MARKET ACCESS )
The effect of environmental measures on market access, especially in relation to
developing countries, in particular the least developed among them, and those
situations in which the elimination or redu ction of trade restrictions and distortions
would benefit trade, the environment and development.
8. The Chairman recalled that this paragraph had two aspects:  (i) "market access aspect", i.e. the
effect of environmental measures on market access, and (ii) the "win-win-win" aspect which had to do
with the situations in which the elimination or reduction of trade restrictions and distortions would
benefit trade, the environment and development.  A ccording to past practice, this second aspect was
reviewed sector by sector ("sector analysis").
1. Market Access
9. The representative of the OECD recalled th at the OECD Global Forum on Trade workshop on
"Environmental Requirements and Market Access: Addressing Developing Country Concerns" had
taken place in New Delhi, India on 27-28 November 2002.5  Hosted by the Indian Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, and organised by the OECD  and the Indian government supported Research
and Information System for the Non-Aligned and Ot her Developing Countries (RIS), in cooperation
with UNCTAD, the workshop had brought together close to 100 participants for the two-day event.
These included more than 40 civil servants, researchers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
from India, 16 developing country participants, 20 OECD Member country delegates, 5 Inter-
governmental organisations and 5 NGOs.
10. The main purpose of the workshop had been to gain a better understanding of the issues,
particularly with respect to some of the inadvertent problems created by environmental requirements –
both those imposed by governments, and those cr eated by private industry and NGOs.  A number of
case studies and experiences from several developing countries, including India, were discussed.  One
of the conclusions was the need to improve the in formation flow regarding changes in environmental
regulations so as to make such notifications as early as possible to enable exporters to have time tounderstand the changes.  Another point made was the need to find ways to involve developing
countries in standard-setting processes, and to find better means of providing technical assistance and
of improving the capacity of developing countries to respond to environmental requirements.
11. Following the workshop, the OECD Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment had
agreed to follow-up on the case studies that had formed a major part of the background material for
this workshop, with a particular focus on positive steps that OECD countries had taken in the above-
mentioned areas.
6
12. The representative of UNCTAD noted that the outcome of the "Expert Meeting on
Environmental Requirements and International Trade" (Geneva, 2-4 October 2002)7 had been brought
to the attention of the Seventh Session of th e UNCTAD Commission on Trad e in Goods and Services
and Commodities (the "Commission").  The Commission addressed three substantive items:
(a) Export diversification, market access and competitiveness, in particular in the context
of the commodities crisis;
                                                     
5 Document WT/CTE/GEN/3 contains OECD's pres entation of this subject at the last meeting.
6 Relevant information regarding this meeting, including the rapporteur’s summary of the various sessions of the
workshop were made available as a room document.
7 More information at:  www.unctad.org/trade_env/.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 4
(b) trade in services and development complications; and,
(c) trade, environment and development.
13. Under the last item (trade, environment and development), the Commission discussed, among
other things, the outcome of the Expert Meeting and agreed on a number of recommendations for thework of the UNCTAD Secretariat.  In particular, the Commission recommended that the
UNCTAD should continue its work on standard-setti ng and harmonization of environment and health
regulations, taking into account the development dimension.  In this regard, the UNCTAD was also
asked to explore the possibility of creating a consultative task force on pre-standard harmonization on
environmental requirements and international trade.  This task force would closely coordinate and
collaborate with relevant initiatives in other bodies and organizations; it would involve the private
sector and would be conducted as a project-ba sed activity.  Another recommendation concerned
harmonization and equivalence in organic agricultur e (a joint activity of UNCTAD, the FAO and the
International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements – IFOAM).  Yet another
recommendation concerned the facilitation of access to scientific and technical advice on issues
relating to environmental sanitary and phytosanitary measures, as well as the impact and application
of new technologies, particularly in the cont ext of the UNCTAD Scienc e and Technology Diplomacy
Initiative.
8  The fourth recommendation was to strengthen work carried out by UNEP and
UNCTAD within the framework of the Capacity Building Task Force (CBTF)9 and projects aimed at
building capacity for negotiations on key trade and environment issues in the post-Doha context.
Other recommendations concerned the bio-trade program, in particular in the follow-up of
partnerships launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).  The Secretariathad also been asked to continue analysis of the trade and investment implications of multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs).
14. In conclusion, the UNCTAD noted that the Commission had decided to hold an extra meeting
on definitions and dimensions of environmental goods and services in 2003, most probably in July.
The UNCTAD was currently exploring possibilities with the WTO Secretariat to schedule thismeeting back-to-back with one of the WTO meetings in 2003.
2. Sector analysis ("win-win-win")
(a) Forestry and fish
15. In introducing a paper on "Sustainable Development and the Trade of Forest and Fishery
Products"
10, Japan recalled that the Doha Ministerial Declaration firmly reconfirmed Members'
commitment to the objective of sustainable deve lopment.  The WSSD Plan of Implementation11 also
required action to achieve sustainable forest management and sustainable fisheries.  Hence the currentround of negotiations needed to address how international trade could contribute to sustainable forest
management and sustainable fisheries in all countries.  Civil society was also concerned about the
potential negative influence of the free trade regime on forest and fishery resources and it was
indispensable for the WTO to promote trade libera lization while fully acknowledging such concerns.
                                                     
8 http://www.unctad.org/stdev/services/diplomacy.html.
9 http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/.
10 WT/CTE/W/222, 6 February 2003, "Sustainable Development and the Trade of Forest and Fishery Products",
Submission by Japan.  This document was previously submitted by Japan as a proposal in the Negotiating Group on MarketAccess (TN/MA/W/15/Add.1, dated 6 January 2003).
11 It is noted here, for information, that the Secretariat has circulated the text of the Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development and of the WSSD Plan of Implementation in WT/COMTD/W/106/Rev.1 and
WT/CTE/W/220/Rev.1, dated 20 December 2002.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 5
16. Japan stressed that forests were exhaustible natural resources which were renewable if
managed appropriately.  Forests provided various public benefits such as the mitigation of global
warming and the conservation of biological diversity.  Since the 1992 Rio Summit, promoting
sustainable forest management had been one of the world's challenges.  However, forests in the world
were decreasing and degrading.  Japan, while greatly contributing to the development of trade inforest products as a major wood-importing country, was concerned about the current situation and
interested in the world-wide promotion of sustainable forest management.
17. Turning to the specific proposal on forest products and trade measures in the forestry sector,
Japan noted that there existed cases where no export restrictions were imposed on processed wood
products whereas unprocessed logs were subject to export restriction.  The consistency of these
measures with WTO rules needed to be scrutinized in light of which measures were appropriate to the
conservation of natural resources.  Concerning illegal logging, Japan felt that there was a need todeepen the discussion in the WTO with the aim of pursuing a possible contribution from a trade
perspective.
18. Regarding fisheries, Japan stressed that fishery resources were exhaustible natural resources
that could be depleted by over-exploitation, but were renewable with proper fisheries management.
However, given the increasing demand for fishery products all over the world, world fishery resourceswere declining due to such factors as over-exploitation and illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing (IUU).  While greatly contributing to the development of trade in fish products – as the largest
fish-importing country – Japan was concerned about the current situation and interested in the
conservation of world fishery resources.  In its specific proposal, Japan first noted the roles and
necessities of trade-related measures that could complement conservation and management measuresfor fishery resources that had to be duly take n into account.  Second, in light of the WSSD, the
WTO needed to examine how to address fisheries subsidies at the CTE Regular for the purpose of
solving IUU fishing and over-capacity issues, taki ng into account the work in other organizations.
Third, regarding labelling for environmental purposes in  the fishery sector, the FAO needed to first try
to establish scientific and objective guidelines.  The WTO could then consider how to deal with thisissue from a trade viewpoint, taking into account these established guidelines.
19. Japan stressed that in order to ensure the long-term development of trade in forest and fishery
products, it was important to provide adequate technical and financial assistance.  Japan had been
supporting these two sectors on a bilateral, regional and multilateral basis, and would continue to do
so.  These efforts would contribute to the promotion of sustainable forest and fishery management in
developing countries.  Sustainable development of exhaustible natural resources such as forest and
fishery products was essential to promote trade lib eralization while ensuring their sustainable use.
20. The representative of Argentina noted that while his country shared the goal of sustainable
development expressed by Japan, he had some concerns with the Japanese focus on fish and forestry.
On forestry products, Japan's paper stated that it was crucial to ensure that each Member retained
flexibility among products when determining the appropriate level of tariffs.  This was to be done by
taking into account such factors as the trends of domestic production and consumption, and theinternational supply and demand of each product, while giving due consideration to the conditions and
the management of forests and the experiences of past trade negotiations.
12  In Argentina's view, and
in conformity with the Doha mandate, the focus of the CTE Regular needed to be specifically on the
impact of trade measures on market access.  Argentina was not entirely sure that to reverse this
approach by starting from tariff levels in order to move towards sustainable development was thepertinent one.  Without doubt, the focus on tariff levels would have implications and opened up the
possibility of discrimination with regard to the process and production methods (PPMs), a point which
his delegation could not accept.
                                                     
12 Japan's submission (WT/CTE/W/222), paragraph 8(i).WT/CTE/M/32
Page 6
21. On fishery products, the paper stated that it was crucial to ensure that each Member retained
flexibility among products when determining the level of tariffs, taking into account the level of
fishery resources and the status of fishery management.13  Once again Japan's approach focussed on
the regulatory capacity in importing states of fixing tariffs for fishery products.  In other words, under
the pretext of conservation, the importing country would become a unilateral referee of fisherymanagement thereby affecting the market access of the exporting state.  This, Argentina believed,
neither helped nor contributed to the objective contained in paragraph 32(i) of the Doha Declaration.
22. Argentina also pointed out that the document made an argument in relation to fisheries
subsidies and the relevant negotiations in the Negotiating Group on Rules.
14  It was suggested that as
no concrete cases had been discussed in the Negotiating Group on Rules demonstrating trade
distortions caused by fisheries subsidies, the matter needed to be dealt with by the CTE Regular so as
to avoid illegal fishing and to combat over-exportation and over-capacity.  Even though the issue hadoriginally been raised in the CTE, the Doha Declaration crystalized the purpose of negotiations in
paragraph 28: "to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies".  Argentina supported
the general objective of promoting sustainable fisheries as well as the preservation of fisheries
resources.   However, there was a need to bear in mind that the over-capacity, and, consequently, a
large part of the over-exploitation of fisheries, was caused by subsidies.  It was taking this intoaccount, and the effects of subsidies on trade, that Ministers had mandated Members in paragraph 28
to improve and refine the disciplines.  Hence, both dimensions of fisheries subsidies were covered by
the Negotiating Group on Rules.  Argentina considered that the CTE Regular should not duplicate the
work which was being undertaken in that body.
23. The representative of Korea shared Japan's view that the objective of sustainable management
of forest and fisheries was not in conflict with the trade liberalization envisaged in the
Doha negotiations.  In particular, sound forest and fishery resource management was essential to
obtaining the objective of sustainable development.  In this context, and as Japan had pointed out,
Korea also believed that the issue of sustainable forestry and fishery resource management, including
fisheries subsidies, needed to be further discussed in the CTE Regular, especially since there weresome major issues regarding sustainable forest management.
24. The representative of the United States noted that in his view, Japan was somewhat misguided
in suggesting that tariff eliminatio n in these sectors would inevitably lead to an exhaustion of natural
resources.  In fact, maintaining trade barriers in the form of tariff and non-tariff measures was no
substitute for effective resource management.  Trade liberalization, in concert with sustainable
resource management, could stimulate more efficient production with more long-term environmental
benefits.
25. On fish, the United States believed that questions associated with tariff and non-tariff
measures were appropriately being taken up in the Non-Agricultural Market Access Negotiating
Group and, with respect to subsidies, in the Rules Negotiating Group.  With respect to the Rules
Negotiating Group, there had already been useful discussions on the need for improved and clarified
WTO disciplines to diminish over-depletion of fisheries stocks world-wide.  It was quite remarkablethat Japan was suggesting that the clock be turned  back to the time when delegations were simply
talking about fisheries subsidies in the CTE.  The United States had been under the impression that
two recent events, one in Doha, Qatar and the other in Johannesburg, South Africa, had provided
Members with clear direction on these issues.  On forestry, the United States was of the view that
increased trade liberalization could offer greater opportunities for forest-rich countries to increase thevalue-added of their production and reduce the incidence of over-harvesting.  Ultimately this could
                                                     
13 Ibid., paragraph 13(i).
14 Ibid., paragraph 16.  The representative of Argentina also made a reference to "Japan’s Basic Position on the
Fisheries Subsidies Issue", contained in a submission by Japan to the Negotiating Group on Rules, TN/RL/W/11,
2 July 2002.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 7
encourage sustainable resource management.  Again, trade liberalization needed to go forward in
concert with sustainable resource management.
26. On labelling, the United States noted that Japan had further argued in favour of labelling for
environmental purposes in both sectors.  While labelling could provide important information to
consumers, such schemes needed not to be misleading and had to be verifiable.  It was not clear howcertification of Japan's proposed labels would work.  In any event, the United States believed that the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) provided sufficient disciplines to facilitate the
development of labelling schemes.  Regarding technical assistance and capacity building, the
United States agreed on its importance for sustainable resource management programs, and the
longer-term development of forests and fisheries.  The United States would continue to work through
organizations such as the FAO, the United  Nations Forum on Forest (UNFF) and the
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) that had technical expertise in these areas.
27. The representative of Brazil noted that the issue of illegal harvesting of forest products could
not be discussed in isolation.  It had to be considered together with demand aspects of the issue, i.e.,
international trade, and, on the domestic side, the capacity of countries – especially developing ones –
to monitor the implementation of their national forest legislation.  In fact, this was the approach taken
by the UNFF and which had been reiterated by Mi nisters and Presidents in Johannesburg.  Brazil
welcomed the recognition by Japan of the relevance of technical and financial assistance in trade
liberalization in pursuit of sustainable forest management.  As had been recognized by the UNFF,
these were the very means of implementing sustainable forest management on a permanent basis in all
countries.
28. The representative of Chile noted that his country shared Japan's interest in promoting
sustainable development of fisheries and forestry resources.  As had been stated by Chile and other
Members, fisheries stocks were affected by the subsidies applied by certain countries.  Furthermore,
as Japan had stated, the issue of trade distortions was being looked at in the Rules Negotiating Group.
Nevertheless, Chile called for some study from Japan on the impact of subsidies on fisheries resources
and sustainability.  Also, Chile requested from Ja pan, who was concerned about stock depletion and
sustainability, information about the measures which they applied on high seas fishery.  This was the
only area, covering about 5 per cent of fisheries, which was not subject to national legislation or
jurisdiction of conservation agreements and therefore was not subject to stock conservation regimes.
Moreover, Chile could not understand the logic of using tariff levels15 for environmental purposes and
shared Argentina's point of view in this regard (paragraph 21 above) and asked for some clarification
on this point from Japan.  Regarding what was referred to as the "zero-for-zero approach … [which
would] also add an extra pressure to the resources …"16, the representative of Chile wondered why
Japan thought that in the case of fisheries subsidies there was no additional pressure on resources.
While thanking Japan for the paper, the representative of Chile asked for further information in the
appropriate forum, which was the Group on Non-Agricultural Market Access.
29. The representative of Malaysia noted that Japan's paper had highlighted the importance of
sustainable forest and fishery resources management.  According to Japan, these renewable natural
resources, if well-managed, could provide a continuous source of food as well as prospects for
increasing living standards in many developing countries.  Malaysia recalled India's paper17 on market
access which had stressed the need to grant developing and least-developed countries a longer time-
frame to achieve standards of sustainable development.  This paper had further stated that market
access during this period of time should not be denied to products from developing countries since
                                                     
15 Ibid., paragraph 13(i) of Japan's submission (WT/CTE/W/222).
16 Ibid., paragraph 13(ii).
17 Paragraph 5 of WT/CTE/W/207, dated 21 May 2002, on "The Effects of Environmental Measures on Market
Access, especially in relation to Developing Countries, in particular the Least-Developed among them", Submission from
India on Paragraph 32(i) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 8
growth and employment in such countries was dependent to a great extent on the ease with which they
could export.  In this regard, Japan's paper also attempted to discuss the role of market access
instruments, such as tariffs, to ensure the balance in the sustainable development of resources – that of
ensuring both economic and environmental development at the same time.  Given its position on the
role of tariff, it was not clear why tariffs were much lower on unprocessed products, compared withprocessed products.  But since the tariff negotiations were being undertaken in a specific negotiating
body in the WTO, Malaysia would not debate the merits or the modalities of the tariff reductions.  It
sufficed to state, as had the United States, that tariff and non-tariff measures were no substitute for
efficient resource management.  Malaysia stressed that the promotion of market access in sectors of
export interest to developing countries remained an important goal in the current negotiations and she
associated herself, in this regard, with the comments of the United States, Chile and Argentina on the
issue of fisheries subsidies.
30. Malaysia also wished to encourage the industrial development of further downstream
activities related to these natural resources (forestry and fishery), including market access
improvements through tariff reductions and elimination of tariff escalation on processed products.
She noted that it was recognized that economic development went in tandem with higher levels of
achievement in environmental protection.  The representative of Malaysia drew the Committee'sattention to a recent communication from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
18 which was relevant to the issue of restrictions on the
export of unprocessed logs in the forest sector.  This was a means to protect forestry resources from
over-exploitation while, at the same time, allowing  domestic processing of wood products so as to
encourage the development of a viable wood product and furniture industry capable of contributing toeconomic growth of the economy and uplifting standards of living.  The CITES communication noted
the advantages of designing and implementing economic incentives such as the assignment of well-
defined property and use rights, tradable catch and export quotas, export taxes, access fees and user
charges in achieving the objectives of the CITES Convention.  It also encouraged the parties to
consider the use of these incentives in national policies as part of the process of developing nationaland regional conservation strategies.  These measures deserved further reflection if they could be used
to ensure conservation without reducing countries ability to benefit economically from its natural
resources.
31. Malaysia was of the view that much could be done to provide greater technical assistance in
natural resource conservation and management through the various international environmental
organizations in the forestry and fishery sectors.   Transfer of technology could also be encouraged so
that developing countries could avail themselves of the latest tools and techniques of forest andfishery conservation, best practices of silviculture and fisheries farming.  In the CTE Regular,
Members could consider how WTO rules were being implemented in a manner that could help
achieve this objective of improving market access through the proper use of environmental measures.
32. The representative of Venezuela  supported the comments made by Argentina, Chile and the
United States on the Japanese paper and agreed with the point made by Brazil that the illegal
exploitation of forests could not be examined in isolation.  It was not possible to combat illegality
from the planning standpoint; the problem of poverty had to be addressed.  The Japanese document
made no reference to poverty.  Venezuela was well aware of the importance of planning,
development, protection and sustainable developmen t of forests.  His country had extraordinary
experiences from the commercial and industrial development of the forestry sector from projectsrecognized by the Inter-American Development Bank.  These projects had given particular attention
to the integration of local communities in the protection of forests.  At the same time these
communities were able to participate in small and medium scale industries. Also, Venezuela had
successful experiences in the establishment of national forests.  A lesson from this was that there was
                                                     
18 WT/CTE/GEN/6, dated 20 November 2002, on "Economic Incentives and Trade Policy", Communication from
the CITES Secretariat under Items 1 & 5.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 9
no point to merely planning development unless the pr oblem of poverty was tackled.  In fact, in most
developing countries, poverty was the main cause of illegal exploitation.  Hence, Venezuela
encouraged Japan to consider the issue of poverty and noted that this could also be addressed under
paragraph 51 of the Doha Declaration.
33. The representative of the European Communities supported the concerns raised by Japan in
paragraphs 4 to 7 of the paper:  forest and fish were natural resources which were both in a very
dangerous position.  He noted that the discussion had already been started in another forum of the
WTO and that in that debate the European Communities had made clear that in all aspects of these
negotiations due account had to be taken of the objective of sustainable development, and of reducing
resource depletion and pollution.19  The European Communities found some of the points made,
especially the one on special and differential treatment and capacity building for developing countries
in relation to forest and fishery, to be of utmost importance.  The European Communities would beinterested – in the context of the paragraph 33 mandate – to see what exactly had been done, and what
more could be done, in order to encourage sustainable management of resources.
34. The representative of Peru noted that while her delegation shared the objective of sustainable
development, she supported the concerns expressed by various delegations such as Argentina, the
United States, Chile and others.  While it was true that the regimes for the conservation of fisheryresources were an important aspect for controlling over-capacity and over-fishing, it had also been
proven in many studies that subsidies granted by certain developed countries had negative effects both
on the international trade in fishing products and also on the environment.  Peru hoped to continue
this discussion in the Negotiation Group on Rules, which was the proper forum to deal with it.
35. The representative of New Zealand also shared the underlying concern for the objective of
sustainable development and resource use expressed by Japan.  However, New Zealand had, in light
of its own experience, considerable doubts about the linkage Japan was seeking to draw between
market access, especially tariffs, and effective resource management.  New Zealand would be
providing a more detailed response to Japan's paper at the upcoming meeting of the Negotiating
Group on Market Access.  New Zealand shared the concerns raised by the United States, Argentina,Chile, Brazil and a number of other delegations.
36. On the issue of sustainable fishery management, the representative of Indonesia was of the
view that although there was a need to protect the resource, over-capacity and over-fishing tended to
cause problems.  Hence, the issue was the need to address the fisheries subsidies that had given
benefits to major fishing fleets.  As other delegation had said before, this was properly discussed
within the Negotiating Group on Rules.  Likewise, on the issue of sustainable forestry management,
Indonesia supported Brazil's concerns that the issue of illegal logging be not dealt with in isolation;  ithad to be discussed in the context of illegal trade of forest products.  Like Malaysia, Indonesia did not
entirely understand Japan's focus on unprocessed logs as opposed to processed products.  Why were
tariffs higher on processed products compared to unprocessed products?  Indonesia was of the view
that sustainable forest management was closely related to the ability of developing countries to
enhance their welfare by achieving gain from trade.  Tariff escalation on processed products greatlyhampered developing countries' efforts to achieve sustainable forest management.  Following other
delegations, Indonesia agreed on the need for technical assistance to support sustainable forest
management and fisheries.
37. In response to comments, the representative of Japan stressed that with its paper it had wished
to raise awareness on the issue covered.  Regarding the question on tariffs, Japan clarified that its idea
was that tariff reductions be negotiated in Non-Agricultural Market Access negotiations and that the
CTE Regular would keep close watch on those negotiations from an environmental perspective.
                                                     
19 The EC representative noted that this was a quote from an EC submission to the Negotiating Group on Market
Access, on "Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products" (TN/MA/W/11, 31 October 2002).WT/CTE/M/32
Page 10
Regarding the questions posed by Malaysia and Indonesia on export restrictions on unprocessed logs,
while Japan had raised the issue in the Negotiating Group on Market Access, Japan wished to explore,
in the CTE Regular, appropriate ways by which trade measures could be taken to address
environmental concerns in the forestry sector.  In this context, export restrictions imposed on
unprocessed logs and not on processed forest products could be a measure to protect domesticindustry in the name of environmental protection.  Hence, Japan wanted to deepen the discussion,
taking into account the development aspect as indicated by Malaysia and other Members.  Some
delegates, including Brazil, had questioned why Japan raised the issue of illegal logging in the WTO.
Japan had, in cooperation with Indonesia, initiated an Asia Forest Partnership whose objective was to
promote sustainable forest management in the Asian region.  Under this partnership, partners were
(i) to develop and enhance identification systems of legally harvested wood;  (ii) to expand the
information exchange on illegal logging and associated trade;  and (iii) to promote effective measuresin both importing and exporting countries in order to eliminate illegally harvested wood from trade.
Although there had not been sufficient results flow ing from this, Japan wished to inform the CTE of
this action in the future so as to raise awareness of Members.  Japan considered that the labelling of
forest products was an effective tool in tackling th e issue of illegal logging.  In order to eliminate
illegally harvested wood from international trade, it was indispensable to distinguish illegally from
legally harvested wood throughout harvesting, distribution, processing and export.  Here the necessity
of labelling emerged.  As Japan had been making efforts to develop verification systems, including
labelling on legally harvested wood, Japan intended to introduce an example of this kind of labelling
to the CTE Regular in the future, as well as other concrete actions against illegal logging.
38. On a general note, the representative of Japan noted that he was pleased to hear agreement
from everybody regarding the importance of sustainable development in the fishery and forestry
sectors.  Perhaps a major reason for this was that fishery and forestry resources were exhaustible
natural resources, which needed to be wisely managed for sustainable use.  He noted that many
delegates referred issues addressed by Japan to other fora:  labelling to TBT, subsidies to the
Negotiating Group on Rules, tariffs to the Negotiating Group on Market Access.  WhileJapan basically agreed with this, it wondered for what purpose delegations were attending the CTE?
The "CTE" was an abbreviation for Committee on Trade and Environment, it was supposed to be
discussing the relationship between trade and environment and almost all the content of Japan's paper
was related to trade and environment.  That was the reason why it had been presented to the CTE for
further discussion among those who were – as had been noted above – very much concerned about the
environmental protection and sustainable development.
39. On the specifics, the representative from Japan noted that some Members had raised the
question of a "reverse approach" referring to the Doha mandate, paragraph 32(i).  Japan wished to
stress that while it was fully committed to trade liberalization based on the Doha mandate, looking at
the specific nature of fishery and forestry products, one could not be so naive to believe in the merits
of trade liberalization from all aspects.  Members needed to be cautious, considering the exhaustible
nature of the resources being discussed.  On tariffs, the representative of Japan agreed that tariffs wereto be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Negotiating Group on Market Access.  He noted that
some delegations had stated that there was no relationship between tariff levels and over-exploitation.
However, various sources, including a recent study made by the OECD Fisheries Committee, showed
that there was a linkage between tariff levels – or trade – and over-exploitation.  So Japan did not
necessarily agree with the remarks made by Members in this regard.
40. On subsidies, some Members had stated that the CTE Regular should not duplicate work of
the Negotiating Group on Rules.  The representative of Japan, who had attended CTE meetings over
the last four years, noted that at almost all CTE meetings Members had been active on the subject of
fisheries subsidies.  Why then, suddenly, should the CTE stop discussing it?  Japan wanted to discuss
the issue of fisheries subsidies from the over-exploitation standpoint.  Furthermore, some delegationshad requested Japan to provide studies, or information, on the relationship between subsidies and fish
stocks.  Several members were arguing that fisheries subsidies were causing depletion of fish stocksWT/CTE/M/32
Page 11
and thereby having an adverse effect on the trade and development of fisheries.  In fact, whenever this
affirmation had been made, Japan had repeatedly asked Members to provide case studies and evidence
thereof.  Unfortunately, Japan had not seen even one such case study, despite promises from some
Members.  So, Japan was again soliciting Members to provide actual case studies.  In the absence of
such information, Japan had difficulties in explaining, back home, why the WTO was discussingfisheries subsidies.
41. On labelling for environmental purposes, again, some Members had stated that this was better
discussed within the TBT Committee, and, once again, Japan basically agreed.  In the context of fish,
Japan was concerned with the proliferation of the private eco-labelling schemes for fishery products,
such as the Marine Stewardship Council, initiated by environmental NGOs.  Also, if eco-labelling for
fishery products was implemented in arbitrary manner, it could adversely impact trade, particularly
from developing countries.  The FAO was going to discuss the issue in two weeks
20 i n  R o m e  a n d
Japan would perhaps raise this issue again and would push the FAO to resume its work on
establishing guidelines for fisheries eco-labelling within the framework of the FAO.  For the time
being, Japan wished to consider how the FAO was dealing with this issue.
42. Lastly, some Members had noted the importance of fishery and forestry products for
developing countries.  Japan was certainly aware of this point and it was for this very reason thatJapan was providing technical assistance and capacity building through its Official Development
Assistance (ODA).  Also, Japan announced that it had recently decided to eliminate tariffs on shrimp
from LDCs;  shrimp was the most important commodity for LDCs.  This was indicative of Japan's
commitment to the development of forestry and fishery industries in developing countries.
B. P
ARAGRAPH 32(ii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (TRIPS)
The relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS).
43. The representative of the European Communities introduced a "Concept Paper" relevant to
the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement.21  While he reminded delegates of the
relevance of paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, he stressed that his delegation, intabling this paper also in the CTE Regular, did not wish to distract from other ongoing
discussions;  the European Communities was not looking for parallel debates.  Nevertheless, the
European Communities wished to encourage delegations to read again, or take note, of the points
made in the paper – in particular because the TRIPS Council was busy with many other issues and the
European Communities wished to bring this up in a forum (the CTE Regular) which was less
occupied by one very single important issue as was the TRIPS Council.
44. The "Concept Paper" set out the preliminary EC views on a number of pertinent issues.
On TRIPS Article 27.3 the main message was that the European Communities saw no reason to
amend this provision as it believed that Article 27.2 (on the exclusion from patentability) and Article
27.1 (on the patentability criteria) already provided a sufficient flexibility to modulate patent
protection.  There was, however, a need to look at  how the TRIPS Agreement, as a whole, functioned
on these points, and to discuss the technical aspects.  A second point addressed in the paper was therelationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Here, the European Communities did not either believe that there was a legal conflict - or legal
incompatibility – between the two agreements.  But the European Communities was of the view that
                                                     
20 25th Session of FAO Committee of Fisheries, Rome, 28-24 February 2003.
21 The paper, submitted in the CTE Regular under paragraph 32(ii), has been previously circulated in the
TRIPS Council as IP/C/W/383, dated 17 October 2002.  It was a "Concept Paper" on the "Review of Article 27.3(b) of the
TRIPS Agreement, and the Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore", circulated as WT/CTE/W/223, dated 14 February 2003.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 12
the implementation of the two legal orders could raise questions, and could cause problems.  There
was considerable inter-action between both agreements and there was a need to interpret them in a
mutual supportive way.
45. At the national level, the European Communities wanted to stress that sound regulation, either
through legislation or administration, on the access and benefit sharing aspects of the CBD wasessential to guarantee the legal security and to protec t the rights of providers of genetic resources.  At
the international level, the European Communities believed that more work needed to be done on
synergies by ensuring policy coherence in all forums which were relevant to the interface between
TRIPS, CBD and the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Regarding the disclosure of origin, again the European Communities underlined that they were ready
to examine and discuss the possible introduction of a system such as a "self-standing disclosure
requirement" which would allow all WTO Members to keep track, at a global level, of all patentapplications with regard to genetic resources for which they themselves had granted access.
46. On the protection of traditional knowledge, the European Communities believed that the
TRIPS Council could consider preventive approaches to ensure that there was no misappropriation of
traditional knowledge and also to stimulate the sharing of benefits which resulted from its use.  Here
approaches included methods of sharing of information, such as databases or registers.  TheEuropean Communities was also of the view that when traditional knowledge was used as a basis for
further innovations, it would be important to ensure  that traditional knowledge holders shared in the
benefits through disclosure of the original traditional knowledge from which the inventions were
derived.  The European Communities supported further work towards the development of an
international sui generis  model for legal protection of traditional knowledge and such work needed to
take place in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), first and foremost.  Whatever
came out of those discussions would have to be fed into the WTO process.
47. On the effective sui generis  protection of plant variety rights, the issue was the criteria that
any system establishing rights over plant varieties needed to fulfil.  The European Communities was
open to discuss how such a system could be modulate d.  On farmers' rights and farmers' exemptions,
the European Communities believed that such exemptions, for example exceptions to plant variety
rights or patents allowing farmers to save, use, exchange or sell the seeds of protective varieties,
could, under certain circumstances, be justified under Article 27.3(b) or under Article 30 of the
TRIPS Agreement.  There was a special situation of the least developed and developing countries
which could be addressed by specific exceptions allowing subsistence farmers or small farmers to
save, replant etc., these varieties.  However, it was clear that farmers with more means and with
significant commercial interests should not benefit from such exceptions.
48. The representative of India stressed that it would be important to disclose the source of the
country of origin of the biological resource and the traditional knowledge used in the invention.  India
also shared, in general, several aspects of the paper presented by the European Communities.  This
was in line with the Indian submission in the TR IPS Council and also with India's statements in
earlier meetings of the CTE.  However, India did not share all the views, especially on the detailscontained in the EC submission.  India would revert to such details in future meetings of the CTE.
49. The representative of Peru noted that she had already discussed the issue in the
TRIPS Council, which was where the real discussion was taking place.  Like India, Peru also agreed
with some aspects of the EC submission, but the details were not up to the expectations.  Peru
considered that the requirement to disclose information needed to be compulsory, not voluntary.There was also a need to move towards a multilateral system for the protection of traditional
knowledge.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 13
50. Peru wished to share with delegates the results of the Second Ministerial Meeting of
Megadiverse Countries22, which met in Cusco, Peru, on 29 November 2002.  The fifteen participating
countries had as a common characteristic that they all had an enormous wealth of natural resources
which represented 70 per cent of the biological diversity of the planet.  The main goal of this Group
was to coordinate and cooperate in respect of biodiversity conservation.  At the end of the meeting,the Group adopted the Cusco Declaration on Access to Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge
and Intellectual Property Rights of Like-minded Megadiverse Countries (the "Cusco Declaration").
23
It was agreed, among other things, that the mechanism of access to genetic resources and traditionalknowledge should ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity to the countries
of origin with all types of benefits, including monetary benefits, transfer of technology, development
of value added products, and an improvement of economies in favour of peoples, particularly local
and indigenous communities.  It was also agreed to negotiate an international regime which wouldallow to safeguard and promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits of the diversity and its
component parts.  These countries also underlined the importance of the relationship between cultural
diversity and biological diversity, which was one of the most relevant aspects of the heritage of such
countries.  Finally, the megadiverse countries decided to establish an open ad hoc working group to
prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Group to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 2003.The idea was to develop mechanisms to guarantee the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived
from the use of biodiversity and traditional k nowledge.  The working group would bear in mind, inter
alia, the need to guarantee the full protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities over their traditional knowledge so that their heritage was not accessed and used without
their consent or without due benefit sharing arrangements.
51. The representative of Australia, being another megadiverse nation, also had significant
interest in the matter and had set out its views in a submission to the TRIPS Council in
October 2001.24  As had been said before, Australia saw the TRIPS Council as the best place to be
discussing the issue.  Nevertheless, while the representative of Australia welcomed the submission of
the European Communities for discussion in the CTE Regular, he was surprised by the EC commentimplying that the TRIPS Council did not have time to discuss this issue.  This was certainly not the
view of Australia;  there was plenty of time for discussion in the TRIPS Council, particularly as a
number of issues on the TRIPS Council agenda were currently the subject of discussion elsewhere in
the organization, and, in fact, the agenda of the upcoming meeting was looking rather thin.
52. The representative of Brazil was happy to hear that the European Communities was not
looking for a parallel debate in the CTE Regular.  It was Brazil's view that the TRIPS Council was the
appropriate forum for the ongoing discussion.  Brazil thanked the delegation of Peru, and associatedherself with that delegation's comments on the recent meeting of the Group of Megadiverse countries.
Brazil highlighted the importance for this group to fi nd a mechanism to ensure the benefit sharing for
all countries, especially for countries of origin, on the use of biodiversity and traditional knowledge.
53. The representative of Japan noted, in respect of plant variety systems, that in order to ensure a
harmonized system for the protection of breeders' rights, expanding the already established UPOV25
system would be the most effective way.
                                                     
22 This group includes: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the People's Republic of China, Ecuador,
Philippines, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Venezuela.
23 For more information, see http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/document/cusco29-11-02.htm.
24 IP/C/W/310, 2 October 2001.
25 The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).WT/CTE/M/32
Page 14
C. PARAGRAPH 32(iii)  (L ABELLING )
Labelling requirements for environmental purposes.
54. The representative of Japan recognized that labelling for environmental purposes was – and
would become – a very important issue for international trade in the coming years.  Labelling
requirements, which themselves were not trade measures, could be quite efficient in providingnecessary information to the consumer.  However, Japan also recognized that they could become
unnecessary obstacles to trade depending on their design and implementation.  In its submission on
"Labelling" to the TBT Committee
26, Japan had pointed at some matters that needed to be improved in
the implementation of existing voluntary-based labelling systems:  (i) there was a need for improving
transparency in voluntary labelling schemes;  (ii) there were insufficient international standards which
could be used as a basis for labelling requirements;  and (iii) there were still many specification-based
standards instead of performance-based standards used as a basis for labelling requirements.  TheEC paper on labelling
27 suggested a non-exhaustive list of issues to be considered in relation to
labelling, among which many issues coincided with those in the Japanese submission.  These issues
were, in principle, relating to labelling in general and most of them were relevant to the Code of Good
Practice of the TBT Agreement.  An informal TBT meeting had recently been convened and many
delegations who attended the meeting attached high importance to issues relating to voluntarylabelling schemes in the context of the TBT Triennia l Review.  Therefore, Japan believed that it was
essential for the CTE Regular to take full account of the ongoing discussions on labelling taking place
in the TBT Committee, and to keep close information exchange between the CTE and the TBT
Committee.  One way of doing this would be to maintain frequent communications between the
Chairmen of the two bodies, and to have the CTE Regular briefed on the TBT discussions.
55. The representative of the United States no ted that, at this point in the CTE Regular
discussions under paragraph 32(iii), with the exception of the Swiss paper, all papers that had been
submitted to the CTE since the Doha Ministerial had been re-submissions of papers submitted to the
TBT Committee on generic labelling issues.  Also, the United States would take under consideration
Australia's proposal referred to in the informal  discussions (paragraph 85 below) about a possible
recommendation that environmental labelling issues we re properly being taken up in terms of generic
labelling in the TBT Committee.
56. The representative of the European Communities,  referring to the US statement as well as to
the one made informally by Australia, noted a slight "sloppiness in the language" with respect to
paragraph 32.  This paragraph referred to "labelling for environmental purposes".  This was neither
pertinent nor high on the SPS and TBT agenda as such.  When the Ministers gave the CTE Regular
the mandate at issue they must have seen a role for "environmental purposes" in the CTE.  Hence, inlight of this mandate, it was not appropriate to talk about sending issues back to other Committees.
The European Communities would revert to the issue of how to deal with "environmental purposes".
IV. OTHER ITEMS ON THE CTE AGENDA
57. The Chairman noted that Members had now discussed those items of the work programme for
which the Doha Mandate instructed the CTE Regular to give "particular attention".  He recalled that
CTE Members were instructed to pursue work on all items  on the CTE work programme within its
current terms of reference.28
                                                     
26 G/TBT/W/176, 18 June 2002, "Labelling", submission from Japan.
27 G/TBT/W/175 and WT/CTE/W/212, 12 June 2002, "Labelling", submission by the European Communities.
28 Only those items actually addressed during the meeting follow.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 15
B. ITEMS 1 AND 5
The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral trading system and trade
measures for environmental purposes, including those pursuant to MEAs – The
relationship between dispute settlement mechanisms in the multilateral trading
system and those found in MEAs.
58. The Chairman informed the CTE that he had been asked by the representative of the CITES,
who was not able to attend the meeting, to draw the Committee's attention to a paper submitted under
this agenda item on "Economic Incentives and Trade Policy".29  At the last Conference of the Parties
(COP12) of the CITES, held in Santiago de Chile, November 2002, the meeting had concluded its
deliberations with the adoption of a Decision in this respect.  The Chairman drew the Committee's
attention to the first paragraph of this Decision which directed the CITES Secretariat, in collaboration
with the Parties that wished to participate, and several Intergovernmental organizations, including the
WTO, to: "organize a technical workshop on wildlife trade policies and economic incentives
applicable to the management of and trade in CITES-listed species".30
C. ITEM 10
Relations with Intergovernmental and Non-governmental organizations.
59. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to a reference made to the CTE in a document
on "Outreach activities" circulated in the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) in
December 200231.  In a footnote it was stated that the Secretariat would consult with Members in both
the CTE and the CTD on modalities, agenda and participation regarding the organization of a
Symposium for NGOs on Trade and Environment.  In light of this, the Chairman welcomed any input
from Members on these points.  He noted that the fo cal point in the WTO Secretariat for this event
would be the External Relations Division (Mr. Hans-Peter Werner and Mr. Bernard Kuiten).  The
symposium, which was being financed by Norway, would be held on 16-17 June and an information
note would be issued to Members in March.
V. PARAGRAPH 33
We recognize the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in the
field of trade and environment to developing countries, in particular the
least-developed among them.  We also encourage that expertise and experience be
shared with Members wishing to perform en vironmental reviews at the national level.
A report shall be prepared on these activities for the Fifth Session.
60. With respect to this issue, the Chairman not ed that the Committee normally considered two
aspects of paragraph 33 separately:  (a) technical assistance and capacity building, and (b) national
environmental reviews.
A. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING
61. There were no comments from Members and Observers under this agenda item.
                                                     
29 Circulated as WT/CTE/GEN/6, 20 November 2002, "Economic Incentives and Trade Policy", Communication
from the CITES Secretariat under Items 1 & 5.
30 This Decision has been circulated as WT/CTE/GEN/7, 11 February 2003, "Decision on Economic Incentives
and Trade Policy", Communication from the CITES Secretariat under Items 1 & 5.
31 WT/COMTD/W/104/Add.2, 10 D ecember 2002, "2003 Outreach Activities", Note by the Secretariat.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 16
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
62. The representative of Canada noted that his country had submitted their Initial Environmental
Assessment (IEA) of the WTO Trade Negotiations.32  He recalled that in past meetings of the CTE,
Canada had provided information on the development and implementation of its "Framework for
Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations", released in February 2001.  This newFramework outlined Canada's approach to undertaking national environmental assessments of
multilateral, regional and bilateral trade liberalizing negotiations.  Assessments were intended to help
negotiators better integrate environmental consider ations into the negotiating process and address
public concerns by documenting how environmental factors were being considered in the course of
trade negotiations.  The IEA was the first of three reports that would be prepared for the
environmental assessment of the current WTO negotiations according to the aforementioned
Framework.  The principal aim of the IEA was to scope out the main environmental issues that mightarise in Canada as a result of the negotiations.  The issues identified would be given more rigorous
analysis, as appropriate, at the next stage of the process and reported in a draft environmental
assessment.  To the greatest extent possible, further work would draw on existing sources of
information.  The analysis performed for the IEA suggested that in the aggregate, any effect the new
WTO negotiations may have on Canadian environment was likely to be minimal on account of one ora combination of three reasons:
(a) Further trade liberalization was likely to affect only a small proportion of Canada's
trade as the bulk of it was already subject to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and other Free Trade Agreements, which had liberalized much
of Canada's trade;
(b) federal and provincial environmental legislation, policies and measures that could
mitigate negative effects were already, or would soon be in place; and
(c) some negotiations that sought clarification in procedures or established a system of
notification and registration would not directly translate into increased production or
trade, and therefore, were unlikely to lead to any environmental negative effects.
63. The representative of Canada went on to note that the current analysis covered the seven areas
of negotiation that were launched in Doha:  agriculture, non-agricultural market access, services,
rules, trade and environment, wines and spirits registry, and dispute settlement.  Only when an
agreement to negotiate an issue was obtained wo uld the issue be included in the environmental
assessment process.  The Government of Canada had sought input from Canadians on this initial
environmental assessment, and would continue to seek their input throughout the subsequent stages of
the assessment process.  The next stage of the environmental assessment process was theDraft Environment Assessment, which would focus on the environmental issues raised in the IEA that
required further analysis.  The completion date of the Draft Assessment would depend on
developments in the negotiations.  Canada would be pleased to continue to make reports on their
environment assessment efforts at subsequent stages.
64. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the submission by Canada and
noted that it was important that Members underst ood what these assessments were about, and how
these could be used as a tool to help trade negotiators be better informed about impacts on the
objective of sustainable development.  The European Communities shared some of the conclusions
and concerns of the Canadian submission.  For example, it had also found it extremely difficult to take
into account the impact of services liberalization – a field which was about more than just aggregatingtariffs and trying, econometrically, to examine their impact.  The representative of the European
Communities wished to find out more about the impact of the negotiations on trading partners,
                                                     
32 WT/CTE/W/221, 24 January 2003, Initial Environmental Assessment: Trade Negotiations in the World Trade
Organization, Submission by Canada.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 17
particularly developing countries and inquired about the social dimension of sustainable development,
and how far this had been part of the methodological approach.  He wondered whether the potential
effects of trade liberalization looked at had fully taken into account the rules dimension (including
future rule-making in areas like the Singapore i ssues).  Also, the European Communities was keen to
see more analysis on the impact of liberalization on Canadian agriculture.  Lastly, the EuropeanCommunities drew the Committee's attention to its own submission and wished to exchange further
information.
33
65. The representative of Japan noted that although the Canadian proposal was still being
analysed in detail, Japan appreciated Canada's endeavour.  The importance of environmental reviews
in WTO trade negotiations had been confirmed in the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the WSSD
Implementation Plan.  Canada's submission on environmental assessment was timely and provided
useful information on how to conduct an environmental assessment of trade negotiations.  Japanconsidered that an exchange of information on the development of methods of environmental reviews
and on implementation and results of environmental reviews was highly useful.  He informed the
Committee that the Japanese Ministry of the Environment had been conducting a study on procedures
and methods of environmental assessment and had made the report public at the end of 2002.
34
66. The representative of the European Communities reported on a DG Trade Seminar on
"Sustainability Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements: Making Trade Sustainable?", held in
Brussels on 6-7 February 2003.35  He noted that the conclusions addressed some of the concerns and
questions which often surfaced in respect of Sustai nability Impact Assessments (SIAs).  For example,
it was sometimes felt that SIAs were just another way to justify protectionist measures under the guise
of social or environmental impacts.  He noted that in all EC regional initiatives, be it with
MERCOSUR, Chile, the Mediterranean countries, the Gulf Corporation Council or the Cotonou
agreements which the European Communities would now negotiate, it had a commitment to do
ex ante  SIAs.
67. The seminar posed some concrete questions, for example: how could SIAs be made
operational so as not to be a purely academic exercise;  how to make them feed into the actualnegotiating process in a manner which informed the negotiators on the impact of their actions?  The
seminar also examined closely how to involve in SIAs not only institutional players but also the
private sector in the European Communities and in the countries with which it negotiated, and in
particular groups such as farmers, NGOs, environmentalists and social trade unions.  Another issue
was how to ensure that the results would actually be disseminated and maximized in their effects.
The last issue was how to ensure that when there was a need to formulate policies which would
complement trading efforts to mitigate the effects of trade liberalization, measures would actually betaken.  The representative of the European Communities emphasized that the current approach was
still a rather modest one and several methodology questions remained.  He noted, moreover, the
considerable burden for developing countries and NGOs in developing countries to participate in the
process.
                                                     
33 WT/CTE/W/208 (also WT/COMTD/W/99 and TN/TE/W/3), 3 June 2002, "Sustainability Impact Assessment",
Communication from the European Communities.
34 An English version of this report, which summarized the ideas concerning the procedure of the environmental
review, can be obtained at www.env.go.jp.
35 Documentation pertaining to the Seminar was distributed as a room document and subsequently circulated as
WT/CTE/W/224, 21 February 2003.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 18
VI. PARAGRAPH 51
The Committee on Trade and Development and the Committee on Trade and
Environment shall, within their respective mandates, each act as a forum to identify
and debate developmental and environmental aspects of the negotiations, in order to
help achieve the objective of having sustainable development appropriately reflected.
68. The Chairman noted that mandate implied that the CTE needed to find a way to identify and
debate the environmental aspects of the negotiations.  At the last meeting, some progress had been
made, at least of a procedural nature.  It had then been decided that it would be useful for the CTE
Regular to take a sectoral approach and ask Secretariat staff to be invited to brief the CTE on what
was going on in other negotiating committees or groups.  On the basis of such factual briefings, a
more substantive discussion could be launched on paragraph 51.  It was agreed that a good starting-
point would be the negotiations on agriculture  and on market access , including, and perhaps in
particular, environmental goods.
69. The CTE Regular then heard two oral presentations, one by Mr. Frank Wolter, Director of the
Agriculture and Commodities Division and one by Mrs. Carmen Luz Guarda, Director of the
Market Access Division.  The representatives of Japan, South Africa , the United States , and
Venezuela thanked the Secretariat for the presentations.  Upon request, the full statements have been
circulated separately.36
70. The representative of the European Communities recalled suggestions made at previous
meetings by his delegation under paragraph 51.  While thanking the Secretariat for its useful
presentations on the state-of-play, he called for a broader debate.  There was a need to look at
"sustainable outcomes" from the debate under paragraph 51.  Delegations had not even mentioned theoutcomes of the WSSD, for example, which had had references to the process under paragraph 51.
The European Communities would revert to this "broader perspective" at another occasion.
71. The representative of the United States noted that he had been anticipating a bit of a broader
discussion as well on both agriculture and non-agricultural market access.  In fact, at the last meeting,
his delegation had made rather detailed comments across all areas of negotiations regarding theUS assessment of potential environmental implicatio ns.  On agriculture, the United States stated that
distortions in production policy created a heavy cost for the environment and that trade reform had the
potential to help remedy this problem.  A more market oriented agricultural system would lead
farmers to make more accurate cost and benefit calculations and this would extend both to tariff
reductions and to the reduction of export subsidies and distorting domestic support.  On non-
agricultural market access, the United States had noted that environmental goods were an obvious
environmental positive in terms of prospects for liberalization, but had noted that it was too early toassess whether there could be other environmental implications, positive or negative, in the non-
agricultural market access negotiations.  Concerning the US environmental review, the United States
was not very far along in the assessment of these negotiations.  The United States had briefly
reviewed Canada's initial environmental assessment which had preliminarily concluded that tariff
liberalization would have a minimal environmental impact.
72. The representative of the OECD informed the CTE that the OECD Joint Working Party on
Trade and Environment had made a comparison of the three lists that had been circulated so far:
(i) the APEC37 list, (ii) the OECD list, and (iii) the Japanese list.  It turned out that the overlap, at the
                                                     
36 Agriculture:  WT/CTE/GEN/8, dated 18 February 2003,  "Environmental Issues Raised in the Agriculture
Negotiations", Statement by Mr. Frank Wolter at the Regular Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of
14 February 2003 under paragraph 51; and, Market A ccess:  WT/CTE/GEN/9 (and TN/MA/7), dated 21 February 2003,
"Environmental Aspects of the Negotiations on Market Access", Statement by Mrs. Carmen Luz Guarda at the Regular
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 14 February 2003 under paragraph 51.
37 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 19
six-digit level, between the APEC list and the OECD list was about 27 per cent.  He noted that the
Japanese list had more in common with the OECD list, with, in addition, quite a few new products,
many of them in the resource or energy efficient technologies.  This comparative work was still in
draft form but would, if de-classified, be shared with CTE Members.  The OECD was also looking at
issues related to the classification of different products and how this related to the HarmonizedSystem – but without prejudging what might emerge from the negotiations.  Discussions and
questions in other fora had made the OECD believe that there might be some misunderstanding about
the OECD list.  As distinct from the APEC list, the OECD list was not a result of a negotiation of
offers or counter offers – it was simply an illustrative list prepared as much for undertaking statistical
analysis of trade as anything else.  The representative of the OECD hoped that countries were not
regarding it as a list proposed by the OECD countries collectively;  it was produced for analysis.  The
working definition (paraphrased) of environmental goods used was:  goods to:
(a) measure, prevent limit or correct environmental damage to water, air and soil as well
as problems related to waste, noise and ecosystems; and,
(b) clean technology, processes and products which reduce environmental risk and
minimize pollution and material use.
73. The Chairman suggested that if Members found the sector-by-sector approach useful, the
Committee could chose new areas for the next meeting.
74. The representative of South Africa pointed out th at the approach would be even more useful if
the presentations were available beforehand.  Sout h Africa would be interested in hearing a brief
report on the environmental aspects of the ongoing negotiations in services and rules.
75. It was agreed that the CTE Regular would hear presentations in the areas of services and rules
at its next meeting, subject to Secretariat staff availability.
76. The representative of Venezuela wished to know if there was a plan, in the future, to continue
this exercise jointly with the CTD.
77. The Secretariat understood Venezuela's question as how the CTE Regular would work
together with the CTD on paragraph 51.  In this regard, it was noted that there had been a proposal
from the European Communities before regarding a jo int CTE-CTD event.  However, it was up to the
Membership to decide if they wished to hold such an event and, to date, there had been no such
agreement.  Venezuela was nevertheless welcome to put such a proposal to Members.
VII. "CANCÚN REPORT"38
A. CHAIRMAN 'S INTRODUCTION
78. The Chairman reminded delegates that at the last meeting of the CTE Regular,
Ambassador Demiralp had drawn Members attention to the preparation of the CTE Report to the
5th Ministerial Session, in Cancún, 10-14 September 2003.39  At that point, Ambassador Demiralp had
noted that there was a need for the CTE Regular to start thinking about the form and content of this
report and had requested Members to be prepared for a discussion at the current meeting.
79. The Chairman began by recalling the text of the mandate in paragraphs 32 and 33 (for easy
reference the entire text of both paragraphs is reproduced below, with those sentences directlyreferring to the "report" emphasized):
                                                     
38 While the discussion under this agenda item was held in informal mode, it was agreed that the statements of all
Members would be reflected in the report of the formal meeting.
39 "Report of the Meeting Held on 8 October 2002", WT/CTE/M/31, 2 December 2002, paragraph 97.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 20
"32. We instruct the Committee on Trade and Environment, in pursuing work on
all items on its agenda within its current terms of reference, to give particular
attention to:
(i) the effect of environmental measures on market access,
especially in relation to developing countries, in particular theleast-developed among them, and those situations in which the
elimination or reduction of trade restrictions and distortions
would benefit trade, the environment and development;
(ii) the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights;  and
(iii) labelling requirements for environmental purposes.
Work on these issues should include the identification of any need to clarify relevant
WTO rules.  The Committee shall report to the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference, and make recommendations, where appropriate, with respect to future
action, including the desirability of negotiations.  The outcome of this work as well as
the negotiations carried out under paragraph 31(i) and (ii) shall be compatible withthe open and non-discriminatory nature of the multilateral trading system, shall notadd to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members under existing
WTO agreements, in particular the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, nor alter the balance of these rights and obligations, and will
take into account the needs of developing and least-developed countries.
33. We recognize the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in
the field of trade and environment to developing countries, in particular the least-
developed among them.  We also encourage that expertise and experience be shared
with Members wishing to perform environmental reviews at the national level.  A
report shall be prepared on these activities for the Fifth Session."  [emphasis added]
80. In the view of the Chairman, paragraph 32 instructed the CTE to do two things:  (1) to report
and (2) to make recommendations, where appropriate .  Paragraph 32 had a factual  element (i.e. to
prepare a report) and a more substantive  one (i.e. to make recommendations, where appropriate).
Paragraph 33 was factual in its entirety:  the CTE needed to report on "activities".  In respect of the
factual elements of both paragraphs, the mandate was rather straight forward and, hopefully, the
CTE Regular could reach agreement before the summer.
81. On the substantive element of paragraph 32 (to make recommendations, where appropriate,
with respect to future action, including the desirabi lity of negotiations), it was the Chairman's view
that the words "future action" were key.  He noted that proposals for future action could only come
from Members, and that to date, there had been none.
82. The Chairman noted that he had a responsibility to ensure that Members in the CTE Regular,
accomplished this work in a timely and appropriate fashion.  While the exercise needed neither to be
complicated nor time-consuming, trade and environment was never a completely friction-less subject.Hence, an early start was desirable.  He asked Members for their views on how to proceed.
B. D
ISCUSSION
83. The representative of Australia noted that the Cancún Report would be an important part of
the CTE Regular work in 2003.  His preliminary comments focused on paragraph 32 because, as had
been identified by the Chairman, paragraph 33 could be a more straight forward exercise.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 21
84. In Australia's view, the CTE Regular had been able to begin a useful and informative
discussion of paragraph 32 since Doha – a discussion that had been helpful and complementary to the
discussion in other Committees, such as the TBT Committee, the TRIPS Council and the relevant
market access negotiating groups, as well as other areas of the Doha work programme.  In considering
the CTE Regular's approach to the Cancún Report, Australia felt it was important to treat the variousissues that needed to be addressed on their own merits, and on a case-by-case basis.  Issues related to
market access, TRIPS and labelling were all very different and they were already being handled in
different ways under the Doha work programme.  Some, like market access, were already part of the
negotiations and others, like labelling, were definitely not.  Considering this, Australia had a number
of questions on what kind of report the CTE would be able to prepare when the issues involved were
the responsibility of other  committees in the WTO.  Labelling, for instance, was clearly an issue for
the TBT Committee and Australia therefore wondered how far the CTE Regular could go in providinga report, particularly in terms of making any recommendations.  The same could equally be said for
issues that were rightly addressed in the TRIPS Council or in agriculture, services and non-
agricultural market access negotiations.  Australia had always seen the CTE as playing a constructive
role to the work going on in other bodies, to ensure that environmental and sustainable development
issues were considered in a horizontal, cross-cutting manner supportive of the work in the respectivelead bodies.  In this regard, there was a need to make sure that the CTE did not move in front of the
work going on in other bodies.  This was a point that the CTE Regular needed to be particularly
mindful when preparing its Report for Ministers in Cancún.
85. Regarding the language in paragraph 32, there were a few key areas where Australia wished
to draw Members' attention.  First, the CTE Regular was not mandated to make recommendations forfuture action;  it was only asked to do this, if appropriate.  Importantly, Members were also asked to
make sure that whatever was done was "compatible with the open and non-discriminatory nature of
the multilateral trading system" and did "not add to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members
under existing WTO agreements, in particular the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures" (SPS) (see text of para graph 32, above).  In respect of the SPS Agreement,
Australia emphasized that existing SPS and TBT discipli nes were more than adequate to deal with the
issue of labelling for environmental purposes.  Hence, if there were to be any recommendation in the
Report, this was what Australia would state, as well as making clear that discussion of this issue was
more appropriately carried out in the TBT Committee.  However, the CTE needed to continue to play
a supportive role to ensure that there was a cr oss-cutting appreciation of how environmental issues
were being discussed in other bodies.  But the CTE Regular needed to be careful in not overstepping
the mark in terms of what the Cancún Report could realistically aim to deliver.  Australia lookedforward to further discussion at future meetings.
86. In respect of the reporting requirement in paragraphs 32 and 33, the representative of Canada
believed that the ministerial mandate was clear.  As the time-line was short, the CTE Regular needed
agree on the organization of this work at the current meeting.  He recalled the preparation of the last
major report to Ministers at Singapore as a lengthy task and a "bad memory" that Members needed toavoid repeating.
40
87. On paragraph 32, Canada noted that one possible first step would be for the Chairman, with
the assistance of the Secretariat, to prepare for the next meeting, a summary report of the discussion in
the CTE since 1995 under each agenda item.  Canada considered that 1995 was the appropriate date
as it was the last time the CTE had made a substantial report.  If the CTE only went back a shortperiod, the Report would not give a sense of how views had evolved and whether or not some
conclusions had been reached on some of the items.  The summary needed to be a synthesis of the
discussions highlighting the main views of delegations.  It also needed to note the number of
submissions by Members as well as the last year in which substantive discussions had taken place.
                                                     
40 "Report (1996) of the Committee on Trade and Environment",  also referred to as the "Singapore Report",
WT/CTE/1, 12 November 1996.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 22
This draft report could then be discussed by Members at the next CTE meeting.  Furthermore,
Members could submit input on recommendations, as indicated in paragraph 32.
88. On paragraph 33, a first step would be to have the Secretariat update previous work on
technical assistance and capacity building on trade and environment.41  This information could then
form part of the report to Ministers.  The report wo uld also need to highlight bilateral activities being
supported by Members between Doha and Cancún.  To ensure that the size of the document was
manageable, Canada suggested that no more than one or two pages be devoted to the efforts of each
country.  It would be useful if there were some consistent elements of country reporting, these
elements could include: (i) total expenditure, (ii) identification of recipient countries and regions,
and (iii) the scope and primary objective of the initiatives.  A third component of the report could be a
section prioritising categories of capacity building and technical assistance needs;  Members could
identify in which areas they would like to receive technical assistance in the future.  Finally, inaddition to the elements on technical assistance, Canada suggested that the Report also include a
section on Members' experiences on environmental reviews at the national level.
89. The representative of the European Communities noted that while he found it timely to start
thinking about "what to do", his delegation would not go as far as to jump to conclusions – as
Australia had done – by giving a clear indication of what sort of recommendation Members could seecoming out of the process.  It was too early for the CTE Regular to start a discussion on this;  what
would be "appropriate" recommendations needed to be the subject of further discussions, and the
European Communities would not want to prejudge anything in this respect.  However, it was timely
to start thinking about the factual part of the Report, and he agreed with the Chairman's separation of
the two elements of the Report.  In this respec t, the European Communities needed to reflect on how
far in time the report would need to go back;  but the European Communities was flexible in this
regard.  What was needed was a good tableau which outlined the pertinent issues under paragraph 32
and which would also include the normal work programme.
90. On paragraph 33, the European Communities found the Canadian statement very useful.  This
part of the Report needed not only to give a snap-s hot of what was going on, but also to be a tool to
identify best practices and to see what needed to be done in the future.  In fact, any report on
technical assistance needed to lend itself to ac tually drawing conclusion – maybe not in the report
itself, but for Ministers or individual delegations running technical assistance programmes.  On how
exactly this could be done, the European Communities did not have a clear view.  The
European Communities agreed with Canada that it would be useful to identify needs, and likewise,
concerning environmental reviews, which was part of paragraph 33, delegations needed to take this
part of the mandate seriously, and contribute to it.
91. The representative of the United States expressed appreciation for the Chairman's assessment
of how the CTE Regular might approach the reporting requirement in paragraphs 32 and 33.  He
understood this assessment as suggesting that the report under paragraph 32 would include a factual
summary and that it may include recommendations, where appropriate.  However, the possibility of a
recommendation section would require that proposals first be made.  If recommendations were to be
offered, they certainly could include the recommendation that focussed work had been completed, or,
perhaps, that another forum was the appropriate one for certain issues.
92. Reacting on the discussion thus far, in general, the United States expected that its views
would be along the lines of those offered by Australia.   In particular, the United States would be likely
to take under serious consideration the suggestion th at labelling discussions were most appropriately
held in the TBT and SPS Committees.  In any event, the United States would prefer that proposals for
recommendations be made sooner rather than later.  On the suggestion by one delegate that it was too
                                                     
41 The representative of Canada referred to "Technical  Assistance and Capacity Building Activities in 2002",
WT/CTE/W/216, 30 September 2002, Note by the Secretariat under paragraph 33.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 23
early to consider this question, the United States emphasized that it would not appreciate proposals for
recommendations made late in the process.  Commenting on Canada's statement, the United States
noted that it had read paragraphs 32 and 33 as suggesting that the Report would cover the period since
the Doha Ministerial Conference.  Given that there was no further guidance in the Declaration to go
back before the Doha Ministerial, the United States would like to have the Report covering only theperiod since the Doha Ministerial Conference.
93. The representative of Switzerland, in offering preliminary comments on paragraph 32, agreed
with the Chairman's outline on the form of the re port.  With respect to the recommendations, there
was a need for time and Switzerland did not want, at this stage, to discuss any conclusions for such
recommendations.  On the factual part, Switzerland agreed with Canada's proposal to have, from the
Secretariat, a draft text for discussion at the next meeting.
94. The representative of Argentina believed that the Chairman had correctly outlined the two
aspects of the mandate contained in paragraph 32:  a first aspect which was factual, and a second
aspect which was potential and which, as had been signalled by Australia, was contingent on any
eventual recommendations being made.  Furthermore, Argentina noted that the possibility to make
such recommendations would flow naturally from the fa ctual part of the report.  On the factual report,
Argentina, like the United States, saw no merit in extending it back to 1995;  the point of departurewas the Doha Ministerial Conference.  Regarding the substantive element, Argentina associated itself
with the views expressed by Australia:  there were many issues, such as labelling, as well as
negotiating issues, which were more appropriately dealt with in other bodies.  On paragraph 33,
Argentina agreed that the task was simpler because it was only a factual report.
95. The representative of Brazil thanked the Chairman for identifying of the two parts of the
report (factual and substantive) and expressed support for Australia's view that issues had to be
considered on a case-by-case basis.  Likewise, Braz il supported the idea that work already conducted
by other committees be taken into account.  Brazil felt that the issue of labelling, for example, was
more appropriately conducted in the TBT and SPS Committees.  On paragraph 33, Brazil also
believed that the discussion would be easier, given its more factual nature.
96. The representative of the Philippines believed  that the Chairman was in the right track in
stating that the Cancún Report be mostly factual in nature.  The substantive part would need to be
prepared carefully.  He reacted to the use of the word "value-added";  this was also a criteria that had
been encountered in the CTE Special Session, and it was unclear whether the connotation was the
same.  The Philippines agreed with the United States that if the CTE Regular was to work on specific
recommendations, this work had to be prepared well in advance – and any such recommendations
needed to be accepted by consensus.  Moreover, the representative of the Philippines echoed the pointthat labelling was something that was more appropriately discussed in the TBT and SPS Committees.
97. The representative of Chile agreed with the reading of the mandate by Argentina that there
was an obligation to inform, in a factual manner, on th e three areas identified by Ministers.  As such,
the recommendations needed to flow from the factual report on the three areas.  Chile did not see that
there was a need to report on other areas of the Committee's work, and certainly not on the workundertaken since 1995.  As stated by the United States, it would be sufficient to go back to the
Doha Ministerial Conference.  Chile also agreed with the United States that the recommendations
should emanate from proposals of Members and the sooner these were received the more time there
would be to discuss them.  Chile did not either want to see any last minute recommendations in
August.  On paragraph 33, Chile fully supported Canada's suggestions.WT/CTE/M/32
Page 24
C. CONCLUSION
98. The Chairman noted that even though it was still early days, he felt that the discussion had
been a good start to the thinking process regard ing the form and the content of this report.
Summarising the discussion, he noted that, in general, there was agreement that the Cancún Report
would have two aspects.  The first part was fa ctual in nature and would reflect the reporting
requirement with respect to work under both paragraphs 32 and 33.  The second part, which was only
relevant to paragraph 32, was more substantive.  Here the mandate was to make recommendations,
where appropriate , with respect to future action, including the desirability of negotiations.
99. The Chairman proposed that the Secretariat prepare a first draft of the factual element of this
report (the first part).  He stressed that this exercise would be factual in nature and only relevant to the
work undertaken by the CTE under paragraphs 32 and 33 since the Doha Ministerial Conference, in
November 2001.  The draft would be made available to Members in advance of the next meeting ofthe CTE Regular.  Regarding the substantive aspect of the report (recommendations), he noted that no
formal proposals of such recommendations had been submitted to date.  As recommendations could
only come from Members, he strongly encouraged Members to make any such proposals as soon as
possible.  Late arrival would make it difficult for the CTE Regular to give them due consideration.
100. The representative of Australia agreed that it would be sensible to move forward with the
factual aspects of the report.  On the "two parts" of the report, he noted that if the Committee decided
that there was no need for recommendations, a second part might not be needed.  Hence, he did not
want any draft put forward to prejudge that question.  He strongly supported what the Chairman had
said on the need to come forward with any such proposals as quickly as possible and noted how few
new proposals were actually on the table.  Australia would seriously consider to have something toput forward for the next meeting.
101. The Chairman noted Australia's point and the CTE Regular agreed
 on the approach suggested.
VIII.  SCHEDULING OF MEETINGS FOR 2003
102. The Chairman proposed that the CTE Regular agree to meet on the following dates back to
back with the Special Session of the CTE (CTE Special Session in parenthesis):
(a) 29-30 April  (1-2 May)
(b) 7 July  (8 July)
(c) 28-29 October   (30-31 October)
103. The representative of the European Communitie s recalled the issue of the Symposium for
NGOs on Trade and Environment that his delegation had argued should take place back-to-back with
the meetings of the CTE and the CTD.  The European Communities trusted that the dates which had
now been fixed would allow Members to precede in that way.
104. The representative of Canada wondered whether two-day meetings were necessary and
whether the Committee could not meet in one day.
105. The Chairman noted that the CTE Regular would only meet on the second day as necessary.
106. The proposed dates were agreed.
107. The CTE Regular will meet again on 29-30 April 2003 .
__________