RESTRICTED  
  
TN/RL/34  
 
22 Novem ber 20 21 
(21-8766) Page: 1/4 
Negotiating Group on Rules    
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES  
FISHERIES SUBSIDIES  
REPORT BY THE CHAIR , H.E. MR SANTIAGO WILLS  TO 
THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE  
19 Novem ber 20 21 
INTRODUCTION  
1. Thank you Chair and Director -General, and good morning colleagues. I am pleased to present 
my report on the activities of the Negotiating Group on Rules in the fisheries subsidies negotiations 
since the last TNC meeting in October. As we are less than two weeks away from the start of MC12, 
and Members in the Negotiating Group have a great deal to do to prepare the ground for Ministers 
to take the final decisions that will produce an outcome after 20 years of negotiations, today's 
meeting represents a key mo ment, and I hope the final turning point, for these negotiations.  
REPORT OF ACTIVITIES  
2. As I reported to the TNC in September and October, following the 15 July formal virtual TNC at 
Ministerial level to discuss fisheries subsidies, the Negotiating Group o n Rules has been working very 
intensively throughout the fall based on a two -phase programme of work aimed at increasing 
convergence on all of the issues that remained open. As you will recall, on 30 June I circulated a 
revision of the negotiating text tha t I had introduced in May. The June revision, in document 
TN/RL/W/276/Rev.1, presented my first draft of possible landing zones in a number of areas. The 
suggestions that I put forward in the Rev.1 text drew on all of the focused work of Members, based 
on successive draft texts, that had taken place since early 2020, and that had made great progress 
despite the difficulties and constraints imposed by the COVID -19 pandemic. It was the Rev.1 text 
on which Ministers commented during the 15 July meeting, with s ome – albeit from different sides 
and with different interests and perspectives – calling for a rebalancing of certain parts of the text. 
There also was widespread support to continue working on the basis of the Rev.1 text to address 
these questions relate d to a perceived imbalance.  
3. To that end, the Negotiating Group has been pursuing a two -phase programme of work since 
we reconvened following the summer break. The first phase was to address so -called "macro issues" 
that had been identified in the Rev.1 te xt by various delegations and groups that were seeking a 
rebalanced text. The timing as initially announced was to try to collectively improve the draft text 
for about four weeks and then move, in mid -October, to the second phase, namely clause -by-clause 
negotiations on the basis of a further revised text.  
4. As I previously reported, the focus of much of our work during September was on the 
overcapacity and overfishing pillar, including the provisions related to special and differential 
treatment, addressing  the perception of imbalance that had been raised by some Ministers during 
the 15 July meeting. In addition, we also discussed the disciplines relating to subsidies to fishing or 
fishing related activities in areas beyond national jurisdictions; notificati ons and transparency; 
whether non -specific fuel subsidies should be within the scope of the disciplines; and some issues 
regarding the IUU fishing pillar with an emphasis on IUU determinations as a trigger for the subsidy 
prohibition, including the so -called automaticity of such a trigger. In addition to our work in plenary 
sessions, I was continuously engaged in bilateral consultations and in meetings with groups of 
different configurations and on different topics.  TN/RL/34  
 
- 2 - 
 
  5. Although we had intended to move to the c lause-by-clause negotiations by the week of 
11 October, it became clear that Members needed more time for their work on the "macro issues", 
as the discussions had not generated any concrete results, while at the same time, it appeared that 
some bridging so lutions might emerge from Members' own work. I therefore decided to prolong the 
time allocated to Members' consultations, and I later extended this further. I encouraged delegations 
to use the time to work with one another, particularly across divergent po sitions, to try to identify 
common ground. In parallel, I continued my own consultations and other work with a large number 
of delegations and groups.  
6. On 8 November, having heard back from some Members about the products of their work with 
others, and tak ing into account all of the issues raised, all proposals, and all textual suggestions 
made during the first phase, I issued a second revision of the negotiating text, in document 
TN/RL/W/276/Rev.2. Accompanying this revision was document TN/RL/W/276/Rev.2/ Add.1 
containing my explanation of the changes made from Rev.1.  
7. As explained in that note, the changes that I introduced in the Rev.2 document took into account  
in one way or another all of the work that preceded it. Even if not every suggestion was incorporated 
in the manner in which it had been suggested, I aimed to address directly or indirectly all of the 
important issues that had been identified. Put another  way, with the Rev.2 document I tried to come 
as close as possible to what I saw – based on all of the discussions of Rev.1 and the textual 
suggestions submitted during the first phase - as the possible final landing zones for these 
negotiations. Thus, whi le some of the changes were of a relatively technical nature, others addressed 
the most substantive and contentious areas of the text. Also, as emphasized in the Add.1 document, 
where language was not changed from the Rev.1 text this was not intended to im ply that that 
language was agreed. It is clear that nothing is agreed until everything is, and the very purpose of 
a clause -by-clause reading of the text is to ensure that every provision is fully considered and 
debated in the context of the Rev.2 document . This is particularly important given the many 
interlinkages among different provisions of the text, such that a change to one may necessitate a 
change to another and so forth.  
8. In the Rev.2 text, as explained in the Add.1 document, the main substantive ch anges were to 
various elements in the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing pillar, the overcapacity and 
overfishing pillar, and in the notifications and transparency disciplines. In presenting these changes, 
I noted that they reflected my best  attempt to find an overall balance in the entire text. I thus 
strongly encouraged Members to consider the text in a holistic manner rather than focusing on 
particular elements in isolation.  
9. When preparing the text, it was my assessment that three areas – Articles 1.2, 10 and 11.4 - 
required some further technical discussion before they would be ready for consideration in the 
clause -by-clause process. As anticipated in the Add.1 document, I therefore asked three colleagues 
– Ambassador de Boer of Canada, A mbassador Molokomme of Botswana, and Ambassador Tan of 
Singapore, respectively – to assist me as Friends of the Chair on those provisions. These Friends 
held bilateral consultations and small group meetings, with the aim of identifying convergent 
language that could be brought back to the plenary for consideration in the clause -by-clause 
discussions. Each of them reported back to the Negotiating Group yesterday afternoon, and we will 
be turning to those issues during our plenary discussions over the weekend .  
10. Immediately after the Rev.2 text was circulated, we began the clause -by-clause discussions of 
all provisions of the text other than those assigned to Friends of the Chair. All Members indicated 
that this text represented a good basis for this phase of t he work and the discussions have been 
very active.  
11. Here I would like to recall the purpose of these clause -by-clause discussions; namely to produce 
a clean text, or at least a text that is as clean as possible, for Ministers to consider beginning just 
10 days from now. To produce such a text through the collective work of 164 Members requires both 
self-restraint and a very pragmatic approach from each delegation. Simply, for each provision each 
delegation needs to ask itself, "Can I live with this?", and t o keep its alternative suggestions to the 
minimum necessary for it to be able to say "yes". Without this sort of approach, we will not be able 
to produce the much cleaner text that Ministers are expecting.  TN/RL/34  
 
- 3 - 
 
  12. This is not to imply that our discussions thus fa r have been unproductive. To the contrary, I 
want to express appreciation for how delegations are participating – the discussions have been very 
much focused on the text and on concrete suggestions for amending the text. This is a very positive 
development , as delegations are no longer delivering prepared speeches on general points. Instead, 
they are engaging on the spot in presenting textual suggestions and making textual amendments to 
those suggestions, in a constructive manner. This has led in several ar eas to growing convergence 
as a particular suggested formulation has evolved in the room.  
13. While this is very positive, it is not enough. Although some issues have progressed in this way, 
there are too many areas where progress remains elusive, with a larg e number of textual 
suggestions often going in opposite directions and some implying a restructuring of entire Articles. 
Given the interlinkages of issues in the text, major proposed changes in one area would require 
corresponding changes in other areas of  the text. This could end up destabilizing the entire text and 
we are almost out of time. So again, I can only reiterate my call for delegations to remain focused, 
pragmatic and disciplined.  
14. As for where we are now in the clause -by-clause discussions, we have just completed the first 
reading of all provisions of the text, except those assigned to Friends of the Chair, where we received 
their reports yesterday afternoon. We will be continuing our discussions, beginning this evening and 
during the entire wee kend, by revisiting the provisions that we have already discussed and taking 
up the provisions that were assigned to the Friends of the Chair. In all cases, the goal is to develop 
convergent formulations that can be introduced into the text as clean provis ions.  
15. While we all hope that this can be the case for every provision of the text, I am aware that 
there are a few issues that are particularly sensitive for some Members, and which probably would 
need to be sent to Ministers to resolve. We will need to f ind a clear way to reflect these issues and 
the decisions to be made in the text, for example through the use of brackets and in some cases 
alternative formulations. To have a chance of achieving an agreed outcome at MC12 after so many 
years of work, the i ssues of this kind must be very few, and must be presented as cleanly and clearly 
as possible.  
16. So this next phase of our work, beginning this evening, is to collectively produce the cleanest 
possible text to go to Ministers. And we only have a couple of d ays to do this – even though we will 
use most of the hours of those days. My intention is to circulate a new version of the text early next 
week, while the General Council is in session, so that it can be included with the other documentation 
being sent to  the Ministerial Conference. Accompanying the text will be a document explaining to 
Ministers all of the provisions and identifying the questions that they are being asked to decide.  
17. I therefore ask all delegations to be prepared for an extremely intense process. Even more 
importantly, I call on all delegations to come to each of these sessions with full instructions and the 
authority to take decisions on the spot. I want to remind everyone that in July, WTO Ministers 
empowered their Geneva Heads of Delega tion to negotiate compromise solutions so that the 
Negotiating Group can create the clean text that Ministers need and expect. Having the ability to 
connect your capital -based officials by Interprefy should only reinforce your ability to react and 
decide q uickly so that we can produce such a text. Now is the time to do this.  
CONCLUSION  
18. I would like to conclude that while we are going to work very hard over the weekend and while 
my intention is to send a text to the General Council next week, that will not s ignal the end of our 
pre-MC12 work. Instead, I anticipate continuing to work in different configurations during the 
remainder of the week after the General Council, in an effort to further narrow any remaining 
differences. I therefore expect to send a supp lemental report to Ministers depending on the outcome 
of that further work.   
19. In closing, let me recall once again that these negotiations have been running for 20 years now. 
We are one year overdue on the deadline in SDG Target 14.6, while outside Geneva ever-more 
attention is being focused on sustainability issues, including those affecting the ocean. I say this not 
with the intention of making anyone feel bad – to the contrary, I think we have grounds for feeling 
optimistic. Success is within our grasp i f we really fight to deliver on the many commitments of our 
Ministers and leaders over the years to deliver an outcome in these negotiations. By now, positions, TN/RL/34  
 
- 4 - 
 
  views and interests have been identified and thoroughly examined and debated, and we are coming  
closer to a mid -point of convergence. While the process is sometimes painful and always lengthy, 
we are continuing to make progress toward the possible landing zones on all of the open issues.  
20. Here I must give credit to all of your delegations for the re ally significant change in how you 
are engaging. Our work is increasingly focused and text -based. And while views and thus textual 
suggestions continue to show divergences, we also are seeing many delegations putting forth 
compromise suggestions for closin g issues so that we can move forward.  
21. We have an absolutely crucial few days ahead of us, starting this evening and through the 
weekend, to progressively consolidate compromise solutions in as many areas as we can, such that 
only very little if anything i s left for Ministers to decide. I am confident that we can get there – we 
have the information and the technology to do so. What we need now is the willingness on all sides 
to take some decisions here and now to clear as many issues as possible. Your Minis ters have given 
you the green light – so let's get this done!  
22. This concludes my report. Thank you, Dr Ngozi and Ambassador Castillo.  
__________