has been argued that more empowered secretariat could help ensure that all views are reflected, that the distributional dimensions of proposals are better understood (made more transparent) and that alternative potential compromises are put on the table. Ismail (2009a) argues that the WTO should consider the use of “supranational” chairs drawn from the ranks of the secretariat where a suitable chair is unavailable from among the members. More generally, Odell (2005) notes that there is little in the way of formal terms of reference or a code of conduct for Chairs: all that is required in the relevant WTO document addressing this matter is that “chairpersons should continue the tradition of being impartial and objective, ensuring transparency and inclusiveness in decision making and consultative processes; and aiming to facilitate consensus.”

# _The Secretariat_

The role of the WTO secretariat extends beyond merely servicing the membership. As noted by Esty (2007), the secretariat plays a role in agenda setting and structuring the interactions that occur in formal meetings. It also acts as the institutional memory for the trading system—an important role given regular turnover of delegations in Geneva and capitals—and provides much of the documentation/drafting for dispute settlement panels.<sup>20</sup> The Sutherland report called on members to bolster the role of the secretariat, permitting it to do more in terms of providing intellectual leadership and undertaking policy analysis. Proposals to expand the remit of the secretariat to strengthen its monitoring role, undertake analysis and provide better access to data have been pursued to a greater extent than have suggestions to give the secretariat greater powers of initiative. As noted by Lamy (2009), echoing the Sutherland report, to be more effective in supporting the trading system the secretariat needs stronger research, analysis and dissemination capacity, and must do more to compile and publish data on trade and trade policies. Lamy’s vision is one where the WTO becomes more of a source of knowledge and analysis on global trade statistics and policy, thereby becoming more effective in its support for negotiations, monitoring, dispute settlement, technical cooperation and outreach. The WTO membership has been taking steady steps in this direction, as reflected in the launch of an annual analytical report by the Economic Research and Statistics Division on a trade policy topic; closer collaboration with academic institutions in developing countries, including a program of WTO “chairs” (support for academics focusing on training and research in trade); as well as initiatives to expand monitoring (discussed below).

Following the creation of the WTO in 1995, many developing country governments, as well as numerous NGOs based in both poor and rich countries, suffered from a “Uruguay Round hangover” – a perception that the results of the round were unbalanced—see e.g., Finger (2007). Analysis of the outcome of the negotiations suggested that the net benefits for many developing countries in narrow market access terms were limited, and that the costs of implementation of some WTO disciplines could be significant. The result was a push for more effective and more technical assistance. One response was the creation of a special trust fund in which grants for technical assistance would be placed by donors, with the Secretariat reporting to the WTO Committee on Trade and Development on the use of funds. At the time of writing the trust fund had an annual budget of some CHF 25 million, equivalent to some 10

> other panelists, by comparison, is inconsequential. The implication they draw is that  the WTO would be well served by establishing a pool of permanent chairs.

> 20 In part this reflects the fact that panelists fulfill the job on a part‐time basis. See Nordstrom (2005) for an analysis of the roles played by the WTO secretariat.

10