Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05GENEVA2316
2005-09-28 06:26:00
UNCLASSIFIED
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

WTO COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT (CTE)

Tags:  ETRD USTR WTRO 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 002316 

SIPDIS

PASS USTR FOR DDWOSKIN, JPRESCOTT, MLINSCOTT
STATE/EB/OT FOR WCRAFT, TNISSEN, JBROOKS
USDOC FOR SJONES, LODOM
USDA FOR EARENA
EPA FOR DWAGNER, JFERRANTE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD USTR WTRO
SUBJECT: WTO COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT (CTE)
NEGOTIATIONS - SEPTEMBER 15-16, 2005

REFTEL: State 157878

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 002316

SIPDIS

PASS USTR FOR DDWOSKIN, JPRESCOTT, MLINSCOTT
STATE/EB/OT FOR WCRAFT, TNISSEN, JBROOKS
USDOC FOR SJONES, LODOM
USDA FOR EARENA
EPA FOR DWAGNER, JFERRANTE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD USTR WTRO
SUBJECT: WTO COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT (CTE)
NEGOTIATIONS - SEPTEMBER 15-16, 2005

REFTEL: State 157878


1. Summary: The WTO Committee on Trade and Environment in
Special Session (CTESS) meeting on September 15-16, 2005, focused
on making progress on environmental goods (EGs),in the run-up to
the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting, per Doha sub-paragraph
31(iii). Positions continue to be divided among those that
support a list of environmental goods and others that support the
consideration of an alternative approach proposed by India, which
would identify goods for preferential tariff treatment on an ad
hoc basis depending on national environmental projects.
Following up on widespread praise for an environmental goods
workshop held by the United States the day before the meeting,
the United States and several other friends of environmental
goods plan to provide similar information on their lists of
environmental goods at the October 13-14 CTESS meeting. End
Summary.


2. The September meeting of the CTESS was requested by several
delegations (including the United States, EC, Canada, New
Zealand, Japan, China, Korea, and others) at the July meeting who
noted that an intensification of work on environmental goods
would be needed in the fall if the CTESS were to achieve a
concrete result on EGs for the Hong Kong Ministerial, scheduled
for mid-December. While the July CTESS agenda was packed with
seven new papers, the September meeting was much more low key and
reflective, with no new papers and reduced participation from
capitals. The only new document released at the meeting was the
updated compilation of environmental goods submissions (a
Secretariat document that is not available to the public),which

SIPDIS
includes a matrix of 400-plus products that have been proposed by
nine Members in the negotiations thus far.


-Sub-paragraphs 31(i) and 31(ii)-


3. Continuing the trend of focused attention on environmental
goods, there was little discussion of the Multilateral
Environmental Agreement (MEA)-related mandates charged to the
CTESS. On subparagraph 31(i) - the relationship between specific
trade obligations set out in MEAs and WTO rules - only the EC and
Switzerland made statements. The EC merely noted its continued

interest in making progress in this area, but underscored its
focused interest in 31(iii). Switzerland responded to questions
posed at previous meetings as to how its proffered "principles"
related to international, law by offering an intervention
purporting (inaccurately) to set out inapplicable law. The main
point seemed to be that there is no legal hierarchy between WTO
and MEAs, but it went beyond that concept to suggest that "the
integrity of each system can only be maintained by paying
deference to each other." The Swiss went on to say that there is
no need for savings clauses in MEAs, and that WTO rules should
"always be interpreted in a manner that they do not constitute a
conflict with MEA rules.and vise versa." The Swiss also seemed
to suggest that the WTO's "necessity test" should not apply to
measures taken in fulfillment of MEA obligations. No delegation
reacted to the Swiss intervention but many requested a copy so
that they could share with legal experts in capital. On
subparagraph 31(ii) dealing with MEA information exchange and
observership, there was no discussion at all. The MEA-related
discussions are expected to continue at the October meeting, but
the focus is likely to continue to be on environmental goods in
the run-up to Hong Kong.

-Sub-paragraph 31(iii)-


4. In an effort to advance the discussions on environmental
goods, on September 14, the afternoon before the formal meeting,
the United States hosted a workshop to further explain the 155
products on its proposed list of environmental goods (contained
in TN/TE/W/52) and to answer questions. The workshop attracted
excellent participation among developing country delegates (with
India being the notable exception),and many delegations
complimented the U.S. delegation for its efforts in the formal
CTESS meeting, noting that the workshop was informative and
calling for similar information exchanges in the context of the
October CTESS. The workshop began with an overview of the U.S.
environmental goods list and focused on particular goods through
four case studies: 1) solar energy used to provide clean water
to rural areas; 2) wind energy used to provide clean water to
rural areas; 3) automotive emissions control and related air
pollution; and 4) wastewater treatment. Handouts, as well as the
overview presentation, are available electronically. Please
contact Jennifer Prescott (jprescott@ustr.gov).


5. In the formal meeting, positions continue to be divided among
those that support a list of environmental goods (concrete list
of products organized by harmonized system code) and those that
support the consideration of an alternative approach (notably
that proposed by India, which would identify goods for
preferential tariff treatment based on their input into national
environmental projects). But the proponents of a list approach
(e.g. USA, Canada, EC, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Korea, New Zealand
and Switzerland) underscored the need to put aside the form of an
initiative as well as the potential modality for achieving
liberalization, and instead to focus on substance, which in all
cases involve concrete products. Most delegations seemed to
agree. The US delegation benefited significantly from the
responses received from posts that delivered the demarche
requested in REFTEL.


6. The Indian position seemed to harden against the list
approach, despite taking care to note that their proposed
"alternative approach" is not the "only option." India
reportedly made the rounds among developing countries over the
summer break and garnered some support for its approach from
Indonesia, given that it also provides unilateral duty-free
treatment for inputs into large domestic environmental projects.
India promised a new paper at this meeting on its "alternative
approach" but delivered only the following week, after the
meeting. India also committed to provide more information on its
proposed approach in October. India also said that it would be
useful to discuss: 1) criteria for environmental goods (criteria
was also mentioned by Brazil); 2) how non-tariff barriers (NTBs)
to EGs might be addressed by the CTESS; 3) how the environmental
services piece of the mandate might be addressed by CTESS; and 4)
how the products listed by other Members address environmental
and developmental problems. India noted that this type of
exchange will allow the CTESS to "progress faster," which the
delegate from New Zealand seized upon in his intervention.


7. Many delegations (e.g., Chile, Thailand, Ecuador, Singapore,
Switzerland and Japan) noted the need to "clean-up" the
compilation document, which currently includes over 400 products,
about half of which have been proposed by more than one Member.
This was an encouraging sign that seems to denote delegations'
comfort in engaging in a detailed product discussion in October.
But despite attempts by the list proponents to get a detailed
discussion of products going at this meeting, there was a clear
lack of substantive engagement. Instead, most Members seemed to
be looking to October to get more information on the table and to
engage in more detailed, technical discussions. Several Members
mentioned the U.S. workshop and noted that its case study more
contextual format might be a useful way to structure the
discussions in October.


8. The Chair, Ambassador Ali (Bangladesh),summarized the
meeting by saying that there was clearly a desire for more
detailed information exchange among Members and noted that the
U.S. workshop seemed to help this. He further underscored that
regardless of the approach advocated, Members needed to discuss
the environmental and developmental benefits of particular
products. He asked delegations that had submitted lists to come
prepared in October to further explain the benefits and linkages
to environment and development. He further noted that experience
with the national project approaches could also be useful in
October. Canada suggested that the CTESS structure the October
session by focusing on goods that are related to three key
environmental and developmental objectives: 1) sanitation; 2)
wastewater treatment; and 3) renewable energy. There was not a
great deal of comment on Canada's suggestion. The Chair
committed to consult with delegations on how to organize the work
in October so that concrete progress can be made, noting that an
information exchange session might be useful.


9. The United States plans to coordinate closely with the
proponents of a list approach in preparing for the October
meeting, particularly given that October marks what will likely
be the final CTESS before Hong Kong. While the United States and
the other proponents continue to advocate for a list of goods to
be agreed by Hong Kong, we need to carefully consider other
options that can also deliver a concrete result on EGs in time
for the Ministerial meeting.


10. The next CTESS meeting is scheduled for the week of October
10, described by the Chair as "environment week." The week will
begin with a WTO-sponsored symposium on "Trade and Sustainable
Development within the Framework of Paragraph 51 of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration," October 10-11 (half day). The CTE
Regular Session will take place on October 12. The Chair has
called a meeting beginning on the afternoon of October 12 to
permit an information exchange on the "considerations that have
guided" delegations in proposing certain approaches, such as
identifying specific products. During the same week, the Friends
of Environmental Services (USA, EC, Switzerland, New Zealand,
Australia and Canada) plan to make detailed presentations at a
workshop. The CTESS will take place on October 13-14. Shark