TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
12 April 2024 
(24-3091) Page: 1/10 
Negotiating Group on Rules    
 
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES – FISHERIES SUBSIDIES  
REPORT BY THE CHAIR , AMBASSADOR EINAR GUNNARSSON TO  
THE NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES  
Addendum  
INTRODUCTION  
1. This Addendum provides background, context, and explanations for the draft "Additional 
Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies" that I have circulated today in document TN/RL/W/278 (document  
W/278 ). As indicated on its cover page, the document reproduces the "Advanced Draft" text that  
the Minister Facilitator, Permanent Secretary of State Martin Eyjólfsson , e-mailed to all delegations 
during MC13, in the early morning of 1 March. This Addendum also reports on the activities that 
took place during the Ministerial Conference, both leadin g up to and following the circulation of the 
Advanced Draft.  
2. Regarding the contents of the document, the Advanced Draft represents the fruit of very hard 
and constructive work at MC13 across a broad spectrum of Members, under the Minister Facilitator's 
able leadership. In particular, the document reflects the important progress made at MC13 on a 
number of issues where convergence until then had been elusive. The Advanced Draft distributed 
by Secretary Eyjólfsson on 1 March did not carry a document symbol  and had only an informal 
status.  Underscoring the importance of capturing and preserving this text, many Members expressed 
during the March meeting of the General Council the desire to build on the work done and the 
progress achieved on fisheries subsidies  at MC13. My aim in now reproducing the contents of that 
text as a formal document in the TN/RL/W series is to ensure that it can easily be retrieved and used 
as the basis going forward.  
3. The process that led to this text took place over the first days of MC 13 in consultations of 
various configurations, often convened at late hours and on short notice. I wish to sincerely thank 
all delegat es for your availability and the constructive spirit that you brought to all of these 
engagements. While some of the articulated positions  were strong, all delegations expressed their 
views clearly, and it was very encouraging to see the concerted collaborations across well -known 
divides to seek solutions on very challenging issues that were still  open when we arrived in 
Abu Dhabi. I share the view expressed by many delegations, in the last hours of MC13 and again in 
the General Council in March, that we came extremely close in Abu Dhabi to concluding the second 
wave of negotiations. The credit for this goes to Ministers a nd their delegates . Without the 
commitment and trust placed in the Minister Facilitator, in the process, and in me, we could not have 
made th is progress. So again, I wholeheartedly thank all Members , on my own behalf and on behalf 
of Secretary Eyjólfsson.  
PROCESS AT MC13  
Substantive work led by the Minister Facilitator  
4. The work on fisheries subsidies at MC13 led by Secretary Eyjólfsson officially began with the 
27 February  dedicated Working Session. During that session , Members shared comments on the 
draft text that I had sent to Ministers on 16 February in document WT/MIN(24)/W/10  (document 
W/10), reflecting our work during the Fish Month of meetings of the Negotiating Group on Rules 
from mid -January to mid -February. M embers' comments during the Working Session largely 
reflected the positions they had maintain ed in the final months of negotiations  before MC13 .  TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  5. Right after that session, in the time designated for convergence -building on fisheries subsidies,  
we worked in  three breakout groups to engage in more in -depth discussions on the issues identified 
by Members as requiring attention. The Breakout Sessions were chaired by Senator the Hon orable  
Tim Ayres  (Assistant Minister for Trade of Australia ), H.E. Mr Kim Yong Ga n (Minister of Trade and 
Industry  of Singapore ), and H.E. Ambassador Dacio Castillo (Permanent Representative of Honduras 
to the WTO ). On behalf of the Minister Facilitator, I sincerely thank all of these session Chairs for 
having put themselves at the service of these negotiations.  
6. During the Breakout Sessions, Members mainly focused on the following provisions of document 
W/10: Article  A.2 – subsidies contingent on distant water fishing; Article B.4 – subsidies to small  
scale and artisanal fishing; Art icle B.5 and B.5 ALT – unavailability or non -use of SDT by certain 
developing Members; Article C.2(a) – transparency in respect of the use of forced labour; Article  C.3 
– transparency in respect of non -specific fuel subsidies; and the overall balance among  the nominal 
figures in the text, including those that remained bracketed or indicated with an "X". Some Members 
also continued to advocate for different approaches to the main discipline as reflected in 
Article  A.1 and A.1.1 of document  W/10. The interven tions during the Breakout Sessions thus 
essentially elaborated on those made during the Working Session, and confirmed the above 
provisions of document W/10 as most Members' priority areas for further work.  
7. Following these structured MC13 sessions, Secret ary Eyjólfsson began a series of consultations 
with a wide range of delegations on the issues that had been identified. This began with several 
engagements with a regional group of Members that sought substantive changes to the main 
discipline in Articles A.1 and A.1.1. The engagements with this group allowed a deeper understanding 
of their positions and the issues they were raising, which ultimately led to the identification of a 
compromise largely based in a strengthened review provision in Article D.1 , as explained below .  
8. In addition, Secretary Eyjólfsson engaged with many other delegations and groups (a total of 
about 80 delegations) to share  orally  an outline of  what a package on the outstanding issues referred 
to in paragraph 9 might consist of, and t o gauge reactions. Additionally, in the afternoon of 
28 February, Secretary Eyjólfsson sent to all Members a transparency video message explaining this 
process.  
9. Despite ambitions of presenting the elements of a package deal in a textual form , by the middle 
of the night between 29  February and 1 March we were not able to circulate such a document 
because consultations continued non -stop. At that point, Secretary Eyjólfsson decided instead to 
circulate a complete version of the text incorporating the elements of the package on which he had 
been consulting with Members. This text was the Advanced Draft e -mailed to Members in the early 
morning of 1 March. The text contained no bracketed language, but instead included yellow highlight 
in five places which, at that time,  were deemed to require resolution before being able to present 
Members with a final text for adoption.  These five highlights are:  
• the transition period placeholder in Article B.1 ;  
• the transition period placeholder in Article B.3;  
• the placeholder in footnote 25 for references to Member statements of commitment not to 
avail themselves of SDT;  
• Article C.2(a) on transparency in respect of forced labour; and 
• Article C.3 on transparency in respect of non -specific fuel subsidies.   
10. Throughou t the day on 1 March , work continued, with consultations among Members working 
together, consultations led by the Minister Facilitator, and in the late afternoon a meeting convened 
by the Chair of MC13  of a group of Heads of Delegation s. That meeting was f ollowed by further 
consultations by the Minister Facilitator, and consultations among delegations. Even after it was 
clear that reaching a consensus on Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies would not be possible  
at MC13 , a diverse group of Members continued to work together  on their own , and identified further 
refinements to the Advanced Draft on which they could agree. This process is further elaborated in 
paragraphs  56-59 below.  TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  11. This broadly -held and strong commitment to reaching an outcom e in these critically important 
negotiations was truly inspiring. I remain hopeful that we will be able to build on this work and finally 
achieve consensus as many Members have called for.  
Members' linguistic and technical review of WT/MIN(24)/W10  
12. In para llel with the substantive work, Members worked on a linguistic and technical review of 
document  W/10 , in response to a communication I had sent on 19 February, just a few days after 
circulating that document. In the communication I invited Members, with a view to ensuring quality 
control and making any necessary fixes, to carefully check the document for linguistic or technical 
issues in any of the language versions, and to share those issues with the Secretariat. Over the 
following period until MC13, numer ous Members did communicate issues that they considered 
warranted technical corrections.  
13. Based on those inputs from Members, during MC13 Secretary Eyjólfsson and I prepared a 
version of document W/10 reflecting only those technical changes, and not addres sing the 
substantive issues. This text with technical changes was sent to Members via e-mail during the 
evening of 28  February. These technical changes then were incorporated into the Advanced Draft 
circulated on 1 March  as further elaborated below . 
CONTEN TS OF THE  "ADVANCED DRAFT" TEXT SENT BY THE MINISTER FACILITATOR TO 
DELEGATIONS ON 1 MARCH, REPRODUCED IN DOCUMENT TN/RL/W/278  
14. This section de scribes  the main  provisions of the Advanced Draft reproduced in document 
TN/RL/W/278 , with reference to the counterpart provisions of document W/10 .  
Article A.1  
15. Article A.1, including Articles A.1.1(a), A.1.1(b), A.1.1(c) , and A.1.2, comprise the core 
discipline on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing. These provisions remained 
largely unchanged from those in document  W/10 . The only modifications are technical adjustments 
in the footnotes (substitution of "For greater clarity " with "For greater certainty " in several footnotes 
and substitution of "Article " with "subparagraph " in footnote 8), and the addition of a sentence in 
footnote 8 specifying that for coastal Members without a territorial sea, the expres sion " 'a Member's 
territorial sea ' […] shall mean  'a Member's jurisdiction ' ".  
16. Although Article A.1 in document W/278 is substantively unaltered compared with the same 
provision of document W/10, at Abu Dhabi there was an intensive debate over a proposal  by a 
regional group of Members to strengthen the discipline by complementing the hybrid discipline in 
Article A.1 and Article A.1.1 with a standstill and reductions of subsidy amounts applicable to the 
largest providers of fisheries subsidies. Other Membe rs, however, considered that the hybrid 
discipline already reflected a careful balance that should not be disturbed  and which had been 
reached after many years of unsuccessful discussions of different approaches to the discipline, 
including subsidy caps and reductions. Ultimately,  this issue was resolved through a compromise to 
strengthen the review clause in Article D.1. The revised review claus e is discussed below.  
Article A.2 
17. Subsidies contingent on fishing or fishing related activities in areas beyond the subsidizing 
Member's jurisdiction (subsidies to distant water fishing) have long been the subject of a draft 
provision that would have comp letely prohibited them , possibly subject to certain exemptions . The 
basis of this provision is the widely-held view that these subsidies pose a high risk to sustainability . 
However, strong opposing views ha d persisted, and this provision of document W/10, which was 
entirely in brackets and also contained internal brackets, was the subject of intensive work both in 
the run -up to and at MC13. As a result of that work, a new compromise approach to this Article was 
developed in Abu Dhabi . Article A.2 of documen t W/278 is among the provisions with the most 
changes compared to its counterpart in document W/10.  
18. In document W/278, Article A.2(a) provides that Members shall refrain, to the greatest extent 
possible, from granting or maintaining subsidies to distant wa ter fishing . Subparagraph (b) further 
stipulates that  for any such subsidies that are provided, the subsidizing Member would need to make TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the demonstration provided for in Article A.1.1(a) (the top tier of the two -tier hybrid approach),  
regardless of the t ier that otherwise would apply to that Member. In addition, the subsidizing Member 
would need to provide certain additional information , that is : the conservation and management 
measures applicable to the subsidized fishing and fishing related activities, the amount of the 
subsidy, the fleet capacity in the fishery in question, and data on catch.  
19. Subparagraph (c) of Article A.2 , which  has no counterpart in document W/10, introduces  a 
Committee review process for the information referred to in Article A.2(b ) in accordance with the 
cycle of regular notifications  under Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures (SCM Agreement) and Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS) . In the 
context of this review, t he Committee would be required to report on the total aggregate value of 
these types of subsidies, identify trends and the impact of such subsidies on small island developing 
state Members and LDC Members , and report its findings to the Council for Trade in Goods .  
20. It should  be noted that the total aggregate value of subsidies as referred to in Article  A.2(c) 
pertains to subsidies contingent on distant water fishing. This is therefore different from the annual 
aggregate level of all fisheries subsidies  referred to in Ar ticle C.4. The information provided under 
Article  A.2(c) as well as that provided under Article C.4 w ould be taken into account in the review of 
the Additional Provisions provided for  in Article D.1 . 
Article B.1  
21. Two textual modifications were made to Artic le B.1 compared to the previous version in 
document W/10. The first is the deletion of the phrase " The prohibition under " before " Article A.1 " 
at the beginning of the provision. The second is the deletion of the phrase " not covered by the special 
and diffe rential treatment provided for in Article B.2 " after the phrase " A graduated LDC Member " 
in the second sentence. Both of these modifications were technical  and were already included in the 
document circulated by the Minister Facilitator on 28 February cont aining technical adjustments  to 
document W/ 10. 
22. As mentioned in the Addendum to document W/10, the phrase "not covered by the special and 
differential treatment provided for in Article B.2 " was included in that document to reflect the general 
understanding that the transition period granted to graduated LDC Members under Article B.1 would 
be irrelevant to graduated LDC Members that fall below the de minimis  threshold provided for in 
Article B .2. This is because such Members – having become developing Members after their 
graduation and accounting for such a low share of the global volume of marine capture production 
– could avail themselves of the SDT exemption contained in Article B.2. However , that language 
gave rise to a concern on the part of LDC Members regarding what would happen to a graduated 
LDC Member that fell under Article B.2 at the time it graduated but subsequently, and still during 
the Article B.1 transition period, exceed ed the de minimis  threshold for three consecutive years . To 
avoid the potential for confusion on this point, the phrase " not covered… " was not retained. In 
addition, the clarification that the de minimis  exemption of Article  B.2 applies to graduated LDC  
Members f alling within the de minimis  threshold "after the  expiry of the transition period of 
Article  B.1" has been re -inserted in footnote 21, as explained  in paragraph  25 below.  
23. By the morning of 1 March, Members had not yet substantively engage d on the length o f the 
transition period for graduated LDCs, although this was an area where it was clear that high -level 
engagement would be needed to reach agreement. Due to the limited extent of discussion, the 
placeholder of "X" was retained. It was highlighted in yellow by the Minister Facilitator to indicate 
that it required focused work, including in relation to the transition period provided for in Article B.3 
(also still referred to by a placeholder of "X").  It should be noted that some Members h ave 
maintained that the value of the X in Article B.1 should be equal to the value of the X in Article B.3, 
while other Members disagree.  
Article  B.2 
24. Article B.2 presents a substantive evolution from the previous version in document W/10, in 
that the previ ous brackets were removed from around the 0.8 percent de minimis threshold. While 
some Members continued to advocate for either higher or lower figures, the views of most Members 
had stabilized around 0.8 percent, such that this figure can be seen as a com promise outcome. It 
also has been in the text for a long time  and has a counterpart in the AFS.  TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  25. Article B.2 also contains  some linguistic changes with regard to its previous formulation. The 
first is the deletion in the first sentence of the redundant lan guage " to fishing and fishing related 
activities " after " referred to in Article A.1 ". The second is a reformulation of footnote 21 – previously 
footnote 19 in document W/10  – reflecting the technical modifications made to Article B.1 explained 
above. Preci sely, the new language in the footnote clarifies that Article B.2 also applies to 
"developing country Members that are graduated LDC Members " (rather than just mentioning 
"graduated LDC Members " as in document W/10) falling within the de minimis  threshold "after the 
expiry of the transition period referred to in Article B.1 ". While the latter phrase did appear in a 
footnote in the prior document TN/RL/W/277, it was omitted in document W/10 to reflect that the 
transition period for graduated LDC Members would apply only to such Members with a share of 
global marine capture production above the de minimis  threshold. Having deleted this limitation in 
the Advanced Draft, the senten ce "after the expiry of the transition period referred to in Article  B.1" 
was brought back to the text as a technical adjustment.  
Article B.3  
26. The language of Article B.3 was unchanged from its previous version in document W/10, other 
than the deletion of t he wording " Except as provided for in Article B.5 " at the beginning of 
Article  B.3(a), and the substitution of the word " provision " with " subparagraph " in the second line 
of Article  B.3(c). The first of these modifications reflects the changes to Article B .5 that are explained 
in paragraphs 35 -36 below.  
27. Similar to the transition period for graduated LDC Members in Article B.1, there was limited  
substantive engagement at MC13 regarding the length of the transition period contained in 
Article  B.3. In discussi ons that did take place, Members reiterated previously mentioned figures for 
the transitional period, such as 7 years, 10 years , or 25 years. It was widely recognized that 
high-level engagement would be needed to reach agreement on the length of this trans ition. Thus, 
the placeholder of "X" was retained and highlighted in yellow to signal it as an open matter  to be 
resolved.  
Article  B.4 
28. Article B.4 exempting subsidies to small  scale and artisanal fishing  or fishing related activities 
was the subject of intensive and targeted discussions during MC13. The structure of the provision – 
with the first paragraph setting out the exemption and the second containing the notification 
obligations – is the same as in document W/10. Regarding the substance, however, important 
changes were introduced.  
29. The first such substantive difference is that the geographical limitation was not retained in 
Article B.4(a) in document W/278. Members would recall that the geographical l imit with 
two bracketed figures , 12 and 200 nautical miles , had long been in the text. The 12 -mile limit had 
been introduced as a proxy to address the concerns of some Members that have considered it 
necessary to have a tangible limitation to the area in w hich subsidies would be exempt from 
disciplines  under Article B.4 , to prevent terms such as "small  scale" or "artisanal" fishing from giving 
rise to a loophole through which subsidies could be provided for commercial -scale fishing operations. 
Counter to th is, numerous other Members have argued that there should be no geographical 
limitation on the activities that could be subsidized under this provision, and that if such a limitation 
had to be included, it should be the EEZ or up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines. In the final 
phase of preparation for MC13, some Members previously advocating for a 12 -mile limit began to 
indicate that if that limit could not be agreed, it might be better to include no geographical limit at 
all, while also stressing tha t such a change would need to be balanced by certain transparency 
obligations.  
30. This brings us to the second substantive modification contained in Article B.4. Following the 
deletion of the geographical limitation from Article B.4(a), Article B.4(b) was partially reformulated 
to include the obligation for developing Members availing themselves of this exemption to notify the 
"subsidies provided under this provision " together with the Member's "operational definition (s)" of 
small scale and artisanal fishin g or fishing related activities referred to in Article B.4(a) .  
31. Another notable change to Article B.4 is contained in footnote 23 (previously footnote 21 in 
document W/10). Specifically, a first sentence was added to the footnote clarifying that the activi ties TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  covered by this provision do not include "significantly commercial " fishing or fishing related activities. 
In this regard, it has to be noted that several delegations raised concerns with regard to the 
expression "significantly commercial " because they considered the term to be unclear and that it 
might negatively affect those small scale and artisanal fishing operations that have a limited 
commercial nature. Specifically, reference was made to small scale and artisanal fishers in 
developing Members  that sell part of their catch to the local market to earn income for their primary 
needs. After the Advanced Draft was distributed , some Members proposed using alternative 
language, like "industrialised " fishing, rather than "significantly commercial " fishing, as mention ed 
in paragraph  57(a) below .  
32. With regard to footnote 23, the s uggestion of several Members to include "location " and 
"distance " together with "duration of the trips " among the characteristics to consider when defining 
small scale and artis anal fishing  was taken on board. Members supported this addition as it reflects 
the elements referred to in the FAO Illuminating Hidden Harvest s report  for the identification of such 
types of fishing . Also, the placement of the  footnote was changed  to better clarify to what it refers.  
33. Finally, and similar to Article B.3, the wording "Except as provided for in Article B.5 " was deleted 
at the beginning of Article B.4(a), reflecting the changes to Article B.5 that are explained in 
paragraph s 35-36 below.  
Article  B.5 
34. Article B.5 on excluding certain developing country Members from availing themselves of the 
SDT provisions was presented in two alternatives in document W/10. The first (Article  B.5) 
automatically excluded developing Members from accessing the SDT provided for in Article B.3 and 
Article  B.4 if they were "significantly engaged " in far distant water fishing, and the second 
(Article  B.5 ALT) encouraged developing Members "with competent fisheries management 
capabilities " to make binding commitm ents not to avail themselves of all SDT provisions.  
35. At and before MC13 , although recognizing the intent behind the first alternative  in Article  B.5, 
several developing Members maintained that introducing an automatic exclusion from SDT would 
give rise to systemic issues within the Organization. For this reason, these Members expressed 
strong opposition to such wording , even if many of them would not have been affected by it. On the 
contrary, other Members appreciated th at formulation of Article B.5 because it would provide legal 
certainty regarding which developing Members would not be covered by SDT. Given the forceful 
opposition to the first alterna tive, Article B.5 ALT emerged as the preferred option for a great 
majority of Members.   
36. Document W/278 therefore uses Article B.5 ALT of document W/10. This change rendered the 
reference to Article B.5 in Article B.3 and Article B.4 of document W/10 superf luous and is the reason 
why, as mentioned in paragraphs 26 and 33 above, the wording " Except as provided for in 
Article  B.5" was removed from those provisions in document W/278 .  
37. The wording of Article B.5 in document W/278 is  the same as Article  B.5 ALT o f document W/10, 
that is , a voluntary binding commitment for certain developing Members not to avail themselves of 
SDT. This also includes the footnote – footnote 25 in document W/278  that was footnote 26 in 
document W/10 – stipulating that such binding co mmitments will be recorded by the Council for 
Trade in Goods and will be compiled and published publicly on the WTO website. The footnote in 
document W/278 contains a placeholder and a yellow highlight to indicate that further details will 
have to be worke d out to make Article B.5 fully operational and binding. For instance, any affected 
developing Member would have to make a statement declaring its intention not to avail itself of the 
SDT provisions contained in Article B , and the reference to where that statement was formally 
recorded would  be reflected in footnote 25 . The most affected Member had clearly signalled at the 
Working Session a readiness to make such a statement before formal adoption of the Additional 
Provisions.  
Article C.1  
38. Article C.1 in document W/278 is unchanged in substance from its previous version in document 
W/10. The words "The provisions of " at the beginning of the Article were deleted as a technical 
adjustment.  TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Article C.2  
39. The preposition "to" was added before  "the Committee " in the chapeau of Article C.2 as a 
technical adjustment.  
40. Article C.2(a) on transparency regarding the use of forced labour  is the fourth element in 
document W/278 that is highlighted in yellow. This reflects that while  many  Members requested it s 
deletion , other Members saw it as being of paramount importance. It was widely understood that 
this is an issue that would be dealt with at the last moment before adoption and keeping in mind 
certain interlinkages with other issues such as Article B.5 , as elaborated below in paragraph 57.  
41. Article C.2(b) pertaining to transparency regarding government -to-government fisheries access 
agreements or arrangements is the same as in document W/10, other than the clarification that 
these agreements or arrangem ents are for obtaining access to the "fisheries resources " (rather than 
to "fisheries ") of another coastal Member or non -Member, and the addition of a sentence in the 
chaussette about methods of notification. Using language that mirrors similar language co ntained in 
Article 8.6 of the AFS, that sentence provides that the notification under this provision may be 
presented either individually or jointly by Members that are parties to a fisheries access agreement 
or arrangement.  
Article C.3  
42. Article C.3 on transparency regarding non -specific fuel subsidies  is not c hanged from the 
previous version in document W/10, except for the addition of the preposition "to" in front of "the 
Committee " in the first sentence , as in the chapeau of Article C.2, as a technical adjustment.  
However, it is highlighted , similar to Article C.2(a), to reflect the binary divergence between, on one 
side, many  Members strongly requesting the deletion of this provision, and on the other, s ome 
Members supporting its retention . Following the distribution of the Advanced Draft, this led to a 
proposal for the deletion of this provision, as mention ed in paragraphs 57(c) below .  
Article C.4  
43. While the substance of Article C.4 remain s unaltered  from the previous version in document 
W/10, two small technical adjustments have been  made for clarification. These are the addition of 
the words "date of" prior to "entry into force " (the fourth line of the provision) and the substitution 
of "agreed " with "adopted " (the last line).  
Article C.5  
44. Article C.5 remain s unchanged from its previous version in document W/10. 
Article  C.6 
45. Article C.6  of document W/278 presents two main differences from its previous version. The 
first is the removal of the brackets around the provision. As mentioned above, the decision not to 
include brackets in this version of the text was made to reflect the evolution of the disc ussions.  
46. The second difference is the deletion of the reference to Article B.2 and Article B.3. In this 
regard, some developing Members had expressed the view that conditioning the invocation of 
Article  B.2 and Article B.3 to notification , as provided for in Article C.6 of document W/10, would be 
inconsistent with the SDT principle. This is because both SDT exemptions apply automatically : 
Article  B.3 (transition period ) at the entry into force of the Additional Provisions ; and Article B.2 if a 
developing Member's share o f the global volume of marine capture production falls below the 
de minimis  level set at 0.8  percent  for three consecutive years . To address  these concerns, the 
above -mentioned reference s have been  deleted from Article C.6 .  
Article C.7  
47. Article C.7 has not been changed from its previous formulation in document W/10. TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Article  D.1 
48. Article D.1 in document W/10  introduced for the first time a review clause on the specificities 
of the Additional Provisions, modelled on the one contained in Article 9.4 of the AFS. This provision 
was the subject of extensive negotiations in Abu Dhabi, including during high -level meeting s, the 
last of which took place in the night of 29 February ahead of the circulation of the Advanced Draft 
the fo llowing morning. Article  D.1(a) in the Advanced Draft was the result of a compromise between 
a regional group of Members that sought to strengthen the basic discipline in Article A.1 and A.1.1, 
and other Members that considered that the hybrid approach in those Articles already reflected a 
careful balance after many years of unsuccessful discussions of different approaches to the discipline, 
including subsidy caps and reductions. The new version of the review clause in document W/278 is 
more detailed and si gnificantly stronger than the one contained in document W/10.  
49. Article D.1(a) in document W/278 foresees a review of the operation of the Additional Provisions 
not later than five years after the date of their entry into force. This is much sooner than was 
foreseen in Article D.1 of  document W/10.  
50. In addition, Article D.1  in document W/278 is more detailed than the previous version in 
document W/10 as it specifically mentions more elements that the Committee will be expected to 
review. These are the impact o f the Additional Provisions on overcapacity and overfishing, distant 
water fishing, the aggregate levels of fisheries subsidies, and the aggregate levels of subsidies 
contingent on distant water fishing , as well as whether the Additional Provisions have in creased the 
economic benefits to small island developing state  Members and LDC Members from the sustainable 
use of marine resources. The provision also mandates the Committee to identify any modification s, 
including quantitative limitations or reduction co mmitments , to further strengthen the operation or 
improve the effectiveness of the Additional Provisions with regard to their objectives as well as UN 
Sustainable Development Goals  14.6 and 14.7 . The new version additionally specifies that if 
information provided under Article A.2(c) and Article  C.4 shows that the two aggregate levels of 
fisheries subsidies mentioned above have increased, and unless it deems other modifications to be 
more appropria te, the Committee shall recommend quantitative limitations or reductions.  
51. Article D.1(b) was introduced in the Advanced Draft  and is reflected in document W/278 , 
according to which the outcomes of the review as well as any recommendations to further stren gthen 
the operation or improve the effectiveness of the Additional Provisions  are to be considered at the 
first session of the Ministerial Conference that follows the conclusion of the review, and there after 
in the periodic reviews provided for in  Article 9.4 of the AFS.  Article D.1(b) also maintains the 
obligation of the Committee to report the outcomes of the review and any resulting proposals to 
amend the text of the Additional  Provisions  to the Council for Trade in Goods , as previously contained 
in Arti cle D.1 of document W/10.  
Article D.2  
52. Article D.2 remain s unchanged from its previous version in document W/10. 
Article E.1  
53. Although the substance of the previous version of Article E.1 is maintained, small changes have 
been made for clarification and as t echnical adjustments.  
54. First, "along " was substituted with "together " and "shall" has been  deleted before the verbs 
"constitute " and "achieve " in the first sentence. Second, a sentence has been added to clarify that, 
other than as provided under this provision "These Additional Provisions , together with the AFS, 
constitute the comprehensive disciplines referred to in Article 12 of the AFS and achieve the 
comprehensive agreement on fisheries subsi dies in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Ministerial 
Decision on the AFS adopted at the Twelfth Session of the WTO Ministerial Conference ", the 
Additional Provisions do not modify or nullify the rights and obligations contained in the AFS.  
Article E.2  
55. Article E.2 remain s unchanged from its previous version in document W/10. TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  FURTHER WORK BY MEMBERS AT MC13 BASED ON THE ADVANCED DRAFT  
56. As noted in the Introduction section, following Secretary Eyjólfsson's circulation of the Advanced 
Draft, and especially fol lowing the meeting convened by the MC13 Chair, work among Members 
continued. This included, in the last hours of the Conference, work in a  sizeable and diverse group 
of Members, including Members of various interest groups in the negotiations, who spontaneously 
sat together on their own to discuss the Advanced Draft and to try to reach agreement on the 
remaining open issues. Through this Member -led process, the participants reached agreement 
among themselves on some changes to the Advanced Draft. The Members involved shared the 
results of th eir work with me at the end of the day, just before the MC13 closing session began . 
However, by that time it was already clear that MC13 would not achieve consensus on the Additional 
Provisions  on Fisheries Subsidies .  
57. The changes proposed by that group were as follows : 
a) in footnote 23 to Article B.4 on subsidies to small scale and artisanal fishing, the reference 
to "significantly commercial " fishing was changed to " industrialised " fishing ; 
b) Article C.2(b)(iii), requiring the notification, to the extent possible, of the full text of foreign 
access agreements or arrangements , was deleted ; 
c) Article  C.3 on transparency in respect of non -specific fuel subsidies was deleted ; 
d) Article C.6, linking notifications under the SCM Agreement and the AFS to the flexibilities in 
Article A.1.1 and Article B.4 , was deleted ;  
e) in Article B.5, regarding voluntary binding commitments  of Members  not to avail themselves 
of SDT , a reference to " Subsidizing " developing country Members was added, and the 
reference to " competent fisheries management capabilities " was deleted ;  
f) in the penultimate sentence of Article D.1(a), the phrase " shall recommend " was changed 
to "may recommend "; and 
g) the figures 3 and 8 were introduced for the transition periods referred to in 
Article  B.1 and Article B.3 respectively .  
Finally, while the provision in Article C.2(a) on transparency in respect of forced labour was not 
changed, it was generally under stood that it would be further considered before adoption of the 
Additional Provisions but after an intended statement would have been made by one Member to 
commit not to avail itself of SDT  in accordance with Article  B.5.  
58. Of these changes, my impression is that the proposed length and formulation of the transition 
periods in Article B.1 and Article B.3 would clearly benefit from further engagement and 
consideration among Members.  
59. Unfortunately , the further progress by this group of Members was made too late in the schedule 
of MC13 to be on the agenda of the closing session for all Members' consideration . However, these 
proposed changes  represent the hard compromises that a very diverse group of Members were 
willing t o make to bridge the remaining gaps. As such, it c ould go a long way toward preparing the 
Additional Provisions for final adoption by Members. Therefore, I see this progress as significant and 
worth recording in this Addendum.  
CONCLUSION  
60. As I continue to t hink about next steps, my analysis is that we can consolidate and build upon 
the hard work of Ministers and delegates embodied in the Advanced Draft (now circulated as 
TN/RL/W/278). In this connection, I am convinced that the above -described work undertake n by 
the group of Members at the end of MC13 can be helpful for identifying essential further elements 
needed to finalize the negotiations on the Additional Provisions  on Fisheries Subsidies.  TN/RL/W/278/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  61. Using document W/278 as the basis and building upon the above -described further work , a 
limited number of desirable adjustments can be identified and categori zed as follows .  
62. The first category would be certain refinements to the text , such as described in 
paragraphs  57 (a), (e) , and (f), the definition in footnote  6 of being " significantly engaged " in far 
distant water fishing , and possibly other issues, which some Members raised during consultations 
on the Advanced Draft during the course of 1 March.  
63. The second category would be the proposed deletion of certain tran sparency provisions, such 
as described in paragraph s 57 (b), (c) , and (d). Also as noted, the transparency provision on forced 
labour is generally  understood to be further consider ed after an  anticipated binding commitment 
would be made by a Member not to avail itself of SDT  under Article B.5 .  
64. Finally, t he third category would be the transition periods referred to as "X" in 
Article  B.1 and Article B.3. These warrant further engagement with all Members on their length and 
formulation in order to establish t he final balance of the Additional Provisions on Fisheries Subsidies.  
65. Furthermore, after Members have agreed on a final package for adoption, a technical and 
linguistic review should take place.  Members engaged in such  an exercise for document  W/10 , and 
a final document should be subject to the same sort of process.  
66. Dear Colleagues, I hope that this Addendum  provides you with some useful clarifications on 
how we arrived at the Advanced Draft and, more generally, on the numerous activities that took 
place in Abu Dhabi. We have come a very long way, and  again this is thanks to the tremendous 
efforts and commitment  of your Ministers and all delegates .  
67. This enabled us, a t the Ministerial Conference , to ide ntify workable solutions acceptable to a 
very broad spectrum of Members on issues that have been deadlocked for decades, including the 
discipline on subsidies contingent on distant water fishing activities , and on the SDT exemption for 
small scale and arti sanal fishing. I commend all of you for the flexibility that you have shown , which 
enabled us to identify these and the other compromise solutions reflected in and based on the 
Advanced Draft.  
68. It is my hope that we will be able to build on this massive work with the aim of closing the 
remaining gaps in the near future. I will be consulting with Members in the coming weeks to seek 
your views on the best way forward. I believe that we can succeed if we remain focused and 
pragmatic, in the same way as at MC13 . 
Ambassador Einar Gunnarsson  
Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules  
_________