13-1094  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2          28 February 2013 
	
Page 1/70 
 
Working Party on the          Original:  English  
Accession of Kazakhstan  
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
SUBMISSION BY THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN 
Revision 
 
 The following submission is being circulated  to Members of the Working Party, at the 
request of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
  
_______________ JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
-  Sanitary and Phytosani tary Measures ..................................................................... 3  
(a) Legislative Fra mework ............................................................................................ 3  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products ........... 6  
-  (i) Customs Union Authorities and Responsibilities ................................................. 6  
-  (ii) National Authorities .......................................................................................... 7  
(c) Development of Technical Regulation s/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 8  
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control ........................................................ 14  
-  (i) Veterinary Ce rtificates ..................................................................................... 15  
-  (ii) Establishment Approval , Register and Inspections .......................................... 19  
-  (iii) Import Permits ............................................................................................... 30  
-  (iv) Transit Permits ............................................................................................... 35  
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control .................................................. 36  
(f) Protection of Human Hea lth .................................................................................. 41  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Sp ecific Provisions of the WTO SPS 
Agreemen t ............................................................................................................ 45  
-  (i) Harmonization with Internat ional Standards and Norm s ................................. 45  
-  (ii) Risk As sessment ............................................................................................. 48  
-  (iii) Regionalization ............................................................................................... 50  
-  (iv) Equivalence .................................................................................................... 51  
-  (v) Non-discri mination .......................................................................................... 53  
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations ..................................... 53  
(i) Proportionality, Necessity , and Reasonab leness ................................................... 56  
(j) Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 57  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(a) Legislative Framework 
1. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the legislative basis for the regulation of the 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime in Ka zakhstan was established by the following:  
Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) and Customs Union (CU) Agreements and EurAsEC and 
CU Decisions: in particular, the EurAsEC Agreemen t on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in 
the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008 and the 
EurAsEC Agreement on Establishing the EurAsEC Informative System in the Field of Technical 
Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 2008; CU Commission Decision 
No. 625 "On Harmonization of CU Legal Acts in the Field of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures with International Standards" of 7 April 2011 (as amended by CU Commission Decision 
No. 722 of 22 June 2011 and EEC Collegium Decision No.11 of 7 March 2012); CU Commission 
Decision No. 721 "On Application of International Standards, Recommendations, and Guidelines" of 
22 June 2011; EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 "On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of 
Carrying out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 6 November 2012, which had replaced 
CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011; CU Commission Decision No. 835 "On 
Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary or Phytosanitary Measures and Carrying out Risk Assessment" 
of 18 October 2011  and EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 "On Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 
18 September 2012. 
2. On the Sanitary side, the legislative basis was found in the CU Agreement on Sanitary 
Measures of 11 December 2009 (as amended by Decisi on of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 
39 of 21 May 2010, CU Commission Decisions No. 887 of 9 December 2011), Decision of the 
Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 83 "On Entering into Force of Protocols of 21 May 2010 in 
the Sphere of Implementation Sanitary, Veterina ry-and-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 
19 May 2011 and CU Commission Decision No. 299 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the 
Customs Union" of 28 May 2010 (as last amended by CU Commission Decisions No. 341 of 17 August 2010, No. 456 of 18 November 2010, No. 571 of 2 March 2011, No. 622  of 7 April 
2011, No. 828 of 18 October 2011, No. 829 of 18 October 2011,  No. 888 of 9 December 2011, 
No. 889 of 9 December 2011, Decisions of the EEC  Council No. 36 of 15 June 2012, No.37 of 15 
June 2012, No. 64 of 20 July 2012, No. 115 of 17 December 2012, Decisions of the EEC Collegium 
No. 32 of 19 April 2012, No. 33 of 19 April 2012, No . 34 of 19 April, No. 89 of 13 June 2012, No. 
111 of 19 July 2012, No. 117  of 19 July 2012, No. 141 of 23 August 2012, Nos. 206 and 208 of 
6 November 2012, No. 114 of 17 December 2012, No. 6 of 15 January 2013). A consolidated 
version of CU Commission Decision No. 299, as  amended, was available at the following CU 
webpage: http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulati on/sanmeri/Pages/default.aspx .  
3. The veterinary framework could be found in the CU Agreement on Veterinary and Sanitary 
Measures of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Interstate Council of EurAsEC Decision No. 39 of 21 May 2010), CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission 
Decisions Nos. 342 of 17 August 2010, 455 of 18 November 2010, 569 of 2 March 2011, 570 of 
2 March 2011, 623 of 7 April 2011, 724 of 22 June 2011, 726 of 15 July 2011, 810 of 
23 September 2011, 830 of 18 October 2011, 831 of 18 October 2011, 834 of 18 October 2011 
and 893 of 9 December 2011, EEC Council Decision No. 85 of 12 October 2012, EEC Collegiums Decision No. 254 of 4 December 2012 and No. 274 of 14 December 2012 and No.307 of 
24 December 2012), CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 "On Common Forms of 
Veterinary Certificates on Imported Goods Subject to Veterinary Control into the Customs Union 
Territory" (as amended by CU Commission Deci sions No. 832 of 18 October 2011  and No. 892 of 
9 December 2011, EEC Collegiums Decision No. 262 of 4 December 2012 and No.308 of 
25 December 2012), CU Commission Decision No. 624 of 7 April 2011 "On Regulation on the 
Procedure of Development and Maintenance of the Register of Companies and Persons which Carry 
out Production, Reprocessing and (or) Storing Products Subject to Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance) and Imported into the territory of the Custom Union", CU Commission Decision No. 
726 "On Veterinary Measures" of 15 July 2011, CU  Commission Decision No. 834 "On Regulation 
on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to 
Veterinary Control (S urveillance)" of 18 October 2011,  EEC Council Decision No. [xxx] 
"On Amendments to the Common Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) Requirements Applicable to 
the Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillan ce)" of [xxxxx] , and EEC Council Decision No. 
[xxx] 2012 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)" of [xxxxx], CU Commission Decision No. 833 "On Equivalence of Systems of 
Inspection of Objects of Veterinary Co ntrol (Surveillance)" of 18 October 2011. 
4. On the phytosanitary side,  the CU Agreemen t on Plant Quarantine of 11 December 2009 
(as last amended by the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011) and 
CU Commission Decision No. 318 "On Assurance of Plant Quarantine in the Customs Union" of 18 June 2010 (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 528 of 28 January 2011, 
CU Commission Decision No. 894  of 9 December 2011),the Decision of the Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC No. 76 "On the Process for Transfer of Control from the Russian-Kazakh Border to the 
External border of the Customs Union" of 15 May 2011. 
5. In addition, the following seven technical regulations of the Customs Union were adopted, 
which set food safety requirements: CU Comm ission Decision No. 880"On Food Safety" of 
9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 881 "On Labelling of Food Products" of 
9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 881 "On  Products of Fruit and Vegetable Juices" 
of 9 December 2011,CU Commission Decision No. 883 "On Fat and Oil Products" of 9 December 2011, Commission Decision No. 874"On Safety of Grain" of 9 December 2011, EEC Council 
Decision No. 34 "On Safety of Certain Types of Specialized Products, Including Dietetic Healthy and 
Dietetic Prophylactic Meals" of 15 June 2012 and EEC Council Decision No. 58 "On Safety of Food 
Additives, Flavourings and Processing Aids" of 20 July 2012. 
6. The representative of Kazakhstan further stated that national legislation remained in effect 
to the extent that it did not contradict the CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and EEC JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Council and Collegium Decisions.  She further explained that issues not specified by the above-
mentioned Agreements and Decisions of the Commission of CU were dealt with the national 
legislation, in particular – Law No. 339-II "On Veterinary" of 10 July 2002; Government Resolution 
No. 407 of 28 April 2003, which approved the following:  (1) Regulation on the State Veterinary 
and Sanitary Control, (2) Rules for Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health, or 
Mandatory Decontamination (Disinfection) and Proc essing Without Withdrawal Thereof, (3) Rules 
and Conditions of Compensation to Legal and Natural Persons of the Value of Removed and 
Destroyed Infected Animals, Products and Raw Mate rials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High 
Danger to Animal and Human Health, (4) List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, when 
Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, 
which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health are to be Held, (5) List of Highly 
Contagious Animal Diseases, Prevention, Diagnosis and Eradication of which are Implemented at 
the Cost of the Budget, (6) Rules of State Veterinary and Sanitary Control During Movement of Objects Across the State Border of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and (7) Rules of Organization of 
Veterinary Control Posts at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; Government Resolution 
No. 1754 "On Approval of Organization of Slaugh tering of Agricultural Animals Intended for 
Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; Government Resolution No. 2331 "On Approval of 
Identification of Agricultural Animals" of 31 December 2009; Government Resolution No. 132 "On 
Approval of Rules of Issuance of Permits for Expo rtation, Importation and Transit of Objects with 
Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the Territory" of 19 January 2012;Government 
Resolution No. 149 "On Approval of Rules of Tr ansportation (Movement) of Objects on the 
Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 21 January 2012; Government Resolution No. 165 
"On the Approval of the Rules for Entry (Importation) of Food Products Subject to State 
Registration" of 19 February 2008; Law No. 301 "O n Food Safety" of 21 July 2007; Code of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan No 193-IV "On Public Health and Healthcare System" of 
18 September 2009; Government Resolution No. 125 "On Approval of the Rules for Assignment of 
Registration Numbers to Entities Producing Food Products" of 11 February 2008; 
Government Resolution No. 2267 "On Approval of the Rules for Refusal for Entry, as well as for 
Production, Use and Sale of Products Intended for Human Consumption, on the Territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as for Use in Business and (or) Other Activities" of 
30 December 2009; Law No. 344-I "On Plant Quarantine" of 11 February 1999, Law No. 331-II 
"On Plant Protection" of 3 July 2002; Government Resolution No. 1295 "On Approval of the List of 
Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species and Extremely Dangerous Pests" of 10 December 2002; Government Resolution No. 1287 "On Approval of the Rules on Withdrawal and Destruction of 
Quarantine Products, Infected by Quarantine Objects, Not Subject to Decontamination or 
Processing" of 3 November 2011; Government Resolution No. 1730 "On Approval of the Rules for 
Protection of the Territory of the Republic of Ka zakhstan from Plant Quarantine Objects and Alien 
Species" of 30 October 2009; Government Resolu tion No. 1674 "On Approval of Phytosanitary 
Requirements to Imported Quarantine Products" of 30 December 2011; and Government 
Resolution No. 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on Registration Tests and State Registration of 
Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 30 November 2011. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 6 - 
 
  (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
- (i) Customs Union Authorities and Responsibilities 
7. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at within the CU institutional framework for 
regulating in the sphere of SPS measures, the role of the CU Commission had been to coordinate 
the development and implementation of SPS meas ures by CU Parties, which involved their 
respective sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary authorities.  The CU Commission laid out 
common general principles and adopted common safety requirements for goods marketed within 
the territory of the Customs Union.  These safety requirements covered sanitary and 
epidemiological, veterinary, and phytosanitary regu lations that governed production and trade of 
the CU.  These CU functions had been transfer red to the newly created Eurasian Economic 
Commission (EEC), which became the successor of the CU Commission as of January 2012.  
The EEC would now coordinate the development and implementation of SPS measures by the 
CU Parties. 
8. The EEC was established as a single perman ent regulatory body of the CU and the 
Common Economic Space (CES) by the Treaty on Eurasian Economic Commission of 18 November 
2011.  The EEC consisted of a Council and a Coll egium.  The competences of the Council and 
Collegium were stipulated in the "Regulation on th e Work of the EEC", approved by the Decision of 
the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council No. 1 of 18 November 2011.  The Council had a right to 
veto the decisions adopted by the Collegium.  The Council had the following competences with 
respect to SPS measures: 
- adoption, introduction of amendments and addenda into the Common Lists of Goods 
subject to Sanitary-Epidemiological Surveillance, Veterinary and Quarantine Phytosanitary 
Control; 
- adoption and introduction of amendments and addenda into the Regulation of Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Control, Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary 
Control, Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling 
Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), and the Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Quarantine Phytosanitary Control. 
 The Collegium had responsibility for the rest of the issues, including the adoption and 
introduction of amendments and addenda into the Common Veterinary Requirements and Common 
Forms of Veterinary Certificates, the Common Sanitary Requirements, and the Common 
Phytosanitary Requirements. 
9. Developing SPS measures at the CU level involved specific technical and administrative 
expertise via working groups, which reported to the Consultative Committee. Functions and 
interactions of the working groups and the Consultative Committee were defined by specific 
regulations: the Regulation of Working and Ex pert Groups on SPS and TBT approved by the 
Protocol No. 5 of the Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures of 7 Dece mber 2010 and the Regulation on Consultative 
Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Measures approved by the EEC Collegium Decisi on No. 161 of 18 September 2012. The current 
practice for development of draft CU legal acts on SPS measures was as follows:  
- a CU Party or the EEC initiated the development of a draft CU legal act. A Party responsible 
for developing the draft was appointed or the EEC acted as a developer; 
- a working group, including representatives of CU Parties' competent authorities was 
established to review the draft; 
- a draft document that was discussed and approv ed at a working group meeting, was then 
submitted to the Consultative Committee for publishing on the CU official website for 
public consultations. The period for public consultation was two months; 
- after the process of public consultation, all comments and questions were discussed within 
the working group. A final revi sion of the draft document was discussed and approved by 
the working group and submitted to the Consultative Committee; 
- the draft document was reviewed at the meeting of the Consultative Committee. In case 
the draft was approved, it was submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
- the Collegium either adopted the CU documents which were under its competence or in 
other cases approved the drafts before submitting them to the Council for adoption. 
- (ii) National Authorities 
10. Kazakhstan's veterinary service consisted of the Division of Veterinary and Food Safety at 
the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Committee of Veterinary Control and Supervision under the 
Ministry of Agriculture.  The Division of Veterina ry and Food Safety was the in charge of strategic 
planning in the sphere of veterinary safety, in cluding budgeting.  The Committee of Veterinary 
Control and Supervision was in charge of developing rules and regulations in this area and 
conducting veterinary control and surveillance of the objects of veterinary and sanitary control and 
surveillance, including on the State border, epizootic welfare, as well as the veterinary surveillance 
of establishments.  In addition, the veterinary control framework included (i) veterinary control 
posts; and (ii) the oblast, city and raion territorial branches of the Committee on Veterinary 
Control and Supervision; (iii) subordinated State veterinary organizations (National Reference 
Center for Veterinary, Republican Anti-Epizootic Entity, and Republican Veterinary Laboratory.  
Executive functions in the sphere of veterinary we re transferred to local executive bodies of the 
respective administrative-territorial units (oblast,  city, raion, etc.), which included veterinary 
branches, as well as State veterinary orga nizations to conduct veterinary measures.  
11. The Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiologi cal Surveillance of the Ministry of Health 
was the authorised body responsible for issues related to sanitary and epidemiological welfare.  
Functions of the Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance were specified by 
the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 193-IV  "On Public Health and Healthcare System" of 
18 September 2009.  The representative of Kazakhst an said that the Division of Phytosanitary 
Safety of the Ministry of Agriculture was in charge of strategic planning in the sphere of 
phytosanitary safety, including budgeting.  The Committee on State Inspection in the 
Agro-Industrial Complex of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan was in charge 
of developing rules and regulations in this area and conducting phytosanitary control including 
border control, measures on protection of plants from pests, monitoring of agricultural lands 
against plant pests and diseases. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 8 - 
 
  12. With regard to participation in international organizations in this sphere, she said that as a 
member of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) since 1993, Kazakhstan intended to 
follow the provisions of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Codes and Manuals.  For the 
purpose of application of OIE Code, Kazakhstan had ratified the International Agreement on 
Establishment the OIE (the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 109-IV of 24 December 2008).  
In addition, Kazakhstan had ratified the Convention for the Establishment of the European and 
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, in March 2004 and the International Plant Protection 
Convention, in April 2010.  She further explained that Kazakhstan was a member of Codex 
Alimentarius Commission since 2005.  Hence, th e international standards, recommendations and 
guidelines of the OIE, IPPC and Codex Alimentarius would be applied in Kazakhstan. 
(c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS 
13. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that CU Parties also elaborated mandatory 
requirements for products within technical regulations. These could be adopted either by the 
CU/EEC or through the EurAsEC framework, pursuant to:  
- the EurAsEC Agreements on the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of the 
Eurasian Economic Community Members of 24 March 2005 and on Implementation of 
Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures of 25 January 2008;   
- the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of 
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of 18 November 2010; 
- Regulation on Development of Technical Regulations of Eurasian Economic Community; 
and 
- Regulation on Development, Approval, Amendi ng and Cancellation of Technical Regulations 
of the Customs Union, approved by the Decision of Council of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission No. 48 of 20 June 2012. 
14. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the aim of the ongoing legislative and 
implementation work in the CU and Kazakhstan wa s to ensure harmonization with the standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations of the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), the International 
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and the Codex Alimentarius (Codex).  This work, in her view, 
would ensure full compliance of the SPS regime of Kazakhstan, whether measures were adopted in 
the context of the EurAsEC, EEC, or dome stically, with the requirements of the 
WTO SPS Agreement from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO. 
15. She added that the approaches towards harmonization of CU measures and the Kazakh 
domestic regulation of sanitary and phytosanitary issues with the standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations of these international organizations were defined in the framework of 
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and participation of Kazakhstan in the activities of the 
relevant international organizations.  She explained that CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 
22 June 2011 "On Application of International Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations", JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 9 - 
 
  provided that:  in cases in which the CU Commission or the national authorities had not 
established mandatory requirements in the veterinary, or phytosanitary, or sanitary 
epidemiological and hygienic sphere, the CU Parties would apply standards, recommendations and 
guidelines of the OIE, IPPC, and the Codex Alimentarius (Codex) respectively.  Similarly, if 
CU veterinary, phytosanitary and sanitary-epidemiol ogical and hygienic mandatory requirements in 
effect in the territory of the CU were more st ringent than relevant international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations, in the absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal, 
or plant life or health, relevant international standards, guidelines, and recommendations, or parts 
thereof, would be applied. 
16. Some Members asked Kazakhstan to provide details on the EurAsEC and EEC processes for 
elaborating SPS Technical Regulations and whether EurAsEC requirements would supersede or 
replace EEC, CU and national requirements.  
17. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that draft technical regulations, including those 
related to SPS, were developed in the participating countries using internal procedures before being proposed by the authorised national bodi es.  For Kazakhstan,  the MOA or the MOH, as 
assigned by the Government of Kazakhstan, proposed SPS technical regulations to the designated 
EurAsEC or EEC bodies for harmonization, furthe r review, and adoption as provided for in the 
relevant international agreements or CU decisions.  Currently, such development had been 
suspended at the EurAsEC level but in principle the procedures were as follows. For EurAsEC, the 
Commission for Technical Regulation and Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures in 
Trade of the EurAsEC Integration Committee (the EurAsEC Commission for Technical Regulation), 
through the authorised national bodies of the EurA sEC Parties, coordinated the Parties' efforts on 
the development of technical regulations, including sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  
After publishing a draft technical regulation  and collecting public comments, the EurAsEC 
Integration Committee then forwarded the agreed draft technical regulation to the EurAsEC Interstate Council for adoption as an Agreement as provided for in Article 3 of the EurAsEC 
Agreement on Technical Regulation Harmonization.  In the CU framework, this coordination and 
transparency role was fulfilled by the Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application 
of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures (the CU Consultative Committee), which 
received draft technical regulations from the authoris ed bodies of the CU Parties, prepared analysis 
and recommendations on draft technical regulati ons, and coordinated the development of draft 
text and resolved disputes concerning it am ong the authorities of the CU Parties.   
18. The representative of Kazakhstan also explained that, under the CU, any domestic or 
foreign natural or juridical person or governmental or non-governmental body could develop a draft technical regulation provided that the development of a technical regulation was included into 
respective schedule outlining the development of prio rity technical regulations of the CU and it was 
approved by the authorised body for such work s. Third-country interested parties, including 
foreign governments, could provide comments on draft technical regulations proposed by any of 
the EurAsEC or CU Parties, as established in Article 6 of the EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision 
No. 1175 and Paragraph 8 of the EEC Decision No. 48, respectively.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 10 - 
 
  19. Responding to a question on how draft technical regulations not based on international 
standards, recommendations or guidelines could be revised prior to their application, she stated 
that the applicable laws and CU acts specified the priority use of international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, as the basis for technical regulations and that the technical 
regulation developer (relevant CU Party’s authoris ed body or the EEC) was required to provide his 
assessment on how the draft was consistent with international standards in his notification of the 
draft for public comment.  The technical regulation developer was also required to identify the 
standards, recommendations and guidelines, used in developing the draft technical regulation. 
When Kazakhstan was responsible for developing technical regulations, it designated a state body 
responsible for development of the draft technical regulation (hereinafter – the developer of draft 
technical regulation). The developer of draft te chnical regulation based on proposals from the 
competent authorities of the CU Parties, formed a working group that included experts 
representing government bodies, academia and business/consumers associations and other 
interested parties. The meeting of the relevant working group was public and its decisions were 
publicly available.  The working group would take into account the requirement to use international 
standards, recommendations and guidelines, and, if necessary, urge appropriate changes. 
The working group prepared the first dr aft of the technical regulation and  submitted it to the 
national authorised body, which forwarded it to the EEC.  The EEC in turn placed the draft 
technical regulation, a notice on how it was develo ped, and an explanatory note on its own official 
website. This information was also published at the official websites of the authorised bodies for 
technical regulation of the CU Parties.  Interested domestic and foreign juridical and natural 
persons (including those from non-members of the CU), including foreign governments, could 
submit their comments and suggestions on the draf t technical regulations to the authorised body 
of the CU Party that proposed it to the EEC.  The period for comments was at least 60 days 
following the publication of the first draft of the technical regulation by the EEC. The working 
group, within 30 working days from the date of  receiving consolidated comments from the EEC, 
revised the draft technical regulation and the related documents taking into account comments 
and proposals received during the public consultations. She noted that government bodies 
submitted draft technical regulations and other documents to the EEC for adoption and that any 
amendments to a technical regulation were adopted by the same procedure.   
20. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that a schedule outlining the development of 
priority technical regulations of the CU had been  adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 
8 December 2010.  Under this schedule, as of September 2012, SPS technical regulations 
governing food safety, labelling of food products, grain, juice products, oil and fat products were 
adopted by CU Commission Decisions in Decemb er 2011; SPS technical regulations governing 
specialized products, including dietetic meals and food additives were adopted by the EEC Council 
Decision in June and July 2012, respectively; SP S technical regulations governing milk and milk 
products, meat and meat products were under inter-governmental consideration; SPS technical 
regulations governing safety of feed stuffs and fe ed additives, fish and fish products, safety of 
alcoholic beverages, tobacco products had completed public discussion as of September 2012. 
The Schedule on Development of CU Technica l Regulations for 2012-2013 was adopted by EEC JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Council decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012. She further explained that a schedule outlining the 
development of EurAsEC priority technical regu lations had been adopted by Decision of the 
EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 521 of 19 November 2010.  Included in this schedule were 
SPS technical regulations on grain, food safety, labelling of food products, tobacco products, juice 
products, oil and fat products, milk and milk products, honey and products of bee-farming, and on the safety of bottled water.  However, curre ntly the development and adoption of EurAsEC 
technical regulations was suspended. Members of the Working Party asked for clarification as 
regards the overlap between the CU priority te chnical regulations and the EurAsEC priority 
technical regulations.  The representative of Kaza khstan explained that a choice had been made to 
focus on the adoption of CU technical regulations,  since the CU procedure for adoption of technical 
regulations was faster.  
21. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, for so long as Kazakhstan was a 
EurAsEC Party, if the work on EurAsEC technical regulations was resumed, Kazakhstan would 
ensure that its enquiry point's web-site would provide information regarding the resumption of that work, and notify and provide draf t EurAsEC SPS related technical regulations in accordance with 
Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement [and therefore provide the possibility to provide comments to 
the drafts][and other developments and docume nts regarding EurAsEC technical regulations]. 
The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
22. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the CU Commission had adopted 31 out 
of 47 priority CU technical regulations, including those related to SPS matters, by 31 December 
2012, and that all of these technical regulations wo uld enter into force no later than 31 December 
2015, after a transitional period to allow producer s, importers, and exporters to become aware of 
and comply with the new technical regulations.  Notification of when EurAsEC or CU Technical 
Regulations entered into force and superseded nati onal technical regulations would be posted on 
the website of the CU or EurAsEC as appropriate.  In response to a question from a Member of the 
Working Party, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that no new national technical 
regulations were being developed.   
23. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at CU Agreements, once they entered into 
force, were international treaties of Kazakhstan, and, with the exception of the Constitution and 
Constitutional Laws of Kazakhstan, would prevail, in  the event of a conflict, over the provisions of 
laws and other normative legal acts in Kazakhstan (whether adopted before or after the 
CU Agreement).  With regard to CU Commission  and EEC Decisions, she explained that such 
decisions had the legal status in the Kazakh domestic legal system corresponding to that which the 
decision would have had if adopted by the Government or Executive body which had been competent to regulate the subject matter at the moment when the CU Commission was delegated 
the relevant authority. She explained that Kazakhst an did not repeal a national law when CU acts 
applied, but these were amended to comply with the CU act.  Pending this alignment, domestic 
SPS measures continued to apply in so far as they did not conflict with the CU act.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 12 - 
 
  24. Some Members expressed concern about the ov erlap of CU and national SPS measures 
and the continued adoption of SPS measures at the national level in the CU Parties.  
These Members noted that these amendments were not necessarily with a view to harmonise 
national requirements with CU requirements.  In their view, this resulted in uncertainty regarding 
application and compliance with SPS measures and placed a significant burden on trade, possibly in violation of the WTO SPS Agreement.  More over, continued development and application of 
domestic measures in each of the CU Parties could result in a lack of harmonization of 
requirements and increased burden on trade wi thin the territory of the CU.  These Members 
requested information from Kazakhstan regarding precisely which SPS measures would apply in 
Kazakhstan and throughout the territory of the CU .  These Members also requested information on 
when domestic authorities would cease developing and applying domestic SPS measures.  
The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that national SPS measures, when in conflict with 
CU SPS acts, would not apply to the extent of the conflict. She specified that as regards matters 
covered by CU acts, Kazakhstan had ceased adop ting amendments of national SPS measures, for 
purposes other than alignment of national measures with CU acts, since 1 January 2012.  
Until that date, a transitional period allowed the adoption of national measures when preparatory 
technical work had started before 1 July 2010.  Thes e national measures were applicable only in so 
far as they did not contradict CU acts.  Some Members asked if alignment of national measures 
with CU acts had to occur within a specified time period, and if so, what period applied.  
In response, she explained that there was no specified time period for such alignment. 
25. Some Members asked Kazakhstan to describe the exact delineation of competences 
between the CU/EEC and the national authorities.  The representative responded that the EEC had 
responsibility for establishing specific product requirements, except in the area of phytosanitary 
requirements.  This meant that for veterinary and sanitary control, the CU Commission and EEC, 
as of January 2012, had established a list of goods that could be subject to veterinary 
requirements, and a common list of goods subjec t to unified sanitary requirements.  There was 
one unified process for control of movement of thes e products between CU Parties, i.e., within the 
territory of the CU, and control at the external CU border.  The EEC/CU Commission had also (in 
CU Decision No. 834) established inter alia unified procedures for insp ection of facilities for 
inclusion in the Register of authorised facilities.  Furthermore, guidelines for conducting inspections 
of establishments, which would clarify the requirem ents applicable to these facilities, would be 
adopted by the EEC by the date of [Kazakhstan's][t he first CU Party's] accession to the WTO which 
would then supersede relevant domestic normativ e legal acts.  With regard to phytosanitary 
measures, the CU Commission established the list of products subject to phytosanitary control and developed a draft unified list of quarantine or ganisms which had been under discussion between 
CU Parties after public consultation procedure. Th e parties also intended to develop and adopt CU 
common phytosanitary requirements for regulated products. Thus, the competence for 
phytosanitary requirements would be transferred from national authorities to the CU level. 
However, until the common list of quarantine organisms and phytosanitary requirements were 
adopted, competence remained with the national auth orities of each CU Party at the national level.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 13 - 
 
  26. With regard to other issues, where the national bodies retained authority to regulate, the 
representative explained that national bodies established requirements in respect of processes for 
manufacturing products domestically and penalties in the respective administrative code for 
violation of SPS requirements.  National authoritie s also developed strategies for managing animal 
diseases; adopted temporary SPS measures, i.e., emergency measures, in the cases of receipt of justified information about danger of imported goods; established sanitary requirements for 
organization of work activity of companies in the sphere of services; aligned national sanitary-
epidemiological and hygiene requirements with CU  requirements; and agreed on sanitary-safety 
zones (i.e., norms related to water safety and applicable only domestically). With regard to 
phytosanitary issues, national authorities were responsible for surveillance and eradication of 
quarantine organisms, domestic quarantine zones and internal phytosanitary posts. 
27. She further explained that this division of  competence between the EEC and national 
authorities could evolve with the harmonization of requirements at the CU level and how the 
CU Parties addressed these issues.  Competence wo uld be delegated to the CU as part of this 
process.  The representative of Kazakhstan refe rred, as an example, to CU Decision No. 454 of 
18 November 2010, which adopted a plan of priority actions, aimed at harmonization of quarantine 
and phytosanitary measures of CU Parties within  the period of 2011 to 2012. Thus, competence 
would be transferred from national authorities to CU bodies as harmonization of requirements at 
the CU level occurred. 
28. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the process of harmonization of national 
laws with CU acts on SPS matters was taking plac e at the same time and in a parallel process to 
adoption of CU Commission/EEC decisions on SPS matters.  She clarified that at the national level, 
Kazakhstan had introduced amendments into the national legislation in order to align them with 
the CU legal framework.  In particular, the Law "On Veterinary" was amended on 30 June 2010 
(entered into force on 1 July 2011) and 12 January 2012 in order remove veterinary control on the border with CU Parties and retain such control only on the state border concurring within the 
CU customs territory and to abolish registration  of feed stuff, except for feed additives, 
respectively. The Government Resolution No. 132 governing issuance of import permits was also 
developed in compliance with the provisions of the CU Common Veterinary Requirements. The Law 
"On Plant Quarantine" was amended in July 2012 in  order to remove the requirement of import 
permits. 
29. Some Members noted that several documents called GOST or MUK appeared to contain 
SPS requirements; however, these documents did not appear to be legal requirements.  
These Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm that those documents could only be considered as guidelines and could not be used to impose restrictive measures on trade if the requirements set-
out in these documents were not met.  In particular, these Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm 
that there were no legal requirements that set a compulsory frequency of self-checks at the level 
of the producing establishments for residues or microbiological levels in food. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 14 - 
 
  30. [In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that GOST were non-binding 
recommendations.  She stated that compliance with MUKs were internal guidelines and compliance 
with these guidelines was mandatory only for State control bodies and those bodies within 
Kazakhstan conducting State sanitary-epidemiologic al control and other types of State control.  
She noted that GOST and MUK documents were being updated on a regular basis taking into account current amendments in legislation and the technical base (capabilities for testing).  
She confirmed that there were no binding requir ements on how often the producing establishment 
had to test for residues or microbiological levels in its product.  She noted that an inspector could 
ask for documents regarding such testing for informational purposes to establish that there was a 
plan of control of these issues.  Some Members expressed concerns that an establishment could be 
considered as non-compliant on the basis of a non-binding guideline and asked whether 
Kazakhstan would implement the Codex Guidelin es "For the Design and Implementation of 
National Regulatory Food Safety Assurance Programme Associated with the use of Veterinary 
Drugs in Food Producing Animals" CAC/GL/71-2009 , which recognised the monitoring done at a 
national level, and by a food producing establ ishment.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that it would implement these Codex Guidelines as of the date of its accession to the 
WTO.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
31. Some Members also noted that the technical regulations and secondary normative acts 
containing limitative standards did not take into account the corresponding standards, 
recommendations and guidelines of internationa l organizations or the methodology recommended 
by such organizations to set such standards.  In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stated 
that these technical regulations and secondary normative acts related to sanitary and veterinary 
issues would be based on the corresponding st andards, recommendations and guidelines of 
international organizations. 
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
32. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that, as noted above, the CU Commission had 
issued several decisions which provided the legal framework for protection of animal and human 
health.  CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-
Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as la st amended by EEC Collegium Decision No. 307 of 
24 December 2012) established the legal basis for veterinary measures in the Customs Union and 
entered into force on 1 July 2010.  CU Commission Decision No. 317 established a list of goods 
that could be subject to veterinary control, and adopted provisions on:  (i) on the common procedure for carrying out of veterinary inspection at the customs border of the Customs Union; 
(ii) on the common procedure for carrying of joint inspections of facilities and sampling of goods 
(products) subject to veterinary control(surveillance); (iii) the common veterinary (veterinary and 
sanitary) requirements for goods subject to veterinary control (surveillance); (iv) the common 
forms of veterinary certificates (for movement within the Customs Union); and, (v) the common 
List of goods subject to veterinary control (surve illance).  The representative of Kazakhstan noted 
that CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011 "On Regulation on Common System of 
Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 15 - 
 
  (Surveillance)" had approved a new procedure for conduct of inspections and repealed the 
previous regulation on inspections adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 317.  The Common 
Sanitary-Epidemiological and Hygiene Requirements  to Goods Subject to Sanitary-Epidemiological 
Control (supervision) as contained in CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 " On the 
Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by EEC Collegium Decision No. 208 of 6 November 2012 maximum residue levels for controlled goods. 
33. The following basic national regulatory legal acts constituted the legal framework to 
protect human and animal life and health are: the Law "On Veterinary" of 20 July 2002 (as last 
amended of 12 January 2012), Law "On Food Safety" of 27 July 2007, as well as subordinate legal 
acts in the sphere of veterinary, had been appr oved for the purpose of implementation of these 
Laws:  Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 April 2003, which approved the following:  
(1) Regulation on the State Veterinary and Sanitary Control; (2) Rules for Compulsory Seizure and 
Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High 
Danger to Animal and Human Health, or Mandatory Decontamination (Disinfection) and Processing Without Withdrawal Thereof; (3) Rules and Cond itions of Compensation to Legal and Natural 
Persons of the Value of Removed and Destroyed Infected Animals, Products and Raw Materials of 
Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health; (4) List of Highly 
Contagious Animal Diseases, when Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and 
Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health are to 
be Held; (5) List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, prevention, diagnosis and eradication of 
which are implemented through the budget; (6) Ru les of State Veterinary and Sanitary Control 
During Movement of Objects Across the State Border  of the Republic of Kazakhstan; (7) Rules of 
Organization of Veterinary Control Posts at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; 
Government Resolution No. 1754 "On Approval of Organization of Slaughtering of Agricultural 
Animals Intended for Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; Government Resolution No. 2331 "On Approval of  Identification of Agricultur al Animals" of 31 December 2009; Government 
Resolution No. 132 "On Approval of Rules of Issuan ce of Permits for Exportation, Importation and 
Transit of Objects with Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the Territory" of 
19 January 2012, Government Resolution No. 149 "On Approval of Rules of Transportation 
(Movement) of Objects on the Territory of th e Republic of Kazakhstan" of 21 January 2012, 
Government Resolution No. 230 "On Approval of Rules for Issuing Veterinary Documents for 
Objects Subject to Veterinary-Sanitary Cont rol and Surveillance" of 22 September 2012 
- (i) Veterinary Certificates  
34. Members requested information on CU requirements related to the development and 
implementation of veterinary certificates.  Members sought to ensure that such certificates would 
be consistent with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines.  Members also 
requested information on the continued validity of current bilateral certificates agreed with 
Kazakhstan.  In their view, these bilateral certificates should remain valid until a replacement was 
agreed with the CU Parties. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 16 - 
 
  35. [With respect to veterinary certificates, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that 
40 CU common forms of veterinary certificates for import into the CU territory from any third 
country had been adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011, for each of the 
categories of goods subject to veterinary control as established in CU Commission Decision 
No. 317.  These certificates were subsequently updated pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 892 of 9 December 2011 and EEC Collegiums Decision No. 262 of 4 December 2012 and No. 
308 of 25 December 2012. She confirmed that in accordance with CU Commission Decision 
No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", veterinary certificates between exporting 
countries and Kazakhstan finalized prior to 1 July  2010 would be valid for import into the territory 
of the Customs Union at least until 1 January 2013.  Furthermore, the Decision provided that the 
competent authorities of the CU Parties could negotiate and agree to veterinary certificates with 
requirements that differed from the CU common fo rm and specific CU Common Requirements, if 
an exporting country made a substantiated request prior to 1 January 2013 to negotiate such 
veterinary export certificate.  The decision al so provided that bilateral veterinary export 
certificates, in case an authorised body of a CU Party received request to negotiate a veterinary 
certificate before 1 January 2013, initialled by one of the CU Parties before 1 July 2010, as well as 
any subsequent amendments to such certificates  agreed with the authorised body of such 
CU Party, would remain valid for exports from the relevant country into the customs territory of 
the CU until an export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the 
other CU Parties.  Bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by one of the CU Parties between 
1 July 2010 and 1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation of relevant goods, 
only in the territory of the CU Party that initialled the certificate, in case an authorised body of 
exporting country submitted its request to an authorised body of a CU Party before 1 January 2013 
until a bilateral veterinary export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed 
positions of the other CU Parties.  While a bilateral veterinary export certificate could contain requirements that differed from the CU Co mmon Form and Common Requirements, such 
certificates had to ensure the appropriate level of  protection as determined by the CU Parties.  
These new certificates were also required to include terms, including provisions on the relevant 
product, that were no less favourable than those in an international treaty that was concluded 
prior to 1 July 2010 between a CU Party and the th ird country.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments.] 
36. Asked to provide more information on the use of veterinary certificates, she said that the 
CU legal framework allowed for negotiating veteri nary certificates differing from 40 CU common 
forms of veterinary certificates and specific CU Common Requirements with a competent body of exporting country.  If a third country sought to export to a CU Party a commodity for which 
veterinary certification was required according to the CU Common List of Goods subject to 
veterinary control, but for which no CU Common Form of certificate and no CU Common 
Requirements existed, a bilateral certificate with the interested country could be developed based 
on a coordinated position of the CU Parties, an d such a bilateral certificate would be based on 
relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations as provided for in 
CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of International Standards, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Guidelines and Recommendations".  If, according to the CU Common List of Goods subject to 
veterinary control, no veterinary certification was required for a commodity, or if the commodity 
was not included in the said CU Common List, Kazakhstan would not require a veterinary 
certificate.   
37. A Member requested information on the latest amendments to the common veterinary 
requirements, noting that certain provisions of  these requirements did not appear to be in 
accordance with OIE recommendations.  This Member asked whether the intent of these 
amendments was to align these requirements with the OIE. 
38. Some Members expressed concern that the CU Commission had adopted 40 common 
forms of veterinary certificates and 38 chapters of common veterinary requirements that did not 
conform to international standards, recommendations and guidelines, in particular OIE standards, 
recommendations and requirements.  These Members also raised concerns that contrary to the 
requirements of the WTO SPS Agreement, intere sted parties, including Members had not been 
accorded an opportunity to provide comments on these measures before they were adopted.  The representative of Kazakhstan responded that paragraph 16 of the Regulation on Consultative 
Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, approved by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012, which replaced 
the Regulation on Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures approved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 as amended 
by CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011, now provided a CU process for receiving 
comments from the public on proposed SPS measures. She further clarified that paragraphs 2-4 of 
CU Commission Decision No. 625 that provided a process for reviewing measures for their 
conformity with international standards and amendi ng those measures that were found not to be 
in conformity with international standards remained applicable. 
39. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that amendments of the common veterinary 
requirements and to the common forms of certificates were being prepared in parallel so as to 
ensure compatibility with international standards, recommendations and guidelines in particular 
OIE standards.  She confirmed that the amendmen ts to the common veterinary requirements and 
to the common forms of certificates would enter into force simultaneously no later than the date of 
the accession of [the first CU Party] [Kazakhstan] to the WTO.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments.] 
40. Some Members noted that Kazakhstan had drafted proposed amendments to a few of the 
CU common veterinary requirements.  These Members expressed concerns that these proposed 
amendments were extremely limited, failed to take into account Members' comments, were not based on scientific principles, could result in arbi trary or unjustifiable discrimination, and, most 
importantly, failed to bring the CU common ve terinary requirements into conformity with 
international standards, recommendations and guidelines, e.g., by requiring conditions for animal 
diseases which were not listed in the OIE Code.  Members noted Kazakhstan's commitments in 
paragraph [39] regarding the CU common veterinary requirements and common forms and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 18 - 
 
  expressed concerns that Kazakhstan would not ad opt all of the necessary amendments to achieve 
compatibility with international standards, guidelines and recommendations in particular OIE 
standards by the date of the accession first CU Party to the WTO or that these amendments would 
not enter into force as provided in paragraph [1 8].  These Members urged Kazakhstan to engage 
in serious efforts, including through consultations with WTO Members, with a view to ensure the timely implementation of the commitments in paragraph [18]. 
41. Some Members noted that they had begun to negotiate specific certificates with the 
CU parties consistent with CU Commission Decisi on No. 726.  Members stated that the CU parties 
continued to request attestations that went beyond the OIE recommendations without providing 
scientific justification and that the CU Parties seemed reluctant to negotiate attestations that 
differed from the CU common requirements.  Members also noted that the process for negotiating 
the certificates was time intensive and that it was difficult to ensure that the representatives from 
Kazakhstan participated in negotiations and there was consistency in the positions taken by the CU 
parties participating in each negotiating session. Furthermore, these Members requested information on the basis for a CU Party, which did not participate in negotiations of specific 
certificates, to oppose the conclusion and adoption of the certificates when the certificate 
contained provisions aligned with the international standards. Members noted ongoing concerns 
with the lack of efficiency in negotiating specific certificates. The representative of Kazakhstan 
replied that during negotiations the CU Parties would propose attestations that followed OIE 
recommendations except when justified by risk  assessment as provided for by the WTO SPS 
Agreement. The representative noted that Kazakhst an participated in negotiations as time and 
resources permitted, and had recently participated in negotiations and initialled a number of 
bilateral veterinary certificates.  
42. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, if an exporting Member believed that 
the SPS requirements of the CU or Kazakhstan resu lted in a higher level of protection than would 
be achieved by measures based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations, Kazakhstan was prepared to consult with the exporting Member on such SPS 
requirements and, if necessary, would, as a resu lt of such consultations, modify requirements 
included in the relevant certificate to bring them into compliance with international standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment.] 
43. [Some Members stated that a veterinary certificate should not require certification of 
provisions that were not mandatory requirements under CU acts or in the absence of CU 
mandatory requirements, under international standards, recommendations, and guidelines, e.g., to certify for a disease which was not the object of a CU act or was not subject to the same level of 
surveillance within the CU or Kazakhstan's territory as required in the certificate.  If Kazakhstan or 
the CU sought to have stricter animal health  requirements than those set-out in the OIE, 
Kazakhstan or CU must demonstrate that, based on risk assessment, as well as active and passive 
surveillance in Kazakhstan or the CU territory for animal diseases that could be present on the 
territory of Kazakhstan or the CU, the animal health  status of Kazakhstan or the CU for the disease JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 19 - 
 
  concerned was such that it justified such stricter requirements.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that veterinary certificates [would not include provisions for diseases that were not 
transmitted by/relevant to the concerned product], and would not require certification of 
provisions that were not justified based on mandatory requirements applicable and surveillance 
carried out within the territory of Kazakhstan or  the [whole] CU. [In cases where the requirements 
for surveillance did not exist for all CU Parties, conditions for trade with third countries would not 
discriminate between exports from third coun tries and movement of goods between the 
CU Parties].  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
44. Some Members expressed concern as regards the overlap of measures required by 
Kazakhstan to confirm the conformity of goods with CU and national food safety measures:  
through veterinary export certificates, declarations of conformity, certificates of conformity, listing 
of establishments authorized to export to th e CU, import permits, and State Registration.  
These Members questioned the utility of such repe ated, multiple and overlapping requirements to 
verify conformity with requirements.  In their view, it was burdensome, unnecessary and trade restrictive to maintain together a declaration of conformity or other forms of conformity 
assessment and export certificate or addition al requirements.  Members requested that 
Kazakhstan eliminated this redundancy. 
45. [The representative of Kazakhstan explained that Committee of Veterinary Control and 
Supervision exercised authority in relation to veterinary and sanitary issues when goods were 
imported into Kazakhstan so as to avoid duplication of efforts.  She noted that veterinary 
certificates included both veterinary and sanita ry requirements and that only one veterinary-
sanitary document was required to cross the border.  She further explained that State Registration 
of controlled goods applied both to domestically produced and imported goods and applied only to 
a limited number of products.  With regard to go ods for which the CU currently required both a 
veterinary certificate and a declaration of conformity, she confirmed that the CU Parties, pursuant to CU technical regulations, currently under development, would require only one document, as 
specified in each technical regulation, to confirm the conformity of products with CU requirements.  
[For example, the Technical Regulation on F ood Safety, adopted by CU Commission Decision 
No. 880 of 9 December 2011, provided that only veterinary certificates would be required for non-
processed animal products, while only a declaration of conformity or State Registration certificate 
would be required for products, that have undergone a treatment which based on scientific 
evidence, eliminated contamination.] The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
- (ii) Establishment Approval, Register and Inspections 
46. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that according to CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, many of the goods included in the list of  goods subject to veterinary control were subject 
to three requirements:  (i) the exporting establis hment had to be included in the Register of 
Entities and Persons Producing, Processing and/or Storing of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
Imported into the Customs Territory of the CU (her einafter – the Register); (ii) the good had to be 
accompanied by a veterinary certificate; and (iii) an import permit had to be issued for importation JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 20 - 
 
  of goods from an establishment in the Register.  However, the representative noted that pursuant 
to CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 Octo ber 2011[and xxx of xx], the CU had agreed to 
remove certain veterinary control measures for spec ific goods in order to minimize the overlapping 
of control mechanisms.  In addition, CU Co mmission Decision No. 831 of 18 October 2011, 
removed some goods from veterinary control comp letely.  [The representative informed Members 
that Kazakhstan had initiated additional amendments to the list of goods.] 
47. The representative of Kazakhstan emphasised that according CU Commission Decision 
No. 830 of 18 October 2011, producers of certain imported goods were exempted from the registry 
requirements, such as producers of live animals, ex cept for live fish, feed grain, natural honey, oil-
seed flour for feed, animal fat and oil, unprocessed grain straw, extracts and juices from meat, 
pasta stuffed with fish and invertebrates and processed meat.  The Register was published on the 
web-page indicated in paragraph [56].  
48. A Member requested the scientific basis for maintaining some specific products in the list 
of goods subject to veterinary control.  Specif ically, the Member requested information on the 
inclusion of products of plant origin.  In addition, the Member requested information on the 
requirement for including the names of establishments exporting processed dairy products in the 
Register when destined to Kazakhstan.  This Member requested that Kazakhstan eliminate any 
requirements that did not have a scientific justification and a risk assessment. 
49. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that  Kazakhstan was in the process of excluding 
products of plant origin from the list of goods su bject to veterinary control. She further noted that 
in accordance with the Common Veterinary Requirements, for several products of animal origin 
with low risk, an import permit and veterinary certificate was required to indicate the name and 
(or) number of the establishment assigned by the official veterinary authority of the exporting 
country. This requirement was consistent the OIE Code. 
50. In response to a request from a Member for further information on the requirements and 
procedures for an establishment to be included in the list of establishments authorised to export a 
product to Kazakhstan and the CU, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that, prior to 
1 July 2010, Kazakhstan did not maintain a regist ry requirement for establishments of exporting 
countries.  The representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that, as of 1 July 2010, imports of some of 
the products subject to veterinary control, as established in CU Commission Decision No. 317, 
were required to come from establishments a pproved by the CU Parties and included in the 
Register.  
51. In response to some Members concerns related to the maintained requirement to provide 
lists for live animals and certain products' establishments whereas the CU framework had eliminated this form of veterinary controls, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that the 
CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 amended CU Commission Decision No. 317 
to specify, for each type of good included in th e list of goods subject to veterinary control, which 
veterinary measures (import permits, veterinary certificates and/or listing of establishments) JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 21 - 
 
  applied to that particular good.  In some cases, the form of veterinary control had been modified 
or eliminated.  For example, for some products th e requirement for veterinary certificates and/or 
import permits had been eliminated.  Similarly, the requirement for an establishment to be 
included in a Register had been eliminated or amended to require only the provision of the name 
and/or number of the final establishment dealing with the goods prior to export to the territory of the CU, which was included in the import permit and/or veterinary certificate. Trade would then be 
possible for these commodities without listing upon favourable audit results. 
52. Some Members expressed concerns at the significant trade barriers imposed by this 
interpretation of CU Commission Decisions 830 and 834, whereby CU parties attempted to 
maintain the requirement for establishment lists arbitrarily for some products in contradiction with 
the provisions in CU Commission Decision 830. Further those Members were highly concerned by 
the refusal of CU parties to add any new establishments to the list of establishments approved to 
export to the Customs Union. 
53. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that according to Article 5 of the Decision 
No. 834 an audit of foreign control systems was a prerequisite for access of products subject to 
veterinary control to the CU market. If the resu lts of audit were unfavourable or audit was not 
conducted, trade for establishments from such countries would still be possible with the use of the 
other two options: (i) joint inspection of establishments by CU Parties; and (ii) guarantees from 
competent authorities of third countries. She further added that to date Kazakhstan had not 
refused to add any new establishments to the list  of establishments approved to export to the 
Customs Union. 
54. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that pursuant to the EEC Council Decision 
[xxxx] products of plant origin were  excluded from the Li st of Goods subject to Veterinary Control, 
and the requirement of inclusion of third country producers exporting dairy products to Kazakhstan 
into the Register was replaced by the requirement to indicate the number and name of the producer in the import permit and veterinary certificate. 
55. [With regard to the list of goods as set-out in Table [xx], the representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that categories of goods would be ad ded to the list of goods subject to veterinary 
control or the form of veterinary control applie d to categories of goods on the list would be 
modified only if such action was in compliance with the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
56. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that since 1 July 2010 and before 
completing work on creating a common web-interface of the CU Commission's website, the three 
national parts of the List of establishments from which imports were authorised were valid for imports into the entire CU territory (unless specified otherwise for specific establishments on the 
lists).  Currently the references to these lists  were available within the following website: 
http://tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/vetmeri/Pages/Reestrorg.aspx.  Kazakhstan's national part of 
the List could be found at the following web-link: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 22 - 
 
  http://www.minagri.gov.kz/ru/small/pages/na pravlieniia-razvitiia/vietierinarnaia-
biezopasnost/75.html . The addition of an establishment from any country to the national part of 
the List could only occur after all three CU Partie s agreed on the inclusion of the establishment.  
As a result of this decision, products from such an establishment could freely circulate within the 
territory of the CU, unless specifically provided otherwise in this decision.  The representative 
explained that the CU Parties intended to develop a common web-interface of the CU Register of 
establishments and a common information system so as to have a unique list of establishments 
that would consolidate their national lists, but ex act timing for the development of this database 
could not be specified. 
57. Members noted that Kazakhstan had never maintained a listing requirement prior to the 
establishment of the CU and that many of th ese requirements were not based on scientific 
evidence or proportionate to the risk and would represent an unjustified burden on trade, and 
were in their view, inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.  In response, the representative of 
Kazakhstan explained that, in her view, the listing  requirement itself could not be a burden on 
trade.  The burden on trade could result from the application of the wrong mechanism for including 
an establishment on the Register, for example, if the required actions that had to be done by the 
competent authority of an exporting country an d/or establishment were not based on a risk 
analysis or were more trade restrictive than necessary.  CU Commission Decision No. 834, allowed the use of different mechanisms for listing esta blishments that provided the possibility of 
minimizing the application of a more burdensome process than necessary for including an 
enterprise on the list by basing actions on the re sults of a risk analysis.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan also explained that the requirement to  be in the Common Register of Establishments 
approved to export particular controlled products was a means to ensure compliance with 
CU veterinary requirements. 
58. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
in accordance with a transitional period provided under CU Commission Decision No. 317, trade 
could continue from establishments not on a "list" in the Register - when there was no requirement 
for such a "list" prior to 1 July 2010.  Such trade co uld take place on the basis of an import permit.  
She further explained that according to point 11.3 of the CU Regulation "On Veterinary Checks at the CU Border and on the CU Territory" (CU Commission Decision No. 317 as amended by 
CU Commission Decision No. 342 and CU Commission Decision No. 724), a transitional period for 
listing establishments had been established, for the following products:  animals; genetic material; 
apicultural products; raw material of animal origin (skins, fur, feather, etc.); feed additives of 
animal origin; feed of plant origin, gelatine and composite products etc., to permit trade to 
continue until common or unified lists were established.  In reply to the request for clarification on 
the transitional period and the question on the deadline for the transitional period for new 
establishments, the representative of Kazakhstan said the transitional period was provided for 
continuation of trade with third countries on these goods until inclusion of the establishments producing such goods into the Register. The CU Commission Decision No. 830 removed the 
registry requirements for certain products, including live animals, except for fish; genetic material; JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 23 - 
 
  apicultural products; raw material of animal origin (skins, fur, feather, etc.); feed additives of 
animal origin; feed of plant origin, composite products which were referenced in paragraph 11.3 of 
the CU Regulation "On Veterinary Checks at the CU Border and on the CU Territory." Therefore, 
the transitional period for these products had lapsed  as of 22 August 2012, i.e. the date of entry 
into force of CU Commission Decision No. 830. Fo r gelatin the transitional period provided in 
paragraph 11.3 of CU regulation on Veterinary Checks at the CU border and the CU territory was 
still applicable, pending the entry into force of EEC Council Decision No. [xxx] of [xxxxx]. 
59. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that since 1 July 2010, in case listing 
of establishment was part of the applicable ve terinary requirements, establishments could be 
added to the list of establishments authorised to export to the CU (the Register) following the 
system audit, or following an on-site joint insp ection conducted by the three CU Parties or the 
delivery of guarantees as regards conformity with the CU requirements by the exporting country, if 
the three CU Parties commonly agreed to rely on such guarantees.  She explained that if a third 
country had never exported products of animal origin to any of the CU Parties before, and wanted to export to the CU for the first time, exporting establishments proposed by this third country 
would have to be inspected by the CU Parties before being added to the Register, in order to 
confirm the reliability of the veterinary control system of this country.  (See paragraph [68] 
below.) 
60. Authorization to present guarantees could be rejected only upon unfavourable results of 
analysis under paragraph 43 of the Regulation of Joint Inspections, approved by the CU 
Commission Decision No. 834. Pursuant to Paragraph 44 of the Regulation, in case a competent 
body of a third country was authorised by CU Pa rties to present guarantees, the competent body 
of third country had to submit its list of export ing establishments. The authorised body of the CU 
Party reviewed the presented list of establishments within one month and took a decision on 
inclusion of the establishments into the Register. The representative of Kazakhstan further informed that draft amendments were being prepared to clarify procedures for accepting 
guarantees from competent authorities of third countries. 
61. Some Members asked on which basis CU Parties could decide to rely on the guarantees of 
the exporting country for the inclusion into the Register.  Another Member sought clarification as 
to the processes available to exporting countries to have facilities added to the Register.  In this 
Member's view, it was unclear whether all options were available to all Members.  A Member 
expressed concern that, in practice, the listing of new establishments was no longer accepted on 
the basis of written guarantees of the exporting country since the entry into force of the CU.  
In this Member's view, Kazakhstan and the other CU Parties did not have the resources to carry out inspections for any new establishment requesting to be listed by an exporting party and some 
establishments, even already exporting, could not be listed due to this lack of resources.  In this 
Member's view, this represented an unjustified barrier to trade.   
62. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that the competent authorities of the 
CU Parties had to have confidence that the comp etent authorities of the exporting country would JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 24 - 
 
  effectively ensure that exporting establishments in that country met CU requirements.  She added 
that more detailed criteria on foreign guarantees were included in the CU Decision No. 834 on 
18 October 2011. Decision No. 834 authorised and pr ovided criteria for accepting guarantees from 
the competent authorities of third countries on  the compliance of goods produced by an 
establishment located on its territory.  These criteria were the following: 
- Level of development of the competent authority of the third country; 
- Level of justification of guarantees of the competent authority of the third country; 
- Risk of entry into and spread of pathogens of infectious animal diseases in the third 
country, including those common to humans and animals; 
- Epizootic situation in the third country; 
- Results of monitoring tests of goods subject to veterinary control imported into the 
CU territory from the third country; 
- Data from monitoring of relevant goods done by the competent authority of the third 
country; 
- Compliance with CU requirements with regard to importing relevant goods into the 
territory of the CU from the third country; and 
- Results of inspections by the competent authority of a CU Party or Parties of 
establishments located on the territory of the third country. 
That regulation was now in effect, including the provisions for accepting the guarantees of the 
competent authority of a third country and systems audits, which had entered into force on 
22 August 2012. Amendments to these criteria were being considered by the EEC. 
63. Some Members expressed continuing concerns that CU Parties could require inspection of 
each facility as a precondition for accepting guaran tees for inclusion in the Register, even in the 
case where Kazakhstan or another CU Party had pr eviously accepted guarantees from a Member's 
competent authority.  In these Members' view, re quiring inspections was contrary to the concept 
of accepting guarantees which were based on confidence in the third country's competent 
authority.  Members requested Kazakhstan to eliminate the requirement for inspection of a facility 
as a precondition for acceptance of a Member's guarantee for that facility. Besides, when 
requested, the inspection was often declined or would not be carried out in a reasonable 
timeframe. 
64. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that according to the CU Commission Decision 
No. 834, there was no requirement to inspect each facility as a precondition for accepting 
guarantees for inclusion in the Register. At the same time, pursuant to paragraphs 44 and 86 of 
the Regulation on Joint Inspections, for the purpos es of verification of the accepted guarantees, 
CU Parties could subsequently inspect establishments, included into the Register under 
guarantees, by the method of random selection. 
65. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that CU Commission Decision No.  834 had 
allowed for joint inspections by the three CU Parties of establishments in third countries that 
sought to be permitted to export goods to the CU that are subject to veterinary control in the CU.  
Inspections must be carried out on the basis of a request by the competent authority of the 
exporting country.  She further explained that it was possible that the representatives of the other 
CU Parties could delegate their authority to another CU Party to carry out an inspection.  . JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 25 - 
 
  66. Some Members expressed concern about the pr ocess of approving an establishment by 
each of the CU Parties as set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 834.  For example, one Member 
of the CU could approve the addition of an esta blishment to the Registry, but the establishment 
would not be added to the Registry due to a lack  of response from the other CU Parties, hence 
resulting in excessive delays for obtaining a final inclusion in the Register.  Further these Members expressed concern that approval, to be added to the Register, was by consensus and rejection was 
subjective and did not appear to be based on any criteria.  These Members requested information 
on what would constitute a valid reason for refusal to be added to the Register, by CU Parties and 
for other (non-auditing) CU Parties to refuse to list an establishment or any time-frames for such a 
decision.  In some Members' view, these decisions could be arbitrary and discriminate against 
Members where the same conditions prevailed. The requirement for consensus between the three 
parties on the different steps of the process was creating significant delays and in many cases 
making it impossible to add any new establishmen ts to the Register, therefore denying market 
access to those establishments in compliance with the CU requirements as defined in CU Decision 834 that met the conditions to export. Meanwhile, a CU party individually could decide to suspend 
exports from establishments present on the Register.  
67. Members of the Working Party also expresse d concerns that the implementation of 
CU Regulation "On Joint Inspections of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control" (CU Commission 
Decision No. 834) was not in line with Codex Guidelines for the design, operation, assessment and 
accreditation of food import and export inspection and certification systems (CAC/GL 26-1997), 
which recommended that:  assessment activities by  the importing country in the exporting country 
"should concentrate primarily on evaluating the effectiveness of the official inspection and 
certification systems rather than on specific commodities or establishments in order to determine 
the ability of the exporting country's competent authority(-ies) to have and maintain control and 
deliver the required assurances to the importin g country".  Members requested that Kazakhstan 
conform to international standards, guidelines and recommendations.   
68. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that, at the request of the 
competent authorities of the third country, the CU Parties would conduct a systems audit to 
determine if the official system of supervision of that third country was capable of providing a level 
of protection at least equivalent to that provided by CU requirements.  If this audit of the official 
system of supervision was successful, the CU Parties would include establishments of the audited 
country on the Register in accordance with a list of establishments that the competent authority of 
the third country provided to the CU Parties.  If an audit of a third country's offic ial sys tem of 
supervision was not carried out or was not completed or if, as a result of such audit, the third country's official system of supervision was not recognised as being capable to provide a level of 
protection at least equivalent to that provided by CU requirements, the CU Parties could agree to 
include establishments of that country to the Register on the basis of joint inspections or 
guarantees provided by the competent authority of the third country. CU Decision No. 834, in 
order to facilitate the inclusion of the establishments proposed by the competent authority into the 
Register, also established procedures, including time-frames for organising and taking decisions on JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 26 - 
 
  systems audits, on-site visits, and including establishments in the Register in each of the cases 
described in paragraph [59] above. The CU Party that received the request for audits or for joint 
inspections of establishments notified the competent authorities of other CU Parties of the request 
and invited them to participate.  If a CU Party declined to participate or did not respond within the 
prescribed time, that CU Party authorised the participating CU Party or Parties to act on its behalf and accepted the decision of the participating CU Party or Parties on the relevant matter. 
In connection with a systems audit, the purpose of the visit was to ensure that, within the 
framework of the third country's regulatory system , related to production, processing, transporting 
and storage of the relevant goods, all of the count ry's laws, regulations and other requirements on 
inspection and certification, which the CU Party(ies) recognised as capable to provide a level of 
protection, at least equivalent to that provided by CU requirements at the stage of analysis of 
documentation, were properly implemented.  If the CU provided a third country the authority to 
list establishments located on its territory in the Registry, based on guarantees, the CU Parties 
could conduct joint inspections of a representative percentage of establishments to check and confirm the operation of the third country's official system of supervision that was the basis for the 
guarantees.  Establishments could also be included on the Register based on a joint inspection of 
the establishment. With respect to request for au thorization to provide guarantees, the CU Party 
that received such request from third country had to agree its decision with the other CU Parties. 
Criteria for accepting guarantees were establis hed in paragraph 43 of the Decision No. 834. Non-
conformity with these criteria could serve as a ba sis for refusal to accept the guarantee from third 
country’s competent authority. In general, th e requirement to reach consensus between all 
CU Parties with respect to approval of exportin g establishments was necessary due to the absence 
of customs borders between territories of CU Parties and given the fact that the competence of 
establishment approval remained under the na tional competence. The representative of 
Kazakhstan further clarified that decision on suspension of exports from establishments was made based on obvious facts of inconsistencies with CU requirements that posed substantial risk to life 
and health of humans and/or animals. Thus, such decision could be made individually by a 
CU Party. Moreover, suspension of exports wa s a provisional measure and exports could be 
resumed as soon as the corrective measures were undertaken by the establishment. At the same 
time, the decision on inclusion of establishmen ts under the guarantee required a more complex 
evaluation process and, thus, had to be agreed by all CU Parties.    
69. Some Members requested more information on  how Kazakhstan and the CU intended to 
implement the three mechanisms for including esta blishments in the Register. The representative 
of Kazakhstan replied that currently, all guarantees, received from third countries by an authorised body of any CU Party, were subject to approval by the authorised bodies of other CU Parties. 
In response to Members' further questions, th e representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
CU Decision No. 834 provided that one basic principl e for ensuring veterinary safety of controlled 
goods when inclusion in the Register was required , was conducting an audit of foreign official 
system of veterinary control (systems audit) as recommended by Codex Alimentarius [and the 
OIE].  As such, CU Decision No. 834 provided three ways for a country to have establishments JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 27 - 
 
  located on its territory included on the Register  of establishments authorised to export as 
described in paragraph [68] above.  
70. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at, in Chapter II, point 4.n of Decision No. 
834, CU requirements were defined as follows: "international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations within the meaning of CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 
"On Application of International Standards, Recommendations and Guidelines", related to 
Veterinary and Sanitary Requirements for Goods,  CU Technical Regulations for Goods, CU Common 
Veterinary Requirements, or the different requiremen ts that CU Parties have agreed with the third 
country in veterinary export certificates, as provided in CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 
15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", and mandatory national requirements for goods". 
71. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that CU Decision No. 834 provided for 
removal of an establishment from the Registry (delis ting) in only two cases:  at the request of the 
relevant establishment, and at the request of the competent authority of the third country.  
Instead of delisting an establishment, the CU could, in line with international standards or based on risk assessment, temporarily suspend imports from the establishment and/or subject imports 
from that establishment to intensified monitoring.  Except in emergency situations, understood in 
the sense provided for in the OIE, a temporary suspension of imports from an establishment could 
be applied only: 
- upon the request of the establishment or the competent authority of the third country; or  
- based on repeated non-compliances with CU requirements either detected during on-site 
inspection and/or re-inspection of the estab lishment by the competent authority of a CU 
Party, or as a result of monitoring and enha nced laboratory testing of the establishment's 
goods, which have been notified to the competent authority of the third country, if such 
non-compliances represented a significant threat to human or animal life and health.   
 The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
72. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed 
that, currently, the Committee of Veterinary Control and Supervision was not entitled to delist an establishment on the basis of minor non-compli ances with CU requirements or requirements 
included in the certificate not affecting the sa fety of the products, observed during on-site 
inspection or laboratory analysis at the border or based on issues which fall outside of the 
Committee's field of competence (e.g. controls on potable water).  
73. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, except in case of serious risks of animal 
or human health, its competent authority would not suspend imports from establishments based 
on the results of on-site inspection before it had given the exporting country the opportunity to 
propose corrective measures.  As required under  CU Decision No. 834, the preliminary report 
would be sent to the competent authority of the exporting country for comments before the report 
was finalised.  She noted again that the CU Parties had developed criteria and reasons for a 
decision to suspend imports from an establishment.  Minor errors would not be valid grounds for 
suspending imports from an establishment and she reminded Members that there would be an JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 28 - 
 
  administrative procedure for appealing such decisions as well as recourse to the courts.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
74. [Regarding emergency situations, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the 
decisions and procedures for the suspension of es tablishments would be in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
75. [The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that in extraordinary cases, the 
CU Commission could take a decision to suspend a group of establishments or all establishments 
of a third country as the result of the detection of  a serious systemic failure of the official system 
of control, as specified in CU Decision No. 834.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, 
upon taking such a decision, the CU Commission would have to provide the Competent Authority 
(CA) of the third country with the technical information and scientific justification on the risk 
detected.  The third country would be requested to take corrective measures within a specified 
time-frame for their adoption.  Any suspension would not be implemented before the expiration of 
the specified time-frame.  Once the corrective measures were taken, the CA of the third country would send a report on the corrective measures to  the CU Commission.  The CU Commission would 
evaluate the report and it would decide if the corrective measures were effective and sufficient.  
The suspension, if implemented, would be lifted within five working days after the decision.  
In case corrective measures were not taken or were considered ineffective by the CU Commission, 
the decision on a temporary suspension of imports from a group of establishments or all 
establishments of a third country could be impl emented.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that such temporary suspensions would be  proportionate to the risk to human health or 
life and not more restrictive to trade than necessary, as provided in the WTO SPS Agreement.  The 
Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
76. Members of the Working Party expressed concer n that the draft inspection guidelines for 
meat, poultry, fish, and dairy were stricter than international standards, guidelines and recommendations, in particular they were overly prescriptive and in many cases would be difficult 
to respect in other cases than the CU context.  Requiring establishments to meet these overly 
prescriptive structural and functional requirements would, in practice, preclude most non-CU 
establishments from passing inspection.  Furt hermore, Members highlighted that these draft 
guidelines did not take into account the possibility for exporting countries to conclude specific 
certificates with CU Partners, as provided for in CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011, 
and thus to be subjected to specific requirements.  Members asked how equivalence could be 
recognised when the specific standards set in these inspection guidelines could not be met. 
77. [In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that Kazakhstan and CU Parties had 
drafted the Guidelines for Inspectors on Taki ng Decisions with Respect to Equivalency of 
Veterinary-Sanitary Measures Related to Conducti ng Inspections of Establishments Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Supervision) (hereinafter referred to as draft guidelines) that include 
inspection guidelines for meat, poultry, fish, and dairy. She further explained that currently the 
national legislation of a CU Party that received the request for inspection was applied. However, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 29 - 
 
  paragraph 6 of the draft guidelines took into consideration specific CU Decisions and specific Codex 
standards.] 
78. She further explained that CU Decision No. 834 recognised the principle of equivalence.  
Specifically, inspectors were instructed to evaluate whether establishments were complying with 
relevant CU requirements or the relevant international standards, guidelines, and recommendations, and in such cases, the establishment would be considered in compliance with 
CU requirements based on the principle of equivale nce.  She further explained that if there were 
cases where a CU act or mandatory national requirement was more stringent than the 
international standard, the inspector would evaluate compliance with international standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations, unless a scientific justification for the more stringent measure, 
as provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement, had be en presented to the competent authority of the 
third country.  The competent authority could then propose an equivalent measure.  If an 
establishment was included on the Register based on guarantees from the competent authority of 
the exporting country, inspectors were bound to ch eck and evaluate whether the guarantees in the 
export certification applicable were met. 
79. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that as of the date of accession of [the first 
CU Party][Kazakhstan] to the WTO, specific guidelines on inspection that would reflect the 
principles of equivalence and reliance on international standards, guidelines and recommendations, 
as such principles were described in paragraph [78], would be adopted to ensure the 
implementation of CU Decision No 834 by CU inspectors, in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  Under these guidelines, inspectors would be instructed in particular to 
verify the compliance of establishments with relevant Codex Alimentarius recommended codes of 
practices such as CAC/RCP 1-1969, recommended Inte rnational Code of Practice General Principles 
of Food Hygiene, the CAC/RCP 58-2005 Code of Hy gienic Practice for Meat, the CAC/RCP 57-2004 
Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Pr oducts, the CAC/RCP 52-2003 Code of Practice for 
Fish and Fishery Products and other Relevant International Standards, Recommendations and 
Related Texts.  Moreover, inspectors would be provided information and training on the application 
of the principle of equivalence as provided in the WTO SPS Agreement, in the context of 
CU Decision No. 834 and the guidelines.  The Wo rking Party took note of these commitments.] 
80. Some Members expressed concern that CU Decision No. 834 set-up a detailed and 
prescriptive system for auditing third-country systems for supervision of products subject to 
veterinary control, while it appeared that the requirements for CU Parties and their respective 
establishments appeared to be less detailed an d stringent in some respects.  These Members 
asked whether and how it would be ensured, for example, that the frequency and requirements 
related to on-site visits as applied to third countries and their establishments and to CU Parties 
and their establishments for purposes of determination and maintenance of equivalence, would be 
no less favourable to third countries and their establishments, and not discriminate against such 
countries or establishments. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 30 - 
 
  81. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan  stated that, in her view, CU Decision No. 
834 and the procedures and requirements for the conduct of audits and inspections applied in 
respect of Members, their products or establishments were in compliance with the WTO rules and 
requirements. 
82. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, by the date that[the first CU Party] 
[Kazakhstan]became a Member of the WTO, CU Decision No 834, as described in the Working 
Party Report, would be applied in compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 2.3 
thereof, and the GATT 1994.  In particular, sh e confirmed that CU Decision No. 834 would not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members, where identical or similar conditions 
prevail, including between CU Parties which were Members and other Members, with regards to 
requirements for on-site inspections, including for purposes of determination and maintenance of 
equivalence of the systems of control of produc ts; and that CU Decision No. 834 would not be 
applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.  The 
Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
- (iii) Import Permits 
83. As for import permits, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that since July 2010, the 
legal framework for the import permit regime of the Customs Union was set-out in Section VI of 
the Regulation on Veterinary Controls at the Cu stoms Border of the Customs Union, adopted by 
the CU Commission Decision No. 317.  This Regulation sets-out the following principles:  
- Imports into the CU of certain goods subject to veterinary controls must have an import 
permit issued by the competent authority of the CU Party which was the point of destination for the imports; and 
- The permit was valid for a calendar year, for quantities which are specified in the permit.  
 The permit was issued taking into account the epizootic situation of the place of production 
and, where the legislation required a registry of  enterprises authorised to export the relevant 
goods to the territory of the CU, whether the enterprise was on that list of enterprises. 
Furthermore, "Rules of Issuing of Permits for Impo rtation, Exportation and Transit of Goods Taking 
into Account Epizootic Situation of the Corresponding Territory" had been set at national level by 
the Government Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012. 
84. She further explained that an import permit could be requested for any amount of goods 
and that the amount requested could not be the basis for refusing to issue the permit.  Import 
permits had three functions:  first, to ensure that the importer was in a position to handle the 
imported goods in a safe manner that complied with domestic, e.g., quarantine requirements; 
second, to take into account the epizootic situation of the exporting country; and third, to ensure 
that specific conditions, adapted to the epizootic situation of the exporting country, were met at the time of importation.  The first function, in her view, was not discriminatory since the conditions 
required to be met by the operator were also checked in case of internal trade within the CU 
territory.  The second function was that of a legal instrument to block or restrict imports in case of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 31 - 
 
  dangerous animal disease outbreaks in the export ing country.  The third function could be used, 
for example, to require that certain imported animal products from countries with a specific 
epizootic situation be processed in designated facilities.  In this case, import permits would be 
granted only to those importers who were able to channel the consignments to such facilities.  
Import permits also optimised logistics for importer s and provided a means to coordinate activities 
of regulatory agencies. 
85. As established in Government Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012, import permits were 
issued by the authorised body in the sphere of  veterinary (the Committee of Veterinary Control 
and Supervision under the Ministry of Agriculture)  upon request of its territorial branches.  The 
Chief State Veterinary Inspector of a particular region was in charge of the epizootic and 
veterinary-sanitary safety of that region.  Therefore, to obtain an import permit, traders applied in 
writing to the relevant region (raion/city) branch  of the authorised body where the imported goods 
were being shipped. This was done for the convenie nce of importers.  Applications had to contain a 
description of the goods' characteristics, country  and place (establishment) of origin, purpose, 
transport type, route, the border entry point(-s) of Kazakhstan, place of destination in Kazakhstan 
with indication of the name and registration number of production or storage facility.  In addition, 
Kazakhstan intended to amend the Resolution and add requirements including the location of the 
establishment, quarantine, processing and storage conditions, and the establishment's registration 
number, where required, and (or) name of the es tablishment in the country of exportation.  
Region branches verified the compliance of transportation and storage facilities with veterinary 
rules, while the central authorised body verified (i) whether the exporting country was subject to a 
temporary ban due to an outbreak of an infectio us disease, (ii) whether non-compliance with the 
CU veterinary and sanitary requirements ha d occurred, and (iii) presence of exporting 
establishment in the Register, where such a requirement applied.  In cases where the 
requirements for obtaining import permit were no t met, the exporter could re-apply after fulfilling 
the requirements.  The authorised body issued th e import permit within ten days, but could also 
refuse a permit by written justification.   
86. A Member of the Working Party asked Kazakhstan to clarify what constituted a 
non-compliance and whether the permit would be denied if the information provided by the trader 
would not comply with import permit requirements, e.g., storage.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that pursuant to Government Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012, import 
permits could be refused only for the following reasons:  (i) restrictions with respect to certain 
countries (regions) introduced with regard to unfavourable epizootic situation in exporting country; 
(ii) non-compliance with CU veterinary-sanitary requirements; or (iii), absence of an exporting establishment in the Register of Exporting Thir d Countries, where such a requirement applied. 
Kazakhstan being a Party of the Customs Union followed Common Veterinary (Veterinary and 
Sanitary) Requirements, to Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), approved by CU 
Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010, as amended. 
87. Some Members expressed concern at the genera l nature of the reasons for refusing the 
import permit and the lack of elements such as necessity or proportionality to the seriousness of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 32 - 
 
  the risk for health involved by such non-compliances. They sought clarification on whether the 
planned amendment to this Resolution would introduce these elements, which would be necessary 
in their view to ensure compliance with the corre sponding WTO principles. The representative of 
Kazakhstan informed that Kazakhstan was in the process of drafting amendments to the 
Resolution that included such elements as necessity and/or proportionality to the seriousness of the risk for health involved by non-compliances in the part of reasons for refusing the import 
permits. 
88. Some Members requested that when Kazakhstan's authorities denied an application for an 
import permit, they informed each applicant of the detailed reasons for the rejection and the 
exporting country if new conditions existed in that country would be the reason for refusing the 
import permit.  The representative of Kazakhstan  explained that the authorised body reviewed 
applications within ten working days.  Within this period, the authorised body either issued an 
import permit or provided the applicant a written explanation of denial. 
89. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that it had made available to importers, as 
well as to third-country exporters through the website of the Ministry of Agriculture 
[www.minagri.gov.kz] full detailed conditions for import of specific products.  Furthermore, 
information on CU veterinary requirements was available on the CU website at the following 
address: http://tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/vetmeri/Pages/default.aspx . The representative of 
Kazakhstan further confirmed that to this end, it would publish a list on the website of the National 
Enquiry Point in English of the products which were permitted to be imported into its territory; the 
countries and establishments authorised to export to Kazakhstan [and the territory of the CU]; and 
the conditions for import.  Where an application for an import permit was denied, the relevant 
authority would inform the applicant of the reasons for this rejection within ten working days of 
the decision.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
90. [Some Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm th at its import permit system would comply 
with OIE rules, i.e., permits would not be refuse d on grounds not recognised by the OIE for the 
animal diseases concerned.  Further, with regard  to the discovery of unauthorised substances in 
cargos, Kazakhstan would comply with the principle of applying an SPS measure only to the extent 
necessary to protect human or animal life and health .  In the view of these Members, a refusal to 
issue import permit after single findings of non-compliances with no immediate risk for the 
consumer would not comply with this principle.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
its procedures for considering applications for import permits would comply with these two 
principles.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
91. A Member of the Working Party expressed conc erns regarding the import permit process 
for products under veterinary control. In light of other veterinary and sanitary import requirements 
(e.g., an agreed veterinary certificate), the Member considered the import permit process as an 
unnecessary requirement that could result in a barrier to trade in violation of the SPS Agreement.  
This Member of the Working Party noted that when developing SPS measures to protect human, 
animal or plant life or health within a country, the SPS Agreement required that Members take into JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 33 - 
 
  account the objective of minimising negative trade effects and that such measures were not more 
trade-restrictive than required to achieve an appr opriate level of SPS protection.  The Member of 
the Working Party questioned compliance of the Kazakhstan's measures with the SPS Agreement 
obligations. 
92. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that use of import permit system in veterinary 
import control was not prohibited by the SPS Agreement.  Further, the representative of 
Kazakhstan emphasised that import permit was important element of ensuring safety of the 
imported goods en-route since veterinary authoritie s of exporting countries could ensure safety of 
exported goods only within the territory under its control.  She noted that import permits 
contained information outside of the competence of veterinary authority of exporting country, such 
as: purpose, transport type, route, the border en try point(-s) of Kazakhstan, place of destination 
in Kazakhstan with indication of the name and registration number of production or storage 
facility, where required, and in the case of im porting goods falling under CITES - the relevant 
import permitting number.  This information was not present in veterinary certificates. 
93. [In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed 
that minor documentation errors which did not alter the basic data contained in the document 
were not a basis for refusing an import permit.  The legal circumstance that served as grounds for 
starting this administrative procedure for revocation of an import permit was the discovery of 
systematic (e.g., liable to administrative or criminal prosecution) violations, by the importer of the 
regulated cargo, of CU Decisions and other CU Ac ts and the laws of Kazakhstan in the field of 
veterinary medicine (including the presentation of forged veterinary documents or the discovery of 
inconsistency between the presented documents and the regulated cargo).  Furthermore, she 
confirmed that the reasons for suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an import permit would be 
consistent with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines and the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
94. [Further, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, the import permit regime  applicable to goods subject to veterinary and 
quarantine control would be operated under CU De cisions, other CU Acts, and provisions of the 
Law of Kazakhstan that were published and availa ble to the public and that these measures would 
be developed and applied in compliance with the WTO Agreement.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan also confirmed that information requirements for the purposes of applying for an 
import permit would be limited to what was necessary for appropriate approval and control 
procedures and that any requirements for control, inspection and approval of individual specimens 
of a product were limited to what is reasonable and necessary as provided for in Annex C of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  Moreover, she confirmed that her Government would maintain and notify 
the public of a clearly defined procedure under which an applicant for an import permit could 
appeal the suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an  application, have that appeal adjudicated, and 
receive a written response explaining the reasons for the final decision and any further action 
required to obtain a permit.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 34 - 
 
  95. Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 317, at the border, a veterinary inspector 
conducted (i) a documentary check and (ii) a physical inspection of the goods being imported.  
Samples at the border were taken only in case a veterinary inspector detected visible organoleptic 
changes.  The veterinary inspector informed the re levant oblast branch of the authorised body (at 
the border) about the results of the inspection of  the product subject to veterinary control and 
about the final destination of the product.  Impo rted goods were then transported to their final 
destination where they were subjected to a visual inspection of the consignment.  After passing 
the inspection, the veterinary certificate issued by the competent body of the foreign country was 
replaced with the veterinary certificate of the Customs Union.  The accompanying documents were 
stamped with the sign "Release permitted" or "Rel ease forbidden".  Thus, the imported goods that 
passed the veterinary control where considered as Customs Union goods and subsequently were 
subject to the same treatment as domestically produced goods.  She added that, pursuant to 
paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Law No. 339-II "On Veterinary", if a cargo owner was not satisfied 
with the results of veterinary control, he or she could appeal the actions (or failure to act) of veterinary inspectors to higher State veterinary officials and/or in court.   
96. In response to Members' questions, the repr esentative of Kazakhstan clarified that the 
legislation of Kazakhstan and of the Customs Union did not contain rules obliging exporting 
countries to carry out veterinary and sanitary checks  at the external borders of exporting parties.  
97. A Working Party Member requested that Kazakhstan guarantee that there would not be 
such procedures in place which caused undue delays and ensure treatment in no less favourable 
manner for imported products than for like domestic  products.  The Member stated that the control 
system seemed to be a duplication of checking - first at the border and then under customs 
control.  In this respect, this Member asked th e representative of Kazakhstan to confirm further 
that there would be no undue delays with this system in place.  This Member of the Working Party 
expressed the view that additional testing appear ed excessive given that a shipment had to be 
accompanied by a veterinary certificate and import permit and come from an approved facility and 
had been inspected prior to exportation.  This Member further noted that Kazakhstan's 
requirements for inspection at the border and then a full re-inspection for all shipments when 
clearing customs appeared to be unjustified for SP S reasons, a burden on trade, and inconsistent 
with national treatment.  Another Member of th e Working Party enquired if and how Kazakhstan 
was planning to introduce the mechanism of random inspections instead of samples of each 
specific shipment (the current system).  
98. In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that pursuant to paragraph 6.5. of the 
Regulation on Veterinary Control as adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 317, after documentary checks, physical inspections were carried out on a random basis as follows:  not 
more often than one consignment per ten consignments of meat or fish originating from a specific 
country, except for live animals, where each consignment was subject to physical inspection.  
Physical inspection on the border could be conducted by checking of accessible part of the 
consignment.  Laboratory tests were conducted on ly in cases of revealing visible organoleptic 
changes during physical checks (paragraph 3.14.3.).  Kazakhstan had removed the requirement of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 35 - 
 
  laboratory checks of each imported consignment and replaced it with the system of keeping a 
register of exporting facilities of third countries. In her view, such a practice was widely used in 
the most advanced WTO Members and was not contradictory to the WTO SPS Agreement. 
- (iv) Transit Permits 
99. With respect to transit, the representative of  Kazakhstan stated that since 1 July 2010, the 
legal framework for the issuance of transit permit was set in Decision No. 317 of the CU 
Commission, in Chapter VII of the "Regulation on the Single System of Veterinary Control at the 
Customs Border of the Customs Union" as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 
June 2011.  The principles set at  CU level were the following: 
- A transit permit was required only for transit of live animals and raw materials of animal 
origin.  The transit permit was issued by the CU Party whose territory was the first entry 
point; 
- Veterinary control of controlled goods at entry points was carried out after the submission 
of a waybill and (or) veterinary certificate; 
- After completion of documentary control, veterinary inspection of animals was carried out, 
including:  identification numbers of animals were compared (tattoos, chips, ear tags, stamps, etc.) with numbers indicated in veterinary certificates, conditions of carriage were 
verified, and the condition of animals and possi bility of their further transportation were 
examined; 
- Examination during transit of controlled goods (except for animals) was performed only by 
State regulatory authorities at a checkpoint or in the presence of information about 
non-conformity of controlled goods to the declared goods; 
- According to the results of monitoring, the Border Control Inspection Post Officer made a 
decision and put a stamp on the shipping docu ments and on the veterinary certificate, in 
accordance with the form of Annex No. 3:  "Transit enabled" or "Transit prohibited", and at 
the point of exit from the customs territory of the CU, a stamp "Transit Completed", then assured it by the seal and signature, indicating such Officer's name and initials; 
- All necessary data was entered in the register of transit in the form in accordance with 
Annex No. 9 of that Regulation and entered into the system of electronic records; and 
- The owner of the controlled goods, who receiv ed the permit of transit of controlled goods 
through the territory of the CU, had to comply with the veterinary legislation of the CU. 
100.  According to Government Resolution No. 132, transit permits were issued within 
30 working days upon written application with  indication of the following information: 
- for juridical persons carrying transited goods: name, address and registration number of 
the production facility, for physical persons carrying transited goods: family name, given name, patronymic (if any), address and regist ration number of the production facility; 
- type of the transited good; 
- quantity of transited good and its measurement unit; - exporting or importing country and country of origin; 
- type of transport; 
- list of border check points of Kazakhstan th rough which the goods will be transited; and, 
- transit route via Customs Union: places of stopping, loading-unloading, places of animal 
feeding, conditions of animal or goods tr ansfer coordinated with a chief veterinary 
inspector of territorial administrative unit through which the goods will be transited; 
-  description of transferred (transported) object;  -  location of the object; 
- conditions for quarantine, production, storag e  of the transferred (transported) object. 
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 36 - 
 
  A transit permit could be refused only for the following reasons: (i) absence of any of the above 
information; (ii) unfavourable epizootic situation in the country of origin and transited places; and 
(iii) importing country did not permit such imports. 
101.  Some Members expressed concerns regarding the requirement that controlled goods in 
transit, which had been inspected and were conveyed under seal, had to comply with 
CU veterinary requirements.  From these Member s' perspective, this requirement could not be 
justified as a safety measure and restricted trade with third countries. 
102.  [The representative of Kazakhstan noted concerns from Members regarding the 
requirement for controlled goods in transit to comply with CU veterinary requirements and 
confirmed that CU Commission Decision No. 317 had been amended by CU Commission Decision 
No. 724 of 22 June 2011 to eliminate this requirement, so that, controlled goods transiting through 
the territory of the CU under customs seal would not be subject to CU veterinary requirements.  
In addition, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the relevant provisions of CU 
Commission Decision No. 317, and any administrative regulations and other measures relating to the transit of goods subject to veterinary contro l through the territory of Kazakhstan would be 
applied in compliance with the OIE Code and th e WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took 
note of these commitments.] 
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control 
103.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated that  the Decision of the Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC No. 30 of 11 December 2009 "On the Agreement on Plant Quarantine" (last amended by 
the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurA sEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011) provided the legal 
framework for plant quarantine in Kazakhstan.  This Decision stipulated that regulations must take 
into account the "rules and principles" of the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement.  Customs Union 
plant quarantine measures were further established in CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 
18 June 2010 "On Ratification of Agreement of the Customs Union of the Plant Quarantine" (as last amended by Decision No. 528 of 28 January 201 1 and Decision No. 894 of 9 December 2011).  
Decision No. 318 included the following documents: 
- The list of products under quarantine (regul ated goods, regulated articles of regulated 
products), i.e., which are subject to quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs border of the Customs Union and in the customs territory of the Customs Union; 
- Regulations on the implementation of quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs border of the Customs Union; and 
- Regulation on the implementation of quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs territory of the Customs Union. 
104.  The representative of Kazakhstan further clarified that the CU did not have common 
phytosanitary requirements and that these were de veloped and implemented at the national level.  
The representative explained that further harmonization among the CU Parties was ongoing.  
For example, the CU Parties were in the proc ess of reviewing and conducting pest risk 
assessments in order to harmonize the quarantine  pest and disease list by 1 January 2013, with 
subsequent introduction of common phytosanitary requirements to regulated products.  The draft JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 37 - 
 
  of a common list of quarantine pests and diseases had been developed and undergone public 
consultations in July 2012. At the moment, the draft was under discussion by CU Parties.  Until the 
CU Parties had harmonized their quarantine pest and disease list and introduced common 
phytosanitary requirements, the national quarantine pest and disease lists and phytosanitary 
requirements for regulated products would remain valid. 
105.  A Member of the Working Party asked Kazakhstan to clarify whether Kazakhstan's 
legislation was based on international standa rds developed by the IPPC.  In reply the 
representative of Kazakhstan stated that legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on plant 
quarantine to a large extent was based on the pr ovisions and principles stipulated by the WTO 
Agreement on Application of SPS Measures, the International Plant Protection Convention and the 
Convention for the Establishment of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 
Organization.  For instance, Article 13 of the Law "On Plant Quarantine" and the Government 
Resolution No. 1730 "On Approval of the Rules for Pr otection of the Territory of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan from Plant Quarantine Objects and A lien Species", of 30 October 2009, which provided 
for the procedures of issuing documents, inspec tions and control complied with IPPC standards 
such as No. 12 "Guideline on phytosanitary certificates", No. 23 "Guideline on inspections" and No. 
7 "Certification system for exports".  Kazakhstan accepted phytosanitary certificates that complied 
with the requirements of IPPC Standard No. 12 and relied on guarantees of the NPPO of the 
exporting country.  She also added that the time -frames of laboratory expertise on pests and 
weeds were reduced to up to three working days, and plant diseases – ten working days.  In 
addition, within the framework of the Customs Un ion, quarantine import permits on import of 
quarantine products were abolished. 
106.  Trade in regulated products on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan in addition to 
CU regulations was regulated by the following national legislation: Government Resolution 
No. 1295 "On Approval of the List of Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species and Extremely Dangerous 
Pests" of 10 December 2002, Government Resolution No 1287 "On Approval of the Rules on 
Withdrawal and Destruction of Quarantine Products , Infected by Quarantine Objects, Not Subject 
to Decontamination or Processing" of 3 November 2011, Government Resolution No. 1730 "On 
Approval of the Rules for Protection of the Terri tory of the Republic of Kazakhstan from Plant 
Quarantine Objects and Alien Species" of 30 October 2009, Government Resolution No. 1674 
"On Approval of Phytosanitary Requirements to Imported Quarantine Products" of 30 December 
2011, Government Resolution No. 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on Registration Tests and State 
Registration of Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 30 November 
2011. 
107.  The representative of Kazakhstan said that the Division of Phytosanitary Safety was in 
charge of strategic planning in the sphere of phytosanitary safety, including budgeting.  
The Committee on State Inspection in the Agro-Industrial Complex of the Ministry of Agriculture of 
the Republic of Kazakhstan was in charge of developing rules and regulations in this area and 
conducting phytosanitary quarantine control (surveillance) on the territory of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, including phytosanitary quarantine border control (surveillance), measures on JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 38 - 
 
  protection of plants from pests, monitoring of agricultural lands against plant pests and diseases.  
In addition, the phytosanitary control framework included (i) State quarantine institutions; (ii) the 
State enterprise "Phytosanitary"; (iii) State inspection branches of oblasts, Astana and Almaty; 
(iv) phytosanitary inspectors of the raion (region)(or city) territorial administrations; and 
(v) border checkpoints and internal posts of phytosanitary control.  The State enterprise "Republican Center of Phytosanitary Diagnostics and Prognosis" conducted surveys of Kazakhstan's 
territory to determine the location of an outb reak.  State enterprise "Republican Quarantine 
Laboratory" identified species composition of quarantine pests and diseases.  State enterprise 
"Republican Plant Introduction Nursery of Fruit and Berry Crops" and "Republican Plant 
Introduction Nursery of Field Crops" were in charge of detection of latent infestation of plant 
products (seed and planting stock).  State enterprise "Phytosanitary" conducted localisation and 
extermination of outbreaks of quarantine pests an d diseases. In reply to additional question, the 
representative of Kazakhstan clarified that state inspection branches of the raion (region)(or city) 
territorial administrations, oblasts, Astana and Almaty were in charge of (i) control over phytosanitary conditions of the territory and measures on plant quarantine; (ii) surveillance of land 
plots, agricultural lands, grain storage and other facilities; (iii) control over organization of 
disinfection measures; (iv) quarantine inspection, sampling for laboratory testing, issuing 
phytosanitary certificates; (v) control over compliance of entities to phytosanitary rules; and 
(vi) taking administrative action against physical and juridical persons liable for violation of 
phytosanitary rules. Inspectors at the border checkpoints and internal posts of phytosanitary 
control were in charge of  (i) phytosanitary control, inspection, including documentary checks, of 
imported and exported good subject to phytosanitary control as well as goods moving within the 
territory of Kazakhstan, respectively; (ii) issuing orders to cargo owners on conducting necessary 
plant quarantine measures in accordance with legislation in the sphere of plant quarantine; and 
(iii) taking administrative action against physical and juridical persons liable for violation of phytosanitary rules.  
108.  [In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan explained 
that the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection was defined as the required level 
of protection established by a technical regulation  for products and phytosanitary requirements to 
regulated products, produced on the territory of Kazakhstan aimed at prevention of factual 
scientifically grounded risks.  The representative  o f  K a z a k h s t a n  c o n f i r m e d  t h a t  C U  A g r e e m e n t s , 
CU acts, and Kazakhstan's legislation did not and would not in future establish additional 
SPS requirements for imported products that exceeded the requirements established for CU or 
domestic products.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
109.  The existing list of products under quarantine (regulated goods) that were subject to 
quarantine phytosanitary control at the customs bo rder of the CU and the territory of the CU was 
divided into two groups:  (i) quarantine products of high pest risk; and (ii) quarantine products of 
low pest risk.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that imports of quarantine products of 
high pest risk would need to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate.  No phytosanitary 
certificate was required for imports of regulated products of low pest risk.  The list of quarantine JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 39 - 
 
  products with their HS codes was included in CU Commission Decision No. 318.  She further 
explained that a number of products were now excluded from the high pest risk list, such as raw 
cane sugar, sugar from beets, natural sands of al l kinds, gravel, sand, fish meal, meat meal or 
meat by-products, protein concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and protein pre-mixes.  
The up-to-date list of goods subject to quarantine  phytosanitary control was available to the public 
on the CU website at http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulati on/fitosan/Pages/default.aspx . In line 
with international practice, when products subject to phytosanitary control were imported from 
countries with registered cases of quarantine spread areas, imports of products under plant 
quarantine control from pest-free areas were still allowed, if appropriate information in additional 
declaration of phytosanitary certificate was provided.  In cases during phytosanitary control it was 
detected that regulated products subject to phyt osanitary control were infected by quarantine 
organisms, or were in some way inconsistent with existing rules and regulations, these products 
could undergo disinfection (decontamination) at the destination points or at the border.  In case, if 
regulated products did not undergo decontamination, they would be destroyed or returned to the exporting country.  At the same time, in case quarantine organisms were detected in imported 
products and the exporting country did not ta ke the appropriate measures, Kazakhstan, in 
accordance with paragraph 6 Article 7 of I PPC, reserved the right to apply emergency 
(extraordinary) phytosanitary measures in order to restrict or ban importation of such products. 
Any natural or juridical person could appeal the actions (or inaction) of Government officials 
regarding this issue. 
110.  In reply to a question, the representative of  Kazakhstan clarified that the "appropriate 
information" meant information, presented in the section "Additional declaration" of the 
phytosanitary certificate, confirming that controlled goods were cultivated in the zones and/or 
produced in places free from harmful quarantine organisms as well as information on compliance 
with other phytosanitary requirements of Kazakhstan. 
111.  A Member of the Working Party asked whether, Kazakhstan accepted imports of regulated 
goods from areas affected by certain quarantine pe sts, provided that certain mitigation measures 
were applied, as provided in relevant IPPC recommendations, and, if this was the case, whether 
Kazakhstan had defined which mitigation measures it accepted for each combination of pest and 
commodity.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that mitigation measures were acceptable.  
However currently, normative legal acts of Kazakhstan did not define which mitigation measures 
could be applied in each case.  Kazakhstan confirmed that it was ready to assess mitigation 
measures proposed by exporting countries within a reasonable period of time, as set-out in 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
112.  In urgent situations (outbreak) the author ised body, depending on the phytosanitary 
conditions of the exporting country, could introduce provisional restrictions or bans importation of 
products subject to phytosanitary control.  In such circumstances, the authorised body would 
provide all pertinent information about its actions to the relevant service of the exporting country.  
Where repeated supply of infected products subjec t to phytosanitary control had been registered, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 40 - 
 
  a ban the importation of the relevant product co uld be imposed.  She added that contentious 
issues were normally open for negotiation.   
113.  She noted that, in specific cases, where large amounts of products were imported from 
countries with phytosanitary conditions that had not been adequately examined, the authorised 
body on plant quarantine could send an expert to the exporting country for inspection of the places 
of production, processing, packaging and dispatch of the product.  In addition, goods subject to 
phytosanitary control could only be imported through border checkpoints equipped in accordance 
with Kazakhstan's plant quarantine rules and norms. 
114.  [The representative of Kazakhstan stated that when taking phytosanitary measures, 
Kazakhstan's authorities followed the relevant international practice and provisions established in 
the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement, including conducting a risk assessment.  She confirmed 
that, from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, if the phytosanitary requirements of 
Kazakhstan resulted in a higher level of protecti on than would be achieved by measures based on 
relevant international standards, recommendations or guidelines, Kazakhstan would apply its phytosanitary requirements in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement.  She also confirmed that 
the authorities of Kazakhstan would consult with exporting Members on the measures in question, 
if requested.  Furthermore, from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, if phytosanitary 
requirements applied in Kazakhstan resulted in a higher level of protection than would be achieved 
by measures based on relevant international standards, recommendations or guidelines, 
Kazakhstan would provide explanations of the reasons for such phytosanitary measure, including 
the relevant risk assessment, on a bilateral basis following receipt of a request from an exporting 
Member pursuant to Article 5.8 of the WTO SPS Ag reement.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments]. 
115.  Pursuant to Law No. 331-II "On Plant Protection" of 3 July 2002, pesticides had to undergo 
registration and production trials, carried out by research and other organizations of Kazakhstan; subsequent registration followed in case of favourable trial results .  The tests had to be carried out 
under the control of the territorial branches of the Committee of State Inspection in the 
Agro-Industrial Complex, in accordance with the "Rules on Registration Tests and State 
Registration of Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan" approved by the 
Government Resolution No. 1396 of 30 November 2011.  Registration trials were carried out to 
(i) determine the biological effectiveness of pesticides; and (ii) detect recommended doses and 
methods of use for production purposes, which were intended for Kazakhstan's soil-climatic 
conditions and cultivated crops.  Production trials represented field trials of the recommendations 
that had been elaborated during the registration tr ials.  Registration and production tests took two 
to three years.  The Ministries of Health and En vironment Protection examined pesticides subject 
to registration for the purposes of protection of  human health and the environment.  Pesticides 
included into the Register of Potentially Hazard ous Chemical Substances Prohibited for Use in 
Kazakhstan could not be registered. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 41 - 
 
  (f) Protection of Human Health 
116.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that CU Commission Decision No. 299 
established the "Common List of Goods Subjec t to Sanitary-and-Epidemiologic Supervision 
(Control) at the Customs Border and on the Custom s Territory of the Customs Union" (hereinafter 
– the Common List) (Part I) as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 859 of 9 December 2011 and as last amended by EEC Council Decisions No .115 of 17 December 2012, and established food 
safety requirements for corresponding goods.  Products produced in, or imported into the customs 
territory of the CU for distribution to the population, use in industry, agriculture, civil construction 
development, transportation with direct human in volvement, or for private and household use, had 
to conform to the relevant requirements of sanitary and epidemiological rules, norms, and hygiene 
regulations.  She further explained that the conf ormity to the safety requirements for certain 
groups of goods was to be confirmed by a State Registration certificate, as provided for in 
CU Commission Decisions and domestic law.  The CU Commission had approved a list of goods for 
which State Registration Certificates must be supplied during customs clearance. 
117.  The Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiologi cal Surveillance of the Ministry of Health 
was the authorised body responsible for issues related to sanitary and epidemiological welfare.  
The sanitary and epidemiological service was a single  system consisting of (i) the authorised body 
and its border and territorial branches; and (ii)  organizations of sanitary and epidemiological 
services (the Republican Sanitary and Epidemiological Station, State organizations for sanitary and 
epidemiological expertise).  When developing and approving regulatory acts related to the 
production, importation, turnover, use, and destruction of substances/processes that could 
potentially affect human health, Government agencies sought the consent of the authorised body 
on sanitary and epidemiological welfare.   
118.  In addition to CU regulations, the national legislation in the sanitary sphere was comprised 
of the following acts:  Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 193-IV "On Public health and 
Healthcare System" of 18 September 2009, Law No. 301 "On Food Safety" of 21 July 2007, 
Government Resolution No. 125 "On Approval of the Rules for Assignment of Registration Numbers 
to Entities Producing Food Products" of 11 Fe bruary 2008, Government Resolution No. 2267 "On 
Approval of the Rules for Refusal for Entry, as well as for Production, Use and Sale of Products 
Intended for Human Consumption, on the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as for 
Use in Business and (or) Other Activities" of 30 December 2009. 
119.  [Members expressed concern that during joint inspections CU inspectors requested 
systematic testing results for each lot from all types of exported products, including raw or 
processed, from each visited establishment, prior to export to the CU. The representative Republic 
of Kazakhstan explained that the issue of recognition of monitoring, conducted at the national level 
and at the level of food producing establishment, as an equivalent measure of exporting country 
would be considered during audit of the national control system of exporting countries. According 
to paragraph 43 of the CU Decision 834, national monitoring programs were taken into account in 
the assessment of third countries' guarantees. Furthermore, according to paragraph 51 of the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 42 - 
 
  same Decision, national monitoring programs were  taken into account in on-site inspections of 
exporting establishments. In reply to specific  request of a Member, she explained that the 
Regulation on Joint Inspections did not contain systematic testing requirements for each lot from 
all types of exported products. Paragraph 58 of the Regulation on Joint Inspections stipulated that 
upon arrival to establishment of third country, inspector, among others, had to make analysis on existence of official control and application of production control, such as HACCP, for the purposes 
of ensuring safety of products.] 
120.  Some Members noted that under CU Commission Decisions, the State Registration 
procedure applied only to certain groups of goods included in Part II of the Common List was 
approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 299.  Members requested information on whether 
domestic provisions still applied, and, if so, what  criteria were used for determining that a product 
was marketed for the first time in the territory of the CU or the territory of Kazakhstan. 
121.  In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that national legal acts were 
applied to the extent that they did not contra dict CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 
2010.  Such provisions in national law related to the determination of the competent authority, the 
order of involvement of organizations and expert s into the procedure of State Registration, the 
order of appellation of refusal of State Registra tion, and keeping of the national part of the 
Register of State Registration Certificates.  CU  Commission Decision No. 299 specified the list of 
products subject to State Registration.  Thus, only products listed in CU Commission Decision 
No. 299 were subject to State Registration.  The re presentative of Kazakhstan explained that the 
State Registration procedure applied: 
- only to certain groups of goods, which were listed in points 1 to 11 of Part II of the 
Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control, set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 299 (these include:  mineral water, bottled drinking water 
packaged in containers, tonic beverages, alcoholic beverages; specialised foodstuffs, 
including food products for children, food products for pregnant and nursing women, dietary products; biologically active dietary supplements, raw materials for production of biologically active dietary supplements, organic products; foodstuffs derived from GMO, 
GMO; food additives, flavourings, technologi cal aids including enzymes; and food contact 
material); 
- only if the goods were covered by CN codes listed in the table of Part II to the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Sanitary Contro ls (CU Commission Decision No. 299); and 
- if the goods were manufactured for the first time on the territory of the CU or imported for 
the first time into the CU territory, and no prior State Registration had occurred, or in 
cases where the introduction of CU requirements necessitated the issuance of a new State 
Registration Certificate. 
122.  The representative of Kazakhstan specified that these three cumulative criteria, to 
determine whether a State Registration Certificate was required, were specified in the last 
paragraph of point 11 in Part II to the Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control ("Goods specified in points 1 to 11 of the present Part, included in the 
following comprehensive headings of the FEAC N CU, manufactured for the first time on the 
Customs Union customs territory, as well as imported for the first time to the Customs Union 
customs territory, are subject to State Registration"). JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 43 - 
 
  123.  The State Registration Certificate was issued for a given type of product and was valid for 
exports from the relevant country without time limi tation, provided there had been no violations of 
the regulations during the preceding period.  If th ere were violations found during surveillance at 
the border, the State Registration Certificate could be temporarily revoked.  Applications for 
evaluations were to be submitted to Committee of  State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance 
or its territorial bodies.  State Registration Certificates were valid throughout the entire territory of 
the CU.  For domestically produced products, sanitary and epidemiological surveillance was 
conducted by the territorial authorities of Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance at the stage of distribution of products on the Kazakhstan's domestic market.  
In response to questions from a Member of the Working Party, the representative of Kazakhstan 
stated that the State Registration Certificates for domestic products were also issued for a given 
type of product and were valid for an unlimited  time period.  In her view, the respective 
procedures and requirements did not discriminat e between domestic and imported products.  
The process for issuing a State Registration Certificate could not exceed 30 days after application was received.  If the application was rejected, Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance sent a letter to the applicant explaining  what needed to be changed.  After corrections 
were made, the applicant could re-submit the application. 
124.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at, since 1 July 2010, a State Registration 
Certificate was issued in accordance with the common CU form and was valid throughout the 
customs territory of the CU.  The certificate confirmed that the controlled goods conformed to 
CU Common sanitary and epidemiologic and hygienic requirements.  The period of validity of the 
State Registration Certificate covered the whole pe riod of manufacture or delivery of controlled 
goods to the territory of the Customs Union.  The representative of Kazakhstan further explained 
that the State Registration Certificate was harmon ized among the CU Parties and that each Party 
recognised the right of each other Party to issue this certificate and that a State Registration Certificate would be valid throughout the territory of the CU. 
125.  In response to a specific question, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that the term 
"new products" meant products developed and industrially manufactured for the first time on the 
territory of Kazakhstan and also products imported into the territory of Kazakhstan for the first 
time, i.e., which were not on sale in Kazakhstan before.  The absence of a prior State Registration 
indicated that the product was new to the market of Kazakhstan and State Registration was 
required.  She also explained that the producer, su pplier, or importer could submit an application 
for State Registration of products. 
126.  Some Members noted that points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common List of Goods Subject to 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Control included Non-Food Products, such as disinfectants, cosmetics 
or hazardous chemical substances.  The representative of Kazakhstan clarified that CU Commission 
Decision No. 299 covered the protection of human he alth in general from risks derived from both 
food and non-food products. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 44 - 
 
  127.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that some commodities were also subject to 
mandatory confirmation of conformity to CU requirements.  The list of such commodities, which 
also contained references to quality standards and quality requirements for these products, was 
approved by the Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 620 of 7 April 2011 which 
replaced the list in the CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010, and included the following food and feedstuffs:  (i) canned food products (fish, caviar, seafood); (ii) coffee and 
coffee products; (iii) tea; (iv) sugar (cane and beet); (v) spices; (vi) fat-free dry milk; and 
(vii) feeds for animals, including formula feeds, pre-mixes, protein feed additives, such as oilseeds 
meal and cake, fish meal, protein-vitamin additives, dry milk for feeding and dry milk 
replacements.  Until 1 January 2011, confirmation  of conformity for these food products was 
carried out in accordance with national legislation of each CU Party.  From 1 January 2011, the 
declaration of conformity was provided upon assessment by the certification bodies and testing 
laboratories (centres) included into the Single Register of Certification Bodies and Testing 
Laboratories (centres) of the CU.  With regard to feedstuffs, from 1 July 2010, self-declaration of conformity could be made on the basis of an assessment provided by the producer.  Foreign 
manufacturers, located outside the territory of the CU, could apply for a certificate/declaration of 
conformity that was issued in accordance with national legislation of a CU Party or for a CU 
uniform certificate of conformity, as approved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 
18 June 2010.  The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that references to quality 
standards and quality requirements with regard to products on the List of Commodities Subject to 
Mandatory Confirmation of Conformity would be revised as the CU Parties adopted CU technical 
regulations on specific products.  
128.  She further noted that pursuant to the Regulation of Conduct of State 
Sanitary-Epidemiological Control adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 299, food products 
included into Part II the Common List and produced or imported in the CU territory had to be accompanied with a document confirming safety of the products, i.e. State Registration Certificate, 
issued upon results of testing conducted by the laboratories included into the Common List of 
Certification Bodies and Laboratories of the CU.  Such testing had to be conducted by exporters for 
the purposes of compliance with the Common Sanitary Epidemiological Requirements.  
Food products included into Part I of the Common List but not included into Part II the Common 
List, and produced or imported into CU, had to be accompanied with a document of producer (or 
its authorised supplier) certifying the safety of products.  The representative of Kazakhstan, 
however, noted that these requirements were app lied as an interim system of safety control of 
food products which would gradually be replaced wi th the requirements of technical regulations for 
respective food products.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 45 - 
 
  (g) Compliance of the SPS Regime wi th Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms  
129.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that CU Commission Decision No. 721 
"On Application of International Standards, Recommendations and Guidelines" of 22 June 2011 required that:  in cases in which no mandatory requirements on veterinary, or phytosanitary, or 
sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements, had been established at CU or national level, 
the CU Parties would apply standards, recommendations and guidelines of the OIE, IPPC 
and the Codex Alimentarius respectively.  Simi larly, if CU veterinary, phytosanitary and 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic mandatory requ irements in effect in the territory of the CU 
resulted in a higher level of sanitary and phytosan itary protection than that would be achieved by 
measures based on relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, in the 
absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal, or plant life or health, relevant 
international standards, guidelines, and recommendations, or parts thereof, would be applied, as provided for in the SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
130.  Some Members sought assurances that, pursuant to CU Decision No. 721, in cases where 
a WTO Member officially notified a CU Party that an SPS requirement in force on the CU territory 
was more stringent than the relevant international standard, this international standard was 
immediately applied unless and until such time that a risk assessment, done in accordance with 
international standards, was provided. 
131.  In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that in cases where a WTO Member 
officially notified a CU Party that an SPS requirement in force on the CU territory was more 
stringent than an international standard, the relevant international standards or parts thereof were 
applied by the CU Party unless and until scientific justification of risk was provided, as stipulated in 
the SPS Agreement. She further stated that the CU Party would reply within a reasonable period of 
time to the Member that either the internationa l standard applied or provide relevant scientific 
justification.  
132.  The representative of Kazakhstan informed Members of the Working Party that the 
CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "On Harmonization of CU Legal Acts 
in the Field of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures with International Standards" as 
amended by CU Commission Decision No. 722 of 22 June 2011.  According to the Decision, CU SPS 
measures that, after examination, were recognised as more stringent than international standards, 
without scientific justification for such restriction or risk to human, animal or plant life or health 
would be brought into conformity with international standards.  She noted that foreign governments could bring measures to the attention of the CU Parties and participate in the 
examination.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 46 - 
 
  133.  The representative further informed Members of  the Working Party that in connection with 
implementation of CU Commission Decision No. 625, EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 
6 November 2012 approved the Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of Carrying Out Examination 
of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere  of Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures", which had replaced CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the 
implementation procedure was unnecessarily burdensome and lengthy.   
134.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the CU would apply MRLs on 
chlorothalonil, clofentezine, cyprodinil, kresoxim -methyl, iprodione, propamocarb, pirimicarb, 
thiabendazole, carbendazim, famoxadone, copper compounds, and lambda cyhalothrin that 
corresponded to international standards in confor mity with the WTO SPS Agreement no later than 
the date of the accession of [Kazakhstan][the first CU party to the WTO], and that these MRLs 
would be set-out in CU acts.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
135.  A Member of the Working Party noted that the harmonization process for MRLs of 
veterinary drugs should also include elimination of non-tolerance or very low tolerance in food of 
veterinary substances when these substances are authorised in use in Kazakhstan/CU under 
similar conditions to those in place in exporting countries.  
136.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that certain standards for some veterinary 
drugs had been harmonised with international standards by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 
of 9 December 2011. [Currently, the results of th e previous risk assessments were being revisited 
within the framework of the works on harmonization of MRLs for remaining veterinary drugs. 
The results of the risk assessment carried out by a CU Party were published on the official web-
sites of the national competent bodies.][The harmonisation of remaining MRLs for veterinary drugs 
[XXX] was currently in process and would be comple ted by the date of Kazakhstan’s accession to 
the WTO, unless the risk assessment justifying a more stringent standard has been conducted. The Working Party took note of this commitment]]. 
137.  As regards maximum levels for contaminants, the representative of Kazakhstan informed 
Members that maximum levels for nitrates in lettuce and cadmium in poppy seeds had been 
reviewed and revised in accordance with international recommendations and set-out in 
amendments to the Unified Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirements set in CU Commission 
Decision No. 299.   
138.  [Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhst an confirmed that as of the date of the 
accession of [Kazakhstan] [the first CU party to  the WTO], the maximum levels of nitrates would 
be revised in accordance with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines.  The Working Party took note of this commitment]. 
139.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated that radio nuclide levels and microbiological 
standards were being revised in accordance with  international recommendations.  The proposals JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 47 - 
 
  would be transmitted to the CU Commission in due course to avoid inconsistency with international 
standards [by the date of accession of Kazakhstan to  the WTO] [as of the date of the first CU party 
to the WTO].   
140.  Some Members expressed concerns about CU MRLs for tetracyclines that were much more 
stringent than international standards and no justification for these stringent requirements in the form of a risk assessment and scientific justification consistent with international standards and 
recommendations had been provided.  These Members requested that Kazakhstan and other 
CU Parties apply the Codex standards for MRLs for tetracyclines.  These Members noted that some 
form of risk assessment had been published at http://fcrisk.ru/node/652 . They had expressed 
concern regarding the timing and procedures fo llowed and had commented that this assessment 
was not conducted in accordance with internatio nal standards.  Members of the Working Party 
noted that the harmonization process for MRLs of veterinary drugs should also include elimination 
of non-tolerance or very low tolerance in food of veterinary substances when these substances are 
authorised in use in the Customs Union under similar conditions to those in place in exporting countries.  Finally, these Members recalled CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 on 
Harmonization with International Standards and CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 
and requested that Kazakhstan fully and implement these Decisions. 
141.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan was in the process of conducting 
a risk assessment in accordance with international standards for MRLs on tetracycline. 
142.  One Member requested Kazakhstan to confirm that, in application of Article 3.1 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, Kazakhstan would review al l of its existing sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures to ensure that, by the date of accession, they were based on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations or, in the ev ent that Kazakhstan or the Customs Union 
considered that international standards did not meet  its appropriate level of protection, they were 
scientifically justified in accordance with Articl e 3.3 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  In cases where 
relevant scientific evidence was insufficient, he requested that Kazakhstan confirm that it would 
comply with Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
143.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession, in 
application of Article 3.1 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent, all sanitary and phytosanitary measures, 
whether adopted by Kazakhstan or the compet ent bodies of the CU, would be based on 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations as provided for in the WTO Agreement.  
Further, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that measures which were not based on 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations, where they exist, would not be applied 
in Kazakhstan without providing Members a scientifically based justification of the measures, in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 3.3.  In cases where relevant scientific 
evidence was insufficient, he confirmed that any measure adopted, whether by Kazakhstan or the 
competent bodies of the CU would comply with the WTO SPS Agreement, in particular with Article 
5.7 thereof.  In the event that international standards were not considered to meet the appropriate 
level of protection, Kazakhstan would provide scientific justification for measures applied in JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 48 - 
 
  Kazakhstan, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took 
note of these commitments.] 
- (ii) Risk Assessment 
144.  With regard to risk assessments, some Memb ers emphasized the need, in conformity with 
the WTO SPS Agreement, to comply with international standards, recommendations and guidelines for conducting and reviewing risk assessments.  They noted the relevance and applicability of 
Codex standards:  CAC/GL-62-2007-Working Princi ples for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for 
Application by National Government and CAC/GL/30-1999-Principles and Guidelines for the 
Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessmen ts, and the FAO document; and WHO-EHC-240.5-
Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of  Chemicals In Food, Chapter 2 - Risk Assessment 
and its Role in Risk Analysis.  In the view of these Members, a risk assessment should be limited 
to an examination of the measure already in place or favoured by the importing country.  It should 
not be distorted by preconceived views on the nature and the content of the measure to be taken, 
nor should it develop into an exercise tailored to and carried out for the purpose of justifying decisions ex post facto. 
145.  In the view of these Members, the conduct of  a risk assessment, whether for a biological, 
chemical, or physical food safety hazard, was one part of a broader effort to describe the relevance 
and understanding of scientific-based decisions.  The analysis of risk allowed regulatory officials to 
focus finite resources on those hazards that posed the greatest risk to human health protection.  
Risk assessment provided a framework for evaluating food safety hazards relevant to the national 
context, predicting the likelihood of exposure to those hazards, and estimating the resulting public 
health impact associated with a wide variety of variables.  Experts involved in risk assessment, 
including government officials and subject matter experts from outside government must be 
objective in their scientific work and not be subject to any conflict of interest that may compromise 
the integrity of the assessment.  These experts should be selected in a transparent manner on the basis of their expertise and their independence with regard to the interests involved, including 
disclosure of conflicts of interest in connection wi th risk assessment.  Elements of an effective 
assessment and analysis of that assessment needed to include a public process for seeking input 
on the design of the risk assessment, documentat ion of those decisions, and then ensuring that 
the public has access to the documentation.  A peer review process whereby subject matter 
experts provide critical analysis of the design features and the assumption made was 
recommended.  Such contributions through the peer review and public process could improve 
transparency, increase the quality of the analysis, and facilitate risk communication by increasing 
the credibility and acceptance of the results.  Ther e needed to be a formal record of all decisions 
associated with the risk assessment and which woul d be made available to interested independent 
parties so that other risk assessors could repeat and critique the work.  The formal record and 
summary should indicate any constraints, uncertain ties, assumptions, and their impact on the risk 
assessment.  Members sought assurances from Ka zakhstan that these internationally recognized 
principles and recommendations would be used in  risk assessments for SPS measures adopted and 
applied in the Republic of Kazakhstan.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 49 - 
 
  146.  The representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that the CU Commission had adopted a 
Decision "On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary, or Phytosanitary Measures and Conduct of Risk 
Assessment, CU Commission Decision No. 835 of  18 October 2011 (hereinafter - "Decision on 
Equivalence and Risk Assessment").  Under this Decision, CU Parties were required, consistent 
with Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement, to ensure that sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary measures were based on an assessment, as appr opriate to the circumstances, of the risks to 
human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by 
the relevant international organizations, including Codex, OIE, and the IPPC.  She further 
explained that the CU requirements for conducting risk assessments corresponded to the 
provisions of Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement,  including a requirement that, as provided in 
Article 5.3 of the WTO SPS Agreement, in assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and 
determining the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary, veterinary 
or phytosanitary protection from such risk, the CU Parties would take into account as relevant 
economic factors:  the potential damage in terms of  loss of production or sales in the event of the 
entry, establishment or spread of a pest or dise ase, the costs of control or eradication in the 
territory of the Parties, and the relative cost-effe ctiveness of alternative approaches to limiting 
risks.  
147.  Some Members of the Working Party noted the requirement applied to certain goods on 
the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control that imports come from establishments 
on the Registry, as described in paragraph [46].  These Members expressed concern that applying 
this requirement to certain of the products on the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary 
Control was not based on science or a risk assessment.  In addition, there could also be a 
requirement for an establishment to be included in  the Register prior to being permitted to export 
products to the territory of the CU where a veterinary certificate, import permit and State 
Registration which appeared to be more trade rest rictive than required to achieve the appropriate 
level of protection of the CU.  Moreover, these Members recalled their concerns about the absence 
of risk assessments and science to justify measures maintained by the CU and Kazakhstan that 
were more stringent than international standards, guidelines, and recommendations. 
148.  In response to the request of a Member to provide information on the risk assessment 
bodies involved in evaluation of risk, the repr esentative of Kazakhstan listed the following 
institutions: 
1) in the sphere of veterinary: 
- Kazakh Scientific Research veterinary Institute; 
- Republican veterinary laboratory; 
- National reference Center in veterinary; 
- KazAgroInnovation; and 
- Scientific Research Institute for Biological Safety Problems 
2) in the sphere of phytosanitary: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 50 - 
 
  - Scientific Institute of Plant Protection and Quarantine; 
- Republican Plant Quarantine Laboratory; 
- Republican Methodological Center of Phytosanitary Diagnostics and Prognosis; and 
- state enterprise "Phytosanitary" 
3) in the sphere of food safety: 
- National Scientific and Practical Centre of Sanitary and Epidemiological Expertise 
and Monitoring; 
- Kazakh Food Academy; and 
- Kazakh Scientific Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology . 
149.  A Member asked for confirmation that risk assessment is carried out prior to the 
introduction of a restriction on imports into the CU/Kazakhstan and that Kazakhstan/the CU will 
provide this risk assessment to the exporting count ry affected by the restrictions upon request. 
In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that pursuant to Article 11 of the EurAsEC 
Agreement on Coordinated Policy in the Sphere of  Technical Regulation, Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures, SPS measures were developed and applied on the basis of scientific 
justification and risk assessment results. Pursuant to paragraph 2, Article 26-1 of the Law 
"On Veterinary", veterinary measures had to be based on scientific justification, objective risk 
assessment or international standards. The repres entative confirmed that risk assessment was 
conducted prior to implementation of introduction  of restriction to imports and would provide the 
results of risk assessment upon request of ex porting country, as provided for in the WTO 
Agreement. 
150.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession of [the first 
CU Party to the WTO] [Kazakhstan], goods woul d be included on the Common List of Goods 
Subject to Veterinary Control in Kazakhstan only if application of veterinary measures was in 
compliance with international standards, guidelines  and recommendations, or if science and a risk 
assessment justified, consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement, subjecting a category of goods to 
veterinary measures.  Similarly, the veterinary me asures applied to each category of goods would 
also be in compliance with international standards, recommendations and guidelines or based on 
science and a risk assessment.  Furthermore, the representative confirmed that Kazakhstan would 
remove products from the List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control by the date of [its accession 
to the WTO][the accession of the first CU Party to the WTO], if a risk assessment or scientific 
justification had not been provided.  Moreover, th e representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
risk assessments would be conducted in accordance with the methods of scientific evaluation set 
by the Codex Alimentarius.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
- (iii) Regionalization 
151.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that  Kazakh officials widely used the principle 
of regionalization, as defined in the WTO SPS Ag reement, when deciding to take a measure.  
The Common Veterinary Requirements (each chapter) adopted by the CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 of 18 June 2010 stipulated that the regionalization principle was recognized.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 51 - 
 
  The procedures for carrying out regionalization in the sphere of applying veterinary measures were 
in accordance with the OIE Code (Chapter 4.3. OIE, 2011).  Kazakh legislation in the plant 
quarantine sphere was based on IPPC provisions and international standards on phytosanitary 
measures.  Accordingly, regionalization applied to  all imported regulated products.  Phytosanitary 
certificates were issued in the exporting country  by agencies of the official National Plant 
Protection Organization.  Regional characteristics were a factor for the purposes of devising 
phytosanitary measures for use in a particular region. 
152.  The representative of Kazakhstan added that procedures for carrying out regionalization in 
the sphere of applying veterinary measures were  in accordance with the OIE Code. The compliance 
of veterinary measures with OIE standards was accomplished through Common Veterinary 
Requirements and the Law No. 339-II "On Veterinary" of 10 July 2002. 
153.  She further stated that the principle of regionalization was applied in full accordance with 
provisions of IPPC and ISPM Nos. 1, 4, 10, 14, an d 29.  This had to be respected, including in the 
formulation of veterinary and phytosanitary certificates. 
- (iv) Equivalence 
154.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the appropriate level of protection was 
determined by the CU bodies with regard to sanitary and veterinary measures and by each 
CU Party on the national level with regard to phytosanitary measures, and were reflected in 
technical regulations for products produced on the territory of the CU and individual CU Parties, 
respectively.  Furthermore, the representative re called that the CU Commission had adopted CU 
Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", which 
provided:  
- for CU Parties to recognise equivalence if an exporting country objectively demonstrated 
that its measures achieved the appropriate level of sanitary or veterinary protection of the 
CU or the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection of an individual CU Party;  
- the procedure to follow as regards consultations with the exporting country(ies) and 
relevant information to be provided by the exporting country(ies);  
- procedural and substantive requirements as  regards the judgement on recognition of 
equivalence; and 
- the possibility of inspection, testing or audit in the exporting country(ies) upon a request 
by the CU Parties.   
155.  In addition, under the CU Commission Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", 
CU Parties committed to apply the same approach to requests for national recognition of 
equivalence in the phytosanitary field addressed to individual CU Parties.  He also noted that the 
CU Commission Decision "On Equivalence and Risk  Assessment" provided for the possibility for 
exporting countries to request equivalence recognition by the CU or its Parties (depending on 
respective competences) of their control or inspection systems.  He explained that CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equiva lence and Risk Assessment", and all procedures 
necessary to apply this Decision, would be in effect prior to the date of accession of Kazakhstan to JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 52 - 
 
  the WTO.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated  that, the CU Decision "On Equivalence and Risk 
Assessment" foresaw the following procedure: 
- submission of a request for equivalence recogn ition to a competent authority of a CU Party, 
including, inter alia , information on the type and scope of equivalence agreement requested, 
description of product(s), measure(s) or system(s) of control and inspections concerned, an 
evaluation of how the measure(s) or system (s) of the exporting country achieved the 
appropriate level of protection of the CU or a CU Party, and information on the feasibility and 
performance of the measure(s); 
- interactions between the CU Party and the exporting country in the context of the 
determination of equivalence; 
- prior to taking a decision on equivalence, the CU Party would, upon request, provide to the 
requesting exporting country an explanation of the CU's or its level of protection; and 
- notification by the CU Commission or a CU Party to the exporting country of its judgement 
as regards recognition of equivalence in a timely manner and with appropriate explanation 
where it was found that the measure was not equivalent. 
156.  Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan specified that, in applying this 
CU Commission Decision, CU Parties would follow international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations developed by the relevant international organizations, including the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics and the relevant 
international and regional organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant 
Protection Convention.  Members noted that, as set-out in the Decision of the WTO SPS 
Committee, the importing Member had certain responsibilities:  to provide an explanation of the 
objective and rationale of the sanitary or phytosan itary measure and identify clearly the risks that 
the relevant measure intended to address.  Moreover, the importing Member should indicate the 
appropriate level of protection which its sanitary or phytosanitary measure was designed to achieve and should provide a copy of the risk a ssessment on which the sanitary or phytosanitary 
measure was based.  As stated in the WTO Committee Decision, an importing Member was to 
consider the relevant information and experience that the sanitary and phytosanitary services had 
on the measure(s) for which recognition of equivalence was requested.  A key element for 
consideration was the historic knowledge and confidence that the competent authority of the 
importing Member had of the competent authority of the exporting Member.   
157.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan, from the date of its 
accession to the WTO, would ensure compliance with Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  
He further confirmed that, as provided for in Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement, sanitary, 
veterinary, and phytosanitary measures of other Members, even when they were different from 
measures of the Kazakhstan or the CU, would be accepted as equivalent, if the exporting country 
objectively demonstrated that its measures achieved the appropriate level of SPS protection 
applied in Kazakhstan.  The representative also confirmed that, as of the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, procedures for recognition and determination of equivalence, consistent 
with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 4 thereof, whether applied by Kazakhstan or 
competent bodies of the CU, would be based on re levant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, namely the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee (G/SPS/19/Rev.2), 
Codex Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food 
Inspection and Certification Systems (CAC/GL 53-2003), Codex Guidelines for the Development of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 53 - 
 
  Equivalence Agreements Regarding Food Import an d Export Inspection and Certification Systems 
(CAC/GL 34-1999); Chapter 5.3 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code "OIE Procedures 
Relevant to the Agreement on the Application of  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the 
World Trade Organization" and ISPM 24 "Guidelines for the Determination and Recognition of 
Equivalence of Phytosanitary Measures".  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
- (v) Non-discrimination 
158.  Some Members also requested clarification of whether SPS measures applied in 
Kazakhstan established similar treatment for domestic and foreign like products.  
The representative of Kazakhstan stated that, in her view, non-discriminatory treatment was 
provided by the current legislation of Kazakhstan and CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, 
and other CU Acts.  CU Agreements, CU Commissi on Decisions and other CU Acts did not set-out 
separate SPS measures for imported goods.  Sanitary-epidemiological, veterinary and 
phytosanitary rules, criteria, measures and requirements were applied uniformly and without 
discrimination to all foreign, CU, and domestic products and suppliers.  She stated that SPS requirements were implemented with respect to goods originating from foreign countries in the 
same way, they were applied in respect of similar products of Kazakh origin.  CU Agreements, 
CU Commission Decisions, and other CU Acts, as well as the current legislation of Kazakhstan in 
the veterinary/sanitary sphere (Article 23 of the Law of Republic of Kazakhstan "On Veterinary") 
were uniform and established identical requirements for both foreign, CU, and domestic goods and 
manufacturers, including requirements for putting products on the domestic market.  
Finally, phytosanitary requirements applied to regulated products originating from a foreign 
country in the same manner as they applied to the same regulated products of Kazak origin. 
159.  Non-discrimination principle was ensured in Paragraphs 133, 142 and 153 of the 
Regulation on Joint Inspections stipulating the sa me requirements to the laboratory testing of 
imported and domestic products. 
160.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that all SPS measures developed and applied 
in Kazakhstan, whether by Kazakhstan or compet ent bodies of the CU, would comply with the 
non-discrimination provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement, including those relating to the principles 
of national and most-favoured nation treatmen t.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.] 
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations 
161.  With regard to the transparency requirements of the SPS Agreement, the representative of 
Kazakhstan said that a single TBT/SPS enquiry point had been in operation since July 2005.  
The enquiry point notified WTO Members of SPS measures in effect, as well as on measures that were still in preparation.  The enquiry point upon receipt notifications from the WTO Secretariat, 
EurAzEC member states and other international organizations published them quarterly in the 
official publication of the authorised body (Bul letin of the Enquiry Point) and monthly in the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 54 - 
 
  common information system (www.memst.kz or www.wto.memst.kz).  No tifications would be 
prepared in accordance with the "Rules and Procedures for Preparation of Notifications on Pending 
(Being Adopted) Technical Regulations and Standards".  These rules had been developed in line 
with the notification provisions of the SPS and TB T Agreements and ensured that notifications took 
place at an early stage when comments could be taken into account and prior to the adoption and enforcement of these proposed regulations.  The Enquiry Point could be contacted at: 
Address: Orynbor, 11 
  Left Bank   010000 Astana 
  Republic of Kazakhstan 
 Telephone: +(771) 7222 6482 
Tel/fax:  +(771) 7220 5640 
E-mail:  enquirypoint@mail.ru Website: www.wto.memst.kz 
162.  A Working Party Member asked the representative of Kazakhstan to clarify as to whether 
the phrase "get familiar with intention" in paragraph 2.3 of the Rules of Completion and 
Submission of WTO Notifications included the opportunity to comment.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that in general, the scope of th e Rules is only the methodology of filing of SPS 
notifications.  The possibility to comment was pr ovided in the Government Resolution No. 718 of 
11 July 2005 as last amended in September 2010.  In particular, paragraph 11 provided that the 
Enquiry Point, upon request of the WTO Secretariat, EurAsEC members and other international 
organizations had to present information (clarifications), standards, conformity assessment 
procedures, and other SPS measures.  
163.  This Member, with regard to provision 2.8 and the Order included in the Annexes, noted 
that the Order was very similar to the notification format used for notifications under the SPS and 
TBT Agreements; however, there were some differences.  For instance, the Order did not include a 
section for the comment deadline.  In this regard, this Member enquired why Kazakhstan developed its own format instead of using the formats developed by the SPS and TBT Committees.  
In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan said that the mentioned notification format was related 
to notifications on emergency measures in technical regulations, SPS measures, or amendments to 
them.  The purpose of such notifications was to inform interested WTO Members about urgent 
measures, implemented in order to protect human and animal life and health, ensure plant and/or 
environment protection.  She emphasised that emergency notification forms developed by the 
WTO SPS and TBT Committees do not have a section for comment deadline.  The regular 
n o t i f i c a t i o n  f o r m a t  –  a l s o  i n c l u d e d  i n  A n n e x  1  o f  t h e  R u l e s  o f  C o m p l e t i o n  a n d  S u b m i s s i o n  –  
contained the section for the comment deadline.  
164.  This Member commented that with regards to the operation of the enquiry point, one of 
the issues discussed by WTO Members in the Committee was the importance of inter-agency 
coordination.  The enquiry point for both SPS and TBT was established in the Committee on 
Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Ministry of Industry and New Technology (MEMST).  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 55 - 
 
  In this regard, this Working Party Member asked how MEMST would coordinate with other agencies 
involved in developing SPS measures.  
165.  The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the SPS/TBT Enquiry Point was established 
by the Government Resolution No. 718 of 11 Ju ly 2005, which authorised the Enquiry Point to 
coordinate the Ministries Agriculture and Health on the issues of SPS notifications, including responding comments from WTO Members.  Pursuant to this Resolution, Government agencies 
(including the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Healthcare) provided appropriate information 
to the Enquiry Point upon adoption and application of TBT and SPS measures within the two-days 
time-limit in order to send such information to the WTO Secretariat, EurAsEC member states and 
other international organizations.   
166.  In reply to a specific question, the representa tive of Kazakhstan clarified that the SPS/TBT 
Enquiry Point forwarded all the comments on draft SPS measures received from WTO Members to 
a relevant competent authority responsible for developing the SPS measure at issue. 
The competent authority, in turn, sent the comments to the EEC for their consideration within the working groups. 
167.  She added that, pursuant to Government Resolution No. 1627 of 30 October 2000, the 
Ministry of Agriculture had established an Inform ation Marketing System to enhance transparency 
through regular exchange of analytical marketing information between agricultural producers, 
public bodies, and other participants on the agricultural market; and through enhanced interaction 
with international organizations.  All relevant drafts, amended and final SPS and (agriculture-
related) TBT regulations and rules were available from the Ministry's website, www.minagri.gov.kz 
as well as from www.memst.kz.  Al l interested parties could send  questions and comments to the 
Ministry at strategy@minagri.kz.  The Enquiry Poin t also published a quarterly bulletin of all draft 
amended and final SPS measures.  The Ministry of Agriculture issued an analytical bulletin 
"Agroinform", which contained all legal acts, approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, including legislation on veterinary, quarantine and plant protection.  In addition, the State sanitary and 
epidemiological control system maintained a regularly updated database on the incidence of 
infectious diseases and on the results of random laboratory tests of drinking water and food 
products.  This information was available to all interested parties.   
168.  In response to a question from a Member regarding the existence of a process for public 
participation in the development of rules and regulations, she said that Law No. 124-III 
"On Private Entrepreneurship" of 31 January 2006 provided for the participation of the private 
sector in the development of regulatory acts that would affect the interests of private 
entrepreneurs.  In her view, the provisions of th is law ensured that the public could put forward 
proposals for the consideration of the relevant authorised body.  Besides, in accordance with the 
above-mentioned law, a draft law had to be ex amined by accredited Business Associations.  
In response to specific questions, the representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan's 
legislation contained no restrictions on foreign participation in the development of sanitary and 
phytosanitary standards (e.g. participation in technical committees meetings, providing JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 56 - 
 
  comments).  Proposals and comments should be submitted through the enquiry point.  
Furthermore, the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012, which replaced the 
Customs Union Commission Decision No. 319 as amended by CU Commission No. 625 of 
7 April 2011, provided for publication of CU draft SP S measures with a public comment period of at 
least 60 days. Within this period, any interested party could submit its comments on the drafts. 
169.  Members noted that many comments on draft technical regulations had been provided to 
the CU Parties and institutions through the public consultation mechanism. Members were 
concerned that few of the submitted comments had resulted in modifications to the final adopted 
technical regulations, even in cases where the comments noted discrepancies with international 
standards or suggested alternative approaches more aligned with the international standards and 
facilitating trade. These Members therefore soug ht assurances that meaningful consideration 
would be given to comments and that the mechanisms provided by CU Commission Decision No. 
625 for aligning with international standards would be fully implemented. 
170.  The representative of Kazakhstan said that EEC Collegium Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012 
had approved a new Regulation on Development, Adoption, Amending and Cancellation of 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union. Pursuant to the Decision, a table of comments and 
proposals resulting from public consultation with corresponding answers was published on the 
CU official website. She further clarified that  Mechanism of aligning CU SPS measures with 
international standards provided by CU Commissio n Decision No. 625, have been implemented by 
EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 6 November 2012 "On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of 
Carrying Out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures", which had replaced CU Commission Decision 
No. 801 of 23 September 2011. 
171.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would notify its 
SPS notification authority and enquiry point to the WTO SPS Committee, [including CU and EurAsEC documents related to SPS measures [as provided for in the SPS Agreement]].  
SPS measures, including those relating to inspection, were published in publications, such as those 
mentioned in paragraph [167].  Information on all proposed SPS measures and those in effect, as 
foreseen in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement, co uld also be obtained from the SPS notification 
authority or from Kazakhstan's SPS enquiry point.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.] 
(i) Proportionality, Nece ssity, and Reasonableness 
172.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that SPS measures applied by 
Kazakhstan and other CU Parties to exports to Kazakhstan were not always proportionate to the risk identified.  These Members gave the following examples of measures that were 
disproportionate or otherwise inconsistent with international rules:   
- the list of goods subject to veterinary control included goods that did not represent a 
veterinary or sanitary risk which would justify submitting these goods to requirements for JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
 
- 57 - 
 
  listing establishments on the Common Register, State Registration, import permits, and 
veterinary certificate requirements;  
- imposition of trade restrictive measures, such as suspension of establishments or 
mandatory pre-export testing, were not re viewed and eliminated after food safety 
standards had been harmonized with international standards or when steps had been 
taken to address food safety issues;  
- inspectors requesting exporting establishments to show the results of monitoring of 
residues of veterinary medicinal products in processed products in addition to the 
monitoring carried out on the raw materials;  
- CU Parties not using residue monitoring plans as a tool to manage the risk of exposure, as 
foreseen in Codex guidelines, but requesting pre-export tests;  
- CU Parties requesting systematic inspections of plant nurseries before allowing export to 
Kazakhstan of plants for planting, in absence of basis foreseen by the IPPC to have such 
preliminary inspection; and  
- overly detailed and unnecessary requirements of inspectors during inspections.   
These Members recalled that the principles of pr oportionality, necessity and reasonableness were 
enshrined in a number of Articles of the WTO SPS Ag reement, such as Articles 2.1, 2.2, 5.3, 5.4, 
5.6 and Annex C thereof, and that, in their view, Kazakhstan should also modify its practices to 
make them more proportionate to the risks and reasonable.   
173.  [In response to these concerns, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that all 
SPS measures, whether adopted by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU, would be 
applied in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreement.   In particular these SPS measures would be 
applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and would be 
not more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or 
phytosanitary protection of the CU and Kazakhst an.  Finally, when determining the appropriate 
level of sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary protection, Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of 
the CU, would take into account the objective to minimize negative trade effects in accordance 
with the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
(j)  Conclusion 
174.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, all SPS measures would be developed, whether by Kazakhstan or the 
competent bodies of the CU, and applied in Kaza khstan in accordance with the WTO Agreement 
and in particular, the WTO SPS Agreement.  In particular, SPS measures would be applied only to 
the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health; would be based on scientific 
principles and, where they exist, on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations; 
and, would not be more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of 
protection applied in Kazakhstan.  SPS measures would not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate 
between Members where identical or similar conditio ns prevail, including between the territory of 
Kazakhstan and that of other Members.  SPS measures would not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade, and would not be maintained 
without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS 
Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 58 - Table [...] - List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0101 Live horses, donkeys, mules and hinnies  Veterinary certificate or 
veterinary passport for sport horses Yes No 
0102 Live cattle Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0103 Live swine Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0104 Live sheep and goats Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0105 Live poultry, i.e. chicken ( Gallus domesticus ), ducks, 
geese, turkey and guinea fowl Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0106 Other live animals(1) Veterinary certificate, except 
for two or less dogs or cats for personal needs For two or less dogs or cats for personal needs – veterinary certificate or veterinary passport Yes, except for two 
or less dogs or cats for personal needs No 
0201 Fresh and refrigerated cattle meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0202 Frozen cattle meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0203 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen swine  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0204 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen lamb or goat's meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0205 00 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat of horses, donkeys, 
mules or hinnies  Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0206 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen food by-products of cattle, 
swine, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys, mules and hinnies  Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0207 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat and by-products of 
poultry, stated in product item 0105 Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0208 Other fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat and food by-
products  Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0209 00 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen, salted*, in brine*, dried* 
or smoked swan fat, separated from the lean meat, and poultry fat, not melted or otherwise extracted Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0210 Meat and food by-products salted*, in brine*, dried* or 
smoked*; flour from meat or meat by-products* Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0301 Live fish Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0302 Live or refrigerated fish, except filleted fish and other 
fish of product item 0304  Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0303 Frozen meat, except filleted fish and fish of product item  Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0304 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen filleted fish and other fish 
(including mincemeat)  Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0305 Dried, salted or in brine fish; hot smoke or cold smoke 
fish; fish flour of fine grin ding and meal and granules, 
ready for consumption* Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 59 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0306 Shellfish in shell or without shell, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried*, salted* or in brine*; crustaceans in shell, 
steamed* or boiled*, chille d or non-refrigerated, frozen 
, dried*, salted* or in brine*; Flours of fine grinding and 
meals and pellets of crustaceans, ready for 
consumption* Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0307 Mussels in shell or without shell, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried*, salted* or in brine*; other aquatic invertebrates, different fro m crustaceans and mollusks, 
live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dr ied*, salted* or in brine*; 
Flours of fine grinding, meals and pellets of other 
aquatic invertebrates, ready for consumption* Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0401 Raw milk and raw cream, not concentrated and without 
sugar-added or other sweetening substances Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
0402 Milk and cream, concentrated and with added sugar or 
other sweetening substances* Veterinary certificate Yes Measur e to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0403 Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yogurt, kefir and 
other fermented or acidified milk and cream, concentrated or unconcentrate d, with or without added 
sugar or other sweeteners in flavored or without them, 
with or without the additional fruits, nuts or cocoa * Veterinary certificate Yes Measur e to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0404 Whey, concentrated or unconcentrated, with or without 
added sugar or other sweetening matter; products made 
of natural components of milk, with or without added sugar or other sweetening substances, elsewhere not specified or included * Veterinary certificate Yes Measur e to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to 
the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 60 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0405 Butter and other fats and oils, made from milk; dairy 
pastas* 
 Veterinary certificate Yes Measur e to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers 
of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0406 Cheese and cottage cheese* Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0407 00 Birds' eggs in shell, fresh, canned* or boiled* 
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is required  only for processed egg products. 
0408 Birds' eggs without shell an d egg yolks, fresh, dried, 
steamed* or boiled in hot water*, molded*, frozen or 
preserved otherwise*, with or without added sugar or 
other sweetening substances Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
0409 00 000 0 Natural honey  Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan No 
0410 00 000 0 Food products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified 
or included Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0502 Bristles pork or Cabaña; badger or other hair, used in 
production of brushes; their waste Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 61 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0504 00 000 0 Guts, bladders and stomachs of animals (except fish), 
whole or in pieces, fresh, chille d, frozen, salted, in brine, 
dried or smoked Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers 
of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0505 Skins and other parts of birds with feathers or down, 
feathers and parts of feathers  (cut or uncut edges) and 
down, cleaned, disinfected or  treated for storage, but 
not further prepared; powder and waste of feathers or 
their parts Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0506 Bones and horn-core, raw, low-fat, dominated by 
primary treatment (without shaping), treated with acid or degelatinised; powder an d waste of these products Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0507 Ivory, tortoise-shell, whalebone or other marine 
mammals, horns, antlers, hooves, nails, claws and 
beaks, unworked or subjecte d to primary processing 
without shaping; powder an d waste of these products Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0510 00 000 0 Ambergris, castoreum , civet and musk; cantharides; 
bile, whether or not dried;  glands and other animal 
products used in the preparation of pharmaceutical products, fresh, chilled, froze n or otherwise provisionally 
preserved Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0511 Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included; dead animals of 01 or 03 group, unfit for 
human consumption Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
0511 99 809 2 Horse hair and its waste, including in the form of 
paintings on the substrate or with or without it Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
from 0511, from 9601, from 9705 00 000 0 Hunting trophies, stuffed animals, including pasting 
through taxidermist processing or canned Veterinary certificate only 
for unprocessed hunting trophies No for trophies, which passed the full taxidermic processing. Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but the name of the taxidermic manufacto ry (shop) where 
the first processing was made or hunting farm  should be indicated in 
the import permit and in the 
veterinary certificate when these are required   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 62 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1001 10 000 0 (only feed grain)** Hard wheat Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1001 90 990 0 (only feed grain)** Soft wheat  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1002 00 000 0 (only feed grain)** Rye  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1003 00 900 0 (only feed grain)** Barley  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1004 00 000 0 (only feed grain)** Oats  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1005 90 000 0 (only feed grain)** Other corn Veteri nary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1201 00 900 0 (only feed grain)** Soybeans  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1208** Flour of fine grinding and meals of seeds or fruits of oilseeds (except mustard seed s), used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1211** Plants and their parts (including seeds and fruits), used 
in insecticidal or similar purposes, or in veterinary 
medicine, fresh or dried, whole or chopped, crushed or ground Veterinary certificate, only  
when declaring for use in veterinary, including for animal feed Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1212 99 700 0 Others (bee-bread, ambrosia)  Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1213 00 000 0** Straw and chaff of grain, raw, chopped or 
uncomminuted, beaten or not milled, pressed or in the form of granules Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 63 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1214** Swede, beet leaf (Swiss ch ard), root feeding, hay, 
alfalfa, clover, sainfoin, fo rage kale, lupi nes, vetches 
and similar forage products , granular or granulated Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1301 90 900 0 Others (Propolis) Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1501 00 Swine fat (including lard) and poultry fat, except fat of 
product item 0209 or 1503 Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for food and feed without disinfection process Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
1502 00 Fat of cattle, sheep or goats, except fat of product item 
1503 Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for food and feed without disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1503 00 Lard stearin, lard oil, oleostearin, oleo- oil and tallow oil, 
not emulsified or mixed or otherwise prepared Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1504 Fats, oils and their fractions, from fish or marine 
mammals, whether or not re fined, but not chemically 
modified Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for food and feed without disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1505 00 Wool grease and fatty substances derived therefrom 
(including lanolin) Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for food and feed without disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1506 00 000 0 Other animal fats and oils an d their fractions, whether or 
not refined, but without altering chemical composition Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for food and feed without disinfection process Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1516 10 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, 
partly or wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidinized,  whether or not refined but 
not further prepared Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for food and feed without disinfection process Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1516 20** Fats and vegetable oils and their fractions 
 Veterinary certificate – only 
when declaring for use in animal feed purposes Yes No   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 64 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1518 00 Animal or vegetable fats an d oils and their fractions, 
boiled, oxidised, dehydrated, sulfonated, oxidized by air 
blown, polymerized by heat in vacuum or in inert gas or 
chemically modified in another way other than products 
of product item 1516; unfit for human consumption of 
mix or preparations of animal or vegetable fats and oils 
or fractions of different fats and oils of this group, not 
elsewhere specified or included Veterinary certificate (when 
declaring for use in veterinary, including animal feed) in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan  Veterinary certificate 
(declaring for veterinary 
purposes, including for feed production), except for vegetable fats, except for products containing less than 50% of products of animal origin other than meat in respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, except for vegetable fats Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate, except for vegetable fats. 
1521 90 Beeswax and other insect waxes and spermaceti, 
whether or not colored, refined or unrefined Veterinary certificate Yes No 
1601 00 Sausages and similar products of meat, meat by-
products or blood; ready food products, made on their basis* Veterinary cert ificate Yes Yes 
1602 Prepared or preserved meat products, meat by-products 
or blood of other  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1603  Extracts and juices from me at, fish or crustaceans, 
mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
1604 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and its substitutes, 
made from fish eggs  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1605 Prepared or preserved crustaceans, mollusks and other 
aquatic invertebrates* Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1902 20 Pasta stuffed, whether or not cooked or otherwise 
prepared, containing fish, cr ustaceans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates, sausages, meat, meat offal, blood 
or blood products of group 04, or any combination of 
these products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less than 50% of products of animal origin  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, except for goods containing less than 50% of animal origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 65 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1904 20 Cereals (except maize) in the form of grain or flaked 
grains or processed in any other way (except for a thin 
flour and meal), pre- boiled or cooked in any other way, 
containing fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic 
invertebrates, sausages, meat, meat offal, blood or 
blood products of group 04, or any combination of these 
products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less than 50% of products of animal origin  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, except for goods containing less than 
50% of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
From 20 Processed vegetables, fruits, nuts or other parts of 
plants and their mixtures, containing sausage, meat, 
meat by-products, blood, fish or crustaceans, mollusks 
or other aquatic invertebrate s or products from group 
04, or any combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less than 50% of products of animal origin  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, except for goods containing less than 50 % of animal origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2102 20** Inactive yeast; other dead single-celled microorganisms 
that are used for animal feed Veterinary certificate Yes No 
From 2104 Soups and broths and billets for its preparation (except 
vegetables); homogenized co mposite food products, 
that contain sausage, meat , meat by-products, blood, 
fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other invertebrates or 
products of group 04, or any combination of these 
products*** Veterinary certificate except 
for products containing less than 50% of products of animal origin  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, except for goods containing less than 50% of animal origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2105  Ice cream, except ice cream, made on the basis of fruits 
and berries, fruit and edible ice*** Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Veterinary certificate, except for products containing less than 50% of products of animal origin, in respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan   Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 66 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From 2106 Processed cheese and other food products, containing 
sausage, meat, meat offal, blood, fish, crustaceans, 
mollusks or other inverteb rates or the products of 
group 04, or any combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Veterinary certificate, except for products containing less than 50% of 
products of animal origin, in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan   
Yes, in case producers of sausages, 
meat, meat offals, blood, fish, 
crustaceans, mollusks or other 
invertebrates or the products of 
group 04, or any combination of these 
products are not included into the Register of third countries 
2301 Flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal, fish or 
crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, unfit for human consumption; greaves Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2302** Bran, sharps and other remains from sifting, milling or 
other methods of processi ng cereals or legumes, 
granulated or not granulated, used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2303** Remains of starch manufacture and similar residues, 
beet pulp, bagasse, or sugar cane bagasse and other 
waste from sugar production, grains and other waste 
from brewing or distilling, granulated or not granulated, 
used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2304 00 000** Oilcake and other solid residues, obtained by extracting 
soybean oil, unbeaten or ground, granulated or not 
granulated, used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2306** Oilcake and other solid residues, obtained by extraction 
of vegetable fats or oils, except waste of commodity 
items 2304 or 2305, unbeaten or ground, granulated or 
not granulated, used for animal feed  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
2308 00** Products of vegetable orig in and vegetable waste, 
vegetable residues and byproducts, granulated or not 
granulated, used for feeding animals, not elsewhere 
specified or included Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 67 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
2309 Products used for animal feed  Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan  Veterinary certificate only if the products contain animal products, in respect of 
goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation Yes 
(except feed for cats and dogs heat treated and in retail packaging) Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From group 29** Organic chemical compounds (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No Yes No 
 
From group 30 Pharmaceutical products (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as not registered pharmaceutical products, destined to the territory of the Russian Federation Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but for non-registered 
pharmaceutical products names 
and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the quality certificate for additives of chemical or microbiological synthesis  
3101 00 000 0 Fertilizers of animal or vegetable origin, mixed or 
unmixed, chemically treated or untreated; fertilizer obtained by mixing or chemical treatment of products of vegetable or animal origin Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan  Veterinary certificate only if 
the products contain animal 
products, in respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate, if the 
products contain animal products 
From 3501 Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 68 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
3502 Albumin (protein) (including concentrates of two or 
more whey proteins, containi ng more than 80 wt.% of 
whey proteins in terms of dry substance), albuminates 
and other derivatives of albumin Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
3503 00 Gelatin (including rectangular (including square) sheets 
with a surface treatment or without treatment, or colored) and gelatin derivatives; isinglass; glues of animal origin, except for casein of heading 3501 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
3504 00 000 0 Peptone and their derivatives; other protein substances 
and their derivatives, in not elsewhere specified or included; powder from the skin or pelt, chrome or not chrome Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From 3507** Enzymes, enzyme preparations, not elsewhere specified 
or included (for the use in veterinary medicine) No Yes No 
From 3808 Insecticides, rodenticides, means of disinfectants and 
similar to them, put up in forms or packing for retail sale, or presented as finished products or articles (for use in veterinary medicine) No Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as goods are not registered in CU destined to the territory of the Russian Federation No 
From 3821 00 000 
0** Environments for cultivation of microorganisms for the 
use in veterinary No No No 
From 3822 00 000 0 Diagnostic or laboratory reagents on a substrate, 
prepared diagnostic or laboratory reagents on a 
substrate, or without it, except for goods of heading 
3002 or 3006 (for the use in veterinary medicine), 
certified reference materials (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan.  In respect of the goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation the measure is applied until the adoption of the technical regulation 
 No  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 69 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
4101 Raw hides and skins of bovine (including buffalo) or 
equine animals (fresh, or salt ed, dried, lime d, pickled or 
otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment-dressed or further prepared), whether or not dehaired or split  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
4102 Raw skins of sheep or lambs (fresh, or salted, dried, 
limed, pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment- dressed or furt her prepared), whether or 
not with wool on or split, other than those excluded by Note 1c to this Chapter  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
4103 Other raw hides and skins (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, 
pickled or otherwise pres erved, but not tanned, 
parchment- dressed or furt her prepared), whether or 
not dehaired or split, other than those excluded by Note 
1b or 1c to this Chapter Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
4206 00 000 0 Products from guts (except silkworm gut), Sinuga, 
bladders or tendons Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
4301 Raw fur (including heads, tail s, paws and ot her pieces or 
cuttings, suitable for  manuf acture of fur), except raw 
hides and skins of heading 4101, 4102 or 4103 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers 
of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
5101 Wool, not carded or combed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
5102 Animal hair, fine or coarse, not carded or combed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
5103 Waste of wool or of fine or coarse animal hair, including 
yarn waste but excluding garnetted stock Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
From 9508 10 000 0 Animals in the zoos and mo bile circuses and mobile 
menagerie Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but the numbers of farms, quarantine bases, names of zoo, dolphinariums  and etc. and/or  names 
of the establishments  should be mentioned in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2  
 
- 70 - CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From 9705 00 000 0 Collections and collectors' items in zoology, anatomy 
and paleontology of animals (except exhibits in museum 
storage) Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
From 3923, 
From 3926, From 4415, From 4416 00 000 0, From 4421, From 7020 00, From 7309 00, From 7310, From 7326, From 7616, From 8436 21 000 0, From 8436 29 000 0, From 8436 80 910 0, From 8436 80 990 0, From 8606 91 800 0, From 8609 00, From 8716 39 800 Machinery and equipment for transportation, farming, 
temporary overexposure animals of all kinds, as well as 
equipment for transportation of raw materials (products) 
of animal origin, that were used  
 No (document of the 
competent authority exporting country in case of difficult epizootic situation) Yes, in cases of 
unsafe epizootic situations additional conditions will be included into the import permit No 
Notes: 
(1) Camels are also included in this group. 
* As part of epizootic wellbeing 
** In respect of goods destined to the te rritory of the Russian Federation veterinary  control is not exercised and none of the measures set-out in 
columns "Accompanying Documents", "Import permit", "Register of establishments of third States" is applied.   
*** Ready-made food products that contain no raw meat components  or containing less than 50% of another processed product of an imal origin, that 
are securely packaged or sealed in clean containers, and that are shelf stable at ambient temperature or have clearly undergone  in their 
manufacture a complete cooking or heat treatment process throughout their substances so that any raw product is denatured, are not subject to 
veterinary control when destined to the territory of the Russian Federation. 
 
__________