The 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ended without resolving the contentious issue of extending the moratorium on customs duties on electronic commerce, such as digital downloads and streaming.More importantly, MC14 highlighted structural differences between developed and developing countries not only on e-commerce but also on agriculture, food security, and, above all, the future direction of WTO reforms. But what are the key challenges in reconciling the priorities of developed and developing countries? Are WTO rules constraining India’s food security policies? Does the shift towards plurilateral agreements signal a weakening of multilateralism in global trade? First, let’s briefly examine the key outcomes of the MC14, which concluded on Monday (March 30) in Yaounde, Cameroon. Key takeaways from MC14The official outcome of MC14 presents a mixed picture. It failed to reach a consensus on issuing a ministerial declaration, a ceremonial document that sums up what members achieved. But it produced a Yaoundé package, which comprises certain draft decisions, but core issues remain unresolved. So, what exactly was achieved:First, members agreed on a set of decisions to improve the integration of small economies into global trade. Story continues below this adSecond, they made some practical enhancements in the operationalisation of Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) under Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to Trade (TBT) agreements. This means that developing countries now have slightly better access to technical assistance and longer transition periods for compliance. Third, ministers agreed to continue negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Fourth, there was a commitment to carry forward discussions on WTO reform and digital trade. Where consensus couldn’t be achieved:First, there was no agreement on extending the e-commerce moratorium. This moratorium prevents customs duties on digital transmission like software, streaming, and data flows. Second, the China-backed Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement was not adopted. Although the agreement gained the support of 128 countries, India opposed it for multiple reasons, including its incorporation through a plurilateral route. Story continues below this adWhile plurilateral deals only apply to participating countries, the WTO is traditionally based on multilateralism and consensus.Third, there was no consensus on a comprehensive WTO reform package. While there’s broad agreement on the need for reforms on issues including decision-making, dispute settlement and development, member countries couldn’t agree on how to proceed. Structural divide The failure at MC14 is rooted in structural divergence. A case in point is the difference between developing and developed countries on extending the existing moratoriums on customs duties for electronic transmissions. E-commerce is defined as the production, distribution, marketing, sale or delivery of goods and services by electronic means. WTO members have agreed not to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions since 1998. It has been renewed every two years since then. At MC14, it expired because members could not agree on an extension. Story continues below this adThe moratorium prevents the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions, including software, digital services, streaming content, and data flows. Notably, developing countries, including India, have opposed the extension on grounds, including: 1. Loss of revenue from digitally delivered services in the future, with UNCTAD estimating over USD 10 billion annually forgone.2. Uncertainty about the scope of digital trade.3. Lack of empirical data on its impact.In contrast, developed countries are pushing for rules on digital trade and investment such as patents, services, and intellectual property rights. Their digital services exports depend on zero tariffs and predictable regulatory frameworks. For instance, the US alone exported over USD 500 billion in digital services in 2023. But developing countries, including India, are more focused on agriculture, food security and policy flexibility. For them, binding commitments on digital trade without a permanent solution to such issues is a non-starter.Story continues below this adThese differences are not easily reconcilable, and raise a broader question: who will shape the rules of the digital economy? India’s position India’s position is not anti-digital. Rather, it resists binding and permanent rules before understanding the consequences. Meanwhile, critics argue that the US is seeking to rewrite the rules in ways that align with its economic interests. For instance, it is pushing for permanent tariff-free digital trade – a sector dominated by American companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta. At the same time, it is adopting protectionist measures like slapping tariffs on a range of goods, from Chinese steel to European cars.At the same time, with successive American administrations blocking the appointment of judges to the WTO’s dispute settlement body, its trade dispute settlement powers have been rendered dysfunctional. Story continues below this adThis perceived inconsistency – advocating free trade in some areas while practicing protectionism in others – has not gone unnoticed. It further makes consensus increasingly difficult to achieve among WTO members. The WTO is a consensus-based system, with each of the 166 members having a veto. Resultantly, some countries are moving towards plurilateral agreements, small coalitions that move ahead without full consensus. Sixty-six countries moved ahead with their own e-commerce agreement, and another 120 plus backed a separate investment deal. In addition, over 350 regional trade agreements are now in force, many with deeper provisions than WTO agreements. It won’t be wrong to say that this is how multilateral systems die. Not with a bang, but with everyone making other arrangements. Why Delhi refuses to trade away policy space India was one of the most vocal countries at MC14. On digital trade, India’s position is straightforward: It is not ready to give up customs revenue and policy space permanently, not before it understands the full impact, and not when 40 percent of its population still does not have reliable internet access. Story continues below this adIndia’s food programme feeds approximately 500 million people. The government buys grain from farmers, stores it, and distributes it. Under WTO math, this looks like a huge subsidy because it compares today’s prices to prices from nearly 40 years ago. If a farmer gets 25 rupees per kg today and the market price is 24, the real subsidy is 1 rupee. But the WTO compares it to a 1986 price of 2-3 rupees, and suddenly the subsidy looks like 22 rupees. India has consistently demanded a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security, strong and effective Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) provisions, the full restoration of the dispute settlement system, and no integration of plurilateral agreements into the WTO without consensus. What needs to change Three things stand out clearly. First, the dispute settlement system needs to be fixed. court. A WTO without enforcement is like a referee who cannot blow the whistle. Story continues below this adSecond, agricultural rules need to be updated. Using 1986 prices to calculate subsidies in 2026 is increasingly untenable. Third, digital trade needs to be negotiated more equitably. The lapse of the e-commerce moratorium is not necessarily a setback. It may be seen as an opportunity to craft rules that reflect differing levels of digital development. Fourth, making the decision-making process more flexible would be helpful. While consensus cannot be abandoned, it also cannot remain rigid to the point of paralysis. Plurilateral agreements, with safeguards for non-members, may be considered. Can the WTO survive? The WTO governs 98 per cent of world trade. But the governance works only if major players respect the system. When the most powerful members opt out of rules that do not suit them, the institution’s credibility is undermined. The WTO’s one of the greatest achievements has been providing small countries with legal tools to challenge big economies – and sometimes win. That system is now at risk. For India, this matters beyond economics. The WTO, despite its flaws, remains one of the few platforms where a developing country prevails on the strength of its argument, rather than the size of its economy. The MP14 did not break the system. It exposed its fractures. The WTO is no longer the primary forum for shaping new rules. The real risk is not sudden collapse, but gradual marginalisation.The question is no longer whether the WTO can facilitate discussions, but whether it can still shape outcomes. For India, the situation seemingly calls for continuing to defend policy space, push for asymmetrical rules, and insist on a binding and effective dispute management system. Post read questionsDiscuss the significance of the e-commerce moratorium in global trade. Why has it become contentious among developing countries?What is Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT)? Evaluate its relevance in contemporary WTO negotiations.Why do developing countries like India emphasize food security and public stockholding in WTO negotiations? Analyze how the use of 1986–88 reference prices in WTO calculations affects India’s agricultural subsidy limits.The failure of MC14 reflects deeper structural divide between developed and developing nations. Critically examine.The shift towards plurilateral agreements signals a weakening of multilateralism in global trade. Discuss.(Pushpendra Singh is an Assistant Professor of Economics at Somaiya Vidyavihar University, Mumbai, and Archana Singh is an Assistant Professor of Gender and Economics at the International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai.)Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for February 2026. Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.