13-2517 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1                         14 May 2013 
 
Page: 1/35 
 
Working Party on the             O r i g i n a l :   E n g l i s h  
Accession of Kazakhstan  
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
Addendum 
 
 The following submission, dated 8 May 2013, is being circulated to Members of the Working 
Party, at the request of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.    
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
-  Sanitary and Phytosani tary Measures ..................................................................... 3  
(a) Legislative Fra mework ............................................................................................ 3  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products ........... 3  
(c) Development of Technical Regulation s/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 6  
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control .......................................................... 8  
-  (i) Veterinary Ce rtificates ..................................................................................... 11  
-  (ii) Establishment Approval , Register and Inspections .......................................... 13  
-  (iii) Import Permits ............................................................................................... 26  
-  (iv) Transit Permits ............................................................................................... 26  
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control .................................................. 26  
(f) Protection of Human Hea lth .................................................................................. 28  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the  
WTO SPS Agre ement ............................................................................................. 28  
-  (i) Harmonization with Internat ional Standards and Norm s ................................. 28  
-  (ii) Risk As sessment ............................................................................................. 32  
-  (iv) Equivalence .................................................................................................... 33  
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations ..................................... 33  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  The following comments and questions relate to the draft SPS Chapter of the Working Party 
Report, in document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(a) Legislative Framework Question 1  
In paragraphs 1-4, we note that these paragr aphs will need to be updated to reflect any 
new decisions and amendments taken by the EEC  before the Working Party is concluded.  
We ask Kazakhstan to continue to pr ovide updates for the EEC decisions. 
Answer: 
Paragraphs 1-4 have been updated to reflect EEC decisions and amendments.   Question 2  Paragraph 3:  We suggest adding a web addr ess for the link to the consolidated version 
of the CU Commission Decision No. 317 at  the end of paragraph (as you have in 
paragraph 2 for CU Commissi on Decision No. 299). 
Answer: 
The following web address for the link to the consolidated version of the CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 have been added at the end of the paragraph 3: http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulati on/vetmeri/Pages/default.aspx. 
Question 3 
Paragraph 4:  We suggest adding a web addr ess for the link to the consolidated version 
of the CU Commission Decision No. 319 at the end of paragraph (as you have for 
paragraph 2 for CU Commissi on Decision No. 299). 
Answer: 
Paragraph 4 refers to the CU Commission Decision No. 318, not No. 319.  The following web 
address for the link to the consolidated version of the CU Commission Decision No. 318 have been 
added at the end of the paragraph:  
http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulati on/fitosan/Pages/default.aspx. 
Question 4  Paragraph 5:  We ask to re-insert the word "q uality and" after "which set" in the second 
line.  This reflects the current content of CU Technical Regulations and is descriptive 
text. 
Answer: 
In paragraph 5 the word "quality and" was re-inserted. (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
Question 5  
Paragraph 9:  A Member requests clarificatio n of the EEC's role in the development of 
SPS measures.  Could you please elaborat e further on the decision-making process 
within the EEC, specifically regarding the time it takes from the development of a 
measure to the measure's adoption.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Answer: 
The EEC coordinated development of CU legal acts  on SPS by the CU Parties or could act as a 
developer of the draft SPS legal act.  Mo reover, the EEC experts could provide their 
recommendations on developed and approved SPS measures. 
Developing SPS measures at the CU level involved specific technical and administrative expertise 
via working groups which reported to the Consultative Committee.  Functions and interactions of 
the working groups and the Consultative Committee are defined by specific regulations:  the Regulation of Working and Expert Groups on SPS and TBT approved by the Protocol No. 5 of 
the Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 7 December 2010 and th e Regulation on Consultative Committee on 
Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures approved by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 Septembe r 2012.  The current practice for development 
of draft CU legal acts on SPS measures is as follows:  
- a CU Party or the EEC initiated the development of a draft CU legal act.  A Party responsible 
for developing the draft is appointed or the EEC acts as a developer; 
- a working group, including representatives of CU Party's competent authorities is established 
to review the draft; 
- a draft document that is discussed and appr oved at a working group meeting, is then 
submitted to the Consultative Committee for publishing on the CU official website for public 
consultations.  The period for public consultation is two months.  The comments are 
collected by the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Measures of the EEC; 
- After the process of public consultation, all comments and questions are discussed within the 
working group.  The Department of the Sani tary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Measures 
within ten days after expiration of the public consultation period compiles a summary table 
of comments and answers and publishes it on the official CU website.  A final revision of the 
draft document is discussed and approved by the working group and submitted to the 
Consultative Committee; 
- the draft document is reviewed at the meeting of the Consultative Committee.  In case the 
draft is approved, it is submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
- the Collegium either adopted the CU documents which are under its competence or in other 
cases approved the drafts before submitting them to the Council for adoption. 
Currently, the fixed time-frame – 60 days – is established only for public consultations on SPS 
measures.  The length of the other stages of the process of development and approval of SPS legal acts depends on the time required for re aching a consensus by all CU Parties. 
Question 6 
Paragraph 9:  This paragraph needs to be  revised to take into account the new 
procedure introduced by EEC Collegium Decision No. 31 of 5 March 2013.   
Answer: 
The paragraph has been revised in the following way: "Developing SPS measures at the CU level involved specific technical and administrative expertise 
via working groups which reported to the Consultative Committee. Functions and interactions of 
the working groups and the Consultative Committee were defined by specific regulations:  
the Regulation of Working and Expert Groups on SPS and TBT approved by the Protocol No. 5 of 
the Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 7 December 2010 and th e Regulation on Consultative Committee on 
Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures approved by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 Septembe r 2012.  The current practice for development 
of draft CU legal acts on SPS measures was as follows:  
- a CU Party or the EEC initiated the development of a draft CU legal act.  A Party responsible 
for developing the draft was appointed or the EEC acted as a developer; JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  - a working group, including representatives of CU Party's competent authorities was 
established to review the draft; 
- a draft document that was discussed and approved at a working group meeting, was then 
submitted to the Consultative Committee for publishing on the CU official website for public consultations.  The period for public consultation was two months.  The comments 
were collected by the Department of the Sani tary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Measures 
of the EEC; 
- After the process of public consultation, all comments and questions were discussed within 
the working group.  The Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary 
Measures within ten days after expiration of the public consultation period compiled a 
summary table of comments and answers and published it on the official CU website.  
A final revision of the draft document was discussed and approved by the working group 
and submitted to the Consultative Committee; 
- the draft document was reviewed at the meetin g of the Consultative Committee.  In case 
the draft was approved, it was submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
- the Collegium either adopted the CU documents which were under its competence or in 
other cases approved the drafts before subm itting them to the Council for adoption." 
Question 7 Paragraphs 7-12:  Competent Authorities fo r the Regulation of Trade in Agriculture 
Products:  In response to a question from  a Member during 19 March 2013, plurilateral 
meeting on sanitary and phytosa nitary (SPS) measures, Kazakhstan indicated that it is 
currently gathering information in order to  conduct a risk assessment on ractopamine 
and would share progress on its website.  This  Member kindly requests that Kazakhstan 
provide a status update and advise when it  expects to complete the risk assessment. 
Furthermore, this Member requests that Kazakhstan share the link to the website where 
this information can be found. 
Paragraphs 13-31:  Development of Technica l Regulations/Mandatory Requirements on 
SPS:  While this Member appreciates that Kazakhstan has stated that it will follow international standards, the Member remains concerned with Kazakhstan's commitment 
to put this into practice.  Referencing paragraph 14 bis, Kazakhstan has stated in a 
previous written response that it applies Ar ticle 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement to justify 
implementing the EEC prohibition on ractop amine, notwithstanding the Codex standard 
on ractopamine maximum residue limits, whic h was adopted in July 2012.  The first 
sentence of Article 5.7 states: 
[i]n cases where relevant scientific ev idence is insufficient, a Member may 
provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanita ry measures on the basis of available 
pertinent information, including that from  the relevant international organizations 
as well as from sanitary or phytosanita ry measures applied by other Members. 
This Member notes that in its July 6, 2012,  announcement of the adoption of MRLs, the 
FAO stated that Codex had "agreed on a set of residue limits for the veterinary drug 
ractopamine in animal tissues" and that this "decision was made after a rigorous process of scientific assessmen t to ascertain that the proposed limits of residues have 
no impact on human health.  This assessm ent was carried out by the Joint Expert 
Committee on Food Additives, which is a grou p of independent experts convened by the 
FAO and the WHO." 
Given the above, does Kazakhstan consider the relevant scientific evidence (i.e. the 
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additi ves assessment) underpinning the Codex 
ractopamine maximum residue limits to be insu fficient?  If so, could Kazakhstan provide 
its rationale? 
Answer: 
Currently, ractopamine is not registered in the territory of the Customs Union.  Thus, ractopamine 
is not included into the Register of Veterinary Drugs and Food Additives Authorised for the Use in 
the Territory of the Customs Union. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  At the same time, it should be noted that the legitimacy of the Codex standards for ractopamine, 
approved in July 2012, is being challenged by many countries.  In this regard, number of 
countries, including WTO Members, banned the use of ractopamine as food additive and 
established zero tolerance for its presence in meat and meat products. 
The Russian Federation conducted risk assessmen t on ractopamine which is published on the 
official website of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human 
Well-being of the Russian Federation.  On the basis of this analysis, it was concluded that consumption of products with maximum residu e level of ractopamine recommended by the 
Commission Codex Alimentarius (3 mg/kg), may result in an unacceptable additional level of risk 
of functional disorders and diseases of cardiova scular system (diseases characterized by high 
blood pressure, atherosclerotic heart disease).  
Scientific institutions of Kazakhstan have analysed results of the risk assessment conducted by the 
Russian Federation, and agreed with its findings.  In this regard, Kazakhstan has decided not to 
carry out separate risk assessment and rely on th e data provided by the risk assessment carried 
out by the Russian Federation. 
(c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS 
Question 8 Paragraph 17, Line 7 – It states that TR 's development has been suspended at the 
EurAsEC level.  We have reviewed Decision No. 575 which we had understood provided 
the legal basis for the suspension, however, in  reviewing this decision we do not see any 
reference to suspension of EurAsEC TRs.  Co uld Kazakhstan please confirm that this is 
the correct decision and if so, please add lang uage to the text identifying this decision? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that the EurAsEC Inter-state Council Decision No. 575 "On Elimination of 
Technical Barriers in Mutual Trade of EurAsEC member-States on the Basis of the Technical 
Regulations System of the Customs Union" served as a basis for suspension of the development of 
the EurAsEC technical regulations.  Relevant language will be added into paragraph 17 of the SPS text. 
Question 9 
Paragraph 20, Line 11 – It states that the Schedule on Development of 
CU Technical Regulations for 2012-2013 was ad opted by EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 
23 November 2012.  Can Kazakhstan confirm th at all CU draft Technical Regulations per 
EEC Council Decision No. 103 will be subject to the public consultation procedure 
allowing for at least 60 days for third parties comments? 
Answer: 
All CU technical regulations listed in EEC Council Decision No. 103 will be subject to the 60 days 
public consultation procedure except for draft te chnical regulations that have been previously 
published for public consultations under the Schedule for Development of First Priority Technical Regulations of the Customs Union adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 
8 December 2010, namely:  "On Meat and Meat Products", "On Fish and Fish Products", "On Feed 
and Feed Additives", "On Milk and Milk Products ".  These technical regulations have undergone 
public consultations procedure in 2011–2012 and are currently under internal approval procedures. 
Question 10 
Paragraph 21:  We would like to propose  some modifications to the paragraph: 
[The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that, for so long as Kazakhstan was a 
EurAsEC Party, if the work on EurAsE C technical regulations was resumed, 
Kazakhstan would ensure that its en quiry point's website would provide JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  information regarding the resumption of that work, and notify and provide draft 
EurAsEC SPS related technical regulati ons and other related documents in 
accordance with Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement.  [and therefore] and provide 
the possibility to provide comments to th e drafts.][ and other developments and 
documents regarding EurAsEC technical regulations.  The Working Party Members 
took note of these commitments.] 
Answer: 
The proposed commitment text has been added into paragraph 21 of the SPS Chapter. Question 11 
We ask that our comments on the draft CU Technical Regulations for meat and meat 
products, fish and fishery products, feed an d feed additives, milk and milk products, 
submitted in 2011 during the process of pub lic consultation, are answered and reflected 
in the final version of these texts.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan is currently trying to gather all comments received in 2011 on 4 draft technical 
regulations.  Taking into account that comments were sent and considered two years ago, when 
there was no requirement for publishing answers to  the comments on the official CU website, this 
task requires considerable amount of time and work.  Moreover, Kazakhstan was responsible for developing only three out of four technical regulations ("On Meat and Meat Products", "On Feed 
and Feed Additives" and "On Fish and Fish Products").  As soon as this work is completed, 
Kazakhstan will provide answers to the comments to the relevant WTO Members. 
Question 12 
Paragraph 19:  We propose to add "notably  those comments that proposed improved 
alignment with international standards, reco mmendations and guidelines" at the end of 
the penultimate sentence.  
Answer: 
The proposed text was added to paragraph 19. 
Question 13 Paragraph 20:  We propose to specify which TR s concern food safety in the schedule of 
EEC Council Decision No. 103 and to start a new paragraph after this sentence.   
Answer: 
The proposed changes were made in paragraph 20.  The information on TRs concerning food 
safety stipulated in the Schedule of the EEC Council Decision No. 103 was added in the last 
sentence of the paragraph: 
The Schedule on Development of CU Technical Regulations for 2012-2013 was adopted by 
EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012, which included the following SPS 
technical regulations:  "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products"; "On Milk and Milk Products"; "On Safety of Fish and Fish Products"; "On Safety of Feed and Feed Additives"; "On Safety of Poultry and its Products"; "On Safety of Pota ble Water, Bottled"; "On Safety of Products in 
Contact with Food". 
Question 14 Paragraph 28:  We ask to insert the sentence:  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  "She clarified that only sanita ry safety limits set at the CU level could be applied on the 
territory of CU Parties.  This is, CU Part ies could not adopt specific MRLs or other 
sanitary requirements at the na tional level in the absence of  those at the CU level."   
Answer: 
The proposed sentence was added into paragraph 28. 
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
Question 15 Could Kazakhstan inform whether a schedule  for CU audits and inspections in third 
countries is established, according to whic h criteria and how it is communicated?  
We ask to add a new paragraph, after para graph 80:  "Some Members requested more 
information on the timing of the audit once the audit request was sent to a CU Party.  These Members expressed concerns that th is implementation of the audit system 
seemed lengthy and burdensome", and seek an answer.   
Answer: 
Audit of the official system of control of third countries was introduced in August 2012.  Request 
for audit can be sent to one of the CU Parties.  The CU Party that received the request will be 
responsible for coordinating audit process in this third country.  To date, Kazakhstan has not received any requests from third countries to carry  out an audit.  On the basis of the requests 
received by other CU Parties, a draft Schedule of Audits and Inspections for 2013 have been 
prepared by the CU Parties.  However, publication of the Schedule is not provided in the 
CU legislation.  In this regard, at Kazakhstan's initiative the issue of publication of the Schedule on the official website of the EEC is currently discussed at the EEC level.  The timing of audits 
depends on the number of requests received from third countries and the availability of financial 
and human recourses for conducting such audits.  
The proposed Members' language has been added after paragraph 80. 
Question 16 
We ask that our comments to the draft amendments to CU Commission Decision No. 834 
on the audit, inspection and listing proced ures, submitted in the process of public 
consultation (draft published on the CU we bsite on 1 February 2013), are taken into 
account.  We have expressed serious concerns  about the draft amendments published.  
In particular we asked that paragraph 179, in the final provisions, be deleted.  We asked 
for a more streamlined and effective procedur e for listing of establishments based on 
written guarantees as foreseen in paragr aphs 43 and 44.  We are concerned by the 
disparity of approach between the proced ure for listing establishments based on 
guarantees, which is very cumbersome and requ ires the agreement of all CU Parties, and 
the procedure for suspension foreseen in the draft amendment, which would allow an 
immediate suspension after the decision of one CU Party, valid for the entire 
CU territory.   
Answer: 
1. All comments submitted during public consultations to the draft amendments into 
CU Commission Decision No. 834 were considered during the EEC working group meeting on veterinary measures (held on 2-3 April 2013).  Th e draft amendments were revised in accordance 
with the received comments and published on the EE C official website for another round of public 
consultations on 10 April 2013. 
2. Draft amendments into Decision No. 834 have clarified mechanism for accepting guarantees 
from competent authorities of third countries (paragraphs 43-44) taking into account 
WTO Members' comments and proposals on time-frames for considering requests, provision of reasons for refusal in accepting the guarantee, terms and scope of the guarantee.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  In particular, the draft amendments established that the competent authority of a third country 
shall send request to accept its guarantee on comp liance of the goods subject to veterinary control 
produced by specific establishment (establishments ) to the authorised body of a CU Party, with 
information required in accordance with paragrap h 43-1 of the Decision attached to the request, 
including the list of establishments with names of produced products.  Guarantee of the third 
country's competent authority is accepted on each group of products according to the HS Codes.  
The authorised body of the Party that received  the request for guarantee evaluates the request 
based on the criteria provided in paragraph 43- 1 of the Decision No. 834, and upon favourable 
evaluation prepares final decision and sends it to the authorised bodies of other CU Parties for 
approval.  Time-frame for the approval by the CU Parties shall not exceed 10 working days.  
The authorised bodies of the Parties shall approve the final decision on accepting the guarantee in 
written form or shall send letter indicating the reasons for not approving the decision to the 
CU Party that received the request within the established time-frame.  In the absence of the 
written reply during the established time-frame the decision is deemed to be approved.   
The amendments also envisage that in case the decision is approved by the CU Parties, the 
authorised body of the Party that received the request shall send written notification to the 
competent authority of the third country on acce pting the guarantee.  If the initial request 
contained the list of third country establishments, the authorised body of the Party includes them into the Register not later than one month since the date of approval of the favourable decision on 
accepting the guarantee.  In case of the nega tive decision on accepting the guarantee the 
authorised body of the Party prepares the conclusi on that is then sent to the competent authority 
of the third country with indication of the reasons for refusal.  
The amendments also provided that the competen t authority of the third country whose guarantee 
have been accepted in the prescribed manner can send additional list of establishments to the authorised body of the Party for considering their inclusion into the Registry.  Following the 
consideration, the authorised body of the Part y notifies the decision to include/not include 
establishments into the Registry with indicating the reasons.  
3. Paragraph 179 has been included into the dr aft amendments to Decision No. 834 in order to 
establish a provisional scheme that can be applied for imports of products subject to veterinary 
control pending the audit results.   
In accordance with Article 5 of Decision No. 834, audit is the main principle for ensuring safety of 
products of animal origin imported to the CU.  Additionally, products of animal origin from 
countries that have not been audited can be imported to the CU based on inclusion in the Register 
of Establishments of Third Countries.  
Since Decision No. 834 had come into force, products for which listing is required under Decision 
No. 830 can be imported to the CU based on three methods provided in Decision No. 834: 
- audit; 
- acceptance of guarantee from competent authorities of third countries; and 
- joint inspections of establishments of third countries. 
At the same time, products for which listing of establishments is not required in accordance with 
Decision No. 830 can be imported only after favourable audit results.  Taking into account that the audit is a complex and lengthy process, in order not to stop trade in these products, the CU Parties 
agreed to apply provisional scheme that will be app lied until all CU trade partners undergo audit.  
Under these scheme products for which listing is not required under Decision No. 830, before audit is carried out, can be imported to the CU based on listing of establishments.  Listing of 
establishments can be done based on the guaran tee of third countries' competent authorities or 
joint inspections.  Thus, listing of establishments for products, for which listing is not required under Decision No. 830, will be carried out until au dit is completed and the official system of a 
respective country is recognised as equivalent.  The CU Parties agreed to introduce relevant 
amendments into Decision No. 834.  These amendm ents have been published for public discussion 
on the EEC official website on 10 April 2013. 
4. Inclusion of establishments into the Register is carried out by the CU Parties in coordinated 
manner because goods exported from these establishments can freely move within the CU and 
have access to the territory of all CU Parties.  In contrast, exclusion of establishments from the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Register as an extreme measure can only be do ne at the request of the establishment or the 
competent authority of a third country.  
Temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment are not imposed automatically.  They 
can be imposed only at the request of a third count ry or in case of repeated identification of 
non-compliances which is notified to the competent authority of the exporting country and which 
poses significant risk to human and animal life and health. 
In other instances, consistent measures, such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special 
requirements, such as application of additional or replacement measures, are applied in order not 
to stop exports from such establishments.  Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on 
repeated violations of the CU requirements and th ey cannot contradict principles and spirit of the 
SPS Agreement.   
5. Restrictions on imports imposed by one CU Party will be automatically effective throughout 
the whole CU territory due to the absence of inte rnal borders between the CU Parties and the fact 
that goods are moving freely within the CU. 
Question 17 
We ask that our comments to the draft amendment to the CU common veterinary 
requirements, submitted in the process of pu blic consultation (draft published on the 
CU website on 1 February 2013), are taken into account.  The notified draft would 
amend the general requirements so as to sp ecify that third country establishments, 
which produce products containing components  of animal origin for export to the CU, 
are obliged to use raw materials of animal or igin produced by establishments which are 
approved to supply products to the Customs Union territory.  We ask to restrict this 
obligation to meat and meat products expo r t s .   W e  a s k  t o  i n c l u d e  a  n e w  M e m b e r s '  
concern in a paragraph after paragraph 75:  "Members expressed concerns about a draft 
amendment to CU common veterinary requir ements that introduced a new listing 
obligation for establishments supplying raw ma terials to establishments that exported 
animal products to the CU", and seek an answer. 
Answer: 
The comments from a Member received during public consultations have been considered at the 
EEC working group meeting.  The CU Parties ha ve established that the requirement for third 
country establishments, which produce products containing components of animal origin for export to the CU, to use raw materials of animal origin produced by establishments which are approved to 
supply products to the Customs Union territory, would be applicable only to food products of 
animal origin imported to the CU territory.  
This requirement is aimed at addressing the high risk associated with raw products of animal origin 
used in production of food products  intended for human consumption.  
The proposed Member's language has been added after paragraph 75.  
Question 18 A Member has concerns that Kazakhstan imp osed restrictions due to the Schmallenberg 
virus, which is not an OIE listed disease, while Kazakhstan has not demonstrated that, 
based on surveillance data, it is free from this disease.  
Answer: 
Schmallenberg is an exotic disease for Kazakhstan and has historically never been detected at the 
territory of Kazakhstan. 
The CU has imposed temporary restrictions in connection with Schmallenberg virus due to the 
absence of sufficient scientific information.  The disease was first identified in the second half of 
2011 in Germany and quickly spread on the territory of many EU countries.  Currently, research JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  with regard to this virus is continuing, and there is still not enough data on the routes of 
transmission of this disease among animals, ther e are no methods for prevention of the disease 
and treatment of animals.  In February 2013, th e OIE updated recommendations with regard to 
Schmallenberg disease that tightened conditions for the importation of semen of cattle and small cattle from infected areas in connection with the discovery of additional ways of transmitting the 
Schmallenberg virus. 
It should be mentioned that some WTO Members have also imposed temporary restrictions on 
imports from EU countries with regard to Schmallenberg disease for the same reasons. 
- (i) Veterinary Certificates 
Question 19 
Paragraph 36:  Please provide addition al information regarding who among the 
CU Parties or the EEC was responsible fo r providing feedback to third countries' 
certificate negotiation proposals and requests. 
Answer: 
The CU Party that received initial request from a third country to initiate the negotiation on 
veterinary certificates, or the EEC, if the third country had sent its request to it, is responsible for 
organization and coordination of negotiations on veterinary certificates, as well as preparation and provision of feedback on third countries' proposal s and requests regarding veterinary certificates. 
Question 20 
Paragraph 39:  Please provide a status update on the ongoing harmonization of 
CU common veterinary requirements and cert ificates with international standards.  
A Member continues to review the amendmen ts that the CU Parties have undertaken 
regarding the common veterinary requirements.  We note that from our perspective, 
further harmonization with the international standards, particularly the OIE appears to 
be necessary.  We ask that Kazakhstan provid e more information on how they intend to 
pursue further harmonization with the OIE in order to ensure that Kazakhstan can fulfil 
this commitment. 
Answer: 
Currently, systematic work on harmonization of the Common Veterinary Requirements and 
certificates with the OIE recommendations has been completed.  The CU Parties continue to 
analyse the Common Veterinary Requirements in or der to identify areas for further improvement 
and alignment with international standards.  
In addition, any third party may send request to the CU Parties indicating discrepancy of these 
requirements with international standards, which will be considered in accordance with EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 6 November 2012 "On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of 
Carrying out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures". 
Question 21 Paragraph 41:  A Member notes that pursuant to CU Decision No. 726, this Member is 
currently engaged with the CU in bilateral veterinary certificate negotiations with 
requirements that differ from CU common veterinary requirements.  Based on our experience, we continue to have concer ns that the CU is not moving toward 
international standards and intends to stay a s  c l o s e t o  CU Co m mo n requi r em ent s  a nd 
forms as possible, without providing a scient ific justification for these requirements.  
We are also concerned with the time it takes to arrange negotiations, time it takes to 
receive feedback (in some cases, we are in ei ght month of waiting for CU's feedback to 
our proposal), and the lack of consistency in  participation among the CU Parties during 
negotiations.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  - Can you please explain who is responsi ble for coordinating negotiations and 
providing feedback to third countries?  
- What role does the EEC play in certificate negotiations?  
Answer: 
The CU Party that received initial request from a third country to initiate the negotiation on 
veterinary certificates, or the EEC, if the third country had sent its request to it, is responsible for 
organization and coordination of negotiations on bilateral veterinary certificates, as well as preparation and provision of feedback on thir d countries' proposals and requests regarding 
veterinary certificates.  Kazakhstan has not received any requests from this Member on bilateral 
certificates.  The EEC experts could organize and coordinate the negotiation process.  Moreover, 
the EEC experts could provide their recommendations. 
When negotiating veterinary certificates the CU Parties follow international standards, unless 
scientific justification for a more stringent standard is provided. 
Question 22 Paragraph 34:  We ask that the process of  harmonization of CU common veterinary 
requirements and common forms of certificat es with international standards and in 
particular OIE standards be pursued.  
Answer: 
Currently, systematic work on harmonization of the Common Veterinary Requirements and 
certificates with the OIE recommendations has been completed.  The CU Parties continue to 
analyse the Common Veterinary Requirements in or der to identify areas for further improvement 
and alignment with international standards.  
In addition, any third party may send request to the CU Parties indicating discrepancy of 
CU requirements with international standards, which will be considered in accordance with EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 6 November 2012 "On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of 
Carrying out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures". 
Question 23 Paragraph 43:  We ask for the removal of the brackets for the sentence "would not 
include provisions for diseases that were not transmitted by/relevant to the concerned 
product".  We ask to replace the penultima te sentence by "In accordance with the 
OIE code, in cases where at least one, but not all, CU Parties had in place in the relevant 
territory either a control or eradication programme for a disease, or surveillance 
programme demonstrating that the disease was not present, veterinary attestations for 
that disease would only be required for good s destined to the CU Party(-ies) having the 
relevant programme in place."  
Answer: 
Brackets for the sentence "would not include provisions for diseases that were not transmitted 
by/relevant to the concerned product" have been removed. 
With regard to the sentence starting with "In accordance with the OIE code…", Kazakhstan notes 
that the proposed commitment is not in line with OIE standard.  Taking into account that CU has no internal borders between the CU countries, and once imported products could freely move 
through the CU territory, the CU territory can be considered as a territory of a single country 
within the meaning of the OIE code.  In this regard we propose the following commitment language that fully corresponds to the provisions of  paragraph 2 of Article 5.1.2 of the OIE Code:   
[In accordance with the OIE code, CU veterinary certificates would not include requirements 
for the exclusion of pathogens or animal diseases which were present in the CU and were JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  not subject to any official control programme.  The measures imposed on imports to manage 
the risks posed by a specific pathogen or disease would not require a higher level of 
protection than that provided by measures app lied as part of the official control programme 
operating within the CU.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
Question 24 
Paragraph 45:  We ask for the removal of the brackets for the sentence:  
"For example the TR on Food Safety, ad opted by CU Commission Decision No. 880 
of 9 December 2011, provided that only ve terinary certificates would be required 
for non-processed animal products, while only a declaration of conformity or 
State Registration certificate would be re quired for products, that have undergone 
a treatment which, based on scientific evidence, eliminated contamination."   
- Can Kazakhstan clarify which type of document will be required for treated 
products upon the entry into force of CU Commission Decision No. 880 and which 
are the procedures applicable fo r this type of document?   
- Can Kazakhstan clarify when the relevant  legal text containing the corresponding 
implementing measures will be pu blished for public consultation? 
Answer: 
Brackets for the sentence in paragraph 45 have been removed.  The Republic of Kazakhstan has repeatedly initiated the discussion of the issue at the EEC level.  
However, currently the CU members did not reach a common position.  In this regard, the issue 
was also raised at the EEC Council meeting which was held in Moscow on 23 April 2013.  Following this meeting, the EEC Council commissioned the EEC Parties to submit their positions to the next 
EEC Council meeting before 10 June 2013.  Thus, the type of the document that will be required 
for processed animal products has not been established yet. 
- (ii) Establishment Approval , Register and Inspections 
Question 25 
Paragraph 46:  A Member is concerned that am endments to the List subject to veterinary 
control has not been adopted yet.  More over, the draft amendment published on 
9 October 2012 still required registration of  establishment for some products with no 
scientific basis provided to support this measure.  In particular, the listing of 
establishment is not required for any living organisms except for live fish (HS 0301), but 
Kazakhstan has not provided scientific just ification for its inclusion.  This Member 
provided comments on this draft amendm ent and asked that the requirement for 
establishment list for live fish is removed.  In addition, draft amendment required the 
list of registered facilities for all milk produc ts within HS 0401.  This Member requested 
Kazakhstan to remove the listing requirement for all milk except for "raw" milk.  Other 
veterinary control measures, including a veterinary certificate and import permit would continue to apply to all milk and milk products.  
Answer: 
1. On milk products within HS 0401 
The Republic of Kazakhstan has initiated the discussion of these issues at the EEC level several 
times.  In particular, on February 2013, Kazakhstan has proposed to separate the HS 0401 into 
two lines- raw milk and processed milk - and remo ve the listing requirement for processed milk.  
The CU Parties have not developed a common position on Kazakhstan's proposal.  In this regard, 
Kazakhstan has initiated discussion of these issue at the level of the EEC Council (the EEC Council 
members are Deputy Prime Ministers of the CU  P a r t i e s ) ,  t h a t  c o n v e n e d  i n  M o s c o w  o n  
23 April 2013.  The EEC Council has adopted a Decision in accordance with which the CU Parties JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  together with the EEC Collegium have to develop a uniform position on the issue and introduce 
relevant amendments into the Common Veterinary Requirements.   
2. On live fish  
The Customs Union requires listing of facilities of third countries importing live fish into the 
CU territory for the following reasons: 
a. due to the risks associated with live fish's habitat (aquatic environment).  In particular, the 
habitat can be the reason for live fish containing residues of harmful substances, toxic substances, heavy metals, infectious and parasitic diseases.  In case infestation of fish by parasitic diseases or its contamination by harmful substances is identified, there is a need for conducting analysis of 
reservoir's water and soil samples; 
b. live fish is often placed on the market as f ood product and, unlike other live animals, in case 
of fish, each specimen is not subject to ante-mortem  and post-mortem  inspection.  Moreover, each 
specimen of fish is not subject to veterinary an d sanitary expertise.  These factors increase the 
risks of hazardous food products being placed on the market. 
c. listing of the establishments of third countries that import live fish, in our opinion, is in line 
with international practice and international standards and recommendations. 
It should also be mentioned that Decision No. 830 has been agreed in the result of negotiations 
with the WTO Members. 
Question 26 
In addition, please provide an update on the status of the amendment referenced in 
paragraph 46.  When is it likely to be adopted?   
Answer: 
Draft amendments into the CU Decision No. 810 of 23 September 2011 were approved by the EEC 
Decision of 9 April 2013 and will be submitted for approval at the next EEC meeting.  
Draft amendments to the Annex of the Common Veterinary Requirements approved by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2 010 on removal of certain veterinary control 
measures, have been agreed upon by the CU me mbers except for amendments on processed milk 
products.  
The Republic of Kazakhstan has initiated the discussion on milk products at the EEC level several 
times.  In particular, on February 2013, Kazakhstan has proposed to separate the HS 0401 into 
two lines- raw milk and processed milk - and remove the listing requirement for processed milk.  The CU Parties have not developed a common position on Kazakhstan's proposal.  In this regard, 
Kazakhstan has initiated discussion of these issue at the level of the EEC Council (the EEC Council 
members are Deputy Prime Ministers of the CU  P a r t i e s ) ,  t h a t  c o n v e n e d  i n  M o s c o w  o n  
23 April 2013.  The EEC Council has adopted a Decision in accordance with which the CU Parties 
together with the EEC Collegium have to develop a uniform position on the issue and introduce 
relevant amendments into the Common Veterinary Requirements. 
Question 27 Paragraphs 51-52:  We have strong reservations  with the addition of the last sentence in 
paragraph 51 that states:  "Trade would then  be possible for these commodities without 
listing upon favourable audit results".  A Member requests that this language be 
removed from the text.  Decision No. 834 and Decision No. 830 do not state that audits 
are a pre-requisite for removing the listing re quirements.  We have strong reservations 
with Kazakhstan's connection and interpreta tion of CU Commission Decisions Nos. 834 
and 830.  We also note that amendments to Decision No. 834 were published which did 
not resolve our concerns.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Answer: 
In accordance with Article 5 of Decision No. 834, audit is the main principle for ensuring safety of 
products of animal origin.  The audit of official foreign systems of control is based on international 
standards and is in line with international practice.  Many developed countries apply audit (approval of exporting countries) as the main condition for exporting products of animal origin to 
their territories.  Thus, in these countries products of animal origin cannot be imported to their 
territories before this country is included into the list of exporting countries based on audit of its official control system.   
I n  t h e  C U  p r o d u c t s  o f  a n i m a l  o r i g i n  f r o m  c o u n t r i e s  t h a t  h a v e  n o t  b e e n  a u d i t e d  c a n  a l s o  b e  
imported based on inclusion in the Register of Establishments of Third Countries.  
Since Decision No. 834 had come into force, products for which listing is required can be imported 
to the CU based on three methods provided in Decision No. 834. 
- audit; 
- acceptance of guarantee from competent authorities of third countries; and 
- joint inspections of establishments of third countries. 
At the same time, products, for which listing of es tablishments is not required in accordance with 
Decision No. 830, can be imported to the CU only  upon favourable audit results.  Taking into 
account that the audit is a complex and lengthy process, in order not to stop trade in these products, the CU Parties agreed to apply provisio nal scheme that will be applied until all CU trade 
partners undergo audit.  Under these scheme products, for which listing is not required under 
Decision No. 830, before audit is carried out, can be imported to the CU based on the listing of 
establishments.  Listing of establishments can be  done based on the guarantee of third countries' 
competent authorities or joint inspections.  The list ing of establishments for such products will be 
carried out until audit is completed and the official system of a respective third country is recognised as equivalent.  The CU Parties agreed to introduce relevant amendments into 
Decision No. 834.  These amendments have been  published for public discussion on the EEC 
official website. 
It should be mentioned, that all establishments included into the Register prior to enforcement of 
Decision No. 834 (21 August 2012) will remain in the Register and could continue importation of 
their products to the CU.  
Question 28 Paragraph 53:  We are strongly concerne d with Kazakhstan's interpretation of 
CU Commission Decisions No. 834, in particular  with Kazakhstan's reply that "according 
to Article 5 of the Decision No. 834 an audit of foreign control systems was a 
prerequisite for access of products subject to veterinary control to the CU market.  
This language is not an accurate reflection of  the text of Article 5 of Decision No. 834.  
We request that brackets be placed aro und the paragraph.  The CU Commission 
Decisions No. 834 outlines three possibilities for exporting countries' establishments to 
become eligible to export to the CU: 
- through a joint inspection conducted by all CU Parties;  
- the exporting country provided guarantees to the CU that the establishment met 
the requirements of the CU; 
- a systems audit to determine if the offici al system of supervision of that third 
country was capable of providing a level of protection at least equivalent to that 
provided by CU requirements per request of the competent authorities of the third 
country.  
Answer: 
Audit is the main mechanism of access of products of animal origin to the CU market, both for 
which listing of establishments is required and those, for which listing is not required. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Establishments can be listed based on audit results, or alternatively, based on guarantees of 
competent authorities of third countries or on results of joint inspections of third country 
establishments.   
For further  explanation, please, refer to answer to Question 27. 
Question 29 
We are also concerned that the provisions  for accepting guarantees are not fully 
implemented.  CU Decision No. 834 allows Kazakhstan and its CU Partners to accept 
guarantees as a means of listing new esta blishments, but it has not been done in 
practice.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan applies and is going to apply guarantees  from competent authorities of third parties in 
future as one of the mechanisms for listing new establishments in accordance with Decision 
No. 834.  To date Kazakhstan has received requests for accepting guarantees from two countries 
and has been following all the procedures established in the Decision No. 834. 
Question 30 
Please confirm that where Kazakhstan or other parties of the CU had in practice 
accepted the guarantees of a third country prior to the adoption of Decision No. 834, 
that these third countries would not be ex pected to start over in the process of 
accepting guarantees.  A Member requests confirmation that Kazakhstan and the CU 
take into account background/historical tr ade of exporting countries and authorised 
establishments when accepting guarantees.  Again, we note that draft amendments to 
Decision No. 834 regarding guarantees had been published for public consultation.  
We have provided comments on these proposed amendments and we look for 
confirmation that our comments will be cons idered.  We would like to note that the 
mechanism for accepting guarantees shou ld be a transparent and streamlined 
mechanism that provides a clear process fo r including establishments, when required, 
into the register.  Historically, Kazakhstan had not maintained a register of approved 
establishments and relied on the agreed certif icates as the guarantee.  We look forward 
to seeing further revisions to the CU De cision No. 834 that reflect a streamlined 
mechanism.   
Answer: 
Prior to adoption of Decision No. 834 Kazakhstan  had not applied mechanism of listing of third 
country establishments based on guarantees.  The procedures for accepting guarantees from 
competent authorities of third countries will be carried out based on the application by competent authority of third country in accordance with the procedures stipulated in CU Commission Decision 
No. 834 of 18 July 2011.  Kazakhstan confirms that when considering guarantees from competent 
authorities of third countries it will take into account history of trade with these countries.  
A Member's comments to the draft amendments to Decision No. 834 have been considered by the 
CU Parties at the working group on veterinary an d sanitary measures on 2-3 April 2013.  The draft 
amendments to Decision No. 834 revised taking into account comments received during public 
consultations, including on guarantee mechanism, was published for another round of public consultations at the official EEC website on 10 April 2013. 
Question 31 
Can Kazakhstan provide further details on the CU process for audits?  Is the CU schedule 
for audits publicly available?   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer: 
All procedures for conducting an audit are stipulated in Decision No. 834.  Currently, the 
CU Parties are preparing the uniform schedule of au dits/inspections and is considering the issue of 
its publication on the official CU website. 
Question 32 
Paragraph 55:  We would like to note that th e list of goods as set-out in table would be 
virtually meaningless if Kazakhstan considers audits to be a pre-condition to removing 
the requirement for an establishment list.  We  would like to stress again that this is an 
issue that needs to be favourably resolved.   
Answer: 
In accordance with Article 5 of Decision No. 834 audi t of foreign official control system is the main 
principle for ensuring safety of products of animal origin.  The audit of official foreign control 
systems is based on international standards and is in line with international practice.  Many 
developed countries apply audit (approval of expo rting countries) as main condition for exporting 
products of animal origin to their territories.  Thus, in these countries products of animal origin 
cannot be imported to their territories before the exporting country is included into the list of 
exporting countries based on audit of its official control system. 
Question 33 Paragraph 56:  We are strongly concerned with changes to sentence (line 8).   
 "The addition of an establishment from any country to the national part of the List 
could only occur after all three CU Parties agreed on the inclusion of the establishment".   
The Regulation on Joint Inspection allows for the inclusion into the register if a Party 
(singular, not Parties) agreed to accept guarantees.  While we appreciate that the 
changes to the sentence appear to reflect the practice as it is currently being applied, 
this appears to contradict the actual langua ge and process established in the decision. 
Answer: 
Inclusion into the Register is carried out by the CU Parties in a coordinated manner.  This is due to 
the fact that goods imported to the CU can freely move throughout the whole CU territory.  
Products from third country establishments included in the Common Register have access to the 
territory of all CU Parties.  
Relevant amendments were introduced into the De cision No. 834 in order to clarify the procedures 
for accepting guarantees from competent authorities of third countries, including the timing for 
receiving the approval from the other CU Parties.  In particular, the following provisions have been added into the Decision No. 834: 
"Upon favourable evaluation of the request on a ccepting the guarantee the authorised body of the 
Party prepares the final decision and sends it to the authorised bodies of the other CU Parties for 
approval.  The time-frame for the approval  is not more than 10 working days.   
The authorised bodies of the Parties shall approve the final decision on accepting the guarantee in 
the written form or shall send letter indicating the reasons for not approving the decision within 
the established time-frame.  In the absence of the written reply during the established time-frame the decision is deemed to be approved".   
These and other amendments into the Decision No. 834 are currently published for public 
consultation. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Question 34 
Paragraph 59, in line 6, the representative explained that the three parties of the CU 
must agree to rely on guarantees for a count ry to be able to utilise this mechanism for 
establishment approval.   
- Could Kazakhstan please provide more in formation on the internal process used 
within the CU to coordinate?   
- To whom should the competent authority of the third country present the request 
for guarantees?   
Paragraph 60:  Please provide more informat ion on the decision-making process and the 
timing of the mechanism.   
Answer: 
The competent authority of a third country may send its request to accept its guarantee on 
compliance of the goods subject to veterinary control produced by specific establishment 
(establishments) to the authorised body of any CU  Party.  The authorised body of a Party that 
received the request is responsible for coordinating  the process of consideration of the request for 
providing the guarantee and for agreeing its deci sion with the authorised bodies of the other 
CU Parties.  
In particular, the authorised body of the Party that received the request evaluates the request 
based on the criteria provided in the paragrap h 43 of Decision No. 834, and upon favourable 
evaluation prepares the final decision and sends it to the authorised bodies of other CU Parties for 
approval.  In accordance with the amendments in to Decision No. 834 that are currently published 
for public discussion, time-frame for the approval  by the CU Parties shall not exceed 10 working 
days.  Moreover, in accordance with the amendmen ts the authorised bodies of the Parties shall 
approve the final decision on accepting the guarante e in written form or shall send letter indicating 
the reasons for not approving the decision to the CU Party that received the request within the 
established time-frame.  In the absence of the wr itten reply during the established time-frame the 
decision is deemed to be approved.   
The amendments also envisage that in case the decision is approved by the CU Parties, the 
authorised body of the Party that received the request shall send written notification to the 
competent authority of the third country on acce pting the guarantee.  If the initial request 
contained the list of third country establishments, the authorised body of the Party includes them into the Register not later than one month since the date of approval of the favourable decision on 
accepting the guarantee.  In case of the nega tive decision on accepting the guarantee the 
authorised body of the Party prepares the conclusi on that is then sent to the competent authority 
of the third country with indication of the reasons for refusal.  
In case the guarantee of the competent authorit y of the third party is accepted, the competent 
authority of the third country shall prepare a list of  establishments and send it to the authorised 
body of the Party.  The authorised body of the Pa rty evaluates the provided list of establishments 
within one month and makes a decision on including the listed establishments into the Registry.  
The authorised body of the Party notifies the competent authority of the third country of the 
decision to include/not to include establishments into the Registry with indicating reasons. 
The competent authority of the third country whose guarantee have been accepted in the 
prescribed manner can send additional list of esta blishments to the authorised body of the Party 
for considering their inclusion into the Registry.  Following the consideration, the authorised body 
of the Party notifies the decision to include/not include establishments into the Registry with 
indicating the reasons. 
Question 35 Paragraph 62:  We note that Kazakhstan added last sentence "Amendments to these 
criteria were being considered  by the EEC".  Can you please provide an update on the 
status for this amendment?  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Answer: 
These amendments have been revised in accordance with the comments received during the public 
consultation and published for additional public consultations on 10 April 2013. 
Question 36 P a r a g r a p h  6 8 :   W e  n o t e  t h a t  8
th line from the bottom states:  "The representative of 
Kazakhstan further clarified that decision on  suspension of exports from establishments 
was made based on obvious facts of inconsis tencies with CU requirements that posed 
substantial risk to life and health of humans and/or animals.  Thus, such decision could 
be made individually by a CU Party". 
- Can you please confirm that suspension of exports would be made only for the 
territory of the CU Party took the decision?  
- Please confirm that suspensions of export s are based on an assessment of the risk 
to animal, plant or human life or health. 
Answer: 
In accordance with Decision No. 834 temporary susp ension of imports from an establishment could 
be imposed only in the following situations:  
a. at the request of a competent authority of a third country; b. repeated identification of non-compliances with the CU requirements either during the 
on-site inspection or/and during the enhanced monitoring and enhanced laboratory control of 
goods, which was notified to the competent authority of a third country, if the non-compliance 
posed significant threat to human or animal life and health. 
Thus, temporary suspension of exports from th ird country establishments were not imposed 
automatically; they could be imposed only at the request of the third country or on the basis of 
assessment of risk that the repeated violation posed to human and animal life and health. 
Suspension of exports imposed by one CU Party were automatically effective throughout the whole 
CU territory due to the absence of internal border s between the CU Parties and the fact that goods 
were moving freely within the CU. 
Question 37 Paragraph 69:  Please remove the bracketed language [and the OIE] in the penultimate 
sentence as the relevant international stan dards for conducting an audit of foreign 
official system of ve terinary control are set by the Codex.   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees to remove words [OIE] from the paragraph. Question 38 Paragraph 77:  We appreciate the information provided in th is paragraph, however, it 
appears to need revisions based on informatio n provided by Kazakhstan.  Please update 
the paragraph to reflect the status of the insp ection guidelines that were to have been 
adopted and enacted by the date of accession  of the first CU party to the WTO.   
- Please confirm that these guidelines  are being drafted based on the Codex 
guidelines.   
- Could Kazakhstan please provide a dr aft of the inspection guidelines?   
In addition, as there are not currently CU  inspection guidelines, please provide 
information on what the CU Parties curre ntly use when inspecting third country JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  facilities.  We would like to note that we provided comments on the Guidelines 
referenced in this paragraph and we ask th at our comments be taken into account and 
that these guidelines are quickly adopted. 
Answer: 
The draft Guidelines for Inspectors on Taking Decisions with Respect to Equivalency of 
Veterinary-Sanitary Measures Related to Conducti ng Inspections of Establishments Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Supervision) (hereinafter - draft Guidelines) has undergone public consultations procedures.  The draft Guidelines have been revised in accordance with the comments received, and decision to divide the draft into two separate documents – guidelines on 
taking decision with the respect to equivalency of veterinary-sanitary measures and guidelines for 
conducting inspections - have been made.  These two draft documents will be published for another round of public consultations in May 2013.  
Kazakhstan confirms that these guidelines have been developed in accordance with the Codex 
Alimentarius standards.  The draft guidelines w ill be available during public consultations in 
May 2013. 
Pending the approval of these guidelines, when in specting third country facilities the CU Parties 
use national legislation or international standards, if necessary. 
Question 39 Paragraph 46:  Decisions [xx] and [xx]:  We  would ask to be kept informed of the 
state-of-play of the amendment of the CU co mmon veterinary requirements relating to 
the list of goods subject to veterinary control and corresponding veterinary measures applicable for each CN code.  We ask th at our comments submitted in the public 
consultation process are taken into account.  In particular we asked that only raw milk 
and cream be subjected to the establishmen t listing requirement, and not processed 
milk and cream – as it is foreseen in the table of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2.  We ask that live 
fishes are not subject to the establishmen t listing requirement.  Consequently, in 
paragraphs 39 and 58 "except for live  fish" should be bracketed.  
Answer: 
Draft amendments into CU Decision No. 810 of 23 September 2011 were approved by EEC 
Decision of 9 April 2013 and will be submitted for approval at the next EEC meeting.  
Draft amendments to the Annex of the Commo n Veterinary Requirements approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2 010 on removal of certain veterinary control 
measures, have been agreed upon by the CU memb ers, except for amendments on processed milk 
products.  
1. On milk products within HS 0401 
Kazakhstan has initiated the discussion of these issues at the EEC level several times.  
In particular, in February 2013, Kazakhstan has proposed to separate HS 0401 into two lines - raw milk and processed milk, and remove the listing requirement for processed milk.  
The CU Parties have not developed a common position on Kazakhstan's proposal.  In this regard, 
Kazakhstan has initiated discussion of these issue at the EEC Council (the EEC Council members 
are Deputy Prime Ministers of the CU Parties) meeting in Moscow on 23 April 2013.  The EEC 
Council has adopted a Decision in accordance with which the CU Parties together with the EEC 
Collegium have to develop a uniform position on the issue and introduce relevant amendments 
into the Common Veterinary Requirements.   
2. On live fish 
The Customs Union requires listing of facilities of third countries importing live fish into the 
CU territory for the following reasons: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  a. due to the risks associated with live fish's habitat (aquatic environment).  In particular, the 
habitat can be the reason for live fish containing residues of harmful substances, toxic substances, 
heavy metals, infectious and parasitic diseases.  In case infestation of fish by parasitic diseases or 
its contamination by harmful substances is identified, there is a need for conducting analysis of reservoir's water and soil samples; 
b. live fish is often placed on the market as a food product and, unlike other live animals, in 
case of fish, each specimen is not subject to ante-mortem  and post-mortem  inspection.  Moreover, 
each specimen of fish is not subject to veterinary  and sanitary expertise.  These factors increase 
the risks of hazardous food products being placed on the market. 
c. listing of the establishments of third countries that import live fish, in our opinion, is in line 
with international practice and international standards and recommendations. 
It should also be mentioned that Decision No. 830 has been agreed in the result of negotiations 
with the WTO Members. 
Question 40 Paragraphs 51, 53 and 69:  We express seri ous concern that audit is described as a 
pre-requisite for the elimination of the listing  r e q u i r e m e n t .   W e  a s k  t h a t  C U  D e c i s i o n  
No. 830 of 18 October 2012, formally in fo rce since 22 August 2012, is applied.  
This notably includes the absence of listing requirement for certain commodities.  It has 
to be noted that this does not mean removing veterinary measures for those 
commodities.  Indeed, according to CU Decision No. 830, the sanitary guarantees which 
allow access to the CU market are to be pr ovided by veterinary certificates and by 
import permits (except for feed of plant orig in which will not be subject to veterinary 
controls).  These remaining mechanisms will provide safety guarantees which are 
proportionate to the potential risks derived from these commodities.  Furthermore, nothing in the current CU legal framework pr ovides that a successful audit is necessary 
for CU Decision No. 830 to be applied.  As regard JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2, we ask for the 
removal of the last sentence in paragraph 51.  In paragraph 69, we ask to add "but this 
was not a prerequisite" at the en d of the penultimate sentence.  
Answer: 
Decision No. 834 and Decision No. 830 have been developed based on international standards and 
recommendations and approved during the negotiatio ns on accession of the Russian Federation to 
the WTO.  
In accordance with Article 5 of Decision No. 834, audit is the main principle for ensuring safety of 
products of animal origin.  The audit of official foreign control systems is based on international standards and is in line with international practice.  Many developed countries apply audit 
(approval of exporting countries) as main condition for exporting products of animal origin to their 
territories.  Thus, in these countries products of animal origin cannot be imported to their territories before the exporting country is included into the list of exporting countries based on audit of its official control system.   
I n  t h e  C U  p r o d u c t s  o f  a n i m a l  o r i g i n  f r o m  c o u n t r i e s  t h a t  h a v e  n o t  b e e n  a u d i t e d  c a n  a l s o  b e  
imported based on inclusion in the Register of Establishments of Third Countries.  
Since Decision No. 834 had come into force, products for which listing is required can be imported 
to the CU based on three methods provided in Decision No. 834: 
- audit; 
- acceptance of guarantee from competent authorities of third countries; and 
- joint inspections of establishments of third countries. 
At the same time, products, for which listing of es tablishments is not required in accordance with 
Decision No. 830, can be imported to the CU only  after favourable audit results.  Taking into 
account that the audit is a complex and lengthy process, in order not to stop trade in these JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  products, the CU Parties agreed to apply provisio nal scheme that will be applied until all CU trade 
partners undergo audit.  Under these scheme products, for which listing is not required under 
Decision No. 830, before audit is carried out, can be imported to the CU based on the listing of 
establishments.  Listing of establishments can be  done based on the guarantee of third countries' 
competent authorities or joint inspections.  The list ing of establishments for such products will be 
carried out until audit is completed and the official system of a respective third country is 
recognised as equivalent.  The CU Parties agreed to introduce relevant amendments into Decision No. 834.  These amendments have been publishe d for public discussion on the EEC official 
website. 
It should be mentioned, that all establishments included into the Register prior to enforcement of 
Decision No. 834 (21 August 2012) will remain in the Register and could continue importation of their products to the CU. 
Question 41 
Paragraph 52:  We ask to add the following sentence at the end:  "Specifically some 
Members were concerned that, in the implemen tation of these Decisions, the CU Parties 
were requesting a successful audit as a pre-condition to removing the listing 
requirement for certain products as established in CU Decision No. 830."  
Answer: 
The proposed Members' language has been added to paragraph 52. 
Question 42 
Paragraph 53:  We ask to replace the first sentence by "The representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that, according to Arti cle 5 of CU Decision No. 834, the basic 
principle used by CU Parties to ensure safety  of controlled goods is an audit of a foreign 
official system of supervision."  In the sa me paragraph, we ask to replace "trade for 
establishments from such countries" by "listi ng of establishments from third countries, 
when required". 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees to modify the first sentence in paragraph 53 as proposed.  We agree to replace 
"trade for establishments from such countries" by "listing of establishments from third countries 
when required". 
Question 43 Paragraph 68:  We ask to add ", if listing wa s required for such products" at the end of 
the third sentence.  We propose to divide th is paragraph into two with a new paragraph 
starting with "The representative of Kazakhstan explained that, with respect to requirement for authorisation to provide guar antees, the CU Party that received …".   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will make proposed amendments in paragraph 68. 
Question 44 After paragraph 68 we ask to insert a new paragraph of Members' concerns: 
"Some Members expressed concerns that the procedure for listing establishments 
based on guarantees was more cumbersome than that for suspending an establishment, since the former required the consent of all CU Parties while the 
latter required a decision by only one CU Party.  Members viewed such disparity of 
treatment as unjustified and contrary to  the spirit of the WTO Agreements.  
Furthermore, Members expressed concerns regarding the lack of effectiveness and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  predictability of the mechanism of listing based on guarantees, the lack of a clear 
time frame for being grante d the authority to provide guarantees, the lack of 
justification of refusals to accept guaran tees, and the absence of definition of the 
scope of these guarantees.  Those Member s also had concerns over statements by 
the Kazakh representatives as well as over draft CU amendments to 
CU Commission  Decision No. 834.  These amendments indicated that a suspension 
of trade from an establishment or for a type of product, while decided by one 
CU Party, was applied to the whole CU te rritory.  These Members had experienced 
that suspensions decided for an establishm ent was disconnected from the risk or 
no proportionate to the risk involved." 
We ask for an answer to these concerns.   
Answer: 
The proposed members concern has been added as a new paragraph following paragraph 68. 1. Draft amendments into Decision No. 834 have clarified mechanism for accepting guarantees 
from competent authorities of third countries (paragraphs 43-44) taking into account 
WTO Members' comments and proposals on timeframes for considering requests, provision of 
reasons for refusal in accepting the guarantee, terms and scope of the guarantee.   
In particular, the draft amendments established that the competent authority of a third country 
shall send request to accept its guarantee on comp liance of the goods subject to veterinary control 
produced by specific establishment (establishments) to the authorised body of a CU Party, with 
information required in accordance with paragrap h 43-1 of the Decision attached to the request, 
including the list of establishments with names of produced products.  Guarantee of the third 
country's competent authority is accepted on each group of products according to the HS Codes.  
The authorised body of the Party that received  the request for guarantee evaluates the request 
based on the criteria provided in paragraph 43- 1 of the Decision No. 834, and upon favourable 
evaluation prepares final decision and sends it to  the authorised bodies of other CU Parties for 
approval.  Time-frame for the approval by the CU Parties shall not exceed 10 working days.  
The authorised bodies of the Parties shall approve the final decision on accepting the guarantee in 
written form or shall send letter indicating the reasons for not approving the decision to the 
CU Party that received the request within the established time-frame.  In the absence of the 
written reply during the established timeframe the decision is deemed to be approved.   
The amendments also envisage that in case the decision is approved by the CU Parties, the 
authorised body of the Party that received the request shall send written notification to the 
competent authority of the third country on acce pting the guarantee.  If the initial request 
contained the list of third country establishments, the authorised body of the Party includes them 
into the Register of third country establishments not later than one month since the date of 
approval of the favorable decision on accepting the guarantee.  In case of the negative decision on 
accepting the guarantee the authorised body of the Party prepares the conclusion that is then sent 
to the competent authority of the third country with indication of the reasons for refusal.  
The amendments also provided that the competen t authority of the third country whose guarantee 
have been accepted in the prescribed manner can send additional list of establishments to the authorised body of the Party for considering their inclusion into the Registry of Establishments of 
Third Countries.  Following the consideration, the au thorised body of the Party notifies the decision 
to include/not include establishments into th e Registry with indicating the reasons.  
2. Inclusion of establishments into the Register is carried out by the CU Parties in coordinated 
manner because goods exported from these establishments can freely move within the CU and 
have access to the territory of all CU Parties.  In contrast, exclusion of establishments from the Register as an extreme measure can only be done at the request of an establishment or the competent authority of a third country.  
Temporary suspension of imports from an establishment is not imposed automatically.  It can be 
imposed only at the request of the third country  or in case of repeated identification of 
non-compliances which is notified to the competent authority of the exporting country and which 
poses significant risk to human and animal life and health. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  In other instances, consistent measures, such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special 
requirements, such as application of additional or replacement measures are applied in order not 
to stop exports from such establishments.  Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on the 
repeated violations of the CU requirements and th ey cannot contradict principles and spirit of the 
SPS Agreement.   
3. Restrictions on imports imposed by one CU Party will be automatically effective throughout 
the whole CU territory due to the absence of inte rnal borders between the CU Parties and the fact 
that goods are moving freely within the CU.   
This answer has been added into a new paragraph following paragraph 68 of the SPS Chapter. 
Question 45 
Paragraph 69:  In the penultimate sentence we ask to delete "and the OIE" as the 
relevant international standards for conducting  an audit of foreign official system of 
veterinary control, are set by the Codex Alimen tarius.  We ask to add "but this was not a 
pre-requisite" at the end of this sentence.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees to delete words "and the OIE".  At the same time, we do not agree to add "but this was not a pre-requisite".  In this paragraph we 
explain three ways to include establishments into  the register – audit, guarantee mechanism and 
joint inspection.  In order to be included into th e register one of the three mechanisms has to be 
used.  Thus, it is not correct to say that audit, as well as guarantee mechanism and joint 
inspections, are not a pre-requisite for add establishments into the Register. 
Question 46 
Paragraph 77 on the inspection guidelines:  We ask that our comments, submitted in the 
process of public consultation (draft pub lished on 16 November 2012), are taken into 
account.  We note that Codex Guideline 53-2003 does not seem to be the appropriate 
reference for equivalence consideration in the context of guidelines for auditors as this 
Guideline is aimed at central government al authorities examining a request for 
equivalent recognition.  Codex Guideline 53-2003 would be more appropriate for an 
implementing text of CU Commission Decision  No. 835.  We ask for inspection criteria 
for establishments that are clear and in line with international standards.  We ask for 
the rapid adoption of this text.  In pa ragraph 77 we ask to add "adopted by EEC 
Collegium Decision [xx] and [xx]" after "Gui delines for Inspectors on Taking Decisions 
with respect to Equivalency of Veterinary -Sanitary Measures Related to Conducting 
Inspections of Establishments Subject to Veterinary Control (Supervision)".   
Answer: 
The draft Guidelines for Inspectors on Taking Decisions with Respect to Equivalency of 
Veterinary-Sanitary Measures Related to Conducti ng Inspections of Establishments Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Supervision) (hereinafter - draft Guidelines) has undergone through the public consultations procedures.  The draft Guidelines have been revised in accordance with comments 
received during public consultations and decision to divide the draft into two separate documents – 
guidelines on taking decision with the respect to  equivalency of veterina ry-sanitary measures and 
guidelines for conducting inspections - have been made.  These two draft documents will be 
published for another round of public consultations in May 2013.   
Kazakhstan confirms that these guidelines have been developed in accordance with the Codex 
Alimentarius standards.  The draft guidelines w ill be available during public consultations in 
May 2013. 
The proposed language will be added in paragraph 77. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Question 47 
A Member would like to ask for some further cl arifications with regard to the mechanism 
allowing registration of establishments an d acceptance of guarantees outlined in 
paragraph 68 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2, specific ally the passage:  "The CU Party that 
received the request for audits or for joint inspections of establishments notified the 
competent authorities of other CU Parties of the request and invited them to participate. 
If a CU Party declined to participate or did not respond within the prescribed time, that 
CU Party authorised the participating CU Pa rty or Parties to act on its behalf and 
accepted the decision of the participating CU  Party or Parties on the relevant matter." 
In this context, this Member would like to know the exact meaning of the wording to 
"act on its behalf".  This Member understands  "to act on its behalf" as the delegation of 
authority from a CU Party or Parties to anot her CU Party or Parties to conduct the audit 
or joint inspections (explained as well in para graph 65), and, in case of successful audit 
or joint inspection, to further allow third coun tries to submit a list of establishments to 
enter the Registry, based on guarantees that  w ere i s s ue d by c o mpe t ent  t hi rd co unt ry 
authorities.  Is this line of argument correct? 
Answer:  
Expression "to act on its behalf" means that CU Parties are allowed not to participate in audits and 
in joint inspections.  In this case, the CU Party that did not participate in audit or inspections shall 
accept the results of the audit or inspection that have been carried out by other CU Parties (Party). 
In case of successful audit of the exporting country's official control system, the competent 
authorities of this country may submit list of establishments to the CU Parties for its inclusion into 
the Register of Establishments of Third Countries. 
In case of joint inspection, only inspected esta blishments could be added into the Register of 
Establishments of Third Countries.   
Question 48 
Furthermore, this Member would like to kn ow more about the relation between the 
situation described above, that is, the co ntent of paragraph 68 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2, 
and the following statement in paragraph 69.  In paragraph 69, Kazakhstan states that 
"all guarantees, received from third countries by an authorised body of any CU Party, 
were subject to approval by the authorized bo dies of other CU Parties."  Specifically, the 
Member would like to know whether guarantees that were accepted subsequent to an 
audit or a joint inspection as described in paragraph 68 (where a CU Party or Parties 
acted on behalf of another CU Party or Part ies) were still "subject  to approval by the 
authorised bodies of other CU Parties" (a s implied by paragraph 69).  This Member's 
reading of paragraph 68 is as follows:  By definition of the mechanism, if an audit or a 
joint inspection has been conducted by a CU Pa rty or Parties on beha lf of a CU Party or 
Parties, the decision by this very Party or Pa rties extends to the other or others as well 
(delegation of authority), hence, no further approval of, say, guarantees, is needed.  
Is this reasoning correct and if so, could th is possibly be further clarified in the text? 
Answer: 
Inclusion of establishments into the Register of Establishments of Third Countries is possible using 
three mechanisms: 
1. audit of third country's official system of control; 2. joint inspections of establishments of third countries; and 
3. acceptance of guarantee from competent authorities of third countries. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Competent authority of third country can submit request on inclusion of its establishments in the 
Register based on any of these three procedures.  In accordance with Decision No. 834, in case of 
audit or joint inspection, CU Parties may not participate in audit and joint inspections.  In this 
case, they shall recognise decisions made by th e CU Parties (Party) that carried out audit or 
inspection.  Inclusion of establishments into the Register of Establishments of Third Countries 
based on third mechanism – acceptance of guar antees from competent authorities of third 
countries - requires approval of the guarantee by al l CU Parties.  It should be clarified that the 
guarantee mechanism does not envisage on-site inspections of third party establishments. 
The detailed description of these three mechanisms is provided in paragraph 68.   
- (iii) Import Permits 
- (iv) Transit Permits Question 49 
Sections on import and transit permits:  We ask that our comments on the draft 
amendment to Government Resolution No. 132 on Import and Transit Permits (notably 
our disagreement with the possibility to re fuse an import permit after a single 
non-compliance) are taken into account and ask to be informed as soon as the 
amendment is adopted.  The sections  on import and transit permits of 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 will need to be amended after this adoption.   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has taken into account a Member's  comments on the draft amendment to Government 
Resolution No. 132 "On Import and Transit Permits".  Government Resolution No. 132 does not contain provisions that envisage possibility to refuse an import permit after a single 
non-compliance.  Kazakhstan will inform the WTO Members as soon as the amendment is adopted. 
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control Question 50 
Paragraph 104:  Kazakhstan states that a draft common list of quarantine pests and 
diseases had been under discussion by CU Parties.  
- Can you please provide an update on the draft? Answer: 
Draft CU Common List of Quarantine Pests and Diseases have undergone public consultation 
procedures.  Currently CU Parties are revising the draft CU Common List of Quarantine Pests and Diseases taking into account comments received from interested parties during the public 
consultation.  The Common Phytosanitary Requirements of the Customs Union and the Common 
List of Quarantine Objects of the Customs Union are expected to be adopted in 2014. 
Question 51 
Paragraph 109:  The first sentence states th at:  "The existing list of products under 
quarantine (regulated goods) that were subj ect to quarantine phytosanitary control at 
the customs border of the CU and the territory of the CU was divided into two groups:  (i) quarantine products of high pest risk; and (ii) quarantine products  of low pest risk".  
We are concerned that Kazakhstan maintain s phytosanitary control for many processed 
products (HS 1101 00 - Wheat or Meslin Flou r, 1102 - cereal flours, 1103 - cereal groats, 
1104 cereal grains, etc.).  
- Can Kazakhstan confirm that a pest risk analysis (PRA) was conducted to 
determine what level of control was appropriate for these products?   
- Can Kazakhstan share its PRAs with Members? JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Answer: 
Classification of quarantine products as of high pest risk was based on the data for detection of 
quarantine objects in quarantine products, on risk analysis conducted by at least one of the 
CU Parties, and international standards on phytosanitary measures.  The Republic of Kazakhstan is ready to share pest risk analysis conducted for quarantine objects. 
Question 52 
Please confirm that Kazakhstan will accept replacement certificates as foreseen by 
internationally guidelines (ISPM12:2011)? 
Answer: 
Recognition of phytosanitary certificates that is issued as replacement for legitimate certificates 
and is aimed at ensuring phytosanitary safety of  quarantine products is possible provided the 
national body on quarantine and plant protecti on (hereinafter- the NBQPP) of the exporting 
country in accordance with international standard of phytosanitary measures No. 12 ensures and 
confirms the following: 
- phytosanitary safety of quarantine products; 
- prior to exporting quarantine products the NB QPP of the exporting country have carried out 
sampling, inspection and treatment of quarantine products necessary to comply the phytosanitary requirements of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 
- integrity of quarantine products from the moment of shipment until importation of 
quarantine products; 
If these requirements are not met, replacement phyt osanitary certificates will be deemed invalid. 
Question 53 
Paragraph 104:  Could Kazakhstan inform of the targeted date for the adoption of the 
CU common list of quarantine pests and for the CU common phytosanitary requirements?  We ask that our comments to  the draft CU list of quarantine pests 
submitted in the process of public consultation are taken into account.   
Answer: 
Draft CU Common List of Quarantine Pests and Diseases have undergone public consultation 
procedures.  Currently CU Parties are revising the draft CU Common List of Quarantine Pests and 
Diseases taking into account comments received from interested parties during the public 
consultation.  The Common Phytosanitary Requirements of the Customs Union and the Common List of Quarantine Objects of the Customs Union are expected to be adopted in 2014. 
Question 54 
Paragraph 109:  In the seventh sentence, a Member proposes to modify the sentence as 
follows:  
"In line with international practice, when products subject to phytosanitary control 
were imported from countries with regi stered cases of spread of quarantine 
organisms in certain areas, imports of products under plant quarantine control 
from pest-free areas, or pe st-free places of production  or pest free production 
sites, in application of ISPMs Nos. 4 an d 10, were still allowed, if appropriate 
information in additional declaration of phytosanitary certificate was provided." 
In the penultimate sentence, we ask to add "a nd with ISPM No. 13" after "in accordance 
with paragraph 6, Article 7 of IPPC".   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees to modify the sentence in the following way: 
"In line with international practice, when products subject to phytosanitary control were imported 
from countries with registered cases of spread of quarantine organisms in certain areas, imports of 
products under plant quarantine control from pest-f ree areas, or pest-free places of production or 
pest free production sites, determined in accordan ce with ISPMs Nos. 4 and 10, could be allowed, 
if norms and principles of ISPM 20 have been applied".   
With regards to adding "and with ISPM No. 13", we would like to note, that the penultimate 
sentence of paragraph 109 says about the possibility to introduce urgent (emergency) 
phytosanitary measures in accordance with paragraph 6, Article 7 of IPPC.  Taking into account 
that ISPM No. 13 does not regulate introduction  of urgent (emergency) phytosanitary measures, 
we believe it is inexpedient to add reference ISPM No. 13 in the penultimate sentence.  We would 
like to state that in case of introduction of urgent (emergency) phytosanitary measures 
Kazakhstan will inform interested parties of such measures. 
(f) Protection of Human Health 
Question 55 
Paragraph 119:  Could Kazakhstan clarify th e exact meaning of the last sentence?  
Could Kazakhstan explain what aspects CU in spectors are checking when they look at 
the existence of official controls at the level of an exporting establishment?  
Answer: 
In the last sentence of the paragraph existence of official control means that inspectors will check 
whether the establishment is subject to control by  competent authorities of the exporting country, 
such as on-site inspections by the competent author ity of the exporting country (frequency of such 
inspections, inspection criteria, results and records of the inspections) and registration of facilities. 
 (g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms  Question 56 General Comment:  We continue to encour age Kazakhstan and the CU Parties to 
harmonize their SPS standards with the inte rnational standards, recommendations and 
guidelines to the maximum extent possible.   We ask that if Kazakhstan or where 
relevant the CU determines that the approp riate level of protection justifies a more 
stringent standard, that Kazakhstan and the CU  provide a scientific justification and risk 
assessment to support the more stringent standard. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will continue its work on harmonizing its SPS measures with international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, when necessary.  If Kazakhstan or any other the CU Party determines that international standard is not sufficient to achieve the appropriate level of protection, Kazakhstan and the CU will provide a scientific justification and risk assessment in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement. 
Question 57 Paragraph 129:  We are very concerned by  the changes that were made to this 
commitment paragraph without any notice to Members or any addition of brackets to 
reflect that changes had been made.  We  would like to propose an alternative 
formulation for this paragraph as follows: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  The representative of Kazakhstan confirme d that, in cases in which no mandatory 
requirements on veterinary or phytosani tary, or sanitary epidemiological and 
hygienic requirements had been established at CU or national level, the CU Parties 
would apply the relevant standards, gu idelines and recommendations, or parts 
thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively.  Similarly, if veterinary, 
phytosanitary or sanitary- epidemiological and hygienic requirements in effect in 
the territory of the CU were more stringent than relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, in the absence of scientific 
justification of risk to human, animal or plant life or health, CU Parties would apply 
the relevant international standards, gu idelines and recommendations or parts 
thereof.  The representative of Kazakhstan  confirmed that this obligation currently 
was included in the CU legal framework through CU Commission Decision No. 721, 
and would continue to be a mandatory part of the CU legal framework in the 
future.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
Answer: 
In order to avoid misinterpretation of the commi tment, Kazakhstan insists on using the exact 
wording of the SPS Agreement in the text of the commitment and proposes the following text in brackets:  
[The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in cases in which no mandatory 
requirements on veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic 
requirements had been established at CU or na tional level, the CU Parties would apply the 
relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and 
Codex respectively.  Similarly, if veterinary, phytosanitary or sanitary- epidemiological and 
hygienic requirements in effect in the terri tory of the CU [were more stringent than] 
[resulted in a higher level of sanitary and ph ytosanitary protection then would be achieved 
by measures based on] relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, 
or parts thereof, in the absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal or plant life 
or health, CU Parties would apply the relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations or parts thereof,[as provided for in the SPS Agreement].  
[The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that this obligation currently was included in the CU legal framework through CU Commission Decision No. 721, and would continue to be a mandatory part of the CU legal framework in the future].  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments]. 
The proposed amendments, including the added reference to the SPS Agreement, will ensure that 
Kazakhstan fully complies with the SPS Agreement.  
Kazakhstan proposes to move the reference to Decision No. 721 to the description part of the text. 
Question 58 Paragraph 140:  We are strongly concerned by the lack of harmonization of the sanitary 
requirements with the Codex standards.  We note that Kazakhstan and the CU maintain 
many MRLs for antibiotics; such as tetracyclines, veterinary drugs; and, feed additives, 
such as ractopamine, which are more stringent than the international standards.  We note that CU Commission Decision No. 721 needs to be fully implemented and we 
need to see this decision work in practice.  This Member has not been provided with the 
science to support these stringent standards and requests that Kazakhstan adopt and apply the international standards in the absenc e of the scientific justification to support 
more stringent standards.  
Answer: 
The Republic of Kazakhstan applies and is going to apply its standards in accordance with 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations, unless there is a scientific justification 
to support more stringent standards.  Kazakhstan is ready to provide its risk assessment to 
support the CU standard on tetracycline. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  Question 59 
Paragraph 141:  Please provide an update on the status for the risk assessment for 
tetracycline.  
- When can you share it with Members?  Answer: 
The preliminary conclusion of the risk assessm ent on tetracycline has been 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/?p=111 and is under the pe er review process.  To date no comments 
have been received. 
Question 60 Paragraph 129:  We propose a new formulation of this paragraph:   
"The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that, in cases in which no mandatory 
requirements on veterinary or phytosani tary, or sanitary epidemiological and 
hygienic requirements had been established at CU or national level, the CU Parties 
would apply the relevant standards, gu idelines and recommendations, or parts 
thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex re spectively.  Similarly, if veterinary, 
phytosanitary or sanitary - epidemiological and hygienic requirements in effect in 
the territory of the CU were more stringent than relevant international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, in the absence of scientific 
justification of risk to human, animal or plant life or health, CU Parties would apply 
the relevant international standards, gu idelines and recommendations or parts 
thereof.  The representative of Kazakhstan  confirmed that this obligation currently 
was included in the CU legal framework through CU Commission Decision No. 721, and would continue to be a mandatory part of the CU legal framework in the 
future.  The Working Party took note of these commitments." 
Answer: 
In order to avoid misinterpretation of the commi tment, Kazakhstan insists on using the exact 
wording of the SPS Agreement in the text of the commitment and proposes the following text in 
brackets:  
[The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in cases in which no mandatory 
requirements on veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic 
requirements had been established at CU or na tional level, the CU Parties would apply the 
relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively.  Similarly, if veterinary, phytosanitary or sanitary - epidemiological and 
hygienic requirements in effect in the terri tory of the CU [were more stringent than] 
[resulted in a higher level of sanitary and ph ytosanitary protection then would be achieved 
by measures based on] relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, 
or parts thereof, in the absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal or plant life 
or health, CU Parties would apply the relevant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations or parts thereof,[as provided for in the SPS Agreement].  
[The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that this obligation currently was included in 
the CU legal framework through CU Commission Decision No. 721, and would continue to be 
a mandatory part of the CU legal framework in the future].  The Working Party took note of these commitments]. 
The proposed amendments, including the added reference to the SPS Agreement, will ensure that 
Kazakhstan fully complies with the SPS Agreement.   
Kazakhstan proposes to move the reference to Decision No. 721 to the descriptive part of the text. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Question 61 
Paragraphs 134, 135, 138 and 139:  Could Ka zakhstan inform of the state-of-play of 
harmonisation concerning pesticides, vete rinary drugs, nitrates, microbiological 
standards and radionuclides?   
- Which items have been harmonised in which piece of legislation?   
- Are there new draft amendments under preparation?  For which items?  
- Could Kazakhstan provide an answer to the question raised in paragraph 135?  
Answer: 
Draft amendments and addenda to section 15 of Chapter ІΙ of the Common Sanitary and 
Epidemiological and Hygienic Requirements, which are currently under consideration by the 
CU Parties, have provided for amendments in respect of the following pesticide:  chlorothalonil, klofentizin, propamocarb-hydrochloride (promoka rb), pirimicarb, cyprodinil, kresoxim-methyl, 
carbendazim. 
Moreover, CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 9 December 2011 harmonised requirements for the 
following pesticides:  azoxystrobin, fosetyl aluminum, benomyl, glyphosate, deltamethrin, diquat 
(dibromide), difenoconazole, diflyufenikan, izoksaflyutol, imazapyr, imidacloprid, indoxacarb, 
clomazone, clothianidin, klofentizin, mesotrione, metconazole, penconazole, pencycuron, pyraclostrobin, propamocarb hydrochloride, rimsulfuron, a mixture of non-ionic surfactants of constant composition (adjuvant Amigo, KS), sp inosad (spinosin A spinosid D) spiroxamin, 
sulfometuron-methyl, tebuconazole, tiabendozol,  thiacloprid, thiamethoxam , tetraconazole, 
thiram, tris (2-ethylhexyl phosphate adjuva nt), famoxadone, fluazinam, flutriafol, 
Chlorantraniliprole, cymoxanil, cyprodinil. 
The Decision also harmonised microbiological standards for E.sakazakii, Enterobacteriaceae. 
Requirements for nitrates have been harmonized, except for melon crops, for which there are 
minor discrepancies.  
Microbiological standards have been harmonized with the exception of L. Monocytogenes, 
E.coli (14), coagulase-positive staphylococci, coliforms.  
Regulatory radionuclides are developed in accord ance with recommendations  of the IAEA BSS 115, 
and there are no discrepancies with international standards.  
MRLs for veterinary drugs have been harmonized wi th international standards, except for the cases 
when scientific justification for a more stringent standard has been provided. 
Question 62 
Paragraph 140:  We have provided comments to the document on tetracyclines 
published at http://fcrisk.ru/node/652, hi ghlighting that the document does not 
represent a risk assessment in line with international standards.   
- How were these comments taken into account in the document mentioned in 
paragraph 141? 
Answer: 
Preliminary conclusion of the risk assessment on tetracycline has been 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/?p=111 and is under the peer review process.  
The comments provided to the risk assessment on tetracycline conducted by the 
Russian Federation have been considered by Ka zakhstan's scientists.  The responses to these 
comments will be provided. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Question 63 
Paragraph 141:  Could Kazakhstan share an  English translation of the preliminary 
conclusion of the Kazakh institute conc erning tetracyclines?  According to our 
information, tetracyclines are authorised for use in animal  production in Kazakhstan 
with the same withdrawal period as in the EU.  Therefore we find it not consistent with 
the very strict CU MRL for tetracyclines an d have concerns regarding discriminatory 
treatment.  
Answer: 
The preliminary conclusion of Kazakh Institute Concerning Tetracycline are available in Russian at 
the following links: 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/?p=111.  Unofficial English translation will be provided to the Working 
Party shortly. 
- (ii) Risk Assessment 
Question 64 
Paragraph 145:  Can Kazakhstan confirm in the Working Party text that Kazakhstan 
bases its risk assessments on the intern ational principles and recommendations 
according to paragraphs 144 and 145?  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that principles and recommendations developed by the relevant international 
organizations described in paragraphs [144] and [145] are used in conducting risk assessments for 
SPS measures applicable to imports into the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
Question 65 Paragraph 149:  The last sentence states that a risk assessment would be conducted 
prior to any restrictions on imports.  More over, this risk assessment would be provided 
to the third country upon request.  Please explain if this is also applied to temporary restrictions that may be applied to a group of establishments or products subject to 
veterinary control. 
Answer: 
Temporary restrictions of imports from group of es tablishments or all establishment can be applied 
in case serious violations in the official system of control of a third country are identified and if 
measures required to address these violation we re not undertaken.  These temporary measures 
shall be proportionate to the risk that this violation poses to human and animal health.  
Temporary restrictions of imports of products subjec t to veterinary control were applied in cases of 
serious violations of relevant CU requirements that posed significant risk to human and animal 
health.  
Thus, prior to applying temporary restrictions to a group of establishments or products subject to 
veterinary control the CU Parties assess risks associated with the violation. 
Question 66 
Paragraph 145:  Can Kazakhstan confirm that the internationally recognised principles 
and recommendations described in paragraphs 144 and 145 are used in risk 
assessments for SPS measures applied in Kazakh stan.  We ask that this confirmation is 
inserted in the text. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that principles and recommendations developed by the relevant international 
organizations described in paragraphs [144] and [145] are used in conducting risk assessments for 
SPS measures applicable to imports into the Republic of Kazakhstan.  These information has been added into a paragraph following paragraph 145. 
- (iv) Equivalence 
Question 67 Paragraph 155:  It states "[ S]He explained that CU Co mmission Decision No. 835 of 
18 October 2011 "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", and all procedures necessary 
to apply this Decision, would be in effect prio r to the date of accession of Kazakhstan to 
the WTO".   
- Can Kazakhstan provide an update for th e development of procedures necessary to 
apply CU Decision No. 835?  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated this issue at the EEC level.  The draft Guidelines for Inspectors on Taking 
Decisions with Respect to Equivalency of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures Related to Conducting 
Inspections of Establishments Subject to Veterinary Control (Supervision) (hereinafter - draft Guidelines) has been developed and undergone through the public consultations procedure.  The draft Guidelines have been revised in accordance with the comments received, and decision to 
divide the draft into two separate documents – guidelines on taking decision with the respect to 
equivalency of veterinary-sanitary measures and guidelines for conducting inspections - have been 
made.  These two draft documents will be published for another round of public consultations in 
May 2013.  The Guidelines have been developed in accordance with Codex Alimentarius standards.  
With regard to procedures on recognising equivale ncy in accordance with OIE and IPPC standards, 
this issue is currently discussed at the EEC level. 
Question 68 
Paragraph 155:  Could Kazakhstan inform of th e state-of-play on adop tion of procedures 
necessary to apply CU Decision No. 835 as regards equivalence recognition?  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated this issue at the EEC level.  The draft Guidelines for Inspectors on Taking 
Decisions with Respect to Equivalency of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures Related to Conducting Inspections of Establishments Subject to Veterinary Control (Supervision) (hereinafter - draft 
Guidelines) has been developed and undergone public consultations procedure.  The draft 
Guidelines have been revised in accordance with the comments received, and decision to divide the draft into two separate documents – guidelin es on taking decision with the respect to 
equivalency of veterinary-sanitary measures and guidelines for conducting inspections - have been 
made.  These two draft documents will be published for another round of public consultations in May 2013.  The Guidelines have been developed in accordance with Codex Alimentarius standards.  
With regard to procedures on recognising equivale ncy in accordance with OIE and IPPC standards, 
this issue is currently discussed at the EEC level. 
(h) Transparency, Notification  and Enquiry Point Obligations  
Question 69 
We are concerned with the process that the Customs Union has in place to receive and 
consider comments from third countries.  We  have submitted comments for technical 
regulations and for proposed CU Commission de cisions and amendments.  It is not clear JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  to us who to send comments to, who reviews the comments, or what the basis is to 
incorporate or reject comments.   
- Could Kazakhstan please clarify the procedures?  
- Would Kazakhstan provide its f eedback to received comments?  
Answer: 
In accordance with Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012 and Decision No. 31 of 5 April 2013 comments 
and proposals from interested parties, including third countries, on draft technical regulations and EEC decisions shall be sent to the EEC.  
With regard to technical regulation, the EEC sends the comments and proposals to the authorised 
body of a CU Party that is responsible for developing draft technical regulation (hereinafter - 
developer of draft technical regulation) as they are received, but not later than 10 working days after public consultation is closed.  The develope r of draft technical regulation revises the draft 
technical regulation and related documents taking into account received comments and proposals.  
For each comment and proposal, the developer of the draft technical regulation specifies information on its acceptance or justification for its rejection.  The EEC ensures subsequent 
publication of the summary of comments on the draft technical regulation, including decisions on 
each of them and reasons for such decision s, on the official website of the EEC.   
With regard to EEC decisions, the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary 
Measures of the EEC gathers all the comments and proposals received during public consultations 
and organizes their discussion by working groups.  The Department within 10 days after expiration 
of the public consultation period compiles a summary table of comments and answers and publishes it on the official CU website. 
Question 70 
Could Kazakhstan please explai n the role of the national enquiry point with regard to 
EEC Decisions?   
- At what point in the development of an  EEC SPS measure will Kazakhstan notify 
WTO Members?   
- Would Kazakhstan provide 60 day comment pe riod through WTO notification if the  
EEC public comment period is closed?   
- Can Kazakhstan detail the steps in respect to SPS notifications of the EEC decisions 
and its process for comments review?  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan's Information Center on TBT/SPS (Enquiry Point on TBT and SPS) will notify all SPS 
measures that will apply on Kazakhstan's territory.  Thus, it will notify not only SPS legislation adopted by Kazakhstan's Government, but also EEC Decisions and other EEC legal acts on SPS.   
Kazakhstan will notify WTO Members on EEC SPS measure once the first draft of the SPS 
document is approved by the working group and then by the Consultative Committee for public 
consultation.  Thus, the Information Center on TBT/SPS will send notification to the WTO approximately at the same time when the draf t SPS document will be published for public 
consultation by the Consultative Committee.  Kazakhstan will provide 60 day comment period 
through WTO notification even if the EEC public comment period is closed.  
Contact point for sending comments and proposals to the notified EEC document will be indicated 
in the notification and it can be either the Enquir y Point, or to the EEC, or both.  The Information 
Center on TBT/SPS will forward the received co mments and proposals to the relevant authorised 
body of Kazakhstan, which, in turn, will forward them to the EEC.  The received comments and 
proposals will be considered at the EEC working group meeting.  In accordance with Decision 
No. 31 the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosan itary and Veterinary Measures within 10 days 
after expiration of the public consultation period shall compile a summary table of comments and answers to these comments and publish it on the official EEC website. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  Question 71 
Paragraph 168:  It states:  "In response to specific questions, the representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that Kazakh stan's legislation contained no restrictions on foreign 
participation in the development of sani tary and phytosanitary standards (e.g. 
participation in technical committees meet ings, providing comments).  Proposals and 
comments should be submitted through the enquiry point".   
- Can Kazakhstan explain the process for foreign participation based on its Law 
No. 124-III "On Private Entrepreneurship"?  
Answer: 
In accordance with the Law "On Private Entrepreneurship" state bodies that develop a regulatory 
act that affects interests of private entrepreneurs shall submit the draft regulatory act to the expert council, which consists of business associations, for consideration.  The expert council shall 
provide its expert opinion on the draft regulatory  act.  The state body shall revise the draft 
regulatory act in accordance with the expert opinion or, in case of non-acceptance of some of the comments, shall reply to the business associations indicating reasons for non-acceptance of the 
comments.  At the request of the business associations the expert council meeting shall be 
convened to discuss the presented comments. 
Question 72 Paragraph 166:  Could Kazakhstan  describe in details the step s that will take place for 
SPS notification of draft CU texts, both for the notification and for the consideration of 
the comments received, taking into account th e articulation with the Russian Federation 
SPS notification requirement and the CU  public consultation obligations?  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will notify WTO Members on EEC SP S measures once the first draft of the SPS 
document is approved by the working group and then by the Consultative Committee for public 
consultation.  Thus, Kazakhstan's SPS/TBT Enquiry Point will send notification to the WTO 
approximately at the same time when the draf t SPS document will be published for public 
consultation by the Consultative Committee.  The Russian Federation will notify the same document through its national notification authority.  The 60 day comment period through WTO 
notification will be provided even if th e EEC public comment period is closed.  
Contact point for sending comments and proposals to the notified EEC document will be indicated 
in the notification and it can be either the SP S/TBT Enquiry Point, or to the EEC, or both.  
The SPS/TBT Enquiry Point will forward the rece ived comments and proposals to the relevant 
authorised body of Kazakhstan, which, in turn, will forward them to the EEC.  
The received comments and proposals will be considered at the EEC working group meeting.  
In accordance with Decision No. 31 the Department of the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary 
Measures within 10 days after expiration of the public consultation period shall compile a summary table of comments and answers to these comments and publish it on the official EEC website. 
Question 73 
Paragraph 169:  We ask for confirmation that Kazakhstan will follow SPS Committee 
Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/7/Rev.3).   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will follow the SPS Committee re commended procedures for implementing the 
transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/7/Rev3. 
__________