 We're very honored to have an incredible panel here today, both of government officials and business leaders, and before I introduce them just to set us up, this panel is happening really at a historic slowdown in global trade, and also at a time when popular support for trade is really ebbing. So there's a lot on the table here, and to join me to discuss it, we have an incredible panel today. Cecilia Baustrom is a trade commissioner for the European Commission. David Abney is chief executive officer for UPS. Thomas Lumberg is a minister of trade for Indonesia. Niels Anderson is chief executive officer of Molar Mayorsk, so you move the really big things, and he moves the big and small things. And Roberto Azevedo is director general of the World Trade Organization based here in Geneva. Thank you all for joining us. To get us started, I'd like you all to go around and give us your impressions of where trade is right now and where you think it's heading. Cecilia, could you please get us started? Well, that's a very big question, but just to give you some thoughts about the challenges we are facing from a political perspective in the European Commission, because what we have seen is that trade is more than ever in the general debate, which is a good thing. The time when a few nerds were discussing behind closed doors and Wall Street Journal reported and nobody else really cared are gone. So now we are in a situation where trade is not only all over the media, good or bad, but also people discuss trade. So that puts a lot of pressure on us to deliver, to make the case for trade. First to see that we have efficient tools, that trade is actually delivering the jobs, the investment of the growth needed, that we interact with small and big businesses, particularly small companies, I would say, who can really, so we can make sure that trade deals can be beneficial for them, that we interact with consumers and others, but also that we have, that we're up to date, digital trade service, mobility of persons as well who deliver the services. These are things that we haven't really started talking about on a global level and there's where the big needs are in the future. Also to engage with citizens, we have, especially in the European Union, a big controversy against trade. There are actually hundreds of thousands of people out there demonstrating against trade. We are, I have the privilege to be responsible of negotiating something we call TTIP, you might have heard of it. It's an agreement between EU and the US, and that is very controversial in some countries. So you have to make the case for trade, you have to explain why trade is good, because those who are protesting, they don't trust those of us who negotiate, they don't trust that it's good for them, it's only big corporates who benefit. So we need to do the trade negotiations in a much more transparent and inclusive way and engage with them. And also we need to listen to some of these concerns that trade is of course complex, it is multifaceted, but consumers today are aware, they want to know how is this produced, by whom? Has there been child labour around? Is there an environmental footprint that we need to be aware of? How is the link, how can trade contribute not only to growth and jobs in our countries, but how can we also contribute to improving the situation for people in other countries? So the values of trade, how we link trade with development, with political policy, with political dialogue, in a much more strategic way. So these are sort of the new trends, without talking about trade in itself, that we see from the European Commission side and very much in the European Union that we need to take into account and form a new strategy when we do trade deals on whatever level, bilateral, regional or multilateral. We'll come back to that. So we have tried to present this in a strategy trade for all, where we try to listen to all these concerns and also formulate our trade strategy slightly differently than in the past. And I think that is key, if we want to regain the confidence of the citizen why we do this, but also to make sure that trade really delivers because it's more urgent than ever to turn that back trend that you were referring to in the beginning. David, you literally handle the trade flows. What are you saying? Right. Well, as you can imagine, I'm a huge disciple of trade, right? And my focus really is on the opportunities that it provides and also if we don't do this, how the future of the West could be. Not just the US, but Europe. And when you get people to think, and the first thing you hear is, well, trade will be a job killer. And trade gets blamed for eliminating a lot of jobs, many of which the technology and productivity and efficiency gains. But people that lose their job understandably, they need to be able to blame it somewhere or they've got to feel that they know what happened, and oftentimes it can be trade. So when I hear it's a job killer, I just talk about a couple of facts. First is in every place that the US has agreed to a trade agreement, has reached a trade agreement, we have seen that exports from the US to that country or to those countries increases at about 20%. And that's an average over the last one. So when you think about TPP and you look at the potential of 20%, the other fact that I talk about is every 22 packages that either enters the US or leaves the US creates a job. And so when you want to talk about it, it takes away jobs. You have to also look at the export jobs that it will certainly create, whether it's in Europe or it's in the US. The US is particularly true when less than 2% of SME, small and mid-sized companies, even export at all in the US. And if they do, it's usually to one country, Canada or Mexico. And when 95% of the world's consumers is outside the US, if you don't believe in trade and you don't want to see trade agreements, then you're really restricting yourself to 5% of the world's market. And as these growing middle classes in Asia and the Middle East and Africa, as they continue to consume more and more products, the US could or Europe could get shut out of a lot of trade flows. The other thing is when people hear trade, they automatically think about goods. And trade and services really is more of an opportunity than even trading goods. And it's certainly the fastest growing sector of trade. And the last thing I would say is, many people think this is going to benefit the UPSs, the IBMs, the AT&T's, and those companies. It's the small and mid-sized companies that this could be the great equalizer. And especially with e-commerce, people will be able to open markets worldwide. And we just got to give them the tools to be successful. Thomas, a view from Indonesia. Well, Indonesia is obviously the fourth most popular country in the world, 16th largest economy in the world. And if you look at the map of Asia, Southeast Asia is smack in the middle. And Indonesia is much of Southeast Asia, especially the crossing of the sea lanes. So Indonesia, Southeast Asia has been at the crossroads of sea lanes and global trade for centuries. European in the 17th century and 18th century going to the Spice Islands and on their way to the Far East would pass through us, twice versus Chinese merchants and so on. So maybe a bit different from the EU. I don't feel that I have to make the case for trade as such. I think we've gone through centuries of tradition of being natural traders because of this crossroads of being at the crossroads of global sea lanes and the like. I think what is our challenge today is for the last 10 or 15 years, we've had a strong drift towards protectionism. So this mindset has taken hold certainly among the political elites, kind of a mercantilist attitude. And we've just got a new president and a new vice president. We had the biggest change of regime, the biggest election in 10 years last year. Sorry, two years ago, so I took office last year this first full year in office and took a fresh look. And if you really look at the data, if you look at the facts, you'll find that these protectionist measures have been incredibly hurtful to our economy. Actually, it's caused our industries to not be able to develop, right? Because anything that hampers the smoothness with which raw materials and components come in or goods come out hurts your industry. So we're probably in the middle of executing one of the biggest policy uters in our country's history. We're basically now trying very hard to reverse course and dismantle these protectionist policies. We want to reach out to the world. We want to cultivate international partnerships, international relations. We're just restarting some dialogues with the likes of the EU and others to try to become more internationalized, to become much more open to the world. Very, very interesting. Niels. Well, thank you. I mean, I think we all agree that it's been well documented that the trade and growth in trade is good for the economy. And the way it works is when you talk physical movement of goods is, of course, that you create the opportunity for people in developing markets to get jobs and you create the opportunity for people in developed markets to get goods at affordable prices. So the overall effect is growth and a much better distribution, but also more global wealth. So faster development and growth would be very good for the economy. So I think if we look at the situation right now, the situation is not super good. We are seeing at the moment one of the rare periods in recent history where actually trade is growing slower than GDP. And we know from historical experience that this very often leads to a recession. So we all probably think we are in sort of a slow moving time, but if we don't get that solved, then we may be heading for even worse times. So there is a need to do things. There are, of course, a lot of good reasons why trade is slow, you know, if you have changes in exchange rate between Europe and China driving it, you have the traditional big importing countries like Brazil and Russia and countries in West Africa that live from export of commodities like oil, for instance, that are suffering. They simply don't have the money to import. But there are also some worrying signs of protectionism. And it's not the kind of protectionism where you see tariffs on goods going up, which is quite easy to measure. But we do see an increasing number of measures like support for local industry, very subtle resistance to trade, and things like that that I think we need to work with on both on political, but also on a business level. I'm sure Roberto will talk about that. But one of the really strong recommendations that we have from our company and the work that is going on here at the World Economic Forum and in the Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation is, of course, that we implement the things that has already been decided, such as the valley round where you really have specified and all the countries have agreed to very specific measures to improve the possibilities for trade. And I think it's pleasing now that in the last half year, the number of countries that have actually ratified what they had already agreed is going up. And we are also ready now to support 10 to 12 countries a year by actually implementing, like with digitalization of import systems of duty and custom procedures. And of course, also investing in the IT systems that are needed. So these are things that I think are positive, but we are at a very challenging time for global trade. Roberto, the WTO perspective. Well, first, the commercial. The WTO is delivering. That is very, very important, I think, because that changes the picture of at least one side of this conversation, which is, how do we negotiate trade? A lot of people have been talking about shifts to multilateral, bilateral, or to regional agreements. But what is important is to understand that those two tracks can go together. And the multilateral system we clearly have shown can deliver. It's about finding solutions. And if people want to have a solution, I'm sure that we can find it. Now, what is concerning is that in many of these regional agreements, these plurilateral agreements, as we call it in the WTO, sounds like a disease, it's not. They are now looking at issues which are completely outside the WTO disciplines. For example, investments, labor issues, or environment. And they're looking behind the border much more than at the border only. Of course, market access is part of that conversation, but they're going beyond that. Now, the question is, why? Why are they going beyond? And the reality is that trade changed significantly. Trade in the digital age is not trade that we had 15, 20 years ago. There are new areas that affect the transactions, both in goods and services. David was talking about the fact that we don't only trade goods. What is interesting to see is that even the type of sales have changed. Today, many manufacturers, many suppliers, provide not only the good, but also the services. So maintenance, training, supplies of spare parts, all those services go together. It's a much more integrated environment than you had before. So it is important that business is looking at that, and we have to respond to these things. Now, how do we do that? I think the first thing and the first message that I brought to this meeting here at the World Economic Forum is we need more private sector engagement. We need more, because they are the ones who know what the conditions are on the ground. And governments usually respond to those concerns. Now, if we wait for that process to go all the way through the chains until we get to governments and to the WTO, it's just too long. We need businesses to be more involved. We need them to be talking to each other, to be talking to their governments, identifying what the problems are. We have a very important agenda ahead of us in the WTO. We have the traditional issues which cannot be forgotten. So agriculture is still very important. Market access in all the areas is still very important. But we cannot forget that there are many areas that affect all of this. And we cannot just sweep them under the carpet. We have to address all those things. Business input is very important. Well, that's a perfect transition, because I guess this morning, and it sounds like several of you were part of this, the World Economic Forum released a report. 400 experts have taken part in recommendations. And one of the recommendations is to make the trade process more transparent and relevant to business and society and to recognizing the different types of trade that are occurring. How actually, and open this up to the business folks on the panel, but how does that happen? How do you actually get the trade professionals and the business leaders planning something together instead of just reacting to it in the years-long process that you just laid out? Well, first, you have to be vocal, because if you're not, the people that are against trade certainly will. And I have to admit there's a little fear, too, because if you don't get involved in the process, you worry about how the process may develop. So we have found whether it's TTIP or TPP that it's very important to talk to the people that are negotiating the deals, but also to talk in DC or in Brussels and make sure that our opinions are known and make sure that other businesses. One of the things that we can provide is input from the small and mid-sized businesses, because that's the great majority of our customers. And so we talk about how they can benefit. And we talk about the issues that are not only important to us, but also important to these entities, these people. And then we talk about that it can't be all one-sided. But we don't think that trade has to be a zero-sum game. It doesn't have to be that one wins and one loses. If we remove barriers to trade, there's going to be benefits worldwide. Now, there may be some that gain a little more than others. And those are the points that we're talking about. But then this e-commerce trend is happening. If we don't address this, then we're just losing a huge opportunity. And we think that e-commerce is the biggest opportunity that this generation of business people are going to have. It's a challenge, too, right? It's disrupted a lot of our worlds. But it's also a huge opportunity. And trade can really make a difference in that area. How can trade address e-commerce? I mean, just stretch that out further. How should the rules be updated to better reflect e-commerce? The easiest example is, and I talked a little bit about only less than 2% of US small and mid-sized businesses export. And the reason they don't is because it's too complicated. They don't understand it. They sure don't have an export department, right? Because they may have three or four people. If we can reduce the barriers, make it much simpler, make it to where they can understand, and give them market access, then that's where it can make a big difference for them, because they've got the ideas. But they're petrified when they try to keep up. So what are the laws in Malaysia compared to Indonesia, compared to Poland? And it's just too much for them now. And if we can remove a lot of that red tape, we'll see that they will be able to seize the moment, and it will create a lot of good opportunities. Oh, sorry. OK, thank you. No, I just wanted to bring up a very interesting point by Canada's trade minister, Chris Jeffreeland, another session here in Davos, which was, OK, we need dialogue between government and private sector and civil society. So I thought that was a very eye-opening comment, because I thought about it again, right? We probably don't do enough to engage civil society, right? The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Europe demonstrating when Europe is one of the world's great traders and benefits so much from trade. Clearly, it reflects a failure of communication, a failure of public education. And then I thought about it again in a very personal level, right? I mean, just very practical sense. Yeah, as a lay person on the street, how come I know so little about it? Like, say, my running shoe, my sneaker, like, how come I don't know where it's from? Or how come I don't know how it's made, right? I sort of started thinking, shouldn't this be a basic course in elementary school or in high school, right? Like, maybe less literature or less something, but more, it's important actually for our young people to know how the world actually works, right? The real world, right? Where does a sneaker come from? Where does this iPhone or this Android one come from? Or how does it put together? How does it work? I actually do wonder whether we shouldn't integrate this very practical knowledge, even into basic curriculums, for example. Well, I think Cecilia can entertain us for long about all the issues about public opinion in Europe on TTIP, but really what is happening now in the world is that you have a lot of fear among people who don't understand the mechanisms of trade. And frankly speaking, I don't think you can blame them because there are a lot of leaders also who are sort of using that nervousness for political purposes. So I think what is essential is that we remove the fear element. And in some cases, you can do that by promoting bilateral treaties or regional treaties. So you have the, as an example, you have the Pacific Alliance among the Pacific countries in Latin America that have gone together and for the population in those countries, it's much less fearsome than having an alliance maybe with Japan or the US or Germany. So when you use those smaller trade areas, you make it much more visible and easier to understand for people. So I think taking fear out of the equation is very, very important. It's a political responsibility, but as David said, what we try to do as big companies is of course we try to engage smaller companies, our customers or partners in the discussion as well because then it becomes much more accessible and you remove this sort of idea that the big companies and sometimes even the big countries are benefiting more than others from this. If I may just as a last point, but sometimes you also wonder because the people who benefit the most are sometimes the people who are most open to these fear arguments. You take the German population or the German labor unions, I mean they are benefiting to a huge extent of German exports and still it's one of these areas in Europe where there's still some resistance towards TTIP which is there's no relation to the reality of trade. Did you want to add? Well, I was in the last G20 summit and it was interesting because when we were talking about trade, one of the leaders of a big country said, I have a problem with trading my constituency because the perception in my country is that trade is good for the big corporations but it doesn't do anything for the smaller players, for the small enterprises and that's a big problem for me politically to sell any trade results in my own country and that is a reality that we have to face and I think the answer to that is to include the more beneficiaries under the trade umbrella. It's clearly the case of small and medium enterprises and frankly it's not that difficult. We did simulations and studies. In the trade umbrella, you mean actually the negotiations? No, that they participate in trade. For example, the trade facilitation agreement which we had agreement two years ago. We did simulations in the WTO and what we found is that just by implementing that agreement, just by implementing the agreement, in developing countries, the enterprises, the smaller enterprises, they would export 20% more products into the other markets than they would without that agreement, just by lowering the cost of trade. Just by doing that, in least developed countries, the number of products would increase 35%. In the number of markets, in developing countries, they would export to 30% more countries, more markets and in least developed countries, 60% more markets and that's simply by making things more simple for them and clearly one of the problems we have is that for these companies, as compared to bigger corporations, the bigger corporation has people working on both ends of the line, in the exporting side and on the importing side and they work on both sides and they find ways around the customs procedures and all that, the small and medium enterprises don't have that. So we have to help them, we have to make this process more inclusive and we have also to understand better the perspective of the economies and the countries who don't have the institutional framework. They don't even sometimes have adequate proper training at the customs, at the border, to do the inspections, to facilitate trade and there is a lot that we can do with simple actions and simple, sometimes negotiations and have a big impact on inclusiveness and bringing these companies which will in turn facilitate the political cell of trade in several countries. I have to say, uncle. No, just for me to that, that's where the partnership comes in that you've asked about this because I think it's the only way to do this, to have this partnership with why we're all busy doing or negotiating trading practice. We also need to dedicate some time to this global conversation jointly, to sort of tell the narrative because it is not an obvious thing that trade is good for your country or trade is good for you. We need to show these examples, you need to tell them why is it good and why does this particular tariff or stupid regulation or red tape hinder me from doing more business. If I do, I could export more, I could employ more people and to do the link and especially for small companies but the problem is of course a small family company and I met so many of them, they are busy doing their business and they can't dedicate a person to be out and speaking about trade, of course, but we need them. We try really to at least gather their organizations, their umbrella, we have a very close cooperation with umbrella business organizations small and big and also bring in the trade unions, the consumers and try to listen to their concerns and then bring them into why is trade also good for consumers? And we do take their concerns and worries because they are there into concern and sort of try to have a global forum, this is global forum, that goes outside Davos where we can talk about these things and sort of like you said, tell the story from the beginning because we think it's so obvious here but it's not. Many people don't say, well, why should I trade? Well, you have an iPhone in you, what does that come from? What has nothing to do with trade? Well, it does but we may not laugh about that story but make the case very pedagogically jointly so this new partnership is really needed. I'm telling you, I think trade ought to be taught in high school in junior high and high school. I'm now getting worried that by the time you become a fully formed adult you'll be so opinionated or it's harder to learn, right? I think at a young age, your brain is more supple and you're creative and you can decompose an iPhone or a sneaker. Oh yeah, it's all these little parts, right? They must be coming from all these different countries, right? That's an aside. I have to say this is the longest time I've gone since I arrived at Davos without talking about China. It's been the topic all week and I was working in Beijing when China joined the WTO and at that point you mentioned fear. There was a lot of fear of China. Now we seem to, you know, a lot has happened since 2008 and now we seem to be in a situation where the world is almost overly dependent on China. I, you know, you all come at this with different perspectives. Tom, I understand Indonesia, China is your largest trading partner. Absolutely. And you have an interesting idea involving currency in terms of something that might help solve some of these current imbalances. Well, thank you, Rebecca. So first of all, I would state that in my view the markets are overreacting to what's happening in China, right? I think China is going through a fundamental economic transition but everything they're doing is overdue. It's great that they're doing it now finally and I believe it will lead to a much healthier Chinese economy also lead to a much healthier world economy, right? But obviously it's a tricky transition and there'll be bumps along the road. As most of us know, they're trying to shift their economy from investment towards domestic consumer from industry and exports to domestic consumer. And one aspect of this that I believe doesn't get anywhere near the attention that it should is the internationalization of the Chinese currency, the RM&B, right? So last year, the International Monetary Fund finally accredited the RM&B to be the fifth global reserve currency in addition to the US dollar, the Euro, the Japanese yen and the Ponserling, right? Now since then, we've seen a lot more volatility in the RM&B and that's what's freaking out the markets among other things. But we need to understand it this way. If the RM&B were acceptable everywhere, right? Then the Chinese wouldn't have to be as export oriented, right? The Chinese have to import a lot of stuff. They have to import virtually all their oil, not all, but much of their oil. They have to import their minerals, they have to import a lot of food, right? How do they pay for these imports? Obviously with dollars, right? How do they get those dollars? Well, they have to export like mad, right? They have to export, be very mercantilist, to stockpile dollars with which to pay for the imports that they need. Now imagine if they no longer had to do that, if they could just print RM&B to pay for what they need, right? It would lessen the pressure on them to be so export oriented among others. Now, there's sort of broader repercussions for the world beyond trade, for example, in investment. So the way I think about it, right? Last 10 years, and especially since the global financial crisis, the world's four big central banks, the Fed, the ECB lately, and Bank of Japan, and amazingly even the Bank of England have been working very hard. They've been printing money like crazy, right? But by doing so, they're providing liquidity to the world. Conspicuously missing has been the central bank of the second largest economy in the world, China. Because the RM&B is not internationalized, like the euro, the yen, the sterling, and the dollar, the PBC has not been providing liquidity to the world, right? But when it does, I think it's going to be a fundamental solution. So basically, I call it the fifth pillar of global liquidity, right? Finally, China takes its rightful place and also takes up the responsibility of being a provider of global liquidity alongside the US, Europe, Japan, and England, right? I think this additional liquidity will really make a big difference to the world economy and eventually also to trade. Neil, are you seeing a slowdown? Well, there is a slowdown in China, but I think we also have to think about what the Chinese leadership have said for the last couple of years, or actually up to five years ago. They have been reacting to the pressures they got from the US and from Europe and to get into a sustainable development. So stop investing so much, stop polluting, be careful about the environment, and please slow down a little bit the export also so you don't destroy too many jobs. And what the Chinese government announced a few years ago was that we are going to change our economy, we are going to cut back on investment so we'll build less roads, we'll build less buildings, and we will make sure that our economy flows in direction of domestic consumption, more services, and less manufacturing. This is, I mean, the scope and the dimension of this change is unprecedented in world history. So I think we need to be a little bit patient and cut them a little bit slack and say they're actually doing what they said they do. Yes, it gives some volatility. For now, but it is the only way China can grow in a sustainable way. Sure, you lived in Beijing, if you've been there recently, you have noticed that the air is very polluted, the population is really wanting all the same things as we have in Western Europe that is more consumption, it's a clean environment, and so on. And they're reacting to that, and I think they deserve a lot of applause for that. And yes, it's difficult, yes, we'll see volatility, but I think we have to be a little bit patient. Yeah, I think contributing to this conversation, it is somewhat perplexing to see the markets all of a sudden reacting so strongly to something that we knew would happen. It's not like this is news and everybody's surprised that China, we knew that China was going to decelerate months in advance, years in advance. In fact, the predictions were for the deceleration around 6.9%, they decelerated exactly at 6.9%. And we know that predictors are that for this year they're going to slow down even further to 6.3 and next year 6%. So it will be very unusual to see next year, people saying, oh, they further decelerated, we know that this is the situation and this is where they're going to be. So we have time to plan for this, we know that this is the situation and by the way, I agree with those who say, this is a healthy transition. David, how are you seeing the trade flows? Are they changing a lot? Let's say, even since the WTO, are we seeing much more trade from China? Are you seeing more China, the developing world, less bilateral trade? I mean, when you look at your maps of shipments, how has physical trade really changed? Well, if you look back in recent history, when China joined the WTO, that had a significant effect. In fact, we were able to take advantage of the opportunity and we were the first package integrator that got our operations wholly owned in China. And at first, our concentration was China to the US, China to Europe and exports grew tremendously and you have to remember that millions of people have been brought out of poverty because of China's ability to export to the rest of the world. Probably more people brought out of poverty than any of us have ever seen. And for years and years, they were growing their GDP at nine, 10% or higher. To believe that that would go long-term into the future and there wouldn't be bumps in the road just being naive, but it's very easy to think that when you see it three or four years, then you see consultants that put charts out if they continue at that rate for the next 20 years what their economy is going to be. So we're not overly concerned either. I'm not so sure that most of the people I talked to are real confident that the number is 6.9. It may be less than that, but even if it is, you're willing to wait for your guess? Yeah, you know, I have a lot of things to do being able to predict that is not one I'm gonna spend a lot of time on. But the point is, it's decelerating, but it's not getting smaller as far as, you just gotta look at the growth rate. The growth rate is not as big, but when you look at the middle class in China is almost the size of the US population and you don't have to take a few years down the road until it's gonna be the size of the European Union population and look at the potential that that offers. So yes, we're watching what's going on in China and we're making some adjustments, but long-term future we're very positive about it and don't judge what you see in China by China to the US, China to Europe. The intra-Asia trade is such a huge, huge market that many Westerners greatly underestimate the effect of that on the economy. Cecilia, you are in the middle of some negotiations, intense negotiations right now. You're trying to push for a trade agreement between Europe and the US and I would say for people who aren't trade experts, they don't even really realize that there's not a trade agreement, that Mexico, for example, has a great advantage over European and American car companies when shipping to each other. You've been here at Davos meeting with Ambassador Froman and others. You told me you would hope to get it done by the end of this administration. Do you think it's possible? Can I put you on the spot? Karl Popper said optimism is a duty. So I follow him. Actually, TTIP is one of 20 negotiations we are having in the European Union, but this is surely getting the most attention. It is a bit strange, actually, that we don't have a free trade agreement between EU and the US. It would have been natural to have one since years ago and we are, of course, trading with each other. I come from a country Sweden. We had our first trade agreement with the US, Sweden-U.S., in 1743, which, and many European countries have the same. And the two biggest economies of the world for the moment, we trade enormously with that every second, but there's still a lot of obstacles. The traditional ones, tariff, access to markets, still important. We're trying to get rid of them as much as possible, but also these new things that we discussed in the beginning here, digital trade, the regulatory component. They are still, and this is probably the thing that is the most complicated in the world, causing a lot of red tape, that we, of course, we want our products to be safe for consumers and for the environment, and we have different ways of doing that. Sometimes we have identical way of testing a product, but we still have to do it twice. That costs a lot of money and it's very time-consuming and very bureaucratic. So these are the things we are looking at. Can we agree on a joint standard or can we respect or recognize each other's standards? And can we work jointly for future standards? Because it would be a huge demand in the future for standards for different kinds. So these are the things we are doing. We are working hard. We are really, really working hard, but it's complicated because you need a lot of technical data as well, apart from the political difficulties, but we are very committed to try to do our outmost to have an agreement by the end of this year, which would be the end of this administration. It is theoretically possible. We have the will and the resources to do that, but of course there's a political reality. It has to be a good deal. We cannot conclude it just for the sake of it. It has to be a good deal. We have our respective constituencies. I have the European Parliament. I have 28 countries. They need to approve it. And then there's the Congress and the political debate in the US with the presidential election coming up and so on. So we'll see, but we will... We work full steam head to try to achieve that. You know, the good news about what the commissioner just said that if our negotiators were not optimistic about getting these deals accomplished, that would be a much sadder situation, right? And so I'm very glad to hear and I talked to Ambassador Froman yesterday and he's optimistic too. And I would say that we're cautiously optimistic. You know, we believe that there's such advantage here and it makes so much sense. But there are, especially in the US right now, there are a lot of political headwinds and... But it does appear there's a window of opportunity and we need to try to seize that window. So I really appreciate all your efforts in this area. I'd like to open it to the audience. Neil, with you. No, just I would like to add to that debate as well. I think where we talked about fear before and nervousness about trade, I think really the negotiation between the US and Europe on TTIP is a real visionary opportunity because we can create global standards on things like consumer safety, on user safety. I mean, cars should be safe. We should have great standards. We can create principles for protection of copyrights and of intellectual property in the broader terms. So I think this really opens up a lot of opportunity and I think it makes it a little bit different from a lot of other regional agreements. And I'm not for a minute saying that this is more important than WBGO work, but I think it is a little bit different because at WBGO, we've seen that the door around, at least, it never really progressed fully. We did great work on trade facilitation, but this is an opportunity to take another step and lead the world, and I think it really needs support for everyone, and it's hugely encouraging that the CCB are saying that there's a good chance for that. And Roberto, you don't mind these bilateral, you said before, you're in support of any number of trade agreements. Not at all. On the contrary, I'm very supportive. And to the extent that these agreements can happen, I think they only feed into the positive energy that trade needs at this point in time. And the WTO will certainly benefit from the input that will come from these negotiations. Look, if you have at the end of the day a network of agreements like that, there will be much more disposition of the members and the participants of these agreements who negotiate multilaterally. So I'm definitely supportive of all that. It has never been the problem that you have these agreements. The problem has been that the WTO was not negotiating as well. And I think that was the problem. And that's exactly what we have been changing. And I'm happy where we are now. I think we have a pretty good perspective for the future, both in these agreements and multilaterally. I'd like to open up to the audience in case there are any questions out there. If not, there's a microphone. One moment for the... If you could introduce yourself. You can talk on there. Coming up, I have seven companies and very much affected by the developments you're discussing in many ways. Many good ways, I should say, as well. In your opinion, we have our own issues concerning the internal market, which is not my question about. My question to the commissioner is very informative one because it is closed doors. These negotiations keep on closed. Where are the major stumbling blocks now? Just where we are now. Where is the most difficult to complete the U.S.-European Union Agreement? Beyond the general environmental issue concerning the presidential elections, difficulties on 28 countries, et cetera. I understand your question, but let me first say that, yes, of course, we do not negotiate behind a bit of TV cameras in the room, but I would say that the TTIP negotiations are the most transparent trade negotiations ever in history. I will draw my comment about this. We have so much... We have basically everything the European Union had proposed online. And we produce summaries. We are now making sure that countries, national parliaments, European parliament have access also to the consolidated documents. There's a huge amount of information about these. So this is a myth I want to kill, that it is secret. Of course, we cannot negotiate in front of TV cameras, but a lot of it is actually public. Well, I think we know the difficulties. First of all, lots of technical things needs to be done still. Public procurement is a difficult issue for us, a very offensive issue for the European Union, difficult for the U.S. Now I speak from a European point of view, of course, American counterpart would have another viewpoint made on this. Another issue that is less debated, maybe in the media, but very important to some of our member states, or many of them, is the issue of geographical indication. You know, you protect Champagne, Rockford, Prosciutto di Parma. And we have a very specific legislation that the U.S. do not have at all. So trying to find a way here to agree is difficult. So these are some of the things I would say are difficult issues that we are aware and very open about. And that's the question we're trying to muddle through. Any other questions? Hello, I'm Kevin McKinley. I had the ISO, International Standards, and we certainly support the great discussions and also the disciplines of the WTO related to trade and the basis of technical regulations on international standards and support as well in these pleuralateral agreements that they embody global approaches, international standards as the basis for trade so that we don't build islands, so that we don't build problems in these kinds. And there are great disciplines, of course, that are established in WTO, which are transferred into a lot of these pleuralateral agreements and we support those very much and the use of international standards to support them. Thomas, I just wanted to, if there are no other questions. Indonesia, you have told the administration in the U.S. that you would like to be part of TPP. Could you kind of sketch out, you said before that you're trying to break out of a protectionist approach. You've got China in your region. You've got a very big trade agreement. You've got regional facts. Where do you see this heading from your perspective? Well, the message that our president, President Jogui, was trying to signal to the world by announcing our intention to join TPP is that we aspire to the highest standards. TPP is a remarkable achievement. It really adheres to very high standards in various technical areas, in intellectual property and so on. Obviously, it'll be challenging to do what I call just now the U-turn. After 15 years of this kind of mindset of closing ourselves off or being very defensive to now kind of open up, and it will take time, it will take time. But one benefit, I think, is that our president was elected on a mandate of change. The people clearly voted for change, and he's bringing a very fresh perspective. He's also an excellent communicator. So back to this issue just now of needing to tell the narrative of trade and the narrative of how the world actually works. Like, where do we get our iPhones and smartphones, and how do factories get built? Why would investors come and build factories? Well, because it's easy to bring things in and bring things out. If it's difficult to bring things in and out, then that's not a very attractive place to build a factory. So I think it's definitely a paradigm shift going from what, by many accounts, is one of the most protectionist regimes, certainly in Southeast Asia, possibly even in the world, to now wanting to go in a direction. But I think the main desire there, the main intention was to signal as clearly and as loudly as possible. But the policy change, the change in attitude, the change in mindset, the change the way we're gonna change our culture on this. And I know that we've talked before, obviously the WTO, does it need to be updated? Are you confident that this is the structure that can kind of continue to arbitrate? And there's been some talk that countries sometimes, companies are afraid to complain about China or some other countries because they'll bring cases against them because they'll, it'll be held against them. Do you think the processes are working well enough? Well, I haven't seen anybody shy in the WTO in the area of dispute settlement. In fact, in the 20 years of the WTO, we now just had our 500th dispute. So 500 disputes in 20 years, it's a lot. And the only reason why we have that is because the members trust the system. It is effective. More than 90% of the disputes which were initiated in the WTO have had a resolution already found. 10% not, but that doesn't mean that there is no talks, that there are no talks, that there are no consultations and entering solutions because there are also these situations where there is a compensation here, something there, they find an accommodation, but this is a very effective system. Another important thing is that, like you said, do we need to update the WTO? We definitely need to develop disciplines that reflect the world that we live in today. The digital world is very different from what we had before. That is very important. That's why I said the input from the private sector is very important because they know what needs to be done. They know what the challenges are and what is missing. We don't, we need their input. But having said that, it is also very important to understand that it doesn't mean necessarily that the WTO is outdated or that it has become irrelevant because the WTO agreements are an analogy that I would use, it's like a constitution. It also has very basic principles and even with the changes in technology and new types of business, those principles still apply and still the disputes come in areas and products that didn't even exist when the agreements were put in place but you still, when they're brought to dispute settlement, the system works and it applies to all these disciplines and all these other things. But we can be more specific, we can be more updated, particularly where the new technologies are concerned. And this is something that we have been now starting a conversation to see what is the best way of doing that. What is important is that in the WTO at this point in time, there seems to be a critical mass of members who say, we need to do it. And I think that's what we need to build on. We have time for all of you to go around with some final thoughts. This has gone very quickly and I will certainly remember the idea for a trade class in high school in junior high. Cecilia. Talked about many things but maybe summing up what we said here that trade is going down but trade is more important than ever. We have unprecedented ongoing negotiations on trade on different levels, which is good, including on the international WTO level, also extremely good. But still we need to get the people affected by trade with us. So we need this new partnership, we need this narrative and we need to bring this conversation outside this room. Lots of things are being done. I mean, many things are really ongoing there but I think this is important because if we negotiate all these agreements, they can be super good. But if people don't trust them, it would be very difficult to implement them and that would be such a pity to lose that dimension. They demand to be included and to be part of it. We can do that but we just have to walk an extra little mile to do that. And your suggestion is good but it needs to be done on a broad global scale. Very similar to the commissioner. We have to spread the message but each of us has to take ownership of that. We can't wait and let someone else or hope that someone else gets this message across because those that are opposing, they're very organized and they're spreading a lot of misinformation. It's very important for us to show support but to provide the facts and to explain like when there's people in countries that are big exporters, that one of the reasons that you have the standard of living you have now is because of this and we're talking about opening up markets. The opportunities are readily in sight. We just have to make sure we continue to educate and communicate that message. Maybe I just wanna tie this discussion to this year's Davos theme which is the fourth industrial revolution and picking up on Secretary General as they read those comment on digital economy. I actually think that digital economy and e-commerce and the digitization which we're experiencing is very favorable towards an informal sector of the economy. And this is potentially another interesting issue. The prototypical example would be the English tutor who teaches English over Skype, right? So that tutor might be in one country teaching English to somebody else in another country over Skype and it never gets recorded in trade statistics. It may get recorded in remittance numbers if there's a payment involved but whether it's 3D printing or artificial intelligence, machine deep learning and we've just all agreed that the growth in the economy is toward services, right? So the value component of the physical item itself is increasingly small. The service component, the service aspect of that thing is getting increasingly large and services are deliverable over the internet. They're deliverable digitally. My takeaway from that is, look, those of us in government, us regulators, we really have to hurry up to simplify trade rules, to deborakertize, to cut red tape, to simplify, simplify, simplify, why? Because if we don't, people are just gonna leave us behind. I mean, they're gonna move to the informal sector of the economy. They're gonna trade informally over the internet, right? They'll go behind the border by shipping in 3D printers and then just sending the design and it gets, you know, there'll be so many technologies to get around all the obstacles that we've created. So either we get with it, right? And we simplify trade rules, we deregulate, we make things easier, or people will just move to cyberspace and they'll use the technologies of this fourth industrial revolution to simplify it instead of us. David needs to get a plane. If you two could wrap us up very quickly. Okay, I think a lot has been said already, but I would advocate as the last final comment, in addition to pursuing the visionary opportunities in promoting the agreement, the TTIP agreement, I think it's also very important that we continue to work on making trade something that creates inclusive growth. So continuing to support the WTO agreements, making sure that developing market, the developing market economies that are now starting to show a lot of initiative and being positive towards free trade that they get included and that we as companies also continue to invest in those countries because frankly speaking, following the drop in raw material prices, they've gone a little bit out of fashion and I think if we run the risk of disrupting global trade progress, if we don't keep in mind that we need to continue to invest in giving them opportunities to trade and be part of the global economy. I think that if you want to have trade supportive for growth, you need to break down some barriers, some rejections, political rejection sometimes towards trade and the way to do it is not only advocacy, it's not only explaining how trade is good for the economy. It is also by action. It's by bringing the small companies in. It's by making more people beneficiaries of the system, of the trade flows and the way to do that is to provide them with an easier business environment, easier and simplified procedures and we can do that. Clearly we have done that already with the trade facilitation agreement in the WTO. We can do a lot more. So I would strongly urge everybody to think about ways to bring other players into this. And if we do, if the small and medium enterprises, which at the end of the day in some countries provide more than 80% of the jobs in those countries, if they are participants in trade, you will see a complete shift in the politics of trade across the globe. I'd like you to join me in thanking our participants as a fascinating discussion. Thank you.