RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/CTE/W/27
25March 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1059)
Original: English Committee onTrade andEnvironment
USPROPOSAL REGARDING FURTHER WORK ONTRANSPARENCY
OFECO-LABELLING
TheUnited States believes thattransparency ineco-labelling schemes, including
opportunity fortimely input byallinterested parties, isessential, from bothatrade and
environmental perspective. While notapanacea, transparency canbeimportant inavoiding
potential trade difficulties andhasimportant benefits from theenvironmental perspective because
itincreases thelegitimacy of,andparticipation byinterested parties in,suchprogrammes.
Itwould beuseful fortheCTE andTBTCommittees todevelop acommon understanding
ofhowsuchprogrammes arecovered under current WTO transparency disciplines, toidentify
areas ofparticular concern associated withthedevelopment ofeco-labelling programmes where
there maybegapsintheexisting transparency provisions, and,asappropriate, amplify current
WTO transparency requirements.
TheUnited States believes thatitisimportant tohavetransparency inthedesign of
eco-labelling programmes, theselection ofproducts tobecovered byeco-labelling, theselection
ofcriteria forreceipt ofanecolabel andthedesign ofanyconformity assessment procedure. In
other words, there should befulltransparency withanopportunity fortimely public input
covering eachcritical stage ofaprogramme 'sdevelopment, which mayoccur separately or
simultaneously, including:
1. thedevelopment orexistence ofsuchprogrammes (including fullinformation on
theirstatutory orregulatory basis) andprocedures forinput from interested
parties;
2. theselection ofproducts proposed forcriteria development;
3. thedevelopment ofanylife-cycle considerations andscientific analysis usedto
underpin criteria development;
4. thedraftcriteria forproduct groups, whether neworrevised;
5. thedevelopment ofanyinterpretive orexplanatory documentation, including
scientific documentation, necessary tounderstand howthecriteria aretobe
implemented; and
6. manner inwhich non-domestic environmental protection practices willbetaken
intoaccount indetermining product eligibility.
./.WT/CTE/W/27
Page2
TheAgreement onTechnical Barriers toTrade contains veryspecific obligations
concerning transparency. Whether ameasure isvoluntary ormandatory, governments andprivate
standardizing bodies areobliged toprovide public notice ofaproposed standard, technical
regulation orconformity assessment procedure; solicit comments from interested parties; and
takethose comments intoaccount before adopting afinalrule. Inaddition, when these are
proposed mandatory, legalrequirements ofgovernments, theproposal isnotified tothe
WTO Secretariat fordistribution toother Members. When theyarevoluntary, notification is
made (pursuant totheCode ofGood Practice) viathepublication ofawork programme, atleast
twice ayear, ofstandards anticipated tobedeveloped. Successful implementation ofthese
provisions canhelpprevent thecreation oftechnical trade barriers including many, butpossibly
notall,oftheconcerns thathavebeenexpressed withrespect toeco-labelling schemes.
Akeyquestion isatwhatstage aneco-labelling programme isconsidered byMembers to
be"draft" andwhether thatincorporates thesixelements identified above foreco-labelling
programmes. TheTBTCommittee hasreached aDecision onthetiming ofnotifications as
follows:
"When implementing theprovisions ofArticles 2.9.2, 3.2(inrelation toArticle 2.9.2),
5.6.2 and7.2(inrelation toArticle 5.6.2), anotification should bemade when adraft
withthecomplete textofaproposed technical regulation orprocedures forassessment of
conformity isavailable andwhen amendments canstillbeintroduced andtaken into
account". (Emphasis added)
Inanswering thequestion posed above, itisuseful tolookattheprocess bywhich
ecolabels aredeveloped. Forinstance, indeveloping eco-labelling programmes based on
life-cycle considerations, itisnecessary todefine theproduct thatwillbesubject toanecolabel,
perform alife-cycle assessment oftheenvironmental impacts oftheproduct andthenprepare the
draftstandard based onthatinventory. Bythetimethedraftstandard hasbeendeveloped, the
opportunity formeaningful input bythefullrange ofinterested parties maybesignificantly
narrowed bydecisions taken atprevious stages. Ifthefirstopportunity forcomment comes only
afteradraftstandard hasbeenprepared, itmaybeimpossible toinfluence thedecision onproduct
coverage oftheecolabel because thestandards making body willhavealready made asignificant
investment intimeandresources inthepreparation ofthelife-cycle information. Also, since
there isnostandard agreed methodology forperforming life-cycle assessments, there is
considerable room forhonest disagreement onthemanner inwhich theyareconducted andthe
results theyyield.
TheUnited States believes itwould beuseful fortheCommittee onTrade and
Environment andtheCommittee onTechnical Barriers toTrade, meeting jointly orseparately, to
provide anearly opportunity fordelegations toexchange views astoatwhatpoint intheprocess
ofdevelopment ofanecolabel dothetransparency obligations oftheTBTAgreement require that
anopportunity beprovided forinput from allinterested parties. Thisdiscussion, ofcourse, would
bewithout prejudice toanydelegation 'sviewonthecoverage ofparticular types ofeco-labelling
programmes under theTBTAgreement. Ifthere isaviewthatcritical points inthedevelopment
ofecolabels maynotbecovered bysuchobligations, itmaythenbeuseful fortheCommittees to
consider whether itwould bedesirable toclarify oraddtoexisting transparency obligations.