13-1085 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1          27 February 2013 
	
Page	1/24	
 
Working Party on the             O r i g i n a l :   E n g l i s h  
Accession of Kazakhstan  
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
Addendum 
 
 The following submission, dated 20 February 2013, is being circulated to Members of the 
Working Party, at the request of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
 
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Question 1 
Paragraph 5 of document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1:  We thank Kazakhstan for the verbal 
answer provided to our questions regarding the permanent mechanism for the 
development of draft legal acts on SPS measures in the customs union and looks 
forward to the forthcoming updates to paragraph 5.  
Answer: 
 
We revised paragraph 5 as follows: 
"Developing SPS measures at the CU level involved specific technical and administrative expertise 
via working groups which reported to the Consultative Committee. Functions and interactions of 
the working groups and the Consultative Committee were defined by specific regulations; the Regulation of Working and Expert Groups on SPS and TBT approved by the Protocol No. 5 of the 
Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 7 December 2010 and th e Regulation on Consultative Committee on 
Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures approved by 
the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012. The current practice for development 
of draft CU legal acts on SPS measures was as follows:  
- a CU Party or the EEC initiated the development of a draft CU legal act. A Party responsible 
for developing the draft was appointed or the EEC acted as a developer; 
- a working group, including representatives of CU Party's competent authorities was 
established to review the draft; 
- a draft document that was discussed and approved at a working group meeting, was then 
submitted to the Consultative Committee for publishing on the CU official website for 
public consultations. The period for public consultation was two months; 
- after the process of public consultation, all comments and questions were discussed within 
the working group. A final revi sion of the draft document was discussed and approved by 
the working group and submitted to the Consultative Committee; 
- the draft document was reviewed at the meeting of the Consultative Committee. In case 
the draft was approved, it was submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
- the Collegium either adopted the CU documents which were under its competence or in 
other cases approved the drafts before subm itting them to the Council for adoption." 
Question 2 
Paragraph 45 describes plans to implemen t a common web-interface of the Customs 
Union register of establishments and a con solidation of national lists of approved 
establishments. Can Kazakhstan please explain how this consolidation process will be 
carried out? Will establishments approved to export to one Customs Union member be automatically added to the consolidated list?  If not, how will the consolidated list of 
approved establishments be developed? 
Answer: 
The Register of third country establishments, alth ough consisting of three national parts, is 
common. When included into any of these national  parts, an establishment of third country may 
export its goods into any CU Party. Currently, when approving importation of controlled goods 
(import permit), authorized bodies check all three national parts of the Register.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question 3 
Paragraph 48-60: We would like to thank Kaza khstan for the more detailed explanations 
of three options for adding establishments to  the register included in paragraphs 48 to 
60. Our interpretation of the three options is as follows:  
 A systems audit will be carried out at the request of the competent authorities of 
the third country;  
 In the event that a systems audit is not the preferred option, establishments can 
be added to the register based on wr itten guarantees from the competent 
authorities of the third country based on the criteria set forth in paragraph 60; 
 Individual establishment inspections may be required in the event an a third 
country fails to meet relevant crit eria referred to in paragraph 60. 
Can Kazakhstan please confirm that this is how the system currently operates in 
practice?  
Answer: 
Systems audit is a main principle of ensuring sa fety of imported goods subject to veterinary 
control (Paragraph 5 of the Regulation on Joint Inspections approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 834). Systems audit is carried out at the requ est of the competent authorities of the third 
country (Paragraph 12 of the Regulation);  
Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Regulation, if audit of foreign official system of control was not 
conducted or not completed, or as a result of su ch audit, foreign official surveillance system was 
not recognized as equivalent to the level of safety  in accordance with the CU requirements, Parties 
may accept inclusion of establishment(-s) into the Register of third country establishments on the 
basis of (i) joint inspections or (ii) guarantees pr ovided by the competent bodies of third countries;  
Competent bodies of third countries are authorised to provide guarantees based on the criteria of 
Paragraph 43 of the Regulation; 
Individual establishment inspections may be requir ed in the event a third country fails to meet 
relevant criteria referred to in Paragraph 43 of the Regulation. 
Question 4 
Paragraph 121 states that norms for veterinary drugs are under review and that this 
work was expected to be finalised no la ter than December 2012. Could Kazakhstan 
please provide more information on the nature and purpose of this review? Is the objective to further align requirements with international standards? Is there scope for 
Members to contribute to this process? 
Answer: 
MRLs for substances mentioned in Paragraph 119 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 were 
harmonized with Codex by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 9 December 2011. 
The issue of harmonization of MRLs for nitrates and radio nuclides currently is being discussed 
within the working group on sanitary measures. Th e draft CU documents will be available on the 
CU web-site during public consultation period. 
Microbiological standards were harmonized by the CU Commission Decision No. 889. Question 5 Paragraph 127: We share systemic concerns  raised by a number of Members with 
respect certain CU sanitary requirements, incl uding MRLs for veterinary drugs, which are 
more restrictive than relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
With this in mind, we would like to undersc ore the importance of the commitments in JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  paragraph 127, including that measures not ba sed on international standards will not be 
applied without providing Members the scient ific justification (i.e. risk assessment). 
Answer: 
Sanitary norms for veterinary drugs were harmonized by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 
9 December 2011. Currently, the results of the previous risk assessments are being revisited 
within the framework of the works on harmonization of MRLs for remaining veterinary drugs. 
The results of the risk assessment will be publis hed on the web-sites of the national competent 
bodies. 
The risk assessment for MRL on tetracycline, justif ying the MRL adopted by the CU, carried out by 
the Russian Federation could be found at the following web-link http://fcrisk.ru/node/652  under 
the title "Scientific justification to residual levels of antibiotics of  tetracycline in food products".  
Kazakhstan is in the process of conducting its own risk assessment in accordance with 
international standards for MRLs on tetracycline. 
Regarding ractopamine, it should be noted that there are still scientific discussions and 
disagreements within Codex Alimentarius members on  ractopamine. In the light of this situation, 
Kazakhstan and other CU Parties apply Paragraph 7 Article 5 of SPS Agreement on provisional SPS 
measures.  
Question 6 
Paragraph 1: The Kazakh dele gation explained that point 1 of CU Commission Decision 
625 is no longer operational, as it refers to a CU body (the coordination committee) 
which has disappeared and been replaced by a new CU body (the consultative 
committee), and that the principle of public  consultation was now included in EEC 
Collegium Decision 161. In this regards, we have the following questions and remarks:  
EEC Collegium Decision 161 should be mentioned in paragraph 1 of the WPR SPS 
chapter.  
Which other CU Decisions, mentioned in  paragraph 1, are no longer valid?  
Does Kazakhstan confirm that CUC Decision 801, which also refers to the coordination 
committee, is still operational? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will introduce amendments into the text as proposed. 
Currently, there are no other CU Decisions that are no longer valid. The CU Commission Decision No. 801 is not currently  in force.  The new Regulation on the Uniform 
Procedure of Carrying out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of 
Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures was approved by Collegium Decision No. 212 of November 6, 2012.   
Question 7 
Paragraph 15: We seek confirmation that Ka zakhstan will inform WTO Members in case 
it is decided that EurAsEC will resume its work on Technical Regulations (TRs), via 
information on the Kazakh national enquiry po int website, early enough to ensure that 
WTO Members have an opportunity to  comment on draft EurAsEC TRs.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that it will inform Member s in case the EurAsEC will resume its work on 
EurAsEC technical regulations. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Question 8 
Paragraph 17: Amongst the 47 TRs included in th e CU first priorities, we would like to be 
informed of which TRs with SPS components  are likely to be adopted in 2012 and for 
which ones the adoption is likely to be postponed to 2013.   
Answer: 
SPS technical regulations establishing safety requirements to specialized products, including 
dietetic meals and food additives were adopted by the EEC Council Decision in June and July 2012, respectively.  
Four CU technical regulations with SPS components  out of 47 priority CU technical regulations 
approved by CU Commission Decision No. 492 of  8 December 2010 has been transferred to the 
new Schedule for Development of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union for 2012-2013 adopted by the EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012. These are: 
- On Safety of Meat and Meat Products; 
- On Milk and Milk Products;  - On Safety of Fish and Fish Products;  
- On Safety of Feed and Feed Additives. 
These technical regulations will be adopted in 2013. Question 9 
Paragraph 17: We would like to be informed  of which TRs with SPS components are 
envisaged to be included in the 2
nd CU list of priorities, currently under discussion.  
Answer: 
The new Schedule for Development of the CU Technical Regulations for 2012-2013 adopted by the 
EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012 includes 7 TRs with SPS components: 
- On Safety of Meat and Meat Products; 
- On Milk and Milk Products;  
- On Safety of Fish and Fish Products;  
- On Safety of Feed and Feed Additives; 
- On Safety of Poultry and its Products;  
- On Safety of Potable Water, Bottled;  
- On Safety of Products in Contact with Food. 
Question 10 Paragraph 20: We are concerned that the inspection guidelines have not yet been 
adopted, while they had to be adopted by 22 August 2012. We request to be 
communicated with the draft CU documents conc erning, 1) guidelines on audit based on 
equivalence and, 2) criteria for inspection of establishments.  
Answer: 
The draft inspection guideline was published for public comments on 16 November, 2012. At the 
Working group meeting held on 24 January 2013 a decision to prolong public consultations till 
5 March, 2013 was made due to comment deadlines established in the Russian Federation's 
notification to the WTO. Comments that have alread y been received during public consultation up 
to now, including comments from third countries will be discussed at the CU Working group meeting in Astana on 19-21 February, 2013. 
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Question 11 
Paragraph 28: We request clarification in th e text of which legal documents, mentioned 
in paragraph 28, are not applicable to impo rt into Kazakhstan. Furthermore, we would 
appreciate to receive an Englis h translation of Resolution 407.  
Answer: 
The following documents are not applicable to import into Kazakhstan: the following documents approved by the Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 April 2003:  (1) 
Rules and Conditions of Compensation to Legal and Natural Persons of the Value of Removed and 
Destroyed Infected Animals, Products and Raw Mate rials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High 
Danger to Animal and Human Health; (2) List of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, prevention, diagnosis and eradication of which are implemente d through the budget; (3) Rules of Organization 
of Veterinary Control Posts at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; (4) Rules for 
Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, 
which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health, or Mandatory Decontamination (Disinfection) and Processing Without Withdrawal Thereof; (5) List of Highly Contagious Animal 
Diseases, when Compulsory Seizure and Destructio n of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of 
Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health are to be Held;  
Government Resolution No. 1754 "On Approval of Organization of Slaughtering of Agricultural 
Animals Intended for Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; 
Government Resolution No. 2331 "On Approval of Identification of Agricultural Animals" of 
31 December 2009; 
Government Resolution No. 149 "On Approval of Ru les of Transportation (Movement) of Objects on 
the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 21 January 2012. 
Kazakhstan will provide the translation of the Government Resolution No. 407. Question 12 
Paragraph 34: We ask for an update on the process of harmonisation of CU common 
forms of veterinary certificates and CU common veterinary requirements with OIE and Codex standards, guidelines and recommendat ions. The Kazakh delegations mentioned 5 
blocks of amendments or draft amendments that have been or are in the process of 
being adopted in order to achieve this alig nment. We ask that Kazakhstan identifies 
these 5 blocks by referring to Decision numbe rs of CU Decisions or dates of publication 
of the draft amendments on the CU website. 
Answer: 
All five blocks of amendments were adopted by the following decisions: 
CU Commission Decisions No. 830 of 18 October 2011; 
CU Commission Decisions No. 893 of 9 December 2011; 
EEC Collegium Decision No. 307 of December 25, 2012; EEC Collegium Decision No. 254 of December 4, 2012; and 
EEC Collegium Decision No. 274 of December 12, 2012. 
Question 13 Paragraph 36: We seek an answer from the Kazakh delegation to the Members' concern 
included in this paragraph.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan included the following answer in paragraph 36: 
The representative of Kazakhstan replied that du ring negotiations the CU Parties would propose 
attestations that followed OIE recommendations except when justified by risk assessment as provided for by the WTO SPS Agreement. The repres entative noted that Kazakhstan participated in 
negotiations as time and resources permitted, and had recently participated in negotiations and 
initialled a number of bilateral veterinary certificates.  
Question 14 
We ask for inclusion in the section on veterina ry certification of the parts related to the 
CU in paragraphs 824 and 826 of the Working Party Report of the Russian Federation.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will introduce the relevant amendments into the text. 
Question 15 
Paragraph 39: This paragraph says "producers of certain imported goods were 
exempted from the registry requirements, such as producers of live animals". In the 
annex, the line for live fish foresees a regist ry requirement, which is not in line with 
paragraph 39. The annex should be aligned with paragraph 39.  
Furthermore, concerning th e last sentence of the paragraph, we would suggest 
replacing http://www.tsouz.ru/  by "at the webpage indicated in paragraph [xxx]" 
(currently paragraph 45) and to  delete "(Section TBD)".  
Answer: 
Measures applied to live fish are different from measures applied to other live animals due to the 
peculiarities of risks associated with life fish.  
It should be noted that high risks associated with live fish are related not only to health of fish, but 
they are also related to the safety of its habitat (w ater). In addition, unlike other live animals, in 
case of fish, each specimen is not subject to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection, which in 
turn increases the risks to human health. Moreover, listing of the establishments of third countries 
that import live fish, in our opinion, is in line with international practice and international standards 
and recommendations. 
Kazakhstan will add the amendments into the text on the web-page as proposed. Question 16 Paragraph 39: When the producers of certai n products are/will be exempted from the 
registry requirement, do you confirm that imports of these products can take place from 
any exporting establishment (regardless of thei r previous presence in a register), based 
on the import permit and certification requ irements as indicated in Table [xx], and 
without the need for a successful system's audit of the exporting country?  
Answer: 
Paragraph 5 of the Regulation on Joint Inspections (the CU Decision No.834) provides that systems 
audit is the main principle of ensuring safety of goods subject to veterinary control imported to the 
Customs Union territory. Thus, all countries wishing to export to the CU must undergo systems audit. If the results of audit are unfavourable or audit has not been conducted yet, trade for 
establishments from such countries is still be po ssible with the use of the other two options: (i) 
joint inspection of establishments by CU Parties;  (ii) guarantees from competent authorities of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  third countries. For countries that have undergone systems audit imports of products exempted 
from the registry requirement can take place from any exporting establishment. 
Question 17 
Paragraph 44 and Table [xx]: CU Decision 830, line 0401 reads "Milk and cream, not 
concentrated nor containing added sugar or  other sweetening substances" while Table 
[xx] reads "Raw milk and cream, not conc entrated and without sugar-added or other 
sweetening substances". The CU Decision shou ld be brought in line with Table [xx].  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has initiated the discussion of this issue at the CU level. The Russian Federation stated 
that they would provide justification for non-fulfilment of their commitment or support the  amendments into CU Decision No. 317, in the near future. The latest discussion will take place at 
the CU working group meeting in Astana on 19-21 February, 2013. 
Question 18 
Table [xx]: When, for a certain product, cert ain veterinary measure(s) (i.e. register 
requirement, import permit requirement, and/or certif icate requirement) is(are) 
applicable only for import into Belarus, how will it be ensured that this is indeed the 
case only for import into Belarus, taking in to account free circulation of goods within the 
CU territory? 
Answer: 
Goods subject to veterinary control circulating within the CU are subject to veterinary inspection at 
the place of destination. Thus, it is the responsibility of veterinary inspectors of Belarus to check the compliance with certain requirements, such as presence of the establishments in the Register 
Also, it is a responsibility of traders/cargo owne rs to double-check on the compliance of the goods 
to the CU veterinary requirements as the informat ion on the requirements is available on the CU 
web-site. 
Question 19 
Paragraph 43: As the statement made in this paragraph is not yet true, as long as the 
a m e n d m e n t  t o  C U  D e c i s i o n  8 3 0  i s  n o t  i n  f o r c e ,  w e  s u g g e s t  m a k i n g  t h i s  c l e a r  i n  t h e  
paragraph by adding "pursu ant to Decision [xx]".  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will add the amendments into the text as proposed. Question 20 
Paragraph 51: We support the Members concern expressed in paragraph 51. In many 
cases CU partners do not accept listing es tablishments based on exporting competent 
authorities' guarantees, without clear and scie ntifically based justifications. We request 
that any rejection of guarantees is clearly ju stified in the answer of the CU partner, and 
that this justification is based on scientific  facts and proportionate. The answer included 
in paragraph 52 does not address the Members concerns.  
Answer: 
A decision to reject a guarantee could be based only upon unfavourable results of the analysis 
conducted in accordance with paragraph 43 of  the Regulation on Joint Inspections.  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Apparently, the delays or rejections, referred to by a Member, are related to the guarantees sent 
to the CU Parties after 18 October 2011 which were  not accepted because of adoption of the new 
Regulation on Joint Inspections by the CU Commis sion Decision No. 384. Pursuant to the Decision 
No. 834 the legal basis for accepting guarantees ente red into force after accession of the first CU 
Party to the WTO, i.e. 22 August 2012. Therefore, Kazakhstan and other CU Parties could not 
accept guarantees between 18 October 2011 and 22 August 2012 since there was no legal basis 
for accepting guarantees.  
Question 21 
In its answer to question 2 of JOB/ACC/30/ Add1, the Delegation of Kazakhstan states 
"recognising the need for a more detaile d mechanism of guarantees, Kazakhstan 
initiated within the framework of the CU th e issue of developing such a mechanism. 
We would appreciate to be provided with the draft of this mechanism.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will provide draft amendments to Pa ragraphs 43 and 44 of the Regulation on Joint 
Inspections approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 834. 
Question 22 
Paragraph 57: What is the CU legal basis fo r the statement "all guarantees received by 
an authorised body of any CU Party had to be approved by the authorised bodies of 
other CU Parties"? We would also seek clarific ation of the procedure applicable for this: 
deadlines for the consultation of other CU Pa rties, action taken in case of lack of 
response.  
Answer: 
The legal basis for the requirement to receive acceptance of other CU Parties in order to include 
third country establishments into the Register under guarantees is contained in paragraph 7 of the Regulation of Joint Inspections, adopted by the Decision No. 834. In particular, " if audit of foreign 
official system of surveillance was not conducted or  not completed, or as a result of such audit, 
foreign official surveillance system was not recogn ized as equivalent to the level of safety in 
accordance with the CU requirements, Parties may accept inclusion of establishment(-s) into the 
Register of third country establishments on the ba sis of joint inspections or guarantees provided 
by the competent bodies of third countries ". 
In addition, Kazakhstan initiated amendments to the Decision No.834 in order to specify the 
procedures for accepting guarantees. The draft amendments will be provided.  
Question 23 
Paragraph 57: We seek clarification on the reason why Kazakhstan added "and the OIE" 
at the end of the third sentence.  
Answer: 
The reason for the addition is that audit of the official system of veterinary control includes 
evaluation of veterinary service of exporting co untry. Chapter 3.1. "Veterinary services" of OIE 
Terrestrial Code contains recommendations on ev aluation of veterinary services of exporting 
countries. 
Question 24 Paragraph 58: We propose to delete the la st sentence of the paragraph, which was 
added in the Rev1 version but does not clar ify the situation, and instead we propose 
adding "Chapter II, point 4.n" at the begi nning of the paragraph, after "Kazakhstan 
explained that, in this Regulation 834".  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan will add the amendments into the text as proposed. 
Question 25 
Paragraph 65: We are concerned by the Kazakh  delegation's answer to question 3 in 
JOB/ACC/30/Add.1, as the definition of "ser ious systemic failure " proposed in this 
answer lacks proportionality. We ask for further clarifications.  
Answer: 
The provision on proportionality is provided in  paragraph 164 of the Joint Inspections. In 
particular, in extraordinary cases CU Commission (now, EEC) may take a decision to suspend 
imports from a group of establishments or all establishments of a third country as a result of detection of a serious failure of the official system of control of a third country if corrective measures were not taken. Such temporary restrictio ns shall be proportionate to the risk to human, 
animal and plant health. 
Question 26 Paragraph 75: We are concerned that pursua nt to Government Resolution 132, import 
permits could be refused based on a single non-compliance with CU veterinary-sanitary 
requirements. Does Kazakhstan intend to am end Resolution 132 in order to ensure that 
the principle of proportionality is respected and that import permits are denied only if 
the non-compliance represents a scientifically substantiated risk and if the denial of the 
import permit is a measure that is proportionate to this risk? 
Answer: 
Currently, amendments to the Resolution No. 132 th at would envisage principle of proportionality 
to the seriousness of the risk for health when the decision to refuse import permit is made are 
being drafted. 
Question 27 
Paragraph 77: Taking into account the Kazakh delegation's answer to question 36 in 
JOB/ACC/30/Add1, we would sugge st replacing the second sentence of this paragraph 
by "Furthermore, information on CU veterinary requirements was available on the CU 
website at the following address: 
http://tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/vetmeri/Pages/default.aspx ." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will add the amendments into the text as proposed. 
Question 28 
Paragraph 78: We request confirmation that the epizootic situation of third countries is 
assessed according to OIE offi cial information and relevant recommendations of the OIE 
Code. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan's authorised body assesses epizootic situation of third countries according to OIE 
official information and relevant recommendations of the OIE Code, information from official web-
sites and letters of third countries affected and from other competent bodies on the outbreaks of highly hazardous diseases (OIE listed diseases). JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Question 29 
We suggest inserting, in a new paragraph af ter paragraph 83, the explanation given by 
the Kazakh delegation in its answer to question 38 of JOB/ACC/30/Add1.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will insert the answer to question 38 of JOB/ACC/30/Add.1 into the text. 
Question 30 
Paragraph 105: We ask to clarify if CU pa rtners may lay down in their national 
legislation additional sanitary safety limits compared to CU requirements, for example if 
the CU sets a limit for an antibiotic in meat  and milk but does not mention any limit for 
this antibiotic in eggs, are the CU partners  allowed to set national standards on eggs. 
Answer: 
Only sanitary safety limits set at the CU level can be applied on the territory of CU Parties. That is, 
CU Parties can not adopt specific MRLs or other sanitary requirements at the national level in the 
absence of those at the CU level. 
Question 31 
Paragraph 106: We ask for confirmation that the explanation given in this paragraph is 
also valid for inspections of establishments and consideration of guarantees given in 
view of establishments' listing. In other words, we request confirmation that the CU 
partners do not request systematic testing re sults for each type of exported product and 
in each establishment visited.  
Answer: 
The Regulation on Joint Inspections did not contain systematic testing requirements for each lot 
for all types of exported products. Paragraph 58 of  the Regulation on Joint Inspections stipulated 
that upon arrival to establishment of third country, inspector, among others, had to make analysis on existence of official control and application of production control, such as HACCP, for the 
purposes of ensuring safety of the goods. 
Question 32 Paragraph 116: We ask for confirmation that, pursuant to CU Decision 721, when a WTO 
member writes a letter notifying that an SPS requirement in force on the CU territory is 
stricter than an international standard, this  international standard is applied unless and 
until the moment when the WTO member rece ives an answer with a risk assessment 
justifying the stricter SPS requirement in force on the CU territory.  
Answer: 
In cases where a WTO Member officially notifies a CU Party that an SPS requirement in force on 
the CU territory is more stringent than an international standard, the relevant international 
standards or parts thereof would be applied by the CU Party unless and until scientific justification 
of risk is provided, as stipulated in the SPS Agreement. The CU Party would reply within a reasonable period of time to the Member that either the international standard applies or provide 
relevant scientific justification. 
Question 33 Paragraph 119, 121, 123 and 124: We would appreciate receiving an update on progress 
made towards harmonisation for standard s mentioned in paragraph 119, 121, 123 and 
124: which standards have already been harm onised and in which CU Decision? Which JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  harmonisation is in preparation? Have dr aft amendments been published on the CU 
website and at which date?   
Answer: 
MRLs for substances mentioned in paragraph 119 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 were 
harmonized with Codex by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 9 December 2011.  
Sanitary norms for veterinary drugs were harmonized by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 
9 December 2011 as well. Currently, the results of the previous risk assessments are being revisited within the framework of the works on harmonization of MRLs for remaining veterinary 
drugs. The results of the risk assessment will be published on the web-sites of the national 
competent bodies. 
The issue of harmonization of MRLs for nitrates and radio nuclides currently is being discussed 
within the working group on sanitary measures.  
Microbiological standards were harmonized by the CU Commission Decision No. 889.    
Question 34 Paragraph 125: We seek an answer from the Kazakh delegation to the Members concern 
expressed in paragraph 125.  
Answer: 
The risk assessment for MRL on tetracycline conducted by the Russian Federation could be found 
at the following web-link http://fcrisk.ru/node/652 under the title "Scientific justification to 
r e s i d u a l  l e v e l s  o f  a n t i b i o t i c s  o f  t e t r a c y c l i n e  i n  f o o d  p r o d u c t s " .   K a z a k h s t a n  i s  i n  t h e  p r o c e s s  o f  conducting its own risk assessment in accordance with international standards for MRLs on tetracycline.  
Question 35 
We suggest that a new paragraph is inserted in the section on Risk Assessment with the 
explanation given by the Kazakh delegati on in its answer to question 58 in 
JOB/ACC/30/Add1.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees to add the answer to question 58 in JOB/ACC/30/Add1 with modification as 
follows: 
"A Member asked for confirmation that risk assessm ent is carried out prior to the introduction of a 
restriction on import into the CU/Kazakhstan and that Kazakhstan /CU will provide this risk assessment to the exporting country affected by the restrictions upon request. In reply the 
representative of Kazakhstan said that pursuant to Article 11 of the EurAsEC Agreement on 
Coordinated Policy in the Sphere of Technical Re gulation, Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, SPS measures were developed and applied on the basis of scientific justification and risk 
assessment results. Pursuant to paragraph 2, Article 26-1 of the Law "On Veterinary", veterinary 
measures had to be based on scientific justification, objective risk assessment or international standards. The representative confirmed that risk assessment was conducted prior to 
implementation of introduction of restriction to  imports and would provide the results of risk 
assessment upon request of exporting country , as provided for by the WTO Agreement." 
Question 36 Paragraph 148: The end of the paragraph should be updated as it refers to CU Decision 
625. Furthermore, reference to the legal ba sis providing for public consultation on 
Technical Regulations should be added, give n that a number of CU Technical Regulations 
contain SPS measures.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will add the amendments into the text as proposed.  Question 37 Paragraph 150: We seek confirmation th at comments submitted in 2011 on draft 
Technical Regulations with SPS components will be taken into account in the final 
version of the TRs.  
Answer: 
All ccomments presented to draft technical regulati ons by interested parties were reviewed and 
taken into account as appropriate during the discussions within working groups.  
Question 38 Paragraph 150: We seek clarification of the pr ocedure applicable for public consultation 
in accordance with EEC Collegium Decisi on 161: to whom should the comments be 
submitted and with which method of communication? According to which procedure are the comments examined, answered and taken into account?  
Answer: 
Comments to SPS related draft CU documents coul d be sent to the EEC or any CU Party.   
Below are the contacts of the EEC:  
Smolenskyi boulevard 3/5 
119121 Moscow,  Russian Federation tel. +7 (495) 604-40-38 
fax. + 7 (495) 669-24-15 
email: info@tsouz.ru  
Question 39 
Paragraph 151: We ask for confirmation that Kazakhstan will notify draft SPS measures 
as foreseen in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement including when these SPS measures are developed at the CU or EurAsEC level.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will notify to the WTO draft SPS measures to be applied in Kazakhstan as foreseen in 
Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement including when these SPS measures are developed at the CU or EurAsEC level.  
Question 40 
CU Commission Decision 880 fo resees that CU Decision 8 34 will be amended upon entry 
into force of the Food Safety Technical Regu lation. What aspects of CU Decision 834 are 
intended to be changed and for which reason?  
Answer: 
Currently, EEC jointly with CU Parties is analyzing the technical regulation "On Safety of Food 
Products" and the CU Commission Decision No. 834 for the purposes of determining differences 
between the two documents. Upon results of th e analysis and discussions, amendments to the 
procedure of registration of CU establishments  would be made, if d eemed necessary.     JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Question 41 
Paragraph 1: We suggest that this paragraph be divided into 3 paragraphs.  Please see 
text below: 
The representative of Kazakhstan stated that  the legislative basis for the regulation of 
the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime in Kazakhstan was established by the 
following:  Eurasian Economic Communi ty (EurAsEC) and Customs Union (CU) 
Agreements and EurAsEC and CU Decisions.  The EurAsEC Agreement on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Techni cal Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures of 25 January 2008 and the EurAsEC Agreement on Establishing the EurAsEC 
Informative System in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 2008.  On the Sanita ry side, the legislative basis was found in 
the CU Agreement on Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by 
Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsE C No. 39 of 21 May 2010), Decision of the 
Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011 "On Entering into Force of Protocols of 21 May 2010 in the Sphere of Implementation Sanitary, Veterinary-and-
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" an d CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 
28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last 
amended by CU Commission Decisions No . 342 of 17 August 2010, No. 455 of 18 
November 2010, No. 622  of 7 April 2011, No. 828 "On Amendments to the Common List 
of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemio logical Surveillance (Control) on the Customs 
Border and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 18 October 2011, No. 829 
"On Amendments to the Common Sanitary and Epidemiological and Hygienic 
Requirements for Goods, Subjec t to Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control)" 
of 18 October 2011, No. 887 "On the Draft Prot ocol on Amendments to the Agreement of 
the Customs Union Concerning Sanitary Meas ures of 11 December 2009" of 9 December 
2011, No. 888 "On Amendments to Regulation on the Procedure for Conduct of State 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (C ontrol) Over the Persons and Transport, 
Crossing the Customs Border of the Cust oms Union, Goods Subject to Control, 
Transferred through the Customs Border of the Customs Union and the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union" of 9 Dece mber 2011, Decisions of the EEC Council No. 
36 "On Amendments to the Section 2 of the Co mmon List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary 
and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on the Customs Border and the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union"  of 15 June 2012, No. 37 "On Amendments to Regulation 
on the Procedure for Conduc t of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance 
(Control) Over the Persons and Transport, Crossing the Customs Border of the Customs 
Union, Goods Subject to Control, Transferred Through the Customs Border of the 
Customs Union and on the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 15 June 2012, No. 64 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on th e Customs Border and the Customs Territory 
of the Customs Union" of 20 July 2012, De cisions of the EEC Collegium No. 32 "On 
Amendments to the Section 2 of the Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on th e Customs Border and the Customs Territory 
of the Customs Union" of 19 April 2012, No . 33 "On Amendments to Regulation on the 
Procedure for Conduct of Stat e Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) Over 
the Persons and Transport, Crossing the Cust oms Border of the Customs Union, Goods 
Subject to Control, Transferred through th e Customs Border of the Customs Union and 
the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 19 April 2012, No. 34 "On Amendments to the Section 2 of the Common List of Good s, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance (Control) on the Customs Border  and the Customs Territory of the Customs 
Union" of 19 April, No. 89 "On Application of the Common Sanitary and Epidemiological 
and Hygienic Requirements for Goods, Su bject to Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance (Control)" of 13 June 2012, No . 111 "On Amendments to the Common List 
of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemio logical Surveillance (Control) on the Customs 
Border and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 19 July 2012, No. 117 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance (Control) on the Customs Border  and the Customs Territory of the Customs 
Union" of 19 July 2012, No. 141 "On Amendm ents to the Decision of the Customs Union 
No 299 "On Application of Sanitary Measures  in the Customs Union" in the Light of 
Entering into Force of Technical Regulation s of the Customs Union"of 23 August 2012).  
[Make new paragraph] The veterinary framew ork could be found in the CU Agreement JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  on Veterinary and Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC Decision No. 39 of 21 May 2010), CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the 
Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Co mmission Decisions Nos. 342 of 17 August 
2010, 455 of 18 November 2010, 569 of 2 March 2011, 570 of 2 March 2011, 623 of 7 
April 2011, 724 of 22 June 2011, 726 of 15 Ju ly 2011, 810 of 23 September 2011, 830 of 
18 October 2011, 831 of 18 October 2011 , 834 of 18 October 2011 and 893 of 
9 December 2011), CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 "On Common Forms 
of Veterinary Certificates on Imported Goods Subject to Veterinary Control into the 
Customs Union Territory" as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 832 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Forms of Co mmon Veterinary Cert ificates for the 
Importing to the CU Customs Territory of the Controlled Goods from Third Countries" 
and CU Commission Decision No. 892 of 9 December 2011 "On Amendments to the 
Forms of Common Veterinary Certificates for the Importing to the CU Customs Territory of the Controlled Goods from Third Countri es", CU Commission Decision No. 624 of 7 
April 2011 "On Regulation on the Procedur e of Development and Maintenance of the 
Register of Companies and Persons which Ca rry out Production, Reprocessing and (or) 
Storing Products Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance) and Imported into the 
territory of the Custom Union", CU Commi ssion Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "On 
Harmonization of CU Legal Acts in the Fiel d of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures with International Standards" as amended by CU Commission Decision 
No. 722 of 22 June 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 
"On Application of International Standa rds, Recommendations, and Guidelines", 
CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011 "On Amendment of the Regulation on 
Common Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary Control at the Customs Border of the 
Customs Union and within the Customs Territory of the Customs Union", CU Commission 
Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veteri nary Measures", CU Commission Decision 
No. 801 of 23 September 2011 "On Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of Carrying Out 
Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Un ion in the Sphere of Implementation of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Meas ures", CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 
18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Commo n Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) 
Requirements Applicable to the Goods Subject to Veterina ry Control (Surveillance)" and 
CU Commission Decision No. 893 of 9 December 2011 "On Amendments to the Common 
Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) Requirem ents Applicable to the Goods Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" and CU Commission Decision No. [xxx] of 
[xxxxx] 2012 "On Amendments to the Common Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) 
Requirements Applicable to the Goods Subj ect to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", 
CU Commission Decision No. 831 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Contro l (Surveillance)" and CU Commission Decision 
No. [xxx] of [xxxxx] 2012 "On Amendments to  the Common List of Goods Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", CU Co mmission Decision No. 33 of 18 October 2011 
"On Equivalence of Systems of Inspecti on of Objects of Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence of 
Sanitary, Veterinary or Phytosanitary Meas ures and Conduct of Risk Assessment", and 
CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 Octobe r 2011 "On Regulation on Common System 
of Joint Inspections of Objects and Samplin g Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary 
Control (Surveillance)", Decision of the EEC Collegium No. 150 "On Amendments to Regulation on the Common Procedure for Cond uct of Veterinary Control on the Customs 
Border of the Customs Union and the Custom s Territory of the Customs Union" of 30 
August 2012. [Make new paragraph] On the phytosanitary side,  the CU Agreement on 
Plant Quarantine of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Decision of the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 Ma y 2011) and CU Commission Decision No. 
318 of 18 June 2010 "On Assurance of Plant Qu arantine in the Customs Union" (as last 
amended by CU Commission Decision No. 528 of 28 January 2011, the Decision of the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 76 "On the Process for Transfer of Control from the 
Russian-Kazakh Border to the External border  of the Customs Union" of 15 May 2011, CU 
Commission Decision No. 894 "On Addenda to Regulation on the Procedure for Conduct of Phytosanitary Control  (Surveillance) on the Customs Border of the Customs Union, 
approved by CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 July 2010" of 9 December 2011).  In 
addition, the following six technical regulati ons of the Customs Union were adopted: CU 
Commission Decision No. 880 "On Food Safety " of 9 December 2011, CU Commission 
Decision No. 881 "On Labelling of Food Produc ts" of 9 December 2011, CU Commission JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Decision No. 881 "On  Products of Fruit and Vegetable Juices" of 9 December 2011, CU 
Commission Decision No. 883 "On Fat and Oil Products" of 9 December 2011, 
Commission Decision No. 874 "On Safety of Gr ain" of 9 December 2011, and EEC Council 
Decision No. 34 "On Safety of Certain Types of Specialized Products, Including Dietetic 
Healthy and Dietetic Prophylactic  Meals" of 15 June 2012.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan accepts the proposed amendments and will introduce them into the text. 
Question 42 
Paragraph 1:  Please clarify th e status of CU Commission Decisi ons.  We note that during 
the October plurilateral, the representative  of Kazakhstan explained that certain 
provisions of some CU Commission Decisions ha d been replaced, notably, point 1 of CU 
Commission Decision 625 which dealt with th e public consultation mechanism for SPS 
and TBT measures.  It was further elaborated  that CU Commission Decision 801 may no 
longer be operable.  Could Kazakhstan plea se provide the EEC Decision which replaced 
CU Commission Decision 625? Furthermore, co uld Kazakhstan please  clarify the status 
of Decision 801 and notify members of an y other CU Decisions which are no longer 
operable? Could Kazakhstan please confirm that there has been a transparency mechanism operating for SPS measures that have been developed and drafted since the 
formation of the EEC?  We note that new EEC amendments are open for public 
consultation since October 9, 2012?  What is a timeframe for submitting comments? We 
note that the Kazakh representative stat ed that no new SPS measures had been 
developed or published since May 21, howe ver, we would consider EEC Decision 161 
which replaced the transparency provision of 625 to be a SPS measure.  We note that 
this Decision was not published in draft form and as of the October plurilateral, had not been provided to Members. 
Answer: 
It should be noted that the CU Commission Decision No. 625 is still in force. The only change that 
was introduced is revocation of the Regulation on Coordination Committee on Technical 
Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary  and Phytosanitary Measures approved by CU 
Commission Decision No. 625 (Paragraph 1), which was later replaced by the Regulation on Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures, approved by the EEC Co llegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012.  
The CU Commission Decision No. 801 was replaced by Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of 
Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures adopted by EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 6 November 
2012.  
The transparency mechanism for the development of SPS measures is secured by the EEC 
Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012, which provides for 60 days public comments 
for draft SPS measures. 
The EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012 does not seem to be an SPS measure 
within the meaning of the SPS Agreement that requ ires notification. Therefore this document was 
not published for public consultations.   
Question 43 
Paragraph 2: Please add reference to the EEC Council and Collegium Decisions in the 
first sentence so that it reads: "The repres entative of Kazakhstan further stated that 
national legislation remained in effect to th e extent that it did not contradict the CU 
Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, an d EEC Council and Collegium Decisions."  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan accepts the proposed amendments and will introduce them into the text. 
Question 44 
Paragraph 4: It is stated that the Council is  responsible for adoption, introduction of 
amendments and addenda into the Common Lists of Goods subject to Sanitary-
Epidemiological Surveillance, Veterinary an d Quarantine Phytosanitary Control. The 
Collegium had responsibility for the rest of  the issues, including the adoption and 
introduction of amendments and addenda in to the Common Veterinary Requirements 
and Common Forms of Veterinary Certificates, the Common Sanitary Requirements, and 
the Common Phytosanitary Requirements.  
We note that the Collegium introduced new amendments for public consultation to the 
Common Veterinary Requirements and the Common Sanitary Requirements. After the 
Collegium adopts final amendments, does it  a l s o  h a v e  t o  b e  a p p r o v e d  b y  t h e  C o u n c i l  
when the responsibility falls under the Colle gium? Do all final Decisions have to be 
approved by the Council?  
For example, Kazakhstan informed WTO Memb ers during the October plurilateral that 
the Decision of the EEC Collegium No. 150 "On Amendments to Regulation on the Common Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary  Control on the Customs Border of the 
Customs Union and the Customs Territory of  the Customs Union" of 30 August 2012 has 
to be approved by the Council. What mechanis ms will Kazakhstan use to inform public if 
the Decision is adopted or rejected?  
Answer: 
Not all decisions have to be approved by the Counc il. As indicated in Paragraph 4 of the document 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1, only following documents are subject to approval by the Council: 
adoption, introduction of amendments and adde nda into the Common Lists of Goods subject to 
Sanitary-Epidemiological Surveillance, Veterinary and Quarantine Phytosanitary Control; 
adoption and introduction of amendments and addenda into the Regulation of Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Control, Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary Control, 
Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), 
Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), and the Regulation on Common Procedure for Conduct of Quarantine Phytosanitary Control  
Draft EEC Council decisions are subject to EEC Collegium clearance. 
Since the competence of introduction of amendm ents into the Common Procedures of Veterinary 
Control for Conduct of Veterinary Control on the Customs Border of the Customs Union and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union falls under the competence of the Council, the 
amendment were first cleared by the Collegium and then passed for Council approval. 
Approval or rejection of a draft EEC Council decisi on cleared by the EEC Collegium are indicated in 
the related Council decision and were subject to publication on the CU web-site. 
Question 45 
Paragraph 5: Please clarify the legal basis fo r the practice of development of draft CU 
legal acts on SPS measures. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes to add the legal basis fo r development of draft CU legal acts on SPS 
measures into Paragraph 5 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 as follows: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  "Developing SPS measures at the CU level involved specific technical and administrative expertise 
via working groups which reported to the Consultative Committee. Functions and interactions of 
the working groups and the Consultative Committee were defined by specific regulations; the 
Regulation of Working and Expert Groups on SPS and TBT approved by the Protocol No. 5 of the 
Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 7 December 2010 and th e Regulation on Consultative Committee on 
Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures approved by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012. The current practice for development 
of draft CU legal acts on SPS measures was as follows:  
 a CU Party or the EEC initiated the development of a draft CU legal act. A Party responsible 
for developing the draft was appointed or the EEC acted as a developer; 
 a working group, including representatives of CU Party's competent authorities was 
established to review the draft; 
 a draft document that was discussed and approved at a working group meeting, was then 
submitted to the Consultative Committee for publishing on the CU official website for public 
consultations. The period for public consultation was two months; 
 after the process of public consultation, all comments and questions were discussed within 
the working group. A final revision of the draft document was discussed and approved by 
the working group and submitted to the Consultative Committee; 
 the draft document was reviewed at the meeting of the Consultative Committee. In case the 
draft was approved, it was submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
 the Collegium either adopted the CU documents which were under its competence or in 
other cases approved the drafts before submitting them to the Council for adoption. 
Question 46 Paragraph 15:  We appreciate the new inform ation that Kazakhstan provided regarding 
development of technical regulations (TRs).  We  note that it states that the development 
and adoption of EurAsEC technical regulation s has been suspended.  We note that the 
paragraph 15 continues however to descri be the overlap between CU and EurAsEC 
technical regulations.  Furthermore, paragrap h 16 describes the situation with a specific 
TR being drafted by a EurAsEC member that  would then be applied on the Kazakh 
territory.  We seek clarification on the status  of the EurAsEC TRs.  If EurAsEC TRs are no 
longer going to be developed, we would prop ose that the text be amended as follows:  
Delete the text in paragraph 15 beginning with line 16 :  
"Members of the Working Party asked for cl arification as regards the overlap between 
the CU priority technical regulations and th e EurAsEC priority technical regulations.  
The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at a choice had been made to focus on the 
adoption of CU technical regulations, since the CU procedure for adoption of technical 
regulations was faster.  These CU technical re gulations would then be used as a basis to 
propose technical regulations covering these pr oducts at EurAsEC level.  While many of 
the proposed technical regulations had been put on the CU website for public comments 
or would be placed on that website once de veloped, some technical regulations, such as 
the technical regulations for milk and milk pr oducts and grain, fat and oils, and juice had 
been placed only on the EurAsEC website.  Some Members raised concerns regarding 
whether there had been a meaningful o pportunity to provide comments on those 
technical regulations.  Members of the Workin g Party asked for clarification of the legal 
provisions applicable in Kazakhstan if tec hnical regulations with diverging provisions 
covering the same product were adopted at CU and at EurAsEC level.  Members of the 
Working Party also asked whether the draft te chnical regulations on honey and bottled 
water safety, to be developed by the Kyrgyz  Republic for adoption at EurAsEC level, 
which are not planned to be adopted at CU level, will be applicable to exports to 
Kazakhstan." 
Furthermore, we would suggest that paragrap h 16 be deleted as well.  We would further 
propose commitment language be added after paragraph 15.  "The representative of 
Kazakhstan confirmed that, for so long as Ka zakhstan was a EurAsEC Party, if the work 
on EurAsEC technical regulations was resu med, Kazakhstan would ensure that its 
enquiry point website would provide informatio n regarding the resumption of that work JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  and other developments and documents regard ing EurAsEC technical regulations.  The 
Working Party took note of this commitment." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan accepts the proposed deletions and will consider the proposed draft commitment. 
Question 47 
Paragraph 17: Could Kazakhstan please pr ovide an update on the status of the 
47 priority TRs. We had understood that the EEC as in the process of determining an 
updated list of additional TRs.  Could Kaza khstan please provide information on the 
elaboration of these TRs related to SPS matters? 
Answer: 
To date, 31 CU technical regulations have been adopted (of 47 CU technical regulations envisaged 
in the Schedule adopted by CU Commission De cision No. 492 of 8 December 2010). 8 technical 
regulations have entered into force in 2012. The remaining 23 technical regulations will enter into 
force not later than 15 February 2015: in 2013 - 13 technical regulations, in 2014 – 7 technical regulations, and in 2015 – 3 technical regulations. 
No technical regulations with SPS components have entered into force in 2012. 2 technical 
regulations with SPS components are planned to enter into force in 2013, and 2 technical regulations - in 2014.  
The Schedule for Development of Technical Re gulations of the Customs Union for 2012-2013 was 
adopted by the EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012 which foresees development of 29 CU technical regulations. The Schedule, envisages development of 7 technical regulations with SPS component: 4 technical regulations which had been planned for development by the previous 
schedule and 3 new technical regulations with SPS components: 
- On Safety of Meat and Meat Products; 
- On Milk and Milk Products;  
- On Safety of Fish and Fish Products;  
- On Safety of Feed and Feed Additives; 
- On Safety of Poultry and its Products;  
- On Safety of Potable Water, Bottled;  
- On Safety of Products in Contact with Food. 
Question 48 Paragraph 20: We note that guidelines for conducting inspections of establishments 
were to have been developed and adopted by  the date of Russia's membership in the 
WTO.  During the plurilateral meeting, we  had understood that there were multiple 
documents under development; one on conducti ng inspections and others pertaining to 
product specific establishment requirements .  Could Kazakhstan please share these 
draft documents with Members? Could Kazakhst an please explain where these are in the 
adoption process?  When and for how long will  they be available for public consultation? 
Answer: 
The draft inspection guideline was published on the CU web-site for public consultation on  16 
November 2012. At the Working group meeting held on 24 January 2013 the decision to prolong public consultation till 5 March 2013 was taken due to the deadlines indicated in the notification of 
the Russian Federation submitted to the WTO Se cretariat. Comments that have already been 
received during public consultation up to now, including comments from third countries will be discussed at the CU Working group meetin g in Astana on 19-21 February, 2013. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Question 49 
Paragraph 34: We are concerned with the timi ng of the developmen t of amendments to 
the CU common forms and veterinary requ irements so that they are based on 
international standards.  The Russian Federa tion undertook an obli gation to harmonize 
the veterinary requirements by the date of  its accession to the WTO. Russia became a 
WTO Member on August 22. As these ar e Customs Union requirements, we seek 
confirmation that the 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 published fo r public consultation, and that some of the 
proposed amendments do not appear to reflect the OIE requirements. Furthermore, we are concerned that Kazakhst an and the CU parties appear to consider that all 
harmonization with international standards has now been concluded with the 
publication of the last proposed amendments in May 2012. What is the status of that 
draft amendment? From our perspective, further harmonization is necessary. Does 
Kazakhstan or the CU intend to make fu rther amendments to the common veterinary 
requirements and forms?   
Answer: 
The draft amendments envisaging harmonization of CU veterinary requirements with international 
standards were divided into five blocks. All five blocks of amendments were adopted by the 
following decisions: 
 CU Commission Decisions No. 830 of 18 October 2011; 
 CU Commission Decisions No. 893 of 9 December 2011; 
 EEC Collegium Decision No. 307 of December 25, 2012; 
 EEC Collegium Decision No. 254 of December 4, 2012; 
 EEC Collegium Decision No. 274 of December 12, 2012. 
Question 50 
Paragraph 36:  We welcome the additional Members language that was added to this 
paragraph.  However, we note that there do es not appear to be an adequate response 
from the representative of Kazakhstan to these additional concerns.  We strongly 
suggest that additional language be a dded to address these specific concerns. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes the following answer in Paragraph 36: 
The representative of Kazakhstan replied that du ring negotiations the CU Parties would propose 
attestations that followed OIE recommendations except when justified by risk assessment as provided for by the WTO SPS Agreement. The repres entative noted that Kazakhstan participated in 
negotiations as time and resources permitted, and had recently participated in negotiations and 
initialled a number of bilateral veterinary certificates.  
Question 51 
Paragraph 41-44: We are concerned that amendm ents to the List of products subject to 
veterinary control have not been adopted ye t and that no scientific basis has been 
provided to support including products in to the List.  For ex ample, there is an 
establishment list requirement for live fish (HS0301).  We request that Kazakhstan 
remove the requirement to register establis hments for live fish or provide scientific 
justification for including this requirement. Furthermore, we appreciate that Kazakhstan 
has initiated amendments to the list simila r to those that Russia adopted.  Please 
provide an update on the status of those am endments.  We do note however, that we 
have brought certain discrepancies between  Kazakhstan's proposed decision and the 
table as agreed by the Russian Federation to the delegation of Kazakhstan's attention.  
For example the word "raw" is missing in li ne 0401.  We were strongly concerned by 
Kazakhstan's explanation that the discrepancies would only be addressed in a separate JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  decision to be developed at a later date. Mo reover, we are concerned that adoption of 
these decisions appears to be expected  no earlier than February 2013.   
Answer: 
It should be noted that high risks associated with live fish are related not only to health of fish, but 
they are also related to the safety of its habitat (w ater). In addition, unlike other live animals, in 
case of fish, each specimen is not subject to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection, which in 
turn increases the risks to human health. Moreover, listing of the establishments of third countries 
that import live fish, in our opinion, is in line with international practice and international standards 
and recommendations. 
Kazakhstan had repeatedly initiated the discussion within the CU on the RF commitment with 
respect to HS 0401. The Russian Federation stated that they would provide justification for non-fulfilment of their commitment or support the amen dments into CU Decision No.317, in the near 
future.  
Question 52 Paragraph 45: In the middle of the paragraph,  it states that "If a CU Party took a 
decision to add an establishment to its nation al list, the other CU Parties had to accept 
this decision."  During the plurilateral meet ings, Kazakhstan explained that this was not 
accurate and referenced the CU Commission De cision 834. In decision 834, we do not 
see explicit language that all 3 members of th e CU have to agree in order for a facility to 
be added to the list. Please provide the legal basis for this practice.  We do acknowledge 
that in practice it appears that all 3 CU part ies have to agree and that this practice has 
resulted in unjustifiable dela ys in approving facilities. Additionally, often with no 
justification, a facility will be rejected by  a CU Party. We have raised our strong 
reservations with this situation often an d note that Kazakhstan has referred to 
amendments it has proposed on clarifying guarantees. Please provide and describe 
these draft amendments and the proposed me chanism for recognition of guarantees. 
Answer: 
In order to avoid misunderstanding Kazakhstan proposes to modify the mentioned sentence as 
follows: 
"The addition of an establishment from any country to the national part of the List could only occur 
after all three CU Parties agreed on the inclusion of the establishment.". 
The legal basis for the requirement to have consent of other CU Parties for the inclusion of third 
country establishments into the Register under guarantees is contained in Paragraph 7 of the 
Regulation of Joint Inspections, adopted by the Decision No. 834. In particular, " if audit of foreign 
official system of surveillance was not conducted or  not completed, or as a result of such audit, 
foreign official surveillance system was not recogn ized as equivalent to the level of safety in 
accordance with the CU requirements, Parties may accept inclusion of establishment(-s) into the 
Register of third country establishments on the ba sis of joint inspections or guarantees provided 
by the competent bodies of third countrie s".  
In addition, Kazakhstan initiated amendments to the Decision No.834 in order to specify the 
procedures for accepting guarantees. The draft amendments will be provided.  
A decision to reject a guarantee could be based only upon unfavourable results of the analysis 
conducted in accordance with Paragraph 43 of  the Regulation on Joint Inspections.  
Apparently, the delays, referred to by a Member, are related to the guarantees sent to the CU 
Parties after 18 October 2011 which were not accepted because of adoption of the new Regulation 
on Joint Inspections by the CU Commission Decisi on No. 834. Pursuant to the Decision No. 834 the 
legal basis for accepting guarantees entered into force after accession of the first CU Party to the WTO, i.e. 22 August 2012. Therefore, Kazakhstan and other CU Parties could not accept JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  guarantees between 18 October 2011 and 22 August 2012 since there was no legal basis for 
accepting guarantees.  
Question 53 
Paragraph 47: In the last sentence, Kazakhstan  asserts that since it plans to abolish the 
listing requirements for third country esta blishments for certain products, that the 
transition period was no longer required.  We  strongly disagree with this statement.  In 
Kazakhstan's draft decision removing th e establishment requirement for certain 
products, Kazakhstan has introduced a timing mechanism, linking entry into force of this 
decision to Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO.  From our perspective, the transition 
should apply until at least that time.  
Answer: 
As noted in Paragraph 47, the transitional period was provided for continuation of international 
trade from the establishments producing certain products not included into the Register while such 
a requirement had been established as of 1 July 2010. The transitional period was valid until establishment of the Register. However, The CU Commission Decision No. 830 removed the 
registry requirements for certain products, including live animals, except for fish; genetic material; 
apicultural products; raw material of animal origin (skins, fur, feather, etc.); feed additives of animal origin; feed of plant origin, composite products which were referenced in Paragraph 11.3 of 
the CU Regulation "On Veterinary Checks at the CU Border and on the CU Territory." Therefore, 
the transitional period for these products had lapsed  as of 22 August 2012, i.e. the date of entry 
into force of CU Commission Decision No. 830. Fo r gelatin the transitional period provided in 
Paragraph 11.3 of CU regulation on Veterinary Chec ks at the CU border and the CU territory is still 
applicable, pending the entry into force of EEC Council Decision No. [xxx] of [xxxxx] stipulating 
removal of certain products from the List of products subject to veterinary control. 
Question 54 
Paragraph 58: We note that this paragraph co ntains the definition for CU requirements 
as found in CU Commission Decision 834.  We note the new text that was added to the end of this paragraph from CU Commission De cision 721 and we are concerned that this 
language complicates the definition instead of  providing clarity.  We would suggest that 
this new language be removed and that inst ead of repeating Decision 721, Kazakhstan 
add language to clarify the CU requirements definition. 
Answer: 
It should be noted that pursuant the CU Decision No. 834, the CU Commission Decision No. 721 
represents a part of the CU requirements definition. In other words, international standards constitute a part of CU requirements within the meaning of the Decision No. 721.   
Question 55 
Paragraph 68: We reiterate our concern that we  have not yet been provided the drafts of 
the specific guidelines for inspection which are referenced.  We are strongly concerned 
with the delay in developing and adopting these guidelines which were to have been 
adopted by the date of Russia's membership  in the WTO.  Please provide the draft 
guidelines. 
Answer: 
The draft inspection guideline was published on the CU web-site for public consultation on 
16 November 2012. At the Working group meeting held on 24 January 2013 the decision was taken to prolong public consultation till 5 March 2013 due to the deadlines indicated in the 
notification of the Russian Federation submitted to the WTO Secretariat. Discussions of the first 
comments received within the public consultation during first 60 days including third countries are planned at the Working group meetings on 19-21 February 2013. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Question 56 
Paragraph 74 (Import Permits): Please prov ide the status of the amendments to 
Government Resolution 132.  When does Kazakhstan expect them to enter into force? 
Answer: 
Currently comments received on the draft am endments are under interagency review.  
Question 57 
Paragraph 91 (Phytosanitary):  We note th at amendments to CU Commission Decision 
318 were recently published for public cons ultation.  We provided specific comments 
and recently resubmitted the comments to th e Kazakh delegation since it appears that 
there was a problem with coordination of co mments among the CU parties.  Kazakhstan 
explained that draft comments were being discussed by the working group with the 
expectation that a final draft would be publishe d later in October.  Is this timing still 
accurate? We want to reiterate that it a ppears that phytosanitary control remains for 
many processed products.  Can Kazakhstan confirm that a pest risk assessment was 
conducted to determine what level of contro l was necessary for these products and that 
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: 
The basis of application phytosanitary control on the processed products is the detection of plant 
quarantine organisms past monitoring of the goods in one of the CU Parties.   
The draft common list of quarantine pests and di seases had been developed and undergone public 
consultations in July 2012. At the moment, the draft was under discussion by CU Parties. 
Question 58 In subsection (g)(i) Harmonization with  International Standards and Norms, We 
continue to encourage Kazakhstan and the CU  Parties to harmonize their SPS standards 
with the international standards, recommendations and guidelines. Further, we are concerned by the lack of harmonization of the sanitary requirements with the Codex 
standards. 
We note that Kazakhstan and the CU maintain  many MRLs for antibiotics 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. 
Most recently we have raised our concerns with recent actions taken by the CU with 
regard to the veterinary drug, ractopamine.  These actions come after the Codex adopted 
an international standard after rigorous evalua tion of the science.  We request that the 
CU adopt this international standard, simila rly to our request that the CU adopt other 
international standards for pesticides, antibiot ics and other contaminants. We ask that if 
Kazakhstan or where relevant the CU determin es that the appropriate level of protection 
justifies a more stringent standard, that Ka zakhstan and the CU provide a scientific 
justification and risk assessment to support the more stringent standard. 
Answer: 
MRLs for substances mentioned in Paragraph 119 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 were 
harmonized with Codex by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 9 December 2011.  
Sanitary norms for veterinary drugs were harmonized by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 
9 December 2011 as well. Currently, the results of the previous risk assessments are being JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  revisited within the framework of the works on harmonization of MRLs for remaining veterinary 
drugs. The results of the risk assessment will be published on the web-sites of the national 
competent bodies. 
The issue of harmonization of MRLs for nitrates and radio nuclides currently is being discussed 
within the working group on sanitary measures.  
Microbiological standards were harmonized by the CU Commission Decision No. 889. 
Regarding ractopamine, it should be noted that there are still scientific discussions and 
disagreements within Codex Alimentarius members on  ractopamine. In the light of this situation, 
Kazakhstan and other CU Parties apply Paragraph 7 Article 5 of SPS Agreement on provisional 
SPS measures. 
Question 59 Paragraph 116:  We strongly support this commitment and would welcome Kazakhstan's 
favourable consideration of this commitment.   We note that CU Commission Decision 
721 needs to be fully implemented and we need to see this decision work in practice. We are working on Members language to express the need for assurances from 
Kazakhstan reflecting the direct  application of Decision 721. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan considers that Decision No. 721 is applied by CU Parties, as appropriate, during 
negotiations on bilateral veterinary certificates and conducting systems audit and joint inspections.   
Question 60 Paragraphs 148-150 (Transparency):  We note that these paragraphs contain references 
to public consultation mechanism provided fo r in CU Commission Decision 625, which is 
no longer operative according to Kazakhst a n  a s  w e l l  a s  r e f e r e n c e  t o  C U  C o m m i s s i o n  
Decision 801, whose status is unclear. Could Kazakhstan please update these 
paragraphs to accurately reflect the status of  these decisions?  Co uld Kazakhstan please 
confirm that there is currently in place a pu blic consultation mechanism for all draft EEC 
SPS measures?   
Answer: 
It should be noted that the CU Commission Decision No. 625 is still in force. The only change that 
was introduced is revocation of the Regulation on Coordination Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary  and Phytosanitary Measures approved by CU 
Commission Decision No. 625 (Paragraph 1), which was later replaced by the Regulation on 
Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and 
Phytosanitary Measures, approved by the EEC Co llegium Decision No. 161 of 18 September 2012. 
The EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 provides for the public consultation mechanism for draft SPS 
measures developed within the CU framework. 
The CU Commission Decision No. 801 was replaced by the Regulation on the Uniform Procedure of 
Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Application of Sanitary, 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures adopted by EEC Collegium Decision No. 212 of 
6 November 2012.  
__________