|CONTINUED WORK UNDER PARAGRAPH 31(III) OF THE DOHA DECLARATION: Submission by the United States|
|Friday, May 01, 2009|
CONTINUED WORK UNDER PARAGRAPH 31(III) OF THE DOHA DECLARATION
Continued Work under Paragraph 31(iii) of the
Submission by the
The following communication, dated
2. Two of the main concerns arising at the end of 2005 were that, while delegations had in good faith proposed products that could be considered "environmental goods": (1) the Secretariat's compilation of submissions had become too large and unmanageable; and (2) several delegations questioned the direct environmental benefit of some of the proposed products (e.g., compact discs). At the same time, many delegations have expressed
· Air Pollution Control
· Environmental Monitoring, Analysis and Assessment
· Noise/Vibration Abatement
· Remediation/Clean-up of Soil and Water
· Solid/Hazardous Waste Management
· Waste Water Management
· Resource Management
· Heat and Energy Management
· Natural Risk Management
· Potable Water Treatment
· Renewable Energy
· Recycling Systems
· Other (e.g., Environmentally Preferable Products based on end-use/disposal)
Question 1: Does the product have a clear and direct environmental benefit?
4. Based on discussions thus far, it appears that most delegations agree that the primary factor in determining the answer to this question is that the product has an obvious and direct environmental end use (e.g., the product is used to control pollution or clean the environment). Such environmental end uses appear to have the greatest potential for satisfying the direct environmental benefit question, and they also allow flexibility to address potential development-related benefits (e.g., providing access to clean water, electricity, etc). Other factors put forward by delegations for consideration include that a product: advances domestic/international environmental laws and policies; is used often in the provision of an environmental service; has a lesser environmental impact based on their end use or disposal characteristics; or is used often in national or international environmental projects.
5. If a clear and direct environmental benefit is identified, delegations may also need to consider whether the product has dual/multiple uses. If yes, delegations should consider the following additional questions that have arisen in the CTESS discussions:
Question 2: If the product has dual/multiple end uses:
A. Can this dual/multiple use be addressed by using a narrower product description at the national level (8 or 10-digit code); and/or,
B. Is the product so central to the delivery of key environmental and developmental benefits (e.g., filters for air emissions, sewage treatment equipment) that its exclusion from liberalization would significantly reduce the intended environmental benefits of this initiative and hinder sustainable development objectives?
Question 3: Is the product sensitive or does it otherwise raise concerns for delegations (e.g., does it appear to be inconsistent with sustainable development objectives)?
6. This question seems necessary in order to allow delegations to express legitimate concerns – either trade, environment or development-related – about a particular product.
7. These questions are not