Speech 1:
Remarks by DG Azevêdo Good morning everyone. Thank you, Ambassador Aspelund for your
introduction. I am pleased to join you today to take stock of recent trade policy developments. You will
all have seen my report circulated to members on 10 July, in document WT/TPR/OV/W/14. The report
covers major developments in trade policy from mid-October 2019 to mid-May 2020. It is a precursor to
the Director-General’s annual report on this subject, which will be released later in the year. The new
report includes specific sections on measures taken in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since
this exercise started in 2009, it has become an important transparency tool for members. I should
reiterate here that this report is purely factual. It has no legal effect on the rights and obligations of
WTO members. It does not seek to pass any judgement on whether a trade measure is protectionist or
not. Nor does it question the explicit right of members to adopt certain trade measures, especially in the
challenging context of the ongoing pandemic. The overall goal of this exercise is to reinforce
transparency and predictability in the trading system. Transparency reduces uncertainty and fosters
trust. Not only is it important in an institutional sense, it also matters greatly for policy makers,
businesses and consumers. Everyone stands to benefit from this. The information included in the report
reflects inputs submitted by members and observers as well as information from other official and
public sources. I'd like to thank all delegations that participated in this exercise. For this mid-year report,
87 members replied to my initial request for information. This represents about 53 per cent of the
membership, covering about 96 per cent of world imports. This is higher than the participation rate for
the last mid-year report, which is encouraging. However, participation in the verification process
continues to be uneven. In several instances, the Secretariat received only partial responses. The
current context of course explains some of this, but in light of the importance of this exercise, we must
endeavour to ensure that it is as accurate, inclusive and comprehensive as possible. Before going on to
the main findings of the report, I just want to say a few words about its overall context. As I alluded to
earlier, this report was prepared against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has severely
disrupted the global economy. On top of this, trade tensions continue to cast shadows over the global
trading environment, and had been doing so even before the pandemic. I should note, however, that we
have also sometimes seen welcome and important attempts to de-escalate these tensions. So what
does the report tell us? Excluding COVID-19-related measures, WTO members and observers
implemented 107 trade and trade-related measures during the review period from mid-October to
mid-May. These included 51 new measures aimed at facilitating trade and 56 new trade-restrictive
measures. The trade coverage of the new import-restrictive measures implemented was estimated at
423.1 billion dollars. This is the third-highest value since October 2012, when these reports started
including trade coverage figures. Import-restrictive measures are accumulating over time. Taken
together, all such measures implemented since 2009 and still in force now affect an estimated 8.7 per
cent of world imports (1.7 trillion dollars). This should be of concern to all of us. On a more positive
note, the trade coverage of new import-facilitating measures implemented during the review period was
estimated at 739.4 billion dollars, the second-highest figure since October 2012. This is, of course, a
welcome development. Now let me say a word about trade and trade-related measures taken in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, they account for around 70 per cent of the total number
of measures recorded in this report. In the early stages of the pandemic, we saw an increase in
trade-restricting measures, primarily for exports of medical supplies. That said, by the end of the
current review period in mid-May, around 28 per cent of the COVID-19 specific trade restrictions had
already been reversed. Looking at the totality of the 256 pandemic-related trade measures identified in
the report, 147 facilitated trade while 109 restricted trade. This means that around 57 per cent of all
COVID-19 related measures were trade facilitating. In addition, WTO members and observers have
implemented a large number of emergency support measures in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The
goal of these measures is to soften the pandemic-induced economic downturn and mitigate its social
and humanitarian ramifications. Regular monitoring of support measures introduced in the context of
the pandemic will be important for members. Transparency will enable members to track the evolution
and effects of such measures as the world exits the health crisis and enters a recovery period. We will
continue to monitor COVID-related developments, including in the end-of-year trade monitoring report.
Now, let me turn to the other findings of the report. With respect to trade remedies, the report recorded
an average of 25.3 initiations per month during the review period. This monthly average is slightly
higher than the average for the last eight years. At the same time, the monthly average of trade remedy
terminations was the lowest over the same time span. Regarding trade in services, the report shows
that many trade-facilitating measures were implemented during the review period. In addition, of the 99
services measures related to COVID-19 adopted by WTO members and observers, most appeared to
be trade facilitating. However, a number of new policies adopted during the review period appeared to
be trade restrictive, especially in areas such as foreign investment and areas considered strategic or
linked to national security. On other fronts, the report provides evidence of members’ continued
commitment to notifying SPS and TBT measures, as well as their extensive use of the review process
in the Committee on Agriculture. The report also outlines numerous trade issues and concerns other
than SPS and TBT measures that members have raised in WTO bodies. On the positive side, this
illustrates the value of WTO committees as constructive platforms for members to address concerns.
However, some of these concerns had already been raised in previous monitoring periods, suggesting
persistent and unresolved issues. The report also highlights developments in intellectual property, with
members continuing to diversify and fine-tune their IP domestic frameworks. On general economic
support measures, Secretariat research indicates that members continue to implement such measures
as part of their overall trade policy. However, there seems to be a general reluctance to provide
information on this front. Last December, I urged members in this body to provide the Secretariat with
clearer guidance on how best to take forward this report’s work on general economic support
measures. This point will probably become even more pertinent as the line between pandemic-related
emergency support and general economic support becomes blurrier over time. So these are some of
the principal findings that I wanted to highlight today. I hope that this snapshot provides some food for
thought for your discussion this morning. And there is no room for complacency. Keeping international
trade and investment flows open will be critical to rebuild economies, businesses and livelihoods
around the world. A strong recovery will require determined efforts and leadership by WTO members
collectively. We have to redouble our efforts to maintain the transparency and predictability of the
trading system. So let me thank the large number of delegations that have responded to our call for
information — including regarding the measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I also want to
thank the Secretariat for their excellent work in putting this report together, and in keeping our
dedicated COVID-19 webpage updated. This is my last meeting with you in this format, so I want to say
that it has been a great pleasure to support these monitoring efforts as Director-General. I encourage
you to keep up your efforts on this front. Wherever I go, you can count on me to keep advocating for
this essential global good. Thank you very much. Share showShareButton();
Speech 2:
Thank you, Mr Chairman. In preparing for today, I found myself looking back seven years to when I first
addressed you as Director-General. And I can now tell you from experience, the last speech is much
harder than the first. The first is about goals, and a game plan to tackle the future. The last one is about
what has been achieved; how much is left to do; and saying farewell to people we really cherish. This
final part is the toughest of all. Back in September 2013, I said that the WTO was at a crossroads. It’s
still at a crossroads — and will continue to be for some time yet. This is not surprising, because this
Organization is too important to have it easy. Each word, each comma that we negotiate here has a
direct and measurable impact on public policies and business realities — and consequently, on
people’s lives. Our agreements are subject to dispute settlement procedures that are automatic and
consequential — and I’ll come back to this point. This means that negotiated outcomes here are always
the product of truly complex, long and painful diplomacy. It was clear then, when I made that first
speech to you, that we needed to deliver agreements to bring this Organization closer to the changing
realities of the 21st century. And together, we did. The Trade Facilitation Agreement, in Bali, put the
Organization back on the map as a venue for global trade rule-making. It gave us confidence that the
multilateral track was viable, and that with enough political will and pragmatism, we could strike deals of
great value for trade, growth and development. After that, we tried to advance the remaining Doha
Round issues. It was, quite frankly, a tall order. We confronted the gateway issues head-on, and tested
a large number of potential approaches. But despite intense efforts, including daily meetings and
consultations with permanent representatives, it became apparent that positions in many areas were
further apart than ever, with gaps widening instead of closing. Still, in Nairobi in 2015 we managed to
harvest some important multilateral outcomes. Eliminating agricultural export subsidies and the trade
distortions they create had been a longstanding goal for many members. We expanded the Information
Technology Agreement, reducing and eliminating tariffs on $1.3 trillion of new-generation tech
products. Not long after Nairobi, and like all multilateral institutions, the WTO was engulfed by strong
political headwinds. These headwinds, and the associated tensions around trade, owe much to
dramatic advances in technology, and the changes they have provoked in labour markets and in
societies as a whole. It is also true, I have to say, that domestic social and economic policies have not
done all they could have to contain inequalities of income and opportunity, and to ensure that the
benefits from trade are more widespread. Despite these very challenging circumstances, standing still,
for this organization, was not an option. We needed to find ways to move forward. It was clear that
Doha issues could not simply be abandoned. We needed to find new, creative ways of pressing on in
areas of fundamental importance to a sizeable portion of the membership. And indeed, we have been
able to make progress in the ongoing negotiations on fisheries subsidies as well as in discussions on
agriculture and other important issues. At the same time, it was an inescapable reality that there were
other, very real issues that needed to be addressed within the WTO. To take one example, it was
simply not acceptable for the WTO to be in the 21st century, decades into a profound digital revolution,
with no truly consequential discussions on digital trade. We therefore began to test other approaches
available in the WTO toolbox. Groups of members started to explore innovative ways of advancing
issues of interest. You know them all: e-commerce; the facilitation of investments for development;
micro, small and medium sized enterprises; the domestic regulation of services; and trade and the
economic empowerment of women. This second track of work received an important boost at MC11 in
Buenos Aires in 2017. Those initiatives have since become an important part of work here in Geneva,
with a growing number of participants from both the developed and developing worlds, and a welcome
spirit of transparency and inclusivity from the proponents. Delivering on both the multilateral front and
the joint initiatives will be vital for the future of the system. For the road ahead, MC12 will be a key
landmark. It must deliver credible agreements and map the way for further reforms. I had hoped to work
with you to deliver precisely such outcomes this past June. But the postponement of the ministerial to
next year, because of the pandemic, brought me to the conclusion that I needed to step down this
summer. Had I stayed on for the remaining year in my term, the DG succession process and the MC12
preparatory process would have overlapped. My decades of experience working with this Organization
left me firmly convinced that this would have irremediably compromised prospects for success at the
ministerial. In light of the COVID-19 crisis, MC12 has become even more important: it will be a key
decision point for you to shape the direction of the post-COVID global economy. The date of the
ministerial, which now seems likely to be held next June, was beyond my control. The timing of my
succession, however, was within my power to change. My early departure allows you to decouple the
two processes. This was best for the system, making my choice a no-brainer. It’s a no-brainer because
the WTO is much more than just a job to me. My first posting in Geneva was in 1997. We lived almost
five years in this building. Even after going back to Brasília in 2001, my kids used to tease me that I
hadn’t actually left Geneva. I was still spending a big portion of my time here, first as a litigator, then as
a negotiator. In 2008, I came back as Brazil’s Ambassador to the WTO. Five years later you appointed
me Director General. Twenty-three years of my professional life have been intrinsically linked to this
Organization. I have had many happy moments, but also — like most of us — my share of
disappointments. But even at the lowest points, not once in these 23 years did I ever doubt the role that
this system plays in improving people’s lives around the world. We will be worse off if the system’s
relevance and effectiveness are allowed to erode. When I announced my decision to step down back in
May, I said that MC12 would be a stepping-stone to the future of the WTO. But what should the future
of the WTO look like? That’s the question. Of course, it will be shaped by you, the members. But I want
to take this moment to share with you my own views on the subject. And let me start with a warning:
don’t assume that the WTO has a future irrespective of what you do here. To assure the future of the
WTO, it is fundamental that members truly believe in the need to update the system. Some may still
believe that the pressures afflicting the WTO are localised, and therefore temporary. I want to assure
you that they are not. The pressures on trade, and on the WTO, derive from fundamental structural
changes in the global economy. Changes in technology, groundbreaking business models, and shifts in
the balance of economic power — they all have fundamentally altered the way countries and
companies interact, not to mention the ways we go about our daily lives. The rules we negotiated back
in the 1980s and signed into force in 1994 are still very relevant and much-needed. They are, in fact,
the last bastion preserving some degree of order and predictability in global trade and economic
relations. Lose this, and we lose fundamental pillars of peace and prosperity. Yet lose them we may —
if the WTO does not evolve. In substantive terms, there is a wide range of issues that are before you
right now. Each of them would offer a meaningful contribution to WTO reform. But at least as important
as the ‘what’ of reform is the ‘how’. The WTO is now driven by 164 members. I don’t have to tell you
how different they are, and how differently they think. A one-size-fits-all recipe will not work. We should
remember that agreements at the WTO have always sought to accommodate the diversity of our
members with flexibilities of different kinds. Special and differential treatment (S&D;) was one way.
Member-specific flexibilities was another: subsidy caps, quotas, higher tariffs on certain products, and
individual services commitments that open some areas — but not others. In short, our agreements
always had a way of accepting different contributions from members. Our Trade Facilitation Agreement
offers a new framework altogether for accommodating diversity among members. It allowed each
country to specify the flexibilities and the time they needed to implement the Agreement. And it did so
without compromising the high level of ambition that was the final destination. An open-minded
approach to flexibilities would open up a new era of fruitful work for the organization. And when
exploring potential areas for such work, unanimous agreement cannot be a prerequisite for starting
conversations at the WTO. It’s as simple as that. Not all members will necessarily be ready for a
particular conversation or a particular step. That is okay, and absolutely natural. But if full consensus is
required to even begin to discuss any issue, this Organization will not survive. I’m glad that this is not
where we are today. The joint statement initiatives potentially represent one path to a more nimble,
flexible WTO. No member is compelled to participate, yet the doors are open to any member willing to
join — or willing to leave. Plurilateral agreements have been with us since day one. But the fact is that
any new flexible non-multilateral arrangement — whether it is the JSIs or something similar — will
inevitably raise important practical and systemic questions. Multilateralising their results may not
always be possible. But limiting their application to signatories leads us to many grey areas. There will
be many systemic questions, and the answers will differ, I suppose, from case to case. I’m sure you will
be able to find them. But even before you get to that point, you will need to get past the most common
question I hear in discussions about such arrangements. And that question is: “Won’t this approach
compromise multilateralism?” That’s a big question. But my answer would be: “This approach is the
only way we can save trade multilateralism.” And in this Brave New World of ours, predictable and
updated rules are of enormous value. They will be pursued, believe me. If not in the WTO, then in other
less representative forums. And if governments are unwilling or unable to define the rules of the game,
then these rules will be set by private parties — even less representative, and even less likely to deliver
gains for everyone. We would all be better served if these rules, if these parameters, are negotiated at
the WTO’s large table. Then again, we know that agreements reached at the WTO have historically
been valued for their enforceability through the dispute settlement mechanism. And here, too, we have
a problem. We all know where we are with the appeals stage of that mechanism. Finding a solution is
not particularly hard, if you all truly want a solution. And in this regard, I’m not sure this is where things
stand. There are stop-gap solutions out there. Some of you are moving in that direction already.
Nevertheless, the fact that we are not in a position to agree on the means of enforcing our agreements
speaks volumes. Whatever decision you take on this, I would argue that a dysfunctional dispute
settlement mechanism introduces an unacceptable asymmetry in the system. This asymmetry is to the
particular detriment of the smaller and more vulnerable parties to any dispute. I don’t think we can
simply sweep this under the rug, and it must remain a priority for WTO members to address. I’m sure
that much of what I’ve said today is not news to you. I have made many of these points on previous
occasions. Nonetheless, I thought I should clearly spell out what I think the most critical challenges and
the more promising avenues are. And to the extent I have been able to facilitate and encourage some
of this new thinking during my tenure as Director-General, I have been happy to do so. All these
innovative approaches are just a start, I would say, but a very promising start. Members now have a
foundation on which to build new rules and standards, without ever forgetting the multilateral track and
the fundamental issues that must still be addressed more fully. We’ve achieved a lot and we must be
proud of that. But much remains to be done. I wish the next Director-General every success in
addressing these and other challenges. I will certainly be supportive of your efforts and will be a
passionate advocate for the system wherever the future takes me. As I said earlier, the WTO has been
an integral part of my life. Over the past 23 years, I have made life-long friends among delegates, peers
— including you yourself, Mr Chairman — and the Secretariat. Speaking of the Secretariat, I want you
to know that we have within these premises nearly 700 souls who dedicate their careers to serving you,
members, with commitment, professionalism, and a degree of excellence that you will not find
anywhere else. I knew that before, and my time as DG confirmed everything I said. I am privileged to
have worked with them and you are fortunate to be supported by people of such calibre. I would like to
extend special thanks to my deputies — Alan, Fred, Karl and Xiaozhun — for their wise counsel and
active engagement with members and the wider trade community. And I want to thank each and every
member of the Secretariat, both those who worked closely with me, including past and present
members of my office, and those that I unfortunately didn’t get to see as much. Without you, we would
not be the organization we are. On the subject of support, I must find a very special place for my family
— which is growing by the minute. In both the good moments and the difficult ones, they have all been
great enthusiasts for the WTO project. Our fantastic daughters, Paula and Luisa, who with their dear
husbands, Andre and Thiago, have given us five beautiful granddaughters: Alice, Olivia, Eva, and the
twins Catarina and Isabela. My mom, Normisa, with her unconditional love and advocacy. My equally
loving “other” mom, Maria, who raised me as surely as my blood relatives. My father and brother,
Renato and Claudio, who are no longer here, but who are always here. And my wife, Lelé, without
whom none of this would have happened, who has always been there to help me reach higher and
catch me when I fall. Regardless of what has or has not been achieved over the years, this human
connection with all of you is what I prize the most. These deep and fundamental connections never
disappear. So I’m sure that this is not a farewell. This is, as we say in Brazil, just a “tchau”. Thank you
all for your strength, your companionship, your solidarity, your support and your friendship. Come visit!
Thank you all once again, and like I said before: Tchau! Share showShareButton();
Speech 3:
Remarks by DG Azevêdo Hello everyone. You have all seen the press release, so I will keep this short
to allow more time for questions. The format of this press briefing is not the only unusual thing about
this year’s forecast. COVID-19 has upended the global economy, and with it, international trade. The
pandemic is first and foremost a health crisis. We at the WTO are profoundly saddened by the loss of
life that has occurred around the world. A number of our colleagues have fallen ill with the virus. We
share the anxiety that has shaken households everywhere. This pandemic is also however a major
social and economic crisis. Millions of people around the world have already lost jobs and income. Our
forecast reflects the enormous ongoing shocks to supply and demand. We project that trade in 2020
will fall steeply in every region of the world and across all sectors of the economy. In light of the
uncertainty about the pandemic’s precise duration and economic impact, forecasts are inevitably based
on strong assumptions. As a result, our economists have developed two plausible scenarios instead of
their usual single set of numbers. In an optimistic scenario, our economists see the volume of global
merchandise trade falling by 13% this year compared to 2019. If the pandemic is not brought under
control, and governments fail to implement and coordinate effective policy responses, the decline could
be 32% — or more. Again, let me emphasize that all these projections are highly uncertain given the
large number of unknown factors at play here. For instance, credit market stresses are affecting the
availability of trade finance. Nevertheless, these numbers are ugly — there is no way around that.
Comparisons with the financial crisis of 2008 and even the Great Depression of the 1930s are
inevitable. And that is why I want to emphasize that the underlying causes of this economic crisis are
very different from the previous ones. Our banks are not undercapitalized. The economic engine was in
decent shape. But the pandemic cut the fuel line to the engine. If the fuel line is reconnected properly, a
rapid, vigorous rebound is possible. Two factors will determine the strength of our recovery. One, how
quickly the pandemic is brought under control. And two, the policy choices governments make. A
strong rebound is more likely if policymakers show businesses and households reason to believe the
pandemic was a temporary, one-time economic shock. To do this, fiscal policy, monetary policy, and
trade policy must all pull in the same direction. A turn towards protectionism would introduce new
shocks on top of those we are currently enduring. Keeping markets open to international trade and
investment would help economies recover more quickly. Our economists estimate that, if the pandemic
is brought under control relatively soon, and the right policies are in place, trade and output could
rebound nearly to their pre-pandemic trajectory as early as 2021 — regardless of how steep the initial
fall is. But there are other scenarios in which trade volumes post-recovery would remain below the
pre-COVID trendline. It is worth remembering that even before the first COVID-19 case was registered,
we were not making the most of trade’s potential to drive growth. This new forecast we’re issuing today
confirms that global merchandise trade was falling at a significant pace in the final quarter of 2019. The
WTO is one of many international organizations coming out with depressing statistics this week. As we
confront what may well be the deepest economic downturn of our lifetimes, we should aim to make the
most of all potential drivers of sustainable growth to reverse the situation. Governments around the
world can and must lay the foundations for a strong and socially inclusive recovery. Trade — and
international coordination more generally — will be important ingredients here. If countries work
together, we will see a much faster recovery than if each country goes it alone. Thank you all. Share
showShareButton();
Speech 4:
Good morning everyone. Let me start by wishing you all a happy International Women’s Day. I am
pleased to join you today. This event has become a highlight in the Secretariat's calendar. So let me
thank everyone involved in organizing it, in particular Anoush, Monica and Ninez. Promoting women's
empowerment and gender equality is a moral imperative as well as an economic one. I am also
convinced — and the facts back me up on this — that concrete steps by governments, businesses,
international institutions, and also at the individual level can help us get there. The 2020 International
Women’s Day campaign puts a spotlight on this. This year's theme is “Generation Equality: Realizing
Women's Rights”. This is a call for action as far as I see it. It's about rolling up our sleeves and making
sure that we take concrete steps to promote equal rights and opportunities for everybody. This year we
are also celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, a landmark
initiative that placed women's empowerment firmly on the international agenda. Through it,
governments committed to act to promote gender equality across multiple fronts, including education,
health, and in the economy. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development also emphasises gender
equality as essential to build a better future. It rightly recognises that so long as inequalities persist
between men and women, boys and girls, we cannot hope to eradicate poverty or achieve equitable
growth. We all have a role to play to make gender equality a reality — and that includes us here at the
WTO. Today, we have an opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved so far and to introduce
some new initiatives on trade and gender. Over the last few years, we have seen members put greater
weight on gender issues. The Buenos Aires Declaration was a decisive step, putting trade and gender
on the WTO agenda like never before. The declaration aims to promote women’s economic
empowerment and tackle barriers that hamper their participation in global trade. To achieve this, it
provides a platform to better understand the links between trade and women's empowerment. I am very
proud that this happened during my tenure as Director-General. This is a welcome addition to our
efforts to make trade more inclusive. 126 WTO members and observers have endorsed this initiative,
and concrete work has been done to bring this debate to the fore. This includes a number of workshops
as well as research and joint studies dedicated to this topic. Members have also started to integrate
gender into their WTO work. Last year, 10 out of the 12 members who went through the Trade Policy
Review process voluntarily included information on their gender-responsive trade policies. This is a
66% increase from the year before. In line with requests from members, we have also incorporated
trade and gender into our Technical Assistance Plan. Last March the WTO launched its first training
module on trade and gender. Since then, 13 courses have been provided to government officials,
including three at the regional level. WTO members' demand for these courses is growing, so we will
continue our efforts on this front. By 2021, we plan to launch an e-learning module on this issue, which
will be available to all WTO stakeholders. The Buenos Aires Declaration has been a catalyst for all this
work. As a next step, the Declaration's proponents are currently working on a report on its
implementation to be presented to ministers at our 12th Ministerial Conference in Nur-Sultan,
Kazakhstan. They are looking at ways to take this work forward, including by making the discussion
more structured and prominent. I am looking forward to hearing about members' discussions in the
run-up to MC12 and to see what they will be able to accomplish in Nur-Sultan. But the WTO also has
an important role to play as an employer. We are moving towards greater gender balance within the
WTO. I have been reporting regularly on how we have improved on this front. Women represent
approximately 54% of staff in the WTO. In roles classified as 'professional', however, women account
for 45% of positions. But this share is rising — it was 31% in 1995 and 42% in 2014. So we are on the
right track. In addition, the WTO has been working to ensure gender diversity in all aspects of our work.
This includes the “Respect and Harmony @ WTO” e-learning programme. This training aims to build a
more harmonious, harassment-free and inclusive workplace by creating awareness on appropriate
conduct. This is a priority for me and for the organization. Our approach to harassment must be an
approach of zero tolerance. That's why we made this a mandatory e-learning programme for all staff.
Human Resources has also held a number of events to build awareness, such as the Gender Forum
Event, “Building Bridges”, leadership trainings for female staff, and a Barbershop forum for male staff. I
am also pleased to announce that today, we are introducing a new set of Gender Diversity Guidelines
for Events and Speaking Panels. We want to avoid all-male panels and ensure that the WTO
Secretariat works to bring a more representative set of perspectives to the table. While we have been
ensuring gender diversity in practice, this is the first time we are enacting a specific policy. But, of
course, ensuring gender equality is an ongoing effort. This is a process, a change in culture. We are
making progress. But we can do even better. This year I also intend to look more specifically into
developing a gender policy for the Secretariat. We'll continue looking at ways to foster an even more
inclusive organizational culture. Progress should not give way to complacency. Looking ahead, we
must continue this work towards equal and inclusive societies — in all areas of our lives. This includes
work at the institutional level, ensuring that we have in place policies that promote respect and
inclusiveness. It also includes action at the personal level, making sure that we uphold gender diversity
in our everyday conduct. Step-by-step, we can ensure that nobody is left behind. So let's keep up the
good work! Thank you for listening. I hope you have an excellent discussion today. Share
showShareButton();
Speech 5:
Good morning, everyone. Washington was my very first diplomatic posting — I have very fond
memories of that period — and it’s always a pleasure to come back. Thank you and thanks to WITA for
the invitation to join you here today. I’d like to start by paying tribute to former WTO Director-General
Mike Moore, who passed away over the weekend after a prolonged illness. Prior to his term at the
WTO, Mike Moore served as New Zealand’s trade minister and prime minister. He ended his
distinguished career as his country’s ambassador here in Washington. He was deeply committed to a
WTO that worked for all of its members, big and small. Our thoughts and prayers go to his family and
friends. The global trading system we have grown accustomed to over the past 70 years was not built
by accident. It was deliberately constructed out of a hard-learned understanding: the understanding that
absent cooperation in international economic relations, everyone is left worse off and growth
opportunities are lost. I’m not here to deliver a history lesson on the multilateral trading system. Plenty
of people in this room would do a better job. What I want to emphasise is that the value provided by the
system is plain to see. This value extends well beyond the peace, prosperity, and interdependence
fostered by trade. Businesses and consumers benefit every day from certainty and predictability about
access to products and markets. Over 75% of current world merchandise trade occurs on the WTO’s
non-discriminatory MFN terms (if we count the European Union as a single economy). All other bilateral
and regional trade agreements together account for around 20%. And even under preferential terms,
the WTO rules are still present, providing stability and predictability. When trade flows smoothly, it helps
keep the economic engines running. The recent erosion of predictability and certainty has made the
system’s value all the more evident. Now, can we live without predictability in trading conditions?
Absolutely. The world would not end because of trade policy uncertainty. But there would be a price to
pay. Without predictability, growth and job creation would be slower and more fragile than they would
otherwise have been. Investment and consumption decisions would be postponed, many of them
indefinitely. All this would translate to lower productivity, and diminished future potential. Modestly lower
growth might not seem to make a big difference from one year to the next. Over a decade, though, it
would add up. Over a generation, the gaps would become dramatic. Our children and grandchildren's
economic prospects would be significantly worse than they could have been. In the event of a serious
downturn, the short-term costs of unpredictability in trading relations would rise sharply. Governments
providing fiscal and monetary stimulus would be tempted to add protectionism to their growth,
promoting measures undoubtedly compromising their original goals. The collective result would be to
weaken the effectiveness of everyone's recession-fighting measures. So the multilateral trading system
is worth keeping. But that does not mean keeping it as it is. There are areas where it could improve —
where it must improve. In the 25 years since the WTO was created, global trade tripled in volume.
Trade barriers have fallen. Poverty rates have hit historic lows. And the world has changed in ways that
could scarcely have been imagined. Look around: the main actors in the global economy are different.
They have different economic models. The bulk of the WTO rule book dates back to the Uruguay
Round. These negotiations were concluded in Marrakesh back in April 1994. That’s four years before
Google was even founded. What this means for the WTO is that to endure as an effective entity in the
years ahead, it will need to adapt. And adapting to changing realities will not be a big bang but rather a
continuous, perpetual process. I have been saying this since the first day I took office in 2013: that the
system has to deliver more and deliver quicker. Its rules must cover more aspects of cross-border
economic activity. And we have been doing just this. The trade facilitation agreement concluded in
2013 is a boost to global transactions that could lift trade by over one trillion dollars. In 2015, members
agreed to eliminate agricultural export subsidies, removing a major distortion in farm trade. That same
year, a group of about 50 members agreed to expand the plurilateral Information Technology
Agreement, cutting tariffs on $1.3 trillion worth of touch screens, new-generation microchips, GPS
equipment and other infotech products that didn't exist back in 1996. These were important changes,
but they are not enough. We need to go further. Unless we do, grey areas in trade rules will keep
expanding. They will become fodder for tensions. In fact, some of the unconventional policies and
bilateral arrangements we see today might never have arisen had we done more to update the system.
The impasse on dispute settlement is a case in point. Many members, not only the United States, were
dissatisfied with different aspects of how the Appellate Body was operating. It is my hope that members
will use the current crisis to produce an improved two-step appeals process. Evolution and reinvention
have been part of the multilateral trading system since its creation in the 1940s. It has incorporated new
members and new issues. Governments have found new and creative ways of doing things, from the
plurilateral codes on subsidies and other non-tariff policies, to the creation of rules in areas such as
services and intellectual property. That's why I am pleased to be able to report that away from the
gloomy headlines, WTO members are once again advancing on multiple fronts. At the multilateral level,
they are working to reach an agreement that would curb fisheries subsidies and contribute to the health
of our oceans. They are looking at how to liberalize and reduce distortions in agriculture trade. At the
same time, groups of WTO members are exploring potential future rules on investment facilitation,
e-commerce and on domestic regulations that can unnecessarily obstruct services trade. These ‘joint
statement initiatives’, as they are called, tackle issues at the heart of the 21st century economy. They
also represent a quiet revolution in the way governments negotiate at the WTO. Like-minded members
are free to pursue issues without being held back by others. At the same time, no one is compelled to
sign up to anything they don’t want to join. The e-commerce talks, for example, bring together 82
members, accounting for around 90% of global trade, including the US, China, and the European
Union. Establishing joint rules of the game would facilitate electronic transactions and digital trade, and
could help manage wider tensions over technology. For all of these processes, the WTO's Twelfth
Ministerial Conference, this June in Kazakhstan, will be a critical landmark. Delivering an impressive
cluster of new rules is within members' reach. These would go a long way towards preparing the WTO
for the next 25 years. Of course, the real question is not whether we need changes at the WTO. Just
about everyone agrees on that. It is whether we can make the changes we need. The fact is that
change in multilateral institutions is hard. And it is doubly hard for institutions like the WTO, where
every tweak in the rules has a concrete economic impact, threatening some interests even as it creates
opportunities for others. Technical experts sitting in Geneva cannot do it themselves. We need political
leadership and involvement. It's either this, or we prepare to pay for the consequences. For my part, I
have been talking to leaders every chance I get. The G20 has endorsed WTO reform. Now, getting the
WTO's 164 members to agree is always complex. But global problems require global solutions. Looking
ahead, I am sure that WTO members are ready for change. They want to improve the system we have
— not throw it away and attempt to start from scratch. We have a solid foundation, one that has
fostered growth, development, and increased purchasing power for decades. But a few coats of paint
won't be enough. We need structural changes. All of you here have a role to play — businesses,
academics, and government officials. We need your engagement. It's not enough to say nice things
about the system. Or to point out its flaws. To modernize the WTO, we will need vision and
determination. We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Thank you. Share showShareButton();
Speech 6:
Remarks by DG Azevêdo (check against delivery) Thank you, Vice-Minister Yañez, Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen, Good evening. Thank you for the kind invitation to join you today. This meeting
comes at an important juncture for the Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for
Development. Over the last few months you have made remarkable progress. This includes your
meeting in Shanghai, which I also had the privilege to address. Your motivation is very positive. So is
the open, transparent and inclusive manner in which you have advanced since this initiative was
launched. Today is an opportunity to strengthen your commitment and provide political guidance as you
move into negotiating mode. Your goal to deliver results by our 12th Ministerial Conference in
Kazakhstan in June is perfectly doable and desirable MC12 is an important moment to show that the
WTO can deliver. A meaningful outcome on investment facilitation would be a huge achievement to
that end. It would foster greater cross-border economic activity, contributing to growth, job creation, and
development. As you work towards that objective, I would like to leave you with a few messages. First,
maintain the pragmatism and open-mindedness that has been a hallmark of your discussions. I
understand that the Coordinator has prepared a 'streamlined text' to illustrate how a multilateral
framework for investment facilitation might look. This will help guide your negotiations. Second, I urge
you to keep the discussions open, transparent and inclusive, as you have done so far. Continue
reaching out to other members, in particular developing and least-developed countries. I would
encourage you to extend this outreach to the private sector, since businesses will be key users of an
eventual agreement. I am convinced that everyone stands to benefit from a shared investment
facilitation framework that also leaves space for countries to address individual circumstances. The
numbers suggest that many members agree. Your initiative today counts almost 100 participants, up
from the 70 that launched these discussions in 2017. I understand that other members have shown
interest in the initiative and are participating in the discussions. This is very positive. Third, there is
great interest in your work from many constituencies. This morning I attended a session on Easing
Investment Worldwide. I heard strong business support for a WTO agreement on investment
facilitation. The private sector leaders there saw an investment facilitation framework as encouraging
investment in developing countries, contributing to job creation and the SDGs. So I hope that your
debates here will help you advance on these issues. MC12 is just a few months away. Time may be
short, but your determination is high. I applaud that ambition and stand ready to help in any way that I
can. Thank you. Share showShareButton();
Speech 7:
Remarks by DG Azevêdo (check against delivery) Good morning everyone. Thank you for inviting me
to join you today — even though I can only stay for a few minutes. At the outset, I would like to thank
Australia, Japan and Singapore for organizing this meeting. I also want to commend all signatories of
this Joint Statement for their work thus far. The digital economy has already become central to the way
we do business in the 21st century. And this trend will only increase. But unlike for goods and services,
we have few international rules to facilitate cross-border electronic commerce and align regulations.
The absence of such rules risks fragmentation and unilateral action. Your efforts in this group offer a
better path: towards predictability, interoperability and trust — and, of course, lower costs for
businesses and consumers. Your discussions have enabled WTO members to better understand the
issues at stake in e-commerce. And you have taken important steps towards future rules in many
areas. Over the past year, this initiative took big steps forward. The talks became more concrete, as
you streamlined proposals and debated policy alternatives. The Osaka Track, launched during the G20
summit in Japan, gave this work an important boost. More and more members have joined this
ministerial statement — Indonesia and Cameroon being the latest. This has brought a more diverse
range of perspectives to the table. All this engagement sends very positive signals. It shows a strong
appetite for international economic cooperation on digital trade for the benefit of people and businesses
in each participating country. Today's discussion is about building momentum for your negotiations in
the run-up to our 12th Ministerial Conference in Kazakhstan. That meeting is a clear landmark for many
of the ongoing discussions at the WTO. So it is very important that this group looks very seriously at
how to seize that occasion. I would just like to leave you with two thoughts: First, continue to keep this
process inclusive and open. This means doing it at the WTO. It is essential that issues fundamental to
the 21st century economy, such as e-commerce, are debated at the WTO. At the same time,
negotiating rules at the WTO will enhance their legitimacy and geographical coverage, since the door
will be open to other members to get informed and join if they so wish. Second, use MC12 to show that
you mean business. Substantive deliverables on e-commerce — if not full agreements, then concrete
negotiating texts or partial agreements — would show the world that this process is serious about
articulating shared rules of the game for digital trade. Softer outcomes in Nur-Sultan, such as a general
stocktaking or a roadmap, would be a missed opportunity. I hope you will send a strong message to
your negotiators to fully engage in the coming months. Success is within reach, given sufficient
determination. I will support you in any way I can. Thank you. Share showShareButton();
Speech 8:
Thank you Ambassador Gálvez, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, Good morning. Thank you very
much for the invitation to join you today. This meeting marks an important juncture in the Structured
Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development. It is an opportunity to take stock of the
progress you have made in recent months. It is also an occasion to discuss your next steps, in light of
your goal to deliver something by our 12th Ministerial Conference next year. Your motivation is very
positive. So is the open, transparent and inclusive manner in which you have advanced since this
initiative was launched in Buenos Aires two years ago. Credit for this goes to the whole group — but
also to you, Ambassador Gálvez, for your leadership as coordinator. Even though you said it won't
affect the group's work, you will be sorely missed. It is clear that this group's hard work to develop a
framework for the facilitation of investment has translated into concrete progress. From the outset, you
have highlighted the linkages between investment facilitation and development. You have explored how
a coherent approach to trade and investment facilitation policies can help promote economic growth
and development — particularly in developing and least-developed countries. In fact, we see many
governments prioritizing investment facilitation as a means of promoting trade, growth and job creation.
Different countries will have different needs and approaches — but it is fair to say that everyone would
stand to benefit from a shared investment facilitation framework that also leaves space for members to
address their particular circumstances. There are evident parallels here with the Trade Facilitation
Agreement, which has clearly inspired your work. Of course, you have already moved well beyond the
stage of making the case for the importance of this issue. You have taken important steps toward
identifying how a multilateral framework for investment facilitation might look. Earlier this year, you
moved to an example-based discussion, using the prism of specific cases to develop potential
elements of a framework. This was very important, because it helped to clarify what you had in mind
with this exercise. In July, you decided to base subsequent discussions on a Working Document. I hear
that this has progressed well, with a high level of engagement, and that the Working Document already
shows the contours of a possible agreement. This is very encouraging, also, for the reason I just noted,
for providing clarity. It is also noteworthy that more and more members are joining these talks. Today,
the initiative has almost 100 participants, up from 70 when these Structured Discussions were launched
two years ago in Buenos Aires. This is a clear sign of the importance that members attach to this issue,
and of their goal to ensure that investment facilitation and development go hand-in-hand. The initiative
received a significant political boost last month in Shanghai, after which 98 members reaffirmed their
commitment to this work. They also agreed to aim for a concrete outcome at MC12. Looking ahead, it is
important to maintain this level of engagement. I understand that your discussions on the Working
Document have led to a clearer picture of what is doable, and what might still require further
consideration. In terms of how to proceed, I understand that many of you have suggested that the
coordinator should prepare a ‘streamlined text’ and move into negotiating mode in the first half of 2020.
This is very encouraging. Clearly you have a lot to discuss. So I hope that your debates today will
provide some clarity on how you can move forward on all these issues. As with any of these initiatives,
and the WTO as a whole, you the members are the ones in the driving seat. So, I hope that you will
maintain this level of pragmatism and openness as you switch gears in preparation for MC12. Your
efforts are part of keeping the WTO responsive to the needs of members and the global economy. I
also encourage you to continue reaching out to other members, to ensure transparency and inclusivity.
So let's keep up this good work. I will look forward to hearing about your discussions today. Thank you.
Share showShareButton();
Speech 9:
Thank you Chair, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, Good afternoon. I am glad to join you today for
this last meeting of 2019. Thank you for the kind invitation. This has been an intense year for the Joint
Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation. The Ministerial Statement launched in Paris this past May
gave a big boost to your efforts. You have been working hard, in an open, inclusive, and transparent
manner. Your work has paid dividends: I understand that you feel you may be in a position to deliver a
meaningful outcome by our Ministerial Conference in June 2020 in Kazakhstan. So congratulations to
all of you — especially to the Chair, Mr Jaime Coghi, for his leadership. It is very encouraging to see
this work moving forward, for a number of reasons. First, your debates are clearly in tune with broader
developments in the global economy. Just a few weeks ago, Korea, on behalf of MIKTA, organized a
workshop on this same issue. At the meeting, representatives from business, government, and
international organizations underscored the importance of transparent and predictable regulations for
services trade. Competitive, dynamic services markets cannot thrive in the absence of well-functioning
regulatory frameworks. In fact, this year, our very own World Trade Report found that the costs
associated with trading services are about twice as high as trade costs for goods. And a good portion of
these costs relates to local regulations. When businesses assess the export potential of services
markets, they need clarity on what the regulatory processes are, how long they take, which fees are
involved. They also need to be able to seek clarification from the authorities, and to have confidence
that regulatory decisions are independent and impartial. The MIKTA workshop helped to illustrate some
of these needs, and I understand that your work is also converging along these lines. This kind of
responsiveness to the users of the trading system can only be a positive thing. In a similar manner,
your work has also sought to take account of work in other fora to promote synergies. This is my
second point. The disciplines that this group is developing are built not only on the efforts of the
Working Party on Domestic Regulation, but are also aligned with other international instruments of
good regulatory practice. In fact, many members, developing and developed, have already used these
instruments to guide their own regulatory reforms. Ultimately, the goal is to enhance regulatory quality
and facilitate services trade, not to constrain policy choices. Everyone stands to benefit from this work.
This is reflected in the diverse membership of this group, comprising members at all levels of
development. Disciplines on good regulatory practice are compatible with a variety of regulatory
systems and approaches. Finally, this group has been advancing with a pragmatic mindset. I urge you
to keep up this spirit. Fifty-one participating members have already submitted indicative draft
schedules. The next months will be of critical importance in accomplishing the objective you set out in
the Paris Ministerial Statement last May. I hope you will use the break to re-energize and come back
ready to hit the ground running in 2020. And of course, I would urge the group to remain open, to keep
communicating with all members, and to proceed in a way which takes into account the concerns of
others. This kind of inclusivity is essential in ensuring that this work is supportive of the trading system.
Ultimately, members are free to participate or not. No member can be forced to join any initiative that
they don’t want to join. At the same time, members must be able to address issues they consider to be
of importance to their economies. This is key to ensure that the WTO remains responsive and relevant
in today's world. Essentially, this is what this work is all about. So keep up this momentum — continue
to advance in ways that are transparent and inclusive. Thank you for listening. I look forward to hearing
the results of your deliberations. Share showShareButton();
Speech 10:
Remarks by DG Azevêdo Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, Good morning — and welcome to the
WTO. It's great to be here to mark a very important milestone for the organization: 30 years of the
Trade Policy Review Mechanism. This mechanism is a fundamental part of the multilateral trading
system. It is a critical tool to ensure transparency in global trade. So I am pleased to see the trade
community well represented here today. This includes members, academics, students — not to
mention people directly involved in the mechanism's history: some of its original negotiators, current
and past Chairpersons of the Trade Policy Review Body, and also many of the Division's Directors. You
have your own experiences and stories to tell — and that is what today is all about. Today's conference
marks 30 years for the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. It is an opportunity to celebrate its success,
and reflect on the lessons that we have learned. It is also an occasion to look at how this mechanism
can adapt and respond to a changing trading system. So it's not only looking back, it's also looking
forward. In fact, if we look back to the origins of the mechanism, its creation was itself a response by
members to an evolving trading landscape. This mechanism was first established in April 1989. The
decision by GATT Contracting Parties, as they were still called at the time, was quite revolutionary. It
was the first time that sovereign governments had agreed to submit their national trade policies and
practices to a regular process of multilateral surveillance and peer-review. Long negotiations were
needed for participants to agree on the required institutional setting and procedures. And that
December of 1989, Australia, Morocco and the United States became the first three countries to have
their policies reviewed. At first, the mechanism was implemented on a provisional basis. Five years
later, in 1994, it was confirmed as an integral part of the WTO in Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement.
And following the establishment of the WTO in 1995, the scope of Reviews was expanded beyond
goods to include services and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. So, thirty years ago,
negotiators unequivocally recognized the contribution that increased transparency could make to the
multilateral trading system. This argument is every bit as valid today. The TPR has become one of the
main channels members use to promote accountability, predictability and transparency in the
multilateral trading system. To be clear, TPRs are not about evaluating members' compliance with
specific rules or commitments of the organisation, or about imposing new obligations on them. These
can result only from negotiations between members. What the TPR does is shed light on trade
practices and policies. This helps clarify trade concerns, defuse potential frictions, and promote good
practices. If you look at the figures, they tell quite the story. The past 30 years have seen: more than
500 TPR reports, about 390 meetings of the Trade Policy Review Body. 157 WTO members have been
reviewed thus far, most of them multiple times. All members, at all different levels of development,
participate. The exercise is based on an objective, independent evaluation of individual members' trade
regimes, at the same time considering the overall economic context. Delegations have the chance to
access the information compiled, and pose specific questions to the member being reviewed. In the
early days, authorities in countries under review looked at Trade Policy Reviews with a bit of hesitation.
Many considered it a demanding exercise, requiring work, energy, internal coordination, and collecting
a great deal of information. But over time, it has become clear that the review exercise provides
benefits and incentives to all members. It serves as an opportunity for members to enhance their
internal coordination on trade policy. They obtain an objective and impartial audit of their policies and
practices. And through dialogue with other members, they receive a constructive assessment of their
trade policies vis-à-vis the multilateral trading system. All this leads to better-informed policy choices.
So, instead of being a burden, the TPR process has become an opportunity. The “TPR-Follow up
Seminars” held upon request and in capital help to disseminate the results of reviews more widely
within countries. This contributes to a more fact-based domestic trade policy debate. Reviews are also
an opportunity to learn from best practices. Developing countries, in particular least developed
countries, have used the TPR process to identify pressing technical assistance needs and improve
trade policy strategies. The increased dialogue and transparency fostered by the TPRM played a vital
role during and after the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-09. At the time, many analysts feared
governments would respond to the economic downturn by erecting high trade barriers. Something like
this had happened, as you know, during the economic crisis of the 1930s, and it proved devastating.
Protectionist measures helped wipe out two-thirds of global trade, deepening the economic depression.
But ten years ago, we did not repeat the 1930s experience. And one of the reasons was that the Trade
Monitoring exercise established in 2009 kept everyone under surveillance. This time governments were
bound by rules embedded here in the multilateral trading system. Open scrutiny and peer review
helped them hold each other to the agreed standards. The Trade Monitoring exercise has continued to
provide updates on trade-restricting and trade-facilitating measures introduced across the WTO
membership. We have produced 24 WTO-wide trade monitoring reports and 22 reports focusing on the
G20 economies — of course, at the request of the G20. As we think about the future of the mechanism,
it’s worth looking back at the many useful improvements members have made to the TPR process over
the years. For example: The Secretariat reports have been streamlined and made more uniform; The
coverage of trade and trade-related measures has been adjusted to help comparisons; Reports
expanded their consideration of regional trade initiatives, identifying common policy areas and any
divergences; An increasing number of members are using the review exercise to share information on
their gender-related trade policies; Procedures at the Trade Policy Review Body meetings have also
been updated. For example, we have adopted an online Questions & Answers system. The Trade
Monitoring reports I just mentioned were another important innovation. And finally, the frequency of
reviews was recently adapted to take into account the growing number of members. This resulted in the
first legal amendment to Annex 3 establishing the TPRM. I am absolutely convinced that if the TPRM
did not exist, we would have to invent something like it. Yet as with any system created by humans,
there is room for improvement. We need to ensure that the mechanism can respond to changes in the
global economy. Today, trade is far more multi-faceted than it was a generation ago. Global value
chains bring together flows of goods, services, investments and people. Nearly two-thirds of traded
goods are made with components from at least two different countries. Advances in technology, such
as e-commerce or artificial intelligence, are revolutionizing the way we trade. These changes pose new
questions both for the broader trading system and for how the TPR mechanism should evolve. I hope
this conference can spark conversations on this front, helping members define paths forward that would
enable the TPRM to be as effective for the next thirty years as it has for the past. This debate is very
important, especially in the current circumstances. There is no doubt that the trading system currently
faces major challenges. Trade tensions and the resulting uncertainty for businesses are taking a toll on
global investment, trade and economic growth. Restoring confidence and certainty to the trading
system would help it continue to promote growth and development. Maintaining and strengthening our
transparency work is an important part of that. So, TPRs may not make many news headlines — but
they certainly have become an essential pillar of the multilateral trading system. This is a real success
story for the WTO. We've accomplished a lot in the last 30 years, and I am sure that we can do even
more. Ensuring transparency and collaboration in the trading system is an ongoing effort. I look forward
to working with all members to take this mechanism from strength to strength. I thank everyone who
has contributed to this mechanism over the past 30 years and today. I am looking forward to being
briefed on the results of your conversations. Share showShareButton();