 Well welcome to you all to this special lecture. Let me first acknowledge the Nangor people whose oldest past and present are the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet. Welcome especially to Ambassador Roberto Azevedo, Director General of the WTO. Prior to his appointment to this role he had a distinguished career in the Brazilian Foreign Service and in its Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations. Ambassador Azevedo has come to the helm of the WTO at a time when the stall-doha round of trade negotiations and the proliferation of bilateral FTAs and regional FTAs was raising concern about the global trade regime. We'll say more about that in a moment. His visit coincides with important meetings here in Australia in the lead-up to our hosting the G20 summit in November in Brisbane. We're delighted that you could make the time to come to Canberra and in particular to come to the University to speak with us, Roberto, because this is an enthusiastic and distinguished audience we have here focused on a set of issues which I know is dear to your heart. It also coincides your visit with the launch of our latest issue of the East Asia Forum quarterly on the G20 at five and a book of the same name which is a product of a joint study by the Brookings Institution in Washington and ourselves here at the ANU on the same subject and an important theme in that an important theme in our work in the lead-up to the G20 has been to make the trade agenda more central to the G20 agenda and I know that in your meetings here in Australia and Sydney over the weekend with trade ministers from the G20 you'll be focused on that effort too. The health of the global trade regime is a core Australian interest as you will understand middle power deeply involved in the international economy as we are and it underpins our security as well as our prosperity especially when you look at the history of success in integration into the global economy in the post-war period and especially in the last few decades or so around the success of East Asia's similar integration into the international economy and this audience is a symbol of that interest it's no accident that the Australian chair of the G20 has made the trade agenda the trade regime an important focus of interest leading through the meeting in Brisbane so a lot of big questions that we're interested to hear you speak about how is the global trade policy regime traveling the breakthrough on trade facilitation which distinguishes your early tenure in the directed generalship of the WTO is a very important development from a number of perspectives and that's what we're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this afternoon. Is there a new momentum around that breakthrough and can the success thus far transform the WTO so on these questions invite Ambassador Azevedo to talk to us this afternoon. Thank you. Well good afternoon everyone Professor Peter Drysdale Ambassador who being Barboza colleagues from the Brazilian Embassy distinguished guests ladies gentlemen thank you professor for the introduction the generous introduction it is really a pleasure for me to be here it's really fortunate that I found a moment in the tight schedule of the B20 G20 all these meetings to come to Canberra I had a very useful bilateral visit today with the Australian authorities in general very useful conversations but it is a particular pleasure to be able to come to the Australian National University ANU this institution is quite well known for its strong support to the multilateral trading system and I want to thank you for that indeed many Australian officials government officials that I have met over the years have a degree from this university on their CV so I suppose you're doing something right over the next few moments I would like to address the question can the success in Bali transform the WTO and I would start by saying that six months from Bali we are at a very important juncture as we look to ensure that all decisions that were taken at that meeting are fully implemented including the trade facilitation agreement on streamlining customs procedures we also have a very urgent task which is to put in place a work program to conclude the Doha the Doha round the WTO negotiating agenda but this urgency doesn't come from the site from the deadlines which were set in Bali it also stems from the net from the need to deliver growth and development gains that are on offer at this point in time and also to prevent that further restrictive measures are put in place a report that we published just a few weeks ago show that G20 members have continued to introduce trade restrictive measures over the last six months at a slower pace but they're still introducing in restrictive measures so in the past six months we found that 112 new trade restrictive measures were introduced down from 116 so we are slightly slower in terms of pace but we're still introducing restrictive measures so some liberalizing measures of course also put in place but at the end of the day the coat of protectionism is a little bit thicker today than it was before and it keeps getting thicker now building on Bali to restore momentum in the WTO would be one very powerful way of reversing this trend creating a backstop and drawing a line on where we are so as to prevent future restrictive measures on subsidies and tariffs for example we could ensure that they don't continue to go up and I therefore welcome the leadership shown by Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Robb of course to put trade like Professor Drysdale mentioned at the centre of the agenda of the G20 during Australia's presidency with a particular focus on trade as a tool for both growth and development and I am looking forward to discussing these issues at the meeting of the G20 trade ministers in Sydney this weekend I'll be sending a very strong message on the need for the G20 to support the efforts that we are making in Geneva to capitalize on Bali and to put renewed life into the WTO. Economists estimate that the package that we agreed in Bali could be worth up to one trillion dollars and create 21 million jobs worldwide so even if we're talking only about economics we are seeing a package that has very significant value but that is not only the only value that we see in the Bali package the Bali package also has a very important systemic value why because up until then so for the last 18 years we had never delivered one single multilateral agreement so Bali was a real breakthrough it was a tremendous boost for the organization but will it transform the prospects of the WTO and of the multilateral trading system over the long term and lead to further negotiated outcomes I think that's the question that we have to answer frankly in my view it is too early to tell but I think that it is clear that Bali created a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to achieve this change to revitalize the multilateral trade talks and to deliver significant gains in growth and development now the progress that we make in the months ahead will be critical and they will determine whether or not we can seize this opportunity so let's take a look a little bit at the state of play of trade of the trade debate in the world but let's start with Australia for a while and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the role that Australia played in delivering the Bali package both the government and the private sector they were both engaged and they helped to create the conditions which made the deal possible so I want to thank Australia both private and and government sectors for the support that they gave Australia is a trading nation with a small population in relative terms and a perfect in my view geographical position it is inevitable of course the trade played a very major part of Australia's economic mix and today Australia's exports of goods and services account for about 20% of the economy it's a very significant number around 60% of the agricultural output is exported and Australia is also a major services trader whether it be financial services transport education health services or a range of other sectors where Australia's location here in the Asia Pacific area made it a key trade destination and trade makes a big difference in people's lives as well so more than 13% of Australia's jobs are export related and I have seen studies estimating that trade liberalization added about 2.5 to 3.5 percent to the Australian economy over the past two decades it also benefited the average Australian working family by about three thousand nine hundred dollars per year so by cutting red tape at the border and like the trade facilitation agreement and visages that should bring additional benefits to the economy now to take a very simple example at present exporters of oranges from New South Wales or Victoria or mango producers in Queensland they may have to provide up to 40 documents to 20 or more parties when they try to export their products now this bureaucracy of course can cause lengthy delays meaning not only that shipments are spoiled but also that money is lost now delays in shipping create unnecessary costs for all exporters complex border processes raise the barriers of entry beyond the means particularly of small and medium enterprises so the new agreement that we have reached in Bali which will hopefully streamline and standardize the border processes and giving priority to perishable goods will help business across the region we have no doubts about that whatsoever but I of course don't have to convince you of the importance of trade and open markets Australia is indeed a leading voice for trade on the world stage and as a founding member of the WTO in 1995 and of its predecessor the GATT in 1947 Australia is a long-standing supporter of the multilateral trading system you have always played a very key leadership role in the WTO the Cairns group is one example the Cairns group of agricultural exporting countries which Australia chairs in the WTO and have been long pushing for agricultural reforms in that context but there are other areas where Australia has been very active as well services in another area where Australia has been acknowledged as a leader for many years more recently it has been demonstrated by the fact that Australia is co-chairing the TISA negotiations the trading services agreement negotiations in Geneva Australia has championed for example the cause to give voice to the to the Pacific Islands for example for the small economies and countries in the region we welcomed recently Samoa, Vanuatu, Tonga to the WTO in recent years and all those causes were championed by Australia so this has added a very important new voices in Geneva given the challenges which are faced by these small island states because of their remoteness of course in small economies now Australia has also been prepared to help the system when it was needed and that was particularly the case in 2011 when 2011 when efforts were being made to find new approaches to advance negotiations and of course those approaches were precisely the concept that were needed to make Bali possible Australia is also very active at the regional level of course and as you know that through the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks through bilateral deals with Korea and Japan recently and we we expect that China may be coming is in the pipeline at this point in time as well there has been a great deal of speculation about such initiatives in recent times and I am always asked about what kind of impact they have to the multilateral trading system but I think it is important to recognize that these different tracks exist the regional track the purilateral the regional track all of these they are not mutually exclusive rather they can be symbiotic and they have to exist together and complement each other now APEC for example has been a very important testing ground testing ground for initiatives for example like the trade facilitation trade facilitation started in APEC with a discussion in there environmental goods the initiative that is now being was launched in Davos this year was also something that was tested in APEC and started with the concept that was developed in APEC the 54 products and things like that those who have been following that more closely now these building blocks help to build the edifice of trade of global trade rules and trade liberalization but they cannot in any way substitute the multilateral trading system there are some issues which such bilateral regional initiatives simply cannot begin to tackle in which make sense to deal in in a bigger format like in the WTO trade facilitation for example was negotiated in the WTO because it simply makes no sense to cut red tape or streamline customs for one partner once you do the reform at the border you're doing it for everybody just don't do it for one particular partner similarly it doesn't make sense to liberalize or to regulate to develop disciplines on on financial on the financial system or telecoms regulations for just one trade partner again if you're doing it for one you're doing it for everyone farming subsidies is another example you can ever tackle farming subsidies at the bilateral level trade disciplines for example on on remedies like into dumping countervailing measures safeguards all of those you have to negotiate multilaterally you cannot do it but at the bilateral forum so leaving aside for a moment the disciplines side if you look at geography also the most dynamic areas of the global economy are outside these bilaterals the emerging economies for example are outside many of these the developing countries which are the countries which are growing more more quickly in the in the world economy are also outside so you also have a geographic limitation when you are talking about these initiatives and I understand why some countries have put more focus on regional initiatives particularly during a period when the WTO or the multilateral trading system was not delivering was not delivering multilateral results but the success in Bali has changed this and it proved again that multilateral outcomes are possible they will be difficult but they are possible so WTO members can continue pursuing these other positive initiatives but we must also do everything that we can do to ensure that the process in Geneva is also moving forward and that we seize the opportunity that Bali has created now in the post-Bali world for us in Geneva there are essentially two priorities that we confront the first one is to implement what was agreed in Bali so the trade facilitation agreement was a key outcome as you all know in Bali and we are now in the process of implementation with a protocol of amendment and I don't want to get too technical there but this protocol of amendment essentially should be adopted by the end of this month 31st of July and this is the protocol that allows the trade facilitation agreement to be formally adopted as a WTO legal text so in Bali we adopted the text but it doesn't become a legal text until members accept it and in order to accept one step is to have this protocol approved and we have to do it by the 31st of July there are difficulties to get that done but we're working on that and we're hopeful that we'll be in a position to adopt it delivering in particular the support that we promised to developing countries with the implementation of the trade facilitation agreement when we agreed in Bali we are taking action in the coming days I will be announcing a new WTO trade facilitation facility which will ensure that the necessary support reaches all members of the WTO without exception in this area so of course Australia has been very supportive of this idea and it has been always when it comes to providing support to trade in developing countries particularly in the region I certainly hope that Australia will be actively involved and will support our new trade facilitation agreement facility our second priority is to tackle the Doha round negotiations so in Bali the ministers instructed us to prepare by December this year a clearly defined work program on how to advance and how to conclude the Doha round now we need to decide once and for all whether we are going to do the Doha round or not if yes then let's do it quickly we just don't we cannot afford another decade of negotiation so we have to do it quickly and the obvious question is how quickly I'm not going to answer that question I'm not going to give you deadlines but it has to be quickly now if no if the answer is no we're not going to do it it's not for the taking all right then let's be honest about it let's accept that we failed that we are not going to deliver that but then let's turn the page and let's do other things let's move on to things that we can do and that we need to do in order to update the system with to make it reflective of the world that we have today the world changed immensely over the last 18 years when we were negotiating the Uruguay round the internet didn't exist and those are the rules that we have today they don't reflect even that in it funny enough when we're negotiating in Bali we're still talking about introducing electronic payments into the disciplines if you can imagine so that's those are the kinds of disciplines that we have today we have to update the system it's as simple as that or we don't survive as an organization so that's a that's a big a big challenge and I will be honest with you when we talk about the Doha round in many places that I go and I have been talking to leaders and different people they all roll their eyes and go oh my god here here's this guy again talking about the Doha round now this is a different Doha round this is something that has to be done quickly this is something that has to be practical and pragmatic the WTO is a different place now after Bali there is a new sense of momentum there like I said I have met leaders from five continents there are more than 20 countries so far after December so including WTO members at all stages of developments and some of those that I visited were precisely the ones who had the biggest problems in 2008 when we when we reached the the impasse and negotiations told at that time so in all cases I have been pleased to hear words of support in particular that there is strong support to get it done quickly they all say please just don't fail again keep trying that don't fail again and that that's something that we have to hear very carefully earlier today I had meetings with Andrew Robb and other key ministers here in Canberra and I'm very grateful for the support that they have also offered and there are some very significant issues on the table at this point in time for Australia there is important unfinished business in areas like agriculture and services exports moreover if we can complete the round it will then allow other issues to be discussed and advanced at the multilateral level for the first time in many many years now we're making progress and the big issues and there's essentially the three key areas so agriculture industrial goods and services they are being discussed for the first time in six years there is consensus that we will need to deliver results in these areas and members have agreed on a set of principles to guide the discussions so principles such as doability or open-mindedness respecting the red lines of others of course your own it's easy to respect and keeping development also as a central goal of the negotiations realism is going to be key I have no doubts about that I think we have to understand this that this is not the round to end all rounds this is not the end of the road this is not the end of the process we're not going to stop after the door around so this is just one more step in the process of liberalization let's take the one that we can now let's take a step which is commensurate with the size of our legs and after that we take other steps but let's take this one first the worst case scenario for the multilateral trading system for global trade is in action so there will be conversations in Geneva at this point forward that will be very very important we need to focus now on resolving the issues we had been talking about process about how we do it and what is it that we want to do actually we were talking about whether we wanted to do it or not that was the first question and people want to do it so let's move on now we're talking about substance we're going into the specifics of each one of the problems that we had before so there will be some tough conversations ahead of us in the coming months very few members have demands across all sectors in services agriculture and industrial goods and therefore we have to begin to identify the trade-offs what can we get from one area and another for example if you are ambitious on industrial goods and you want results there what can you offer in agriculture and vice versa so if you are very ambitious in agriculture what kind of contribution can you give in industrial goods so those kind of trade-offs have to be there it's also very common in Geneva when you ask someone what can you do in this area and they say well we depend depends is always the first answer I get it depends it always depends on somebody else I know it depends on what that guy is going to do over there I said no no no I'm not asking what he wants if he does that what can you do here it depends and then it depends on something else but it's very difficult to get the answer about what is it that you can actually do all right and that is the kind of pressure that we have to put on members that they tell us not what they want from the others but what is it that they can put on the table so that kind of conversation is beginning in Geneva it's very difficult to have as you can imagine but we're not going to stop our work we have to continue we have December as a deadline so if there is one deadline December is a clear one we have to to do that and we have to keep urgency as a factor of our negotiations so to conclude I want to return to the question that I pose at the start of my remarks which is whether our success in Bali will prove to be transformative for the WTO now given where we are today I think that the answer is quite clear yes which is yes it will be transformative if we want it to be but that's that's the question Bali has created the opportunity to herald a new era for the WTO essentially but whether we take this opportunity is frankly up to members they will have to decide that it will be a question of political will and I have no doubt that Australia will play an important role in this process including this year during this G20 presidency which will be very important I am quite confident that you will continue to engage in the negotiations and help to conclude the Doha round once and for all Australia has always been at the center of the debate helping to shape solutions present new ideas creatively especially when when the talks hit rocky terrain and that pragmatic streak is precisely what we need at this point in time Bali showed I think unequivocally that multilateralism can work and that we can deliver outcomes that will boost trade and support development and improve people's lives so let's keep going the motorway thinking in Geneva is never stop let's keep going even if if the prospects of achieving something is extremely difficult and just before Bali we didn't know whether we're going to have it just before Bali when I got on the plane in Geneva going to Bali in a conversation with my wife she said so what do you think are we going to do it and I said I don't know but be ready for a three-year vacation because it was a distinct possibility that we would not make it and in fact until 8 a.m. Saturday morning we didn't know it was at 8 a.m. that it happened and then the meeting was at 10 a.m. and I people began to celebrate in my office at 8 a.m. I said no hang on there are two hours to go so it was in between those that moment those two hours there was another fire which broke up and we had to quench it so you can never give it a final sign that you have done it in Geneva until it's actually done and even after it's done you still need confirmation that it's really done and that's where we are at this point in time so let's see is what we have done I think that's the point Australia has been a big partner I hope that we will continue this partnership as as the negotiations advance in Geneva they're going to be extremely hard I don't want to downplay that at all but I I still believe that it's doable if we keep going so thank you very much for the opportunity to to talk to you and I don't know what the protocol is whether there will be questions or you've left yourself lots of time very much why don't you stay there and that was open to questions and I look forward to many of them let's start I have a number myself but I'll restrain myself. First, they're happy, Annie. I have one, you mentioned that word, Mike, sorry, Andrew Stokell, it depends everyone says it depends et cetera and you say what are you going to do now of course you know there's no deal on this Doha thing so far because there's nothing to take from the table as my colleague Bill Carmichael keeps on saying and and there's nothing to take from the table because no one's put anything on the table and no one's put anything on the table because countries don't believe that the major gains from trade liberalisation occur unilaterally and so really how are we really going to overcome that step right I mean there's been quite a few proposals put forward that we keep on harping about on effective transparency but really what has been done to try and convince countries that the major gains depend on those unilateral liberalisation at well when you when you have been in negotiations for a while and unfortunately I've been there for quite a while one of the biggest challenges is is to understand what is behind the proposal or what is behind the demand of another negotiator often it is something that he needs to make a sale possible at home so he really needs that in order to make the political environment feasible back home but sometimes it has nothing to do with something that he needs it's about ensuring that you have a hard time and that makes a world of difference so I think at this point in time what is more important for us is to understand what is behind the discourse so you hear sometimes and I'm talking to to members and I listen to them in the meeting room and then when they're speaking to everybody else and then it to the media outside and when I meet with them bilaterally what I try to do is okay I heard all that I don't buy half of it so the half that I might buy let me understand better and then I begin to explore a little bit and what they talk to me what they say to me is completely different from what they say in the room and but the difficulty is that I hear that from one and from another and from another and from another so I know somehow what they what's behind what they're saying what they're seeking what the game is for them but they don't talk to each other so it's very difficult to get that conversation going because if you put them together in the room sitting around the table they would never say anything that they saw that they told me and I can put that on the table so the difficulty is part process also and the fact that for a long time we haven't been truly negotiating there is a lack of trust they don't trust that if they put their cards on the table the others are not simply going to look at the cards put in the pocket and go away they don't trust that there will be engagement that there will be a response from the other side that was one of the major challenges we had for Bali that lack of trust that existed was difficult to overcome I think we are going through the same pains now it is difficult to take things off the table because when you take something off the table to make it easier for someone you're making of course it harder for someone else who would like to have what is on the table at that point in time so you have to figure out what there are other person who is unhappy with the fact that you're taking something off the table what what you can put on the table to compensate for that and these new trade-offs which are different from the ones that we had before are the ones that we have to to figure out now there are trade-offs I'm sure that there are trade-offs the question is where is the balance of this new equilibrium how do you to ensure the viability of the package and of the negotiations how do you ensure that the movement that you make in one area is not making it impossible for another area and and that is difficult to to ascertain I don't have a ready answer I don't know now what that equilibrium is going to be I may have a few in my head in each one of the negotiators who have a different one in their heads but what we have to do is test these ideas over and over what clearly would not happen is an agreement on the basis of what we were negotiating in 2008 that's not going to happen I just follow up on Andy's question and related specifically to the success in Bali and the delivery of the trade facilitation agreement which one would have thought you know was a lay-down kind of no-brainer basically the trade facilitation agreement delivers hopefully not yet implemented but delivers potentially the improvement the reduction of inefficiencies in the delivery of goods into and out of member economies through improving customs procedures and processes mechanisms that raise transaction costs across borders because basically countries haven't adopted best practice in this respect you know what does the WTO value add to delivering those things in each our own interests that's that's the key question I think and what is the particular process that was so successful in Bali and getting a large group of the membership to commit to that I think the major problem we had with the trade facilitation agreement early on was that there was a perception on the part of the developing countries that that was not something that they wanted that they were effectively giving concessions they were making contributions and giving and conceding to things with nothing in return so they were getting nothing for what they were giving there were many countries for example delegations that would say well the trade facilitation agreement facilitates the exports of the others into my country but it doesn't facilitate my exports you know somewhere which is in itself a false statement because the border bureaucracy goes both ways both importing and exporting that perception changed very slowly over the negotiations as we were negotiating the the agreement I think that not only was the customs authorities looking at that but also the business in these countries were looking at that and I had a very interesting conversation with the industry of one particular country where the government was being very very negative about the trade facilitation agreement and I received representatives of the industry of that country and they told me how important it was to get the take facilitation agreement going I said well that's very interesting because your government is not is not very helpful you know so what's going on I mean and they say oh they're not they're not being helpful I said no not at all it's completely the opposite of what you're saying they're saying that it helps exports but the of others but not theirs and and they were saying well but even to be an efficient exporter I have to be an efficient importer if I in my industry if I don't have the components if I don't have the pieces in time I lose contracts I I just it's a huge headache so I do need that and I said well well go tell your government about that I don't think they know so and funny enough in in the matter of weeks the government was responding in a much more positive way so that kind of wrong perception about the impact of what we do with the trade facilitation agreement was permeating in the countries as they were negotiating they were seeing also that a lot of that they already did and what they didn't do was desirable was something that they wanted to do they just didn't have the means to do it so we said okay you don't have the means to do that we will help you get the means to do that so we will give you technical assistance we will give you technical cooperation we'll make sure that we train your people there will be money there to support projects that will update your system and upgrade your your your procedures and over time they were getting used that they were getting used to that and with the idea that they're going to have a more efficient border procedure and at the end of the process they were mostly on board everybody was on board that's why it was so difficult for some countries that had difficulties and that were negotiating up to the wire to say no because if they said no they would have to explain the failure to 150 some countries you know it was going to be very hard politically so it was a complicated process but over time I think the the the the perception was that this was something that was desirable for everyone so that's what changed interesting to bore down into that process a bit more later on perhaps but let's open it for some more questions thank you for sharing with us your views on Bali and the success that the WTO I just wanted to know if you could share with us some of your reflection so far and you're quite interesting an amazing career particularly when you became the director general of the WTO when you first found out what did run through your head and what did you think were the challenges and opportunities that could come through the WTO having you as their director general oh boy you know when I when I was when my candidacy was launched and I had given a press interview and one of the reporters said why are you doing that you you you are a rising you know authority you're doing well you're doing great you're good great positioning things are looking good for you why are you going to bury yourself in the WTO I mean that's a sure failure what why are you doing that and I and I think that and my answer to him at that time was I was I joked and I said you know my my mother asked me the same thing you know and the fact is that if you if you look at the the challenges and give up even before you tackle them you'll never do anything you'll never go anywhere if you like before Bali when when I took office we had more than 600 square brackets in the text and no meetings people were just not even meeting so how are you going to get all those brackets off with effectively no meetings so it was it was difficult but you'll just have to keep figuring out ways of making convergence happen and if you have been negotiating for a while you are used to the tricks and there's a lot of tricks and gamesmanship in this a lot of in the multilateral arena personalities count a lot sometimes deals happen or do not happen because of the chemistry between the negotiators has nothing to do with the economic interests of the countries just the negotiators don't see it why so it is it is something that is unpredictable what you have to do is keep keep trying to find ways you know there usually is a way sometimes not obvious but there is usually a way to to get around things the future challenges they look huge and I don't know exactly which way we're going to find but the more I talk to people the more opportunities show up you know here or there or here or there and sometimes all of those opportunities that you figure out then one day boom they all fall down say oh I have nothing left but then they show up again you just have to keep going it's unpredictable it's really really unpredictable you can't tell just have to go given the challenges you alluded to with regard to the protocol of amendments if we aren't able to move forward on that what next for Bali and for the WTO if we don't have it it will be difficult very very difficult because if we don't have that the question is going to be why don't we have that and if we don't have that because we are holding things hostage to results in in different areas then it's a no-go I don't think that you can ever get around that in particular you have to be mindful of the bargains that are struck now everybody knew in Bali what the bargain was now you may want to revisit a bargain that was struck but there are consequences to that at all levels the trust is gone so why am I going to trust another bargain what what makes me sure that that new bargain won't be revisited so I keep paying paying and paying and the bargains keep to be keep being reopened so the trust factor is going to be very very critical and also some linkages are just impossible they're just impossible in terms of timing in terms of procedures so it is going to be a major challenge my fear is that if we if we can't get the trade facilitation agreement implemented it is going to be very damaging not only for the trade facilitation agreement but all the other Bali decisions and the doha round and the negotiations in general so it is it is going to be very costly so what are the important steps going forward to ensure that that happens quickly not not in three years time but more quickly than that according to the schedule that we had agreed we had to buy the 31st of July we have to agree on the protocol of amendment which is pretty straightforward there's no it's not rocket science let's just write the protocol it's very a few sentences so the problem there is political it's not technical so that one should be done we hope that this facility that we're putting in place next week will help in that in that regard after that then if we adopt the protocol countries will have approximately 18 months to ratify have go through their domestic procedures to ratify the the agreement and to accept the agreement and then they will have to deposit in the WTO the instrument of acceptance so what they say okay this agreement has been approved by my government and here it is my instrument of acceptance once two-thirds of the members have agreed we expect that to happen within 18 months then the agreement enters into force for those that have deposited the instrument of acceptance and the others keep coming as they go there is not much in terms of technical work to be done anymore it's about deciding whether we want to do it or not I think we will know in a couple of weeks yes thank you if we take the optimistic viewpoint and if we take the optimistic viewpoint and if we assume that next week is a success and then the post Bali period leads to a post Doha period looking back on the Doha agenda what do you think are the sort of important elements for a new agenda for the WTO the sort of designed features for something that will be easier to conclude perhaps I think that inevitably as you conclude this round more likely than not members are going to be setting the stage for the next set of negotiations so you you you may have a situation where you have a built-in agenda so for example things that we could not conclude during this round or that did not go far enough and that some members felt that they wanted to take it further they would say okay I'm not finishing this now but I would like to continue this conversation and then we continue so part of what we have on the table may continue as part of the future negotiating agenda other countries however may say look I have been trying to talk about this particular issue for a long time and every time I try you guys tell me that it's not doable because this round is not done etc etc I want assurances that this is going to be discussed now so I will only agree on the conclusion of this round if we have in the world program for the future a conversation about this issue here and that may happen in several different issues it will depend a lot on the appetite of members I can only say things that they mentioned I don't know it's whatever they decide as you know that the DG had best mind his own business right and let the members decide what they want to do so I hear a lot things about investments I hear people talk about the environment I hear people talking about costs of labor social regulations I hear people talking about the transnational movement of people and all sorts of things so I think at this point in time it will be difficult to to know what exchange rates some people are talking about it so it depends it depends on how much emphasis each one of them will put on the issues that they are that that are dear to them I don't know at this point in time it's very difficult to tell next one yep a couple more questions thanks and you said in your in your speech that all trade agreements at different levels have to be complementary and symbiotic and I'm sorry symbiotic you say that all trade agreements have to be complementary and they have to work together and with those a growing body of FTAs out there and today the B20 at this summit was saying that some of these trade agreements can cause overlapping standards and they can cause rising costs for business and you're here for the G20 meetings so do you see a role for the G20 to try and I don't know create more more convergence in the system or more coherence is there a way that you can these trade agreements can work better for business and be more of a of a whole rather than just some of parts yeah I think business is is very pragmatic in general so they they want to advance their agenda wherever they can to the extent that multilaterally we're not delivering they will go for whatever avenue there is available I think bilateral deals and pre-lateral deals are obvious options it is not obvious however that something that you negotiate forget market access market access is very precise very specific so if you negotiate preferences with another party that's done right so that's very straightforward it's a different thing if you're negotiating disciplines or if you're negotiating standards those are more complicated because it doesn't follow that because you have negotiated a standard between two economies it doesn't matter the size of those economies that that is going to be automatically accepted as a multilateral benchmark in fact often you see at the multilateral level people rejecting standards which are negotiated by others not because the standards are bad or anything but simply because they did not negotiate that they say oh this is not my baby this is your baby don't bring it to my table so they want to start from scratch so it is not obvious that by negotiating multiple standards at developed economies or or or where you have critical mass in terms of global economy that that means that it automatically is going to be multilateralized inevitably over time there is a convergence in that direction but it is it is for the WTO a very challenging task which is harmonize standards we're trying to negotiate it in different areas I think the the best way to do it would be to look at the practices best practices what people have been doing many of these standards are already there and people are already adopting them and implementing them even if they don't have it in the letter of law so it is it is it will require a lot of homework before you can actually say what is the best approach to each kind of standard and discipline that has been negotiated my gut feeling and that's nothing more than a gut feeling is that depending on the issue you will have a different process so depending on one if you're talking about God knows what trade remedies it is one one way of approaching that if you are talking about phytosanitary measures it will be a much more contentious discussion will probably involve entities other than the WTO international organizations other than the WTO itself if you're talking about customs measures you may have to tap into WCO for example to see what's going on over there so it's going to be challenging and it will not be a one-size-fits-all approach I think it would depend on the kind of discipline that you negotiated that you how to bring that into the multilateral forum your answer to that question kind of underlines the worries that a lot of people have about the trade regime at the moment really that it could be captured in a way that makes the multilateral settlements more and more difficult and convergence isn't convergence might be a process but it's not necessary it is a legitimate it is it is a legitimate concern yeah I think it is what is your hope for taking serious discussion of that issue into the G20 for example or other such forums we are doing that we are talking to them I think I think the tendency is to seize opportunities wherever they show up and let's deal with the consequences later which is not necessarily a bad approach it's a very pragmatic one it doesn't mean necessarily that you're facilitating convergence and facilitating a multilateral predictable system and sound system if you have too many standards and incompatible standards showing up in different places you may make the cost of transactions even higher rather than lower so we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis it's difficult to at this at this level of course the preferred solution would be to negotiate everything multilaterally because then it applies to everybody at the same time there's no risk of a non multilateralization so that is clearly the best approach is it realistic to expect that all of these standards will emerge at the multilateral level I'm not so sure that that will be the case there may be some instances where bilateral negotiations may help I'll give you one example in the Doha round when we were negotiating NTB so non non-tariff barriers the major problem was frankly between the United States and the European Union you know they had their standards and didn't want to accept each other's standards so a lot of the problems that we had in advancing was those two didn't see eye to eye and there were many countries who said look we're open we're still developing our standards so whatever you agree I'll follow that I'm not a problem but the big ones did not agree with each other so to the extent for example that in the transatlantic conversation they figure that out it may help it may help there will be some who says again who will say again this is not my baby this is your standard I don't have nothing to do with it we have to negotiate with me now and that is the nature of multilateral negotiations and that's okay but it will there will be several instances when agreement between two or three is precisely at the root of the impasse at the multilateral level some people think for example that the problem with the WTO is the number of countries oh you have 160 how can you ever negotiate with 160 and my answer to that is if we were six we would still not have a deal right if we were two you would still not have a deal so it's not the problem is not 160 the problem is that there are big divisions among the big players and we have to figure out a way of bridging that time for one last question ambassador a few years ago a small group of academics at at Sydney universities published a book called how to kill a country Australia's free trade agreement with the United States and in that book they gave evidence about the way Canada and Mexico in particular had in their view been taken for a ride the government at the time of course saying the praises of that FTA and said that Australia was a major winner you probably don't want to comment on take sides in that debate but nevertheless would you like to comment on whether or not in free trade agreements between countries with massively different economies and economic and political strength that one country always comes out a lot better than than the other or the others if there was more than two countries involved we have to distinguish a little bit the economic reality from the political reality I think in many many quite often that discussion of whether or not something was good for the country will have different colors depending on the eye of the beholder it's funny for example that in in some countries the trade word or the trade the word trade is almost never mentioned because that costs votes just just for mentioning trade and of course that is a distortion of the situation you when you have a process of trade liberalization be it in in in the situation of negotiations among different countries or a unilateral negotiate an unilateral move towards trade liberalization it's very difficult to tell who won and who lost in in in a short period of time most of the gains in terms of restructuring in terms of reallocation of resources optimization of allocation of resources all of that comes over a period of years so there will be after a a a movement in terms of trade liberalization consequences both positive and negative now the tendency economics tends to show economic theory shows that and the practice and experience also tends to show that is that over time the positives out out balance have a positive the positives outnumber the negatives and that the major result is a positive and net positive gain for the country now of course it varies from country to country you can't have a a a one size fits all approach again but the problem with that is that that in economics you may have 10 15 years to fully realize the process of trade liberalization in politics the elections are a couple of years from now can you afford to wait 10 or 15 years to realize the benefits of economic opening when you have elections a couple of years from now and you're going to lose votes now that dilemma is never really solved and I think that it is a bit simplistic sometimes to say this country won or that country lost when I talk to Mexicans in general in talking about NAFTA they complain about certain areas where there was a need for restructuring the in the in their economy but at the same time they also point out to many other areas where it was a positive gain for them and the same happens if you talk to the Americans or the Canadians I mean it's it's just a new balance and that new balance has to be perceived at the end of the day as something positive for them overall it's difficult to tell in in processes like that unequivocally that this was the the winner this was the loser most of the times they all win but they win in different ways and the new balance is a different balance than the original one whether you like the original balance it will depend obviously on on what you do in the economy in the economy so if you are in the in a losing sector in a sector that had to restructure and you had you lost your job you had to be retrained to do something else you of course are going to be critical about that that agreement but if you were on a sector that was a net winner and immediately gained market and and was more competitive and and got more opportunities out of that deal you would see it in a favorable way I have not so far read any unequivocal study saying that this this that was a bad deal for anyone or an unequivocal study saying this was a great deal for anyone it's just a different balance and I my personal belief is that the new equilibrium was a was a gain for all of them but politics doesn't necessarily follow economic logic or or statistics so if I am a politician I will say that it was good a good deal if it gains gains me votes if if if by saying that was a awful deal gets me votes I will say that it was an awful deal terrible deal so well our hope is to help you get the politics aligned with the economics in the WTO that's that's the biggest challenge to take the train for till facilitation agreement forward quickly and succeed in your ambition to conclude the Doha round quickly but also to think about the system beyond the Doha round because I think there is a lot of anxiety out there about where the system as a whole is headed so thank you very much for sharing this ambassador and we look forward to staying in touch with you on your journey and further successes at the director general ship of the that's hope so thank you