ࡱ> IKH[@ "bjbj44 ",ViVi'   "666J JY,+++++++$O-R/+6+66,66++j*%66+ `JL+(+),0Y,t+(00P+JJ666606+ ++JJJJϲʹ Symposium: Challenges ahead on the road to Cancn Monday, 16 June: 15:00 18:00 The ϲʹ Negotiations on Trade and Environment Session I The relationship Between MEAs and the ϲʹ: Where are the negotiations heading? Summary Report The relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and the ϲʹ has been an issue of special interest within the international trade and environment debate for a number of years, and is currently a topic of the Doha negotiations. Paragraph 31(i) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration directs Members to negotiate on the relationship between existing ϲʹ rules and specific trade obligations set out in MEAs, as among parties to the MEA in question. Paragraph 31(ii) instructs Members to look at procedures for regular information exchange between MEA secretariats and the relevant ϲʹ committees, and the criteria for the granting of observer status. Given the history of the issue, and the current on-going discussions within the Committee on Trade and Environment Special Session, this topic was a fitting start to the ϲʹ Public Symposium. The session, moderated by Mr.Kym Anderson, included two presentations that effectively communicated differing perspectives on the issue. Mrs. Magda Shahin pointed out that discussions on the MEA-ϲʹ relationship had entered a vicious circle that could well undermine decision-making of the ϲʹ. She underlined that the "demandeurs" of this issue were developed countries. Developing countries had generally favoured the status quo, considering that GATT Article XX was sufficient for dealing with the interaction between ϲʹ and MEA rules. She further believed that the purpose of resolving this issue was to enable countries to more easily impose trade restrictions and to legalize these measures in the ϲʹ. The essence of Mrs. Shahin's position was to avoid prejudicing the existing balance of rights and obligations in the ϲʹ. She stressed that the Doha Development Agenda was a development round, and as such it should not be overburdened with non-developmental issues. Mr. Richard Tarasofsky considered that the ϲʹ-MEA relationship was problematic, and pointed to recent concerns raised by the Chile-Swordfish and the EC-Sardines cases. These examples showed that the problem was real and not purely academic. He indicated that a formal dispute within the ϲʹ concerning MEA rules would have serious implications for both systems of governance. Beyond conflict between existing rules of MEAs and the ϲʹ, he referred to a chilling effect of ϲʹ rules on MEAs, which could restrict their development. With regards to the current negotiations in the ϲʹ on this issue, he indicated that ϲʹ Members were avoiding difficult issues (such as conflicts involving non-parties and non-specific trade measures), and that this was further complicated by process problems (such as the need for a single undertaking in the negotiations). He argued that the issue of the MEA-ϲʹ relationship should not be addressed only in the ϲʹ, but also within MEAs. He further stated that any process needed to acknowledge the equality of the ϲʹ and MEAs and needed to be supported by a coherent policy development at the national level. During the discussion phase of the session, some participants expressed concerns over the legalization of some trade-restrictive environmental measures in MEAs. Others stressed that developed countries demonstrated a continued lack of support for market restructuring initiatives with respect to climate change (specifically reducing taxes and subsidies), which could present win-win-win opportunities. On this note, other participants indicated that the complex nature of the instruments within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) should not be discussed within the ϲʹ, but only in the Conference of the Parties to the MEA, where the proper expertise existed. There was some discussion surrounding the lack of understanding of the trade regime within MEA secretariats, and of MEAs among trade experts. The difference between mechanisms for non-compliance and dispute settlement in MEAs was provided as an example of common misconception among trade experts. While the dispute settlement provisions of MEAs were generally weak and not used, non-compliance mechanisms had proven to be effective. Some participants suggested that the development of a World Environment Organization might help to alleviate some of the current issues of concern. Others indicated that there was a lack of political will to develop such an organization. Much discussion referred to the hierarchy or equality of MEAs and ϲʹ rules. One participant made the point that trade measures could be essential to MEAs, but that environmental issues were not that important to the ϲʹ. Another participant pointed out that this was part of the problem, that trade was only the second or third best policy option and should not be used so easily in MEAs. Many participants concurred that it would be good to organize a joint discussion on the relationship between MEAs and the ϲʹ, which would involve the secretariats of both MEAs and the ϲʹ. It was generally agreed that there was a need for policy coherence at the national level to ensure that MEAs and the ϲʹ were mutually supportive.  Mr. Anderson is a Professor in the School of Economics and Executive Director of the Centre for International Economic Studies at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He was a member of the GATT Secretariat staff from 1990 to 1992, and served as a ϲʹ Dispute Settlement Panelist in the EC-Banana case (1996-2000).  Mrs. Shahin was last Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs for International Economic Relations and is today the Ambassador of Egypt to Greece. Parallel to her diplomatic function, Mrs. Shahin is Professor of Economics at the American University in Cairo. She was a member of the Egyptian government delegation to numerous United Nations and ϲʹ Conferences and has served as a Counsellor at the Egyptian Mission to the United Nations in New York, as well as Deputy Chief of Mission at the Egyptian Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. She has served as a member of the ϲʹ Textiles Monitoring Body during her tenure in Geneva and is on the ϲʹ's Indicative List of Panellists.  Mr. Tarasofsky is a Canadian international lawyer based in Berlin, Germany. He is currently a Special Advisor on Trade and Biodiversity for IUCN The World Conservation Union, and a Senior Associate of Ecologic the Institute for International and European Environmental Policy (a Berlin-based think tank). 6o  .EF+, "jh\*0JU h\*6 h\*6CJh\*6;CJ h\*@( h\*CJ h\*h\*B*ph67V .i + G & F  & F` 7&dP7" """ & F . A!"#$%HJ@J Normal$ a$CJ_HmH sH tH V@"V Heading 1#$ & F60@&^`05;Z@2Z Heading 2*$ & F7 h0@&^`0:Z@BZ Heading 3*$ & F8 h0@&^`05V@RV Heading 4*$ & F9 h0@&^`0P@P Heading 5  & F:0@&^`066@6 Heading 6 @&6@6 Heading 7 @&DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List DT@D Block Text]^@B@@ Body Text & F1 h>P@> Body Text 2  & F2FQ@"F Body Text 3 & F3p^pXO2X Body Text 4' & F4 8pp0^p`0>OB> Body Text 5  & F5XM@RX Body Text First Indent & F`HC@bH Body Text Indent^TN@arT Body Text First Indent 2 `RR@R Body Text Indent 2d^PS@P Body Text Indent 3^CJF+F  Endnote Text$ a$CJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*B@B  Footnote Text `CJ: : Index 1#^`#6!6  Index Heading4/@4 List0^`082@8 List 2 0^`083@8 List 3!^`84@"8 List 4"p0^p`085@28 List 5#^`:0@B: List Bullet $ & F;T6@RT List Bullet 2 % & F< 0^`0X7@bX List Bullet 3#& & F= @^`X8@rX List Bullet 4#' & F> p0^p`0X9@X List Bullet 5#( & F? ^`BD@B List Continue)^NE@N List Continue 2*^`FF@F List Continue 3+^NG@N List Continue 4,^`NH@N List Continue 5-p0^p`0@1@@ List Number. & FD hT:@T List Number 2 / & F@ 0^`0T;@T List Number 3 0 & FA ^`T<@T List Number 4 1 & FB p0^p`0T=@"T List Number 5 2 & FC ^`<Z@2< Plain Text3 CJOJQJ6J@B6 Subtitle 4$@&a$D,D Table of Authorities5D#D Table of Figures 6 6>@r6 Title7$a$ 5;KH4O4 Title 28$a$>*4O4 Title 39$a$6@O@ Title Country:$a$;6.6  TOA Heading;5ZZ TOC 10<$ p# 0<<]^`0a$5;XX TOC 20=$ p# 0<<]^`0a$:\\ TOC 33>$ p#@J0<<]^`0a$5TT TOC 40?$ p# 0<<]^`0a$XX TOC 50@$ p# 0<<]^`0a$6PP TOC 6(A$ p# <<]^a$CJPP TOC 7(B$ p# L<<]^La$CJPP TOC 8(C$ p# )<<]^)a$CJPP TOC 9(D$ p# <<]^a$CJRORR Paragr. Num. - WTOE & FE hh$@bh Envelope Address!F@ &+D/^@ CJOJQJdOrd Blockquote'G$ hhdd]h^ha$CJhtH uEA&) ,67V. i +<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<;0<{0<{0<{0?" ""sv7?:D  28Ludivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiLudivine TamiottiMoris| d2} (̠1~40tlv/<(@2r'HN\& >%S(<447 v&`'zdvE]< . >%9p$2TfR Zc ^`.^`.^`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0()h^`.0^`0()p0p^p`0()^`()p@ ^p`()h^`o(0^`0o(()p0p^p`0o(()p0p^p`0o(-0^`0o(()0^`0o(()0^`0o(-p0p^p`0o(()@ 0@ ^@ `0o(()h^`o(. 0^`0OJQJo(-^`.h^`.h^`.h^`()^`()h^`.0^`0()0^`0()8h8^8`h-hh^h`.hh^h`.G222247 22222 >%~~}}||222247 22222 >%~}|222247 22222 >%<'zfRZc\*U@hi+@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New"qhAzwFAzwFw % %!4d3H(?UXSESSION I: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEAS AND THE WTO: WHERE ARE THE NEGOTIATIONS HEADINGTamiottiMorisP            Oh+'0$0<P `l    YSESSION I: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEAS AND THE ϲʹ: WHERE ARE THE NEGOTIATIONS HEADINGWESS Tamiotti: Tamiami Normal.dotTMoris.d2riMicrosoft Word 10.0@@~?ABCDEFGJRoot Entry F0.JLData 1Table0WordDocument",SummaryInformation(8DocumentSummaryInformation8@CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q