World Trade Organization Agriculture Negotiations at the 14th Ministerial Conference

As members head toward the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14), expectations for a breakthrough on agriculture remain low. Long-standing disagreements over domestic support, public stockholding of food at government-set prices by developing countries, and market access for food and agricultural products persist. Yet the agriculture negotiations continue to matter, particularly for least developed countries (LDCs), for whom agriculture is central to food security, rural livelihoods, and broader development prospects. 

Against this backdrop, this article reviews the main issues under negotiation ahead of MC14 and identifies three areas where members could make tangible progress for LDCs, even in the absence of comprehensive outcomes. In doing so, it points to concrete, politically feasible steps that could help address key LDC vulnerabilities within the current negotiating landscape. 

What are the WTO agriculture negotiations about? 

Domestic Support 

Negotiations on domestic support focus on disciplining subsidies that distort agricultural production and trade, including price support and subsidies linked to production. While members broadly agree on the need to reduce trade-distorting support, deep divisions persist over which forms of support should be disciplined (and in which order). 

One group of members calls for comprehensive reductions across all forms of trade-distorting domestic support. In contrast, many developing countries emphasize the need to preserve existing flexibilities to support their agricultural sectors, for example, through subsidies for farm equipment or inputs like fertilizer to low-income or resource-poor producers without quantitative limits. Developing countries also argue that attention should focus on curbing provisions that allow a small group of members to provide high levels of trade-distorting support, an entitlement not available to most other members. 

Disagreements also extend to support considered minimally or non–trade-distorting, which is not subject to quantitative limits under the Agreement on Agriculture. Some members argue that these measures warrant closer scrutiny to ensure they do not, in practice, distort production or trade. Others instead advocate expanding this category to allow greater scope for support aimed at environmental protection or climate-related objectives. 

Public Stockholding of Food at Government-Set Prices by Developing Countries 

Public stockholding programs are widely used to stabilize domestic markets, support farm incomes, and distribute food to vulnerable populations. At the same time, procurement at government-set prices may distort production and trade if subsidized food enters international markets. 

Under existing rules, purchases of food at government-set prices by developing countries are treated as trade-distorting domestic support and count toward subsidy limits. Several developing countries argue that their public stockholding programs risk exceeding these limits, exposing them to potential legal challenges. In 2013, members agreed to an interim “peace clause” shielding such programs from dispute settlement, subject to transparency and safeguard conditions. Although intended as temporary, progress toward a permanent solution has remained elusive, with disagreement over eligible programs and safeguards against spillover effects. 

A major sticking point is the methodology for calculating market price support, which relies on a fixed reference price from 1986 to 1988. Many developing countries argue that this outdated benchmark fails to account for inflation, artificially inflating reported support levels and constraining their ability to use public stockholding programs for food security purposes. 

Market Access 

Market access negotiations aim to reduce tariffs and other border measures that restrict agricultural trade. Progress under this pillar has been particularly slow. Many members have instead prioritized preferential trade agreements, while others remain reluctant to negotiate market access concessions multilaterally. 

In the absence of broader engagement, discussions have often focused on transparency-related issues, such as the treatment of shipments affected by sudden tariff increases. However, a recent proposal has sought to bring several market access issues back to the negotiating table, including tariff simplification through the conversion of non–ad valorem tariffs into ad valorem tariffs, tariff escalation (where processed products face higher duties than primary products), and the persistence of high tariffs and tariff peaks exceeding 100% for certain products. 

Special Safeguard Mechanism 

The proposed special safeguard mechanism would allow developing countries to temporarily raise tariffs in response to import surges or price depressions, providing protection against volatile international markets. While the Agreement on Agriculture includes a safeguard provision, eligibility is limited to a small group of members and products, excluding many developing countries and LDCs. The proposed safeguard is intended to be available to all developing countries and LDCs and to apply across a broader range of agricultural products. However, members remain divided on trigger levels, magnitude and duration of tariff increases, and product coverage. Some agricultural exporters caution that a new safeguard could undermine market access and argue it should be considered alongside broader market access negotiations. 

Cotton 

Despite repeated ministerial commitments to address cotton ambitiously, expeditiously, and specifically, progress has been limited. Cotton-producing countries, most notably the C-4 group from West and Central Africa, have submitted proposals calling for deeper reductions in trade-distorting domestic support to cotton. 

These proposals include proportional reductions in cotton-specific support, limits on production-limiting subsidies, constraints on direct payments, and requirements that support measures have minimal trade-distorting effects. However, members have struggled to move beyond general discussions toward concrete commitments. 

Export Restrictions 

Export restrictions on food and agricultural products have gained renewed attention following episodes of global price volatility. Such measures can exacerbate price spikes on international markets, with particularly severe effects on import-dependent countries. 

At the 12th Ministerial Conference, members agreed to exempt food purchases by the World Food Programme for humanitarian purposes from export restrictions. Subsequent discussions have focused on improving the transparency and predictability of export restrictions, including notification requirements and information sharing. 

Export Competition 

Export competition disciplines cover export subsidies, export credits, international food aid, and exporting state trading enterprises. Significant progress was achieved through the 2015 Nairobi Ministerial Decision, under which developed countries eliminated export subsidies immediately and developing countries committed to doing so over a longer transition period. 

Current discussions focus on implementation and monitoring, as well as on ensuring that measures with effects equivalent to export subsidies do not undermine the commitments agreed in Nairobi. 

Three Areas That Matter for LDCs 

Reducing Trade-Distorting Domestic Support to Cotton 

Cotton is a key export commodity for several African LDCs, supporting the livelihoods of thousands of smallholder farmers and representing an important source of export earnings. Yet global cotton markets remain heavily distorted by high levels of trade-distorting domestic support provided by a limited number of major producing members. These subsidies depress world prices, undermine the competitiveness of unsubsidized producers, and translate into lower farm-gate prices and reduced incomes for cotton-exporting LDCs. 

These concerns were reiterated in November 2025, when the trade ministers of Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, and Côte d’Ivoire adopted the Bamako Ministerial Declaration on Cotton. In the Declaration, these five countries (four of them LDCs) called for the phasing out of all forms of trade-distorting domestic support to cotton, highlighting the urgency of progress in this area. 

Reducing such support would have implications beyond price effects in international markets. It could contribute to improving rural livelihoods, strengthening household incomes, and enhancing food security in cotton-producing LDCs, where smallholder farmers often face limited alternatives for income generation. More predictable export revenues could also help reduce vulnerability to external shocks. 

Enhancing Market Access for Cotton and By-products 

Market access is another core pillar of the cotton negotiations. Cotton-producing LDCs have long called for improved access to cotton and cotton by-products, including duty-free and quota-free treatment by developed countries and other capable developing countries. Improved market access is seen as a necessary complement to domestic support reform, particularly to facilitate value addition and greater participation in cotton value chains. 

While tariffs in the cotton sector have generally declined, cotton fabrics and yarn continue to face higher tariffs than raw cotton, reflecting persistent tariff escalation. Cotton fabrics are subject to the highest duties, followed by yarn and then raw cotton—a structure that disproportionately affects many LDC exporters. 

Addressing these remaining barriers would therefore be important not only to expanding export opportunities but also to supporting broader development objectives, including diversification and industrial upgrading. 

Agreeing on an LDC Exemption From Export Restrictions 

Many LDCs are net food importers and particularly vulnerable to export restrictions on food and agricultural products. This exposure has intensified in recent years, as major producers have imposed export bans and other restrictions in response to domestic price pressures or supply concerns. Against this backdrop, WTO members have explored exempting LDCs from such restrictions to mitigate harmful spillover effects. 

An LDC exemption would complement the decision adopted at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference to exempt food purchases by the World Food Programme, which serves an important humanitarian purpose but does not cover most food imports by LDCs. During recent food price spikes, a substantial share of calories imported by LDCs was affected by export restrictions. Allowing continued access to food imports could shield LDCs from global price increases, with limited impact on exporting countries, given LDCs’ relatively small share of global food trade. 

That said, this would not address affordability constraints faced by poorer consumers in LDCs, as recent food insecurity has been driven more by high prices than by shortages. Complementary measures would therefore be needed, including mechanisms to support the financing of essential food imports during periods of elevated international prices. 

Beyond the Negotiating Table: Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development at the WTO 

In parallel to the formal negotiations on new rules for agricultural trade, some members have been working on better understanding the linkages between agricultural trade and sustainable development. This interest mirrors a broader trend in trade policy-making: according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), governments are increasingly using trade agreements to promote more sustainable agricultural practices. Between 1997 and 2024, OECD members applied or approved 130 trade-related measures addressing sustainable agriculture, with nearly 60% adopted over the past 7 years, largely through regional trade agreements. 

Within the WTO, a diverse group of members (both developed and developing, and with both offensive and defensive interests in the negotiations) have engaged in informal discussions on these issues. These exchanges have been convened under the WTO Dialogue on Sustainable Agriculture, initiated by Brazil and subsequently taken forward by members such as Switzerland and China, as well as other proposals encouraging the WTO to engage with sustainability-related challenges in agriculture. The Dialogue, according to some of its conveners, is designed to respond to growing concerns about potential risks such as unfair competition, trade diversion or price depression, higher compliance costs, regulatory divergence, and unequal access to markets, alongside interest in how trade policy can support more sustainable agricultural outcomes. While they do not seek to establish new binding rules, they signal a willingness among members to explore how trade policies interact with sustainability objectives. 

Such dialogues are relevant for several reasons. They raise awareness of sustainability challenges linked to agricultural trade and create space for discussion outside the pressures of formal negotiations. In doing so, they may foster cooperation and shared understandings even in the absence of new rules, and have the potential, over time, to inform and influence the WTO agriculture negotiations. 

As members continue to use these spaces to test ideas, build shared understanding, and signal priorities, MC14 can serve as moment to endorse the value of this informal, open approach to discussion of what difficult issues. These informal processes are worth watching as forum for potential progress on agriculture at the WTO.