RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG/GEN/M/7
9 August 2001
(01-3961)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Ninth Session
CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC,
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
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 on the Meeting of 2 July 2001
Chairman:  Dr. V. Notis (Greece)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1568.
2. Under Agenda Items C.II-VIII of its Twenty-ninth Session, the Comm ittee on Regional Trade
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the third round of examination of the
following regional trade agreements (RTAs):
A. Customs Union between the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Tajikistan
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 noted that it was the third round of examination of the seven agreements
concluded by the Kyrgyz Republic with other countries from the former Soviet Union.  Previous
examinations had taken place in the last two Committee Sessions, in October 2000 andFebruary 2001;  the proceedings of the meetings had been circulated in documents
WT/REG/GEN/M/5-6. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, he indicated that 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.
4. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that he would describe briefly the
progress made since the first examination of his country's agreements.  His delegation had notified
few Agreements under Article XXIV, namely the Customs Union and Single Economic Area betweenWT/REG/GEN/M/7
Page 2
the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan;  the CIS Free
Trade Agreement, and the Free Trade Agreements between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian
Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Kazakhstan, respectively;  and more recently the Free
Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia.  During the first two rounds of
examination, the Kyrgyz Republic delegation had received and replied to many questions, includingthose on the scope of the Agreements, their types, trade provisions, as well as the interrelations
between them;  all that information had been distributed as official documents.  Through all those
questions, much attention had been paid to the application of anti-dumping, safeguard and
countervailing measures.  Referring to the CIS FTA and the bilateral Agreements, he stated that his
country did not have at that time any restrictions against Parties to those Agreements, in line with the
protocols on amendments and supplements to the CIS FTA under which Parties had agreed not to
introduce any quantitative restrictions.  Safeguard measures might nevertheless be used to improvethe balance of payment conditions, as well as anti-dumping measures.   As for the Customs Union
Agreement, its origin had been the Economic Union Agreement of 24 September 1993, signed by all
CIS countries except Ukraine, and which reflected the intention of its Parties to create an economic
union.  However, among the CIS only five countries had entered into the agreement to establish a
customs union.  The Agreement on Customs Union a nd Single Economic Area had been signed on
26 February 1999, and the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic had ratified it on 14 January 2000.
According to its Article 23, the Parties should dete rmine the time frame for finalizing the customs
union.  As indicated in the replies, it was not possible at present to provide an exact date for the
creation of the customs union and common customs tariff, given that work on the unification of tariff
rates was underway.  The Parties would work cl osely to develop a common customs tariff as
stipulated in Article XXIV:8(a)(ii).  He stressed that the process of further integration was continuing,
and that the customs union's status was that of an interim agreement.  During the February session of
the Committee, his delegation had introduced the text of the Agreement on Foundation of the
Eurasian Economic Community signed on 10 October 2000 by the Heads of State of five members of
the customs union.  The creation of that international organization was a step towards a full-fledgedcustoms union.  During the transition period, the Parties had decided to elaborate their own rates for
sensitive goods, which should not exceed 15 per cent of total goods traded in accordance with
Article 8 of the Annex to the Agreement on Comm on Customs Tariff of the Customs Union Member
States;  that information had already been provided in Section I.3 of WT/REG71/6 and its Annex.
While he could understand delegations' concern about this figure, he noted that Article XXIV
recognized that, in the substitution of a single cu stoms territory for two or more customs territories,
specific needs could be taken into account and a transition period could be put in place to deal withsensitive issues.  He recalled that the list of sensitive goods for the Kyrgyz Republic had been
circulated in document WT/REG71 /6/Add.1 and that it included industrial and agricultural goods.
With regard to the quantitative aspect of the list, the 15 per cent figure meant that "substantially all the
trade" would refer to 85 per cent of total trade.  Regarding measures having a restrictive character on
trade, he stressed that the Kyrgyz Republic did not apply any safeguard, anti-dumping orcountervailing measures against its partners.  He emphasized that the efforts of the custom union’s
members were based on the willingness to undertake global economic activity;  special consideration
should be given to the fact that, in the past, the countries involved were part of a single economic
area. Finally, noting the difficulties faced in the Committee, he proposed that, in order to ensure more
productive work, the examination of the bilateral agreements concluded by the Kyrgyz Republicconcentrate on the FTA with Moldova, which was also a WTO Member, and that the examination of
the four other FTAs concluded by the Kyrgyz Republic and countries not Members of the WTO be
left aside.
5. The representative of the United States sought confirmation that what had just been proposed
referred to deferring consideration of all the bilateral agreements concluded by the Kyrgyz Republic
with the exception of the one concluded with Moldova, which was a WTO Member. The
representative of Australia wondered whether the proposal amounted to continuing the exchange ofWT/REG/GEN/M/7
Page 3
questions and replies on all Agreements but that the examination proper would be continued only on
the  FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova.
6. The representative of the European Communities (EC) noted that little information had been
provided with respect to the bilateral agreements, in particular with non-members of the WTO, thus
not allowing the Committee to judge if the pertinent criteria of Article XXIV had been met.  Heconcurred with the request for more time to fully assess these Agreements, but requested that
available information be provided so that his de legation could continue to review these Agreements
even if the formal examination was delayed.  He encouraged the representative of the Kyrgyz
Republic to further explain the relationship between the various Agreements, as he was not certain
which rules applied to each product.  Consultations were still needed on the Customs Union
Agreement and information which had been requested was still lacking, in particular, the plan and
schedule for the formation of the customs union which was necessary for the Agreement's assessment.He was of the view that the Committee would be in a position to review the Agreement, only once
additional information had been provided.
7. The representative of the United States stated that it was her understanding that the EC
representative was proposing to defer the examination of all the Kyrgyz Republic's Agreements until
additional information was provided.  Noting that so me questions could be answered at that time, she
indicated that for some others it would interesting to have at a later stage the views of the other Parties
to the Agreements.  In that sense, she could concur with the EC proposal.
8. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that his country's Agreements' did not
contradict, but added to each other.  He clarified that his proposal amounted to the continuation of the
examination of the Customs Union Agreement and the FTA between his country and Moldova andsuspension of the consideration of the other bilateral FTAs.  He stated that consultations could be
organized to discuss how to deal with th e examination of the various Agreements.
9. The Chairman noted that, in light of the mandate given to the CRTA, the examination of these
Agreements would only be suspended if a consensus existed.  That would probably not be productive,
given that delegations had questions on those Agreements.
10. The representative of the European Communitie s suggested that the cause for many of the
difficulties encountered with the replies was related to the fact that the Kyrgyz Republic did not
always know what its partners were doing.  The fact that these partners were largely not Members of
the WTO modified neither the terms of reference for the examination of those Agreements nor the
rights and obligations of WTO Members, including the Kyrgyz Republic.  He suggested allowing
more time for the Kyrgyz Republic to gather additional information from its partners and for
delegations to analyze those additional replies provided, without suspending the examination process.
11. Noting that the missing information amounted su bstantially to the kind of information made
available only by Members of the WTO, the representative of the United States stated that she was
flexible on how to approach this question.  She could agree to delay the examination of certainAgreements on the grounds that delegations had no more questions that could be solely answered by
the Kyrgyz Republic, or to have them formally suspended once opportunity had been given for morequestions to be posed on the FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova.  However, she could
not accept the closure of the examination of Agreements in which some Parties were not present to
provide their perspective.
12. The Chairman suggested that, in light of what had been said, the examination of these
Agreements would be pursued in this meeting.  After this Session, he would consult informally in
order to determine how the Committee should continue the examination of all the Kyrgyz Republic's
Agreements.WT/REG/GEN/M/7
Page 4
A. E XAMINATION OF THE CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC , THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION , BELARUS , KAZAKHSTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
13. The Chairman indicated that the latest set of written questions submitted to the Parties and the
responses provided had been circul ated in document WT/REG71/6/Add.1.
14. The representative of the European Communities asked how the exceptions worked and
whether the figure of 15 per cent embodied a precautionary principle or whether it was actually
applied.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied that 15 per cent was a provisional
measure and that work on it was still ongoing.  It would not affect the final coverage of goods tradedby the Parties.  He reaffirmed that work on the development of a common customs tariff was also
continuing and that it was not yet possible to give the exact date of the creation of the customs union.
15. The Chairman invited those delegations wishin g to ask questions to submit them to the
Secretariat by 10 July and that the Parties provide replies as soon as possible, but not later than
4 September.
B.-F. E XAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ;  U KRAINE ;  U ZBEKISTAN ;  M OLDOVA ;  AND KAZAKHSTAN ,
RESPECTIVELY
16. The Chairman noted that this was the third round of examination of these five Agreements
and suggested that they be considered together, it being understood that this would have no effect on
the examination per se , as each Agreement would be judged on its own merit and have its own report
with its own conclusions.  The first and se cond rounds of examination had taken  place in
October 2000 and February 2001, with the corresponding minutes distributed as documentsWT/REG/GEN/M/5-6.  The latest set of written qu estions and replies were contained in document
WT/REG73-76,81/4/Add.1.
17. Referring to the debate held earlier, the representative of the United States asked if the
examination would refer only to the FTA between th e Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova, or whether the
other FTAs would also be examined.  The Chairman clarified that delegations could ask questions on
any of the Agreements.
18. Referring to question II.1 of document WT/R EG73-76,81/4/Add.1, the representative of the
United States noted that the reply given did not provide the guarantee that all duties would be
eliminated by virtue of the Agreements.  Given that an important commitment under Article XXIVwas the elimination of all duties, she sought confirmation that this would be the case.  The
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that, as stated in the questions and replies document, the
Parties had agreed to eliminate all import and export duties based on the "Protocol on Amendment
and Supplements to the Agreement on the Creation of a Free-trade Area".
19. Referring to question I.3 on whether the partners of the Kyrgyz Republic maintained
exceptions under any of the bilateral FTAs, the representative of the European Communities said that
his delegation was not satisfied with the reply given that information should be sought at therespective accession working parties.  Given that Moldova was a WTO Member, the answer was notadequate.  His delegation would like to see a representative of Moldova present at the future meeting
dealing with this Agreement, so as to allow the Committee to have a deeper examination of at least
one of the Agreements.  As for the other Agreements, he requested that more information be provided
by the Kyrgyz Republic with respect to its partners, bearing in mind the difficulty for one delegation
in providing information on behalf of another.WT/REG/GEN/M/7
Page 5
20. The Chairman noted that the third round of examination of those Agreements had allowed the
Committee to clarify a number of issues but some outstanding questions remained.  He invited those
delegations with additional questions to submit them to the Secretariat by 10 July and he asked the
Parties to reply as soon as possible, but at latest by 4 September.
G. F REE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN , A RMENIA , B ELARUS , G EORGIA ,
MOLDOVA , KAZAKHSTAN , THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION , UKRAINE , UZBEKISTAN , TAJIKISTAN
AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
21. The Chairman noted that this was the third round of the examination of the Free Trade
Agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, The Russian
Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic.  Previous examinations had
taken place in the last two Committee Sessions, in October 2000 and February 2001, and theirproceedings had been circulated in documents WT/REG/GEN/M/5-6.  The latest set of written
questions submitted to the Parties and their responses had been circulated in document
WT/REG82/4/Add.1.
22. Noting that her delegation could agree to forestall discussion of this Agreement, the
representative of the United States requested that a clarification be provided on the relationship
between this Agreement and the other bilateral Agreements.  She asked whether the CIS Agreement
pre-empted the bilateral Agreements or whether the latter pre-empted the CIS Agreement.  The
representative of the Kyrgyz Republic noted that the interrelation between the  bilateral agreements
and the CIS FTA had already been explained and that nothing more could be added.  He reaffirmedthat all these Agreements should be judged on their own merit.
23. The representative of the European Communities asked whether the coverage of the CIS FTA
and the bilateral Agreement were the same.  He wondered whether contradictions could exist among
them, and if these existed, what would happen.  While it was true that each Agreement should be
judged on its own merits, there was an obvious interrelationship among these Agreements because
they covered the same sort of actions.  The representative of Australia indicated that he did not
understand how the various Agreements interacted.  He agreed that Agreements should be judged on
their own merits, but in this case the Agreements covered the same Parties and that was a different
situation.  The questions which had just been posed were justified and he would appreciate receiving
replies.  The representative of Japan concurred.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  replied
that the CIS FTA had been signed first and then, in the interest of improving the relations between thecountries, the Parties had decided to enter into bilateral Agreements as well.
24. The Chairman said that, given that questions had been asked by four delegations regarding
interrelations between the Agreements, it was obvious that outstanding questions remained.  He said
he would consult informally in order to clarify cer tain points and report back to the Committee at the
next Session.  In between, if delegations had additional questions they could submit them to the
Secretariat by 10 July and the Parties should reply as soon as possible, but at the latest by
4 September.
25. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________