In an uncertain global trading order, is the WTO still relevant to the Caribbean?

Failure. Broken. Flop. These are some of the descriptors commentators have used for the World Trade Organisation (WTO)’s fourteenth Ministerial Conference (MC 14) held in Yaounde, Cameroon, from March 26-30, 2026. Traditionally, this event would not be on the average citizen’s radar, but the tariff turmoil sparked by the United States’ so-called “reciprocal tariffs” and the oil price shocks from the conflict in Iran and resulting effects in the Strait of Hormuz have made trade impossible to ignore, and with it, renewed questions about whether the WTO still matters. In this SRC Trading Thoughts, I argue that despite its flaws, the rules-based multilateral trading system overseen by the WTO remains vital and relevant for small states, such as those in the Caribbean.

The WTO’s quiet relevance

For most Caribbean people, even among the private sector, what happens at the Geneva-based WTO remains abstract. Some Caribbean people may know the WTO because of unpleasant episodes, such as the EC Bananas cases, which hastened the end of preferential EU market access for certain Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries’ commodities or Antigua’s online gambling dispute with the US, which Antigua won but the US has largely ignored. It is understandable, then, that the organisation leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many in the region, especially those directly impacted.

Despite this, the rules negotiated first under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and, since 1995, under the WTO have helped sustain the relatively smooth, predictable and rules-based trading system we have known for decades. Rules negotiated at the WTO are why it is easier for us to access goods and services from other countries. They are why sellers can expect a minimum standard of market access conditions when selling their goods and services across borders. Moreover, for many years its dispute settlement mechanism has provided an important forum for the peaceful settlement of trade disputes between countries.  

MC14 reveals increased strain on multilateral system

While the WTO has faced criticism almost from its inception, MC14’s failure to achieve any substantive outcomes is yet another symptom of the accumulated strain on the over thirty-year-old institution. Held usually every two years, the Ministerial Conference is the WTO’s highest decision-making body, where WTO members’ Ministers of Trade and other high-level delegates meet to take decisions on multilateral trade matters. Notably, MC14’s outcomes were largely procedural decisions which were mostly already agreed in Geneva and simply adopted in Cameroon.

There were three main touted ‘outcomes’ of MC14. The first, dating back to the Doha mandate of 2001, was the decision to improve the integration of small economies into global trade. This instructed the WTO Secretariat to provide factual analysis on certain issues germane to these economies. This analysis could provide evidential backing for more inclusive policies to improve these countries’ integration into the global economy.

Second, members agreed on operationalisation and implementation of the special and differential treatment (S&DT) provisions under the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. These provisions give countries breathing space to build capacity in food safety and product standards, but are seen as broad and vague. This makes implementing them in practice difficult, leading to calls for operationalisation. Of course, it remains to be seen how this will be done.  

Third, on fisheries subsidies, Ministers instructed the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules to continue work on disciplines addressing subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, phase II of the Fisheries Subsidies negotiations (Fish II). The Fisheries Subsidies Agreement was concluded at MC12 and entered into force in September 2025, but these additional disciplines remain to be negotiated. For small island developing states (SIDS), fisheries are indispensable for livelihoods and food security. Members’ recommitment to this second phase of the negotiations is important procedurally, but substance would entail negotiating strong disciplines that curb large subsidisers while preserving policy space for small vulnerable economies.

Critical issues remained…

The outcomes were modest, leaving critical issues unresolved and stalled. The moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions, which has been in place and periodically renewed since 1998, lapsed after members failed to reach agreement on its renewal. Notably, this leaves the door open for countries to apply customs duties on digital goods such as eBooks, movies and music streaming services. The WTO Work Programme on Ecommerce, which was tied to the renewal of the moratorium, therefore, was not adopted.

Another pertinent outstanding matter is the paralysis of the WTO’s Appellate Body, the equivalent of a court of appeal, due to the US’s continued blocking of members’ (judges) appointments. Without a fully functioning system for the peaceful settlement of trade disputes, power politics can fill the vacuum. Some countries, including recently Barbados, have joined on to an interim arrangement called the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), but this remains just a stop-gap measure.

There was also no decision on the proposed Least Developed Countries (LDC) package which includes items seeking to promote the integration of LDCs into the global economy. This is germane to CARICOM as Haiti is an LDC.

Also noteworthy was that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) non-violation and situation complaints moratorium, which protected policy space around intellectual property since 2001, lapsed for the first time. Significantly, the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement, in which six CARICOM states participated, was again blocked from being adopted into the WTO’s formal legal architecture.

WTO’s value is not lost

MC14’s shortcomings should not obscure what the WTO still offers. The WTO has flaws, but for small states it remains preferable to a purely power-based trading system. It is the only major multilateral economic rule-making forum in which small states sit formally as equals. In addition to its role as a forum for negotiating and monitoring trade rules, it plays a significant role as a convening forum for countries to discuss trade-related issues, such as the environment, public health, among others. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the WTO was a forum for countries to discuss and share the trade-related aspects of the pandemic. Indeed, it is why this month, as we do every year, we at the SRC will take our Masters in Trade Policy (MITP) students to Geneva to understand the workings of the WTO and other trade-related institutions.

MC14’s lacklustre outcome further weakened confidence in the WTO’s negotiating function, but before penning the organisation’s obituary, it is worth remembering that this was not the first ministerial conference to end in a less than stellar outcome. The organisation can make progress once members have the political will to do so. Moreover, even countries most vocal in opposition to the WTO still attended the Ministerial. Additionally, the number of jurisdictions, like Curacao, in accession also shows that, despite its challenges, the WTO remains an institution worthy of joining, even for small jurisdictions.

Some recommendations going forward

As the Caribbean remains committed to the multilateral system and seeks to engage in reform, I offer the following suggestions.

First, we must beware of the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ reform proposals that do not serve our interests. WTO reform must not dilute core protections for small economies, especially most favoured nation (MFN) treatment, special and differential treatment as a treaty-embedded right, and consensus-based decision-making. It is also imperative that Caribbean states insist that agriculture, fisheries subsidies, digital trade, food security, and trade-related climate measures remain part of the development conversation.

Second, continued cooperation through the CARICOM Ambassadors’ Caucus in Geneva is essential, coupled with continued coalition-building through the ACP, the G90, small vulnerable economies, and other negotiating groupings in the WTO.

Third, there is also a need for greater transparency around national and regional positions in WTO negotiations. Ultimately, we engage in the multilateral trading system to benefit our businesses and improve the welfare of our people. If we can read public statements from other countries explaining their negotiating positions and priorities, then Caribbean citizens, businesses, and researchers should also have more access to what our countries and our region are advocating on our behalf.

Finally, we need to rely more on our own analytical capacity. The UWI, and specifically the Shridath Ramphal Centre, can support Caribbean delegations with sound, evidence-based analysis, especially on some of the newer emerging areas.

In conclusion, is the WTO still relevant to the Caribbean in this uncertain global trading order? Yes! The WTO and the multilateral trading system are under strain but are not moribund. Now is the time for our countries to continue to engage deliberately in pushing for reforms while ensuring the rules and principles that give small economies some measure of protection work more optimally. The alternative to a rules-based order is a purely power-based trading order in which small states have even less voice, less leverage and fewer safeguards, and thereby less policy space to ensure that trade redounds to the benefit of our people. For small states, an imperfect rules-based system is better than none at all.

Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is the Junior Research Fellow of The Shridath Ramphal Centre for International Trade Law, Policy and Services of The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill. Learn more about the SRC at www.shridathramphalcentre.com.