RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG/GEN/M/5
4 January 2001
(01-0020)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Seventh Session
ACCESSION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC TO THE CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION, BELARUS AND KAZAKHSTAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION;  UKRAINE;  UZBEKISTAN;  MOLDOVA;  KAZAKHSTAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN,  ARMENIA, BELARUS,
GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, KAZAKHSTAN, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UKRAINE,
UZBEKISTAN, TAJIKISTAN AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
Note of the Meeting of 13 October 2000
Chairman:  Dr. V. Notis (Greece)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1389.
2. Under Agenda Items D.V-XI of its Twenty-seventh Session, the Committee on Regional
Trade Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committe e) took up the first round of examination of the
following regional trade agreements (RTAs):
A. Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the Customs Union between the Russian
Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan
B. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation
C. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and UkraineD. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan
E. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova
F. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan
G. Free Trade Agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova,
Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the KyrgyzRepublic
General Statements
3. The Chairman indicated that the Committee would conduct the first round of examination of
seven RTAs notified to the WTO by the Kyrgyz Republic, which concerned the relationship between
that Member and other countries from the former So viet Union.  Given the number of agreements and
that only one WTO Member was the common denominator to all those seven agreements, it was
important to avoid unnecessary repetitions at the meeting.  The examination of the  RTAs would be
carried out under three different groups: the customs union agreement, the five bilateral free-trade
agreements (FTAs), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) FTA.  That way of
proceeding would have no effect on the examinations per se , as each Agreement would be judged on
its own merit and would have its ow n report with its own conclusions.WT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 2
4. The Chairman recalled that after notification, the agreements had been considered by the
Council for Trade in Goods at its meetings of 2 July and 15 October 1999, when standard terms of
reference were adopted for the examination of each  agreement: "to examine, in light of the relevant
provisions of the GATT 1994, the [name of the agreem ent] and to submit a report to the Council for
Trade in Goods".  He then indicated that those terms of reference applied jointly with anUnderstanding that read "It is understood that the understanding read out by the Chairman of the
Council for Trade in Goods under item 7 of the ag enda of the meeting of the Council for Trade in
Goods on 20 February 1995, as contained in document WT/REG3/1, will apply mutatis mutandis  to
the examination of the Agreements.  It is also understood that, during the examination, due account
will be taken of the intrinsic differences between customs unions and free-trade areas".
5. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that his country attached high importance to
that Session of the Committee since it was the first time an agreement to which his country was a
Party was examined.  Kyrgyzstan, in fulfilling its obligations under the Protocol of Accession to the
Marrakesh Agreement, had notified the WTO of its RTAs and had provided information in the form
of the Standard Format as well as corresponding trade statistics.  Kyrgyzstan was highly committed to
the principles of transparency and to the WTO obligations.  Kyrgyzstan's RTAs had appeared as the
reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had had a devastating effect on its trade with theformer Soviet Union countries.  The intention had been to stabilize and promote trade relations with
traditional trade partners without creating any trade barriers to third parties.  The Agreement on
Creation of Free Trade Area, signed in April 1994 by  the CIS, had offered better opportunities for
trade cooperation and liberalization of external economic activity.  On that basis Kyrgyzstan had
concluded bilateral agreements on free trade with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, RussianFederation, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.  The Free Trade Agreement with Tajikistan was currently in the
process of ratification by the Kyrgyz Parliament.  No bilateral agreement on free trade had been
signed with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkmenist an.  Those FTAs implied establishing national
treatment for imported goods, free transit, fair competition, transparent application of safeguard
measures, agreed procedures of trade dispute settlement and non-discriminatory access of goods to thedomestic markets of the Parties.  In 1995, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation concluded
agreements aiming to form a Customs Union and in March 1996 Kyrgyzstan joined them.  As for the
Agreement on Customs Union and Common Economic  Area of 1999, his delegation regarded its
formation as a process.  Tasks to be reached were: completion of the free-trade areas with no
exceptions and restrictions;  application of common regulations on tariff and non-tariff measures;
currency regulation;  common trade regimes with third parties; general principles of indirect taxation
of external trade operations;  forming reliable external customs border;  and working out the CommonCustoms Tariff.  The Agreement had defined the basic principles, aims, tasks and stages of creation of
the Common Economic Area, of which the formati on of the Customs Union and creation of the
common customs territory would constitute the firs t stage.  The second stage would include the
formation of the common market of the Customs Union member countries.  In concluding, the
representative informed the Committee that an Agreement on Establishment of the EurasianEconomic Community, which implied closer and more efficient trade and economic cooperation, had
been signed by the Presidents of the Customs Un ion member countries on 10 October 2000 in Astana,
Kazakhstan.  His delegation, which also comprised experts from the capital, would be glad to provide
immediate answers as complete as possible and more detailed written ones upon their analysis in the
capital.
6. The representative of Bulgaria  indicated that he had a number of questions that would apply
to all the agreements under examination.  First, he  noted that the documents made reference to around
30 agreements, protocols and other understandings.  It seemed that the Kyrgyz Republic were Party to
three types of agreements, namely bilateral FTAs, plurilateral FTAs and a customs union.  His
delegation would like to know what was the relationship between those three types of agreements,whether they supplemented each other, and whether their parallel existence was a necessity.  Second,
he asked what was the interim period for the establishment of each of the FTAs and whether it wasWT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 3
foreseen to keep some exemptions after the expire of those interim periods.  Third, he requested that a
clarification be provided on the meaning of the provision on the introduction of a "standard copy of
Goods Nomenclature", as reflected in the FTAs between the Kyrgyz Republic and Russian Federation
(Article 8), Ukraine (Article 7), Uzbekistan (Article 9), Moldova (Article 9) and Kazakhstan (Article
9:2) as well as in the CIS FTA (Article 7:2).  Fourth, noting that the Standard Formats only providedinformation on implementation of restrictions or measures from the part of the Kyrgyz Republic, he
stated that for examining the RTAs and their relationship with the requirements of Article XXIV of
GATT 1994, information on those issues was also needed from the other Parties to the Agreements.
7. Replying to those questions, the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that, with
respect to the relationship between the customs union and the CIS FTA, the latter was seen as a first
step towards the creation of the former.  However, only five signatories of the CIS FTA had gone a
step further and entered into a customs union agreement.  The customs union agreement did notcontain provisions on trade between the Parties;  free trade among the Parties was governed by the
provisions of the CIS FTA.  Therefore, the CIS FTA and the customs union were complementary and
not overlapping.  The bilateral FTAs and the plurilateral CIS FTA were complementary in certain
aspects as well, since exceptions from the CIS free-trade régime were dealt with in the bilateral FTAs.
The important fact was the absence of inconsistencies between the bilateral and plurilateral FTAssigned by the Kyrgyz Republic.  More detailed written answers would be provided on that at a later
stage.  He also noted that it was still too early to know whether some exceptions would remain after
the end of transition periods.  He further clarified that the Goods Nomenclature was based on the
Harmonized System and the combined tariff nomenclature of the European Communities.
8. Following the request made by the representative of Korea that additional explanation be
provided on the legal relationship between the bilateral FTAs and the CIS FTA, the representative of
the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that they would be provided in written form.
A. EXAMINATION OF THE ACCESSION OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC TO THE
CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, BELARUS AND
KAZAKHSTAN
9. The Chairman noted that the Agreement on the Accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the
Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan had been signed on 29
March 1996 and had entered into force on 8 October 1997.  It had been notified to the WTO in April
1999 (WT/REG71/N/1) and the text of the Agreement had been distributed in document
WT/REG71/2.  The Committee would examine that Agreement in conformity with the terms ofreference adopted for the examination and cont ained in document WT/REG71/3.  He drew the
Committee's attention to document WT/REG71/5 that had been distributed that day and indicated that
a new version of document WT/REG71/4 would be  circulated incorporating some corrections.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
Section I.1 Membership and dates of signature, ratification and entry into force
10. The representative of Australia  stated that his delegation had questions concerning
implementation periods, list of sensitive goods excluded from the Agreement and the effect of the
FTA on Kyrgyz's free economic zones, which had already been provided on a written form to the
delegation of the Kyrgyz Republic.  Regarding the Eurasian Economic Community referred to by the
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic at his introductory statement, he asked what would be itsimpact on the provisions of the customs union under examination by the Committee.  The
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that he had only received a copy of the Declaration of
the Presidents on the Eurasian Economic Community, but not yet the text of the Agreement;  heWT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 4
would thus provide a written reply to the Australian question.  The representative of Australia  said
that he looked forward for receiving all those replies.
Section I.3 - Scope
11. As it was said before that it was too early to know whether exceptions would remain at the
end of the transition period, the representative of Canada asked whether information could be
provided on the situation at that time with respect to the harmonization of rates, namely on which
products and tariff lines had harmonization occurr ed, and which were the areas where harmonization
had not occurred.  She was also interested in having some information on the difficulties involved
with the harmonization and on the timing for the completion of such process.
12. Referring to the Terms and Conditions of Forming the Customs Union mentioned in the
Preamble to the Agreement on the customs union (document WT/REG71/2), the representative of
Bulgaria  asked which were those conditions, whether they were an integral part of the Agreement and
whether the Kyrgyz Republic intended to present that text to the Committee.  The representative of
Japan  asked which were the sensitive goods referred to in that Section of the Standard Format.  The
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that comprehensive answers would be provided in a
written form.
13. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the opportunity to examine those
agreements in the Committee.  The process of regional integration and development of  links among
the various countries that had emerged from the former Soviet Union was an area where there was
considerable activity.  Indeed, a new agreement had been signed few days before that meeting, and it
had been reported as being modelled upon the European Economic Community, which represented an
interesting and yet ambitious development.  Notin g that the information tabled suggested that no
definitive decisions had yet been taken on what products would be covered by the FTAs or the
customs union itself in terms of relationship with external parties, he asked for an indication of when
such decisions could be expected for.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that
Article 23 of the Agreement on Customs Union and Single Economic Area referred to the provisionsof international law regarding the formation of a customs union, which in that case related to the
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994  and its requirement of a
maximum transition period of 10 years.  The representative of the European Communities asked
whether the transition period had already started or whether it would start only after the signature andentry into force of a further agreement.  The repr esentative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that a
written reply would be provided to that question.
Section II - Trade Provisions
Section II.1.3 - Common external tariff
14. The representative of Bulgaria asked in which stage was the process of establishing a
common external tariff, when it was expected to be finalized and to what extent did the common
external tariff allow the Kyrgyz Republic to comp ly with its WTO market access commitments.  The
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that the work on establishing the common external
tariff had just began and the rates proposed to be negotiated were not yet determined;  thus, it was not
possible to provide information on negotiations under Article XXIV at that early stage.
Section II.5 & 6 - Safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing measures
15. The representative of Bulgaria asked whether the customs union mechanism for application of
anti-dumping, safeguard and countervailing measures was different from the mechanisms provided
for in the national legislations vis-à-vis  imports from third countries.  The representative of theWT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 5
Kyrgyz Republic said that the question would be an swered to in a written form.  In reply to the
question, made by the representative of the Japan, of whether any safeguard, anti-dumping or
countervailing measure had ever been taken in the context of the customs union, he stated that his
country did not at that point apply any safeguard measure in trade with its partners in the customs
union or the FTAs, nor had them been applied in the past.
16. The representative of Poland asked which were the differences and the relationship between
the CIS FTA and the customs union agreement, which involved only four countries Parties to the CIS
agreement.  Once the general relationship between those Agreements would be clarified, specific
questions could then be discussed.  The Chairman noted that those general questions had been dealt
with at the beginning of the meeting.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic noted that the
question was similar to the one posed by the representative of Bulgaria, to which an oral reply was
provided and for which a more detailed written response had been promised.
17. The Chairman said that the first round of examination of the Accession of the Kyrgyz
Republic to the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan had allowed
the Committee to clarify a number of questions, but some others were pending.  He invited
delegations to forward additional questions to the Secretariat by 10 November 2000 and the Parties to
submit replies not later than 20 December 2000.  The next round of examination would be scheduledfor 2001.
B-F. EXAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION;  UKRAINE;
UZBEKISTAN;  MOLDOVA;  KAZAKHSTAN
18. The Chairman recalled that while the five agreements would be examined jointly, each of
them would be judged on its own merit and would ha ve its own report with its own conclusions.  He
noted that the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation had been signed on
8 October 1992 and had entered into force on 24 March 1993;  it had been notified to the WTO inJune 1999 (WT/REG73/N/1) and the text of the Agreement had been distributed in document
WT/REG73/1.  The FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Ukraine had been signed on 26 May 1995
and had entered into force on 19 January 1998;  it had been notified to the WTO in June 1999
(WT/REG74/N/1) and the text of the Agreement had been distributed in document WT/REG74/1.
The FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan had been signed on 24 December 1996 and
had entered into force on 20 March 1998;  it had been notified to the WTO in June 1999
(WT/REG75/N/1) and the text of the Agreement had been distributed in document WT/REG75/1.
The FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova had been signed on 26 May 1995 and had
entered into force on 21 November 1996;  it had been notified to the WTO in June 1999
(WT/REG76/N/1) and the text of the Agreement had been distributed in document WT/REG76/1.
The FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan had been signed on 22 June 1995 and had
entered into force on 11 November 1995;  it had been notified to the WTO in June 1999(WT/REG81/N/1) and the text of the Agreemen t had been distributed in document WT/REG81/1.
The terms of reference for the examination of those agreements, adopted by the Council for Trade in
Goods, were contained in documents WT/REG 73/2, WT/REG74/2, WT /REG75/2, WT/REG76/2 et
WT/REG81/2, respectively.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
Section I.3 - Scope
19. The representative of Bulgaria noted that Article 1.1 of  the FTA between the Kyrgyz
Republic and the Russian Federation referred to the requirement for an annual Protocol and that theWT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 6
Annex to document WT/REG73/1 mentioned a Protocol dated 26 December 1992, which had been
replaced by another one from 12 July 1994.  He wondered whether that requirement was being
complied with and what was the valid list of exceptions from the free-trade régime being applied.
20. Referring to the FTAs between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation and
Uzbekistan, the representative of Australia noted that the Protocol on Exceptions to those Agreements
excluded goods subject to certain legislation on tariffs and licencing.  He requested that further
information be provided on that, including the percentage of trade covered by the Protocol.
21. Referring to the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan, the representative of
Bulgaria noted that the first two sentences of  Section I.3 of document WT/REG81/3 appeared
contradictory with respect to exceptions to free trad e.  He asked whether any exceptions to the free-
trade régime had been agreed after the entry into force of the Agreement and what was the situation at
that time.  If the exceptions list existed, he requested that it be provided.
22. Referring to the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan and in particular Annex I
to document WT/REG75/3, the representative of Australia noted that only 36.5 per cent of the Kyrgyz
Republic's export of agricultural products to Uzbekistan was covered by the Agreement.  He requestedthe Parties to provide information on the plans they had to ensure that a greater proportion of trade in
agriculture would be subject to a duty rate of zero per cent.
23. As a follow-up question to the ones posed by Australia and Bulgaria on exceptions, the
representative of Canada requested that more details be provided regarding the list of exceptions for
all the FTAs, in particular how products were put on or off those lists, whether or not there was a finallist and whether the duty rates that applied to the exceptions were of a preferential nature or simply
the MFN rates.
24. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied to some of the questions posed.  Regarding
the question posed by Bulgaria on FTA with the Russian Federation and the annual Protocol, he said
that Article 6 of the Protocol, reproduced in page 9 of document WT/REG73/1, stated that the
Protocol should be valid until its replacement by a new one.  With respect to the Protocol on
Exceptions of the FTA with Kazakhstan, he saw no contradiction;  although such Protocol existed, it
simply stated that there would be no exceptions to the free-trade régime.  Regarding the Australian
question on the exclusion of goods subject to certain legislation on tariffs and licencing, he noted that
those measures were permitted under certain GATT provisions and therefore could not be counted as
exceptions;  thus, there was no need to provide coverage information on that.  He noted that the new
Protocol of the CIS FTA, which amended the FTA, stated that there would be no new restrictions
imposed and that all existing restrictions should be  phased out in accordance with the bilateral FTAs.
The Kyrgyz Republic maintained no exceptions to the free-trade régime with any of the Parties to the
FTAs with CIS countries,  including the Russian Federation, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
25. The representative of Australia recalled that no reply had been given to his question on
coverage of agricultural products in the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan.  The
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that the figure of 36.5 per cent of Kyrgyz exports
covered by the free-trade régime resulted from the fact that the Kyrgyz Republic had introduced
certain duties on exports.  However, as stated in page 1 of document WT/REG75/3, those duties were
no longer in force and that at that time his country maintained no exceptions to free-trade régime nor
any export duty in trade with Uzbekistan.
26. Noting that Article 17:2 of the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan stated that
the Agreement had been concluded for five years, the representative of Bulgaria asked whether it
would be prolonged after the expire of such period.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic
indicated that the question would be replied to in a written form.WT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 7
27. Noting that Section I.3 of the Standard Format indicated that the Parties should enter into
bilateral arrangements to phase out existing restrictions in trade between them but that such
arrangements had not yet been concluded, the representative of Australia requested that additional
information be provided on the plans to conclude such arrangements.  The representative of theKyrgyz Republic said he could not provide additional information on that given that it also depended
on the Russian Federation.
28. With respect to the FTAs between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation and
Uzbekistan, the representative of Bulgaria requested that full lists of exceptions under Article 1 of the
respective Protocols on Exceptions to the Free-Trade Régime be provided, together with theirrespective tariff lines.  Referring to Article 2.2 of the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and
Uzbekistan, he requested for a clarification on the meaning of "general schedule of exceptions" and
asked whether such a schedule had been worked out and which were the methods for itsimplementation.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic stated that the list of goods under
different annexes subject to export and import licensing had been submitted to Members during theKyrgyz Republic's accession to the WTO.
Section II - Trade Provisions
Section II.2 - Export restrictions
29. With respect to the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation, the
representative of Bulgaria requested that explanation be provided on the meaning of the phrase "goods
delivered for the national needs" under Article 4 of the Protocol on Exceptions to the Free-tradeRégime.
Section II.5 & 6 - Safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing measures
30. The representative of Japan noted that the Standard Formats stated that the agreements did not
contain specific provisions on anti-dumping but  that unfair business practices were incompatible with
the objective of the Agreements.  He asked how the Parties saw unfair business practices and whether
the Parties would not impose any measures among themselves.
31. Noting that Article 3.2 of the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation
included a list of reasons for the introduction of quantitative restrictions, the representative of
Bulgaria asked which were the other reasons that could justify the introduction of such measures
under Article 3.3.
32. Replying to the Japanese question, the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that
while the FTAs had no other provisions on anti-dumping and countervailing measures, those were
issues regulated by other agreements under th e customs union framework.  The question posed by
Bulgaria would be replied in writing.
33. The representative of Bulgaria asked whether anti-dumping and countervailing measures
could be introduced on the trade between the Kyrgyz Republic and its partners in the various FTAs.
The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that the Protocol annexed to document WT/REG73/1
allowed the imposition of safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing measures between the Parties.
34. Referring to the statement contained in the Standard Format on import and export restrictions
and the changes to the CIS FTA introduced by the Protocol, the representative of Turkey said that it
was his delegation's understanding that certain restrictions existed on trade between the Parties.  Herequested that more information be provided on the kind of restrictions in place so that Members
could have the full picture in front of them, even if those restrictions were only being applied by oneWT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 8
of the Parties.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic reaffirmed that his country did not apply
any import restrictions.  He did not comment on the situation in the other CIS countries signatories of
the Protocol and noted that the examination being conducted in the Committee referred to the
participation of the Kyrgyz Republic in those Agreements.
35. Referring to Article 5 of the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan, the
representative of Bulgaria  asked under which of the cases listed therein could anti-dumping and
countervailing duties be undertaken.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that the
reply could be found in Section II.3 of document WT/REG75/3.  Noting that Article 5 referred to
general exceptions,  the Chairman recalled that anti-dumping measures and general exceptions were
different types of measures which were dealt with under different headings of the Standard Format.The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that the provision related to anti-dumping could
be found in Article 4 of the FTA, and that its paragraph 3 stated that restrictions could only be applied
in cases provided by the GATT/WTO Agreements.
36. The Chairman said that the first round of exam ination of the five bilateral FTAs between the
Kyrgyz Republic and Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Kazakhstan,
respectively, had allowed the Committee to clarify a number of questions, but some others were
pending.  He invited delegations to forward additional questions to the Secretariat by 10 November2000 and the Parties to submit replies not later than 20 December 2000.  The next round of
examination would be scheduled for 2001.
G. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN, ARMENIA, BELARUS,
GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, KAZAKHSTAN, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION,UKRAINE, UZBEKISTAN, TAJIKISTAN AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
37. The Chairman noted that the Free Trade Agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus,
Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the
Kyrgyz Republic had been signed on 15 April 1994 and had entered into force provisionally as fromthat date, pending completion of ratification proce dures.  Final entry force took place for Moldova,
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan on 30 December 1994, for the Kyrgyz Republic on 28 December 1995,
for Azerbaijan on 18 December 1996 and for Tajikistan on 7 May 1997.  The Agreement had been
notified to the WTO in October 1999 (WT/REG82/N/ 1) and the text of the Agreement had been
distributed in document WT/REG82/1.  The Committee would examine that Agreement in conformity
with the terms of reference adopted by the C ouncil for Trade in Goods on 15 October 1999 and
contained in document WT/REG82/2.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
Section I.4 - Trade data
38. The representative of the Australia noted that Annex I of WT/REG82/3 provided data on the
percentage of trade covered by the Agreements between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian
Federation and Uzbekistan, respectively.  He requested that data be provided, in the agricultural andindustrial sectors, on the percentage of trade between the Parties, for each Party, which faced zero
duties, less than MFN rates or MFN rates.  The re presentative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that
the reply would be provided in writing.WT/REG/GEN/M/5
Page 9
Section III - General Provisions of the Agreement
Section III.4 -Relations with other trade agreements
39. The representative of the European Communities noted that the current situation was that of
the Kyrgyz Republic being Party to a FTA with ten other countries and also to other bilateral
agreements with some but not all of those 10 countrie s.  Those agreements seemed to exist in parallel
and had to be seen as a series of relationships foreseen to continue until sometime in the future when
eventually the objectives of a broader customs union or an economic union were fulfilled.  He
wondered whether proposals existed for terminating or  consolidating any of those parallel agreements.
The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that reply would be provided in writing.
40. The Chairman said that the first round of examination of the FTA between the between
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic had allowed the Committee to clarify a number ofquestions, but some others were pending.  He invited delegations to forward additional questions to
the Secretariat by 10 November 2000 and the Parties to submit replies not later than 20 December
2000.  The next round of examination would be scheduled for 2001.
41. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic thanked the Chairman for his excellent
chairmanship and expressed gratitude to all those delegations that had showed support for his
country's activities at that meeting.  He requested that, given the number and complexity of questions,
those be provided by delegations in a written form.
42. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________