| ||||||
|
|
The section on item 3(b) of the CTEs agenda, which includes eco-labelling, is very short given the amount of time spent on it. The wording is deliberately ambiguous in places, and almost contradictory in others. The ambiguity and contradiction occur over the question of whether WTO rules included in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) and its annexes cover eco-labels based on "non-product related" PPMs. That is, whether they apply to and, according to some countries, forbid eco-labels which differentiate between products on the basis of PPMs with differing environmental effects, which leave no physical trace in the final product. There is an element of schizophrenia in the CTE debate over these non-product related PPMs, in that some countries, while wanting to ensure that such eco-labels are brought under WTO disciplines, fear that eco-labelling might prove to be the back door through which PPMs enter the WTO. Hence the compromise language which says, "without prejudice" to Members views on the coverage of PPM-based eco-labelling, that WTO disciplines should be followed. Is the CTE serious? Can WTO Members have their cake and eat it? In other words, can they make WTO rules apply to PPM-based eco-labels without acknowledging that non-product related PPM distinctions can be made in the WTO. The current CTE conclusion is a fudge which could bode ill for the WTO if eco-labelling schemes and hence the right of consumers to obtain information necessary to make responsible choices are challenged in a formal dispute. The WTO threat to eco-labelling is enhanced by the fact that some countries are calling for a WTO ban on all PPM-based eco-labels. Recommendations
|