2026 June 2

Let me begin by thanking all the panelists for their very valuable contributions, and also by thanking members for their interest.

The discussions today show that carbon accounting, standards and trade are no longer separate conversations. They are increasingly interconnected, and they increasingly matter, not only for climate action, but also for trade costs and sustainable development.

A clear message from today's discussion is that in the nexus of trade and the environment, a key problem is not the absence of standards. It is the growing fragmentation. As more trade-related climate measures are introduced, businesses are facing different accounting methodologies, reporting requirements, verification systems and regulatory objectives. This leads to duplication, higher compliance costs and greater uncertainty.

And this burden falls especially heavily on MSME's and developing members.

Therefore, carbon accounting and carbon-related standards are no longer technical issues. They are now also trade and development issues. If a same product must be measured, reported and verified multiple times in different ways for different markets, then even well-intentioned climate objectives may create unnecessary trade frictions. In that sense, reducing fragmentation is not only a technical matter, it is also a practical requirement for stable and sustainable trade.

China believes that the WTO has an important and unique role to play in this regard. The role is not to replace technical bodies in setting detailed methodologies or standards. Organizations with technical expertise, such as international standard setting bodies, obviously remain essential. The WTO's value lies elsewhere, for example, in helping improve transparency, reduce frictions, enhance understanding and promote cooperation from a trade perspective.

In our view, the first area where the WTO can play a constructive role is transparency. Members need clearer and more accessible information on trade-related climate measures. For example, what methodologies are being used, how system boundaries are defined, what reporting requirements apply, how default values are determined, and what verification arrangements are expected. Greater transparency can help businesses adapt, reduce misunderstanding among members, and create a better basis for dialogue. 

Second, the WTO can be a platform for practical discussions on interoperability and consistency. Here, the objective is not uniformity for its own sake, nor should it require all members to adopt one single model. What we need is more understanding on key concepts, basic methodologies and practical interfaces between trade and climate. In other words, different systems may remain different, but they should become easier to understand, easier to compare, and easier for businesses to navigate.

Thirdly, we believe that development cooperation and capacity building should be an integral part of this work. If we discuss requirements without discussing capabilities, gaps will become bigger and bigger. For many developing members the challenge is not willingness, but also capacity, resources, data availability and institutional readiness. This is why support for developing members, especially in areas such as MRV capacity, data systems and implementation readiness, should not be treated as a secondary issue. It should be part of the core agenda.

Let me conclude with two simple thoughts.

First, climate objectives should be a direction for cooperation, not a source of new barriers.

Secondly, the value of the WTO in this respect is to explore areas where cooperation is possible, even though differences remain. We believe this is especially important at a time when trade and businesses need more predictability.

For China, we are ready to work with all members to continue practical discussions in the WTO on trade and environment, so that we can jointly contribute to global decarbonization and sustainable development.

Thank you.