I would like to welcome delegations to this informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee.

As indicated in my fax to you of 22 September I thought it would be useful for us to review and assess developments in the Doha Development Agenda following the summer break.

As usual, let me first report to you on some of my most recent activities and meetings, including a Green Room meeting yesterday afternoon, before we engage in an exchange of views on the work and next steps. I apologise for the relative length of the report but I believe it is worth ensuring we are all on the same page.

Since we last met, I have had extensive contacts with Leaders, Ministers and Senior Officials in a number of regions, including in Botswana, at the COMESA Heads of State and Government Summit in Swaziland, Korea to prepare for the G20, China, my trip to New York for the Millennium Development Goals Summit and last week for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF.

From the point of view of the WTO, these meetings have sent two strong and unambiguous messages of support — and one clear word of caution.

First, over the past year the multilateral trading system has proved its worth as an insurance policy against protectionist pressures in major economies driven by domestic concerns over job losses and falling business activity. And precisely because international trade has remained open will it be a leading force in the economic recovery which seems to be gaining ground. Leaders have welcomed the most recent estimates that world trade volume may grow by as much as 13,5 per cent this year as fundamental for developing countries in particular, as they seek to exit the recession and they are more dependant on trade than average.

Second, I continue to detect a wide-spread and determined commitment towards concluding the Doha Round. At the MDG Summit I was struck by the sense of urgency which characterized many of the interventions by leaders regarding the Doha Round. Concluding this Round is not only about generating new growth opportunities for all of the WTO membership. It is about reinforcing a global partnership which firmly establishes trade opening at the service of development. And it is about strengthening the transparency and predictability of the multilateral trading system which have been so fundamental throughout the crisis.

Amidst the recognition of the value of WTO disciplines in curbing protectionist initiatives and preventing damaging trade measures, I also heard recently warnings that this stability could be put at considerable risk if currencies begin moving rapidly in a disorderly way, and in what some perceive as a pursuit of an exchange-rate-induced comparative advantage. In other words, the hard-won path towards stability and trade-led recovery could be put in serious jeopardy by uncooperative currency behaviour. Now, it is generally accepted that the answer to this issue does not lie in the WTO and that other institutions — in particular the IMF — are better placed and have more specific mandates to address it. But I nevertheless thought I would share this concern with you because I believe history will judge us harshly if our collective efforts towards exiting the economic crisis were to be frustrated by short-sighted individual rent-seeking.

On the work here in Geneva, you will recall that at our March stocktaking we agreed that we would let our work and consultations be guided by a so-called cocktail approach, that is a combination of variable geometry, small groups, bilateral contacts, Negotiating Groups and my own consultations. We also agreed that all of these processes had to feed into the Negotiating Groups and the TNC [Trade Negotiations Committee] and throughout our process Members have emphasized the centrality and primacy of the multilateral process together with transparency and inclusiveness. And this is why we are here today.

Before the summer break we also agreed that this cocktail approach needed to be given time and space to show its potential. This was the new dynamic I mentioned at our last TNC. Over the past few weeks the level of activity in variable geometry around Geneva has increased and one important additional benefit of this has been that some of the areas which had been lagging somewhat behind have received much required attention and been brought up to speed, so to speak. I understand that good and positive discussions are taking place, ideas are being exchanged, brains are being stormed, scenarios are being tested.

So far, in the first round of the so-called small group process, brainstorms have taken place in Agriculture, NAMA [non-agricultural market access], Services, Rules (including fisheries subsidies), Trade Facilitation, Development, TRIPS [trade-related intellectual property rights], Environment and Dispute Settlement

From my conversations with those involved, I understand that these small group processes are operating with a number of objectives in mind. Firstly, allowing engagement amongst Ambassadors themselves, which I have been told is progressing pretty well and this is positive. As negotiators, you all know that engagement and trust-building are pre-conditions for any end-game. With regard to the second objective of identifying main difficulties remaining in different areas of the negotiations, there have been some positive results, and difficulties are being articulated more clearly. On the third objective of identifying possible flexibilities, I have been informed that the picture is more mixed — some potential flexibility has emerged in some cases and not yet in others. Lastly, with regard to identification of possible trade-offs, the assessment is less positive and, in a way, this was to be expected. Those engaged in this process have repeatedly stressed that participants are brain-storming and not negotiating. As we all agreed back in March, the main objective of this cocktail approach was to re-energize our multilateral negotiating process, not to supplant it. That was true then - and it is remains true today.

I welcome these developments and I think we need to continue to provide the space and air for these efforts to further develop. At the same time I strongly urge delegations to continue to reach out to ensure inclusiveness and participation. We cannot allow constructive and substantive progress to run afoul of legitimate transparency concerns. And I stress again that all these efforts, promising as they are, must come back to the Negotiating Groups and the TNC. In my consultations I have consistently detected a desire for the Negotiating Groups to intensify their work as part of this overall cocktail of activity and as part of the process towards new texts. Clearly, these texts can only emerge from the Negotiating Group Chairs as a product of their multilateral processes.

Let me now turn to each of the negotiating areas and provide you with a brief outline of the state-of-play as well as an insight into the process for work after the summer break as envisaged by Chairs of the Negotiating Groups.

On Agriculture, the work continues on two-tracks, templates and on the bracketed or otherwise annotated issues of the draft modalities. On templates, and on the associated work on base data, Step 2 on drafts of the actual proposed formats for the scheduling process has been actively engaged. Following the proposed “road-map” for developing draft templates for domestic support, market access and export competition, a number of drafts, in each of the three pillars, have now been tabled. More such drafts are likely to be ready for the Group's next set of meetings, during the week of 6 December. Work on base data is also progressing, with the Secretariat preparing and issuing, on the basis of data provided by Members, papers in a number of areas, including value of production, in preparation for continuation of the verification exercise.

On modalities, the Chair has continued his consultations, including on the clarification of certain technical aspects. These consultations will continue in the period leading up to the next meeting of the Group.

On NAMA, the Negotiating Group met during the week of 20 September to discuss NTBs [non-tariff trade barriers]. At the start of the week, Members heard from representatives of different standard-setting bodies such as the International Organization for Standards, International Telecommunication Union, International Electrotechnical Commission and the Bureau of Indian Standards. Such information sharing clearly adds value to the process.

The remainder of the week focused on an in-depth discussion of a number of proposals. On chemicals, much of the focus was on a new proposal sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and India. On textile labelling, discussion was more limited because the co-sponsors had indicated that they were working on a revised draft which would be ready for the next NAMA week. On autos, a lengthy debate took place on the two proposals on the table, one from Canada and the US, and the other from the EU. On the two electronics proposals, one from the EU and the other from the US, there was a limited exchange as these papers had been addressed in some depth during the last NAMA week. On some elements of these proposals, positions are getting closer but on others positions remain fundamentally different.

On the Horizontal Mechanism, the contribution by some of the middle-grounders has given some dynamism to the discussion. On remanufacturing, the focus of the debate was an Indian paper which laid out some issues on the remanufacturing proposal. The Group also had its first in-depth discussion of the Framework proposal by Brazil, EU and India. The issue of transparency as well as the subject of international standards were discussed based on papers by India and the United States.

Work has been extensive largely thanks to the input from delegations in the shape of revised proposals, thought-provoking papers, questions and answers. I can only encourage more of this for the next NAMA week which has been scheduled for the week of 22 November.

The Services negotiations received a substantial political boost at the Global Services Summit held last month in Washington. The business community and trade ministers attending the summit called on the G20 and APEC leaders in their forthcoming meetings to re-energize the Doha Round, in order to ensure a successful services result. The renewed energy for services surfaced in Geneva during the October services cluster, in which participants continued to explore innovative negotiating approaches, and agreed on more time during the November cluster for bilateral and plurilateral request/offer negotiations. My hope is that this heightened activity will translate into concrete progress in the negotiations.

Members have also continued engagement on the draft LDC [least-developed country] waiver decision, with a recent submission by the European Union regarding the origin of services suppliers. Work on the waiver will continue between clusters, and an informal Special Session devoted to the topic is scheduled to take place on 8 November.

On the rule-making front, technical work on disciplines on domestic regulation continues on the basis of the Chair's revised text, with some outstanding technical issues receiving useful clarification. The thematic review of the text will continue at the next services cluster. Technical work has also continued in the areas of emergency safeguards, subsidies, and government procurement. In the area of subsidies, Members have continued to submit information on services subsidies they maintain, which will hopefully allow a more focused discussion. A dedicated discussion will start in the Working Party, with the aim of understanding better how subsidies are provided, and what trade effects, including any distortions, might be involved.

In the Rules area, a cluster devoted to fisheries subsidies took place last week. The Group met in plenary format to discuss two new proposals, and subsequently shifted to plurilateral consultations, in variable geometry, to take up in greater depth certain proposals and particular topics. The cluster ended with a transparency session, at which the Chair delivered a detailed description of each of the plurilateral sessions. While no breakthroughs were expected, I am encouraged that the Group is engaged in intensive and constructive discussions in this difficult area of the negotiations.

The Group’s next meeting, in the week of 1 November, will be dedicated to anti-dumping and horizontal subsidies. All three pillars of its work, i.e. bracketed issues, un-bracketed issues from the Chair text and issues not addressed in the Chair text will be discussed.

In the area of regional trade agreements, you will recall that at the General Council meeting on 4 May, Members agreed with a proposal from China, India and Pakistan that consultations should be held to review the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs [regional trade agreements], with a view to making it permanent but suggested that it take place in the Negotiating Group on Rules. It is my understanding that the Chair of the Group will be holding informal consultations on 17 November to begin the process of reviewing this Transparency Mechanism. On systemic issues, discussions remain dependent on the submission of text-based proposals by Members of which there have been none forthcoming thus far.

In the area of Trade Facilitation, work continued with a negotiating session during the second week of October. Members addressed several parts of the Draft Consolidated Text, advancing the review process initiated in March. Delegations were invited to revisit the language of proposals on the release and clearance of goods with a view to reducing the number of brackets and cleaning up the text. Special attention was paid to the area of S&D [special and differential treatment] where the Negotiating Group reviewed substantive parts of the proposed implementation mechanism.

In addition to the plenary discussions, Members organized a series of open-ended meetings on specific parts of the Draft Text. Work will have to continue — and intensify — on all areas, both in the Negotiating Group and in the framework of Member-led events. There are still far too many brackets in practically every part of the Text, many of which for “tactical” reasons. Moving forward, delegations will need to identify the brackets they consider to be essential for the preservation of key national interests.

The next session of the Trade Facilitation Group is scheduled to take place from 29 November to 3 December.

As regards Trade and Environment negotiations, on 13 September, the CTE [Committee on Trade and Environment] in Special Session met informally on DDA [Doha Development Agenda] paragraph 31(i) on the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements. Delegations that had previously put forward a proposal for an outcome under paragraph 31(i) reintroduced their original submission under five clusters of issues. Discussions under paragraph 31(i) will continue at the next meeting of the CTESS [Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session], scheduled to take place on 8 November 2010. On paragraph 31(iii), several contributions have been submitted before the summer, including on the “universe” of environmental goods of interest, as well as on the issue of S&D treatment. These submissions have created some momentum to take the discussion forward on this part of the mandate. At the next CTESS on 8 November, Members will need to start reviewing what is on the table.

On the Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment, the Chair has been continuing his consultations on the Monitoring Mechanism. This work has largely been carried out in small groups meetings, with the developments being reported to the full membership in periodic open-ended meetings.

On the Monitoring Mechanism, the discussions have continued on the basis of the Chair's non paper of 30 April 2010 and I understand that there has been some positive movement in one or two areas, including on the objectives that the Mechanism is seeking to achieve. The Chair intends to continue his consultations in the coming weeks.

On Dispute Settlement, the Chairman held one week of DSU [Dispute Settlement Understanding] negotiations in the second half of September. Consultations focused on sequencing and related aspects of time savings, as well as on effective compliance. A similar week of DSU negotiations is scheduled for the first week of November which I understand will be addressing outstanding aspects of the issues already discussed in September.

As regards the negotiations on the establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of geographical indications for wines and spirits, the Chairman of the TRIPS Special Session held consultations with groups of delegations last week, followed by an open-ended informal meeting to organize the work of the next formal meeting, scheduled for 28 October. There is strong support to the suggestion made by the Chairman to continue the discussion initiated at the June meeting on the two sub-questions he has posed regarding current procedures and practices of registration and protection of trademarks and geographical indications.

Finally, with respect to the consultations which I am holding on the two TRIPS implementation issues of GI [geographical indications] extension and the relationship between TRIPS - CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity] in my capacity as Director-General and not as TNC Chair, and keeping in mind the current overall context of small group brainstorming, I will continue to follow up with Members on how to best proceed and I will, of course, keep you informed.

Let me also say a few words on the meeting of the G20 in Seoul on 11-12 November, as well as the APEC Leaders and Ministers meetings taking place in Japan. I think we are all looking to Leaders to send a clear political signal that they are ready to enter the end-game of the Doha negotiations, that they are willing to empower you to enter into the final stretch of the negotiations. In sum, that they are ready to take the fruit of your work to their respective Parliaments.

As I said in July, the aim of the Geneva cocktail approach is to reach a level of ambition and balance that you can all subscribe to. This, of course, requires that all areas are being included and tested in the informal deliberations. I believe that the foremost challenge facing us all over the next several weeks is to take this engagement to a higher gear by going deeper and wider in the discussions, as a prelude for the “give and takes” that will be required to build a final package. Small group activities will continue until mid-November, at which point I think we will need to evaluate again and take stock of where the process has got to as well as next steps, benefiting also from the discussions at the G20 and APEC Leaders meetings.