JOB/GC/172  
 
7 March 2018  
(18-1428) Page: 1/4 
General Council    
 
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL ON THE INFORMAL TNC  
AND HEADS OF DELEGAT ION MEETING  
MONDAY, 5 MARCH 2018  
1.1.  Good morning and welcome to this informal TNC and informal HODs meeting.  Thank you all 
for being here today. This meeting is an opportunity to reflect on the way forward after MC11 and 
to raise and discuss issues ahead of the General Council meeting on Wednesday.  
1.2.  I recall that all your statements, and my own, will be reflected  in the minutes of the General 
Council meeting.  So I expect that all delegations and group coordinators will take the floor today 
and not at the General Council.  
1.3.  This is our first meeting of the year in this format, but there has already been a lot of 
activity. I have been engaging widely with Members since the Ministerial C onference in December. 
My meetings have included:  
• The Swiss -organised informal ministerial gathering in Davos.  
• Bilateral visits to the UAE and Bulgaria.  
• The ACP retreat here in Ge neva.  
• Consultations with the Cotton -4. 
• Discussions with various ministers and ambassadors.  
• And of course last week we welcomed President Nyusi of Mozambique to the WTO.  
 
1.4.  In addition, I am also in close contact with the General Council Chair and the  Negotiating 
Group Chairs, and met with them all together on Thursday last week.  
1.5.  There is clearly a desire among many Members  to reflect on the problems we faced at MC11, 
and to find practical and constructive ways to move forward. Indeed, the ACP meeting I just 
mentioned was held precisely to reflect on MC11 and explore innovative ways to advance our 
work.  
1.6.  In reflecting on MC11, let me once again extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to 
Argentina, through Ambassador Cima, for the exemplary organizati on of the Conference.  
1.7.  There were many positives from MC11. The meeting was conducted in a very constructive 
and well -organized manner. Moreover, it was completely open and transparent. It was entirely 
member -driven. And levels of engagement were excellent.  
1.8.  We also saw very high levels of political support for our work, with the tone set on day one 
by the Presidential Declaration. And we saw strong engagement from other stakeholders – with 
the Business Forum convened by Argentina being a notable success.  
1.9.  Ministers adopted four decisions in Buenos Aires, covering our regular work:  
• e-commerce;  
• TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints;  
• small economies; and,  
• the working party on the accession of South Sudan.  
 JOB/GC/172  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.10.   And on the negotiating track – the dec ision on fisheries subsides was agreed.  The outcome 
on fisheries subsidies was a step forward, but it was not the ambitious outcome that many were 
hoping for, including myself. In addition, we did not meet the deadline on public stockholding. And 
we could not agree on more detailed work programmes in many areas.  However, there was 
agreement to keep working in all areas. Let me quote Minister Malcorra's closing statement from 
the Ministerial Conference. She said: " Members  agreed to advance negotiations on al l remaining 
issues, including on the three pillars of agriculture, namely domestic support, market access and 
export competition, as well as non -agriculture market access, services, development, TRIPS, rules, 
and trade and environment."  
1.11.   This is very import ant. But if we want to make progress we need to face up to the problems 
before us. Pledges of support for the system need to be matched by deeds. I will come back to this 
point.  
1.12.   The final element from Buenos Aires which I want to recognise here is the var ious 
declarations from groups of Members  covering:  
• e-commerce,  
• investment facilitation,  
• MSMEs and  
• women's economic empowerment.  
 
1.13.   So that's where we stand after MC11. Our task now is to find viable ways forward.  
1.14.   A few of the negotiating groups have already met.   
1.15.   The Negotiating Group on Rules met on 30 January to discuss the process for fisheries 
subsidies work pursuant to the Ministerial Decision. I am informed that there was considerable 
convergence across a broad spectrum of Members  on a proc ess of technical work, based on 
information exchange and workshops with outside experts, to inform the further negotiations. 
Views were also exchanged on how the negotiations as such should proceed. Members  generally 
agreed that the Negotiating Group should establish a clear calendar of multi -day meeting clusters 
on fisheries subsidies for the remainder of this year. I would therefore anticipate an active 
programme of fisheries subsidies work once the new ne gotiating group Chair is in place.   
1.16.   With regard to the DSU Negotiations, in early January of this year, the Chair circulated an 
indicative timetable of focused work for the whole of 2018. In accordance with this timetable, the 
group has already held two me etings after MC11, and a third one is scheduled for later this week, 
all on the issue of Post -retaliation. In late March, the Chair intends to take up Transparency as the 
next issue after Post retaliation.  
1.17.   I hope we will find a way to make progress in oth er areas as well, including on Agriculture, 
Services, Development and Cotton.  But, at present we still do not have a chair for the negotiating 
group on Agriculture. This is extremely urgent. I advise Members  to work with the General Council 
Chair to resolv e this issue.  
1.18.   In this regard, let me open a small parenthesis. I hope we will count on the readiness of 
Permanent Representatives to serve the Members hip in this very sensitive position. I also hope 
you all understand that the designated Chair will be ass isting you in his or her personal capacity, 
so that nationality should play a minor role in the nomination process. I remind you that when a 
nomination for Chair is objected, for you it’s not personal, but for the Permanent Representative 
that was objected , it is indeed very, very personal. And I think this is partly why it has been so 
difficult to get nominations. So I ask you to please consider how to help the General Council Chair 
in his task of gathering consensus around Chairs' appointments.  
1.19.   Getting ba ck to what I was saying before this small parenthesis, I think Members  should 
seek to learn from the experience of MC11. If we simply repeat the same approaches, we will very 
likely arrive at the same results. If we want to go further and deliver substanti ve outcomes across 
the board, we shouldn't just go back to business as usual.  JOB/GC/172  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.20.   We need to reflect in an active way. With this in mind, I have suggested that the 
Negotiating Group Chairs guide a conversation about how to find approaches that could be more 
promising.  
1.21.   I stress that this is just a suggestion. Members  and chairs will decide together the precise 
steps that they want to take. And in making this suggestion, let me be clear:  
• First, this active and reflective process does not mean that we abandon the many proposals 
and ideas on the table.   
• Second, the reflection should not be a protracted exercise – rather it could be just one or 
two meetings at most.  
• And third; it is likely there will be different results in different groups – that is to be 
expected. Moreover, there will be different needs in different groups. In some groups this 
kind of conversation may be needed, in others maybe not. Again, this is for you to 
determine, together with the respective Chair.  
 
1.22.   I will be ready to help facilitate  this conversation in any way that Members  think can be 
useful.  
1.23.   As I have stressed many times, development and particularly the prospects for the LDCs 
must remain at the heart of our work. And I think we need to do some real soul searching here. 
The conve rsation facilitated in Buenos Aires by Minister Eriksen Soreide was very constructive. We 
should seek to build on that conversation. I think we can all agree that development should remain 
at the centre of our work, but it is quite obvious that there is a very deep divide among Members  
about how to help and achieve development. I believe that we must acknowledge these different 
views and find ways to make progress despite these divergences. This will not be easy, but we can 
do it if we truly commit to under stand each other’s views and to try to find a middle ground.  
1.24.   In terms of the various initiatives launched in Buenos Aires by like -minded Members , as 
always it will be up to proponents to take these initiatives forward. It's encouraging that, in each 
case, proponents are clear that these initiatives will be open -ended, inclusive and transparent. I 
have always stressed that these initiatives should not be a departure from multilateralism, but a 
way to help and support it.  Let me note here that I have been ap proached by these groups asking 
for Secretariat support. As we do with all such requests, we will provide support strictly on a 
demand basis. So let me stress again, that it is for the proponents to lead these initiatives.  
1.25.   When I look at how we might move  forward in all areas of our work, and when I discuss 
these issues with Members , it always comes back to one point: flexibility.  
1.26.   I think it is clear that the organization has changed significantly over the past two decades 
or so.  Today the larger Members  can't force their views on others. But, equally, groups of 
Members , no matter how numerous they are, cannot impose their views on others either.  
1.27.   So how do we respond to this scenario?  
1.28.   As I said at the closing ceremony in Buenos Aires – if Members  are not p repared to put 
themselves in others' shoes and seek compromises, then we have little hope to move forward. The 
approach of 'I get what I want or no one gets anything' is very destructive. It does not encourage 
flexibility or efforts to find common ground.  
1.29.   We need to find ways of increasing the levels of flexibility that we show to each other. And 
we know that this flexibility is facilitated by the different approaches for which the system allows. 
For example, in terms of specific initiatives, we have:  
• flexibility in substance, with the multilateral Trade Facilitation Agreement, for example,  
• flexibility in geometry, with the plurilateral initiatives like the GPA or the ITA,  
• and we are now seeing somewhat new flexibilities with these open -ended exploratory 
conversations.  
 JOB/GC/172  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.30.   In a system with 164 Members  of different sizes, different priorities and different stages of 
development, these kinds of flexibilities are essential.  Ultim ately, no one should be forced to 
accept anything or to negotiate anything they don’t want to. But, at the same time, everyone 
should be free to discuss issues that are of importance to them.  
1.31.   In my consultations so far this year I have been detecting a po sitive, pragmatic mood from 
Members . This is very welcome. We need to build on this. And I will remain ready to serve the 
Members hip to that end in any way that I can.  
1.32.   That concludes my report .  
__________