G20 performance on trade

The 2025 Johannesburg Summit will focus on economic and financial cooperation, technology and innovation and global debt reform. The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report  describes short-term expectations as “unsettled”, with armed conflict, misinformation amplified by generative artificial intelligence and societal polarisation dominating. Rising economic nationalism has clouded the global outlook, notably as a result of tariff instability. Trade policy is now the leading source of uncertainty for economists, cited by 97% of chief economists surveyed in May.

Deliberations

Since 2008, the G20 has dedicated a total of 18,333 words to trade, for an average of 8% per summit, in its public declarations.

In the early years, peaks came at Washington in 2008 with 12%, London in 2009 with 16% and Pittsburgh in 2009 with 10%, then dropping to single digits until Brisbane in 2014 with 12%. After a dip to 6% at Antalya in 2015, another peak came at Hangzhou in 2016 with 13%. A second sustained dip to single digits followed, until Rome in 2021 with 12%. The Bali Summit in 2022 brought another decline to 9%, and New Delhi in 2013 another to 5%. The Rio de Janeiro Summit in 2024 gave 10% to trade.

Decisions

Since 2008, the G20 has made 213 trade commitments, averaging 5% per summit across all subjects. This places trade fourth among all subjects, after macroeconomic policy, development and financial regulation.

At Washington in 2008, leaders made five trade commitments (for 5% of the total there) – making it one of the summits with the lowest number of trade commitments – before jumping to 14 commitments (11%) at London in 2009. Two other peaks came at Seoul in 2010 with 17 (11%) and at Cannes in 2011 with 15 (5%).

The next peak came at Antalya in 2015 with 14 (9%), with a continued rise to 24 (11%) at Hangzhou in 2016 and 29 (5%) at Hamburg in 2017. This plunged to five (3%) at Buenos Aires in 2018, and remained at an average of seven per summit (4%) until dipping to an all-time low at Rio in 2024 with just one trade commitment (0.6%).

Delivery

With the 30 assessed priority trade commitments made between 2008 and 2023 averaged 67%, lower than the 71% average overall compliance, as assessed by the G20 Research Group.

The highest compliance came at the start, with 90% for the Washington Summit in 2008. There followed a general decline in trade compliance until it bottomed out at 37% from St Petersburg in 2013. From 2015 to 2019, compliance peaked again, with 80% from Antalya in 2015, rising to 87% from Osaka in 2019. In 2020 it dropped to 67% and further to 56% in 2021.

No commitments were assessed from the 2023 or 2024 summits. However, data for this period from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that trade-restrictive measures, catalysed by large external debts, inflation, and the wars in Ukraine and Middle East have significantly affected the global economy.

Causes

Higher compliance came on commitments that referenced specific international laws, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property or the World Trade Organization, trade openness, market access including for agriculture, and established G20 and global trade and investment principles.

Conclusion

In preparation for Johannesburg, the G20’s Trade Working Group said the South African presidency would focus on inclusive growth, which includes industrial policy interventions to support their own industries in becoming competitive. This could include the African Continental Free Trade Area or the facilitation of foreign direct investment to unify fragmented African markets and integrate Africa with global markets.

Such efforts require a responsive trade agenda, so the challenges of the global commons can be addressed, alongside the asymmetry of power between the energy supply side and the energy buy side, and in emerging technologies. Green industrialisation and investment frameworks remain important drivers of international trade.

Several factors would support achieving these goals: 1) WTO reform of the international investment agreement regime; 2) the termination of existing bilateral investment treaties; and 3) ongoing multilateral discussions on reforming investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

G20 leaders at Johannesburg should thus build on the technical work of their Trade Working Group to advance these priorities, and add specificity and references to core trade law and organisations in their trade commitments.