Revision summary
Doha mandated cuts in harmful fisheries subsidies. IUU and overfished-stock bans are the easier slice; overcapacity is the deadlock. Developing Members want S&DT for small-scale and food-security fleets. Developed Members fear loopholes for large emerging distant-water fleets. MC12’s partial treaty parked the hardest pillar rather than ending the conflict.
Model answer
Introduction
WTO fisheries talks sit in the Doha Round mandate to curb harmful subsidies. Developing and developed members agree that overfishing is real. They deadlock on who may still subsidise, for how long, and under what special and differential treatment.
Body
What the negotiation is about
- The Doha Development Agenda asked Members to clarify and improve WTO rules on fisheries subsidies, targeting illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, overfished stocks, and overcapacity.
- The SDG 14.6 deadline added political heat. Ministerial Conference 12 in 2022 produced a partial Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. The hardest pillar, overcapacity and overfishing with wide exceptions, was left for later. That leftover is the continuing North–South deadlock.
Reasons for deadlock
- Historical responsibility: developing coastal States argue that industrial distant-water fleets of the EU, Japan, the United States, and others built overcapacity. They want policy space for small-scale fishers and for national food security.
- Special and differential treatment (S&DT): India and the African, Caribbean and Pacific group seek longer transition periods, higher de minimis thresholds, and exemptions for low-income fishers. Developed Members treat open-ended S&DT as a loophole for large emerging fleets, including China’s.
- IUU listing and determination: who certifies a vessel as IUU, coastal State or a rich-member list, is a sovereignty fight.
- Transparency and notification: weak data in the South meets demands for vessel-level reporting that many administrations cannot yet meet.
- Livelihood versus export: Northern conservation NGOs and some developed governments frame a global public good. Southern negotiators frame artisanal employment and protein.
- Single-undertaking memory: fisheries was tied to agriculture and industrial market access for years, so mistrust from the wider Doha stall spilled into this file.
- China’s dual status: a developing-member label with a huge distant-water fleet blurs the old North–South binary and hardens US and EU positions.
Evaluation
- The deadlock is not ignorance of science. It is distribution: who pays for conservation with jobs and who keeps fuel and vessel subsidies.
- A ban on IUU and on subsidies to already overfished stocks is the easier moral consensus. Capacity-enhancing subsidies are the class conflict of the world-economy, which Wallerstein’s hierarchy helps name.
- Partial legal success at MC12 shows bargaining is possible when the most sensitive S&DT and overcapacity texts are parked. Parking is not settlement.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD D[Doha fisheries mandate] --> IUU[IUU and overfished stocks] D --> OC[Overcapacity subsidies] SDT[S and DT India ACP] --> OC N[EU US Japan conservation] --> OC OC --> DL[North-South deadlock]
Conclusion
Fisheries deadlock is a North–South bargain over S&DT, historical overcapacity, IUU designation, and China’s fleet, not a quarrel about whether fish stocks matter. Until livelihood space for developing coastal States is written in durable exceptions, the Doha fisheries file will keep stalling on the hard pillar.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What is the realist prescription to the States to ensure their survival in an anarchical world?
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q4). View answer →
-
Did the 2022 WTO deal end the deadlock?
It closed two pillars and left overcapacity and wide S&DT for a second wave. The North–South argument therefore continues.
-
Why is China central to the fight?
It negotiates as a developing Member while running a major distant-water fleet, which developed Members use to resist broad exemptions.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Critically examine the impact of Globalisation on the developing countries of the world -
2022 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the main limitations of the comparative method to the study of Political Science.
Comparative Politics
Comparison substitutes for experiment, as Lijphart argued. Mill’s designs fail when variables outnumber cases. Galton’s problem and conceptual stretching are standing limits. Official data and Eurocentric concepts add political distortion. The method is disciplined inference, not a controlled trial.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation?
Globalisation
Globalisation opens markets and tightens external rules. Wallerstein’s hierarchy and Prebisch’s trade concern still describe many late developers. Capital flight, TRIPS, and farm subsidies in the North cut policy space. Inequality, informality, and climate costs are domestic faces of the same pressure. Regional and South–South bargains are the usual reply, not autarky.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the commonalities between the Marxist and Realist approach to the study of International Politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Both approaches deny that trade and law automatically pacify world politics. Carr’s critique of utopia feeds realist and Marxist readings. Morgenthau and Waltz stress State power; Lenin and Wallerstein stress capital and hierarchy. Institutions are treated as masks or tools, not as a world government in waiting. The commonality is conflictual materialism; the split is State versus class.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.