Is this the end of the
development agenda?
T
he Doha Development Agenda
(DDA) is the trade-negotiation cycle
within the World Trade Organization
(WTO). The DDA’s core objective is to
address global trade issues that negatively
affect less developed countries, such as
trade facilitation, services, rules of origin
and dispute settlement. In this regard,
special and differential (S&D) treatment
for developing countries was introduced.
The DDA kicked off by committing all
countries to negotiating the opening up of
agricultural and manufacturing markets,
as well as trade-in-services negotiations. As
the objective was to make trade rules fairer
for developing countries, the negotiations
also focused on reducing farming
subsidies and lowering import taxes.
Subsidies in agriculture and agricultural
domestic support policies became a
major point of contention for developed
nations. The stark contrast and divide
between the global north and the global
south became apparent, with both the
EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
and the US’s agricultural support under
the Farm Bill as major sticking points. In
2005, trade ministers met in Hong Kong,
where most of them reached a deal that
set deadlines for eliminating subsidies
of agricultural exports by 2013.
However, in the aftermath of the global
food price crisis in 2007/2008, developed
countries began asking for a revision of
previous positions in order to adapt to new
world market realities. Developed countries
are now arguing that the WTO should
focus on a number of areas, including the
need to modernise rules within the WTO
to respond to new issues such as digital
trade. Furthermore, they are arguing that
the rise of emerging markets demands
the need for further differentiation of
countries; for instance, the US is arguing
that there are 34 developing countries that
have unduly claimed S&D treatment.
Meanwhile, developing countries
have insisted that the DDA has to be
concluded first, in order to ensure the
development issues affecting the global
south are sufficiently addressed. Developing
countries have persistently called for
a reform of the WTO with respect toprinciples of inclusivity and consensus
decision-making, the preservation of S&D
and a development focus that ensures
balanced outcomes for developing
and developed countries’ interests.A SPLIT IN WORLD TRADE
The divergence in positions between these
countries has seen a breakdown in the
WTO negotiation process, with developed
countries opting to work outside of the
WTO and forming alternative trade pacts in
order to advance their own agendas. In this
regard, developed countries started forming
mega-regional trade agreements. However, a
new wave of nationalism has seen some key
setbacks in this trend. For instance, Brexit has
been interpreted as a counter-trend to mega
regionals. Meanwhile, the US has also opted
out of these trade negotiations and elected to
go for strategic bilateral trade agreements.
The US is also setting an alternative
reform agenda for the WTO. For example,
the country has vetoed the appointment of
judges to the Appellate Body, an institution
that presides over the settlement of trade
disputes between nations in the WTO.
By December 2019, there will be only one
judge left on the Appellate Body, which
means that there will be no quorum and
no way of resolving trade disputes.
Another issue that has become a critical
focus for developed countries is the need
for countries to graduate and opt out of
S&D treatment, the prominent references
being India and China. These countries
say that India and China have developed
to a stage where they need to be treated to
a higher standard than other developing
countries. The US has removed India from
its Generalized System of Preferences
list and has targeted China through
a number of tariffs in this regard.
Overall, countries have assumed divergent
views regarding how to reform the WTO.
As a result, the WTO is said to be in a
state of crisis, with strategic moves from
developed countries, particularly the US, set
to deepen the crisis. By the end of the year,
one of its critical functions, namely dispute
settlement, will also be crippled. This will
render the WTO effectively dysfunctional,
and could spelltheendoftheDDA.OPINION & ANALYSIS
GLOBAL INSIGHT
BY DR TINASHE KAPUYA
Dr Tinashe Kapuya is an
agricultural economist. Email him
at [email protected].
9 AUGUST 2019 farmer’sweekly 13