On trade, Delhi G20 improves over the Bali declaration

By all accounts, the G20 meet in New Delhi was a success as all the leaders agreed to a joint declaration. While the wordings on the Russia-Ukraine war got a lot of attention, there are important wordings in the declaration on trade-related issues that deserve to be welcomed.
 

In the declaration following the meeting of the G20 leaders last year at Bali, Indonesia, there was no mention at all about reviving the moribund dispute settlement system at the World Trade Organization (WTO). This year, the G20 declaration says that the leaders remain committed to conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024, a significant step forward. Surely, this declaration falls short of a firm commitment to revive the dispute settlement mechanism but it is still an improvement over the glaring omission to make any mention of the issue in the Bali declaration.

It is near certain that the United States is reluctant to clear the way for appointment of members to the appellate body and thus revive the dispute settlement mechanism at the WTO. As far as the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are concerned, they were quite emphatic in calling for the restoration of a fully and well-functioning two-tier binding WTO dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024 and the selection of new appellate body members without further delay, at the BRICS summit last month at Johannesburg, South Africa.
 

The Bali declaration talked about the importance of inclusive international cooperation on digital trade but this year the G20 declaration is more specific in welcoming the high-level principles on digitalisation of trade documents and says that all G20 countries will not only make efforts to encourage implementation but also encourage other countries to consider these principles. The declaration welcomes the adoption of the G20 generic framework for mapping global value chains (GVC) to help members identify risks and build resilience. It also talks of enhancing access to information to micro, small and medium enterprises and promoting their integration into international trade. On other trade related matters, the Delhi declaration more or less says the same things as the Bali declaration.
 

On trade in agriculture commodities, the Bali declaration reaffirmed the need to update global agricultural food trade rules and to facilitate trade in agricultural and food products, as well as the importance of not imposing export prohibitions or restrictions on food and fertilisers in a manner inconsistent with relevant WTO provisions. This year there is a commitment to facilitate open, fair, predictable, and rules-based agriculture, food and fertiliser trade, not impose export prohibitions or restrictions, and reduce market distortions, in accordance with relevant WTO rules. Of course, each country puts its self interests above all other commitments just as India did while imposing restrictions on export of some agricultural commodities. Yet, a commitment on not imposing restrictions is much better than merely reaffirming the importance. To that extent, the Delhi declaration is a significant improvement.

Getting the leaders of 20 countries, each with different priorities, to agree on anything is difficult.  So, the Indian leadership and administrators deserve praise for getting everyone to agree on a joint declaration. Much depends on how the intentions get translated into action plans.

Email : tncrajagopalan@gmail.com