Main Failures of APEC in the Past 20 Years

In the first decade, the biggest failure is ECOTECH which was the third pillar of APEC. However, it was too week to be a pillar. Another big failure at that period isEarly Voluntary Sectoral liberalization(EVSL,19971999). In the second decade, a big failure of APEC is Bogor Goals (1994-2010/2010) which will not be realised on time.Since mid-turm assesment in 2005, it has been clear that Bogor Goals can not be reached on time

Why Did Failures Happen?

APEC is not WTO. APEC has not any negotiation mechanism and binding decision making system. APEC lacks of sufficient capacity to realize its own objectives and effective cooperation among the members. Some developed members have no enthusiam to fulfill Bogor Goal.(ten year free-riding for developing members?)

APECs failures The most obvious failure is on the issue in which APECs colors were first nailed to the international mast trade liberalization. APEC was formed in 1988 out of apprehension that trade blocs were emerging in Europe (the EC Single Market) and North America (the North American Free Trade Agreement). East Asia was not then in a position to contemplate its own regional trade community. So espousal of a political commitment to open regionalism was the response. This was hailed as sophisticated public policy no discriminatory free trade agreements in East Asia; instead APEC supported liberal economic arrangements that encouraged unilateral liberalization. The policy solution was effective but, in truth, APEC was not capable doing more than entering a political commitment like that at that time. It was ultimately given the most powerful endorsement available. Through the APEC Leaders Summit in Bogor, President Soeharto managed adoption of a Declaration that APEC economies would remove all barriers to trade and investment by 2020. This was and still is a significant policy goal. It still shapes policy in the region. It is a reasonable target. Accepting the reality that no target for full liberalization is ever fully implemented, it is feasible that by 2020, APEC economies will be close to removing most barriers to trade and investment1. The average rate of liberalization by APEC economies in the previous two decades, if extrapolated into the future, would achieve that. What besmirched APECs trade liberalization score card? It was the ill-fated attempt at the Summit in Kuala Lumpur in 1998 to adopt an APEC program of voluntary trade liberalization. This was driven by Australia, the US, Singapore, Chile and New Zealand: good free trade zealots all, but misguided in this case. Japan blocked the proposal, when considered first by officials, then by Ministers, and then by Leaders (as they were always going to do). This was a public relations disaster for APEC2. APEC has also been guilty of public policy blah. Under the Ecotech heading, numerous programs to produce dubious results have been funded. In this respect, APEC has performed below the standard of most international organizations. Programs have overlapped, served contrary goals and have basically produced paper. This has irritated officials, but the concern has not really spilt into the public realm. It does not interest most commentators. Officials have known APECs trade mission was fouled. They promoted demonstrations that things were otherwise. Before each WTO ministerial, APEC Leaders adopt ringing commitments to liberalize and move the WTO on. It is generally held among APEC officials that the Leaders commitment to the WTO at the Shanghai Summit in October 2001 laid the ground for the successful launch of the WTO Round in Qatar the next month. It would have helped. But the post 911 mood of the international community was such that the launch of the Doha Round was a foregone conclusion. APEC Leaders declared at the Mexico Summit in 2002 that the WTO meeting at Cancun in October 2003 had to be successful. It was not. Key APEC economies sided actively with the developing countries that brought the Cancun meeting to its knees, for trite reasons. APEC Leaders met again a month later in Bangkok. They lamented the failure at Cancun as if it was remote from what some of their own representatives had done in Mexico. This is normal in international affairs. But it reveals the weakness of the claims by trade officials that commitments at APEC Summits are influential in shaping developments in the WTO. The true value of APEC on trade liberalization has been the political value of the Bogor goals in guiding domestic policy of APEC members.

The failure of the APEC summit to signal its intent to seriously tackle climate change is extremely disappointing, just over 20 days before the start of the crucial Copenhagen summit. Talk of a legally binding deal only emerging next year is also unacceptable. The global community has been involved in climate negotiations for too long and delaying action on what is the most pressing global issue is absolutely inexcusable. The constant dithering by countries and lack of commitment to cut absolute emissions is intolerable. Often, countries seek to find the best deal for themselves by finding reasons not to take action. This selfish behavior should not be tolerated because ultimately, it is in the common good to preserve our environment for the good of all of humanity. APEC, with its member countries making up over 50% of global GDP and around 60% of carbon emissions is therefore a huge stakeholder in the success of climate change negotiations. Weak language and feel-good niceties in its statements do no one any good. How can it say it would seek an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen when there is no language in its final declaration on clear and specific plans for emissions reductions targets, as well as financial and technological flows for adaptation and mitigation? How can APEC merely reaffirm a 2007 goal to reduce carbon intensity of its economic output without any concrete new goals in 2009 when environmentally effective measures are needed more than ever? If the APEC governments can mobilize trillions of dollars to stimulate economic growth in the short-term, it can surely do something similar for it to transition to a lowcarbon region. With its history of continued economic cooperation, APEC is more than capable of promoting low-carbon growth on a much wider scale. Reforms to address regulatory failures that led to the global economic crisis can also be extended to catalyze systemic change that will prevent a looming environmental crisis. This summits aims to implement measures to ensure long-term economic prosperity can never be achieved without massively changing current production patterns that are still extremely carbon intensive. With its history of continued economic cooperation, APEC is more than capable of promoting low-carbon growth on a much wider scale. Reforms to address regulatory failures that led to the global economic crisis can also be extended to catalyze systemic change that will prevent a looming environmental crisis. This summits aims to implement measures to ensure long-term economic prosperity can never be achieved without massively changing current production patterns that are still extremely carbon intensive. Environmental goods and service can therefore be the centerpiece of the future of economic prosperity. In line with APECs maxim on trade liberalization and open markets, this sector must be expanded rapidly and promoted wholeheartedly. Given the vastly different economic circumstances of member nations, APEC can provide a framework of a plan of action, in accordance with the much touted principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities. This should include cumulative emission reductions target that meet the latest developments in climate science. Environmental protection must accompany any plans in trade liberalization and expansion and economic integration. Developed countries within the bloc must take the lead in implementing bold measures to mitigate climate change.

APEC can and must do much betterthe environmental and economic future of the world depends much on its decisions.