RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1  
 
8 September 2014  
(14-5089) Page: 1/26  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
 WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
Addendum 
 The following submission, dated 1 September 2014, is being circulated to Members of the 
Working Party, at the request of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
  _______________ JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
- Sanitary and Phytosani tary Measures ..................................................................... 3  
(a) Legislative Framework ............................................................................................ 3  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products ........... 4  
(c) Development of Technical Regulation s/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 4  
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control .......................................................... 6  
- (i) Veterinary ce rtificates ........................................................................................ 8  
- (ii) Establishment Approval, Registry and In spection ........................................... 12  
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control .................................................. 19  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agre ement ............................................................................................. 20  
- (i) Harmonization with Internat ional Standards and Norm s ................................. 20  
- (ii) Risk As sessment ............................................................................................. 25  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
   Unless otherwise indicated, reference in this document to "paragraph" means the paragraph 
number in JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5, the Draft SPS Chapter;  and reference to "question" or "response to 
question" means the question numbers in JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1, Replies to Additional 
Questions Raised by Members on the Draft SPS Chapter. 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Question 1  Draft SPS Chapter:  Could Kazakhstan update  the references to the CU legislation and 
reflect the changes introduced with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Treaty in all 
relevant paragraphs. 
Answer: 
The SPS Chapter has been duly updated to reflec t the references and changes introduced by the 
EAEU Treaty.  
Question 2  Draft SPS Chapter:  We would like to note that the text will need to be updated to reflect 
the EAEU Treaty and we expect Kazakhstan to  provide English translation of EAEU Treaty 
regarding SPS measures as soon as possible to Members of Kazakhstan's Working Party.   
Answer: 
The SPS Chapter has been duly updated to reflec t the references and changes introduced by the 
EAEU Treaty.  
The English translation of the EAEU Treaty has been provided in document WT/ACC/KAZ/85/Rev.1 
of 15 July 2014. 
Question 3 
Draft SPS Chapter:  We would like to note th at all commitments are still in brackets.  We 
would like to ask Kazakhstan to indicate to  Members which commitments are stable or 
which commitments Kazakhstan favourably considers. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan believes that the following commitments can be regarded as stable: paragraphs 35, 
41, 49, 50, 65, 86, 88, 89, 90, 108, 109, 112, 113, 121, 127, 136, 167, 182, 185, 200, 201 
indicated in document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5.  
(a) Legislative Framework Question 4  
Paragraphs 1-4: We note that these paragr aphs will need to include any new decisions 
and amendments taken by the EEC before the Working Party is concluded.  We ask Kazakhstan to continue provide updates for the EEC decisions. 
Answer: 
The SPS Chapter has been updated to reflect the new decisions and amendments taken by the 
EEC. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
   (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
Question 5  Paragraphs 10 – 12 discuss national authorities.   We seek clarification on whether or not 
national authorities can continue to de velop and adopt new national veterinary 
requirements?  
Answer: 
As provided in General Provisions of the Common Veterinary Requirements of the EAEU, with 
regard to the requirements for controlled products imported from third countries and (or) moved 
between the member States, which are not established by the Common Veterinary Requirements of the EAEU, the national requirements of the me mber States, to whose territory the controlled 
product is imported or moved, are applied.  
Thus, national veterinary authorities of the EAEU  member States can develop and adopt national 
veterinary requirements for products and processes, which are not regulated at the EAEU level.  For example, in practice, such veterinary requiremen ts as animal identification rules, requirements 
to transportation are mostly established at the national level.  Paragraphs 6 and 27 of 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5 describe veterinary requirements established at the national level.  
Question 6  
Paragraph 11:  We understand that there is  a new national sanitary authority.  Can 
Kazakhstan please explain the functions of this new author ity and revise the SPS text 
accordingly? 
Answer: 
The Committee for Consumer Rights Protection of the Ministry of National Economy has replaced 
the Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance of the Ministry of Health. The Committee implements governance and regulation  in the area of consumer rights protection, 
sanitary and epidemiological welfare of population, control and supervision over compliance with 
requirements established by technical regulations an d legislative acts on products and services, as 
well as in the sphere of safety of food on the stage of its marketing.  
Kazakhstan has updated the Draft SPS Chapter due to institutional reorganization related to the 
Committee. 
(c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS 
Question 7  
In paragraph 24, Kazakhstan notes:  
"[A minimum period of six months between the date of publication of a technical 
regulation and the date of its entry into force was established in the Decisions 
adopting the technical regulations in order to allow entities to be able to comply 
with the provisions of a new technical re gulation or amendments to a technical 
regulation. Currently, amendments into De cision No. 48 were being considered in 
order to envisage this rule in the CU legislation.]"  
- Can Kazakhstan explain why the language is bracketed and provide an update on 
the initiation of amendments into Decisi on No. 48?  From our perspective, it is 
important that this interim period that allows for producers to adjust to new 
technical regulations is enshrined in th e legal framework not just in specific 
technical regulations. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Answer: 
This text was bracketed at the request of the Memb er.  Kazakhstan does not object to removal of 
the brackets.  
Kazakhstan has initiated amendments into Decision No. 48 in order to introduce into the EAEU 
legal framework the transitional period of minimum 6 months.  
Question 8  Paragraph 24: Can Kazakhstan update on  the amendments of Decision No. 48? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated amendments into Decision No. 48 in order to introduce into the EAEU 
legal framework the transitional period of minimum 6 months.  
Question 9  
In paragraph 27, Kazakhstan explains that wi th adoption of techni cal regulations that 
contain sanitary requirements, the relevant sanitary requirements stipulated in CU 
Decision No. 299 had to be abolished.  
- Can Kazakhstan confirm that while the work on the removal of inconsistencies 
between technical regulations and CU deci sions remain in progress, the sanitary 
requirements from technical regulati ons supersede sanitary requirements 
stipulated in CU Decision No. 299? 
Answer: 
K a z a k h s t a n  w i t h  o t h e r  E A E U  m e m b e r  S t a t e s  c o n t i n u e s  t o  w o r k  o n  r e m o v a l  o f  o v e r l a p s  a n d  
inconsistencies between technical regulations an d EAEU decisions, when such overlaps or 
inconsistencies exist.  
This issue has also been discussed within the framew ork of the EAEU Treaty.  It is envisaged that 
Decision No. 299 would still remain as a "reference document" for sanitary requirements for all 
types of products while sanitary requirements contained in relevant technical regulations will have 
to be identical to the sanitary requirements provided in CU Decision No. 299.        
When a sanitary requirement will be changed, public consultation of amendments into the 
Common Sanitary Requirements and the relevant EAEU technical regulation will be held 
simultaneously.  
Question 10 In paragraph 28, Kazakhstan notes that:  
"Kazakhstan was planning to initiate am endments to the adopted CU technical 
regulations or CU Decisions, in order to  eliminate overlaps and contradictions 
between the horizontal and vertical technical regulations, or between the CU 
technical regulations and CU Decisions, wh en such contradictions and/or overlaps 
existed." 
- Can Kazakhstan provide an update on it s initiation of amendments to eliminate 
overlaps and contradictions between th e horizontal and vertical technical 
regulations, and between CU technical regulations and CU Decisions?  Can 
Kazakhstan specify which documents are required for trade in dairy and meat 
products according to CU technical Regula tion on Food Safety and CU Technical 
Regulations?  We understand that th is process may have changed with the 
adoption of the EAEU Treaty. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Answer: 
With regard to veterinary requirements, Kazakh stan had raised the issue of duplication and 
inconsistencies in the technical regulations and CU/E AEU decisions at the EAEU level.  At present, 
there were two draft amendments to the technical regulation "On Food Safety".  The first draft 
went through internal approval procedure and comments received from EAEU member States are 
being considered.  With regard to the second draft, it went through public consultations, which ended on 3 July 2014, and after being reviewed by the working group taking into account the 
comments received during public consultations, the draft will be forwarded for the internal 
approval to the member States.  These amendments, among other things, were aimed at elimination of discrepancies in the CU/EAEU docu ments.  For example, the draft amendments will 
remove specific veterinary requirements from th e Food Safety technical regulation (Annex 5). 
The technical regulations "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" and "On Safety of Milk and Dairy 
Products" provide that the veterinary certificate is the only document required for crossing the border.  These products are not subject to state registration. Kazakhstan initiated relevant 
amendments to the Technical Regulation on Safety of Food Products (Decision No. 880).    
Question 11  Paragraphs 27 and 28: Can Kazakhstan update on the developments removing 
inconsistencies and overlaps between te chnical regulations and CU decisions. 
Answer: 
With regard to veterinary requirements, Kazakh stan had raised the issue of duplication and 
inconsistencies in the technical regulations and CU/E AEU decisions at the EAEU level.  At present, 
there were two draft amendments to the technical regulation "On Food Safety".  The first draft 
went through internal approval procedure and comments received from EAEU member States are being considered. With regard to the second draf t, it went through public consultations, which 
ended on 3 July 2014, and after being reviewed by the working group taking into account the 
comments received during public consultations it will be forwarded for the internal approval to the member States. These amendments, among othe r things, were aimed at elimination of 
discrepancies in the CU/EAEU documents. For exampl e, the draft amendments will remove specific 
veterinary requirements from the Food Safety technical regulation (Annex 5). 
The technical regulations "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" and "On Safety of Milk and Dairy 
Products" provide that the veterinary certificate is the only document required for crossing the 
border. These products are not subject to state registration. Kazakhstan initiated relevant 
amendments to the Technical Regulation on Safety of Food Products (Decision No. 880).    
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
Question 12 
We express concern about Kazakhstan's introd uction of unilateral measures that require 
freight originating in Ukraine to carry spec ific Customs Union samples of veterinary 
documents (according to the forms approved by the Commission of the Customs Union 
on 7 April 2011 No. 607). 
We strongly believe that the application of these CU specific measures is unlawful and 
inconsistent with the principles of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
According to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the SPS Agreement, Members shall, upon request, 
enter into consultations with the aim of ac hieving bilateral and multilateral agreements 
towards recognition of equivalent SPS measures.  
We would therefore like Kazakhstan to enter into bilateral talks and undertake the task 
to fulfil the commitments pertaining to su ch bilateral harmonization.  This aspect 
specifically pertains to an agreed scope, co ntent and procedure of initialling equivalent 
veterinary certificates issued for import of goods subject to veterinary control.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Note:  According to the Regulation on the pr ocedure for issuing veterinary certificates 
for livestock loads which are under the contro l of state veterinary supervision in CIS 
countries (approved by the Inter-governmental  Council on cooperation in the sphere of 
veterinary science of CIS countries of 26  April 1997 in Bishkek) freight imports 
originating from Ukraine, subj ect of veterinary control, to the territory of other CIS 
countries (including Russian Federation, Republic of Belarus and Republic of 
Kazakhstan) is carried out with veterinary certificates following the CIS forms number 
1, 2, 3.  According to Article 14 of the Agreement on Cooperation in the field of 
veterinary science (Eng/R us) of 12 March 1993, parties shall abide by common 
veterinary requirements of cargo at the import border under the control of state veterinary supervision. On this basis, the parties may bilaterally coordinate and initial 
samples of veterinary certificates for import ed goods of animal origin from the state 
veterinary service of the exporting State. 
Answer: 
There are three possibilities for exporting countries with respect to veterinary certificates for 
exportation to the EAEU: 1) EAEU Common forms of veterinary certificates; 2) old bilateral veterinary certificates; and, 3) new bilateral veterinary certificates.  
Pursuant to the Common Veterinary Requirements, EAEU Common forms of veterinary certificates 
are used in trade with third countries, except for the following instances:  
- old bilateral veterinary certificates concluded before 1 July 2010 are used in cases when an 
exporting country requested an EAEU member State(s) before 1 January 2013 for conclusion 
of a veterinary certificate different from the Common Veterinary Requirements;    
- new bilateral veterinary certificates differe nt from the Common Veterinary Requirements 
concluded between exporting country and the EAEU member States. 
This practice is compatible with the OIE Terrestrial Code. 
Question 13  We would like to emphasize to Kazakhstan  the inadmissibility to create technical 
barriers to trade and the necessity to bring an y requirement on trade in goods subject to 
veterinary control in full compliance with the recommendations of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (OIE).   
The OIE is a key reference of the WTO in accordance with the SPS Agreement. The 
International Office of Epizootics imposed the obligation to develop the standards, 
guidelines and recommendations with respect to all aspects of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. 
Answer: 
The harmonization of veterinary requirements with international standards, recommendations and 
guidelines begun in 2012 as part of Russia's accession to the WTO and is ongoing process.  As part 
of the harmonization process, amendments were introduced into more than 20 chapters of the 
EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements as the result of consultations with some of the WTO Members.  In addition, with the aim of further harmonization with OIE recommendations, amendments are planned to be introduced to  certain chapters of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements, which passed public consultation and which are currently under consideration by 
the Working Group due to the comments received during the public consultations. 
Kazakhstan informs that all veterinary requirements will be harmonized with relevant international 
standards, recommendations and guidelines as described in paragraph 154 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  - (i) Veterinary certificates 
Question 14  In paragraph 42, Kazakhstan stated that: 
"The Representative of Kazakhstan also a dded that the CU Party that received a 
request from a third country to initiate th e negotiation on veterinary certificates, 
or the EEC, if the third country had sent  its request to it, was responsible for 
coordinating the certificate negotiations and CU Parties' negotiating positions, as 
well as preparation and provision of fee dback on third countries' proposals and 
requests regarding veterinary certificates."  
I n  a n s w e r  t o  Q u e s t i o n  2 1  i n  J O B / A C C / 3 0 /Rev.4/Add.1, Kazakh stan explained the 
approval process for reaching consensus be tween CU Parties and noted the agreement 
with a Member on a dairy certificate in Marc h of 2014.  We would like to note that even 
though the agreement was reached on a dairy certificate, it was a long process that 
lasted approximately two (2) years and requir ed several reminders in order to receive 
CU's feedback.  We would like to remind th at we submitted its request to negotiate 
approximately 30 veterinary ce rtificates with the Customs Un ion at the end of 2012, but 
we have not received CU's feedback.  Thus, we continue to be extremely concerned with 
the time it takes to arrange negoti ations or receive CU's feedback. 
Answer: 
With regard to the Member's concern, it should  be noted that the EAEU has the Common forms of 
veterinary certificates that can be used by third countries to export their products to the EAEU. 
These certificates do not have to be agreed between the EAEU and exporting countries.  Moreover, 
CU Decision No. 726 allows using bilateral forms of veterinary certificates agreed prior to Russia's accession to the WTO.  
Thus, there are three possibilities for exporting countries to use veterinary certificates to export to 
the EAEU: 1) EAEU Common forms of veterinary certificates; 2) old bilateral veterinary certificates; and, 3) new bilateral veterinary certificates.  
With regard to the negotiation of new bilateral cert ificates, it should be taken into account that the 
speed of the process on bilateral certificates ag reement depends on both sides, on their mutual 
readiness to compromise.  
To date, Kazakhstan has not received any requ ests to negotiate veterinary certificates.  
Question 15  
Paragraph 47:  We thank Kazakhstan for providing an answer to Question 22 in 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1.  We remain conc erned with the actual harmonization of 
veterinary measures with the respective OIE requirements.  While OIE provides different 
options for imports of goods depending on the status of animal health in the country, CU 
countries choose the most restrictive measures.   
Kazakhstan states:  
"At the same time, given the different stat us of animal health in the exporting 
countries and the level of development of the country, and with the aim to promote 
trade, a procedure for negotiating bilatera l veterinary certificates between the CU 
and the exporting countries was provided by  the CU legislation.  Such veterinary 
certificates could contain requirements  different from the Common Veterinary 
Requirements".   
We would like to note again that we don' t see CU's willingness to deviate from CU 
requirements during certificate negotiations. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Answer: 
It should be noted that the EAEU member States agreed veterinary certificates with third countries 
that have veterinary requirements that deviate from the EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements.  
For example, the EAEU member States have agreed  bilateral veterinary certificates on certain 
products, such as meat, fish, poultry, live horses, with some WTO Members, which contain 
requirements deviating from the Common Veterinary Requirements.   
Question 16  
Paragraph 47:  Kazakhstan provided an answer to Question 22 in 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1.  The concern remains that the CU countries choose the most 
restrictive OIE recommendations despite di fferent options provided by OIE.   
There is a limited willingness to apply intern ational standards depending on the country 
animal health status. 
Answer: 
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (hereinafter- the OIE Code) provides different options 
(recommendations) for imports of goods depending on the status of animal health in the country.  
The EAEU member States have chosen one of th e options (recommendations) provided by the OIE 
Code with regard to certain diseases taking into account level of protection that EAEU member 
States deem to be appropriate.  These requirements are generic and apply for trade within the 
EAEU as well as with third countries.  Thus, requirements for animal diseases established in the EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements are consistent with the international standards, in particular, with the OIE recommendations. 
At the same time, given the different status of animal health in the exporting countries and the 
level of development of these countries, and wi th the aim to promote trade, a procedure for 
negotiating bilateral veterinary certificates between the EAEU and the exporting countries is 
provided by the EAEU legislation.  Such veterinary certificates may contain requirements different 
from the Common Veterinary Requirements.  In this regard, the EAEU member States are open to negotiate with exporting countries other options provided by the OIE recommendations. 
Question 17 
In paragraph 48, Kazakhstan states that:  
"The representative of Kazakhstan replied that during negotiations the CU Parties 
would propose attestations that follo wed OIE recommendations except when 
justified by a risk assessment as provid ed for by the WTO SPS Agreement."   
We would like to note that we continue to ha ve significant concerns with CU's reluctance 
to follow OIE recommendations or provide risks assessment for the animal health 
disease attestations that are more stringent than OIE requirements.  For example, a CU 
Member failed to provide its risk assessment for the animal health disease attestations 
b e y o n d  O I E  s t a n d a r d s ;  w e  a g r e e d  t o  e x c l ude that CU Member from issuance of 
certificates. 
Answer: 
The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (hereinafter- the OIE Code) provides different options 
(recommendations) for imports of goods depending on the status of animal health in the country. 
The EAEU member States have chosen one of th e options (recommendations) provided by the OIE 
Code with regard to certain diseases, taking into  account level of protection that EAEU member 
States deem to be appropriate.  These requirements are generic and apply for trade within the 
EAEU as well as with third countries. Thus, requirements for animal diseases established in the 
EAEU Common Veterinary Requirements are consistent with the international standards, in particular, with the OIE recommendations JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  At the same time, given the different status of animal health in the exporting countries and the 
level of development of these countries, and wi th the aim to promote trade, a procedure for 
negotiating bilateral veterinary certificates between the EAEU and the exporting countries is provided by the EAEU legislation.  Such veterinary certificates may contain requirements different 
from the Common Veterinary Requirements. In this  regard, the EAEU member States are open to 
negotiate with exporting countries other options provided by the OIE recommendations.  
In the case mentioned in the question, the EA EU member State that did not provide risk 
assessment and, thus, was excluded from issuance of the certificates, is not a WTO member.    
Question 18 Paragraph 48:  Serious concerns remain ab out the application of the risk assessment 
tool according to OIE recommendations for the animal health disease certifications that 
are more stringent than OIE requirements. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will establish requirements that are more stringent than international standards based 
on risk assessment, as provided in  paragraph 174 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5. 
Question 19  In the commitment paragraph 51, in answer to Question 22 in 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1, we note again that  this commitment paragraph included the 
bracketed text which implies that Kazakhstan  can request veterinary attestations from 
an exporting country for a disease for which there are no programme in place in Kazakhstan but there is a programme in place in Belarus.  Based on our experiences, the 
CU seeks to implement disease free attestations for the entire CU where only one CU 
Party has surveillance in place.   Moreover, no CU risk assessments have been provided 
to justify the measures.  
We also continue to have concerns with  some bracketed language in the text:  
"[Veterinary certificates for goods destined  to Kazakhstan could contain veterinary 
attestations for the diseases, for which Ka zakhstan, but not other CU Parties, had 
in place in the relevant territory either  a control or eradication programme, or 
surveillance programme demonstrating that  the disease was not present.]"   
The suggested language appears to imply that there is an option for exporting countries 
to negotiate certificates for exports to Kazakhst an only instead of to the Customs Union.   
According to CU Decision No. 726, exporting countries can negotiate bilateral certificates 
with the CU that deviate from CU common certificates.  In fact, during our negotiations, we were told that the certificate must be for the entire CU and not individual 
CU Members.  Can Kazakhstan reference the legal basis that would allow Kazakhstan or 
any CU Parties to negotiate a certificate that  is specifically destined to Kazakhstan?  
Can Kazakhstan please desc ribe it in practice?   
We encourage Kazakhstan to remove the se ntence and to continue to work with 
interested Members towards a solution. 
Answer: 
The new language proposed by Kazakhstan does not imply an option for exporting countries to 
negotiate veterinary certificates for export to Kazakhstan only.  The proposed language refers to 
veterinary certificate for imports to the entire EAEU  territory, either of a common form or bilateral.  
At the same time, the proposed commitment text implies that this veterinary certificates may 
contain certain veterinary attestations that would apply only for goods destined to Kazakhstan, if 
Kazakhstan, and not other EAEU member States, has in place in the relevant territory either a JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  control or eradication programme, or surveillance programme demonstrating that the disease was 
not present.  
In other words, if, for example, Kazakhstan has no control or surveillance programme for a 
particular disease, while other EAEU member State has, the EAEU veterinary certificates 
accompanying products imported to Kazakhstan shall not contain relevant veterinary attestation 
for this disease. 
Question 20  
Paragraph 51:  Could Kazakhst an explain how the described application of a control or 
eradication programme, or surveillance pr ogramme demonstrating that the disease was 
not present will be applied/implemented. 
Answer: 
The commitment text proposed by Kazakhstan implies that veterinary certificates of the common 
EAEU form or bilateral veterinary certificates may contain certain veterinary attestations that 
would apply only for goods destined to Kazakhstan, if Kazakhstan, and not other EAEU member 
States, has in place in the relevant territory either a control or eradication programme, or 
surveillance programme demonstrating that the disease was not present. This will be clearly specified in the veterinary certificates.  
In other words, if, for example, Kazakhstan has no control or surveillance programme for a 
particular disease, while other EAEU member State has, the EAEU veterinary certificates 
accompanying products imported to Kazakhstan shall not contain relevant veterinary attestation for this disease. 
Question 21  
In the commitment paragraph 53, Kazakhstan states:  
"For example, the Technical Regulation on  Food Safety, adopted by CU Commission 
Decision No. 880 of 9 December 2011, [a s effective of the date of adoption], 
provided that only veterina ry 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.]"  
Can Kazakhstan explain the reason for brac kets for "[as effective of the date of 
adoption]"?   
Further Kazakhstan states:  
"[For example, Technical regulation on Milk and Dairy Products adopted by EEC 
Council Decision No. 67 and Technical Regu lation on Meat and Meat Products 
adopted by EEC Council Decision No. 68 of 9 October 2013 provided that only 
veterinary certificates would be required  for non-processed milk and meat and for 
processed milk and me at products.]"   
We suggest simplifying the last part of th e sentence to read: "for non-processed and 
processed milk and meat products".  
We seek a clarification on what form is re quired for "processed" products.  Kazakhstan 
explained that according to the Technical Regu lation on Food Safety , only a declaration 
of conformity or State Registra tion certificate would be required for products, that have 
undergone a treatment, but according to Technical Regulation on Milk and Dairy 
Products and Technical Regulation on Me at and Meat Products, only veterinary 
certificates would be required for processed milk and meat products. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  According to Technical Regulation on Food Sa fety Article 30, item 1) "Processed food 
products of animal origin shall not be subj ect to veterinary-sanitary inspection."   
However, according to Technical Regulation on Milk and Dairy Products and Technical 
Regulation on Meat and Meat Products Deci sion, and CU Decision No. 317, a veterinary 
certificate is required as an accompanying document.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposed to replace the following commitment text: 
[For example, the Technical Regulation on Food Safety, adopted by CU Commission 
Decision No. 880 of 9 December 2011, [a s effective of the date of adoption], 
provided that only veterina ry 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.]  
with the following commitment text that reflects the current situation to simplify the last part of 
the sentence in this commitment text as proposed: 
"[For example, Technical regulation on Milk and Dairy Products adopted by EEC 
Council Decision No. 67 and Technical Regu lation on Meat and Meat Products 
adopted by EEC Council Decision No. 68 of 9 October 2013 provided that only 
veterinary certificates would be requir ed for non-processed and processed milk 
and meat products]".  
The type of document required to accompany certain product will be specified in the vertical 
technical regulations.  In case of non-processed and processed meat and dairy products, this 
document is veterinary certificate.  
In accordance with item (1) of Article 30 processe d food products of animal origin indeed are not 
subject to veterinary-sanitary inspection. Veterinary certificates for such products can be issued by 
veterinary inspector without conducting veterinary-sanitary inspection. 
Question 22 
In paragraph 55, Kazakhstan notes that it had initiated amendments into CU Decision 
No. 317 in order to include provision on accept ance of Parties of replacement veterinary 
certificates.  Can you please provide an upda te on the amendment and include it in the 
text?  Since the amendment has not been adopted yet, we would like to request to 
bracket this paragraph until the amendment is adopted. 
Answer:  
The amendments to CU Decision No.317 on a cceptance of replacement certificates have 
undergone public discussions and have been ap proved by the Subcommittee on Veterinary 
Measures taking into account comments received fr om interested parties, including WTO Members. 
- (ii) Establishment Approval , Registry and Inspection 
Question 23  
Could you please clarify whet her listing in the Register of Entities and Persons 
Producing, Processing and/or Storing Goods Su bject to Veterinary Control Imported into 
the Customs Territory of the Customs Union is  not automatic whereas de-listing of that 
register is automatic?  In case this differe nce between listing and de-listing exists, could 
you please inform whether the government of  Kazakhstan is taking any steps to unify 
both listing and de-listing in the mentione d Register under an unique automatic system? JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Answer: 
Inclusion of enterprises and persons producing goods subject to veterinary control to the Register 
of the Third Country Establishments (hereinafter- the Register) is carried out in accordance with 
the Regulation on Common Procedure of Carrying out Joint Inspections approved by Decision of 
the CU Commission of 18 October 2011 (hereina fter – the Regulation), upon request of the 
competent authority of a third country.  In accordance with the Regulation, inclusion into the Register can be done through one of the followin g three mechanisms at the third country's choice: 
1) in the result of joint inspection of establishments by the EAEU member States; 2) after the 
audit of official system of supervision of third country; or 3) acceptance of the guarantee of the 
competent authority of third country. 
Exclusion of establishments from the Register is not automatic.  In accordance with paragraph 163 
of the Regulation, exclusion of establishments fr om the Register can be carried, upon request of 
these establishments or upon request of the competent authority of third country. 
Except for emergency situations, in relation to establishments of third countries, restrictions on 
import of products from these establishments can be imposed in following cases: 
а) at the request of the establishment  or the competent authority of the third country;  
b) repeated detection of inconsistencies to th e EAEU requirements registered either during 
the on-site inspection and/or repeated inspection  of the establishment, or in the result of 
monitoring and increased laboratory control of controlled products produced by this establishment, of which the competent authorit y of the third country was informed, if the 
revealed inconsistencies constitute significant threat to live and health of humans and 
animals.   
Thus, inclusion and exclusion of establishments fr om the Register is carried out upon request of 
the competent authority of third country. In a ddition, exclusion of an establishment from the 
Register can be done at the request of this establishment, this is an additional opportunity.  
Question 24  At the SPS Plurilateral meeting held on 25 J une 2014, the Kazakhstan Delegation said 
that the three websites (Belarus, Ka zakhstan and Russia) where exporting 
establishments can be listed will be provided .  In that sense, we kindly ask for those 
websites. 
Answer: 
Links to the national parts of the Register of Third County Establishments of the EAEU Member-
states (hereinafter referred as – Register) are published on the official website of the Eurasian Economic Commission on the following web link: 
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/r u/act/texnreg/depsanmer/vetsan meri/Pages/Reestr org.aspx   
Moreover: 1)  National part of the Register of the Repub lic of Kazakhstan is published on the official 
website of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Re public of Kazakhstan: http://mgov.kz/napravleniya-
razvitiya/veterinarnaya-bezopasnost/  in the Section   "Veterinary and Sanitary Measures of the Customs Union";   
2) National  part of the Register of the Russian Federati on is published on the official website of 
the Russian Federation's Federal Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supervision:   
http://fsvps.ru/fsvps/importExport; 
3) National part of the Register of the Republic of Belarus is published on the official website of 
the Department for Veterinary and Food Supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the 
Republic of Belarus: http://www.dvpn.gov.b y/uploads/download/reestr-3stran13.htm. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Question 25  
Paragraphs 61 – 63:  A key issue that remains unresolved is the issue of completion of a 
successful audit as a pre-condition to the implementation of CU Commission Decision 
No. 830 as amended by EEC De cision No.294 to remove listing requirement for certain 
products.  This is one of critical issues that must be resolved prior to Kazakhstan's 
accession to the WTO.  
We would like to ask Kazakhstan to provid e its update on addressing this issue.  
We request a commitment that Kazakhstan wi ll remove the listing requirement without 
a precondition to favourable audit.  We propose the following language:  
"The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that Kazakhstan would eliminate the 
requirement for an establishment to be incl uded in the register in accordance to 
the EEC Decision No. 294 and as set out in Table [xx]. The representative of 
Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan wo uld not require a successful audit as a 
pre-condition to the implementation of the EEC Decision No. 294 and as set-out in 
Table [xx].  The Working Party t ook note of these commitments." 
In addition, we are concerned with Kazakhst an's statement that the audit is the main 
mechanism of access of products of animal or igin to the CU market for which listing of 
establishments is required and would like to request the following commitment 
language:  
"The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that Kazakhstan would provide three 
possibilities for exporting countries' establishm ents to become eligible to export to 
the Customs Union and added to the regist ry where required pursuant to Table 
XXXX including through a system audit, or a joint inspection or alternatively, based 
on guarantees of competent authorities of  third countries. The Working Party took 
note of this commitment." 
Answer: 
First, it should be noted that the listing itself is not a veterinary measure.  Registry is only a 
system to collect and present (display, publis h) current data on statuses and rights of 
establishments.  This is a very useful and convenient system that is used by many countries.  In a sense, registry is just a technical tool and with regard to export rights of this or that establishment, it is just a place (or table, or digital system) where the establishment (and other 
interested entities) can look into to learn its status. 
Second, in this context, the real veterinary meas ure is not listing itself.  The real veterinary 
measure is "pre-checking" (checks aimed at further granting the exporting right) of an 
establishment.  
The aim of pre-checking is to establish whether this particular establishment complies with the 
requirements or not.  There are two important questions here:  
(1) On compliance with what requirements it is necessary to pre-check? 
(2) Who has to perform pre-checking? 
The answer to these questions depends on the ri ghts of the competent authority of the third 
country.  
There are three options: 
Option 1. With regard to this particular count ry, the audit of the foreign official system of 
surveillance was successfully completed.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Option 2. With regard to this particular count ry, the audit of the foreign official system of 
surveillance was not successfully completed (started but not completed, completed unsuccessfully, failed to take place).  Nevertheless, based on the risk analysis and positive past experience of trade in such products, th e right to provide guarantees was provided to 
this Competent authority. 
Option 3. With regard to this particular count ry, the audit of the foreign official system of 
surveillance was not successfully completed and based on the risk analysis and negative 
past experience of trade in such products (o r absence of such experience), the right to 
provide guarantees was not provided to this Competent authority. 
In the context of the first option, the EAEU legislation does not require pre-checking of 
establishments that produce "low risk products".  The reason is that the foreign official system is 
recognized as being able to provide the same (or higher) safety level as required by the EAEU 
legislation.  It means that all establishments (within this particular sector of production) of this third country are recognized as manufacturing safe products (based on equivalence principle). 
However, the establishments have to be controlled by the competent authority of this third country 
under the procedure, established by the legislation of this third country.  It does not mean that 
EAEU member States will not have a register of  these establishments.  They will, but it will 
represent only a technical tool for collecting and presenting (displaying, publishing) information on 
the exporting establishments.  So, pre-check of an establishment and its inclusion into the Register 
are not pre-condition (prerequisite) for getting right to export in this case.  
In case of the third option, the EAEU legislatio n does require pre-checking of establishments.  
The reason is that the foreign official system is not recognized as being able to provide mentioned 
safety level.  It means that each establishment ha s to be pre-checked by the EAEU officials (based 
on equivalence principle).  The aim of pre-check is to detect whether this particular enterprise 
complies with the EAEU requirements (NB: not with this third country's requirements as in case of 
the first option) or not.  If the establishment co mplies, it will be included into the Register. 
The establishment gains the right to export from the moment of successful completion of the 
pre-check and hence from its inclusion into the Register.  
In case of the second option, the EAEU legislat ion does require pre-checking of establishments. 
The reason for that is the same - the foreign official system was not recognized as being able to provide the same safety level.  It means that each establishment has to be pre-checked before it 
gains the right to export.  But, in this case, the right to check the establishments is provided to the 
competent authority of this third country.  Using this right, the competent authority of the third country has to check this establishment for compliance with the EAEU requirements, and in case it 
complies with these requirements, the competent authority may provide guarantees of that.  
Based on this guarantees, the establishment will be included into the Register and it gains the 
right to export from this moment. 
Thus, the following answers can be provided for each case: 
(1) On compliance with what requirements it is necessary to pre-check? 
a. Audit is successfully completed: pre-check is not required, the establishment has 
to comply with the requirements of the third country. 
b. Audit has not been successfully completed, but the right to provide guarantees was 
provided to the Competent authority of the third country: pre-check is required, 
the establishment has to comply with the EAEU requirements. 
c. Audit has not been successfully completed, the right to provide guarantees was not 
provided to the Competent authority of the third country: pre-check is required, the establishment has to comply with the EAEU requirements. 
(2)  Who performs pre-checking? 
a. Nobody. 
b. Competent authority of the third country. 
c. EAEU officials. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  This information demonstrates that the EAEU legislation provides a third country with three options 
to get access to the EAEU internal market (audit , providing guarantees and inspection).  Many of 
the WTO member countries (including Members of Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO) provide only one option for accessi ng their market - audit. So, obviously, EAEU 
legislation is more trade-facilitative in this area than legislation of many of the WTO member 
countries.   
Based on the above, the prelisting itself is not a veterinary measure, and, in fact, it is pre-checking 
of the enterprises for compliance with the EAEU  requirements that constitutes a veterinary 
measure which some member countries request to revoke.  
Kazakhstan disagrees with this request.  Obviously, in order to be an exporter, the establishment 
has to comply (and this should be verified) with  the requirements of eith er the exporting country 
or the importing country.  
To create a possibility to export products from the establishments that comply with the 
requirements of the exporting country, internat ional standards recommend using audit mechanism 
and the EAEU follows this recommendation.  
In case there is no possibility to conduct audit at the given moment, the EAEU legislation (in 
contrast to the legislations of many other WTO member states) allows to use 2 alternative 
mechanisms and a third country is free to choose from the three options for different production 
sectors.   
Question 26  Paragraphs 61-63:  One key issue remains to be solved the request for an audit as a pre-
condition to remove listing of certain low risk products (Decision No. 830 amended by 
Decision No.294).  Could Kazakhstan update on  the latest developments addressing this 
issue. 
Answer: 
First, it should be noted that the listing itself is not a veterinary measure. Registry is only a system 
to collect and present (display, publish) current data on statuses and rights of establishments. 
This is a very useful and convenient system that is  used by many countries. In a sense, registry is 
just a technical tool and with regard to export rights of this or that establishment it is just a place (or table, or digital system) where the establishmen t (and other interested entities) can look into 
to learn its status. 
Second, in this context the real veterinary measure is not listing itself. The real veterinary 
measure is "pre-checking" (checks aimed at further granting the exporting right) of an establishment.  
The aim of pre-checking is to establish whether this particular establishment complies with the 
requirements or not. There are two important questions here:  
(1) On compliance with what requirements it is necessary to pre-check? 
(2) Who has to perform pre-checking? 
The answer to these questions depends on the ri ghts of the competent authority of the third 
country.  
There are three options: 
Option 1. With regard to this particular country the audit of the foreign official system of 
surveillance was successfully completed.  
Option 2. With regard to this particular country the audit of the foreign official system of 
surveillance was not successfully completed (started but not completed, completed JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  unsuccessfully, failed to take place). Nevertheless, based on the risk analysis and positive 
past experience of trade in such products, th e right to provide guarantees was provided to 
this Competent authority. 
Option 3. With regard to this particular country the audit of the foreign official system of 
surveillance was not successfully completed and based on the risk analysis and negative 
past experience of trade in such products (o r absence of such experience), the right to 
provide guarantees was not provided to this Competent authority. 
In the context of the first option, the EAEU legislation does not require pre-checking of 
establishments that produce "low risk products". The reason is that the foreign official system is recognized as being able to provide the same (or higher) safety level as required by the EAEU legislation. It means that all establishments (within this particular sector of production) of this 
third country are recognized as manufacturing safe products (based on equivalence principle). 
However, the establishments have to be controlled by the competent authority of this third country under the procedure, established by the legislatio n of this third country. It does not mean that 
EAEU member States will not have a register of these establishments. They will, but it will 
represent only a technical tool for collecting and presenting (displaying, publishing) information on the exporting establishments. So, pre-check of an establishment and its inclusion into the Register 
are not pre-condition (prerequisite) for getting right to export in this case.  
In case of the third option, the EAEU legislatio n does require pre-checking of establishments. 
The reason is that the foreign official system is not recognized as being able to provide mentioned safety level. It means that each establishment ha s to be pre-checked by the EAEU officials (based 
on equivalence principle). The aim of pre-check is  to detect whether this particular enterprise 
complies with the EAEU requirements (NB: not with this third country's requirements as in case of 
the first option) or not. If the establishment complies it will be included into the Register. The 
establishment gains the right to export from the mo ment of successful completion of the pre-check 
and hence from its inclusion into the Register.  
In case of the second option, the EAEU legislat ion does require pre-checking of establishments. 
The reason for that is the same - the foreign official system was not recognized as being able to 
provide the same safety level. It means that each  establishment has to be pre-checked before it 
gains the right to export. But, in this case, the right to check the establishments is provided to the competent authority of this third country. Using this right the competent authority of the third 
country has to check this establishment for compliance with the EAEU requirements and in case it 
complies with these requirements the competent au thority may provide guarantees of that. Based 
on this guarantees the establishment will be includ ed into the Register and it gains the right to 
export from this moment. 
Thus, the following answers can be provided for each case: 
(1) On compliance with what requirements it is necessary to pre-check? 
a. Audit is successfully completed: pre-check is not required, the establishment has 
to comply with the requirements of the third country. 
b. Audit has not been successfully completed, but the right to provide guarantees was 
provided to the Competent authority of the third country: pre-check is required, 
the establishment has to comply with the EAEU requirements. 
c. Audit has not been successfully completed, the right to provide guarantees was not 
provided to the Competent authority of the third country: pre-check is required, 
the establishment has to comply with the EAEU requirements. 
(2)  Who performs pre-checking? 
a. Nobody. 
b. Competent authority of the third country. 
c. EAEU officials. 
This information demonstrates that the EAEU legislation provides a third country with three options 
to get access to the EAEU internal market (audit , providing guarantees and inspection). Many of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  the WTO member countries (including Members of Working Party on the accession of Kazakhstan 
to the WTO) provide only one option for accessi ng their market - audit. So, obviously, EAEU 
legislation is more trade-facilitative in this area than legislation of many of the WTO member countries.   
Based on the above, the prelisting itself is not a veterinary measure, and, in fact, it is pre-checking 
of the enterprises for compliance with the EAEU  requirements that constitutes a veterinary 
measure which some member countries request to revoke.  
Kazakhstan disagrees with this request. Obviously, in order to be an exporter the establishment 
has to comply (and this should be verified) with  the requirements of eith er the exporting country 
or the importing country.  
To create a possibility to export products from the establishments that comply with the 
requirements of the exporting country, internat ional standards recommend using audit mechanism 
and the EAEU follows this recommendation.  
In case there is no possibility to conduct audit at the given moment, the EAEU legislation (in 
contrast to the legislations of many other WTO member states) allows to use 2 alternative 
mechanisms and a third country is free to choose from the three options for different production sectors.  
Question 27  
In paragraphs 70 – 72, Kazakhstan desc ribes its draft amendment outlining how 
guarantees may operate, but this draft is st ill under consideration and subject to further 
revision.  Can Kazakhstan explain how guar antees work now in the Customs Union?  
We continue to work with Members and Kazakhstan on this key issue as we need to see 
a functioning guarantee system in place prio r to Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO. 
Answer: 
Inclusion of establishment into the Register of Third Country Establishments based on guarantees 
from competent authorities of third countries is carried out in accordance with paragraphs 43-44 of CU Decision No. 834.   
The competent authority of a third country sends its request on accepting its guarantees to the 
authorized body of one of the EAEU member States. 
The authorized body of the member State that received the request shall make decision on 
granting the competent authority of the third coun tries with the right to provide guarantees with 
regard to compliance of controlled goods produced by specific establishment (establishments) 
based on the following criteria: 
a. degree of development of the comp etent authority of the third country; 
b. level of justification of guarantees gran ted by the competent authority of the third 
country; 
c. risk of entry into the territory of the th ird country and further spread of pathogens of 
infectious animal diseases, including diseases common to humans and animals; 
d. epizootic situation in the third country; e. results of monitoring tests of goods subject to control imported into the EAEU territory 
from the third country; 
f. data of monitoring of goods subject to control conducted by the competent authority 
of the third country; 
g. compliance with the requirements of the competent authority, as provided in 
paragraph 10 in respect of goods subject to control imported to the territory of the 
EAEU from the third country; 
h. results of inspections by the competent  authority of the Parties of establishments 
located in the territory of the third country. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  After making the decision on granting the right to  provide guarantee the authorised body sends its 
decision with supporting materials to other EAEU member states for approval.  Upon approval by the EAEU member States, a notice is sent to the competent authority of the exporting country, 
which then prepares a list of establishments and se nds it to the authorised body.  The authorised 
body has to assess the proposal within one month and make a decision on including the listed 
establishments into the Registry of Establishments of Third Countries.   
Currently, relevant amendments were being introduced into Decision No. 834 in order to clarify 
and improve the procedures for accepting guar antees from competent authorities of third 
countries. 
Question 28  Paragraphs 70 – 72: This is another subs tantial issue where clearly functioning 
mechanisms have to be laid down prior to Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO. 
Answer: 
Currently, amendments to Decision No. 834 are being discussed in order to clarify and improve the 
procedures for accepting guarantees from competent authorities of third countries.  In drafting 
these amendments, the EAEU member States take into account comments and proposals received from the WTO Member States.  
Question 29  
In the commitment paragraph 79, we ask Kazakhstan to remove the brackets:  
"[If listing of establishments for a type of product was not required, the absence of 
the establishment on a list would not be a ground for rejection of the import.]" 
Answer: 
This bracketed language refers to the issue of the audit of official systems of supervision of third 
countries as a pre-condition for importing products to the EAEU.  Thus, Kazakhstan prefers to keep 
the brackets until this issue is resolved.  
 (e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control Question 30  
In paragraph 123, Kazakhstan describes th e development of common CU phytosanitary 
requirements.  Can you please provide an  update on the development of common 
phytosanitary requirements? 
Answer: 
Currently, the draft Common phytosanitary requirements prepared by the Eurasian Economic 
Commission have been sent to EAEU member States for discussion.  According to the draft Schedule of development and adoption of document s in the sphere of sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures, Common phytosanitary requirements are envisaged for adoption by December 2015.  
As soon as all the necessary procedures are comple ted, they will be posted on the official website 
of the EEC. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Question 31 
Paragraph 123: Could Kazakhstan update on  the development of common phytosanitary 
requirements? 
Answer: 
Currently, the draft Common phytosanitary requirements prepared by the Eurasian Economic 
Commission have been sent to EAEU member States for discussion.  According to the draft Schedule of development and adoption of document s in the sphere of sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures, Common phytosanitary requirements are envisaged for adoption by December 2015. 
As soon as all the necessary procedures are comple ted, they will be posted on the official website 
of the EEC. 
Question 32  
In paragraph 135, new language states:  
"[Kazakhstan confirmed that audits as described in this paragraph would be 
carried out only in exceptional cases, and would aim to check the phytosanitary 
system of the exporting country, but would not result in a system of individual 
approval for export.]", as proposed by a Member. 
"[Kazakhstan confirmed that audits as described in this paragraph would be 
carried out only in special cases, for example, when new trade relations were 
established or there was a problem, and in case of repeated inconsistencies.]", as 
proposed by Kazakhstan. 
We suggest to revise Kazakhstan 's proposal to the following:  
"Kazakhstan confirmed that audits as desc ribed in this paragraph would be carried 
out only in special cases, for example if there was evidence of repeated violations 
of food safety requirements (such as  the detection of contaminants above 
regulated levels), as opposed to in complete or inconsistent paperwork 
infractions." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes the following alternative language:   
[Kazakhstan confirmed that audits as described in this paragraph would be carried out only 
in special cases, for example, when new trade relations were established or there was a problem, and in case of repeated inconsistencies or non-compliance with quarantine 
phytosanitary requirements.] 
 (g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Spec ific Provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms 
Question 33  
We continue to encourage Kazakhstan and the CU Parties to harmonize their SPS 
standards with the international standards,  recommendations and guidelines to the 
maximum extent possible.  We ask that if  Kazakhstan or where relevant the CU 
determines that the appropriate level of prot ection justifies a more stringent standard, 
that Kazakhstan and the CU provide a scient ific justification and risk assessment to 
support the more stringent standard. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Answer: 
As stated in Kazakhstan's draft commitment in paragraph 174 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5, the 
veterinary measures applied to each category of goods will comply with international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines or based on science and a risk assessment.   
Moreover, as indicated in paragraph 51 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5, if Kazakhstan or the EAEU seeks to 
have stricter animal health requirements than those set-out in the OIE, Kazakhstan or the EAEU must demonstrate that, based on risk assessment, as well as active and passive surveillance in 
Kazakhstan or the EAEU territory for animal diseases that can be present on the territory of 
Kazakhstan or the EAEU, the animal health status of Kazakhstan or the EAEU for the disease concerned is such that it justified such stricter requirements.   
Question 34 
Could Kazakhstan be more proactive harmonizing SPS standards with the international 
standards, recommendations, etc.  The risk  assessments should be prepared according 
to international recommendations to support the more stringent standards. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will continue to be proactive in harmonizing SPS standards with the international 
standards, recommendations and guidelines.  Moreover, Kazakhstan will follow relevant 
international recommendation in conducting risk assessment when determining more stringent 
standards.  
Question 35  Commitment paragraph 151: We thank Kazakhstan for withdrawing its amendment for 
CU Decision No. 721.  We note that in its answer to Questions 43 and 44 
(JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1), Kazakhstan agreed to work with Member's on commitment language.  We ask Kazakhstan to remove its a ddition of "[resulted in a higher level of 
sanitary and phytosanitary protection then would be achieved by measures based on]" 
and keep "[were more stringent than]".  
We would like to note that second paragrap h of Customs Union Decision No. 721 reads: 
"If the veterinary, phytosanitary and sani tary and epidemiological and hygienic 
requirements in force on the territory of the Customs Union, are more restrictive than 
the relevant international standards, in the ab sence of scientific evidence of risk to life 
or health of humans, animals or plants in re levant part, apply international standards."  
We ask Kazakhstan to keep this paragraph in line with CU Decision No. 721. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan considers that "more stringent" SPS measures do not always result in a higher level of 
SPS protection.  Article 3.3 SPS Agreement stipulates that Members may introduce or maintain 
SPS measures, which result in a higher level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by measures based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations, provided that there is a scientific justification or risk assessment.  Therefore, 
the commitment language proposed by the Member  is "WTO plus" requirement which Kazakhstan 
is not ready to accept.    
Question 36  
Paragraph 153:  We ask Kazakhstan to remove the bracketed text "[as stipulated in the 
SPS Agreements]" to keep it in line with CU Decision No. 721. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan considers that "more stringent" SPS measures do not always result in a higher level of 
SPS protection.  Article 3.3 SPS Agreement stipulates that Members may introduce or maintain SPS measures, which result in a higher level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection than would be 
achieved by measures based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations, provided that there is a scientific justification or risk assessment.  Therefore, the commitment language proposed by the Member  is "WTO plus" requirement which Kazakhstan 
is not ready to accept.    
Question 37  In paragraph 161, the representative of Kaza khstan confirmed that the maximum levels 
of nitrates would be revised in acco rdance with international standards, 
recommendations, and guidelines.  In paragr aph 162, the representative of Kazakhstan 
stated that radio nuclide levels and microb iological standards were being revised in 
accordance with international recommendations. 
According to the WTO SPS Agreement, they refer to the Codex Alimentarius standards.  
At the same time, the Codex Alimentarius ma ximum levels of nitrates have not been 
established (nitrates as contaminant, certai n requirement for nitrates, which are used 
as food additives contained in the standards of some cheeses).  A similar situation exists 
with microbiological indicators.  Codex Alimentarius doesn't determine specific 
microbiological criteria.  
In this regard, we would like Kazakhstan to clarify precisely what international 
standards and guidelines it intends to use. 
Answer: 
Nitrates.  MRL norms of nitrates in EAEU hygienic regulations have been established on the basis 
of results of the risk assessment conducted taking into account Codex Alimentarius standard in 
accordance with the Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments (CAC/GL 62-2007). 
In accordance with the results of the risk assessm ent, when introduced into organism with food 
and water, nitrates quickly absorb into digestive system while 20 per cent of nitrates contained in blood plasma enter into salivary glands where it concentrates and secrete with saliva.  
In the mouth, concentration of nitrates were reduced (approx. for 5-7%, in some cases 7-9%) and 
turned into nitrites due to the work of microorganisms.  In stomach, nitrates under the impact of 
chlorohydric acid may participate in synthesis of nitrosamines and other nitrogen metabolites.          
Significant amount of adsorbed nitrates is released with urine.  However, certain amount of 
nitrates is discharged with bile and saliva is absorbed back into digestive system.  
Adverse effect to health caused by nitrates occurs by the means of turning nitrates into nitrites in 
the course of metabolism.   
Lancinating toxic properties of nitrates/nitrites results from acidification of ferrum ions (Fe2+) of 
the dioxigemoglobin molecules to Fe3+ with formation of metgemoglobin, which is incapable to bind with and transport oxygen.  
Depending on the share of metgemoglobin, clinical manifestations of a disease, including cyanosis, 
heart rhythm disorder, blood circulation disorder of organs and tissues, disorder of cerebrospinal 
nervous system were revealed. 
Facts of occurring of metgemoglobin as a result of introduction of nitrates are detected in 
experiments on rats during 14 weeks with the use of drinking water with concentration of sodium 
nitrate of 0,375, 750, 1500, 3000 or 5000 ppm equivalent to daily dose of 30, 55, 115, 200 and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  310 mg of sodium nitrate per kilo for male and 40, 80, 130, 225 and 345 mg of sodium nitrate per 
kilo for female.  In all cases, increase of  metgemoglobin has been detected.      
Majority of described cases of metgemoglobin are related with content of nitrates in drinking water 
used for preparation of infant formula products on the level of 20 mg per liter.  Cases of 
metgemoglobin related to concentration of 11 and 20 mg per liter of nitrates in water usually were 
accompanied with bacterial contamination. 
Chronical impact of nitrates is related to occurrence of nitroso compounds majority of which have 
cancerogenic potential.  However, the results of the epidemiologic research have not detected 
correlation of introduction of nitrates and nitrites via drinking water with increase of risk of cancer.   
In the research, impact of nitrates and nitrites led to development of cancer when amines, where 
introduced in parallel, which are capable to nitrification apparently as a result of endogenous 
transformation of cancerogenic amines.   
Microbiology.  Methodology of microbiological food rationing in the EAEU does not contradict the 
standard of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC/GL 21-1997).  In accordance with the 
standard, microbiological criteria shall be established based on the information from food 
producers that meet hygiene requirements and producing safe products and equipped with methods of identification of regulated microorga nisms and for products of high-risk groups - 
scientific justified using the methodology of microbiological risk assessment. 
MRL norms of nitrates and microbiological parameters in products are stipulated in the following 
international standards: 
Commission standard "Codex Alimentarius" CODEX STAN 193-1995 Codex General Standard 
for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed; 
"Principles and Guidelines for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria 
Related to Foods" CAC/GL 30-1999; 
"Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management (MRM)" 
CAC/GL 63-2007.  
Question 38  
Paragraph 163: Could Kazakhstan update on  the developments aligning MRLs for 
tetracyclines to the Codex standards. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has conducted risk assessment for MRLs on tetracycline in accordance with 
international standards.  The conclu sion was published at http://www.npc-
ses.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89%3A2010-11-29-09-50-15&catid =45%3A2010-11-29-05-41-50&Itemid=111&lang =ru and http://www.nutritest.org/%D0%B4 
%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C-2/. 
Question 39 A Member has a matter of concern regardin g CU and Codex standards, as follows: 
According to the Technical Regulations of th e Customs Union on the fat and oil products 
TR CU 024/2011 (approved by CU Commission Decision from 9 of December 2011 No. 
883), the peroxide value is 10,0 mEq/kg for ve getable oil – includes all types, vegetable 
oil fractions.  
Also, the State Standard Spec ification 31647-2012 Palm purified deodorized oil for food 
industry, technical conditions (state standard , used in providing the evidence foundation 
of CU Technical Regulation 024/2011) establis hed an index of peroxide value – 0,9.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  This Member would like to point out that ab ove mentioned index value does not exist in 
the relevant standard of Codex (CODEX STAN 210). 
According to State Standard of Ukrain e 4306:2004 Palm oil, General Technical 
requirements set peroxide value for the Palm purified deodorized oil – not more then 3,0 
mEG/kg.  
Thus, Kazakhstan's establishment of the no r m  0 , 9  m E G / k g  b a s e d  o n  C U  r a t h e r  t h a n  
Codex can be a barrier to the export of th is product from Ukraine to CU territory. 
This Member therefore requests Kazakhstan for scientific justification for the proposed 
established standards to provide clarity fo r what appears to be an arbitrary value 
unsupported by international Codex standards. 
Answer: 
Requirements for peroxide value established in the EAEU technical regulations on the fat and oil 
products are compliant with standard of Codex Alimentarius (Codex Stan 210) and set at a level not exceeding 10 meq/kg.  State Standard Specification 31647-2012 is a standard, which is not a 
mandatory requirement and therefore is not enforceable in Kazakhstan.   
In order to circulate on the territory of the EA EU, products shall conform with the requirements 
established in the technical regulations.  
Question 40 
Despite the fact that Kazakhstan has under taken commitments during its WTO accession 
process to ensure that th e SPS and TBT measures will comply to the relevant 
international standards, the CU remains in force and appears to have taken precedence 
over adopting new requirements which co nform to the international standards. 
- A Member requests Kazakhstan to pr ovide a detailed comparative analysis 
between their standards and relevant inte rnational SPS measurements in order to 
rectify the above mentioned issue. 
-  T h i s  M e m b e r  r e q u e s t s  t h a t  K a z a k h s t a n  provide scientific justification of its 
standards and methodology which conforms to internationally recognized 
approaches in those cases where Kazakhstan sets SPS standards which are more 
stringent than the relevant international standards (or in cases where such standards are absent). 
Answer: 
Pursuant to Decision of the Commission of the Customs Union No. 721 of 22 June 2011 
"On Application of International Standards, Recommendations and Guidelines", in cases in which the Eurasian Economic Commission or the national authorities had not established mandatory 
requirements in the veterinary, or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic sphere, 
the EAEU member States would apply standards, recommendations and guidelines of the OIE, IPPC, and the Codex Alimentarius (Codex), respec tively.  Similarly, if the EAEU veterinary, 
phytosanitary and sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic mandatory requirements were more 
stringent 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.  
Moreover, according to CU Commission 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", EAEU SPS measures that, after examinat ion, 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. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  In addition, currently, 14 amendments have been introduced in to the Common Veterinary 
Requirements and four amendments to the Re gulation on Common Procedure of Conducting 
Veterinary Control.  All these amendments were introduced in order to bring EAEU SPS regulations into compliance with international requirements.  Moreover, Kazakhstan initiated amendments to 
the Regulation on Joint Inspection s, approved by Decision of CU Commission No. 834, and to the 
Regulation on Common Procedure of Conducting Veterinary Control, approved by Decision of CU Commission No. 317 with respect to replacement of veterinary certificate.  
- (ii) Risk Assessment 
Question 41 In paragraph 173, last sentence reads:  
"The representative confirmed that ri sk assessment was conducted prior to 
implementation of introduction of rest riction to imports and would provide the 
results of risk assessment upon request of  exporting country, as provided for in 
the WTO Agreement".   
We are concerned with Kazakhstan's deci sion to introduce a temporary sanitary 
measure to ban the import and sale of chilled beef due to Trenbolone acetate which is a CODEX approved hormone.  We request that Kazakhstan provide the legal basis for this 
restriction.   
- Has Kazakhstan conducted the risk asse ssment prior to instruction of ban on 
Trenbolone acetate?  
 
- Can Kazakhstan share its risk assessment? 
Answer: 
Trenbolone acetate is highly effective synthetic anabolic steroid that is used in veterinary for 
increasing muscle mass in cattle.  In accordance with risk assessment held by the Scientific 
Committee for Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health of the EU, trenbolone acetate and other five types of synthetic hormones have risks of endocrine, developmental, immunological, 
neurobiological, immunotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic effects.  
As the SPS Agreement allows using risk assessment conducted by other WTO Members, 
Kazakhstan used this risk assessment conducted by the EU with respect to trenbolone acetate. 
Question 42 
The WTO SPS Agreement provides that WTO Me mbers shall ensure that any sanitary or 
phytosanitary measure is applied only to th e extent necessary to protect human, animal 
or plant life or health, is ba sed on scientific principles and is not maintained without 
sufficient scientific evidence (except as pr ovided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5). 
- Can Kazakhstan please provide the scientif ic evidence or pertinent information to 
substantiate Kazakhstan's application of SPS measures on beef imports? 
In particular, Kazakhstan has banned th e use of trenbolone acetate in the 
production of beef.  
-  Has Kazakhstan performed a risk assessment on the use of trenbolone acetate?  If 
so, would Kazakhstan kindly provide a copy  of the assessment?  If not, what was 
the basis for Kazakhstan ba nning trenbolone acetate? 
- Why has Kazakhstan not relied on the inte rnational standard (Codex Alimentarius 
Commission) allowing for the safe  use of trenbolone acetate? JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Answer: 
Trenbolone acetate is highly effective synthetic anabolic steroid that is used in veterinary for 
increasing muscle mass in cattle.  In accordance with risk assessment held by the Scientific Committee for Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health of the EU, trenbolone acetate and 
other five types of synthetic hormones have risks of endocrine, developmental, immunological, 
neurobiological, immunotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic effects.  
As the SPS Agreement allows using risk assessment conducted by other WTO Members, 
Kazakhstan used this risk assessment conducted by the EU with respect to trenbolone acetate. 
__________