RESTRICTED  
  
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1  
 
2 November 2014  
(14-6355)  Page: 1/11  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
ACCESSION OF KAZAKHSTAN 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
Addendum 
 The following submission, dated 31 October 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
_______________ WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Questions and Comments on documents WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.131, 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.11/Add.12, WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.13, JOB/ACC/36/Rev.54 
and JOB/ACC/37/Rev.55. 
Question 1 
A Member seeks clarification fr om Kazakhstan on its answers to the questions posed in 
the Additional Questions and Replies docu ment WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1.  
This Member would like to inform that some comments that it proposed were taken into 
account by Kazakhstan and reflected in th eir revised documents on Agriculture.  
However, this Member would like to point out that in its reply to Questions 1 - 3, Kazakhstan did not specify the data of the eligible production, which is subject to 
administered prices and the data of external  reference price (Supporting Table DS:5, in 
document WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13) according to Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Annex 3 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
[Para 8/Annex 3: Market price support shall be calculated using the gap between a fixed 
external reference price and the applied admini stered price multiplied by the quantity of 
production eligible to receive the applied ad ministered price. Budge tary payments made 
t o  m a i n t a i n  t h i s  g a p ,  s u c h  a s  b u y i n g - i n  o r  storage costs, shall not be included in the 
AMS]. 
[Para 9/Annex 3: The fixed external referenc e price shall be based on the years 1986 to 
1988 and shall generally be the average f.o. b. unit value for the basic agricultural 
product concerned in a net exporting country  and the average c.i.f. unit value for the 
basic agricultural product concerned in a net importing country in the base period. 
The fixed reference price may be adjusted  for quality differences as necessary]. 
For example, instead of giving data on th e eligible production of horses, sheep and 
goats, farmed in a particular year of base  period (2010-2012), which is subject of the 
administered price, Kazakhstan used in their calculations the data of the total number of 
cattle-head of the above mentioned animals. 
Therefore, this Member would like to ask for the clarification from Kazakhstan as 
follows: 
- Why did Kazakhstan in their calculations of market price support— particularly for 
horses, sheep and goats— use data of the total number of cattle-head rather than 
the specific number of the above mentio ned farmed animals (purchased at the 
administered price from the budgetary expend itures account in a particular year of 
base period)? 
Answer:  
The detailed information with regard to data and methodology used to calculate external reference 
price was described in response to Question 1 of the WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1.  
With regard to "eligible production" it should be  noted that the Government at the beginning of 
each calendar year does not announce the volumes of each agricultural product/animal, which it plans to purchase and as such does not limit the volumes of such purchases to the declared ones. Therefore, total production/quantity of each product/animal in the country was defined as 
production that is eligible to be purchased rather than production that was actually purchased.  
In accordance with paragraph 120 of the Appellate Body Report in WT/DS161/AB/R stating 
"..."production eligible  to recieve the applied administered price" in paragraph 8 of Annex 3 have a 
                                               
1 Revised Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in the Agricultural Sector 
2 Additional Questions and Replies dated 27 September 2013 
3 Additional Questions and Replies dated 10 July 2014 
4 Revised Proposal on Domestic  Support and Export Subsidies 
5 Revised Agricultural Policies Chapter WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  different meaning in ordinary usage from production actually purchased". The ordinary meaning of 
"eligible" is "fit or entitled to be chosen". Thus, "production eligible" refers to production that is "fit or entitled" to be purchased rather than production that was actually purchased. Production actually purchased may often be less than eligible production". 
Question 2  
In Question 2 of document WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1, a Member points out 
that if Kazakhstan does not differentiate agri cultural feed subsidies by basic agricultural 
products (e.g. chickens, pigs and cows), Ka zakhstan may therefore be unable to provide 
any meaningful AMS data on specific subsid ies for these basic agricultural products.  
Such undifferentiated data may render it not possible to enter into a discussion on any 
specific agricultural supports, as required by Paragraph 6, Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
Answer:  
The programme "Compound feed subsidies" reported in the STDS:9 is financed at both republican 
and local levels. Due to the reason that there is no unified system of data collection, Kazakhstan 
cannot obtain data disaggregated by types of agri cultural products within this programme from 
local authorities.  
Therefore, based on the WTO accession precedent, which could be found in the document 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.3, the above mentioned programme was reported in the STDS:9. 
Question 3 Also from Question 2 in document WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1, it is not clear 
why Kazakhstan does not supply AMS data on  each basic agricultural product, and 
instead groups all of its agricultural output as "...non-product specific support available 
to agricultural producers in general".  
"What exactly is the "...WTO accession preceden t..." Kazakhstan is referring to?  Ukraine 
asks for the specific case study so that the exact circumstances of this "precedent" can 
be confirmed which allows Kazakhstan to just ify its lack of specific AMS data on the 
basis that "...there is no unified [r eliable] system of data collection." 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan is referring to the WTO accession precedent made by a Member through reporting 
programme similar to Kazakhstan's programme on partial compensation of compound feed cost in 
the STDS:9. Please see STDS:9 Table in the document JOB/ACC/5/Rev.3.  
Question 4  
In Question 3 in document  WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1, Kazakhstan replies:  
"Furthermore, very recently-a cceded Members, including Ukra ine, are not required to 
undertake reduction commitments beyond their accession commitments according to paragraph 9 of the Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture (TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 as of 
6 December 2008 or TN/AG/26 as of 21 April 2011).  
Taking above into account, Kazakhstan is not ready to accept proposed reduction 
formula."  
A Member points out that the Revised Dr aft Modalities for Agriculture (document 
TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 as of 6 December 2008) is not yet in force. This Member mentioned 
this document because at the conclusion  of Kazakhstan's accession, these Draft 
Modalities are likely to be in force. Kazakh stan may therefore have to reconcile its 
agriculture support to conform to these modalities - certainly, taking into account the WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  terms on which Kazakhstan will join to the WTO. That is why this Member proposed that 
Kazakhstan adopt this formula for the reduct ion of agriculture support during accession 
negotiations.  
Taking into account above mentioned, this Memb er has no reason at this point to accept 
the total AMS commitment level prop osed by Kazakhstan in document 
JOB/ACC/36/Rev.5.  
Answer:  
Even assuming that the Revised Draft Modalities will enter into force before Kazakhstan's 
accession to the WTO, these modalities will not be applicable to Kazakhstan, as Kazakhstan will automatically be qualified as "very recently-acceded Member" (RAM). According to paragraph 9 of the Revised Draft Modalities for Agriculture, RAM shall not be required to undertake reduction 
commitments based on a new formula.   
Question 5  
A Member cannot support Kazakhstan's pr oposal concerning the export subsidies 
application because according to the previous  position Kazakhstan bound their export 
subsidies on zero level from the date of WTO accession (document JOB/ACC/36/Rev.4).  
This Member considers that Kazakhstan's position concerning the export subsidies 
should correspond to the precedent of countri es that acceded WTO within the last years 
(e.g. Russia, Montenegro, Samoa, Vanuatu, Laos,  Tajikistan, Yemen) which bound their 
export subsidies levels at zero.  
Note: In accordance with paragraph 3 of Al ma-Ata Ministerial Declaration, adopted on 
12 September 2012 at the Fourth Meeting of  Ministers of Trade of the developing 
countries, and countries which have no a ccess to the sea (Landlocked Developing 
Countries), the proposal of the Member Stat es concerning the necessity of taking 
measures on export subsidies that have a negative impact on trade was supported by 
Kazakhstan.   
Moreover, paragraph 6 of the Hong Kong Mi nisterial Declaration of 18 December 2005 
provided that WTO members will abolish all fo rms of agricultural export subsidies and 
export measures with equivalent effect by  the end of 2013 with the exception of the 
developing countries, who were given the right to have advantages of the provisions of 
Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Agriculture fo r five years from the date of the abolition 
of all forms of export subsidies. 
Since this deadline passed, the Declarat ion on Export Competition (document 
WT/MIN/(13)/40; WT/L/915 on 12/11/2013) was adopted by WTO members who 
committed themselves to continue to work on  the simultaneous elimination of all forms 
of export subsidies and requirements for al l export measures with equivalent effect. 
Proposal of Kazakhstan not to apply export su bsidies upon accession to the WTO only in 
case of adoption of the updated "package" proposal on agriculture (Plurilateral Meeting 
on Agriculture, 22 July 2014) seems to be unreasonable and has lack of arguments. 
The updated "package" proposal on agricultur e of Kazakhstan (Plurilateral Meeting on 
Agriculture, 22 July 2014) includes: 
- total AMS commitment level - USD 1.5 b illion (with 6-year transitional period 
until 2020);   
-  " de minimis " level (domestic support that is no t subject to reduction) - 8,5%;  
-  commitment not to use export subsidies upon accession to the WTO. 
According to Kazakhstan's delegation the above proposal should be considered as the 
"package" and not be changed in terms of it s individual components (which does not WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  seem to comply with WT/ACC/4 Technical Note  by the Secretariat on Information to be 
provided on Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in Agriculture). 
This Member requests Kazakhstan to undertake commitment not to apply export 
subsidies upon accession to the WTO without any additional conditions. 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan would like to note that according to relevant chapters of WPR of Russia, Montenegro, 
Samoa, Vanuatu, Laos, Tajikistan and Yemen, no export subsidies were applied by these countries 
prior to their WTO accession as opposed to Kazakhstan, which currently applies export subsidies.  
It should be noted that Kazakhstan is a landlocked  country. On average, the transportation cost of 
wheat from the territory of Kazakhstan to the closest Russian port is about US$130 per metric tonne with a distance of 1,200 km. 
Despite the decision set in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration on elimination of the export 
subsidies, all forms of agricultural export subsidies and export measures with equivalent effect are still widely applied by Members. Therefore, Kazakh stan would like to commit itself to continue to 
work on the elimination of all forms of export subsidies along with the WTO Members.   
Based on the above, Kazakhstan looks forward to  a constructive approach on the part of WTO 
Members in its negotiations on agriculture
. 
 
Question 6 
A Member proposes to include the below commitment language in the Agriculture 
Chapter of Kazakhstan's Draft Working Party Report (JOB/ACC/37/Rev.5): 
"The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that since its accession to the WTO, 
Kazakhstan will submit its notifications in  accordance with its obligations under 
the Agreement on Agriculture and the relevant notification requirements and 
formats as agreed by the Committee on Ag riculture, including those in documents 
G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1." 
This relates to Question 2 in document WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.11/Add.1 and related 
questions. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan is ready to undertake the proposed co mmitment language with the following changes: 
"The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that since its accession to the WTO, 
Kazakhstan will submit its notifications on  domestic support and export subsidies  in 
accordance with its obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the relevant 
notification requirements and formats as agreed by the Committee on Agriculture, including 
those in documents G/AG/2 and G/AG/2/Add.1." 
Question 7 
In JOB/ACC/37/Rev.5, paragraphs 2 and 7 refer to Resolution No. 151 of 12 February 
2013 "On Approval of Agriculture Development Programme for 2013-2020 "Agribusiness 2020".  A Member requests a copy of this text. 
Answer:  
Once the translation of the required document is ready, Kazakhstan will send it to the WTO 
Secretariat.  WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Question 8 
A Member suggests the following structure and information to be contained in the 
Working Party Report Section on Agricultural policies: 
(a) Imports – description of the type s of border protection maintained: 
- Describe in general terms the value and composition agricultural imports, and of 
the tariffs, tariff surcharges, or TRQs applied to agricultural imports. 
- Describe by tariff category all agri cultural imports subject to non-tariff 
measures such as bans, quotas, discreti onary licensing and other quantitative 
restrictions to regulate agricultural imports. 
- Indicate (as necessary) any changes that  have been implemented to bring the 
regime into conformity with WTO provisions, e.g., the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
- Note any state-conducted or managed impo rt trade in agricultural products, as 
well as any state or state-sanctioned monopolies.   
- Include response to relevant/significa nt questions or comments by Members. 
Answer:  
The DWPR section on Agricultural Policies has been revised taken into account this Member's 
comment.  
Question 9 A Member suggests the following structure and information to be contained in the 
Working Party Report Section on Agricultural policies: 
(b) Exports: 
- Describe in general terms the value and composition of agricultural exports, and 
any export tariffs or non-tariff export restrictions (bans, quotas, minimum 
export prices, licensing) or state-contro lled or managed exports of agricultural 
products  
- Describe export support, incentives, an d promotion measures provided by the 
government, whether or not these can be considered export subsidies.  Identify 
any export subsidies.   
- Indicate (as necessary) any changes that  have been implemented to bring the 
regime into conformity with WTO provisions, e.g., the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
- Note any state conducted or managed expo rt trade in agricultural products, as 
well as state or state-sanctioned monopolies.   
- Include response to relevant/significa nt questions or comments by Members. 
Answer:  
The DWPR section on Agricultural Policies has been revised taken into account this Member's 
comment.  
Question 10 A Member suggests the following structure and information to be contained in the 
Working Party Report Section on Agricultural policies: 
(c) Internal policies – i.e. description of, and the budgetary expenditure and any 
revenue foregone in respect of each of the domestic support measures in place  
- Describe domestic policies in place fo r agricultural and rural development, 
production diversification or support, dist ribution assistance, price supports, loan 
supports, etc.  Outline any major progra mmes or reforms underway.  Explain the WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  basis (social, geographic/climatic, hi storical) for these programmes, as 
necessary. 
- Indicate (as necessary) any changes that  have been implemented to bring the 
regime into conformity with WTO provisio ns, e.g., the Agreement on Agriculture. 
- Reference the information on domestic support and export subsidies in 
agriculture in document WT/ACC/SPEC/XXX/yy and revisions. 
- Note the de minimis level to be applied and the total level of AMS calculated.   
- Describe support measures considered "Green Box" policies and the amount of 
support provided.   
- Include response to relevant/significa nt questions or comments by Members. 
Answer:  
The DWPR section on Agricultural Policies has been revised taken into account this Member's 
comment.  
Question 11 
A Member suggests including the following commitment on export subsidies to the 
Working Party Report Section on Agricultural policies: 
 "The representative of [country] confir med that, upon accession, [country] would 
bind its agricultural export subsidies at zero in its Schedule of Concessions and 
Commitments on Goods, and not maintain or apply any export subsidies for agricultural products.  The Working Pa rty took note of this commitment." 
Answer:  
Since negotiations on domestic support measures have not been yet completed, Kazakhstan is not 
ready to undertake the proposed commitment.  
Question 12 
A Member suggests including the following co mmitment on the agricultural schedule to 
the Working Party Report Section on Agricultural policies: 
"The representative of [country] confir med that [country] would apply subsidies 
on agricultural products in a manner consis tent with WTO rules, in particular the 
Agreement on Agriculture, and [country's] domestic support tables circulated in 
document WT/ACC/SPEC/XXX/yy/Rev.z and contained in [country's] Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment." 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan proposes combining this commitment text with the proposed commitment text in 
Question 14 into one commitment with the following changes: 
"The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would comply with all 
provisions of the WTO  apply subsidies on agricultural products in a manner consistent 
with WTO rules, in particular Agreement on Agriculture , and Kazakhstan's commitments 
on domestic support tables circulated in docume nt WT/ACC/SPEC/XXX/yy/Rev.z and 
contained in Kazakhstan's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods annexed 
to Kazakhstan's draft Protocol of Accession to the WTO . The Working Party took note 
of this commitment." WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Question 13 
A Member suggests including the following co mmitment on product-specific support to 
the Working Party Report Section on Agricultural policies: 
"The representative of the [country] co nfirmed that the [country] would, in 
addition to the commitments inscribed in Part IV, Section I, of its Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments, ensure that, from the date of its accession to the 
WTO, in any year, the sum of all produc t-specific aggregate measurements of 
support does not exceed [xx] per cent of the non-product-specific aggregate 
measurement of support, where the terms "product specific aggregate 
measurement of support", "non-product -specific aggregate measurement of 
support", "basic agricultural product" and "year" had the same meanings as in the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment." 
Answer:  
Taking into account that on 22 July Kazakhstan made a new domestic support proposal with no 
proportion-related language, the proposed commitment is no longer relevant.  
Question 14 
A Member suggests including the following statement to the Working Party Report 
Section on Agricultural policies: 
"[Country's] commitments on domestic su pport in agriculture are contained in 
[country's] Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods annexed to 
[country's] draft Protocol of Accession to the WTO." 
Answer:  
Please see answer to Question 12. 
Question 15 
Supporting Table DS:4 (WT/ ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13): 
In response to Question 4 in WT/ACC/SP EC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1 Kazakhstan states 
the following: 
"Kazakhstan is planning to increase ex penditures under existing non-product-
specific programmes throughout the period of 2014-2020.  It is expected that the sum of such support will double from its current volume and according to forecast 
will exceed de minimis  threshold of 8.5%.  Therefor e, Kazakhstan expects that 
another 50% share of the total AMS commitm ent level will be fully utilized during 
the requested transition period.  Starti ng from 2020, the sum of non product-
specific support is expected to be below de minimis limit." 
The chapeau of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, which was agreed to by 
all Members, recognizes the importance of  "reciprocal and mutually advantageous 
arrangements directed to the substantial reduct ion of tariffs and other barriers to trade" 
(i.e., trade-distorting support) as founding principles of the WTO.  Kazakhstan's 
proposal would codify a continued increase in trade-distorting domestic support.  
In addition, Kazakhstan's forecast of ex ceeding its de minimis is based on an 
assumption of an 8.5% de minimis level, wh ich has not been agreed to by Members.   
- Noting Kazakhstan's forecast to signif icantly expand its non-product specific 
amber box support, please clarify what programmes will be expanded and how 
Kazakhstan plans to subsequently reduce its subsidies to stay in compliance 
under its proposed offer. WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Answer:  
Kazakhstan believes that its request for trade-distorting AMS to be reduced to and bound at 
1.5 billion US$ along with the request for minimal level of support, which causes less market distortion, to be bound at 8.5% is not comparab le to those amounts of trade-distorting support, 
which are provided to agricult ure by developed WTO Members. 
Kazakhstan is planning to increase expenditures under the programmes reported in its AGSTs to 
undertake measures stipulated in the Government Programme "Agrobusiness 2020" designed to 
address current challenges in the agricultural se ctor, which are described in Kazakhstan's DWPR.  
To stay in compliance under proposed offer as well as for making space for more subsidies within 
cost reduction programmes (e.g. partial reimbursement of the cost of fuel and lubricants, elite seeds, agricultural chemicals, combined fodder),  Kazakhstan is planning to gradually phase out 
state procurement programmes of basic agricultural products.  
Starting from 2020, Kazakhstan is planning to support its agriculture below or at the requested 
de minimis  thresholds, as by that date 8.5% of the value of agricultural production will meet the 
amount needed to support effectively agricultural sector.  
Question 16 Supporting Table DS:5 (WT/ ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13): 
Please provide additional explanation and background on the procurement programmes 
for horses, sheep and goats. 
- How do the individual procurement programmes operate?   
- What specific livestock products are supported/purchased under the 
procurement programme (mutton, horse meat, etc…)?  
- In addition, Kazakhstan indicated in response to Question 4 in 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1 that it  will "introduce changes into the 
state procurements in the way that th e use of such procurements will be 
minimal…"  Please also clarify what these changes will entail. 
Noting Kazakhstan's response to Questi on 1 in WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.12/Add.1, 
the quantities listed for column 6, Eligible  Production, are "total production," which 
appears to be defined as the stocks (inv entory) of horses and sheep and goats in 
Kazakhstan for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.  Data reported by FAO for Kazakhstan's 
horse stocks are 1,438,700; 1,607,455; and 1,686,241, respectively for the years 2010, 
2011, 2012 (as compared to 1,528,341, 1,607,455,  1,686,241 provided by Kazakhstan in 
the table).  Similarly, FAO data for sheep and goat numbers in Kazakhstan for 2010 are 
14,660,820 and 2,708,901, respectively, giving  a combined total of 17,369,721 (versus 
17,988,721 in Table DS-5).   If the object ive of Kazakhstan's procurement programme 
for horse producers is to support the horse meat market, eligible production would be 
the quantity of horse meat produced, not the total number of horses.  According to FAO 
data, the number of horses slaughtered for horse meat in Kazakhstan in 2010 was 
433,330 head and the estimated quantity of horse meat produced was 72,886 tonnes.   
The same question applies to sheep and goats:  FAO data show 1,265,719 goats 
slaughtered in 2010, producing an esti mated 20,378 tonnes of meat, and 6,864,403 
sheep slaughtered, producing an estimated 122,873 tonnes of sheep meat. 
- What was the total production of the supported products for each year?   Answer:  
1. The National Holding "KazAgroProduct" acting on behalf of the Government of Kazakhstan 
as an agent for procurement of livestock and livestock products, implements procurement of horses, sheep and goats with the purpose to support agricultural producers.  WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  State procurements of livestock and livestock products are made at prices which are determined 
by the Commission on Pricing Policy of "KazAgroPr oduct". When setting the purchase price, the 
Commission takes into account that such price shall cover the cost of production and include a profit margin. 
Since under the livestock procurement programm e market price support was received by live 
animals rather than slaughtered ones, eligible production was defined as total number of live animals. The quantity of meat produced in Kazakhstan was used for meat procurements.  
According to the data generated by Agency of St atistics of Kazakhstan, the total number of horses, 
sheep and goats throughout the base period of 2010-2012 was as follows: 
Heads 
Year Total number   
horses goats sheeps 
2010 1 528 341 2 675 018 15 313 101 
2011 1 607 455 2 652 464 15 439 438 
2012 1 686 241 2 496 057 15 137 217 
 2. Kazakhstan is planning to gradually ph ase out state procurement programmes of basic 
agricultural products. 
Question 17 Supporting Table DS:5 (WT/ ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13): 
- Please correct the units of measure for the column eligible production, which is 
currently listed as KZT per unit of quantity.  It is also noted that "cattle head is a 
unit of quantity."  
- Please specify the units of quantity for bovine meat, pork, and poultry (e.g., 
tonnes of meat). 
Answer:  
It should be clarified that the column "eligible production" specifies two units of quantity, which is 
tonne for plant products, dairy and meat products (incl. bovine meat, pork and poultry) and cattle 
head for horses, sheep and goats.  
Question 18 
Supporting Table DS:5 (WT/ ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13): 
Table 5 indicates that the reference price for ho rses is a CIF import price.  Kazakhstan is 
one of the leading horse meat ex porting countries in the world. 
- What is the basis for using an impo rt price as the reference price when 
Kazakhstan is a significant exporter  of the product that is traded? 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan is a net importer of live animals, which are mainly imported from third countries.  
Question 19 
Supporting Table DS:5 (WT/ ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13): 
In the calculation of domestic support for wheat in 2010 in column 8, the value for 
"Procurement to support domestic agricu ltural producers" is a negative number WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.13/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  (- 18,277). This should be replaced with a zero when calculating total support for wheat 
for 2010, which would result in a total of 3,299,000, rather than 3,280,723. 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan agrees that negative figures in the market price support should not be used to offset 
any positive figure in other payments and thus Kazakhstan has made the necessary amendments 
in the current AGSTs. 
Question 20 
A Member asks Kazakhstan to clarify the pr ogramme "Soft loans from local budgets for 
resource poor agriculture producers at the lo cal level" from the Supporting Table DS:9 
as follows: 
- What are the precise criteria by whic h agriculture producers belong to the 
producers with limited resources? 
- Why is this programme not subject to Article 6.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
Answer:  
The programme "Soft loans from local budgets for re source poor agriculture producers at the local 
level" mainly targets small peasant (private) farms with low profitability, which are considered as 
low-income agricultural producers.  
However, Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture is applicable to countries with developing 
country status, which has not been granted to Kazakhstan. Therefore, STDS:2 of Kazakhstan's AGSTs has a status of "Not applicable". 
Question 21 
In JOB/ACC/36/Rev.5, Kazakhstan proposes that "through 31 December 2020, the sum 
of product specific support AMS will not exceed 50% of the total AMS commitment 
level."  
- Please indicate whether or not the "sum  of product-specific support AMS" under 
this element of the proposal would include product-specific support for individual 
products where the support is within the de minimis level. 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan notes that during plurilateral meeting on agriculture that took place on 22 July, based 
on the understanding that Members will agree with its request for de minimis  level, Kazakhstan 
made a new proposal stating that from the date of Kazakhstan's accession through 
31 December 2020, the total AMS commitment level will be reduced from 2.3 billion US$ to 1.5 billion US$ in equal steps during the requested transition period.  
Product-specific support for basic agricultural products not exceeding de-minimis thresholds, in 
accordance with Article 6.4 of the AoA, would not be included to the sum of product-specific support AMS. 
__________