12-5209 JOB/ACC/30/Add.1                       27 September 2012 
 
 
Working Party on the              Original:  English  
Accession of Kazakhstan  
 
   
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
 
Additional Questions and Replies 
 
Addendum 
 
  The following submission, dated 12 September 2012,  is being circulated to Members of the 
Working Party, at the request of the De legation of the Republic  of Kazakhstan.  
 
 
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
   - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Question 1  
Regarding paragraph 38 of JOB/ACC/30:  Comp liance of CU Regulations with international 
standards. 
In the first sentence of paragraph 38 which reads "CU requirements were defined as 
international standards" we are not sure to understand the exact meaning of this formulation.  
According to the Decision No. 721 of 2 June 2011, our interpretation is that CU Regulations are 
defined according to international standards.  Could Kazakhstan confirm this interpretation?  
Answer: 
In order to avoid misunderstanding,  Kazakhstan proposes to add the following sentence at the end of 
paragraph 38 as follows: 
"In reply to a question, the representative of Kazakhs tan further explained that in accordance with the 
Decision No. 721, international standards, r ecommendations and guidelines were applied as the 
TC requirements in case of absence of relevant CU  documents or national legislation establishing 
mandatory veterinary (veterinary-sanitary), phytosanitary or sanitary requirements". 
Question 2  
Paragraph 40 of JOB/ACC/30, acceptance of export ing party's official guaranties:  Regarding 
the approval of guaranties submitted by the competent authorities of an exporting Party, we 
assume that the approval of those guaranties is done by the competent authority of each 
CU Member State.  Is this correct? 
In the case a Member of the CU has accepted a specific guarantee but that another member of 
the CU refuses this guarantee can the concerned establishment start the export to the member 
who accepted the guarantee? 
If this is not the case and a guarantee can thus only be approved jointly by all three partners of 
the CU, we would like to know whether a joint au thority for the approval of guarantees by the 
CU is envisaged since, for reasons of consistency within the CU and for facilitation of trade with 
the CU, a uniform and consistent way of approvi ng guarantees would be very important.   
Answer: 
Currently, all guarantees, received from third countries by an authorised body of any CU Party, shall 
be approved by the authorised bodies of other CU Parties.  
Recognizing the need of a more detailed mechan ism of guarantees, Kazakhstan initiated within a 
framework of the CU the issue of developing such a mechanism.  
Question 3  
Paragraph 45 of JOB/ACC/30, suspension of establishments:  Could you please provide 
examples of "serious systemic failure" of the expo rting Party's official system of control?  
Regarding specific time-frame for an exporting Party to take corrective measures:  is the 
duration of this specific time-frame defined in a CU Regulation, and if so in which Regulation?  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Answer: 
Pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Regulation on Jo int Inspections adopted by CU Commission Decision 
No. 834 on 18 October 2011, conclusion on a "serious  systemic failure" of the exporting third 
country's official system of veterinary contro l could be made for example in the following cases: 
- if during inspection of a representative per cent of the establishments violation of the Customs 
Union requirements have been identified at more  than 60 per cent of inspected establishments 
(exceeding MRLs); or  
- during monitoring of the product imported from a third country, the violation of the Customs 
Union requirements have been identified several times. 
Time-frames for an exporting Party to take correc tive measures are defined individually in each case 
depending on a level of risk. 
Question 4 
This Member asks to add a part on how Kazakhstan will ensure that compliance with the 
principles of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness are met when adopting 
Kazakhstan/CU SPS measures, either in its national  framework or within the CU framework.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will include the relevant sec tion to the Draft Working Party Report. 
Question 5 
Regarding paragraph 1 of JOB/ACC/30:  The paragraph mentions "CU Commission Decision 
No. [xxx] of [xxx] 2012 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary 
Controls":  We would welcome information on th is draft amendment.  What is the time-frame 
planned for the adoption of this new draft?  What is its full content? 
Answer: 
The draft document was approved at the meeting of the Working Group "Veterinary and Sanitary 
measures" on 13 July 2012 and is planned to subm it to the Consultative Committee approximately in 
September 2012 in order to post it on the CU we bsite for public consultation.  Since public 
consultation takes about two months, final approval of draft document is expected in December this 
year. 
Question 6  
CU technical regulations are missing from the lis t, in particular CU Food Safety Technical 
Regulations (CU Decision No. 880), CU Food Labelling (CU Decision No. 881), CU Technical Regulations on Fruits and Vegetables Juices (CU Decision 882), CU Technical Regulations on 
Oils and Fats (CU Decision No. 883) , CU Technical Regulations on grain. 
Answer: 
These regulatory documents will be  included into paragraph 1 of  the document JOB/ACC/30.  
It should be noted that these CU technical regul ations will enter into force from July 2013. JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  Question 7  
Has any other CU SPS norm (including technical regulations) been adopted since 
December 2011?  What about the draft amendment to CU Decision No. 317 (amendment to CU common veterinary requirements) published for public comments on 21 May 2012?  When will 
it be adopted? 
Answer: 
The draft document "On Amendments to the Unified Veterinary (Veterinary-Sanitary) Requirements 
to the Goods Subject to a Veterinary Contro l (Surveillance)", published on 21 May 2012, was 
approved by the Working Group and will be subm itted to the Consultative Committee for further 
submission for approval at Eurasian Economic  Commission (hereinafter – EEC) meeting 
(approximately September 2012). 
Question 8  
Paragraph 2 of JOB/ACC/30:  Regarding "Gov ernment Resolution No. 132 'On Approval of 
Rules of Issuance of Permits for Exportation, Importation and Transit of Objects with Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the T erritory' of 19 January 2012", could Kazakhstan 
indicate on which basis the epizootic situation in the territory of the exporting country is 
assessed and how this impacts the issuance of import permits?  
Additionally, could we please receive the legisl ation that is referred to in the paragraph? 
Answer: 
Assessment of the epizootic situation with in the territory of an exporting country  is conducted on the 
basis of information available on the OIE offici al website as well as on the official websites and 
notifications of the exporting country.  
Regulatory legal acts applicable to the ve terinary are attached to this letter. 
Question 9  
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of JOB/ACC/30 on the competences of the EEC in the SPS field:  Who 
prepares the first draft CU SPS norms (including t echnical regulations), i.e. who has the right of 
initiative:  EEC or CU member States?   
Answer: 
The right to initiate development of drafts rela ted to SPS measures belongs to the CU Parties and 
EEC.  As a rule, drafting of SPS measures is assigned to the initiator. 
Question 10  
Who is competent to negotiate/consult with th ird countries' competent authorities in the SPS 
field?   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Answer: 
The relevant authorised bodies (Ministry of Agricu lture, Ministry of Health, Committee of Technical 
Regulation), within their competences are authorised  to conduct negotiate with the authorised bodies 
of third countries.  
Pursuant to Common Veterinary Requirements, author ised bodies of other CU Parties may join to the 
negotiations of a CU Party on veterinary certificates.   
Question 11  
Who is responsible to answer to public comments received during periods of publication on 
draft CU SPS norms or draft CU technical regulations?   
Answer: 
With respect to CU technical regulations, in accordance with the Regulation on the Development, 
Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technica l Regulations of the Customs Union approved by 
the Decision of the Eurasian Economic Commiss ion Council No. 48 of 20 June 2012, upon 
completion of public consultation of a technical regu lation, a CU Party developing a relevant draft CU 
technical regulation compiles summary of comments of interested parties (including third countries) 
and corresponding answers of CU Parties to the comme nts.  The summary is published on the official 
CU website:  www.tsouz.ru. 
With respect to draft SPS measures, answers to comm ents of interested parties received during public 
consultation period are not provided since there is no such a provision in the CU.  
Kazakhstan within CU framework has initiated drafting of a transparent mechanism of the 
development and approval of CU regulatory acts on SPS measures. 
Question 12  Paragraph 5 of JOB/ACC/30 mentions a "permanent  mechanism […] expected to be established 
as of 1 July 2012":  Could Kazakhstan describe this permanent mechanism?   
Answer: 
At the moment, there is no approved mechanism of development of draft CU legal acts on SPS 
measures. 
Current practice of development of draft CU  legal acts on SPS measures looks as follows:  
1) a CU Party or EEC initiates development of a draft CU legal act.  A party responsible for 
developing the draft is appointed; 
2) Working group, including CU Part y representatives, is established; 
3) a draft document, discussed and approved at a meeting of working groups, is submitted to the 
Consultative Committee meeting for publishi ng on the CU official website for public 
consultation.  Public consu ltation period takes 2 months; 
4) after public consultation procedure, all comme nts and questions are discussed within the 
Working group.  Upon discussion a final revision shall be approved. 
5) draft document is reviewed at a meeting of th e Consultative Committee. In case the draft is 
approved, it shall be submitted to the Collegium for approval; JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  6) draft document is adopted by the decision of the Collegium in case it falls under its 
competence, or 
7) approved by the Collegium and p assed to the Council adoption.  
Question 13 
Who is currently the Head of the SPS department of the EEC?  
Answer: 
Issues related to technical regulation, application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures at 
the EEC are covered by Koreshkov Valeriy Nikolaevic h - Member of the Collegium (Minister).   
Director of the Department of Sanitary, Veteri nary and Phytosanitary Measures – Arnautov Oleg 
Vechyaslavovich. 
Question 14  Regarding paragraph 8 of JOB/ACC/30:  Could Kazakhstan confirm that it participates 
actively in the activities of Codex Alimentarius, OIE and IPPC and it will continue to do so?  
Answer: 
The Delegation of Kazakhstan regularly participates at  the meetings and general sessions of the OIE.  
Kazakhstan Delegation participates at the meeting of Codex Alimen tarius and IPPC as well.   
Kazakhstan actively cooperates with the OIE.  In July 2012 in Astana the agreement on co-operation 
was signed between the Government of the Repub lic of Kazakhstan and the OIE.  Within the 
framework of this Agreement, curre ntly special agreements between th e authorised veterinary body of 
Kazakhstan and OIE in specific areas are being developed.   
Kazakhstan is a member to Codex Alimentarius sin ce 2003.  Ministry of Health maintains a contact 
point with Codex Alimentarius.  Kazakhstan is pla nning to participate in the conference of the 
Codex Alimentarius in October this year in Bishkek.   
Question 15 
Development of technical regulations/mandatory  requirements on SPS:  Missing chapter?  
- What about EurAsEC?  Is EurAsEC still deve loping technical regulations in the SPS 
field which, once adopted, will supersede CU technical regulations?  We were informed 
for examples that technical regulations on honey and bottled water safety were to be 
developed by Kyrgyzstan for adoption at EurAsEC level, and would become mandatory 
for import into the CU once adopted a nd in force.  Is it still the case?   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will include the sub-section on developm ent of technical regulations into the Draft 
Working Party Report. Currently, there is no adopted  EurAsEC technical regulation.  Development of 
technical regulation has been suspended.    JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Question 16 
We understand that national requirements remain in force for parts that are not contradicted 
by CU requirements.  Are there tables availabl e identifying the national Kazakhstani 
requirements in force in addition to CU requiremen ts?  The co-existence of overlapping norms, 
parts of which are superseded by other norms, is not transparent and as such represents an 
obstacle to trade.  
Answer: 
Currently, Kazakhstan works on harmonization of national legislation on SPS measures with the 
Customs Union legal acts.  Moreover, in the c ourse of development of new national SPS regulatory 
legal acts, the provisions of the CU legal acts shall be observed. 
Question 17  Concerning the sentence "With regard to participation in international organizations in this 
sphere, she said that as a member of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) since 1993, Kazakhstan followed the provisions of the T errestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Codes", 
this Member is concerned that this statement is not verified in veterinary certification 
provisions required for import into Kazakhsta n, many of which go beyond OIE (c.f. section 
"Veterinary certification").  
Paragraphs on recognition of certificates seem to be missing from this sub-section.   
Veterinary certificates (paragraphs 11 to 19):  This Member is concerned that Kazakhstan 
requests certification of free countries or zon es from several animal diseases for which there is 
no corresponding OIE requirement.  For instance,  these are examples aimed at illustrating the 
above-mentioned concern: 
- Requirement for freedom from Glanders and African Horse Sickness for horse meat. 
- Refusal to allow import of cattle vaccinated against Bluetongue. - Requirement for freedom from Tuberculosis, Brucellosis and Enzootic Bovine Leucosis 
(EBL) for meat and milk and dairy products. 
- Requirement for systematic testing for BSE for bovine meat (not in line with OIE 
requirements).  
- Restrictions due to BSE on imports of bovine meat from certain countries with 
controlled risk according to OIE (e.g. UK). 
- Testing requirement for BVD for bovine semen not in line with chapter 4.6.2 of the OIE 
code.  
- Requirements for freedom from Para tuberculosis and Leptospirosis. 
- Requirement for freedom from Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome 
(PRRS).  
- Requirement for guarantee on peste des petits ruminants  (PPR) on dairy products. 
Answer: 
Currently, the Working group on veterinary-sanitary  measures is working on harmonization of the 
Common Veterinary Requirements with  OIE standards and recommendations. 
Countries free from certain diseases may request the authorised body of a CU Party to which the 
exporting country is planning to e xport, on negotiations on bilateral ve terinary certificates that differ 
from Common Veterinary Requirements a nd Common Veterinary Certificates. JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  Question 18  
Requirement of absence of residues of veterinary me dicinal products in exported honey (not in 
line with Codex guidelines):  The CU common form of certificate for honey includes the following provision:  "Honey and beekeeping pro ducts that are exported to the Customs Union 
do not contain traces of medical drugs that h ave been used in the treatment and handling of 
bees".  This is not in line with Codex Guidelines "For the design and implementation of national 
regulatory food safety assurance programme associat ed with the use of veterinary drugs in food 
producing animals" CAC/GL/71-2003, which recogniz es the monitoring done at a national level 
and by a food producing establishment, while the current provision of the certificate implies a systematic testing.  
Answer: 
The issue of recognition of monitoring, conducted at the national level and at the level of food 
producing establishment, as an equivalent measure  of exporting country will be considered during 
audit of the national control system of exporting countries.  
Question 19  
This Member would like receiving confirmation th at Kazakhstan will comply with the principle 
laid down in Chapter 5.1 of the OIE Code for Terrestrial Animals:  "Certification requirements should not include conditions for diseases th at are not transmitted by the commodity 
concerned".   
This Member would like receiving confirmation  that Kazakhstan will not require additional 
guarantees for commodities considered safe for cer tain diseases and will not require guarantees 
for animal diseases which are not listed by OIE.   
This Member is concerned that, even after adoption of CU Decision No. 892 and No. 893 of 
9 December 2011, the CU common forms of certif icates for import into the CU and the 
CU common veterinary requirements are st ill not in line with OIE standards.  
Answer: 
Currently, the Working group "Veterinary and Sa nitary Measures" has been working on the 
amendments to the Common Veterinary Requiremen t to exclude the requirements not present in the 
OIE Code as well as excess requirements to the goods subject to a veterinary control.  As soon as 
these amendments enter into force, CU Common Form s of Veterinary Certificates will be amended 
accordingly. 
Question 20  
Regarding paragraph 19 of JOB/ACC/30:  This Member is concerned that Kazakhstan could 
require guarantees for a disease for which there is a surveillance programme only in part of the 
CU territory, which could lead to discrimination  between the conditions for circulation of goods 
within the CU territory and condition s for import into the CU territory.  
The Republic of Kazakhstan specifies requirements for the goods subject to a veterinary control 
(supervision), imported on its territory, in acco rdance with the Unified veterinary (veterinary 
and sanitary) requirements for the goods, subj ect to a veterinary control (supervision), 
approved by the Decree of the Customs Unio n Commission No. 317 dated 18 June 2012.  
In accordance with the Article 4 of the Custom s Union Agreement on Ve terinary and Sanitary  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Measures, all goods subject to a veterinary control (supervision) imported to the territory of the 
Customs Union, as well as transported between the countries – members of the Customs Union shall comply with this requirement. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan requires compliance of imported goods subj ect to a veterinary control (supervision) to the 
Common Veterinary Requirements approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 
18 June 2012.  In accordance with the Article 4 of the Customs Union Agreement on Veterinary and 
Sanitary Measures, all goods subject to veterinary co ntrol (supervision) imported to the territory of the 
Customs Union as well as those moved within the te rritories of CU Parties shall comply with these 
requirements. 
Moreover when including establishments into the Re gister of third countries as well as into the 
Register of the CU establishments, the same principles apply.  For these purposes first of all, evaluation of equivalence of inspection systems of  veterinary facilities as well as evaluation of the 
methods on ensuring safety on animal diseases (syste m of passive and active surveillance, etc.) is 
conducted.  
Within the framework of the Customs Union, the work  on evaluation of the systems of the CU Parties 
has been conducted.  As a result, the veterinary  control systems of CU Parties were mutually 
recognized as equivalent by the CU Commission Decision No. 833 of 18 October 2011.  Hence, the there is no discrimination of goods originati ng from CU Parties and third countries.   
It should also be noted that Kazakhstan in the fra mework of the Customs Union took the initiative on 
unification of passive and active surveillance of  animal diseases within  the Customs Union. 
Question 21  We note that paragraphs 898 to 904 of the Russi an Federation Working Party Report have not 
be reproduced.  Is there a specific reason for this?   
Answer: 
These paragraphs will be included into  the Draft Working Party Report. 
Question 22 Establishment Approval, Registry, Inspections :  Regarding paragraph 25 of JOB/ACC/30, 
CU Decision No. 810 lays down that feed of plant origin are excluded from the list of goods subject to veterinary control only for import into the Russian Federation; similarly, for the 
Russian Federation, the listing requirements fo r dairy products had been replaced by a 
requirement to indicate the number and the name of the producer in the import permit and the 
veterinary certificate.  Currently, to the kno wledge of this Member, CU Decision No. 830, 
Annex 4, such changes are included only for import into the Russian Federation.  This Member seeks confirmation that these CU Decisions are being amended to extend these measures to the whole CU.  
The same request for elimination of require ment is made for the following items: 
- Import permits for natural honey (0409 00 000 0),  
- Listing requirement for Guts, bladders and stom achs of animals (except fish), whole or 
in pieces, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, in brine, dried or smok ed (0504 00 000 0), JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
  - Import permits for "Oth ers (bee-bread, ambrosia)" (from 1212 99 700 0), 
- Import permits for "Others (Propolis)" (from 1301 90 900 0), - Import permits for animal fats (1502 00, 1503 00, 1504, 1505 00, 1506 00 000 0, 1516 10, 
1518 00) 
- Import permits for composite products (1902 20, 1904 20, from 20, from 2104, from 
2105, from 2106) 
- Listing of establishments for ice cream, made on  the basis of fruits and berries, fruit and 
edible ice and veterinary certificates for su ch ice cream containing less than 50 per cent 
of products of animal origin (from 2105)   
- Import permits for Pharmaceutical products (for the use in veterinary medicine) (from 
group 30) 
- veterinary certificate for Fertilizers of an imal or vegetable origin (3101 00 000 0), 
- listing of establishments for casein and gelatine (from 3501, 3503 00) - import permits for Composite diagnostic or  laboratory reagents other than those of 
heading 3002 or 3006 (from 3822 00 000 0). 
Concerning composite products, we request that the principle of no requirement for listing of 
establishment, no requirement for import permit  and no requirement for composite products 
containing less than 50 per cent of animal origin other than meat, are applied also to line:  
- 0410 00 000 0:  Edible products of animal origin not elsewhere specified or included. 
Answer: 
Currently, corresponding draft EEC Decisions "On Elim ination of Veterinary Measures for the Goods 
Included into the Common List of Goods Subject  to Veterinary Control (Supervision)" and 
"On Amendments and Additio ns into the Annex to the Common Ve terinary (Veterinary and Sanitary) 
Requirements to the Goods subject to a Veterina ry Control (Supervision) Approved by the CU 
Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2012" have been developed and being discussed within the 
Consultative Committee.  In accord ance with these drafts, the goods excluded from the Common List 
for Russian Federation also will be excluded for Kazakhstan.   
Question 23 
Regarding paragraph 26 of JOB/ ACC/30:  There is a discrepancy between Table [xx] in Annex 
to the Working Party Report, and CU Decision No . 830, Annex 4, regarding line 0401:  while in 
Table [xx] this line is for "raw milk and ra w cream, not concentrated and without sugar-added 
or other sweetening substances", in CU Decision  No. 830, Annex 4, this line reads "Milk and 
cream, not concentrated nor containing adde d sugar or other sweetening substances".  
This Member seeks confirmation from Kazakhsta n that CU Decision No. 830 will be amended 
to be brought in line with Table [xx].  This coul d be done for example by adding "from" in the 
CN column and "raw" in the commodity description column. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan is planning to initiate th is issue within the Customs Union. 
Question 24 
Regarding paragraph 27 of JOB/ACC/30:  This Member would ask to be provided with the 
web-link to the Kazakh list of authorised third country establishments.  The Member notes that the following CU web-link:  http://tsouz.ru/ db/techregulation/vetmeri/Pages/Reestrorg.aspx  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  leads to the homepage of the Kazakh Ministry of  Agriculture and not to the Kazakh list of third 
country establishments.  
Answer: 
Since the Register of Third Country Establishments c onsists of three national parts, the website of the 
CU has the links to the national websites of the CU member countries. 
Please follow the link for Kazakhstan part of the register:   
http://www.minagri.kz/index.php?o ption=com_content&view=cate gory&layout=blog&id=236&Itemi
d=265&lang=ru 
Question 25 
This Member seeks confirmation that, if an exporting establishment is listed on the 
Russian Federation or Belarusian list, it is also authorised for import into Kazakhstan.  
Answer: 
Register of the Register of Third Country Establis hments consists of three national parts.  Once an 
exporting establishment is included into any CU Party's list, it has the right to export its products to any CU Party. 
Question 26 Regarding paragraph 28 of JOB/ACC/30:  Until when or what is the deadline for the 
transitional period for new lists of establishments running?  When will the common CU Register of establishments authorised for import into the CU be set up?   
Answer: 
The Register, consisting of three national lists, has been established.  The transition period was 
provided for continuation of external trade from esta blishments of third countries on goods listed in 
Paragraph 28 until inclusion thereof into the Regist er.  Since, Kazakhstan is planning to cancel the 
requirement of listing the establishments of thir d countries exporting these products to Kazakhstan, 
the transitional period will no longer be required.  
Question 27 
Regarding paragraphs 30 and 33 of JOB/ACC/30:   This Member shares the following concerns 
"A Member expressed concern that, in practice, the listing of new establishments was no longer 
accepted on the basis of written guarantees of th e exporting country since the entry into force of 
the CU" and "before an establishment could be included in the approved establishment list, all CU Parties had to concur".  
The current practice, whereby the CU requests in almost all cases to inspect establishments 
before authorising them, while it does not have a capacity to perform audits in all of them 
within reasonable delays, constitutes an obstac le to trade.  This is not in line with 
Codex Alimentarius CAC/GL 26-1997, Guidelin es for the Design, Operation, Assessment and 
Accreditation of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  This Member requests confirmation that Kaza khstan and the CU will take into account 
background/historical trade of exporting count ries and authorised establishments based on 
written guarantees for the majority of cases.  
Answer: 
Regulation on Common Rules of Joint Inspections  has entered into force on 22 August 2012, under 
which exporting facility of third countries in the following ways: 
a) upon positive results of systems audit; 
b) in case a competent body a third country has provided a guarantee that controlled  goods 
produced  by establishments and the producti on process meet the CU requirements - in case 
the authority of the third country h as the right to provide the guarantees; 
c) on the basis of a decision of the authorised body of a CU Party taken as a result of joint 
inspections. 
These provisions comply with the Codex Alimentari us standard CAC/GL 26-1997.  Kazakhstan will 
take into account of background/historical trade of  exporting countries and authorised establishments 
based on written guarantees. 
Question 28 This Member is also concerned that, when establishments are delisted or suspended due to 
non-compliances, it is very difficult for the exporting Party to obtain the lifting of the 
suspension or the re-listing of the establishment.  
Answer: 
In the case the corrective actions w ith respect to problem, which was the basis for refusal to accepting 
a guarantee, a competent body of exporting countr y may reapply for a guarantee.  Kazakhstan will not 
create additional barriers to such establishments not s tipulated by the legal acts of the Customs Union. 
Question 29 
Paragraph 36:  A Member would like clarification of the criteria for the CU to choose between 
regime of listing of establishments based on guarantees and the regime of listing of 
establishments based on systematic inspections of establishments.  
This Member seeks confirmation that, when th e regime of listing establishments based on 
guarantees (pre-listing) has been applied historically  to an exporting country, or when historical 
trade has demonstrated the performance of the control system of the exporting country, this 
regime will continue to be applied by the CU part ners.  No unjustified barrier to trade should 
be created. 
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraph 7 of the Regulation on  Joint Inspections, in case (i) audit of a foreign 
official veterinary control system was not conducted or  not completed; or (ii) a result of such audit, 
the foreign official veterinary control system has b een recognized as not able to ensure a safety level 
equal at least the safety level of the CU, the CU  Party may approve, upon application of the third 
country, the inclusion of an establishment into the Register of Third Country Establishments based on 
joint inspection or the guarantees provided by  the competent body of third country.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  In accordance with paragraph 43 of the Regulation, th e decision to give the authorised body of a third 
country the right to provide the guarantees on co mpliance of the controlled goods produced by a 
specific establishment(-s) shall be based on the following criteria: 
a) the level of development of authorised body of third country;  
b) the level of justification of guarantees, provided by this authorised body of the third country;  
c) the risk of entry from the territory of third c ountry and further spread of contagious diseases, 
including animal diseases as well as a diseases common for human and animals;  
d) epizootic situation in third country;  
e) the results of monitoring studies of controlled goods conducted when imported to CU territory 
from third country concerned;  
f) monitoring data of the controlle d goods conducted by the authorised body of third country;  
g) compliance with the requirements to the aut horised body, as provided in paragraph 10 in 
respect of controlled goods imported into the Customs Union from the third country; 
h) the results of inspections conducted by the authorised bodies of CU Parties of the 
establishments of third country. 
Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 40 of th e Regulation, when taking decision on guarantees, 
past experience with the third c ountry shall be taken into account. 
Kazakhstan will not create additional unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Question 30 
When an audit  is carried out, we seek confirmation that CU partners, while evaluating the 
resources and infrastructures of the veterina ry service of the exporting country, will put 
emphasis on the evaluation of the quality of ou tputs and performance of veterinary services and 
will take into consideration any quality systems used by veterinary services.  
This Member seeks confirmation that the introd uction of the audit system (from the date of 
accession of the first CU member to the WTO) w ill not create trade disruptions and will not 
lead to de-listing of establishments that are currently listed.  
Answer: 
Introduction of the audit system is aimed at si mplification of the procedure of including of 
establishments of third countries into the Regist er of Third Country Establishment as well as at 
performing of this procedure in accordance with the international standards.  If previously 
establishments were included into the Register only based on the results of joint inspections, now in 
case of positive results of the audit, the authorised body of third country has the opportunity to submit 
the list of establishments in order to include th em into the Register of the third countries. 
The introduction of the audit system will not lead to the exclusion of establishments from the 
Register. 
Introduction of the audit system will not create a disr uption in trade and will not lead to exclusion of 
establishments that are currently  included into the Register. 
Question 31 Regarding paragraph 48 of JOB/ACC/30:  The guidelines on inspection are to be adopted and 
enter into force by the date of the accession of the first CU member to the WTO.  At which stage of development are these guidelines?  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
  This Member is concerned that no draft guide lines have yet been published on the CU website, 
and would ask to be provided with the curren t draft of the CU guidelines for inspection.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated this issue at the meeti ng of the Working group "Veterinary-Sanitary 
measures".  The Kazakh side is working on draft Gu idelines for Inspection.  The WTO Members will 
have an opportunity to acquaintance with the draft on the CU official website during public 
consultation and as well as submit comments to the drafts.   
Question 32 
This Member requests information on the tr aining sessions carried out and planned for CU 
inspectors to apply the principles of equivalence and compliance with international standards.  
Answer: 
Within the framework of cooperation with the OIE,  Kazakhstan is planning to conduct trainings on 
equivalency of veterinary inspectors.  In additi on, a Plan for conducting trainings of veterinary 
inspectors for 2013 is being drafted.  Conducting th ese trainings require funding from the Republican 
budget allocation of which requires certain time.   
Within a technical assistance programme funded by a WTO Members, Ministry of Agriculture works 
with the project on conducting the necessary trainings. 
Question 33 
This Member seeks clarification of the list of norms that have to be respected by exporting 
establishments (i.e. inspection criteria that are used by CU inspectors when visiting exporting 
establishments), and requests confirmation that the legal bases on which the CU 
audits/inspections are carried out are announ ced in advance of the audit/inspection.  
Answer: 
Currently, within the framework of the Customs Union several technical regulations have been 
approved or undergoing the approval process.  These technical regulations contain requirements to 
safety of products including requirements to production processes a nd production facilities. 
Inspections of establishments will be conducted to  compliance with these technical regulations.   
Currently, Russian Federation is drafting a CU document on conducting inspections of 
establishments.  The draft will be published on the Customs Union website for public consultation.  
Question 34 
This Member requests confirmation that in the audit/inspection reports of the CU partners, the 
legal basis is explicitly mentioned when non-compliance is mentioned.  
Answer: 
The report of the audit/inspection of the results of th e third countries will specify the legal acts of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Customs Union, the provision of which were found non-compliant 
during inspection.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Question 35 
Import Permits, paragraph 54 of JOB/ACC/30:  Ho w is it ensured that Oblasts responsible to 
issue import permits follow the principles of prop ortionality and risk basis?  Is it planned to 
introduce an electronic system for issuance of import permits?  
Answer: 
The Legislation of Kazakhstan and Customs Union legal acts regulating importation of goods are 
formed according to the principles of proportiona lity and feasibility and on the basis of risk 
assessment principle.  Import permits are issued  within the framework of the CU and national 
legislation. 
Currently, the Unified Automatic System "E-agric ulture" has been implemented within the entire 
territory of Kazakhstan.  The sub-system "Veter inary Security of Transported Products of the 
Customs Union" ensures issuance of import, expo rt and transit permits in electronic format. 
Question 36 
Regarding paragraph 57 of JOB/ACC/30:  Wh en will the CU common website detailing import 
conditions for specific products be set up?  
Answer: 
The following link http://tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/ vetmeri/Pages/default.aspx of the Customs Union 
official website contains all the legal acts of the Customs Union on veterinary and sanitary measures, Common Veterinary Certificates, the registers of the establishments of the Customs Union and the 
third countries, as well as other information n ecessary for importation of goods subject to the 
veterinary control (supervision). 
Moreover the official website of the Customs Unio n contains the text of the Common Veterinary 
(Veterinary and Sanitary) Requirements for Goods, subject to Veterinary Control (Supervision), 
approved by the Decree of the CU Commission No. 317 of 18 November 2012, which sets the requirements to all products subject to a veterinary control (supervision) imported to the CU territory.  
Question 37  
Regarding paragraph 63 of JOB/ACC/30:  Kazakh border controls are organised in two stages, 
at the border and at the customs clearance poin ts.  Kazakhstan indicates that at the border 
samples are taken only in case of detection of visible organoleptic changes.  Could Kazakhstan 
clarify if samples are also taken at the second stage, and on which basis?  
Answer: 
Pursuant to Paragraph 3.14.3. of the Regulati on on Common Veterinary Control at the Customs 
Border and Within the Customs Territory of the Customs Union, approved by the CU Commission 
Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2012, laboratory testing (including sampling) shall be conducted in case 
of visible organoleptic changes detected duri ng inspection of controlled goods.  Accordingly, 
sampling is made at the first stage of border c ontrol only in case of detecting visible organoleptic 
changes during inspection.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
  Question 38  
Can Kazakhstan confirm that it/the CU does not require exporting country to carry out 
veterinary-sanitary checks at the extern al border of the exporting country?  
Answer: 
The legislation of Kazakhstan and Customs Union does not contain rules obliging exporting country 
to carry out veterinary and sanitary checks at the external border of the exporting country.  
Question 39 
Transit permits:  What are the grounds for refus al of transit permits?  Is there an appeal 
procedure? 
Answer: 
Transit permit can be refused in case of unfavourable ep izootic situation in the country of origin of the 
goods subject to a veterinary control (supervision). 
Appeal procedure is established in the Section 4 "A ppeal Procedure" of the Rules of Issuing Permits 
for Export, Import and Transit of Moved (Trans ported) Objects, approved by the Government 
Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012.  
Question 40 Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Contro ls, paragraph 71 of JOB/ACC/30:  Is the date 
of 1 January 2013 still the target date for adopti on and entry into force of the CU common list 
of quarantine pests and the CU common phytosa nitary requirements?  When will the draft 
CU common phytosanitary requirements be  published for public consultation?   
Answer: 
Pursuant to the Plan of Priority Measures on Ha rmonization of Quarantine Phytosanitary Measures of 
Customs Union member States, approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010, 1 January 2013 is the expected date of adopting Common List of Quarantine Objects and Common Phytosanitary Requirements of the Customs Union.  The draft documents are 
expected to publish for public consulta tion at the second half of October 2012.  
Question 41  This Member welcomes the adoption of a list of quarantine pests.  This Member intends to provide comments th e draft CU list of quarantine pests published on 
the CU website for public consultation, and will no tably ask for technical justification, including 
the Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) carried out, fo r certain pests which are included in the draft 
list.  This Member will also ask for information on the monitoring/official survey carried out in 
the CU territory for the pests included in th e list, and the results of this monitoring. 
We seeks confirmation that the comments will be  answered and the technical justification, 
including PRA, and information on the surveys done in the CU territory, will be provided 
before the CU list is adopted.  This Member see ks confirmation that quarantine pests will be 
removed from the list when no technical justification is available.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Answer: 
In case of absence of technical justification on harm ful quarantine organisms, Kazakhstan, within the 
framework of Customs Union, will take measure fo r removal of such organisms from the common list 
of quarantine organisms.  
Question 42 
We would welcome clarification on the contac t point to whom those comments have to be 
submitted, and on the timing foreseen for the adoption of the list.  
Answer: 
Comments on draft SPS measures should be submitted to Eurasian Economic Commission.  Pursuant 
to the Plan of Priority Measures on Harmoniza tion of Quarantine Phytosanitary Measures of 
Customs Union member states, approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 454 of 
18 November 2010, 1 January 2013 is the expected date of adopting Common List of Quarantine 
Objects and Common Phytosanitary Requirements of the Customs Union. 
Question 43 
Are the guarantees asked from exporting co untries also required for other CU partners? 
Answer: 
Since there are neither common phytosanitary re quirements no common list of harmful quarantine 
organisms within the CU, Kazakhstan, currently , requires phytosanitary guarantees from other 
CU Parties as well as from third countries.   
Question 44 
Is there also a list of related mitigating measures th at need to be complied with in case of export 
to CU?  Or is it sufficient to confirm through the phytosanitary certificate that the consignment 
is free from these pests?  If such import condition s related to Section II pests exist, then similar 
conditions should exist for internal movement s within the three countries, according to the 
WTO SPS Agreement.   
Answer: 
Phytosanitary certificate is enough for confirmati on that the cargo is free from harmful quarantine 
organisms provided that the phytosanitary requirement s of Kazakhstan are met.  At the same time, in 
case of detecting harmful quarantine organisms in the exported goods while no appropriate measure 
were taken by the exporting country , Kazakhstan, in line with paragr aph 6, Article 7 IPPC, reserves 
its right to apply emergency phytosanitary measur es restricting or banning importation of such goods. 
These requirements apply to both CU Parties and third countries.   
Question 45 Regarding paragraph 73 of JOB/ACC/30:  Where can we find Government Resolution No. 1295 
"On Approval of the List of Quarantine Fac ilities, Alien Species a nd Extremely Dangerous 
Pests"? JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
  Answer: 
Government Resolution No. 1295 "On Approval of th e List of Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species 
and Extremely Dangerous Pests" could be  found at the following web link:  
http://adilet.minjust.kz /rus/docs/P020001295_#z4. 
Question 46 
Regarding paragraph 74 of JOB/ACC/30:  Could Kazakhstan clarify what are the competences 
and roles of the "State quarantine institutio ns" (risk assessment bodies?) and the "State 
enterprise "Phytosanitary"?   
Answer: 
State enterprise "Republican Center of Phytosanita ry Diagnostics and Prognosis" conducts research of 
the territory of Kazakhstan and harmful quarantine organisms for the purposes of detecting locations 
of spread of quarantine objects and highly hazardous organisms.  
State enterprise "Republican Quar antine Laboratory" conducts determ ination of species composition 
of harmful quarantine organisms. 
State enterprise "Republican Plan t Introduction Quarantine Nursery for Fruits and Berry Crops" and 
"Republican Plant Introduction Quarantine Nursery for Field Crops" conducts works on revealing of 
hidden contamination of plant quarantine products. 
State enterprise "Phytosanitary" c onducts works on liquidation and localization of location of spread 
of harmful quarantine organisms and phytosan itary expertise of controlled goods.  
Question 47 
Regarding paragraph 76 of JOB/ACC/30:  Coul d Kazakhstan clarify what is considered 
"appropriate information" to be provided in additional declaration of the phytosanitary 
certificate?  Is it defined in Kazakhstani/CU legislation?  
Answer: 
Pursuant to phytosanitary requirements of K azakhstan approved by the Government Resolution 
No. 1674 of 30 December 2011, "appropriate inform ation" means information, presented in the 
section "Additional declaration" of the phytosanita ry certificate, confirming that controlled goods 
were cultivated in the zones and/or produced in  places free from harmful quarantine organisms as well 
as information on compliance with other phyt osanitary requirements of Kazakhstan.  
Question 48 
This Member seeks confirmation that, in accordance with IPPC, Kazakhstan relies on 
phytosanitary guarantees the NPPO of the exporting country.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan accepts guarantees from exporting countries pr ovided paragraph 1, Article 5 IPPC is met. 
Pursuant to paragraph 1, Article  5 IPPC, NPPO of exporting country must ensure and certify in the 
phytosanitary certificate that exported goods and cargo are free from harmful quarantine organisms 
and comply with phytosanitary  requirements of Kazakhstan.  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  At the same time, in case of detecting harmful qua rantine organisms in the exported goods while no 
appropriate measure were taken by the exporting country, Kazakhstan, in line with paragraph 6, 
Article 7 IPPC, reserves its right to apply emergency phytosanitary measures restricting or banning importation of such goods.  These requirements a pply to both CU Parties and third countries. 
Question 49 
This Member asks confirmation that Kazakhs tan will implement Codex Guidelines "For the 
design and implementation of national regulator y food safety assurance programme associated 
with the use of veterinary drugs in food  producing animals" CAC/GL/71-2003, which 
recognizes the monitoring done at a national le vel and by a food producing establishment, and 
that Kazakhstan would not request systematic pr oduct testing prior to export, and therefore not 
include a certification requirement in relation to residue compliance. 
Answer: 
The issue of recognition of monitoring, conducted at the national level and at the level of food 
producing establishment, as an equivalent measure  of exporting country will be considered during 
audit of the national control system of exporting countries.  
Question 50 This Member expresses concerns regarding the overlap of measures required by the CU to 
confirm the conformity of goods with CU and national food safety measures (veterinary 
certificate, declaration of conformity, certific ates of conformity, listing of establishments, 
import permits, State Registration) and asks ho w Kazakhstan will ensure that this overlap does 
not constitute a burden to trade.  
Answer: 
Currently, veterinary certificates include both ve terinary and sanitary requirements and only one 
veterinary-sanitary document was required to cross th e border.  State registration of controlled goods 
applies both to domestically produced and importe d goods and applies only to a limited number of 
products.  With regard to goods for which the CU requires, under Technical Regulation "On Safety of 
Food Products" and Common Veterina ry Requirement, both a veterinary certificate and a declaration 
of conformity, the CU Parties, currently under development, will require only one document, as 
specified in each technical regulation, to confirm the conformity of products with CU requirements. 
Question 51 
A Member asks confirmation that from 1 July 2013 (date of entry into force of the CU Food 
Safety Technical Regulation), processed food products of animal origin will not require a 
veterinary certificate for import into the CU but only a declaration of conformity issued by the 
operator.   
Answer: 
Please see answer to Question 50. 
Question 52 
Could Kazakhstan clarify what are "processed food  products of animal origin" under the Food 
Safety Technical Regulation (the current Technica l Regulation does not define this term and JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  speaks of "processing (treatment) of non-processed  food (edible) raw materials of animal 
origin", which makes the distinction between processed and unprocessed products unclear)?  
Answer: 
The term "unprocessed food product" means food pr oduct of animal origin in the raw conditions, 
which could not be consumed as food wit hout processing (thermal or other way). 
The term "processed food product" mean food produc t of animal origin which passed industrial 
processing (sausage, canned food etc.) ready for consumption without additional processing.   
Question 53 
Could Kazakhstan describe the regime of declaration of conformity?  
Answer: 
The procedure of declaration of conformity is d escribed in the CU Regulation of Application of 
Model Schemes of Assessment (Verification) of  Conformity to the requirements of Technical 
Regulation approved by the CU Commission Deci sion No. 621 of 7 April 2011 (paragraph 23 and 
Annex "Г").  The regulation provides for six schemes of declaration of conformity containing 
requirements to testing of products, assessment of production process, production control, application 
and to the document of conformity.   
Question 54 
Harmonization:  Could Kazakhstan provide info rmation on harmonization of CU/Kazakhstani 
norms with international standards for:  
- Structure, lay-out and hygiene requirements for establishments 
- Veterinary medicinal products 
- Pesticides MRLs 
- Veterinary certification requirements 
Could Kazakhstan provide information on harm onization with international recommendations 
of CU/Kazakh methodology for setting:  
- Microbiological criteria 
- Maximum levels for contaminants, and in particular nitrates 
- Maximum levels for radionucleids 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated the discussion within the CU on development of criteria for establishments.  
The criteria will be developed on the basis of  international standards and recommendation of 
Codex Alimentarius and OIE where appropriate. procedure of veteri nary certification of controlled 
goods for the movement both within the CU and importation from third countries are conducted in 
accordance with the principles laid down by OIE.   
Harmonization and improvement of CU MRLs an d microbiological criteria for food products, 
including pesticides and radionuclide, with Codex Alimentarius have been continuously conducted 
within the CU.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  It also should also be noted that in accordan ce with the CU Commission Decision No. 721, in case 
CU requirements are more stringent than the intern ational standards in the absence of scientific risk 
for human, animal and plant life and health, the re levant parts of international standards apply. 
Question 55 
Regarding paragraph 93 of JOB/ACC/30:  How will it be ensured that the principles laid down 
in CU Decision No. 721 will be applied in practice?  Does Kazakhstan confirm that when an 
exporting country requests scientific justificatio n for a CU or Kazakhstan standard which is 
stricter than international standard, the internat ional standard will be applied as long as the 
scientific justification has not been provided?  
Answer: 
Exporting country may request EEC or authorised body of a CU Party a scientific justification in case 
such SPS measures are more stringent than th e relevant international standards.   
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the CU Commission De cision No. 721, if CU Parties, upon request of 
exporting country, are unable to present scientific justification of an SPS measure that are more 
stringent than the international st andard, the relevant provisions of international standard apply.   
Question 56 Regarding paragraph 96 of JOB/ACC/30:  This Member notes that a risk assessment for the 
CU tetracyclines MRLs has been published at the fo llowing webpage:  http://fcrisk.ru/node/652.  
This Member is currently analyzing this risk  assessment and reserves its right to further 
comment on this item.  This Member reiterat es it request for harmonization of the CU MRLs 
for tetracyclines with international standards.  
Answer: 
In the course of developing MRL for tetracycline,  risk assessment results, conducted by one of the 
CU Parties, were taken into account in acco rdance with Article 5 of SPS Agreement.  
Question 57 
Risk Assessment:  This Member asks confirmation that, as of the date of its accession to the 
WTO, Kazakhstan will ensure that its SPS requireme nts are based on risk assessments, carried 
out in accordance with international standard s (a general commitment paragraph on risk 
assessment is missing in this part).  Coul d Kazakhstan provide information on the risk 
assessment bodies involved in evaluation of risk  prior to setting sani tary and phytosanitary 
CU/Kazakhstani norms?  
Answer: 
Following institutions participat e in risk assessment works: 
1) in the sphere of veterinary: 
- Kazakh Scientific Research veterinary Institute; 
- Republican veterinary laboratory; 
- national reference Center in veterinary; and 
- KazAgroInnovation. JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  2) in the sphere of phytosanitary: 
- Scientific Institute of Plant Protection and Quarantine; 
- Republican Plant Quarantine Laboratory; 
- Republican Methodological Center of Ph ytosanitary Diagnostics and Prognosis; and 
- state enterprise "Phytosanitary" 
3) in the sphere of food safety: 
- National Scientific and Practical Centre of Sanitary and Epidemiological Expertise 
and Monitoring; 
- Kazakh Food Academy; and 
- Kazakh Scientific Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology. 
Question 58 This Member asks confirmation that risk assessmen t is carried out prior to the introduction of a 
restriction on import into the CU/Kazakhstan a nd that Kazakhstan /CU will provide this risk 
assessment to the exporting country aff ected by the restrictions upon request.  
Answer: 
Pursuant to Article 11 of the EurAsEC Agreement on Coordinated Policy in the Sphere of Technical 
Regulation, Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosan itary Measures, SPS measures are developed and 
applied on the basis of scientific justification and risk assessment results. 
Pursuant to paragraph 2, Article 26-1 of the Law "O n Veterinary", veterinary measures must be based 
on scientific justification, objective risk  assessment or international standards. 
Kazakhstan confirms that risk assessment is condu cted prior to implementation of introduction of 
restriction to imports and will provide the resu lts of risk assessment upon request of exporting 
country. 
Question 59 
Regionalisation:  It seems that a ch apter on regionalisation is missing. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will include the chapter on regionali zation into the Draft Working Party Report. 
Question 60 
Equivalence:  This Member requests confirmation  that CU inspectors will consider equivalent 
measures proposed by the competent authority of  the audited party during on-site inspections 
or audits.  
Answer: 
Equivalent measures proposed by competent bodies of the exporting country will be considered when 
conducting audits and inspections.    JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  It should also be noted that in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Regula tion on Joint Inspections 
adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011, when conducting joint inspections, inspector shall check and evaluate co mpliance of establishment with CU requirements.  
If the establishment complies with international sta ndards, on the basis of equivalency principle, it 
shall be recognized as compliant with CU requirements.   
In case CU legal act or national legislation of a CU  Party is more stringent than the international 
standard in the absence of scientific justification or risk assessment, inspector evaluates compliance 
on the basis of international standards. In case there is a scientific justification or risk assessment, 
inspector provides to the competent body of thir d country the relevant CU  legal act or national 
legislation in order to give the possi bility to propose equivalent measure.   
Question 61 Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations, paragraph 108, this Member 
requires clarification regarding which body/compe tent authorities will be responsible to notify 
CU SPS norms as part of the national authority and enquiry points?  
Answer: 
The responsible national authorities for notification of SPS measures will be Ministry of Agriculture 
and Ministry of Health. 
Question 62 
Regarding paragraph 114 of JOB/ ACC/30:  Reference to the possibility to provide comments on 
draft CU Technical Regulations should be a dded (CU Commission Decision No. 527?).  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes to add the following sente nce at the end of Paragraph [144]:   
Furthermore, Customs Union Comm ission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 provided for publication 
of CU draft SPS measures with a public comment peri od of at least 60 days.  Within this period, any 
interested party may submit its comments to the drafts. 
Question 63 
This Member has concerns regarding the system  of public consultation on draft CU SPS norms 
and draft CU technical regulations:  this Me mber has submitted a number of comments on 
draft technical regulations and draft norms publis hed on the CU website for comments, but has 
never received any official answers on these comm ents.  Furthermore, when available, the final 
version of the norm commented does not seem to  take into account this Member's comments 
(for example none of this Member's comments on  the Food Safety technical regulation were 
taken into account).  
Answer: 
With respect to CU technical regulations, in accordance with the Regulation on the Development, 
Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technica l Regulations of the Customs Union approved by 
the Decision of the Eurasian Economic Commiss ion Council of 20 June 2012 No. 48, upon 
completion of public consultation of a technical  regulation, a CU Party developing a draft 
CU technical regulation compiles summary of comments of interested parties (including third JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
  countries) and corresponding answers of CU Parties to the comments. The summary is published on 
the official CU website www.tsouz.ru.   
In addition, comments can be submitted to SPS  Enquiry Point of a CU Party developing a 
CU technical regulation.  Answers to the comments of interested parties were not provided for the 
reason of absence of such a requirement  within the CU legal framework.   
Question 64 Concerning the possibility to comment draft CU SPS norms according to CU Decision No. 625, 
this Member is concerned that there is no indi cation regarding to whom the comments should 
be submitted.   
Answer: 
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the CU Commis sion Decision No. 625, the Regulation on Unified 
Procedures of Expertise of Legal Acts of the Custom s Union in the Field of Application of Sanitary, 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures were adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 805 or 
23 September 2011.  In accordance with paragraph 2 of this Regulation, comments shall be submitted 
to the CU Commission, now it is Eurasian Economic Commission. 
Question 65 This Member would appreciate to receive inform ation concerning the schedule for adoption of 
Technical Regulations in the SPS field (on meat, fish, milk, additives, specialised food products, and feed).  
Answer: 
As of September 2012, SPS technical regulations g overning food safety, labelling of food products, 
grain, juice products, oil and fat products we re adopted by CU Commission Decisions in 
December 2011.  SPS technical regulations governin g specialized products, including dietetic meals 
and food additives were adopted by the EEC Council D ecision in June and July 2012, respectively.  
SPS technical regulations governing milk and milk  products, meat and m eat products were under 
inter-governmental consideration.  SPS technical regulations governing safety of feed stuffs and feed 
additives, fish and fish products, safety of alcohol ic beverages, tobacco products completed public 
discussion as of September 2012.   
Question 66 
A Member asks for information on the timing of adoption of the draft amendment on 
pre-notification which had been published on the CU website for public comments in 2011. 
Answer: 
The draft was approved by EEC Collegium Decisi on No. 150 of 30 August 2012 for further approval 
at the next EEC Council meeting.  
Question 67  
Paragraph 5:  the text mentions that the me chanism on drafting and adoption of the CU 
documents is on a temporary basis until a permanen t mechanism is established within the EEC.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  The permanent mechanism was expected to be esta blished as of 1 July 2012, which was 17 days 
ago. 
(i) Is the permanent mechanism already in place?  
(ii) If so, could Kazakhstan please provide details of the permanent process for  the 
drafting of CU documents and for the Council to adopt the drafts?  
Answer: 
At the moment, there is no approved mechanism of development of draf t CU legal acts on SPS 
measures. 
Current practice of development of draft CU  legal acts on SPS measures looks as follows:  
 1) a CU Party or EEC initiates development of a draft CU legal act. A party responsible 
for developing the draft is appointed; 
 2) Working group, including CU Party representatives, is established; 
 3) a draft document, discussed and approved at a meeting of working groups, is 
submitted to the Consultative Committee m eeting for publishing on the CU official 
website for public consultation.  Public  consultation period takes two months; 
 4) after public consultation procedure, all comments and questions are discussed within 
the Working group.  Upon discussion a final revision shall be approved; 
 5) draft document is reviewed at a meeting of the Consultative Committee.  In case the 
draft is approved, it shall be submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
 6) draft document is adopted by the decisi on of the Collegium in case it falls under its 
competence, or; 
 7) approved by the Collegium and passed to the Council adoption.   
Question 68  
Paragraph 16:  Amendments of the common vete rinary requirements and to the common forms 
of certificates are being prepared and would ent er into force simultaneously no later than the 
date of accession of either the first  CU Party or Kazakhstan to the WTO. 
- What veterinary requirements and which common forms of certificates are still under 
revision?  Please specify. 
- We are concerned that continued changes to the requirements and forms might create 
uncertainty for exporters.  Could Kazakhstan please indicate when the revision process 
will be finalized, and whether such informat ion will be provided on the English website 
of the National Enquiry Point?  
Answer: 
Currently, draft amendments to Chapters 3, 8, 10,  11, 12, 13, 17, and 39 of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements have passed public consultation and were approved by  the Working group for further 
review by the Consultative Committee.   
In addition, amendments into Chapte rs 4, 5, 6, 9, 15, 16,  18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26,  28, 29, 30, 31 and 34 
of the Common Veterinary Requirements are being drafted.  Common Forms of Veterinary 
Certificates will be amended as soon as the amendmen ts into Common Veterinary Certificates enter 
into force.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  It should be also noted that works on harmonizat ion of SPS measures of CU with international 
standards are being conducted c ontinuously.  Kazakhstan is pla nning to introduce into practice 
publication of draft SPS measures in English.  All interested parties will be able to submit their 
comments to draft SPS measures to the SPS/TBT Enquiry Point.   
Question 69  
Regarding paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/30:  Kazakhstan confirmed that if necessary, it would, as 
a result of bilateral consultations, modify require ments in the relevant certificate to bring them 
into compliance with WTO SPS Agreement.  
(i) Could Kazakhstan please clarify the meaning of "the relevant certificate"? 
(ii) Does this mean "the common certificate" applying to every WTO Member or does this 
mean "the bilateral certificate" applying only to that Member requesting bilateral 
consultations? 
(iii) Is there any specific procedure or ti metable for a Member requesting bilateral 
consultations and the subsequent modification process? 
Answer: 
"Relevant certificate" means a veterinary certifi cate to which a third party has questions.   
Schedule of negotiations with expor ting countries on veterinary certificates is formed on the basis of 
requests of competent bodies of the exporting countries for such negotiations. 
Competent body of any country interested in exporting to the CU may request for consultations on 
veterinary certificates.  Veterinary certificates could be modified in the course of such negotiations.  
Question 70  Regarding paragraphs 29, 32 and 33:  As indica ted in paragraph 29, there are three options for 
foreign establishments to become eligible to export to the CU. 
- Are these three options independent of each other?  If so, does it mean that  Members 
may choose the option they wish to use to list their establishments?   
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraph 7 of the Regul ation on Joint Inspections adopted by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 834, in case audit of fo reign official system of veterinary control was 
not conducted or was not completed and, as a result of  the audit, the official system of veterinary 
control was recognized as incapable of ensuring, as least , the level of safety equivalent to the level of 
SPS protection of the CU, CU Parties may allow,  upon written request of exporting country, to 
include the exporting establishments into the Register  upon results of joint inspection or guarantee of 
the competent body of exporting country.    JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Question 71  
- Regarding the third option, through a systems au dit, is the audit already in place, or will 
it only be effective from the date of accession of the first CU Party to the WTO? 
Answer: 
Systems audit has entered into force as of 22 August 2012, the date of accession of 
Russian Federation to the WTO.   
Question 72  - Once a CU Party has conducted a systems audit on an exporting Member, does the 
result of that audit become recognized by the other CU Parties, or is each individual 
CU Party required to carry out its own separate audit? 
Answer: 
In case systems audit of exporting country was conducte d by one of the CU Parties, there is no need 
to conduct additional audit by other CU Parties.  
Question 73  
- In paragraph 33 of JOB/ACC/30, it is not clear whether inspection of each facility is a 
pre-condition for CU Parties accepting guar antees.  Could Kazakhstan please clarify 
and confirm? 
Answer: 
There is no requirement to inspect each facility  for accepting guarantees.  At the same time, 
authorised body of CU Parties may randomly inspect  establishments of third countries, included into 
the Register but not more often than once a year.  
Question 74  
Regarding paragraph 45 of JOB/ACC /30:  It is mentioned that the CU Commission could take a 
decision to suspend establishments of a third country as a result of the detection of a serious 
systemic failure of the official system of control.  
- Would Kazakhstan please describe the criteri a used to determine a "serious systemic 
failure of the official system of control"? 
Answer: 
Pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Regulation on join t inspections adopted by CU Commission Decision 
No. 834 on 18 October 2011, conclusion on a "serious  systemic failure" of the exporting third 
country's official system of veterinary contro l could be made for example in the following cases: 
- if during inspection of a representative per cent of the establishments violation of the Customs 
Union requirements have been identified at more  than 60 per cent of inspected establishments 
(exceeding MRLs), or  
- during monitoring of the product imported from a third country, the violation of the Customs 
Union requirements have been identified several times. JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  Question 75  
Import Permits, paragraph 54 of JOB/ACC/30:  Currently, import permits are issued by the 
national authority of each individual relevant CU Party but are recognized by other CU Parties. 
Does Kazakhstan expect that a common import p ermit will be developed among all CU Parties? 
According to the Working Party Report of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation and 
Belarus are using the same electronic system wh ile the Kazakhstan is using the other one.  
Does Kazakhstan expect that a common electroni c system for issuing import permits will be 
developed for use by all CU Parties in the foreseeable future, and if so, when? 
Answer: 
Currently, consultations on this i ssue within the CU as well as  the process of integration of the 
systems on issuing of import permits of Russian Federation and Kazakhstan have been conducted. 
Question 76 Regarding paragraph 57 of JOB/ACC/30:  Kazakhs tan confirmed it would publish a list on the 
website of the National Enquiry Point in Englis h of the products which were permitted to be 
imported into its territory and other information. 
- When will the English website be available?  
- Apart from import permit matters, what other information will be included on this 
website? 
Answer: 
The Enquiry Point is planning to publish on its website the information in English upon 
WTO accession.  All interested par ties will be able to submit their comments to draft SPS measures to 
the SPS/TBT Enquiry Point. 
Question 77 
Regarding paragraph 62 of JOB/ACC/30:  It is stated that from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, the import permit regime applicable to goods subject to veterinary 
and quarantine control would be developed and applied in compliance with the 
WTO Agreement. 
Since the import permit is a common requirement of the CU and the Russian Federation is 
likely to join the WTO before Kazakhstan, may we suggest that the most suitable timing for the 
introduction of a WTO compliant import permit regime would be "from the date of accession of 
the first CU Party becoming a WTO Member". 
Answer: 
Since Kazakhstan accedes to WTO as a separate st ate in accordance with Article XII of the 
WTO Agreement, Kazakhstan will take commitment s only with respect to measures/actions falling 
under the competence of Kazakhstan.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  Question 78 
Regarding paragraph 65 of JOB/ACC/30:  It is said that after documentary checks, physical 
inspections were carried out on a random basi s not more often than one consignment per ten 
consignments of meat or fish originating from  a specific country, except for live animals, where 
each consignment was subject  to physical inspection. 
- We are concerned at the comparatively high pr oportion of each consignment (1 in 10, or 
10 per cent) subject to physical inspection.  Does Kazakhstan have a particular reason 
or any risk assessment evidence for deciding  to carry out checks on up to this high 
percentage?  
- What is the meaning of "a specific country" here?  Does Kazakhstan or the CU have a 
list of specific high risk countries and products originating from those countries are 
subject to the 10 per cent random check, or do es the same checking percentage apply to 
consignments of every exporting country? 
Answer: 
Veterinary inspectors on the border check-point will have to verify that imported goods correspond to 
the item indicated in the accompanying veterinary  certificate as well as that the goods are transported 
in compliance with the requirements of the Customs Union. 
Based on the practical experience of the CU Parties and other countries, and understanding that check 
of all vehicles is not practicable, CU Parties took a decision that inspection of every 10th vehicle 
carrying imported fish and meat, and every 20th vehicle carrying other controlled goods is 
representative and reasonable. 
When detecting during the inspection a violation of veterinary requirements, next five vehicles with 
controlled goods in a row are subject to inspection.   
This principle is applied to all imported goods from a ll third countries.  More stringent control could 
be introduced only against specific establishments wh ich violated CU veterinary requirements as an 
alternative to temporary restriction to  all imports from the third country.   
Question 79  
Could Kazakhstan please provide the List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases 
(paragraph 1)? 
Answer: 
List of Highly Dangerous Animal Diseases Requiring  Mandatory Withdrawal of Animals, Goods and 
Raw Materials of Animal Origin and List of Highly Dangerous Animal Diseases, Prophylactics, 
Diagnostics and Liquidation of Which are Conducted at  the Cost of Republican Budget approved by 
the Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 April 2003 are submitted to the Secretariat.   
Question 80 In paragraphs 3-5 of JOB/ACC/30, Kazakhstan explains the Customs Union (CU) institutional 
framework for regulating in the sphere of SPS measures.  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  Could Kazakhstan please provide further info rmation on the process through which the 
EurAsian Economic Commission (EAEC) works with  the national authorities of the CU parties 
to develop SPS measures? 
What role do the Kazakhstani SPS authoriti es have in developing EAEC SPS measures?  
In other words, how does the EAEC involve Kazakhstani SPS authorities in the development of SPS measures? 
Answer: 
Draft SPS measures of CU, in a mandatory manner are coordinated with CU Parties.  Representatives 
of CU Parties also participate in the Working groups.  In addition, the Consultative Committee on 
Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Ve terinary and Phytosanitary Measures and various 
sub-committees consist of the representatives of the authorised bodies of CU Parties.   
To the moment, there is no approved mechanism of development of draft CU legal acts on SPS 
measures. 
Current practice of development of draft CU  legal acts on SPS measures looks as follows:  
1) a CU Party or EEC initiates development of a draft CU legal act.  A party responsible for 
developing the draft is appointed; 
2) Working group, including CU Party representatives, is established; 
3) a draft document, discussed and approved at a meeting of working groups, is submitted to the 
Consultative Committee meeting for publishing  on the CU official website for public 
consultation. Public consulta tion period takes two months; 
4) after public consultation procedure, all co mments and questions are discussed within the 
working group. Upon discussion a final revision shall be approved. 
5) draft document is reviewed at a meeting of the Consultative Committee.  In case the draft is 
approved, it shall be submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
6) draft document is adopted by the decisi on of the Collegium in case it falls under its 
competence, or 
7) approved by the Collegium and passed to the Council adoption.  
Question 81 
In situations where the SPS authorities of ea ch of the CU parties disagree upon the SPS 
measures that should be adopted, what is the process through which differences of opinion are resolved?   
Answer: 
If one of CU Parties opposes to an SPS measure, su ch CU Party may address this issue via its 
representative in EEC Council which takes decision by consensus.  In addition, EEC Council can 
make a proposal to cancel the EEC Collegium.  In pr actice, all decisions within Working groups and 
Consultative Committee are taken by consensus.  
Question 82 
How are the different SPS risks in the different  areas of the CU taken into account in 
developing SPS measures?  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Answers: 
When developing SPS measures, risk assessment whic h includes analysis of risks arising on the CU 
territory is conducted.  Procedure of risk as sessment is conducted in accordance with OIE 
recommendations.  
Question 83  
In paragraph 15 of JOB/ACC/30, it states that a b ilateral certificate will be developed "based on 
the co-ordinated response of the CU Parties". 
What does this mean?  Will it not be possible to negotiate a certificate with Kazakhstan without 
input from the CU parties? 
Answer: 
Participation of all CU Parties in negotiations on veterinary certificates is not mandatory.  However, 
the final version of veterinary certificates  shall be approved by all CU Parties.  
Pursuant to the Common Veterinary Requirements, au thorised body of a CU Party, which received a 
request on negotiating a veterinary certificate, not later than 14 days from the date of receipt of the 
request, shall notify authorised bodies of other CU Parties, which may join the negotiation at any 
stage. 
Upon completion of the negotiations, initiating CU Party shall send the draft certificates to other 
CU Parties.  If other CU parties do not object to the draft, corresponding exchange of letters shall 
follow.  If one of the CU Parties considers that some provisions of the draft certificates do not comply with the relevant international sta ndards and(or) there is a scientific evidence of the ri sks to human or 
animal health or life, the initiating CU Party sha ll conduct consultation with the authorised bodies of 
CU Parties.  Draft veterinary certificates are a pproved by consensus by the authorised bodies of 
CU Parties and competent body of exporting country. 
Question 84  This Member would like to express its concern,  in agreement with the concern expressed by 
some Members in paragraph 15, with the lack  of opportunity for Members to comment on 
Kazakhstan's use of veterinary certificates a nd common veterinary requirements before they 
were adopted. 
Could Kazakhstan please provide an update on any progress that has been made to provide 
Members with the opportunity to comment on these measures? 
In paragraph 16,  references is made to new certifications.  In the event of new certifications 
what will be the status of existing certificates? 
Answer: 
All draft amendments into Common Forms of Ve terinary Certificates and Common Veterinary 
Requirements shall undergo pub lic consultation within at least 60 da ys.  During public consultation all 
interested parties may submit their comments to the drafts.  
When approving new forms of veterinary certificat es, a reasonable transition period will be provided. JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
  In addition, Kazakhstan initiated within the CU the issue of clarification of the CU transparency 
mechanism in the part of provision of answers to comments.  
Question 85 
Paragraph 20 outlines the process for establishm ent approval, registry and inspections; will this 
be done on the basis of bilateral lists?   
- Will Kazakhstan be willing to consider a systems based approach rather than a list? 
Answer: 
There are three forms of inclusion of establishments into the Register:  syst ems audit, guarantees and 
joint inspections.  Exporting country may submit an application to Kazakhstan with indication of the 
form of inclusion into the Register.  This a pplication will be reviewed by all CU Parties. 
Question 86 
In paragraph 22 of JOB/ACC/30, a Member requested the scientific basis for maintaining some 
specific products in the list of goods subject to veterinary control.  The Member also requested 
that Kazakhstan eliminate any requirements that did not have a scientific justification and a 
risk assessment.   
- Could Kazakhstan please provide an update on any progress that has been made to 
respond to these requests? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated introductio n of amendments into the Annex of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 317.  The draft document was approved at 
the meeting of the Working group "Veterinary an d Sanitary Measures" on 13 July 2012 and is 
planned to submit to the Consultative Committee a pproximately in Septembe r 2012 in order to post it 
on the CU website for public consultation.  Since public consultation takes about two months, final 
approval of draft document is expected in December this year. 
Question 87 
In paragraph 29 of JOB/ACC/30, Kazakhstan states that Members seeking to add their 
establishments to the list of establishments may provide guarantees.  Kazakhstan provides some 
information on the criteria for accepting guarantees in paragraph 40.  
Could Kazakhstan please outline the process thro ugh which establishments seeking to be added 
to the list of establishment may be added through the provision of guarantees? 
Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 40 of the Regulation, when taking decision on 
guarantees, past experience with the thir d country shall be taken into account. 
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraphs 7 and 42 of the Re gulation on Joint Inspections, in case (i) audit of a 
foreign official veterinary control system was not c onducted or not completed; or (ii) a result of such 
audit, the foreign official veterinary control system  has been recognized as not able to ensure a safety 
level equal at least the safety level of the CU, the CU Party may approve, upon application of the third  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  country, the inclusion of an establishment into the Re gister of Third Country Establishments based on 
joint inspection or the guarantees provided by  the competent body of third country.  
In accordance with paragraph 43 of the Regulation, th e decision to give the authorised body of a third 
country the right to provide the guarantees on comp liance of the controlled goods produced by a 
specific establishment(-s) shall be based on the following criteria: 
a) the level of development of authorised body of third country;  
b) the level of justification of guarantees, provide d by this authorised body of the third country;  
c) the risk of entry from the territory of third country and further spread of contagious diseases, 
including animal diseases as well as a diseases common for human and animals;  
d) epizootic situation in third country;  e) the results of monitoring studies of controlle d goods conducted when imported to CU territory 
from third country concerned;  
f) monitoring data of the controlled goods conducte d by the authorised body of third country;  
g) compliance with the requirements to the authorised body, as provided in paragraph 10 in 
respect of controlled goods imported into the Customs Union from the third country; 
h) the results of inspections conducted by the authorised bodies of CU Parties of the 
establishments of third country. 
In addition, Kazakhstan has initiated within the CU th e issue of clarification of the CU provisions on 
guarantees. 
Question 88 
A number of entries in the Table attached to JOB/ACC/30, titled "List of Goods Subject to 
Veterinary Control", differentiate between the app lications of the register of establishments to 
third states as against the territories of the CU parties.  
- Could Kazakhstan please explain th e basis for this differentiation? 
- Is it the case that the parties to the CU h ave the same pest and disease status in all 
regards? 
Answer: 
In 2011, the Russian Federation, within the fra mework of its WTO accession negotiations, excluded 
certain goods or low risk from the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control.  
These amendments extend only to goo ds imported only to Russian Fede ration.  Currently, Kazakhstan 
has initiated on introducing amendments to exclude  such goods from Common List of Goods Subject 
to Veterinary Control when  Imported to Kazakhstan. 
Question 89 
In paragraphs 46 and 49, concern was expressed that Kazakhstan's draft inspection guidelines 
for certain goods were overly prescriptive, did not recognize the principle of equivalence, and 
would, in practice, discriminate against non-CU g oods.  Kazakhstan responded that, by the date 
of accession, its guidelines would reflect the principle of equivalence and conform to the 
SPS Agreement. 
- Could Kazakhstan please provide further information on how it intends to change the 
guidelines to conform to the SPS Agreement? 
- In particular how will Kazakhstan not discriminate against non CU goods? JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  Answer: 
At the moment, a draft Inspection Guide lines has been developed based on OIE and 
Codex Alimentarius recommendations  and standards.  Kazakhstan w ill apply the same requirements 
to goods imported from third countries and goods pr oduced in Kazakhstan and CU Parties in order to 
fulfill the non-discrimination principle.  
Question 90 
In paragraph 53 of JOB/ACC/30, how do import permit requirements relate to health 
certification requirements, which should be agreed prior to export? 
Answer: 
Import permit is a legal document that allows r estricting imports from third countries where outbreaks 
of highly contagious diseases occurred. 
Question 91 In paragraph 66 of JOB/ACC/30, Kazakhstan provides information on the transit permit 
system applicable in the CU.  
- Could Kazakhstan please explain why a transi t permit system is ne cessary?  Will it not 
be the case that the same appropriate le vel of protection and SPS standards will be 
applicable throughout the CU? 
Answer: 
Since the same ALOP and SPS requirements are applie d within the entire CU territory, transit permit 
extends to transits through the entire CU territory. 
Question 92 In paragraph 75 of JOB/ACC/30, Kazakhstan explains that the appropriate level of sanitary or 
phytosanitary protection was defined as the required level of protection established by a 
technical regulation for products and phytosa nitary requirements to regulated products, 
produced on the territory of Kazakhstan aimed at  prevention of factual scientifically grounded 
risks. 
- Could Kazakhstan please clarify the meaning of this "appropriate level of protection" 
and how it would apply in practice? 
Answer: 
The term "appropriate level of protection" will be  applied by Kazakhstan in accordance with the 
provisions of WTO Agreement on Application of SPS measures. 
Question 93 In paragraph 99 of JOB/ACC/30, Kazakhstan states that a single TBT/SPS Enquiry Point has 
been in operation in Kazakhstan since July 2005.  In paragraph 115, Kazakhstan confirmed 
that it would notify its SPS notification authority and Enquiry Point to the 
WTO SPS Committee.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  - Could Kazakhstan please clarify whether this  SPS notification and Enquiry Point would 
be the same as that mentioned in paragraph 99? 
Answer: 
Yes, the SPS/TBT Enquiry Point mentioned in paragr aph 99 is the same Enquiry Point mentioned in 
paragraph 115.   
Question 94 
Regarding paragraph 8 of JOB/ACC/30:  Th is Member understands that Kazakhstan's 
commitment to use Codex Alimentarius standa rds, recommendations and guidelines could be 
more clearly stated by a slight change in the last sentence of paragraph 8.  Therefore, this 
Member would like to suggest the following language: 
 "Finally, pursuant to Kazakhstan's legi slation the international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius will could be applied in 
Kazakhstan".   
 Alternatively, the form "would" could also be used:  "Finally, pursuant to Kazakhstan's 
legislation the international standards, recommendations and guidelines of the 
Codex Alimentarius would could be applied in Kazakhstan".  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will consider the proposed amendments. 
Question 95 
Regarding paragraph 76, we would like to present the following questions/comments: 
We recall that according to IPPC, pest risk can be  established after pest risk analysis conclusion 
(ISPM02; ISPM11; ISPM21).  Based on this, could the Kazakh Delegation clarify the criteria used by Kazakhstan to divide the imported pro ducts into two different groups of risk?  Could 
Kazakhstan elucidate the criteria it uses for its pest risk analysis? 
Answer: 
The controlled goods were divided into high and low risks based on the phytosanitary risk assessment, 
conducted by one of the CU Parties, of possible in fection or contamination with quarantine harmful 
organisms, biology and harmfulness of a quaran tine harmful organisms capable to spread in a 
controlled product, facts of detecting quarantine ha rmful organisms in products during several past 
years in one of the CU Parties and the International IPPC Standard No. 32.   
Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 454, further works on development of common 
phytosanitary measures, including risk assessment, have been conducted within the Customs Union, 
which is planned to finalize by the end of 2012. 
After completion of these works, Kazakhstan will pr ovide corresponding clarifications to interested 
Members as stipulated by paragraph 8, Artic le 5 of the WTO Agreement on Application of 
SPS Measures. JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
  Question 96 
This Member noted that the representative of  Kazakhstan had explained that "a number of 
products were now excluded from the high pest ri sk list, such as raw cane sugar, sugar from 
beets, natural sands of all kinds, gravel, sand, fi sh meal, meat meal or meat by-products, protein 
concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and protein pre-mixes".  Considering that either 
processed or animal products pose insign ificant phytosanitary risk, could the Kazakh 
Delegation clarify the reasons why such products had been included in the list of high pest risk 
in the first place?  What were the scientific ba sis underlying both the decision to include and to 
remove such goods from the list of quarantine pro ducts of high pest risk?  Have the criteria 
used by Kazakhstan on this subject been changed?  
Answer: 
Before formation of the CU, Kazakhstan's List of Controlled Goods was not divided into low and high 
risks.  Within the framework of the CU formation, Common List of Goods Subject to Phytosanitary 
Control approved by the CU Commission Decision No . 318 was divided into low and high risks on 
the basis of phytosanitary risk assessment, criteria of the IPPC Standard No. 32 and facts of detecting 
quarantine harmful organisms in products during sev eral past years in one of the CU Parties. 
Products of animal origin, except for fertilizers of an imal origin, were classified as low risk products 
importation of which did not require phytosanitary certificate.  Raw cane sugar, sugar from beets, 
natural sands of all kinds, gravel, sand, fish meal, meat meal or meat by-products, protein 
concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and protein pre-mixes were excluded from the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control on the basis of risk assessment and international 
standards. 
Question 97 
Paragraphs 29 and 36 refer to Customs Union (CU)  Decision No. 834, which stipulates that the 
CU can allow an establishment to be included in  the Register based on a systems audit.  
This Member welcomes this positive developmen t.  Furthermore, this Member notes, as per 
paragraphs 48 and 51, that as of the date of acce ssion of the first CU Party specific guidelines on 
inspection that will reflect the principle of e quivalence, will rely on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations and will be ad opted for the purpose of determination and 
maintenance of equivalence for the systems of co ntrol of products.  This Member strongly 
supports this commitment.  
This Member would appreciate receiving a copy of these inspection guidelines, in English if 
possible.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated this issue at the meet ing of the Working group "Veterinary-sanitary 
measures".  The Kazakh side is working on draft Gu idelines for Inspection.  The WTO Members will 
have an opportunity to acquaintance with the draft on the CU official website during public 
consultation and as well as to submit comments to the drafts.   
Question 98 
Paragraphs 29, 31, and 40 explain that CU Decisions No. 317 and No. 834 allow for an exporting 
country's establishments to be listed on the Register based on guarantees provided by the third 
country that the establishment meets the require ments of the CU.  A Member appreciates that  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Kazakhstan provides a general outline of the criteria for assessment of the guarantee of 
establishments in the draft chapter of the Working Party Report on SPS.  
Could Kazakhstan please provide further details on  the specific criteria, process and timelines 
that the CU uses to evaluate whether to accept guarantees from the competent authorities of 
trading partners? 
Answers: 
In accordance with paragraphs 7 and 42 of the Re gulation on Joint Inspectio ns, in case (i) audit of a 
foreign official veterinary control system was not c onducted or not completed; or (ii) a result of such 
audit, the foreign official veterinary control system  has been recognized as not able to ensure a safety 
level equal at least the safety level of the CU, the CU Party may approve, upon application of the third 
country, the inclusion of an establishment into the Re gister of Third Country Establishments based on 
joint inspection or the guarantees provided by the competent body of third country.   
In accordance with paragraph 43 of the Regulation, th e Decision to give the authorised body of a third 
country the right to provide the guarantees on comp liance of the controlled goods produced by a 
specific establishment(-s) shall be based on the following criteria: 
a) the level of development of authorised body of third country;  
b) the level of justification of guarantees, provide d by this authorised body of the third country;  
c) the risk of entry from the territory of third country and further spread of contagious diseases, 
including animal diseases as well as a diseases common for human and animals;  
d) epizootic situation in third country;  
e) the results of monitoring studies of controlle d goods conducted when imported to CU territory 
from third country concerned;  
f) monitoring data of the controlled goods conducte d by the authorised body of third country;  
j) compliance with the requirements to the au thorised body, as provided in paragraph 10 in 
respect of controlled goods imported into the Customs Union from the third country; 
h) the results of inspections conducted by the authorised bodies of CU Parties of the 
establishments of third country. 
Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 40 of th e Regulation, when taking decision on guarantees, 
past experience with the third count ry shall be taken into account.   
Question 99 
Regarding paragraph 1:  We note that this par agraph will need to be upda ted to reflect any new 
decisions and amendments taken by the EEC before the Working Party is concluded.  
We request an update on the status of the on going harmonization of CU common veterinary 
requirements and certificates with international standards.  We are concerned as we have only 
seen limited proposed amendments to the common  veterinary requirements and note that the 
current CU requirements are more stringent than  international standards in many cases.  
We are also concerned with timing asp ect for harmonization of these measures. 
We also ask Kazakhstan to provide an update for the development of the amendment to the List 
of Goods subject to Veterinary Control?  Pl ease provide us with a draft of the proposed 
amendments to the List of Goods Subject to Ve terinary Control and please advise as to when 
this decision will likely be adopted.  In addi tion, please provide the EEC Decisions that have 
been adopted.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan will update para graph 1 of JOB/ACC/30 with the in formation on new CU legal acts.  
With respect to harmonization, draft amendmen ts into Common Veterinary Requirements were 
approved by the Working group and is planned to review by the Consultation Committee for further 
approval by the EEC Collegium (approxi mately beginning of October 2012).  
Draft amendments into Government Resolution No . 132 are provided to the WTO Secretariat.   
Question 100 Regarding paragraphs 3-5 of JOB/ACC/30:  Th is Member requests a clarification of the 
functioning of the EEC, including a discussion of the responsibilities for the development of SPS 
measures, and Kazakhstan's role in the develo pment of SPS measures.  Specifically, we would 
like to see the last sentence of paragraph 5 upda ted to reflect the Minister's explanation that 
was delivered during the plurilateral meeting.  In  addition, we would appreciate a more detailed 
explanation of the decision making process of the bodies of the EEC. 
Answer: 
At the moment, there is no approved mechanis m of development of draft CU legal acts on 
SPS measures. 
Current practice of development of draft CU  legal acts on SPS measures looks as follows:  
1) a CU Party or EEC initiates development of a dr aft CU legal act.  A party responsible for 
developing the draft is appointed; 
2) Working group, including CU Party representatives, is established; 
3) a draft document, discussed and approved at a me eting of Working groups, is submitted to the 
Consultative Committee meeting for publishing  on the CU official website for public 
consultation.  Public consulta tion period takes two months; 
4) after public consultation procedure, all comme nts and questions are discussed within the 
Working group.  Upon discussion a final revision shall be approved. 
5) draft document is reviewed at a meeting of the Consultative Committee. In case the draft is 
approved, it shall be submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
6) draft document is adopted by the decision of the Collegium in case it falls under its 
competence, or 
7) approved by the Collegium and p assed to the Council adoption.  
Question 101 
Regarding the veterinary certificate:  This Me mber notes that pursuant to CU Decision No. 726, 
this Member is currently engaged with the CU Part ies in negotiations on a  bilateral veterinary 
certificate with requirements that differ from CU common veterinary requirements.  Based on 
these negotiations, we are concerned that the CU is not moving toward international standards 
and seeks to stay as close to CU Common forms a nd requirements as possible.  This Member is 
concerned that, for example, Kazakhstan is  re questing certification that countries or zones are 
free from several animal diseases for which th ere is no corresponding OIE requirement.  
This Member would like to receive confirmation  that Kazakhstan will not require additional 
guarantees for commodities cons idered safe with respect cert ain diseases and will not require 
guarantees for animal diseases which are not listed by OIE.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Answer:  
Kazakhstan as a CU Party negotiates veterinary cer tificates exported from third countries based on the 
Common Veterinary Requirements.  Kazakhstan w ill not require additional guarantees to goods 
considered by OIE as safe with respect to certain diseases and will not require guarantees in respect to 
animal diseases not stipulated in OIE in case of ab sence of scientific justification and risk assessment 
of the necessity of such a restriction. 
Question 102 Regarding paragraph 15 of JOB/ACC/30:  This Member is concerned with the timing of the 
development of amendments to the CU common fo rms and veterinary requirements so that they 
are based on international standards.  The Russian Federation undertook an obligation to 
harmonize the veterinary requirements by th e date of its accession to the WTO.  
The Russian Federation became a WTO Member on 22 August.  As these are Customs Union 
requirements, we seek confirmation that th e necessary amendments have been made.  
Furthermore, we are concerned about the scope of  the amendments.  We note that amendments 
to only a handful of chapters have been publishe d for public consultation, and that some of the 
proposed amendments do not appear to reflect the OIE requirements.   
This Member will propose language for Member's  concern to be added before paragraph 18.  
Answer: 
The Working group on Veterinary Measures, in genera l, approved at the meetings of 13-14 June and 
31 July – 2 August 2012 the amendments into Co mmon Veterinary Requirements except for certain 
positions which was not accepted by Belarus.  Fo r these positions, Belarus will present its scientific 
justification for the next Working group meeting.   
Question 103 Establishment Approval, Registry and Inspection:  This section is very important for us.  
Regarding paragraph 20 of JOB/ACC/30:  This Member is concerned that amendments to the 
List of products subject to veterinary control have not been adopted yet and that no scientific 
basis has been provided to support including produc ts into the List.  For example, there is an 
establishment list requirement for live fish (HS 0301).  This Member requests that Kazakhstan 
remove the requirement to register establishments for live fish or provide scientific justification for including this requirement.  
We appreciate that Kazakhstan has initiated ame ndments to the list similar to those that the 
Russian Federation adopted.  Please provide an  update on the status of those amendments.  
When is the decision likely to be adopted?   
Answer: 
The draft document was approved at the meeting of the Working group "Veterinary and Sanitary 
Measures" on 13 July 2012 and is planned to subm it to the Consultative Committee approximately in 
September 2012 in order to post it on the CU we bsite for public consultation.  Since public 
consultation takes about two months , final approval of draft document is expected in December this 
year.  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
  Question 104 
Regarding paragraph 28 of JOB/ACC/30:  We seek  clarification on the transition period 
specified in the last sentence of this paragra ph.  According to CU Commission Decision No. 317, 
the transition period is the period until the CU adopts a unified (common) Registry.  We suggest 
that the last sentence be amended to reflect the language in the Decision. 
Answer: 
The transition period was provided for continuation of trade with third countries on these goods until 
inclusion of the establishments producing such goods into the Register.  Since Kazakhstan is planning 
to abolish the requirement of listing the third country establishments exporting these products to 
Kazakhstan, the transitional peri od is no longer required.   
Question 105 
Regarding paragraphs 32-33 of JOB/ACC/30:  We are strongly concerned that apparently there 
had been no legal basis for accepting guaran tees since October 2011 until 22 August, when the 
Russian Federation became a Member of th e WTO.  We are concerned about how the 
provisions for accepting guarantees are now bein g implemented.  Please confirm that where 
Kazakhstan or other CU Parties had in practice accepted the guarantees of a third country, that practice will continue and  these third countri es will not need to re-establish CU acceptance of 
guarantees. The United States requests confirma tion that Kazakhstan and the other CU Parties 
will take into account background/historical trade of exporting countries when accepting 
guarantees. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated within the Customs Union the necessity of cl arification of CU provisions on 
including of third country establishments into th e Register under guarantees.  Kazakhstan when 
accepting guarantees takes account of historical trade of exporting countries.   
Question 106 
Regarding paragraph 36 of JOB/ACC/30:  Plea se clarify the criteria for the CU to determine 
which regime (inspections, audits, guarantees) is  applicable for establishment approval.  During 
the Plurilateral, the representative of Kazakhsta n explained that the exporting country made 
the determination.  This appea rs to contradict CU Commission D ecision No. 834.  Furthermore, 
please clarify whether all three CU Parties mu st agree to accept the guarantees of a third 
country or if a CU Party that may not have experience with a particular trading partner would 
accept that country's guarantees if one or more of the other CU Parties accepted that third 
country's guarantees.   
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraph 7 of the Regul ation on Joint Inspections adopted by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 834, in case audit of fo reign official system of veterinary control was 
not conducted or was not completed and, as a result of  the audit, the official system of veterinary 
control was recognized as incapable of ensuring, as least , the level of safety equivalent to the level of 
SPS protection of the CU, CU Parties may allow,  upon written request of exporting country, to 
include the exporting establishments into the Register  upon results of joint inspection or guarantee of 
the competent body of exporting country.    JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Currently, there is no provision in CU on accepti ng of third countries whereby Kazakhstan had to 
agree to guarantees accepted by other CU Party(-ies)  from a third country with no trading experience 
with Kazakhstan.  In practice, Kazakhstan accepts such guarantees. 
Question 107 Regarding paragraph 48 of JOB/ACC/30:  Please clarify the status of the inspection guidelines 
that were to have been  adopted and in force by 22 August.  Please confirm that these guidelines 
are being drafted based on the Codex guidelin es.  Please provide a draft of the inspection 
guidelines.  In addition, please provide information on what criteria/guidelines the CU Parties 
currently use when inspecting third country facilities. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated this issue at the meet ing of the Working group "Veterinary-sanitary 
measures".  The Kazakh side is working on draft Gu idelines for Inspection.  The WTO Members will 
have an opportunity to acquaintance with the draft on the CU official website during public 
consultation and as well as submit comments to the drafts.  
Question 108 Import Permits, paragraph 54 of JOB/ACC/30:  Ten lines into the text, there is reference 
regarding amendments that Kazakhstan intends to make to Government Resolution No. 132 to 
add additional requirements.  What is the stat us of these amendments and when can we expect 
them to be adopted? 
Answer: 
The amendments to the Governme nt Resolution No. 132 are being drafted and are expected to be 
adopted by the end of the year in order to harmonize with CU provisions. 
Question 109 
Phytosanitary Measures, regarding paragraph 71 of JOB/ACC/30:  We note that amendments 
to CU Commission Decision No. 318 were recently published for public consultation.  We are 
closely reviewing them and will provide specific co mments.  However, we did want to note that 
it appears that phytosanitary control remains for many processed pro ducts.  Can Kazakhstan 
confirm that a pest risk assessment was conduc ted to determine what level of control was 
necessary for these products and th at the control that is being applied reflects the outcome of 
that assessment?  Can Kazakhstan confirm its willingness to share these assessments with 
Members and provide a copy?   
Answer: 
It should be noted that for public consultations the draft Common List of Quarantine Objects 
(Quarantine Harmful Organisms) was placed on the CU website.  The amendments into 
CU Commission Decision No. 318 are being draf ted which after review by the Consultative 
Committee will be available on the CU website for public consultation.   
Common List of Products Subject to Phytosanitary Control was developed on the basis of the national 
lists, phytosanitary risk assessment, international st andards and facts of detecting quarantine harmful 
organisms in products during several past years in one of the CU Parties.   JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
  Question 110 
Regarding paragraph 76 of JOB/ACC/30:  Please clarify the criteria used to determine whether 
a good was considered high or low risk? 
Answer: 
The controlled goods were divided into high and low risks based on the phytosanitary risk assessment, 
conducted by one of the CU Parties, of possible in fection or contamination with quarantine harmful 
organisms, biology and harmfulness of a quaran tine harmful organisms capable to spread in a 
controlled product, facts of detecting quarantine ha rmful organisms in products during several past 
years in one of the CU Parties and the International IPPC standard No. 32.   
Question 111  
Sanitary measures, we note that there have been amendments proposed to CU Commission 
Decision No. 299.  In reviewing these amendments , we are concerned with what appears to be a 
lack of harmonization with the Codex standa rds.  We have submitted comments on the 
proposed amendments; however, we have seen li ttle indication that these comments are taken 
into account.   
Answer: 
Currently, Kazakhstan has initiated the issue of ma ndatory publication of answers to comments to 
draft SPS measures received during public consultation period.  
Question 112 
Harmonization:  We continue to encourage Kaza khstan and the CU Parties to harmonize their 
SPS standards with the international standards, recommendations and guidelines.  We ask that 
if Kazakhstan or where relevant the CU determin es that the appropriate 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. 
Further, we note that the Russian Federation assumed an obligation that the CU Parties would 
revise and harmonize the veterinary requirements wi th the OIE by the date of its accession to 
the WTO.  We are concerned because the ame ndments published to date do not reflect a 
comprehensive review of the veterinary requirements. 
We are also concerned by the lack of harmon ization of the sanitary requirements with the 
Codex standards.  We note that Kazakhstan an d the CU maintain many MRLs for antibiotics 
and veterinary drugs which are more stringent than the international standards and we have 
not received risk assessments done in accordance with the international standards to justify 
these more stringent standards. 
We note that CU Commission Decision No. 721 n eeds to be fully implemented and we need to 
see this decision work in practice. 
Answer: 
In accordance with the principles laid dow n by the CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 
22 June 2011, currently Common Vete rinary Requirements are being am ended in order to align them  JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  with international standards.  The requirements more stringent than the relevant international 
standards will be scientifically jus tified or based on risk assessment.  
MRLs for antibiotics and veterinary drugs were ba sed on the risk assessment taking into account that 
in CU Parties antibiotics and veterinary dr ugs could be sold without prescription.  
At the same time, the Decision No. 721 of 22 June  2011 allows direct application of international 
standards in case of absence of CU docum ents and national legislation on SPS.  
Question 113 Transparency:  We are concerned with the pr ocess 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 Commi ssion decisions and amendments. It is not 
clear to us who to send comments to, who revie ws the comments, or what the basis is to 
incorporate or reject comments.  Could Kazakhstan please clarify the procedures?  Could 
Kazakhstan please explain the role of the nati onal enquiry point with regard to CU and EEC 
Decisions?  It may be useful to include this  information in Kazakhstan's draft Working Party 
Report. 
Answer: 
Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 81 2 of 23 September 2011, comments to draft 
CU Commission Decisions (currently, EEC) could be submitted to the CU Commission Secretariat 
(currently, EEC) by post mail or to email:  tsouz@tsouz.ru 
In addition, the comments could be submitted to a CU Party responsible for developing a draft. 
Kazakhstan is planning to pu blish draft SPS measures on the SPS/TBT Enquiry Point website.  
Third countries may submit their questions to the national SPS/TBT Enquiry Point as well.   
 
__________