TN/RL/35  
 
29 September 2022  
(22-7305) Page: 1/7 
Negotiating Group on Rules    
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES  - FISHERIES SUBSIDIES  
REPORT BY THE CHAIR , H.E. MR SANTIAGO WILLS  TO 
THE NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES  
26 September 2022  
INTRODUCTION  
1. Good afternoon colleagues, it is great to see all of you again. First and foremost, I hope that 
you and your families had a good and healthy summer break.  
2. I know that we all needed a break after the very intense experience of MC12 when the WTO, 
based on th e work of this Negotiating Group, met the mandate in SDG Target 14.6 by adopting the 
new multilateral Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. I want to express my thanks to all delegations 
for your support to me as Chair throughout this arduous process. I know t hat many of you are 
continuing your hard work on fisheries subsidies, by assisting your authorities to take the necessary 
steps to deposit your acceptances of the Agreement as soon as possible so that it enters into force 
quickly and starts delivering its benefits for the sustainability of the ocean and the blue economy, 
and that you will soon embark on the second wave of the negotiations mandated in the Agreement.  
FAREWELL  
3. As I have already shared with some of you, my time as the Ambassador of Colombia to  the 
WTO and hence as Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules comes to an end as of the turn of the 
month – on 30 September. So the reason I called this meeting is to convey my thanks and best 
wishes to all of my fellow Heads of Delegation and the other de legates with whom I have had the 
privilege to work with closely since I assumed the Chair in November 2019.  
4. I cannot overstate my appreciation for the cooperation, good will, and constructive engagement 
of all delegations throughout my time as the Chair. We have worked our way through some complex 
and at times difficult moments, yet I could always count on each one of you to engage with an open 
mind and to work with me and other delegations to find solutions. This was the key that allowed us 
to progressive ly advance our collective process – even during the worst of the pandemic and even 
international conflict  – and finally deliver an outcome in this long -standing negotiation. And I should 
emphasize the word collective – everything that we have achieved has come from all of you working 
together.  
5. Now, with the MC12 outcome on fisheries subsidies, your work is entering an entirely new 
phase. As you know, the WTO now has two fisheries subsidies workstreams, both of which are crucial 
for the Agreement to operate effectively in disciplining fisheries subsidies.  
6. The first workstream relates to entry into force and then implementation of the new Agreement. 
As I just mentioned, I hope that all Members will deposit your instruments of acceptance quickly, so 
the Agreeme nt enters into force. And of course, for the Agreement to have a real -world impact on 
subsidization and sustainability, Members must fully implement it, in good faith.  
7. The second workstream relates to continuing the negotiations. Pursuant to the Ministeria l 
Decision of 17 June, the Negotiating Group is tasked with continuing to work on outstanding issues, 
with the aim of making recommendations to MC13. And I have full confidence that you will deliver 
on that.  TN/RL/35  
 
- 2 - 
 
  RETREAT  
8. As you know, a dedicated retreat on Fisheries Subsidies is planned for 10  October to brainstorm 
on how to approach this "second wave" of negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Although I will not be 
the Chair of this Group by then, I remain available to provide whatever assistance I can to 
delegations.  
EXPLANATORY NOTE OF THE AGREEMENT  
9. Now, I would like to address one question that has been raised with me more than a few times  
– what exactly happened during the Ministerial Conference?  
10. In particular, I know that many of you are still wondering  how and why some of the changes 
were made in the Agreement compared to the earlier version sent to Ministers in document 
WT/MIN(22)/W/20 (the W/20 text). And while I myself am still trying to recall everything that 
happened over the course of the five night s and four and a half days of the Conference, allow me to 
use this opportunity to share some of my recollections . 
11. As you all know, over the course of MC12 Ministers engaged very intensively on fisheries 
subsidies, on different issues and in different confi gurations, aiming to bridge the remaining gaps. 
Through several meetings on different configurations with most delegations and a couple of 
overnight sessions with several Ministers, the W/20 text went through a distillation process where 
provisions that al l could accept were starting to be identified. That version of the text was presented 
in the early hours of 16 June 2022 and then again later in the morning of that same day. Towards 
the end of the day of 16  June 2022, and after many discussions throughout  the day, a group of 
Heads of Delegation representing the main active Members and groups further distilled the document 
that became the final text of the Agreement. Again, all this by identifying the provisions in the W/20 
text that all could accept, by te mporarily setting aside provisions where consensus had not emerged, 
and introducing a new final Article containing a termination clause. That clause was introduced at 
the insistence of Members wanting to ensure that the remaining issues would continue to b e the 
subject of further negotiations, and not simply abandoned.  
12. Turning now to the specific changes in the final Agreement compared to its earlier version in 
the W/20 document.  
Articles 1 and 2  
13. Article 1, defining the scope of the fisheries subsidies disc iplines in the Agreement, and Article  2 
containing definitions were unchanged from those in the W/20 draft text.  
Articles 3 and 4  
14. Article 3 contains the disciplines on subsidies contributing to IUU fishing, and Article 4 addresses 
subsidies to overfished s tocks. These provisions remain the same as those in the W/20 text, other 
than their final paragraphs, Articles 3.8 and 4.4, respectively, providing for special and differential 
treatment (SDT) in the form of a "peace clause".  
15. The peace clause for developi ng Members, including least developed country (LDC) Members, 
means that the disciplines do apply to those Members but are not subject to the dispute settlement 
procedures during the specified period of two years from entry into force, and within a specifie d 
geographical limit. While the two -year period was unchanged from the W/20 text, the geographical 
limit in the Agreement is the Member's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), compared with 12 nautical 
miles in the W/20 text. A further change is that the W/20 tex t limited the peace clause to subsidies 
for low income, resource -poor and livelihood fishing or fishing related activities, while the peace 
clause in the Agreement contains no limitation in respect of the type of fishing it covers. These 
changes were linke d to the omission from the Agreement of the more substantive SDT provisions 
on subsidies for low income, resource -poor and livelihood fishing or fishing related activities that 
appeared in Article 5.5 of the W/20 text, which were among the group of provisi ons not retained in 
the final text. I will go through that group of provisions next.  TN/RL/35  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Article 5  
16. Article 5 in the Agreement, now entitled "Other subsidies", reflects certain disciplines in the 
W/20 text on which Members agreed and which did not fall within t he provisions of Articles 3 and 4.  
17. I would recall that Article 5 in the W/20 text contained extensive draft disciplines on subsidies 
contributing to overcapacity and overfishing as follows:  
• The core disciplines in the overcapacity and overfishing pillar of  W/20 consisted of Article  5.1 
and the qualifications in Article 5.1.1, reflecting the so -called "hybrid" approach. This 
approach comprised a list of presumptively prohibited subsidies qualified by sustainability -
based elements;  
• Related to the provisions o f Article 5.1 including 5.1.1 of W/20, were the special and 
differential treatment provisions in Article 5.5. These consisted of a transition period in 
respect of those provisions, as well as exemptions from them for developing country 
Members with a small  share of global catch, and for developing country Members' subsidies 
for low income, resource -poor and livelihood fishing ; 
• Article 5.2 of the W/20 text was a standalone prohibition of subsidies contingent on fishing 
outside a Member's jurisdiction;  
• Article 5.3 provided for a prohibition of all subsidies to fishing or fishing related activities in 
the high seas – that is, outside of any coastal Member's or coastal non -Member's jurisdiction 
and outside the competence of any RFMO/A ; and  
• Article 5.4 of W/20 re quired the subsidizing Member to take special care and exercise due 
restraint when granting subsidies to vessels not flying its flag.  
18. Although these provisions of Article 5 of the W/20 text were the subject of a great deal of 
focused work at MC12, Ministers ultimately were not able to bridge the differences of view over the 
provisions of Articles 5.1 and 5.1.1 and the related SDT provisi ons in Article 5.5, or on the prohibition 
on subsidies contingent on fishing outside a Member's own jurisdiction in Article 5.2. Members were 
able to agree, however, on the prohibition of all subsidies to fishing or fishing related activities in 
the unregu lated high seas; and on the due restraint provision relating to subsidies to vessels not 
flying the flag of the subsidizing Member. These provisions were retained as new Articles 5.1 and  5.2 
in the Agreement. At the same time, Members further agreed that, for coherence, the other due 
restraint provision of the W/20 text, on subsidies where the status of the stocks being fished is 
unknown  – which had appeared in Article  11.1 of the W/20 text – should be moved into the new 
Article  5 of the Agreement, as  Article 5.3.  
19. The title of Article 5 of the W/20 text was "Subsidies contributing to overcapacity and 
overfishing". When some of the mentioned provisions were omitted, and despite maintaining some 
of the provisions, Members agreed to rename Article 5 "Oth er subsidies".  
Article 6  
20. Article 6 contains a specific provision for Least Developed Country (LDC) Members, namely that 
Members shall exercise due restraint in raising matters involving an LDC Member, and take into 
account the specific situation of those Members. This provision appeared as Article 6.3 of the W/20 
text. The other provisions of Article 6 of that text were not retained as they provided SDT for LDCs 
in respect of the non -retained Article 5.1 of the W/20 text.  
Article 7  
21. Article 7, concerning t echnical assistance and capacity building for developing and LDC Members 
to support their implementation of the disciplines, including the establishment of a voluntary funding 
mechanism, was retained from the W/20 text without modification. This provision was not the 
subject of further drafting work during MC12.  TN/RL/35  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Article 8  
22. Article 8 contains provisions on notifications. Compared with the counterpart provisions of the 
W/20 text, the following modifications were agreed at MC12:  
• First, Article 8.1(a)(ii) from the W/20 text, concerning the provision of certain catch data, 
was moved to Article  8.1(b) as new subitem (v) to reflect concerns of some developing 
Members that mandatory provision of such information might be too burdensome for them. 
In the Agreement, th e provision of such information is required "to the extent possible";  
• Second, Article 8.2 in the W/20 text, a requirement to notify non -specific fuel subsidies, was 
not retained in the Agreement. Prior to MC12, this provision had emerged as a possible 
comp romise on how to address the sensitive issue of non -specific fuel subsidies in the 
disciplines. At MC12, Ministers were unable to reach consensus on this provision or any other 
language relating to such subsidies ; 
• Third, bracketed Article 8.3(b) of the W/2 0 text, on notification of information relating to the 
use of forced labour, was not retained in the Agreement as consensus was not reached at 
MC12 ; 
• And fourth, Article  8.7 in the W/20 was not retained, mainly because this provision was 
dependent on the pr ovisions of Article  5 of that text that also were not retained in the 
Agreement ; and  
• The other provisions of Article 8 were renumbered in the Agreement to reflect the omission 
of these elements.  
Articles 9 and 10  
23. Article 9 which contains provisions relatin g to institutional arrangements, and Article 10 which 
sets forth the provisions related to dispute settlement, remain the same as in the W/20 draft text.  
Article 11  
24. Article 11 "Final Provisions" contains provisions that do not readily belong elsewhere in t he 
Agreement. As I mentioned, what was Article 11.1 in the W/20 document was moved to Article 5 of 
the Agreement. The remaining paragraphs of this provision were retained in the Agreement and 
renumbered to account for the change of placement of former Arti cle 11.1.  
Article 12  
25. Article 12 is new language that does not have a predecessor provision in the Agreement. As 
you know, it does two things. It envisages further work by Members to develop "comprehensive 
disciplines", and it contains a termination mechani sm. In particular, and as elaborated in 
paragraph  4 of the Ministerial Decision adopting the Agreement, the further work to develop these 
disciplines is meant to address the outstanding issues, where agreement was not reached at MC12. 
Article 12 sets forth  an outer limit of four years from the date of entry into force of the Agreement 
for this work to be completed, without which the Agreement will automatically terminate unless 
Members decide otherwise. This provision was inserted to ensure that the outstan ding issues would 
continue to be the subject of further focused work by the Negotiating Group. And although the 
Agreement itself provides four years from entry into force for this work, the Ministerial Decision 
makes clear that Members should aim to comple te it much sooner, in particular by MC13.  
CLOSING  
26. I hope that this explanation provides some useful clarifications on what has happened during 
MC12 and how we arrived at the final version of the Agreement.  
27. Before I conclude, I would like to touch upon the selection of a new Chair. I understand that 
the GC Chair is beginning consultations on this, and I am optimistic that the process will be able to 
conclude soon and to the satisfaction of all Members. I wish  you all every success in resolving this 
essential question quickly – and urge all delegations to be pragmatic in this regard. The most 
important qualities for any Chair are to be able to maintain a neutral role in organizing and guiding 
the discussions, b y carefully listening to, and taking on board, the concerns of all Members. It goes 
without saying that whoever takes up this position will bear this constantly in mind.  TN/RL/35  
 
- 5 - 
 
  28. Having worked with all of you over the past very intense and productive three years, I have 
every confidence that the Negotiating Group will efficiently carry out the further negotiations on 
outstanding issues and make recommendations on these by the next Ministerial Conference, as per 
the Ministerial Decision.  
29. With that, I conclude my st atement.  
30. But I would not want to yield the floor yet, without  sharing with you some final words of 
appreciation.  
31. I wanted to start by thanking the WTO Membership. I would like to thank all of you for the trust 
that you deposited on me when selecting me a s the Chair of the NGR, almost exactly three years 
ago. Everyone knew at that time that we had an enormous task before us and you allowed me to 
lead it, for that I’m thankful. But for me, it was not only about a task. I will forever be grateful to all 
of you, as you granted me an opportunity. You granted me an opportunity to do good to the WTO, 
an Organization that I love, but also to do good to the world. Colleagues, friends, with the Fisheries 
Subsidies Agreement -and of course its implementation – we are  contributing to a better world, we 
are contributing to ocean sustainability and we are contributing to the livelihoods of vulnerable 
communities across the globe. It is not many times, if any, that in one’s professional career or even 
in one’s life, that one is granted the opportunity to make a real difference. You, Members, have 
granted me that opportunity, and collectively we worked towards making it real. For that I will always 
be grateful.  
32. I would also like to thank my dear Fish Team: Clarisse  Morgan , Sainabou Taal , Strahinja  
Ivanovic , Tiss eree Coppa , Anne  Richards , Assem Shakirtova  and those who already left the WTO – 
John Finn and Hugh  Seongseok  Lee. What an amazing journey we had! The work you did to support 
the NGR and to support me as Chair was in credible. Not only did you put so many long hours and 
weekends having to withstand me, but also the way you have supported the NGR and me has been 
with the utmost rigor, discipline, diplomacy and kindness. The WTO, we as Members, are lucky to 
have all of y ou on our team. And may I thank as well an honorary member of our Fish Team working 
behind the scenes but with equal discipline and rigor: the Information and External Relations Division 
– particularly Jessica Hermosa, Roxana Paraschiv and Jana Borges. And  also a huge mention to our 
interpreters. What an amazing and tough job you do for the organization! Thank you so much!  
33. I also want to  deeply  thank DDG Angela Ellard. Also part of the Fish Team. Since the first day I 
felt your support and your will to help  Members move forward and push through several challenges 
in order to achieve this outcome.  Your contribution to the process and to the final outcome  was 
enormous.  I must say that you also fed me during the late hours of MC12, when I felt my energy 
was depleting almost as fast as our precious fish stocks. Thank you, Angela.  
34. And of course, I wanted to thank you , DG. Ever since you took office in the WTO it became cle ar 
that your enthusiasm, your energy and your wit would help us achieve the outcome we achieved. 
You were key in getting this outcome. And as for me personally, I want to thank you for your trust, 
DG. As an anecdote, I first realized how you trusted the pr ocess I had put forward when over a year 
and half ago, the day you started your work as DG, you said in an interview  live on CNN, and I quote 
"… we must support Ambassador Santiago Wills so that we get results this year ". Wow! That gave 
me a boost of confi dence that we were going on the right track and we just needed to persist – and 
of course then you came in with all your might , and the rest is history.  
35. As you can see, there were many thank you notes pending. But I’m not done. I also wanted to 
thank all the staff of my Mission – of the Permanent Mission of Colombia  to the WTO  – Nicolás Palau , 
Lorena  Rivera , Gustavo  Guarín , Abdul  Fatat, Manuel  Chacón , Daniel  Arboleda , Juan  Pescador, 
Cristián Abarzua and Mariana Velasco . Some have already left Geneva but so me are still here. The  
work they’ve done these past three years has been outstanding and it allowed me to put a lot of my 
focus on the fisheries subsidies negotiations. Particularly, I would like to thank Nicolás that supported 
me through thick and thin an d helped me get a lot of non -fisheries related work done. Thanks so 
much.  
36. And last but not least , and probably most importantly , I wanted to thank my family for all their 
support through these past years. Particularly, I would like to thank my wife, Julia na Barrios . She is 
the real hero here – for three years I was moody, I was grumpy and I confess that I neglected some TN/RL/35  
 
- 6 - 
 
  of my home chores , that she readily took on herself to do. She gave me the strength and courage 
to persist even when our negotiations were  darker than ever. She was my inspiration and guiding 
light. And sometimes she also sent her delicious cupcakes and cookies to light up the mood of our 
meetings. Thank you, Juli.  
37. Colleagues, friends: for me it has been an honour to work with all of you. An d it has been the 
privilege of a lifetime to work collectively to make a real difference to the world.  
38. In the coming years there is a lot of work to be done – on fisheries and elsewhere. The work 
will not be easy – it never is – and some will be tempted t o look at it as a challenge, a burden or 
even as a hurdle. But ultimately it needs to be approached and grasped as an opportunity; as an 
opportunity to keep doing good to th is Organization and to the whole global community .  
39. Muchas gracias; thank you very much; merci beaucoup!  
_______________  
RESPONSE TO AN ISSUE RAISED DURING THE MEETING  
Because a few Members raised the issue of a legal review of the text, I would recall  my statement 
to the General Council contained in Annex 2 of JOB/GC/315 . For ease of reference, that statement 
can be found in the Attachment to this document.  
_______________  
 
  TN/RL/35  
 
- 7 - 
 
  ATTACHMENT  
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR SANTIAGO WILLS (COLOMBIA),  
CHAIR OF THE NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES  AT THE 25 JULY 2022  
GENERAL COUNCIL (CONTAINED IN JOB/GC/315)  
1. Today, some delegations have alluded to a possible process of legal review, based on the 
process that was followed for the Trade Facilitation Agreement after the Bali Ministerial Conference 
in 2013. Allow me to reiterate what I me ntioned on the 7 July HoDs meeting in this regard.  
 
2. Let us be reminded that the decisions relating to fisheries subsidies at MC12 are substantively 
different from those pertaining to the TFA. In particular, at MC12 Ministers took a decision to adopt, 
in three languages, the protocol to amend Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Agreement by inserting the 
Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies once it enters into force, and to immediately open the Agreement 
for acceptance by Members. And should I add that the Agreement in t hree languages is attached to 
the protocol. Thus, as of 17 June 2022, the Agreement is open for acceptance without further steps 
to be taken, aside, of course, from the domestic procedures of the Members to deposit instruments 
of acceptance. This is exactl y the same procedure as was followed for the 2005 amendment of the 
TRIPs Amendment. At Bali, by contrast, while Ministers decided that the substantive TFA negotiations 
had been concluded, they also decided at the same time to establish a Preparatory Commit tee to 
conduct a legal review of the TFA to prepare it for acceptance. Given the difficulties throughout the 
process, the protocol that actually opened the TFA for acceptance was adopted by the General 
Council about one year after the Ministerial Conferenc e.  This is a fundamentally different legal 
posture than what the Ministers agreed to at MC12.  
 
3. On translations of the Agreement, I would recall that French and Spanish versions of the text 
should have been familiar to Members, given that every version of the draft text that I have provided 
to Members for consideration since June 2020 has been circulated immediately in all three 
languages. This includes both WT/MIN(21)/W/5 and WT/MIN(22)/W/20, which were sent to Ministers 
in November last year and June this  year, before MC12. All of that said, I would encourage any 
delegation that wishes to raise any questions to contact me as soon as possible. Under well -known 
treaty procedures, if there are translation corrections on which Members can agree, there are 
processes for the Depositary – the DG – to circulate technical rectifications for approval by Members.  
 
4. I should add, also, that some Members have already informed me that they have begun their 
domestic procedures of acceptance of the instrument, including, fo r instance, already having 
submitted the adopted text of the Agreement to their Congress or Parliament. In other words, 
domestic procedures from Members have already started on the basis of what was decided during 
MC12.    
 
5. Having said all of this, if ther e are specific concerns of consistency, of translations, or anything 
else, please reach out to me. As I mentioned in the 7 July HoDs – when I shared the details on the 
process that I'm reiterating today - my door is still open for all delegations to reach out and have 
the discussions we need to have.  
 
6. Thanks, Director -General. Thank you, Chair.  
__________