Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for this opportunity to address you today. Let me start by thanking Peru for the very warm hospitality — and for giving us the chance to visit Arequipa.

I’m always pleased to be here at APEC. This body has always been hugely supportive of the WTO and the multilateral trading system. And you have always played a very positive role in our work.

I want to thank you for your ongoing support — and particularly for your support (and your patience) in reaching a positive conclusion at our Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in December.

I look forward to another useful exchange here today.

With that in mind, let me give you a quick overview of our work in Geneva as things stand today.

I won’t repeat the outcomes from the Nairobi Ministerial Conference — you were there too. But I will say that I have had many conversations with members so far this year. I have spoken to ministers in many capitals. There was an excellent meeting of ministers in Davos, convened by the Swiss government. In fact, today’s meeting is the first major ministerial gathering since then. 

Throughout my exchanges with ministers this year I have heard a couple of very consistent messages:

One, that Nairobi was a significant success, which built on the success of Bali in a very positive way.

And, two, that we need to keep on delivering.

In my view, if we are to keep on delivering, then two steps will be essential.

First, we need to implement what we have already agreed. This is vital for building trust between members and credibility in the process.

We need to implement all decisions taken in both Bali and Nairobi, including by engaging fully in the work programmes established at both ministerial conferences.

Also, amongst other things, you all must ratify the Trade Facilitation Agreement, and notify your acceptance of the TRIPS amendment on access to medicines (this one, of course, is a much older undertaking).

Many of the APEC economies have already taken these steps — and I thank you for that. In fact, 14 of you have ratified the TFA and 17 APEC members have ratified the TRIPS amendment. I urge those who haven’t done so to accelerate your domestic processes to ensure that these two measures can be brought into force in the near future.

Second, to keep delivering we must also define the path forward.

And I think that now, already five months on from Nairobi, we need to shift gears towards scoping out possible deliverables. These deliverables could come within the next months, by MC11 or later. Whatever the timeframe for each initiative, we still need to identify the potential outcomes. 

On a positive note, I am seeing a significant increase in the level of interest and positivity about our work. I have been inviting members to reflect and to contribute their thoughts on precisely how we can advance negotiations. And I continue to hear a lot of ideas being floated regarding both process and substance.

On substance, there remains a clear emphasis on putting development at the centre — and on prioritizing LDC issues. And of course members remain committed to delivering the remaining DDA issues.

With regard to the DDA, I have not yet heard anything that could promise a breakthrough. We tried very hard for two years to find an idea, a methodology, anything that could facilitate an agreement. But, evidently, so far, we have not found a way to bridge the gaps.

The difficulties were not really based on substantive economic considerations. Many of the ideas floated would require minimal - if any - changes to existing programmes, especially in agricultural domestic support. The difficulties were mostly political. They revolved around very basic and fundamental conceptual differences about what and how each one should be contributing. There was no overlap at all in positions.

So we clearly need to brainstorm further if we are to identify solutions, particularly on the tougher issues. What is evident is that we won’t move forward here without a real step-change in the levels of flexibility and political will.

Also, beyond the DDA core issues of agriculture, NAMA and services, I am hearing a range of other things that members would like to discuss as well.

Some of these are also DDA issues. Fisheries subsidies is one such area which has frequently been raised. Other issues which I have heard raised include competition policy, SMEs (or MSMEs), investment facilitation, e-commerce, private standards, NTBs and many others.

I note that a number of these issues feature prominently in your draft communiqué. And of course APEC has been leading the way in discussing many of these areas.

The challenge now will be to crystallize precisely what members want to discuss under these broad headings. In each case, we need a much greater degree of specificity than we have at present.

E-commerce, for example, could cover a whole universe of potential issues. What specific areas do members want to put on the table for discussion?

We will need more clarity in order to make progress. I think that APEC could play a useful role on this front, as you have in the past.

The debate already feels significantly more dynamic than it did just 12 months ago. Private sector interest has picked up significantly, for example.

In a few days’ time I will be facilitating a meeting at the WTO at the request of the ICC and B20, where business leaders will come and share their views on issues they believe should be picked up in the WTO. Initiatives like this, or like the focus that the Philippines and others are putting on MSMEs, could help us to put flesh on the bones of these issues. 

Similarly, your discussions in other fora — such as TPP, RCEP, EGA or TISA, — may help to shed light here and bring fresh ideas to the debate. I look forward to hearing your views.

Still on substance, I hope that progress may be possible in the near future on the EGA. I know that many of you are working hard to get it done well before the year ends. I urge you to continue these efforts and I will be ready to help in any way I can.

On process, I should say that however members want to move forward and whatever issues they want to discuss, we must ensure that it happens in an inclusive and open-ended way. We need to afford any and all WTO members the opportunity to participate actively and constructively from day one.

I am, of course, a strong believer in multilateralism and I think that this should be the preferred approach. But I’m sure in some areas not all members will be ready to or willing to participate. Therefore in my view the future of our negotiations hinges on our ability to be flexible, recognizing fully the diversity of circumstances among the members.

We could, for example, seek somehow to follow the model of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Or we could potentially look to a hybrid approach, combining multilateral and plurilateral elements.

There are a range of such ideas and possibilities — and the precise path we follow is of course down to the members. But I think the key factor will be flexibility. 

So, there is a lot to be done, particularly if we want to keep delivering in the short term.

In Geneva I am urging an intensification of all this work in the months ahead. More precisely, I have stressed that we need to transition from reflection into action. And in order to act, we need to decide what our goals are. We have of course the implementation work, but if you wish to go any further, there is no time to waste.

And, as ever, your role will be central.

APEC countries have a strong track-record of providing leadership on some of the key issues at the WTO. You were ahead of the pack on trade facilitation, same on EGA, and you are now leading the way on many of the issues that members are now discussing in Geneva. Here in Arequipa we are framed by three volcanos. I hope they inspire us with an eruption of ideas and initiatives in Geneva.

Your support will remain vital — and it can’t wait!

While Nairobi was a success, clearly the process was not ideal, far from it. Too much had to be done at the last minute. Too much had to be done in Nairobi itself! We should learn this lesson so that we don’t find ourselves in the same position next time around.

Political backing at the ministerial level is essential — now, throughout discussions in Geneva, and in the lead-up to the next ministerial conference.

So please, get involved and stay engaged.

Thank you for listening.