AFTER a decade of frustratingly little progress, it is easy to conclude that the negotiations to reduce global trade barriers have failed.

But letting the so-called Doha round of world trade talks collapse could spur a protectionist backlash and deal a huge blow to international cooperation on even bigger challenges, including global warming and financial reform.

When ambassadors from around the world meet in Geneva on Friday, they will likely have to settle for lesser gains, such as streamlining customs procedures and other rules that would at least reduce the costs of trade.

The Doha negotiations, opened shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept.

11, 2001, were sold as a way to boost economic development in the poorest countries by slashing barriers on their exports to richer markets.

While a tentative agreement was reached to grant preferential access to most of the exports of the least developed countries, it has been held hostage by a lack of agreement in broader negotiations between rich countries and big developing countries.

The developing countries argued that they had already made too many concessions in a previous trade round.

The rich nations then insisted that they would give nothing without getting something in return.

These positions have only hardened as the big developing countries have become some of the world’s biggest traders.

The latest snag is over tariffs on industrial goods like chemicals and machinery.

There’s little chance of a breakthrough.

It is time for all of the players to rethink their responsibilities.

As their power grows, big developing countries, in particular, must be willing to make concessions for the sake of preserving a stable global trading system.

As for these negotiations, it is still possible for all players to keep their promise of duty- and quota-free access to most exports from the poorest countries.

Negotiators could also reform the dispute settlement mechanism and ease customs procedures and handling fees.

This may sound small next to Doha’s original ambitions, but it would be a lot better than a complete breakdown, which would punish the poorest nations while undermining the credibility of the World Trade Organisation and poisoning the well for other international agreements.

Going forward, the big question for world leaders is not how to agree on some tariff cuts.

It is how to create a common agenda to steer the world economy, supported by rich countries and the developing nations.