RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/CTE/M/1
6March 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-0463)
Committee onTrade andEnvironment
REPORT OFTHE MEETING HELD ON16FEBRUARY 1995
Note bytheSecretariat
1. TheCommittee onTrade andEnvironment helditsfirstmeeting on16February 1995
under thechairmanship ofAmbassador JuanCarlos Sánchez Arnau ofArgentina. Theagenda for
themeeting, contained inWT/AIR/10, wasadopted.
2. TheChairman recalled thatthismeeting would focus ontheseventh itemofthework
programme, theissue ofexports ofdomestically prohibited goods, ashadbeenagreed atthe
October 1994 meeting andreiterated attheNovember meeting oftheSub-Committee. Henoted
theSecretariat document which hadbeenprepared forthismeeting (SCTE/W/7) onthehistory of
thisissue inGATT andrecent developments invarious international fora.
Observer status ofinter-governmental organizations
3. TheCommittee agreed toendorse theadhocprocedure agreed upon attheinformal
meeting oftheGeneral Council atthelevelofHeads ofDelegation toextend observer status for
theCommittee 'sfirstmeeting tothose inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) which hadhad
observer status intheSub-Committee onTrade andEnvironment. Thiswould bewithout
prejudice tothetreatment ofIGOs atfuture meetings which would bedecided bytheCommittee
onameeting-by-meeting basis, pending agreement bytheGeneral Council ontheconditions and
criteria forIGOobserver status. These IGOs were: theUnited Nations (UN), theUnited Nations
Conference onTrade andDevelopment (UNCTAD), theWorld Bank, theInternational Monetary
Fund (IMF), theUnited Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), Commission forSustainable Development (CSD), theFood andAgriculture
Organization (FAO), theInternational Trade Centre (ITC), theOrganization forEconomic
Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD), andtheEuropean FreeTrade Agreement (EFTA).
Itemseven ofthework programme:
Theissue ofexports ofdomestically prohibited goods
4. Therepresentative ofEgypt saidthatalthough agreement hadnotbeenreached onthe
1991 draftDecision onProducts Banned orSeverely Restricted intheDomestic Market (hereafter
thedraftDecision), work hadcontinued inthisarea. Theentry intoforce oftheBasel Convention
inMay1992 anditsratification byover80countries asofOctober 1994 hadbeenamilestone in
thisregard. TheCommittee 'swork should draw onpastexperiences andnotseektoundermine
orputintoquestion international agreements thathadacquired legality through theirinternational
context andbroad, geographically-diverse membership.WT/CTE/M/1
Page2
5. Heconsidered thattheWTO 'sexamination ofdomestically prohibited goods (DPGs),
since there wasnointernational agreement dealing withdomestically prohibited consumer
products, should build onthedraftDecision. TheWTO wasamechanism ofrights and
obligations withthewidest membership which could impose binding obligations onbothexporting
andimporting Members. Noting thatenvironmental standards needed tobedealtwithina
comprehensive framework, without giving priority tosome standards overothers, DPG-related
standards should bepartoftheCommittee 'soverall trade andenvironment work. Heemphasized
thatthisissue wasaconcern todeveloping anddeveloped country importers andexporters,
governments andpublic andprivate sectors, andcommercial interests should notprevail overthe
protection ofhuman, animal orplant lifeorhealth.
6. Inhisdelegation 'sview, theCommittee 'sDPG work should bepursued withaviewto
reaching notification guidelines andbinding obligations forfullcompensation andliability, aswell
asspecific, interim measures forproducts which were prohibited orseverely restricted for
domestic useandforwhich noequivalent action hadbeentaken forexports. Theonusof
responsibility fellonexporting countries through thechoice ofbuyers, theenvironmentally-sound
disposal orsafe-use ofwaste andinbearing theenvironmental clean-up costs offalsenotification
orillegal trafficking. However, importing countries hadtodecide responsibly based onclear
information andinfullknowledge ofthereasons forprohibition orsevere restrictions ofgoods in
thedomestic markets andtheconsequences forpresent andfuture generations. Thisconcept was
notnew; Article 3.1ofthedraftDecision referred totheexporting countries 'responsibility. His
delegation feltitwasdesirable tostrengthen but,under nocircumstances, weaken thelanguage of
Article 3.1. Ataminimum, further work should examine whether exporting countries should
apply thesame measures taken forDPGs toexports. Hence, notification procedures onbanning
orrestricting aproduct, stating whytheproduct constituted adanger tohuman, animal, plant life
orhealth, were ofimportance totheCommittee 'swork.
7. Since theBasel Convention 'sentry intoforce andtherecent adoption, byconsensus, by
theConference oftheParties (Decision II/12) ofanimmediate banonthemovement ofhazardous
wastes forfinaldisposal and,asof1998, ofwastes destined forrecycling andrecovery, the
Convention hadbecome vulnerable toafuture WTO challenge. TheCommittee should discuss
thecompatibility oftheBasel Convention 'strade-related restrictions withWTO obligations under
itemoneofthework programme. Heconsidered there wasareduced likelihood offuture
challenge given thattheBasel Convention wasamultilateral agreement comprising over
80geographically-diverse countries, andthattheBasel Convention 'strade restricting measures
andtherecent bancould qualify under Article XX(b) and(g)oftheGATT asithadnotbeen
taken unilaterally anddidnotconstitute arbitrary discrimination. Itaimed tostemthein-flow of
wastes thatcould bedetrimental todomestic human, animal orplant lifeorhealth and,although
reference toArticle XXhadbeengenerally toprohibit imports, nothing intheArticle denied a
wider interpretation toprohibit orrestrict exports thatdamaged human, animal orplant lifeor
health.
8. Hisdelegation considered thatthere wasample room tocover DPGs intheWTO; work
should address products previously identified bytheDPG Working Group, including: (i)products
notpermitted tobesoldinthedomestic market because approval forsalehadnotbeenobtained or
hadexpired (e.g.pharmaceutical andprocessed agricultural products); and(ii)plant andother
capital goods whose useinmanufacturing theexporting country onlypermitted subject tostrict
rules duetotheriskofdanger topublic health andsafety. Work should continue within the
context ofclear terms ofreference which might constitute, interalia,setting specific
characteristics ofvarious categories ofDPGs andnotduplicating, derogating orundermining
other international organizations 'work. Helooked totheSecretariat toassist inthecategorizationWT/CTE/M/1
Page3
ofvarious DPG product groups aswellasinidentifying theirlegalregimes toavoid such
duplication, andtodistinguish between DPGs, hazardous wastes, andpotentially toxic chemicals,
incooperation withUNEP andFAO.
9. Therepresentative ofNigeria considered thesubject ofDPGs tobeasimportant today as
when hisdelegation, together withSriLanka, hadraised itinpreparation forthe1982 Ministerial
Meeting. HesaidthatPC/SCTE/7 provided astarting point fortheCommittee 'sdiscussions and
highlighted thevaluable work doneonthissubject. There wasnodoubt thatDPGs remained a
major problem. Three concerns were stillvalid: (i)abanand/or regulation should beconsidered
forinternational trade ingoods which were banned orseverely restricted forsale,distribution, or
consumption inthecountry ofproduction forhealth orsafety reasons; there ought tobea
reasonable degree ofresponsibility onexporters tocontrol theexport ofproducts which were
domestically prohibited forsaleonthebasis ofdanger tohuman, animal, plant life,orthe
environment; (ii)products thatwere directed towards re-export should becontrolled; and(iii)the
onusofthedecision toimport ornotshould beshared equally byimporters andexporters.
10. Heconsidered that,although hazardous, toxic, recyclable anddisposable wastes hadbeen
dealtwithinother fora, principally theBasel Convention, other product categories hadyettobe
satisfactorily treated. These included some consumer andmanufactured goods andpharmaceutical
products forhuman andanimal use,suchastheexamples contained inPC/SCTE/W/7,
paragraphs 8and22.Relevant examples forNigeria were contained inDPG/W/5 (pp.4-5),
which hisdelegation hadpresented inNovember 1989. There remained astrong rationale for
concluding aDPG agreement asthere wasanincreasing trend forindustries andfirms toexport
products forwhich domestic salehadbeenprohibited orseverely restricted toprotect human
health orsafety ortheenvironment.
11. Henoted thattheAnnex tothedraftDecision detailed thescope, product coverage and
basic obligations ofeleven international instruments andaccorded priority toobligations under
these instruments byproviding thatnotification obligations would beinapplicable iftheproduct at
issue wascovered byanother instrument towhich anexporting Contracting Party wasasignatory.
Thisprovision ensured thatscope andcoverage would notbeduplicated norprovisions ofrelated
international instruments overridden. Hisdelegation considered thatthedraftDecision wasa
good basis forrecommencing work onDPGs withaviewtoanearly conclusion andthehistory of
theDPG Working Group should guide theCommittee. Until itsmandate expired inJuly1991,
theWorking Group hadconducted negotiations toachieve consensus onDPGs. Hisdelegation,
therefore, proposed thattheCommittee establish atechnical Working Group onDPGs inorder to
discuss Members 'concerns andreach mutually-agreeable solutions thatwould ensure
environmental protection, sustainable development andWTO-consistency. TheWorking Group
could submit areport totheCommittee toensure thatDPGs waspartoftheCommittee 'sreport to
theMinisterial Conference.
12. Therepresentative ofKorea saidthatdiscussions onDPGs should takeintoaccount recent
developments inthemultilateral trading system andinother international fora, which were not
reflected inthedraftDecision. Bearing inmind thatthedraftDecision hadaddressed concern for
human health andtheenvironment withprovisions which were trade-restrictive innature, the
coverage ofanyfurther Decision should beelaborated inacareful andstrict manner inorder to
avoid unnecessary disputes andstrengthen itseffectiveness. Heagreed withtheobjective ofthe
draftDecision, toprotect human health andtheenvironment. Since ittouched ontherelation
between MEAs andthetrading system, potential conflicts might beavoided withcareful
approaches thatwould benefit from theCommittee 'sdiscussions ofMEAs anddispute settlement
procedures.WT/CTE/M/1
Page4
13. Henoted Articles 2.3,2.4and3.5ofthedraftDecision which gavepriority to
international instruments thatmight contain WTO-inconsistent provisions, andArticles 4.1and4.2
which encouraged Members tojoinorimplement them. Itseighth preambular paragraph qualified
exporting Members 'righttorestrict exports, whereas Article 3.1implicitly imposed obligations
onexporting Members toexamine export restrictions. Heconsidered thatthese provisions
supported extrajurisdictionality byexporting countries which wasincompatible withthetrading
system practices. Itwasmore important torespect importing Members 'srights through effective
PICprocedures thantoregulate exporting Members. Another practical measure, which would not
prejudice MEA provisions, would betoassist importing Members 'capacity toinspect the
products concerned.
14. Inaddition, itwasunclear whether thedraftDecision 'sscope wasconsistent withthe
provisions ofthenewTBTandSPSAgreements; thisshould beconsidered infuture discussions
regarding DPG coverage.
15. Therepresentative ofIndia recalled thattheCommittee 'sterms ofreference recognized
theneedforrules toenhance positive interaction between trade andenvironmental measures and
topromote sustainable development withspecial consideration totheneeds ofdeveloping
countries. Given theimportance ofthisissue forhisdelegation anddeveloping countries, clear
rules governing theexports ofDPGs were needed. Inconsidering whether theCommittee 'swork
should startfrom scratch orbuild onprevious GATT work inthisarea, hesaidthat,although
much hadoccurred since theunadopted draftDecision ofJuly1991, theCommittee should pick
upfrom where work hadleftoff.Analternative approach would betofactor inrecent
developments while looking atprevious work. Inanycasethevaluable GATT work inthisarea
should notbelost.
16. Heemphasized thebroad parameters which should govern theCommittee 'swork on
DPGs. First, international rules ontrade inproducts thatwere banned orseverely restricted in
thedomestic market onthegrounds thattheywere dangerous tohuman, animal orplant lifeor
health ortheenvironment were essential. Second, these rules should notcreate unnecessary
obstacles tointernational trade. Third, ithadtoberecognized thatstandards relating tohuman,
animal orplant lifeorhealth ortheenvironment differed among countries. Obviously, the
objective wasnotextraterritorial imposition ofstandards thatprevailed inonecountry over
another. Hence, itshould bemade clear thatevery country should assume fullresponsibility for
decisions regarding itsimports, butthisinvolved cooperative actions bytheexporting country.
Newrules evolved bytheCommittee might include specific obligations ofDPG exporters. These
rules should notbeconstrued, however, toaffect inadiscriminatory manner exports ofcountries
which hadadopted different standards ofhealth andenvironmental protection oracountry 's
prerogative toallow theimport anduseofsuchproducts.
17. Hesaidanumber ofissues deserved further consideration. First, countries should notify
measures which banned orseverely restricted saleofaproduct along withthereasons why, as
developing countries might beunable tocontrol imports because theydidnotknow thatthe
products were restricted intheexporting country 'sdomestic market; exporters could falsely
declare products prohibited orrestricted inthedomestic market oftheexporting country, and
customs authorities insome developing countries didnothaveadequate testing facilities tocheck
these claims. Theabsence ofconsumer protection regulations insome developing countries also
enabled exporting countries tomarket products beyond theexpiry dates. Forallthese reasons,
notification obligations, including Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedures, should be
considered.WT/CTE/M/1
Page5
18. HesaidthattheCommittee should alsodiscuss: (i)theneedtotakeintoaccount work
doneinother international foratoavoid duplication; (ii)coverage ofproducts, keeping inmind
that,forsome products, work hadbeenwelldeveloped; (iii)dispute settlement provisions,
including "damages" and"interim measures"; and(iv)therelationship between theWTO and
other international instruments. Hisdelegation considered that,afteraperiod ofreflection, the
Committee could return tothisissue andspecific proposals could beconsidered andmutually
acceptable rules developed.
19. Therepresentative ofArgentina saidthatinviewofthedraftDecision andthe
Sub-Committee 'sdiscussions, hisdelegation hadsome concerns. Iftheconsensus wasthatthe
draftDecision should beadopted ascontained inL/6872, hisdelegation would agree, although
there were risksinadopting thatdocument asitwas. Hisdelegation shared thedraftDecision 's
objectives andagreed withtheonlysubstantive obligation itimposed onitsMembers, namely
notifying bansorrestrictions applied tothe"products concerned" unless theywere products
covered byAnnex Iinternational instruments towhich theexporting country wasaparty.
20. Hedrew attention tothewording ofArticle 3.1,which could giverisetomisinterpretation
andshould besubject tocareful scrutiny, taking intoaccount thattheuseoftrade measures for
environmental protection wasasensitive issue, especially when the"environment" wasnotthatof
thecountry applying themeasures. TheCommittee 'swork waslargely aimed atanalysing
circumstances inwhich trade measures forenvironmental purposes would beacceptable. Judging
byprevious discussions, delegations appeared toagree ontheneedtoavoid allowing aWTO
Member toapply trade restrictions under itsdomestic environmental lawtotackle environmental
problems arising within another Member 'sjurisdiction. While thiswasnottheintention of
Article 3.1,hisdelegation didnotwantittobeopentomisinterpretation. Even though
Article 3.1encouraged Members toapply theirenvironmental legislation extraterritorially with
respect toexports, itwould notbeconceivable toapply thistoimports. There wasariskinthe
wayArticle 3.1wasworded andiftheCommittee adopted thedraftDecision itshould decide
whether toretain theArticle 3.1requirement. Hisdelegation 'sviewwasthatArticle 3.1wasa
"best endeavour clause" thatdidnotexempt countries applying suchexport restrictions from
fulfilling theirWTO obligations. Itwasalsoworth studying therelationship between thedraft
Decision andtheSPSAgreement, aswellasthescope ofthecoverage.
21. Therepresentative ofCôted'Ivoire recalled thataconsiderable amount ofwork hadbeen
doneonDPGs which hadresulted inthedraftDecision. Herdelegation considered thatwork
should continue inaWorking Group oftheCommittee based onthedraftDecision. Sheagreed
withtheNigerian andEgyptian delegations thatother fields ofstudy should beconsidered. Her
delegation wasinterested inachieving abalance, whereby thequest forfreetrade would not
overrule theprotection ofhuman life.
22. Therepresentative oftheUnited States appreciated theconcerns thathadgiven risetothe
desire formultilateral cooperation intheareaofDPGs, which hisdelegation hadbeendealing
withinanumber ofinternational environmental fora. Hisdelegation wascommitted to
developing effective mechanisms toaddress health andenvironmental concerns associated withthe
export ofDPGs. Hisdelegation strongly supported thejointUNEP/FAO PICprocedures andthe
recent process todevelop alegally-binding international PICregime fortoxic chemicals and
pesticides.
23. TheCommittee 'sfocus concerned howtheWTO might contribute todealing withDPGs.
Hisdelegation wasprepared totakeafresh lookatthisissue andwork cooperatively withother
Members. However, itwasimportant tobearinmind thedecisions which already hadbeentakenWT/CTE/M/1
Page6
onthescope ofWTO activities related toenvironmental matters andtheneedtoavoid duplicating
other international organizations 'efforts. Much hadhappened since discussions onDPGs had
ended anditwasappropriate totakestock ofprevious work asapreface tofurther work.
24. Hewelcomed document PC/SCTE/W/7, butsaiditunderstated relevant developments that
hadtaken place inGATT since 1991. Thiswasnotacriticism ofthepaper, asthese
developments involved subjective assessments ofthelessons from GATT work ontrade and
environment. Onedevelopment ofparticular relevance wasAmbassador B.K. Zutshi 'sstatement,
asChairman oftheCouncil, onUNCED follow-up atthe1992 meeting oftheGATT Contracting
Parties:
"GATT 'scompetence islimited totrade policies which mayresult insignificant
trade effects forGATT Contracting Parties. Inrespect neither ofitsvocation nor
ofitscompetence istheGATT equipped tobecome involved inthetasks of
reviewing national environmental priorities, setting environmental standards or
developing global policies ontheenvironment."
25. Thesame thoughts were reflected intheMinisterial Decision setting outtheCommittee 's
terms ofreference. ItwasnottheWTO 'stasktoduplicate theroleofinternational environmental
organizations inregulating international commerce inDPGs. Nevertheless, hisdelegation was
willing toexplore whatcontribution theWTO could make within itsmandate onthisissue. One
contribution might betoensure thatWTO rules didnotconflict withobligations under MEAs
dealing withDPGs. Transparency might beanother area, although theCommittee should avoid
duplicating MEAs 'efforts. Forexample, itwasnotclear whatpurpose would beserved by
notification ofmeasures already subject tonotification under MEAs ornotification ofproducts that
were subject tointernationally-agreed PICprocedures. Ofequal importance would betoensure
thatoneMember 'snotification ofaDPG would notleadtoit'sexports being treated differently
from exports ofthesame product from other countries orfrom domestic production ofsuch
products inanimporting country. Asrecognized intheSPSAgreement, national decisions on
measures toprotect health andtheenvironment reflected notonlyscientific andtechnical
judgements butalsosocietal choices astothelevelofacceptable risk. Considerations raised in
thediscussion ofother issues, suchaseco-labelling andMEAs, were equally applicable toDPGs.
26. Concerning thesuggestion tousethedraftDecision asastarting point fortheCommittee 's
discussions, hisdelegation considered thatitwasmore important where theCommittee finished
thanwhere itstarted. HesaidthatthedraftDecision would nothavebeendrafted assuchifthere
hadbeentheexperience gained intheintervening years ontrade andenvironment. Although his
delegation continued toseeimportant weaknesses inthedraftDecision, itwould notobject toits
useasastarting point ifthatwastheCommittee 'sgeneral desire. However, substantial work
would beneeded fortheCommittee toachieve asuccessful conclusion. Concerning the
suggestion thattheCommittee establish aDPG Working Group, hisdelegation agreed withthe
underlying premise thatwork might needtobeintensified insome areas inorder toachieve
results bythetimeoftheMinisterial meeting. However, toensure acoherent approach tothe
Committee 'swork, hisdelegation didnotwanttotakedecisions onhowthisshould bedoneuntil
aftertheCommittee hadcompleted itsfirstdiscussion ofitsagenda. Only thenwould itbe
appropriate torevisit thissuggestion andothers.
27. Inresponse totheEgyptian delegation 'ssuggestion thattheCommittee takeupwork not
doneinother international organizations andtheNigerian delegation 'scomment thatthere were
gapsininternational instruments related toDPGs which theCommittee could takeup,heasked
whether, ifgapsexisted, itwastheWTO 'sroletofillthem orshould theybepursued intheWT/CTE/M/1
Page7
relevant environmental organizations. Itwastheimpression ofhisdelegation, from
Ambassador Zutshi 'sstatement andtheCommittee 'sterms ofreference, thatthelatter approach
wasappropriate. Ifthiswasnotthecase, hisdelegation would liketobeinformed accordingly.
28. Therepresentative ofBrazil saidthathisdelegation hadparticipated inelaborating the
draftDecision anditstillsupported theideaofaDecision withbasic disciplines ofnotification
and"best endeavour" measures onDPG exports inresponse todeveloping countries 'lackof
information andcapacity todealwithDPGs. Theimporting country hadtheprimary
responsibility andanyresult oftheCommittee 'sdiscussions should nothinder theimporting
country from taking measures necessary toprotect human, animal orplant lifeorhealth, aslong
asitwasabletodoso.ADecision would beamultilateral instrument through which some
countries requested others totakeappropriate action, anditmust notgiverisetoextraterritorial
measures. Thiswould needtobeclarified asaDecision might givetheimpression thatparallel
unilateral decisions could betaken, evenintheDPG area.
29. Anumber ofinternational developments hadoccurred since thedraftDecision was
proposed, suchasintheLondon Guidelines andtheBasel Convention; theCommittee would
needtoseeifanyadjustments were necessary toreflect theimportance theDPG issue had
assumed. Inthisrespect, panels intheenvironmental areahadshown agreater awareness ofthe
problems thatexports ofDPGs caused. Heagreed thattheCommittee needed tocomplete an
initial discussion onallitems ofitswork programme butthatthenextphase should givespecific
attention toDPGs. Heconsidered thatitwould beimportant fordelegations tocoordinate with
government sectors dealing withsimilar issues inother fora, suchasthenegotiations on
legally-binding PICprocedures ortheBasel Convention.
30. Therepresentative ofChile saidthatthedraftDecision, resulting from overthree years of
negotiations, remained valid andshould beconsidered astheCommittee 'sstarting point.
Nevertheless, while recognizing theprogress itrepresented, hisdelegation considered thatWTO
disciplines could provide institutional tools forreaching consensus inthisarea. Heproposed the
introduction ofaDPG notification system which would becompatible withArticle Xprovisions
andtheTBTAgreement. Hisdelegation considered thatthecontractual WTO framework wasthe
proper setting inwhich toimpose rights andobligations onbothexporting andimporting
countries. There were already guidelines andprocedures fornotification andexchange of
information developed internationally byWHO, FAO andUNEP andregionally bytheOECD,
however, some ofwhich were noteffective astheywere voluntary. Asaresult, heproposed that
theCommittee consider DPGs inanAdHocWorking Group, withtheparticipation ofexperts
from WHO, UNEP, FAO andOECD.
31. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation advocated
multilateral solutions toenvironmental problems, taking intoaccount theneeds ofless-developed
countries, andsupported DPG-related initiatives inother international organizations, including
measures toincrease information sharing andthedevelopment oflegally-binding PICprocedures.
Thelatter hadbeenmandatory forECexporters ofdangerous chemicals since the1992 adoption
ofRegulation 2455/92. TheWTO should notundermine orduplicate work inthisareaandwhere
DPG-related MEAs existed theyshould takeprecedence. However, thisdidnotpreclude the
WTO from taking complementary action, asa"safety net," ifreinforcement wasnecessary.
Action could betaken tocover DPGs notincluded inexisting MEAs andnon-participants to
MEAs. Forexample, ifaWTO Member didnotparticipate inthefuture international
PICConvention, goods covered bythescope ofPICandproduced inthenon-participating
country could becovered bytheWTO.WT/CTE/M/1
Page8
32. Thework oftheDPG Working Group wasuseful andshould notbedisregarded.
However, much hadoccurred since thenwhich hadchanged thepicture. Assuch, hisdelegation
considered thattheCommittee could proceed by:(i)re-examining itswork inlightof
developments; or(ii)considering theissue again from firstprinciples, taking previous work into
account ifappropriate. Hisdelegation wasopentoeither route, butthediscussions 'parameters
needed tobedefined. First, itwasessential toidentify whether there wasapractical problem
through information from importing countries ontypes ofgoods where aproblem wasperceived
andthenature ofandreasons fortheproblem. Next, theCommittee should undertake a
"definitions exercise" todefine "prohibited" andtheextent ofproduct coverage andthereasons
forcreating DPGs. Forexample, heasked whether thefocus should beonDPGs covered by
international instruments, together withconsumer product DPGs which presented adanger to
human, animal orplant lifeorhealth. Hisdelegation didnotexclude thepossibility thatthe
outcome ofthisdefinitions exercise might bethattheissue wentbeyond theCommittee 'smandate.
33. GATT work onDPGs hadbeenaimed atcreating amechanism toprovide information on
DPGs tothirdcountries onthebasis ofwhich decisions could betaken. Ifthiswasstilltheaim,
theCommittee should consider theassignment ofresponsibility; should itlieprimarily withthe
importing country orbeshared between theimporting andexporting country. Thebasic WTO
principles, particularly non-discrimination, must beobserved andanimporting country should not
refuse agood from countries where itwasaDPG andaccept itfrom countries where itwasnota
DPG.
34. Another representative oftheEuropean Communities presented anexplanation oftwo
legislative developments intheECrelated toexports ofDPGs: Regulation 2455/92 concerning
theImport andExport ofCertain Chemicals andRegulation 259/93 ontheControl ofShipments
ofWaste. Herdelegation attached importance toappropriate international control mechanisms to
ensure thatthemarketing anduseofcertain hazardous substances didnotharm human health or
theenvironment, whether inoroutside theEC'sterritory; EClegislation concerning exports of
DPGs hadbeenstrengthened toinclude comprehensive common regulations aimed atcontrolling
shipments ofwaste, bothinside theECandwiththirdparties. Oneofthereasons these
regulations hadbeenadopted in1993 andentered intoforce inearly 1994 wastoapply, within the
EC,theBasel Convention andother international instruments, suchastheLomé Convention and
the1992 OECD Decision onmovements ofwastes destined forrecovery operations. Shenoted
thattheirscope covered almost allcategories ofwaste and,when theRegulation didnotexplicitly
prohibit exports, theexport ofwaste wassubject toastrict system ofnotification and
authorization andtookplace withtheconsent ofthecountry ofdestination.
35. Forexports ofdangerous chemicals, regulations covering over100chemicals hadbeenin
force since theendof1992 andincluded aninternal notification system, withtheresponsibility on
theexporter, thatenabled thecompetent ECauthorities tocontrol theexport andre-export tothird
countries ofchemicals which were banned orseverely restricted domestically. TheECauthorities
were obliged toprovide information concerning therisksposed bythechemicals totheauthorities
ofthecountries ofdestination. Chemicals forexport were tosatisfy labelling andpackaging
conditions identical tothose which applied intheEC,unless these requirements were contrary to
theregulations ofthecountry ofdestination. Also, thenewregulations made thePICprocedures,
established bytheLondon Guidelines andtheFAO Code ofConduct, binding within theEC
which enabled ittoparticipate intheinternational notification mechanisms setupbythese two
instruments andensured thatthesubstances andproducts theycovered could onlybeexported in
conformity withthedecisions taken bythecountries ofdestination. Herdelegation considered
that,bymaking these mechanisms binding intheEC,theregulations anticipated thediscussions in
thisrespect inUNEP andFAO.WT/CTE/M/1
Page9
36. Therepresentative ofAustralia saidthattheissue ofDPG exports wasofconcern tomany
countries inrelation toprotecting theirpopulations andenvironment from potentially dangerous
andhazardous products andhisdelegation considered multilateral cooperation necessary to
respond tothese health, safety andenvironmental issues. Hesaidthatcooperative international
instruments were being strengthened, including those concerning chemicals, pesticides,
pharmaceuticals, hazardous wastes, andozone-depleting substances, andlegally-binding PIC
procedures forbanned orseverely restricted chemicals were being developed. TheCommittee
would needtoexamine theroleforthemultilateral trading system 'sprovisions inthispattern of
international cooperation. Several items oftheCommittee 'swork programme were relevant to
DPGs andneeded tobeconsidered inorder tomake trade andenvironment policies mutually
supportive. Twoimportant issues were theneedtoensure thattheprovisions ofthemultilateral
trading system allowed eachcountry totakeactions necessary toprotect health, lifeandthe
environment initsownjurisdiction, andthattheybesupportive ofmultilateral activity inother
foratoaddress health, safety andenvironmental concerns.
37. These twoissues focused onthepermissive nature ofthetrading system 'sprovisions in
supporting actions byMembers, individually andcollectively, toadvance health, safety and
environmental objectives; theCommittee 'swork should ensure thatthispermissive nature ofthe
provisions ofthemultilateral trading system wasadequate tosupport countries 'efforts todeal
withDPG exports. Also, aspartofitsexamination oftherelationship between these provisions
andtrade measures taken pursuant toMEAs, theCommittee should address DPG-related
international activity. TheCommittee might conclude thatthere wasscope foramore active
WTO roleconcerning DPGs, suchasthenotification andexchange ofinformation procedures
discussed intheDPG Working Group. These arrangements would establish channels for
information exchange andenable importing countries tomake informed decisions astowhether to
import certain products. Inthisregard, theCommittee should recognize theroleoftechnical
assistance indeveloping national means toeffectively control DPG trade. Inconsidering whether
there wasarolefortheWTO toestablish notification andinformation exchanges, theCommittee
should beguided bytheneedtoavoid duplication ofother fora'srelated work, theimportance of
carefully defining theproducts being considered, appreciation ofthetechnical complexities
involved andthelimited WTO competence which would require input from relevant
international experts, andtheimportance ofavoiding unnecessary trade restrictions.
Hisdelegation would helpidentify thecontribution thatthemultilateral trading system could make
tointernational efforts torespond toDPG-related health andenvironmental concerns.
38. Therepresentative ofVenezuela saidthathisdelegation hadnotparticipated inthe
DPG Working Group, butconsidered thatthedraftDecision could serve asabasis forthe
Committee 'sdiscussions. However, itwould needtobereviewed inorder, forexample, to
clarify product coverage. IfthedraftDecision referred toproducts notcovered byAnnex I
international instruments, thelistofproducts covered could varybetween countries asnotall
countries were signatories tothesame instruments. Therefore, forsome countries theproducts
covered would becontained innational legislation restricting theirdomestic saleorexportation.
Concerning thedraftDecision 'srequest forcountries toparticipate ininternational instruments,
hisdelegation considered thattheWTO should notexert pressure onMembers tojoin
environmental agreements which theyhaddecided nottoforlegitimate reasons. Thus, Article 4.1
ofthedraftDecision should berevised.
39. Hisdelegation agreed thatArticle 3.1could giverisetomisinterpretations concerning the
extraterritorial application ofdomestic regulations and,hence, disagreed withitspresent wording.
However, aproper balance could beachieved ifthenotification obligations contained inthedraft
Decision were based onPICprocedures. Concerning Article XX'sapplicability toindependentWT/CTE/M/1
Page10
measures adopted byWTO Members onDPG exports, hisdelegation would needtoreflect on
whether Article XX,evenifitdidnotexpressly refertomeasures adopted withrespect toexports,
necessarily allowed them. Hisdelegation supported amore restrictive interpretation allowing
Members tomaintain jurisdiction overdomestic concerns. Itsupported alsotheNigerian
delegation 'sproposal foraDPG Working Group, depending onprogress in1995 andsome
Members 'limited resources toparticipate inthepossible proliferation ofsuchgroups.
40. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthat,since thesubject ofDPG exports hadbeen
raised in1982 andtheDPG Working Group hadstopped itsanalytical work in1991, the
international legalframework hadchanged, especially intheWTO. TheCommittee hadto
identify itsfurther work onthissubject. However, themost important question remained whether
theWTO needed specific DPG-related guidelines, suchasnotification ofrelevant regulations,
information onspecific measures, andconsultation procedures. Theresponse tothisshould take
intoaccount ifandhowexisting provisions intheWTO Agreements onnotification, information
andconsultation procedures addressed DPGs andifandhowother international guidelines on
notification andinformation exchange andconsultation procedures concerned DPGs. Further
WTO action should notduplicate suchaction butshould analyze ifthere were gapsandwhether
WTO action wasnecessary tocopewithsuchdeficiencies. TheCommittee should examine the
trade-related aspects oftheexport ofDPGs thatwould notbeadequately addressed through WTO
andother MEAs 'provisions.
41. Chapter 19ofAgenda 21,Environmentally sound management oftoxicchemicals,
including prevention ofillegal international traffic intoxicanddangerous products outlined that
toxic anddangerous products were those thatwere banned, severely restricted, withdrawn ornot
approved foruseorsalebygovernments inorder toprotect public health andtheenvironment and
thatgovernments should: "reinforce national capacities todetect andhaltanyillegal attempt to
introduce toxic anddangerous products intotheterritory ofanyState, incontravention ofnational
legislation andrelevant international legalinstruments. Furthermore, governments should assist
allcountries, particularly developing countries, inobtaining allappropriate information concerning
illegal traffic intoxic anddangerous products." Sheconsidered thattheSecretariat needed to
strengthen itscontact withtherelevant organizations inthisareatoavoid duplication of
information andnotification procedures. Inthisrespect, attention should begiven tothe
implementation oftheLondon Guidelines 'PICprocedures andtheBasel Convention 'sinformation
andcontrol procedures andtheSecretariat should collaborate withUNEP andFAO. International
instruments should establish mechanisms tofulfil theirenvironmental objectives inaccordance
withthetrading system 'snon-discrimination andtransparency requirements. Further work was
needed ontheimplementation ofmultilateral notification systems, especially inthenorth-south
context todetect gapsinpractice andalleviate theadministrative burden intheirimplementation.
42. Herdelegation supported areview oftherelationship between theSPSAgreement and
future DPG work, mentioned inPC/SCTE/W/7, which would becrucial fordevelopments ofDPG
information andnotification systems. Herdelegation didnotobject tobasing theCommittee 's
discussions onthedraftDecision.
43. Therepresentative ofNorway considered thatcountries were obliged toprotect theirown
environment andconsider theimpact oftheiractivities onother countries 'people and
environment. Norwegian regulations prohibiting orstrictly regulating chemicals, forexample,
customarily covered exports aswellasdomestic useandanexport prohibition onhazardous
wastes todeveloping countries hadbeeninforce forsome time. Heunderlined afewprinciples
which should govern developments ofinternational rules inthisarea. First, clear rules should
define coverage, facilitate uniform andeffective implementation, beeasily incorporated attheWT/CTE/M/1
Page11
national levelandavoid duplicating other international fora'swork. Second, international rules
concerning DPGs should beprimarily developed inMEAs andthedraftDecision should
supplement therules ofother international instruments, forexample, theBasel Convention 's
Decision tobanallexports ofhazardous wastes from OECD countries andUNEP 'selaboration of
PICprocedures. Third, theCommittee should nottransfer environmental competence totheWTO
from MEAs. Ontheother hand, it'smandate wastoseethattheWTO rules accommodated
environmental concerns. MEAs possessed theexpertise toensure aclose linkbetween those who
made andusedtherules, which wasimportant fortheireffective implementation. Trade aspects
could betaken intoaccount bytrade experts from WTO Members. Although duplication of
efforts should beavoided, hisdelegation considered thattheCommittee might havearoletoplay
ifdiscussions revealed gapsinDPG coverage under existing MEAs anditwasnotexpected that
these gapswould bedealtwith.
44. Therepresentative ofHong Kong saidthathisdelegation supported thedraftDecision asa
basis forfurther work, factoring inrecent developments. Work should examine thescope ofthe
issues, including product coverage, re-exports andgoods intransit. Inaddition, heasked whether
theemphasis would beinformation provisions orcontrol measures andwhether theapproach
would bea"best endeavour" oneorinvolve more substantive obligations. TheCommittee would
havetoreflect oninstitutional aspects suchasdispute settlement andprevention, anddevelopments
inMEA disciplines inthisarea. There could beastocktaking ofinternational developments and
MEA disciplines, incoordination withother fora, toprovide solutions.
45. Heconsidered thattheEuropean Communities 'ideaofasafety-net tosetparameters
would permit areassessment ofthesizeoftheissue. Ifthere were gaps, thentheCommittee
could assess where re-inforcement wasneeded. Until then, andinviewoftheCommittee 's
overall agenda, hisdelegation didnotyetwanttoenter atechnical phase inthisarea.
46. Therepresentative ofNewZealand saidthatinviewoftheserious circumstances which
brought about thiswork andinkeeping withtherecent developments inother organizations on
DPG-related issues, herdelegation considered thatefforts inthisareashould becomplementary
andavoid overlap andduplication. TheCommittee 'swork should beconsistent andnotoverlap in
product coverage orinthetrade implications ofmeasures adopted toencourage compliance with
agreed DPG standards. Toensure this,theCommittee should clearly define theproducts which
would fallwithin itsscope andgivedueregard toMembers 'legitimate interests tochoose which
goods theyimported.
47. Therepresentative ofCanada supported thestatements ofthedelegations ofNigeria,
Korea, India, Argentina andAustralia. Herdelegation wasprepared topursue DPGs asacentral
element oftheCommittee 'swork andbegin afocused discussion ofthedraftDecision, taking into
account recent developments. Sheagreed thattheWTO should notduplicate other international
instruments andshould staywithin itsareaofcompetence, which didnotinclude environmental
policy-making orstandards setting. Discussion should beaware ofthecomplexities ofproduct
coverage andtheprerogative should bewithimporting countries. Although there should be
cooperation between importing andexporting countries, thedecision point should bewiththe
former andassistance indecision-making should beprovided. TheCommittee would haveto
guard against thepotential fordiscrimination between exports from different countries andany
element ofextraterritoriality. Sheconsidered thatthePICprocedures, mentioned bymany
delegations, deserved attention. Shesaidthatalthough theinitial Committee discussions had
established thatthere wasmuch common ground interms ofobjectives andkeyconcerns inthis
area, itwould alsodiscover thatthere wasaneedtobecautious onthedetailed, technical aspects.WT/CTE/M/1
Page12
48. Therepresentative ofJapan focused onthree aspects oftheDPG issue. First, asregards
thecoverage ofproducts whose domestic saleorusewasbanned orseverely restricted byaWTO
Member, WTO Members hadtherighttobanorseverely restrict thesaleoruseofaproduct
under certain conditions, including MFN andnational treatment, butthescope ofproducts would
differ between countries. Second, heconsidered therelationship between products whose
domestic saleorusewasbanned orseverely restricted andtheirexport, andbetween those in
foreign markets andtheirimports. Oneperspective wasthataWTO Member could restrict, and
evenprohibit trade inimports orexports ifjustified byWTO provisions, suchasArticles XI,XX
andXXI. Thedifficulties ofborder controls indeveloping countries (noted inPC/SCTE/W/7)
could beaddressed bymore active useofinternational notification systems. Third, heagreed with
other delegations thatduplication ofnotification should beavoided. TheWTO hadcomprehensive
notification mechanisms, forexample Article X,theTBTandSPSAgreements andtheDecision
onNotification Procedures, andthere were notification mechanisms inother international fora.
Although thiswasmore directly related toitemfour, itwasrelevant totheCommittee 'sDPG
work toexplore howbesttoensure thatexisting transparency mechanisms worked.
49. Therepresentative ofMorocco saidthat,according toaUNEP study (November 1994),
more than70,000 chemical products were usedglobally and500million tonnes oftoxic wastes
were produced annually, ofwhich industrialized countries produced more thanninety percent.
Tenpercentofthiswaste circulated between OECD countries while hundreds ofmillions of
tonnes were exported tonon-OECD countries. Thisillustrated theextent oftheproblem ofDPG
exports andtheireffects onhuman, animal andplant lifeandhealth. Inthisrespect, his
delegation considered that,although thedraftDecision could serve asabasis fortheCommittee 's
discussions, itshould beupdated andrevised, taking intoaccount recent developments andlegal
instruments.
50. Recent developments deserving theCommittee 'sattention inthisareaincluded theSecond
Meeting oftheBasel Convention 'sConference oftheParties 'Decision tobanallexports of
hazardous wastes from OECD tonon-OECD countries asofJanuary 1998 andtheDecision to
develop aDraft Protocol onLiability andCompensation forDamage Resulting from
Transboundary Movements ofHazardous Wastes andTheir Disposal. FAO andUNEP hadajoint
programme onapplying thePICprocedures toprovide chemical product management training for
developing countries. UNEP 'sCode ofConduct intheLondon Guidelines encompassed
notifications from overonehundred countries.
51. Hisdelegation proposed updating thedraftDecision; defining theterm"hazardous
substances;" establishing aclear notification system which committed Members tofulfilling their
obligations bydrawing oninternational jurisprudence inthisfield(i.e.theLondon Guidelines,
theBasel Convention); making adistinction between hazardous andnon-hazardous substances;
creating aDPG database incooperation withFAO, UNEP, theInternational Register of
Potentially Toxic Chemicals andtherelevant environment andtrade Convention Secretariats; and
establishing aWTO Working Group toexamine DPGs, including FAO andUNCTAD experts.WT/CTE/M/1
Page13
Other items
Itemoneofthework programme:
Therelationship between theprovisions ofthemultilateral trading system andtrade
measures forenvironmental purposes, including those pursuant tomultilateral
environmental agreements.
52. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthatmultilateral cooperation wasthemost effective way
tosolve global andtransboundary environmental problems andthatMEAs were asafeguard
against unilateral trade measures. Therefore, theinitiation andimplementation ofMEAs should
bepromoted andtheircompatibility withWTO rules clarified. Theissue ofMEAs andGATT
hadbeenthesubject ofmuch analysis inGATT andhisdelegation agreed withtheChairman 's
November 1994 statement thattheCommittee 'swork should move toamore prescriptive stage.
53. Conflicts withWTO rules might occur ifanMEA included trade measures against
non-parties which were notapplied onanMFN ornational treatment basis, thusrequiring
establishment ofanother legalbasis forWTO-compatibility. Discussions hadfocused onan
ex-ante approach based onArticle XXandanex-post approach based onArticle XXV. His
delegation preferred theformer which would provide predictability andstability, andserved both
environmental andtrade interests.
54. Thecoexistence ofMEAs andthemultilateral trading system within theframework ofa
collective interpretation ofArticle XXcould beformulated inseveral ways. Onepossibility
would betoelaborate strict criteria forWTO-compatibility oftrade measures inMEAs.
However, suchcriteria should notunduly limitthepossibility ofusing trade measures forgenuine
environmental purposes vis-à-vis MEA non-parties. Many ofthecriteria discussed alsofell
outside Article XX'sscope andwould be,thus, difficult toencompass inacollective
interpretation.
55. Asecond possibility would betoestablish onlyafewmain criteria which, together with
theheadnote toArticle XX,would cover therelationship between MEAs andtheWTO. Setting
broad parameters fortheuseoftrade measures inanMEA would notgiveMEAs ablank check
toapply trade measures vis-à-vis non-parties andshould besufficient toavoid disguised
protectionism. Hisdelegation favoured thisapproach foranumber ofreasons. First, GATT had
atradition ofnotinterfering inother fora'swork, i.e.international commodity agreements.
Furthermore, theWTO wasnotanenvironmental policy-making institution anditshould let
MEAs establish theenvironmental goals andmeasures necessary toachieve them. Second, trade
measures forenvironmental purposes should notbesubject toadisproportionate number of
criteria inrelation toother issues covered byArticle XX. Third, inorder toachieve the
Committee 'smandate thattrade policy contribute tosustainable development, theuseoftrade
measures when necessary toprotect theenvironment should notbesubject tounnecessarily strict
disciplines.
56. Intheviewofhisdelegation, theCommittee could concentrate onafewbasic criteria,
which could bedivided intothose related totheMEA andthose related totrade measures inthe
MEA. Thecriteria forMEAs could include theconcept ofopenness. Inprinciple, allcountries
should havetherighttobecome parties toanMEA andregional agreements should beopentoall
thecountries intheregion. Concerning trade measures, necessity wasabasic criterion as
contained inArticle XX. Thisimplied thattrade measures could beused, interalia,where trade
itself might impede theMEAs effectiveness orcause theenvironmental problem. Other criteriaWT/CTE/M/1
Page14
were proportionality andleast-trade restrictiveness. Astheywere overlapping, heconsidered that
itwassufficient toinclude least-trade restrictiveness asithadbeenalready established intheSPS
andTBTAgreements. Also, thisconcept waslinked tothenecessity criterion inthe1990 Panel
Report on"Thailand -Restrictions onImportation ofandInternal Taxes onCigarettes"
(DS/10/R, adopted November 1990). Although these suggestions were inputs totheCommittee 's
discussions, hisdelegation didnotwanttoprejudge itsfinalposition inthismatter.
57. Hisdelegation considered thefollowing criteria tobesufficient toensure thattrade
measures inMEAs didnotaccommodate protectionism butserved thegenuine purpose of
environmental protection: (i)theMEA should satisfy formal criteria concerning openness;
(ii)theMEA should bespecific withregard totheuseoftrade measures; (iii)thetrade measures
should benecessary toachieve theenvironmental goal; and(iv)theleast-trade restrictive trade
measures thatallowed forachievement oftheenvironmental goalshould bechosen. He
recognized thatthedispute settlement procedures contained provisions allowing foralltypes of
expertize tobesought, yetheraised thequestion whether an"environmental window" of
Article XXshould include aspecific reference toenvironmental expertize inconnection with
dispute settlement.
58. TheChairman considered thatthediversity ofviews which stillexisted concerning exports
ofDPGs, which hadbeenthesubject oflengthy GATT discussions, wasduetothebreadth ofthe
issues covered andtheirtechnical elements, which wentbeyond purely commercial matters. The
development ofinternational instruments, linked tomany oftheDPG-related issues, raised
considerations thatsome might beinsufficient. HesaidthattheCommittee would haveto
re-examine thisissue ingreater detail inthefuture.
Programme ofwork
59. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposed schedule ofmeetings andprogramme of
work for1995 which hadresulted from hisinformal consultations. Thiswaspremised onthe
understanding thattheCommittee would meetattwomonth intervals andwould discuss theitems
ofitswork programme which hadnotyetbeenaddressed. Itwould thentakestock ofthe
situation, taking intoaccount thattheCommittee would report tothefirstbiennial meeting ofthe
Ministerial Conference inlate1996 when theCommittee 'swork andterms ofreference would be
reviewed, inthelightoftheCommittee 'srecommendations.
60. Theschedule ofmeetings andprogramme ofwork isasfollows:
6-7April: -Item4:"theprovisions ofthemultilateral trading system withrespect tothe
transparency oftrade measures usedforenvironmental purposes andenvironmental
measures andrequirements which havesignificant trade effects"
-Item5:"therelationship between thedispute settlement mechanisms inthe
multilateral trading system andthose found inmultilateral environmental agreements"
-Item10:"appropriate arrangements forrelations withnon-governmental
organizations referred toinArticle VoftheWTO andtransparency of
documentation"WT/CTE/M/1
Page15
21-22 June: -Item8:"TRIPS"
-Item9:"Services"
-Item2:"therelationship between environmental policies relevant totrade and
environmental measures withsignificant trade effects andtheprovisions ofthe
multilateral trading system"
early
September: -Item6:"theeffect ofenvironmental measures onmarket access, especially in
relation todeveloping countries, inparticular totheleastdeveloped among them, and
environmental benefits ofremoving trade restrictions anddistortions"
late
October: -Item1:"therelationship between theprovisions ofthemultilateral trading system
andtrade measures forenvironmental purposes, including those pursuant to
multilateral environmental agreements"
-Item3:"therelationship between theprovisions ofthemultilateral trading system
and:
(a)charges andtaxes forenvironmental purposes
(b)requirements forenvironmental purposes relating toproducts, including
standards andtechnical regulations, packaging, labelling andrecycling
-Stocktaking andplanning program ofwork for1995/1996
61. TheChairman stated hisintention toholdinformal consultations before theCommittee 's
6-7April meeting on"appropriate arrangements forrelations withnon-governmental organizations
referred toinArticle VoftheWTO andtransparency ofdocumentation" (item 10),andbefore the
21-22 Junemeeting onTRIPS (item 8)andServices (item 9)inorder toorient theCommittee 's
formal discussions. Between theSeptember andOctober meetings, heplanned toholdinformal
consultations inpreparation fortheOctober stocktaking exercise toclarify where theCommittee
stood onallitems ofthework programme. Thisexercise would serve todraw conclusions onany
items forwhich aconsensus hadbeenachieved anddetermine which items required further
discussion andstudies, withaviewtowards reporting toMinisters attheendof1996.
62. TheChairman saidthatmeetings would beorganized suchthat,oncediscussion ofthe
item(s) constituting thefocus ofthemeeting hadbeencompleted, delegations could address, if
theywished, theitem(s) thatwere discussed attheprevious meeting. However, delegations could
submit papers onanyoftheitems atanytimewhich would bediscussed attheappropriate time
according totheagreed schedule ofwork. Inthisrespect, henoted theSecretariat document,
requested bytheSub-Committee, ontheenvironmental benefits ofremoving trade restrictions and
distortions, WT/CTE/W/1, which would bediscussed when theCommittee tookupthisitemin
September. Itwasagreed thattheSecretariat would prepare background papers onitems in
advance ofthemeetings atwhich theywould bediscussed. Forthose items which hadalready
beenthesubject ofconsiderable analysis, thepapers would capture theprogress achieved inthe
EMIT Group andintheSub-Committee, highlighting specific issues inneedoffurther analysis to
ensure aforward-looking approach.
63. TheChairman saidthattheCommittee would needtoadopt rules ofprocedure. Hewould
return tothisitemonceconsultations inthisregard hadbeenconcluded. Heinvited delegations to
continue theexercise, initiated intheSub-Committee, ofsubmitting individually, andona
voluntary basis, totheSecretariat forcompilation, information thatreflected theirownnational
experiences withmeasures thatwere covered under thisitemofthework programme.