RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6  
 
2 November 2014  
(14-6354)  Page: 1/8  
 Original: English  
 
 WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
SUBMISSION BY THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN 
Revision 
 The following submission is being circulated to  Members of the Working Party, at the request 
of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
 
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 2 - 
 
  - Agricultural policies 
(a) Imports 
1. In 2013, the volume of imports of agri cultural products to the Republic of 
Kazakhstan was equal to 1,6 million tonnes,  worth 1,3 billion US$, including: fruits, 
vegetables, poultry meat, life animals, dair y products and others. The Ministry of 
National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan was responsible for foreign 
trade policy.  
2. The representative of Kazakhstan stated th at imports of agricultural products were 
governed by the same general rules, disciplines and procedures applied to 
non-agricultural goods and that agricultural products were subject to ordinary customs 
duties at rates of the Common External Tariff.   Imports of plants, animals, and products 
thereof, were subject to sanitary and phytosa nitary requirements in accordance with the 
EAEU Treaty, CU Commission and EAEU Decisi ons, other EAEU legal acts and national 
legislation (for more detailed informatio n see section "Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures"). Bans or quantitative restrictions were no longer applied on any agricultural 
products.  
3. Tariff Rate Quota was introduced by Kazakhstan in 2010 for imports into the 
customs territory of the EAEU of beef, pork an d poultry originating in third countries (for 
more detailed information see Section "T ariff Rate Quotas" of this Report). 
(b) Exports 
4. In 2013, the volume of agricultural expo rts from the Republic of Kazakhstan was 
equal to 5,8 million tonnes, worth 1,6 billion US$, including wheat, oilseeds, barley, rice, 
corn, dried fruit, fish and others.  
5. The representative of Kazakhstan stated th at export of agricultural goods did not 
differ in any respect from export of non-agri cultural goods. She added that livestock raw 
skin and wool were subject to export duty .  Bans, quantitative restrictions, quotas, 
minimum export prices and licencing were not applied on any agricultural products (for 
more detailed information see the section "Export regulations"). 
6. Furthermore, the representative of Kaza khstan stated that Kazakhstan applied 
export subsidies for wheat  due to its landlocked geographical location, the vastness of its 
territory, remoteness from major agricultural markets, insufficient transport and storage 
infrastructure and high transportation costs, which significantly affected the competitiveness of Kazakhstan's agricultural product.  When deliv ering wheat to external markets, the wheat was 
shipped through the Russian Federation or to/t hrough China via railways.  On average, the 
transportation cost of wheat from the territory of Kazakhstan to the closest Russian port was about 
US$130 per metric tonne with a distance of 1,200 km.  The volume of wheat shipped to/through 
China was insignificant and constituted less than 3% of country's total volume of wheat exports.  JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  7. She further added that  Kazakhstan's request for export subsidies was based on the 
transportation costs related to wheat shipments transiting through the Russian Federation and 
that it was highly important for the Government of Kazakhstan to support agricultural producers 
though subsidizing part of high transportation costs to the global markets.  
(c) Internal policies 
8. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that her Government implemented agricultural 
policies in such a manner as to address challenges that occurred in agricultural sector during the years of centrally planned economy, including structural imbalances between prices and revenues, 
low profitability, underdevelopment of production and social infrastructure, low levels of 
technological upgrading, small-scale agricultural pr oduction, lack of private investments, shortage 
of qualified personnel and etc.  She furthermore stated that the following legal acts had been 
adopted to address these challenges:  
- Law No. 66 -III "On State Regulation of Agriculture and Rural Areas" of 8 July 2005;  
- Government Resolution No. 151 "On Approval of Agriculture Development Programme for 
2013-2020 'Agr obusiness 2020'" of 12 February 2013.   
9. Law No. 66 -III "On State Regulation of Agriculture and Rural Areas" established legal 
framework for State regulation of agriculture an d development of rural areas.  The Programme 
adopted by Government  Resolution No. 151 "On Approval of Agriculture Development 
Programme for 2013-2020 'Agr obusiness 2020'" of 12  February 2013 stipulated key middle-term 
and long-term policy objectives of the Government aimed at sustainable and competitive 
development of agriculture.  
10. The representative of Kazakhstan added that agriculture was a key sector and played a 
significant role in economic and social developmen t as nearly 50% of country's population resided 
in rural areas.  Agriculture employed almost one third of the working population and was critical to 
addressing poverty and food security related challenges. One of the principal objectives of the 
Government was to increase productivity of the agricultural sector as part of strategy for economic 
diversification.  The Government of Kazakhstan impl emented support of agricultural 
sector at both republican and local levels. Support falling under the "Green Box" covered 
many government service programmes, in cluding pest and disease control and 
infrastructural services. Support under the "Amber box" was mainly provided in the 
form of: (i) market price support, which is implemented through the allocation of funds 
from republican budget for procurement of agri cultural products directly from producers 
under the following programmes: (a) procurement into the state reserve (wheat); 
and, (b) procurement to support agricultur al producers (crops, livestock products); 
(ii) measures to reduce the cost of agricu ltural inputs, such as fuel and lubricants, 
water, combined fodder, pedigree livestock , elite seeds and agricultural chemicals 
(fertilizers and pesticides); and, (iii) sof t loans with interest rates lower than 
market rates.  JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 4 - 
 
  11. She furthermore stated that  while the Government had started to implement market 
economy reforms in the agricultural sector after becoming a sovereign state, the development level of this sector still remained below the pre-reform stage, especially in the livestock production 
sector. For instance, the number of livestock popu lation was 40% lower than that in 1991.  This 
reduction was mostly caused due to the reason that over 80% of livestock was concentrated in 
small households, which used outdated breeding methods and low levels of breeding stock.  As a 
result, average productivity of dairy cows in Kazakhstan was four times lower than that in the 
countries with the industrial type of production (in Kazakhstan - 2,000 litres per cow a year; in the 
developed countries - 7,000 litres per cow a year).   
12. In regard to crops, the representative of Kazakhstan said that Kazakhstan was located in an 
area of risky farming where dry and sharp continenta l climate prevailed.  As a result, over the past 
few years, dry lands had accounted for about 86% of the country's total area.  Currently, the area 
of irrigated lands in Kazakhstan was 1.5 times lower than the levels of 1991.  About 
800 thousands hectares were not used due to the following reasons: (i) high concentration of salts 
in the soil; (ii) deterioration of the irrigation  and drainage systems; (iii) shortage of water 
resources; and, (iv) lack of financial resource s and modern equipment.  Approximately 90% of 
agricultural producers were small farms and households and could not purchase high quality 
seeds, up-to-date agricultural equipment and other inputs needed for modern and intensive 
agricultural production.  All these factors led to deterioration of the soil quality – as of today about 
74% of cultivated lands were in poor condition.  Apart from that, areas usable for agriculture were being destroyed by one of the major global enviro nmental disasters – Aral Sea.  Disappearance of 
Aral Sea resulted in rapid salinization, degradation and desertification of the neighbouring areas, 
where the major population was engaged in agricultural sector.   
13. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that during the WTO accession process, Kazakhstan 
provided information  on domestic support and export subsidies in the agricultural sector  
starting from the period of 1996-1998 through the recent years from 2006 to 2012.  Kazakhstan 
used the most recent and consecutive base period of 2010-2012 for calculation of its domestic 
support to agriculture and providing the data on export subsidies.  She further explained that  
domestic support package was based on those levels of support that  would allow Kazakhstan 
to undertake measures stipulated in the Government Programme "Agrobusiness 2020" designed to 
address current challenges in the agricultural sector.  
14. A Member asked Kazakhstan as to whet her it would contemplate targets for 
increases in Green Box spending. In response , the representative of Kazakhstan noted 
that in the course of implementation of the programme "Agrobusiness 2020", the share 
of Green Box support in the total financing of  the agricultural sector was planned to be 
increased. The main emphasis would be pl aced on the policies supporting long-term 
competitiveness of the sector. The programme pursued the following specific objectives: 
(i) improvement of access to key inputs and services for agricultural producers in the 
following spheres: crop production, livesto ck development, grain storage facilities, JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 5 - 
 
  water supply services, financial services, in vestments projects, ed ucational services, 
agricultural research and consulting servic es; (ii) improvement of phytosanitary and 
veterinary safety systems; ( iii) development of water suppl y systems; (iv) enhancement 
of the fertilizer and grading efficiency an d improvement of information services; (v) 
development of organic farming; (vi) agri culture research; and,  (vii) water supply 
systems. Due to drought risk, land users an d livestock producers heavily depended on 
artificial water systems.  In order to a ddress the existing problems, the programme 
envisaged construction of irrigation sy stems for distant livestock farming and 
development of the relevant  regulatory framework.  
15. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that w hile recognizing the possibility of 
having recourse to the non-exempt measures  under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, 
Kazakhstan while determining its support requirements and level of commitments, [will give 
particular emphasize to]1 [would place emphasis on]2 the use of measures of Annex 2 [in order 
to]3 [that could]4 achieve the desired reform objectives pursued [under the Agr obusiness 2020 
plan]5 [by Kazakhstan in the field of agriculture]6.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.]  
16. She further noted that Kazakhstan requested the right to use export subsidies during 
transition period ending on  1 January 2018.   This  transition period would allow Kazakhstan to 
undertake construction and modernization of grain storage facilities and transport infrastructure 
and to address the challenges with delivering wheat to the world markets without the need for 
export subsidies.    
17. In response to a request by some Members for more information on the customs union 
legislation on agriculture policies, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that the regulatory basis 
for such policy was Annex 29 "Protocol on Measures of State Support to Agriculture" to the EAEU 
Treaty of 29 May 2014.  This Annex replaced the Single Economic Space (SES) Agreement on 
Common Rules for State Support of Agriculture adopted by the Decision of the CU Commission No. 
482 on 8 December 2010, which was terminated when the EAEU Treaty came into effect 
on 1 January 2015. From 1 January 2015, the EAEU Treaty established uniform rules for the State 
support measures that affected mutual trade in agricultural products between the EAEU 
member States and incorporated key provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
In particular, the EAEU Treaty classified state support measures in three categories: (i) measures that did not distort agricultural trade between EA EU member States ("Green Box"); (ii) measures 
that distorted trade to a larger extent (export subsidies); and, (iii) trade-distorting measures 
("Amber Box").  The EAEU Treaty also stipulated  the requirements for application by the EAEU 
member States of the above-mentioned categories of State support.  Measures falling under the 
                                               
1 Language proposed by a Member. 
2 Language proposed by Kazakhstan. 
3 Language proposed by a Member. 
4 Language proposed by Kazakhstan. 
5 Language proposed by a Member. 
6 Language proposed by Kazakhstan. JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 6 - 
 
  first category were allowed to be applied by the EAEU member States.  Those measures, which fell 
under the second category, were prohibited to apply in mutual trade.  The amount of State 
support in the EAEU member States covered by the third category (Amber Box measures) should 
not exceed 10% of the gross value of producti on of agricultural products in the EAEU 
member States.  The EAEU Treaty also stated that when EAEU member States joined the WTO, 
its commitment under the WTO Membership would prevail.   
18. In response to a question on the relationship  between measures recorded in the Supporting 
Table DS:1 on the creation of public stockholdi ng for food security purposes and DS:5 (market 
prices support for procurement to the state reserve), the representative of Kazakhstan explained 
that the state grain reserve was annually renewed by the "Food Contract Corporation", which 
performed the function of the Government agent responsible for establishment, renewal and disposal of the state reserve for food security purposes. Budget outlays spent on storage of the 
state reserves and transporting grain from private elevators to elevators managed by the "Food 
Contract Corporation" were recorded in the Su pporting Table DS:1.  The difference between the 
purchase price of wheat procured to the State re serve and external price of wheat was calculated 
in the Supporting Table DS:5.  Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
Kazakhstan's national food security programme involving state procurement of grain and release 
of such grain at administered prices, did not meet the criteria stipulated in paragraph 3 of Annex 2 
of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  Theref ore, the above-mentioned measure was included 
into the AMS calculations in the Supporting Table DS:5.  Budgetary outlays associated with accumulation of the State reserve and storage costs were reported in the Supporting Table DS:1 
for transparency purposes only.   
19. In some Members' view, several measures  reported in Supporting Table DS:9 
should not be categorized as non-product spec ific support given that they seemed to be 
associated to specific products.  These Me mbers referred to the following measures: 
(i) mineral fertilizers, seed disinfectants and herbicides subsidies; (ii) fuel and 
lubricants subsidies; (iii) compound feed su bsidies; (iv) pedigree  livestock subsidies; 
and, (v) elite seed subsidies.  
20. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the above-mentioned 
programmes did not target a particular agricult ural crop or animal product.  Therefore, 
subsidies under those programmes could not be  disaggregated by each type of crop or 
animal product.  For example, subsidies rela ted to mineral fertilizers, seed disinfectants 
and herbicides were used to partially compen sate the cost of chemical products sold by 
suppliers of agricultural chemicals to agri cultural producers at subsidized prices.  
Subsidies were paid within the reference limit s established by the Ministry of Agriculture 
for each type of fertilizers, seed disinfec tants and herbicides.  The programme did not 
differentiate subsidies for agricult ural crops by type of crops.  
21. She further explained that the Governme nt partially compensated the cost of 
compound feeds. Such subsidies were provided based on the actual volume of bovine JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 7 - 
 
  meat, pork and poultry (carcass weight ba ses) sold by agricultural producers.  
The reference limits were established by the Ministry of Agriculture.  
22. As for pedigree livestock subsidies, she explained that the Government partially 
compensated the following products sold to ag ricultural producers:  pedigree livestock 
growing; breeding eggs; semen doses. Subsidie s were also granted to cover the full cost 
of the following measures: procuremen t and maintenance of breeding bulls; 
procurement, maintenance and utilization of embryos and semen from breeding bulls; 
procurement of young birds for breeding; pr ocurement and maintenance of stud-rams in 
the breeding centres; procurement of compo und feeds for birds in the poultry breeding 
farms; procurement of special laboratory eq uipment and special agricultural technology 
for the development of breeding business; pr ocurement, maintenance and training of 
breeding stallions.  
23. Furthermore, the Government provided subsidies with the purpose to reduce the 
cost of production of seeds and seedlings of fruit trees. Such subsidies were also used to 
reduce the cost of elite seeds purc hased by agricultural producers.  
24. In response to further concerns raised by some Members with regard to 
classification of certain support programm es as non-product-specific programmes, 
the representative of Kazakhstan furthe r explained that those programmes were 
administered at the republican and local leve ls and due to the reason that there was no 
unified system of data collection, Kazakhstan faced challenges with obtaining data disaggregated by types of agricultural products within those programmes from 
local authorities.  
25.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that upon its accession to the WTO, 
Kazakhstan would submit its notifications on  domestic support and export subsidies in 
accordance with its obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture and the relevant 
notification requirements and formats as agreed by the Committee on Agriculture, 
including those in documents G/AG/2 and G/ AG/2/Add.1.  The Working Party took note 
of this commitment.] 
26.  [The representative of Kazakhstan co nfirmed that Kazakhstan would [apply 
subsidies on agricultural products in a manne r consistent with WTO rules, in particular]
7 
[comply with all provisions of]8 the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and [Kazakhstan's 
commitments on domestic support circulated in document WT/ACC/SPEC/XXX/yy/Rev.z 
and contained in Kazakhstan's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods 
                                               
7 Language proposed by Kazakhstan. 
8 Language proposed by a Member. JOB/ACC/37/Rev.6 
 
- 8 - 
 
  annexed to Kazakhstan's Protoc ol of Accession to the WTO]9.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment.] 
27. [The representative of the Kazakhstan co nfirmed that the Kazakhstan would, in 
addition to the commitments inscribed in Part IV, Section I, of its Schedule of  
Concessions and Commitments, ensure that, fr om the date of its accession to the WTO, 
in any year, the sum of all product-specific aggregate measurements of support does not 
exceed [xx] per cent of the non-product- specific aggregate measurement of support, 
where the terms "product specific aggregat e measurement of support", "non-product-
specific aggregate measurement of support", "basic agricultural product" and "year" 
had the same meanings as in the WTO Agr eement on Agriculture.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment.]10 
28. [The representative of Kazakhstan conf irmed that, upon accession, Kazakhstan 
would bind its agricultural export subsidies at zero in its Schedule of Concessions and 
Commitments on Goods, and not maintain or apply any export subsidies for agricultural 
products.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.]11 
 
__________  
                                               
9 Language proposed by Kazakhstan. 
10 Language proposed by a Member. 
11 Language proposed by Member(s).