The lack of time available for serious negotiations, difficulties in the management and organisation of the conference, and the exclusion of many developing countries from the discussions, made it difficult to bridge these differences. No real negotiations took place where we could look at a complete package of issues and find consensus. It is difficult to know whether, given more time, agreement could have been reached. Certainly some WTO Members are convinced it could have been. Procedural and Institutional Issues A number of lessons should be drawn from Seattle that should influence our approach in the coming months.
Work also needs to be organised more efficiently.
There may be scope for short term improvements in working methods, particularly in preparing for and managing ministerial conferences, where greater transparency, efficiency, and means to ensure fuller participation by developing countries seem warranted. In the longer term, we may need to examine options for broader improvements to the system. Nor should the WTO system be made the scapegoat for failure to bridge gaps on the substance of negotiations. Despite continued differences on several points of the negotiating agenda, it would be wrong to conclude that those differences could not have been bridged given better preparation in Geneva, more time in Seattle, and more flexibility all round. It should therefore be possible to bridge them in the future.