It is a pleasure and privilege for me to be here. Thank you all, especially Ravi, for giving me this opportunity to interact with all of you.  Two points as background to my talk today.

One, today the multilateral trading system that we all have is the WTO, with its 153 members and more becoming members shortly.  All other efforts at devising trading systems are limited in comparison, they are not multilateral.  In this sense, the future of the WTO and the multilateral trading system is one and the same. 

Two, the factors that are bringing about changes in the world imply a need for greater multilateral interaction.  To some extent, we can see this in the statement by President Obama before a G-20 meeting held in 2009 to help address the sharp global economic decline.  He said, inter alia, that: “We are living through a time of global economic challenges that cannot be met by half measures or the isolated efforts of any nation … There is no line between action that restores growth within our borders and action that supports it beyond.”

This greater need to rely on the multilateral trading system arises due to new  emerging centres of economic importance in the world, the importance of open markets and international trade for providing solutions to a range of other major concerns, and the fact that important inter-linkages created through trade and investment are giving rise to a world in which comprehensive multilateral efforts are essential to facilitate economic growth and development.

The ideas I want to share with you today can be summarized by two propositions. 

One, that the strong inter-linkages in the world that we see today will get even more enhanced in the next decade, with economic and political power being spread across many more nations and multiple stakeholders.  They will demand systems which are inclusive and fair, systems which are multilateral.

Second, these changes will occur through an extended transition period when we will have increasing prosperity co-existing with unemployment and poverty.  This will generate immense social strain on the growth process and make it politically unsustainable unless appropriate steps are taken.  It is in this background that we can see a recent statement of the WTO Director-General, Mr Pascal Lamy, when he emphasized that: “Capitalism will not survive the legitimacy test without stronger domestic safety nets and a more effective multilateralism. And for this to happen, the starting point must be to localize global issues.”

Thus, the changes we face today and in the future will imply a continued need for the WTO or the multilateral trading system.  In fact the world needs the WTO system because it provides stability, predictability and a growing international market; the principle of fair and just conditions is embodied in its provisions requiring non-discrimination, its inclusive system, and differential levels of obligations for less developed economies.  Its disciplines address most key areas of our current concerns.  However, in due time additional aspects which become relevant will need to be addressed through supplementary new mechanisms and processes. In addition we would need to widen our perspectives to better understand the implications of a number of ongoing changes.  Let us look at these aspects in some more detail.

 

Emergence of new centres of economic activity

One of the most important changes has been the emergence of certain developing countries such as China, India and Brazil, as large economic entities which now have a possibility of making important contributions for providing global stimulus and growth. With relatively high growth rates and large markets, these economies are important for international trade and investment, and any agreement on trade cannot have a critical mass without their effective participation. With their specific situations and objectives which include a need to address domestic poverty and development concerns, they bring alternative viewpoints in comparison to the established centres of global economic presence.  Thus, their presence has changed the basis and the content of international relations.

These nations also increasingly bring with them a growing technical competence, capital depth and a combination of abundant skilled and unskilled labour. Their ability to catch up with technological advances or even develop their own innovations is rising rapidly.  This brings about immense competition simultaneously in multiple areas for products across the whole spectrum of technology intensive, capital intensive or labour intensive items.  We can see this for example in a recent press article which quoted a researcher in the context of a major change in the business focus of a large Japanese Conglomerate: “Top names including Sharp, Panasonic and Sony, which had little trouble staying ahead of US rivals in decades past, are now exposed to great tectonic changes. Japanese manufacturers are facing a structural challenge in making products by themselves. No matter how sophisticated the technologies they have, Asian rivals with a great price advantage keep catching up.”

Thus, the emerging economies (as they are called now) have changed the international trade markets in many ways.  Their relatively large and growing demand adds to the stimulus for trade, and encourages wider international linkages through supply chains, more pervasive movements of foreign investment as changes in wages and technological abilities overtime lead to movement of activities or parts of the supply chain to other nations.  Prominent areas among these places would likely be the rapidly growing countries of the Next-11 group, leading to a secular rise in the economic importance of present day developing countries. 

The share of developing countries in economic activity will over time become more than that of developed countries.  By 2030, developing countries are expected to contribute two-thirds of global growth (40 per cent, excluding China) and half of global output (30 per cent, excluding China), and they will be the larger destination of world trade.  This would spread economic progress and link up many more countries in stronger supportive international trade and investment ties. 

In this background, emerging markets, with their concerns spanning across a large range of trade and development related areas will develop an increasing stake in the interests of diverse groups of nations.  An important part of their focus would be to reach solutions within an open global trading system.

Thus, I feel that the major change in the international economic interaction and relations that we are witnessing has within it also the possibility of bringing new opportunities, and wider potential for providing growing and stabilising economic inter-linkages through developments of supply chains and shifts of production across a larger number of countries. 

However, the forces of change that have led to a major evolution in the international markets have also brought into limelight two important concerns with major international repercussions.  One is the pressing need to deal with poverty and unemployment, and the other is the employment mismatch with changes in technologies and skills required.

The major challenge that we face today is how to manage the transition from the present period that combines immense changes in the international scene together with major social concerns to a period which will bring greater synergetic and supportive business links across multiple nations.  This would require a multilateral trading system.

 

Greater role sought by/from emerging economies and implications for multilateral agreements

The growing economic importance of developing countries, particularly emerging economies, has generated a demand from them for a greater say in the international processes for decision making and devising of appropriate systems.  This has given rise to a clash of perspectives. 

The largest economies, and in general the developed world, seek the emerging nations to take on much greater responsibilities by providing larger assured access to their markets or by taking on greater levels of obligations in multilateral contexts.  In contrast, the emerging economies are of the view that  the level of obligations asked from them are too onerous and do not take account of both their development needs and the steps required to address what they consider are the prevailing inequities in the global situation.  This clash of perspective raises the challenge of devising ways of facilitating international interactions amongst the present and the emerging large economies.

This brings me to a very important aspect of public policy.  I feel that the world is so interconnected and the ability of nations to take retaliatory measures so enhanced that public policy cannot be formulated as a single step process.  If market restraints or apparently questionable trade measures are adopted by any nation, however powerful, others will be likely to respond with their own measures or by diverting important (and even unrelated) business away from the market that adopts the initial measure.  Therefore, the challenge is to have a more comprehensive and multiple period assessment of any proposed policy rather than to be swayed by immediate and narrowly based political pressure for protection.  In such a situation, the discussion and consultation forum provided by the WTO become crucial to diffuse tensions, as does its highly credible dispute settlement process.

One of the important adverse effects of the clash of perspectives among prominent nations is lack of progress in the much needed improvements in the multilateral trading system, i.e. the WTO.  In this context, the recent inability to make progress in the Doha Round of trade negotiations is a worrying situation.  These talks have progressed substantively to reach solutions in most issues, but in certain key areas of interest nations are unable to reach a conclusion. 

A number of experts have commented that the WTO negotiations should move on to new issues as the present issues are not relevant today.  However, if we consider the trade policy concerns addressed by the Doha Round today, we will see that they are still relevant and need to be adequately addressed.  Take for instance the non-level playing field generated by subsidies, a policy measure which can be addressed only within a multilateral agreement. The growing number of richer countries could imply a greater reliance on subsidies, a matter which will be of increasing concern to less developed economies.  Likewise the need for reducing tariff escalation and tariff peaks remain relevant, as does simplifying non-tariff regimes, greater discipline for anti-dumping actions,  better trade facilitation, or improved disciplines for non-tariff measures.  No trade policy agenda can ignore these concerns.  

An example of the lopsided nature of the trade regimes would clarify this.  Let us compare imports of the US from the UK and a least developed economy, namely Bangladesh, and the tariffs paid by these two countries on their exports to the US. 

The US imports from the UK are much larger, about 14 times the value of US imports from Bangladesh.  Nonetheless the amount of import duty paid by these imports from the UK is much lower, about one-fifth less than the import duty paid by the very much smaller level of imports from Bangladesh.  This is a situation that would need to be addressed.  Though I have given an example from the US import duty structure, such issues extend across several nations and a strong case exists for a need to bring improvements in such lopsided duty structures across a number of major economies, established and emerging.

For this, special efforts must be made to seek ways of moving ahead multilaterally and inclusively.  Conciliatory approaches must be sought to deal with the present impasse.  Perhaps these may include easier transition periods, incorporating structural adjustment issues, and combining a greater level of obligations with review and certain safeguard options, or some other ways of making progress.  Seeking ways to move ahead positively in this area should be an important part of the trade agenda and is an important challenge facing international trade.  This is also because multilateral success in the area of international trade will pave the way for progress in multilateral discussions that we so urgently need in other areas such as environment and health related concerns.

An important likelihood is that several co-ordination efforts and solutions would initially be within a relatively small group of nations, e.g. G- 20.  Thus, an important challenge would be to consider how to meaningfully expand the scope of such initiatives beyond these smaller groups to the larger comity of nations.

 

Rapid growth in middle class

Continued rapid growth in the emerging markets will give rise to an unprecedented expansion of the global middle class.  By one estimate, from less than 1.8 billion people in 2009 to about 5 billion in 2030.  This would be an increase of about 3 billion in the middle class, of whom nearly two-thirds will be in Asia.   That expansion will trigger an explosion in demand for goods and services, food, housing, and consumer durables.  It will generate a large increase in energy use, and pressure on natural resources (including water and clean air), leading to high and volatile prices of raw materials and climate concerns.  This will raise multiple issues of common concern which though being beyond the conventional discussions of international trade, will become intricately linked with trade as such. 

The resolution of climate change, international financial stability, international migration, health pandemics, water management, and other global challenges will require new approaches to transnational and global governance arrangements.  Moreover, the solutions to these issues will involve a large number of nations, in fact it will have to involve all nations big and small.  Therefore, we will need a multilateral framework to deal with these multiple concerns.

There is another likely development which at present we normally do not keep in mind.  The increase in demand will mean a significant rise in the demand for raw materials.  This will strengthen the position of the suppliers of these raw materials, land and water.  To a significant extent, these suppliers of raw materials would be in less developed parts of the world.  In this situation, the basis of international relations will change with the suppliers of  natural resources having a greater say in designing the systems to deal with emerging challenges to international trade. By definition, these  systems would have to be inclusive, implying once again a need for a strong and relevant multilateral trading system.  These groups already have a strong voice in the WTO.  Over time, their voice will become ever stronger, seeking more market access from others and more focused and effective technical assistance programmes.  The WTO's Aid for Trade Programme has made a very good beginning with making technical assistance more effective and relevant, thus providing a strong encouragement to donors to sustain or increase their levels of financing even in difficult times.

 

Persistent poverty, unemployment, structural adjustment, and consequent tension

Despite the 3 billion additional persons entering the middle class, about a billion persons will still be facing abject poverty, primarily in developing countries.  Likewise, developed nations are facing high unemployment and other economic difficulties. The social concerns that arise in such a situation further exacerbate the problem.  

These aspects will imply a strong demand for greater equity both internally and internationally. Addressing this demand will require enhancing capacities to reach higher levels of performance and to manage the process of structural change and enhancing skills to match the evolving demand.

In this context, a very important complication with respect to the unemployment situation in developed nations has arisen due to a mismatch between technology changes and availability of skills. According to a report by McKinsey, this mismatch is both within a country and also geographically between mature economies and developing ones, with more skilled workers coming up in developing countries.  According to this Report, “40 million workers across advanced economies are unemployed but at the same time, businesses in those nations say that they often can't find workers with the skills they need.”

A system of safety nets and training would be required to address both these major concerns, namely poverty and unemployment.  Thus we would need to assess the appropriate combination of domestic and trade policies that would generate growth and deal with unemployment and poverty concerns in an efficient and consistent manner,  supplementing each other.  The WTO system provides adequate opportunities for balancing these different initiatives, one in the context of trade policy and the other at home through domestic policy.  The WTO Committees also provide a possibility of learning about experiences and best practices. These exchanges would over time provide a basis for more extensive co-operative initiatives to address common concerns.

A demand for inclusiveness is also expected to arise from another direction. The increase in middle class, higher education levels and greater connectivity through communications technology in a TGIF age (Twitter, Google, Internet and Facebook) will inevitably increase the demand for better social governance and greater opportunities for participation in public policy debate and implementation. The government would have to find ways to improve interaction with large and diverse groups of stakeholders to develop its strategies for inclusive good governance. This is a trend that will occur not only domestically but also in the international interactions, leading to demands for inclusive, fair and just systems from the governments and non-governmental stakeholders from a large number of developing nations. Once again, it would be a multilateral trading system that would meet these criteria.  In the WTO, we have begun to interact much more with various and diverse stakeholders, but this process will get much more enhanced in the future.

 

Preferential Trade Arrangements

I have been emphasizing the importance of the multilateral trading system, but sceptics may point out that the reality of the day is free trade agreements or regional trade agreements.  In fact even at the WTO, there are plurilateral efforts within the WTO to reach agreement in the area of services, an initiative to start working on extension of the Information Technology Agreement, and the recently renegotiated and improved Plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement has just last week been ratified by the parties.  In addition, a number of initiatives outside the WTO are underway for reaching a number of agreements with limited coverage, in some cases being spurred by nations trying to make up for being left out from the existing agreements.  It is interesting to note that the greater the number of such agreements any nation has over time, the subsequent agreements erode the preferential margins available in the previous agreements.

It is worth noting that the multilateral trading system, i.e. the WTO, provides for such agreements subject to certain criteria that are oriented towards keeping markets open and bearing the interests of non-members in mind. 

However, it is widely recognized that these agreements are likely to have adverse effects on account of different rules of origin and other conditions that may in effect restrict or fragment markets and limit the efficiencies of operation.  The most significant concern that has arisen is with the inclusion of standards and regulatory regimes in Preferential Trade Arrangements because dis-similar or divergent standards not only fragment markets, they also make it extremely difficult to move towards efforts to harmonize standards so that the likely benefits of international trade may be widely available. 

These aspects suggest that over time, different efforts will need to be combined or harmonized.  In other words, they would in effect need to be multilateralized.  In addition, some trade measures such as subsidies would have to be addressed within a multilateral framework.

Yet another feature of concern with such agreements is that they are not inclusive, especially for the poorest countries.  In an age with multiple commercial links, and greater sensitivity of nations regarding fair and just systems, such exclusion is potentially disruptive.  So these FTAs must develop their disciplines in such a way that they are open to easy extension of membership and harmonization with other similar initiatives.  Once again, multilateralization is the answer.

 

Non-Tariff Measures

Over time, non-tariff measures — in particular, standards or regulatory requirements — are likely to become more prevalent both domestically and in international trade.  The lack of transparency and predictability generated in many cases would be further complicated by the growing application of private standards, making the private sector a major player in directly affecting trade opportunities. Likewise, consumer groups and NGO stakeholders will play a larger role. 

This will imply that two aspects of a trend which began with the increasing use of the internet will intensify further.  One is that trade policy will no longer be the domain of only government policy per se.  For instance,  in the future harmonization of standards may not be done between governments of nations but between industries or those using particular technologies. Second, even those areas subject to government regulatory control will become more and more difficult to effectively regulate on account of the internet, remote working and related technological changes.  Thus, an important part of the challenge will be a consideration of how to adequately address such an evolving situation.  This is an important part of the Doha Round NAMA (non-agricultural market access) negotiations which are seeking to improve the situation with respect to non-tariff measures.  This is one of the areas which will continue to receive greater emphasis in the future.

 

Involvement of stakeholders

Promoting active participation of business, consumers and NGOs will involve a whole range of issues and sectors, and it will be desirable to develop a relatively simple and general framework of disciplines that can be applied in diverse situations.  In this context, one important way to achieve our objectives could be to agree on principles of good governance.  Examples of such principles are provided in the WTO, which is a framework of good governance disciplines.  Specific examples include for instance the “Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards” in the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, or the kind of disciplines emphasized in the WTO's Reference Paper on Telecommunications.  Such a framework will provide a level playing field and greater transparency, timeliness, and a possibility of addressing emerging concerns.  This would establish good governance principles on the basis of which we could judge the appropriateness of specific initiatives in order to limit arbitrary and protectionist actions and keep markets open. 

 

Greater interdependence between nations: supply chains and trade in tasks

With foreign direct investment and technological changes, businesses have developed production chains for producing any final product, with different parts of these chains located in different nations. Exports of parts and components have more than doubled as a share of merchandise trade between 1995 and 2010. Today, trade in intermediate goods makes up 56 per cent of non-fuel exports (around $7 trillion) and is growing at 6 per cent per year. In the case of services, intermediate products account for an even larger share of trade, at about three-quarters.  These inter-linkages have several implications and pose many challenges for international trade. 

One, the ambit of trade policy can no longer be limited to any single country.  It goes beyond local or domestic actions, beyond the boundaries and concerns of any single nation.  Dealing appropriately with them would require a multilateral system of disciplines and good governance. Thus, keeping the multilateral trading system or the WTO system strong and relevant would remain an important part of the 21st century trade agenda.

Two, with the growth of supply chains and trade in tasks, we need to make some fundamental changes in certain concepts that have conventionally formed a basis of our analysis and discussion of trade matters:

(a) we need to amend the way in which we calculate the value of international trade.  Currently, this is based on the concept of country of origin, a concept which becomes meaningless when multiple countries have contributed to the production chain of a single product.  In such a situation, we could use the growing concept that these products are made in the world (MIW). 

(b) this implies that instead of emphasizing the traditional revenue based data for international trade, we should start collecting data on trade in terms of value added.  The WTO, in cooperation with some other institutions, has begun such an initiative (the Made in the World Initiative - MIWI) to collect value-added data for international trade. This change of concept has important implications for the political and economic policy dialogue relating to trade concerns.

(c) we will also need to reconsider and revise trade policy analysis of the impact of border measures, including tariffs or other forms of market restraints.  With value chains, these measures may have multiple effects that are not usually emphasized in conventional analysis.  We could consider this using a simple geometrical micro-economics diagram.  While conventionally, application of a tariff would be seen as a shift along the supply curve, with value chains it would result in a shift of the supply curve. Moreover, the reasons for this shift could be a combination of both the trade measures taken and the business decisions of operators in other countries involved in a supply chain.  The effect of a trade measure in such circumstances could be completely the opposite of the result from conventional analysis.

 

Greater interdependence between nations: package of services and goods needed in the supply chain

In addition to these supply chains which have made rules of origin an outdated concept, there is a packaging effect because production and sale of a final product involve a combination of both goods and services.  For instance, a study shows that about 40 different types of services are involved when a manufacturing firm internationalizes its production.   Thus, it is increasingly difficult to analyze the effects of policy on any single product or service in isolation of such inter-linkages. Once again, the implication is that we need to reconsider the conventional understanding about trade policy because the basis of such conventional assessment has changed.  An important challenge facing international trade is to better understand the implication of such changes, and to amend the mind-set of focusing on market restraints as support measures for domestic industries.

 

Policy implications of increasing importance of services 

Several commentators feel that the new frontier in international trade will be trade in services.  Four features are especially noteworthy about trade in services. 

One, trade in services takes place in many more ways than goods, as is reflected in the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services which covers four modes of supply: cross-border, movement of consumers, producers establishing themselves in the export market through Foreign Direct Investment, and movement of service providers.

Two, a pre-requisite for encouraging services trade is to build relevant regulatory capacity. 

Three, changes in technology are enhancing the tradability of services, as is evident in the growing supply chains. 

Four, there is a steady increase in the number of developing countries with capabilities in ICT technologies to participate in services trade.  Therefore, through services trade they have additional opportunities to achieve their objectives of development and poverty reduction.

Given the importance of regulatory regimes for integrating services into international trade, an important challenge in this area would be to improve regulatory disciplines in the WTO and domestic capacities to implement them.  For increasing market access, both the new and existing regulatory regimes must be encouraged to promote a level playing field for domestic and international competition.  Inability to do so would generate lack of transparency and erode mutual trust.  Therefore, the need for cooperative and multilateral outcomes in services cannot be over-emphasized.  This is an area which would need much more focus over time.

This gives rise to another challenge, namely to develop initiatives that steadily open markets for ALL the different services areas and modes of supply.  A major concern of course has been raised with respect to movement of service suppliers or labour, as this often gets mixed with immigration issues even though the movement of service suppliers is of a temporary nature and linked specifically to the supply of services.  It would be a challenge to find ways of keeping the two issues separate, and to devise mechanisms for enabling more services trade through movement of service suppliers. 

 

Trade facilitation

In a world with supply chains and cross border supply of services, we need to facilitate trade by improving the customs and other regulatory constraints in order to reduce domestic obstacles.  Trade facilitation improves the efficiency of the conveyer belt of international trade which carries products from where it is efficient to produce to places where it is demanded.  As Mr Pascal Lamy explained about the importance of trade facilitation, “…  time is money. The longer a shipment is held up in port or at customs, the more it costs the exporter and the importer. Every extra day required to ship goods reduces trade by 1%. Overall, the OECD estimates fees, formalities and clearance procedures constitute roughly 10% of the value of any trade transaction. That's about $1.5 trillion. The OECD also estimates that a WTO deal on trade facilitation would reduce those costs from 10% of the value of trade to 5% — an estimated $750 billion gain for businesses globally.”

This is an important reason for many to focus on this issue in the Doha Round negotiations for some early results.  In practical terms, efficient trade facilitation requires participation of all nations, big and small, with particular relevance for smaller less developed economies. One reason for this is that effective trade facilitiation requires not only an identification of the trade facilitation steps but also the funds for implementing them through demand-based projects.  While the first part is much clearer for various countries, funding would require more determined efforts in the present times of financial and economic difficulties.  It is worth noting in this context the WTO’s Aid for Trade Programme, which is a major umbrella programme for technical assistance and enhancing trade capacity of developing nations.

 

Energy situation

Energy is crucial for all transactions, whether it be trade, production or even everyday living.  With large increases in demand, the requirement for energy will rise immensely, increasing its price and causing difficulties in other related markets.  For example, energy price feeds into fertilizers, thus affecting food price and availability.  It increases effective poverty and vulnerability by limiting the purchasing power of incomes.  Intensive use of conventional energy will also have adverse effects on the environment, and hence there will be a strong need for developing renewable sources of energy which are better for the environment.  It would take quite some time for the renewable energy sources to be as cost effective as prevailing dominant energy sources.  Therefore the challenge is to implement appropriate policies to limit environmental effects and to promote renewable sources as efficient alternative options.  Given different views on which policies are appropriate, there is a need to take them forward through discussions involving all concerned parties.  The answer lies in multilateral cooperative initiatives.

Energy has very close links with at least two other key areas of concern, the environment and food security.  International trade is part of the solution for both these issues, providing environmentally friendly products and technologies, and access to cheap food, fertilizers and productivity enhancing technologies.  Sustainable development is one of the key objectives of the WTO Agreement and the WTO balances its trade opening objective and environmental objectives.  Likewise, its disciplines provide stability in  agriculture markets, encourage international trade to address food demand and keep food prices down.  Of course, to address both these two issues, we need to combine trade initiatives with appropriate domestic policies that encourage investment and reduce the distortion for pricing of energy and food.  Over time, the relevant question would be whether or not some of these initiatives would need any additional WTO provisions.  At present, that does not seem to be the case.

Energy is one area which does not have any disciplines in the WTO specifically for this sector.  More experience of trade related concerns might show a need for greater clarity on certain issues such as transport of energy products and the issue of subsidization.

 

Urbanization and good governance

Another very strong trend is towards urbanization.  For instance, by 2030 more than 55 per cent of the population of Asia will be urban.  This would require both infrastructure improvement and putting in place a system of good governance because with urbanization, a number of services and products would be obtained through government procurement.  In this situation, a larger role for infrastructure expenditure and public procurement would lead to considerable inefficiencies if it were not accompanied by a good governance framework such as in the WTO’s Agreement on Government Procurement.  This would encourage many more nations to become members of the Government Procurement Agreement.

 

Conclusion

The WTO or the multilateral trading system will become even more important due to the changes that are taking place globally.  Thus, we need to continue to emphasize a strong and relevant WTO system.  Over time, this will contribute positively to moving in other areas of concern that need multilateral solutions.

In the context of the Doha Round, the issues covered by the negotiations remain relevant and need to be addressed. Therefore, we must find ways of taking forward the members' engagement in the negotiations.

Interestingly, in order to meet the challenges posed by the evolving situation, many of the disciplines required would be those contained in the WTO or based on WTO disciplines on good governance.

We will also need supplementary mechanisms or systems, as well as appropriate domestic policies including safety nets to collectively address multiple concerns.

With a wider perspective and positive engagement taking account of ongoing changes, hopefully we would be able to over time develop new agendas for the multilateral trading system.

All this shows a need for cohesive and positive movement in difficult times.  For those of us who find this too daunting a task, I recall Mr Nelson Mandela who said that “It always seems impossible until it's done.”