RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1  
 
24 September 2013  
(13-5134) Page: 1/45  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
Addendum 
 The following submission, dated 16 September 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.3/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
-  Sanitary and Phytosani tary Measures ..................................................................... 3  
(a) Legislative Fra mework ............................................................................................ 3  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products ........... 5  
(c) Development of Technical Regulation s/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 6  
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control .......................................................... 8  
-  (i) Veterinary ce rtificates ........................................................................................ 9  
-  (ii) Establishment Approval, Registry and In spection ........................................... 13  
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control .................................................. 32  
(f) Protection of Human Hea lth .................................................................................. 35  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agre ement ............................................................................................. 36  
-  (i) Harmonization with Internat ional Standards and Norm s ................................. 36  
-  (ii) Risk As sessment ............................................................................................. 39  
(h) Transparen cy ........................................................................................................ 41  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  The following comments and questions relate to the draft SPS Chapter of the Working Party 
Report, in document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3. 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Question 1 
Throughout the text: please update all CU  web-links to take into account the new 
CU website.  Could you clarify where on the new CU website interested parties can find 
draft SPS CU Decisions submitted to public consultation?  Are the texts published on 
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/docs/p rojects/Lists/List/AllItems.aspx those 
open for public consultation? 
Answer: 
The web links in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 have been updated to the new EEC website links.  
The remaining links throughout the text will be re gularly updated upon their transfer to the EEC 
website.  Texts open for public consultation since the launch of the new EEC website are currently available at the following web link: 
http://www.eurasiancommission.org/r u/act/texnreg/depsanmer/publ/P ages/default.aspx.  At the 
same time, draft SPS CU Decisions submitted for pu blic consultation before the launch of the new 
web site can be found at the old CU website at the following web-link:  
http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregula tion/Pages/Publichnoe.aspx.  
(a) Legislative Framework 
Question 2 In paragraphs 1-4, we note that these paragr aphs will need to be updated to reflect any 
new decisions and amendments taken by the EEC  before the Working Party is concluded.  
We ask Kazakhstan to continue to pr ovide updates for the EEC decisions. 
We note that EEC launched its new website: www.eurasiancommission.org. 
Can Kazakhstan provide some information ab out this website?  Does it replace 
www.tsouz.ru?  Will all CU/EEC Regulations in cluding amendments be published at new 
website?  If yes, we ask Kazakhstan to update all of the links in the text. 
Answer: 
Paragraphs 1-4 have been updated to reflect any new decisions and amendments taken by the 
EEC.  
The www.tsouz.ru will be gradually replaced by the new website www.eurasiancommission.org. 
The new EEC website is still under construction , thus, the old website www.tsouz.ru is still 
operational.  All the documents published at the www.tsouz.ru will be grad ually shifted to the new 
www.eurasiancommission.org website.   The links in the SPS text will be change d accordingly. 
Eventually, all CU/EEC Regulations, including amendments, will be available at the new website. 
Question 3 Paragraph 5:  We suggest adding a we b address for the link adopted technical 
regulations (as you have in paragraphs 2-4). 
Answer: 
The following link for adopted technical regulations have been added in paragraph 5:  
http://www.eurasiancommission.org /ru/act/texnreg/deptexreg/tr/P ages/tecnicalreglament.aspx. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Question 4 
Paragraph 3 mentions that a consolidated ve rsion of CU Decision No. 317 can be found 
on the CU website.  Concerning the CU common veterinary requirements, the page http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techre gulation/vetmeri/Documents/ Ед.вет.треб .%20с%20из
мен.%2025.12.12.pdf mentions that it contains  the amendment adopted by CU Decision 
No. 830 in the title, however the table of veterinary measures adopted under CU Decision No. 830 is not included as an Annex to this consolidated text.   
- Could you clarify if and when this will be rectified? 
Answer: 
The Table of Veterinary Measures adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 830 is included to the 
CU Common Veterinary Requirements as an Annex.  The reference to this Annex can be found in 
the text in the first sentence of the Article "General Provisions" of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements (one should click on the word "Anne x" in order to be redirected to the table).   
Question 5 
Kazakhstan has explained that  the table of veterinary measures adopted in Annex to 
CU Decision No. 830 is applicable only for goods imported into the CU.   
- Could you quote the legal basis stating that this is the case?   
- Could you clarify what veterinary measur es are applicable for circulation within 
the CU and the legal basis specifying this?   
We suggest that these clarificatio ns are included in the SPS text. 
Answer: 
As stated in the Article "General Provisions" of the CU Common Veterinary Requirements " The 
goods subject to veterinary control imported  to the customs territory of the Customs 
Union  are subject to regulatory measures indicated in the Annex to these Requirements ". 
As for goods moving from the territory of one CU Party to the territory of another 
CU Party,  in accordance with the Article "General Provisions" they: 
- shall be accompanied by a veterinary certificate of a common CU form issued by the 
competent authority of the exporting CU Party;  
- shall be imported from the establishments included into the Register of Establishments and 
Persons that Produce, Process and(or) Store Goods Moving from the Territory of one CU Party to the Territory of another CU Party.    
- do not require permits issued by the competent authorities of the CU Parties.  
Question 6 Paragraph 6:  Could you clarify if the le gal text mentioned at the EPPO website 
(http://www.eppo.int/ABOUT_EPPO/EPPO_MEM BERS/countries/animation/kazakhstan
.htm) is an amendment to Government Resolution No. 1295?  If it is the case, we 
suggest that this amendment is mentioned in paragraph 6. 
Answer: 
The Government Resolution No. 1351 of 11 Septembe r 2009 published on the EPPO web site is an 
amendment to Government Resolution No. 1295 of 10 December 2002.  Paragraph 6 has been updated to reflect the amendment.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
Question 7 Paragraph 9:  We thank Kazakhstan for provid ing clarifications of the EEC's role in the 
development of SPS measures, and on the decision making process within the EEC, 
specifically regarding the time it takes from the development of a measure to the 
measures adoption (document JOB/ACC/30/R ev.2/Add.1 - Question 5).  In the last 
paragraph Kazakhstan states:  "Currently, the fixed time-frame – no less 60 days – is 
established only for public consultations on SPS measures.  The length of the other 
stages of the process of development and a pproval of SPS legal acts depends on the 
time required for reaching a consensus by all CU Parties".  Can Kazakhstan add this 
clarification to paragraph 9 of the SPS text?  
In fourth sub-bullet, Kazakhstan states:  Af ter the process of public consultation, all 
comments and questions were discussed within  the working group.  The Department of 
the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Meas ures within ten days after expiration of 
the public consultation period compiled a summary table of comments and answers and 
published it on the official CU website.  A final revision of the draft document was 
discussed and approved by the working gr oup and submitted to the Consultative 
Committee. 
Can Kazakhstan confirm that published su mmary table will include the results of 
consultation?  We note that a table with received comments is currently published for 
amendments to veterinary re quirements (4 March 2013), but without conclusion from 
the Customs Union.  Can Kazakhstan prov ide a time frame when feedback will be 
published? 
Answer: 
Paragraph 9 will be updated to include the clarific ation from the Answer to Question 5 of document 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1. 
Kazakhstan confirms that the published summary tables will include answers to the comments 
received during the public consultations.  The summary table of comments to the draft EEC act On 
amendments into the Common Veterinary Requirements to the goods subject to veterinary control (published on 4 March 2013), currently available at the http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulati on/Pages/Publichnoe.aspx, now incl udes results of the public 
consultations.   
Question 8 Paragraph 9:  We suggest to clarify that the publication of the compiled summary of 
questions and answers is a new procedure, implemented by virtue of EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 31 of 5 March 2013 (in force since 5 April 2013).  
We ask that our comments on the draft CU Technical Regulations for meat and meat 
products, fish and fishery products, feed an d feed additives, milk and milk products, 
submitted in 2011 during the process of pub lic consultation, are answered and reflected 
in the final version of these texts.  We have  seen that the draft TR for meat and dairy 
have recently been adopted by the EEC Co llegium and submitted for adoption to the 
Council.  Do these versions take our comments into account? 
A Member has concerns that Kazakhstan imp osed restrictions due to the Schmallenberg 
virus, which is not an OIE listed disease, while Kazakhstan has not demonstrated that, 
based on surveillance data, it is free from th is disease.  The previous Kazakh answer 
mentioning a lack of data does not ex empt Kazakhstan from the obligation to 
demonstrate that its territory is free from the disease.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Answer: 
1. Kazakhstan will clarify in the text in pa ragraph 9 that the publication of the compiled 
summary of questions and answers is a new proced ure, implemented by virtue of EEC Collegium 
Decision No. 31 of 5 March 2013 (in force since 5 April 2013).   
2. Comments to the draft technical regulations on meat and meat products, fish and fishery 
products, feed and feed additives, milk and milk products, submitted in 2011 during the process of public consultations, have been taken into account when drafting these technical regulations.  
Kazakhstan has prepared summary table of comm ents submitted in 2011 on technical regulations 
for meat and dairy products with answers to these comments and will provide it to the relevant WTO Members.  Kazakhstan is in the process of preparing the summary table of comments received in 2011 and answers to them for technical regulations on feed and feed additives and fish 
and fishery products. 
New comments have been received for technical regulations on feed and feed additives and fish 
and fishery products from WTO Members.  These comments have been sent to the CU Parties for 
their further discussion.  They will be considered and taken into account when preparing the final 
drafts of these technical regulations.  
3. Schmallenberg is a new disease that was first identified in the second half of 2011.  
Currently, there is no sufficient scientific data avai lable on the disease, including the routes of its 
transmission among animals, and there are no  methods for prevention of the disease and 
treatment of animals.  The research on this di sease is still continues. Thus, for example, in 
February 2013, the OIE updated recommendations with regard to Schmallenberg disease that 
tightened conditions for the importation of semen of cattle and small cattle from infected areas in 
connection with the discovery of additional ways of transmitting the Schmallenberg virus.  
Taking into account the absence of sufficient scientific information, the CU has imposed temporary 
restrictions in connection with Schmallenberg virus.  The measure was introduced in compliance 
with Article 5.7. SPS Agreement which stipulates that in cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the basis of 
available pertinent information, including that from the relevant international organizations as well 
as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other Members.  
It should also be mentioned that some WTO memb ers have also imposed temporary restrictions on 
imports from EU countries with regard to Sc hmallenberg disease for the same reasons.  
Schmallenberg is an exotic disease for Kazakhstan and has historically never been detected at its 
the territory.  Kazakhstan has not been conducting surveillance for Schmallenberg due to its recent discovery.  Currently, it is planned to start surveillance programme for Schmallenberg in the 
country. 
(c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS 
Question 9 
Paragraph 20:  In Question 9 of Q&A docu ment JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan 
informed that all CU technical regulations listed in EEC Council Decision No. 103 will be 
subject to the 60 days public consultati on procedure except for draft technical 
regulations that have been previously pu blished for public consultations under the 
Schedule for Development of First Priority Technical Regulations of the Customs Union 
adopted by the CU Commission Decision No.492 of 8 December 2010, namely: "On Meat 
and Meat Products", "On Fish and Fish Prod ucts", "On Feed and Feed Additives", "On 
Milk and Milk Products".  These techni cal regulations have undergone public 
consultations procedure in 2011 – 2012 an d are currently under internal approval 
procedures.  
We note that we submitted in 2011 comments on the above-mentioned draft 
CU Technical Regulations for: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  - On Meat and Meat Products – to Kazakhstan 27 July 2011; 
- On Fish and Fish Products – CU Commission 8 November 2011; - On Feed and Feed Additives – to Kazakhstan 8 August 2011; - On Milk and Milk Products – to the Russian Federation 17 August 2011.  
We would like to note that the draft of Te chnical Regulation of the Customs Union on 
safety milk and milk products was not open for public comments but was simply 
announced that it would use the EurAsEc draf t TR of 2010 as CU TR.  We provided our 
comments in August 2011. 
In 2011, we also submitted comments on TR s for Food Safety, Oil and Fats, Grains, 
Alcohol and Food Labelling.   
We also would like to note that the Russian Fe deration has notified some of these TR to 
WTO's SPS and TBT Committees, so we will also submit its comments again for: 
G/SPS/N/RUS/18 - G/TBT/N/RUS/4:  Meat and Meat Products; 
G/SPS/N/RUS/19 -G/TBT/N/RUS/12:   Milk and Milk Products; 
G/SPS/N/RUS/20 - G/TBT/N/RUS/9:  Feed and Feed Additives; and 
G/SPS/N/RUS/21 - G/TBT/N/RUS/15:  Fish and Fish Products (G/SPS/N/RUS/21) – sent on 21 May 2013 to EEC; 
- Can Kazakhstan confirm comments rece ived from Members will be reviewed, 
answered and reflected in the fi nal versions of the texts?  
Answer: 
Comments to the draft technical regulations su bmitted in 2011 during the process of public 
consultations, have been taken into account when drafting these technical regulations.  
Prior to the adoption of the EEC Council Decision  No. 48 of 20 June 2012, CU procedures did not 
provided for publication of answers to comments received during the public consultations.  In this 
regard, answers to comments received in 2011 have not been published.  
At the WTO Member's request, Kazakhstan has prepared summary table of comments submitted 
in 2011 on technical regulations for meat and dairy products with answers to these comments and 
will provide it to the relevant WTO Members.  Kazakhstan is in the process of preparing the 
summary table of comments received in 2011 and answers to them for technical regulations on 
feed and feed additives and fish and fishery products. 
New comments have been received for technical regulations on feed and feed additives and fish 
and fishery products from WTO Members.  These comments have been sent to the CU Parties for 
their further discussion.  They will be reviewed, answered and taken into account when preparing 
the final drafts of these technical regulations.  
Question 10 
Paragraph 26, second sentence states:  The representative responded that the EEC had 
responsibility for establishing specific prod uct requirements, except in the area of 
phytosanitary requirements.  Second se ntence from bottom states:  Thus, the 
competence for phytosanitary requirements  would be transferred from national 
authorities to the EEC Collegium. 
- Can Kazakhstan explain who will be re sponsible for the development of common 
phytosanitary requirements for the Cu stoms Union?  Would it be the EEC 
Collegium?  
Answer: 
The CU Parties are responsible for developing CU common phytosanitary requirements.  
The requirements then will be adopted by the EEC Collegium.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Question 11 
Paragraph 28:  Has the plan of harmonisatio n at CU level in the phytosanitary sector, 
adopted by CU Decision No. 454, been updated? 
Answer: 
The plan of priority actions adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 454 has not been 
implemented fully.  In particular, the CU Co mmon List of Quarantine Organisms and Common 
Phytosanitary Requirements have not been adopted yet. No new plan of priority actions has been 
adopted yet at the CU level.   
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control Question 12 Paragraph 33:  We are extremely concerned wi th EEC amendments to the Regulation of 
Joint Inspection, CU Decision No. 834.  The first CU Draft was published on 
1 February 2013.  We submitted extensive comments on 29 March 2013 but only few were taken into consideration in the second  draft published on 10 April 2013.  However, 
the 10 April draft was withdrawn from the CU  website with new version published on 
8 May 2013.  
We remain concerned with proposed change s, in particular with addition of 
paragraph 179 in Decision No. 834 in the final provisions which would require 
favourable audit before the trade in products  that do not require listing/inspection is 
allowed.  We are also significantly concerned that the new provision allows one CU Party 
to impose restrictions for the entire CU with out the consent of all CU Parties.  However, 
the consensus from all CU Parties is required when the CU accepts guarantees and 
approves establishments.  We consider the disparity between the procedure to accept 
guarantees and impose restriction to be  contrary to the principles of the 
WTO Agreements.  We asked Kazakhstan to  take into consideration the comments 
received on 29 March 2013.  
We also are very concerned that listing ba sed on guarantees as stipulated in the 
CU Decision No. 834 is not functioning within the Customs Union. 
Answer: 
1. The last public consultation on draft amendm ents to CU Decision No. 834 have been closed 
on 12 July 2013.  All the comments received during three public consultations periods have been 
reviewed recently at the EEC working group m eeting.  Summary table with comments received 
during the second public consultation (from 10 April) currently published at the EEC website with replies.  Comments received during last public consultation were reviewed at the EEC working 
group meeting on 8-9 August.  Almost all comments were taken into account and included into the 
draft.  Summary table on those comments will be published in September 2013.   
2. Paragraph 179 has been included into the dr aft amendments to Decision No. 834 in order to 
establish a provisional measure that can be applied for imports of products subject to veterinary 
control pending the audit results.   
CU Decisions No. 830 and No. 834 have been adopted in  the result of negotiations on accession of 
the Russian Federation to the WTO.  Prior to Russian Federation's accession into the WTO the 
authorised body of the Russian Federation has sent a letter to the WTO Members with the 
description of the provisional measure that will be applied pending the audit of foreign official 
system of control.  Paragraph 179 was included into the draft with the aim to envisage this 
provisional measure and link CU Decisions No. 830 and No. 834. 
However, taking into account comments receiv ed from interested parties during public 
consultation, paragraph 179 has been excluded from the draft amendments to CU Decision 
No. 834.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3. Consensus of all three CU Parties when accept ing guarantees is required because CU Parties 
make this decision based on the comprehensive analysis that includes assessment of trade experience of each CU Party with the exporting country.  
At the same time, temporary suspension of import s from an establishment is introduced based on 
the prescriptive criteria stipulated in 
paragraph 164  of the Regulation on Joint Inspection.  
In accordance with these criteria, temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment are not imposed automatically.  They can be imposed only at the request of a third country or in case of 
repeated identification of non-compliances, which are notified to the competent authority of the 
exporting country and which pose significant risk to human and animal life and health. 
Prior to introducing the temporary suspension of imports CU Parties apply consistent measures, 
such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special requirements, such as application of 
additional or replacement measures, in order not to stop exports from such establishments.  
Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on identification of repeated violations of the CU requirements and based on risk assessment and th ey do not contradict principles and spirit of 
the SPS Agreement.   
Following the EEC working group meeting in August  2013 it was decided to exclude from the draft 
amendments to Decision No. 834 the provision, in  accordance with which restriction of imports 
from an establishment imposed by one CU Party automatically applies to the entire CU territory.  
CU Parties agreed that it was necessary to develop and establish a certain mechanism within the CU for making coordinated decisions when imposing suspensions of imports into the CU territory. 
- (i) Veterinary certificates 
Question 13  
P a r a g r a p h  3 7 :   I n  t h e  l a s t  s e n t e n c e  K a z a khstan stated "The Representative of 
Kazakhstan also added that the CU Party that received a request from a third country to 
initiate the negotiation on veterinary certif icates, or the EEC, if the third country had 
sent its request to it, was responsible for co ordinating the certific ate negotiations and 
CU Parties' negotiating positions, as well as  preparation and provision of feedback on 
third countries' proposals and requests regarding veterinary certificates". 
We thank Kazakhstan for providing clarificatio n, but continue to have concerns not only 
with the process for negotiating new CU ce rtificates but also with the substance.  
On process for example, there is excessive time required for the CU to review proposals 
a n d  s e n d  f e e d b a c k  t o  i n t e r e s t e d  M e m b e r s .   J u s t  a s  i m p o r t a n t ,  w i t h  r e g a r d  t o  t h e  
substance, the CU appears to seek to maintain restrictive animal health disease attestations despite OIE requirements or the exporting country's animal health status.  
Can Kazakhstan explain the timing of EEC coordination of CU Parties' negotiating 
positions and time-frame established within the Customs Union to provide feedback on 
third countries' proposals?  
Answer: 
When negotiating veterinary certificates, Kazakhstan considers epizootic status of an exporting 
country and OIE recommendations.  
Coordination of certificates negotiations current ly takes time because CU Parties have received 
large number of applications from third countries and have limited financial and human resources.  
Moreover, bilateral CU veterinary certificates with third countries shall be agreed by the authorised 
bodies of all CU Parties on the basis of cons ensus and the competent authority of the third 
country.  Thus, in cases when there are disagreements between the CU Parties on some issues, 
the negotiations may be delayed pending consensus between the CU Parties.  There is no certain 
time-frame established within the Customs Union to  provide feedback on third countries' proposals 
on veterinary certificates taking into account hum an and financial resources of the CU Parties.  
It should be noted that pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 6 of "Final and Transitional Provisions" of 
Common Veterinary Requirements, veterinary certificates negotiated before establishment of the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  CU remain in force until enforcement of new veterinary certificates currently being negotiated, 
provided that the substantiated application had been submitted prior to 1 January 2013.  
Question 14  Paragraph 39:  In Question 20 of docume nt JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan 
stated "Currently, systematic work on harmonization of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements and certificates with the OIE recommendations has been completed.  The CU Parties continue to analyze the Comm on Veterinary Requirements in order to 
identify areas for further improvement and alignment with international standards".  
We would like to note that we have submitted detailed comments on CU common 
veterinary requirements throughout 2011 – 2013.  
We note that from our perspective, further harmonization with the international 
standards, particularly the OIE appears to be  necessary.  As an example, on 7 May 2013, 
we submitted on EEC Collegium Decision on amendments to the Common veterinary 
(veterinary and sanitary) requirements, adop ted by the Decision of the Customs Union 
(CU) Commission No. 317 as of 18 June 2010 pu blished on 4 March 2013.  We note that 
our comments have been published in "Summary reviews the draft document" but without EEC's conclusion after consideration.  Can you confirm that your conclusions will 
be published and within what time-frame?  We request that further harmonization work 
be completed.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that answers to the comments received during the public consultation on the 
amendments into the CU Common Veterinary Re quirements, including the reasons for such 
answers, will be published at the EEC websit e (within the summary table of comments).  
The summary table of comments was published without CU Party's conclusion due to the technical 
problems and short period of time available for preparing conclusions on received comments 
established by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 31.  In order to address this problem Kazakhstan 
proposed to amend Decision No. 31 with the vi ew of extending the time-frame for providing 
feedback on the comments received during public consultations from 10 to 30 days. 
For conducting further harmonization work in the field of veterinary, Kazakhstan has initiated the 
creation of a special CU expert group.  The expert group will analyze the CU Common Veterinary 
Requirements on their compliance with international standards on a permanent basis. 
Question 15  
Paragraph 40:  According to this paragrap h, based on the Commission Decision No. 726 
of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", ve terinary certificates between exporting 
countries and Kazakhstan would be valid for import into the territory of the 
Customs Union if exporting country submit  substantiated request to negotiate new 
veterinary certificate with the Customs Unio n, in which case, the certificates remain 
valid until negotiations for new certificates are completed.  
However, recently, Kazakhstan has impose d additional requirements for certain 
products, requirements that are not included in our bilateral certificate.  In addition, 
these requirements are not CU requirements.  Kazakhstan has stated that these are new 
Kazakh requirements.  This raises several questions.  One, under what authority does Kazakhstan institute new veterinary requir ements given that the CU has competence 
over veterinary requirements?  Two, what  is the scientific basis for these new 
requirements?  We would also point out that  these requirements were not officially 
notified to the exporting country competen t authority nor were they presented in a 
manner to minimize trade disruption.  Thes e actions call into question Kazakhstan's 
commitment to the basic tenets of the SPS agreement. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  We would like to see a confirmation fr om Kazakhstan that Kazakhstan would: 
- follow bilateral agreements as stipulated in the CU Decision No. 726; 
- avoid arbitrary, unexpected and unannounc ed changes to veterinary diagnostic 
requirements for animal imports; 
- engage in international trade on a consis tent, dependable and scientific basis; and 
- implement a systematic means of estab lishing science-based veterinary health 
requirements. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that it would follow bilateral veterinary certificates in accordance with  
Decision No. 726 and OIE recommendations when importing products subject to veterinary control.  At the same time, due to the increased incidence of importation of infected cattle and 
registration of exotic diseases during the quaranti ne of imported cattle, Kazakhstan was forced to 
introduce provisional veterinary measures.  These measures are aimed at enhancing responsibility of foreign trade partners with regard to high risks associated with trade in live animals and 
excluding unfair suppliers.  Within Kazakhstan briefings with the participation of representatives of 
embassies of third countries that import live animals to Kazakhstan have been held.  Moreover, in the framework of the 81
st session of the OIE a number of meetings have been held with the 
representatives of veterinary services of Austra lia, US, Hungary, Canada, EU with regard to 
application of these measures.  
Question 16  Paragraph 41:  In Question 21 of docume nt JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan 
stated that "Kazakhstan has not received an y requests from this Member on bilateral 
certificates.  The EEC experts could organize  and coordinate the negotiation process.  
Moreover, the EEC experts could provide th eir recommendations.  When negotiating 
veterinary certificates the CU Parties follo w international standards, unless scientific 
justification for a more stringent standard is provided". 
We note again that our substantive concern is the lack of Customs Union response and 
that the Customs Union does not appe ar willing to deviate from CU common 
requirements to agree on less stringent bila teral certification provisions or provide 
scientific justification for more stringent measures.  
Answer: 
According to CU Decision No. 726, third countries can send the request to one of the CU Parties or 
the EEC and one of them will coordinate the nego tiating process. At the same time this request 
can be sent to all CU Parties and the EEC.   
Bilateral CU veterinary certificates with third countries shall be agreed by the authorised bodies of 
all CU Parties on the basis of consensus and the competent authority of the third country.  Thus, in cases when there are disagreements between the CU  Parties on some issues, the negotiations may 
be delayed pending consensus between the CU Parties.  During the process of negotiations on 
veterinary certificates CU Parties follow international principles and standards.  It should be noted that the OIE provides several options for import  of certain goods and during the process of 
negotiations CU Parties discuss which option is more acceptable for particular product.   
Question 17  
Paragraph 44:  We have concerns with some of the proposed changes to this 
commitment paragraph.  We will continue to work with Kazakhstan and other interested 
Members to find agreeable text. One of the main concerns is in the fourth sentence 
states "In accordance with the OIE code, in  cases where at least one, but not all, 
CU Parties had in place in the relevant territory either a control or eradication 
programme for a disease, or surveillance programme demonstrating that the disease 
was not present, veterinary attestations fo r that disease would only be required for 
goods destined to the CU Party(ies) having the relevant programme in place.]  Based on JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  our experiences, the CU seeks to implement disease free attestations where only one 
CU Party has surveillance in place.  Moreover , no risk assessments have been provided 
to justify the measures. 
Answer: 
The proposed addition of Kazakhstan into the draft commitment text is in line with paragraph 2 
Article 5.1.2 OIE Code which reads as follows: 
"The international veterinary certificate should not include requirements for the exclusion of 
pathogens or animal diseases which are present in the importing country and are not subject to 
any official control programme.  The measures impo sed on imports to manage the risks posed by a 
specific pathogen or disease should not require a hi gher level of protection than that provided by 
measures applied as part of the official co ntrol programme operating within the importing 
country". 
We consider that CU is "a country" within the meaning of Article 5.1.2. OIE Code for the following 
reasons: 
- there are no cross-border veterinary chec ks in mutual trade between CU Parties; 
- goods are accompanied by the veterinary ce rtificates of the unified form, which are 
recognized by all veterinary inspectors within the CU; 
- the same rules apply in trade between CU Parties and trade within different regions within 
one CU Party.  
Therefore, pursuant to Article 5.1.2. OIE Code, CU Parties when negotiating common veterinary 
certificate with third country can require exclusion of pathogens or animal diseases if there is an 
official control programme in any CU Party.  Subsequently, imported goods accompanied with a 
common veterinary certificate may freely circulate within the CU without additional requirements, inter alia when goods were initially imported into one CU Party and later moved to the territory of 
another CU Party. 
If CU is not "a country" within the meaning of Ar ticle 5.1.2. OIE Code, then an importing country 
would have to negotiate individual veterinary certificates with each CU Parties separately.    
Question 18  
Paragraph 40:  Work is still needed to achieve harmonization with OIE in the 
CU common veterinary requirements and CU common forms of certificates by the date of accession to the WTO.  What is the plan of the CU to fulfil this commitment?  For 
instance, we consider as not in line with OIE the practice by which the CU systematically 
uses the time periods recommended by OIE for a country to be considered as free as the time period for which official freedom is requ ired to allow import in the CU (e.g. if the 
OIE recommends that a country having no cases of a certain notifiable disease for 
24 months is considered free, and sets subsequent recommendations for import, both from free or not free country, the CU only re quires as condition a freedom for 24 months 
of the relevant disease).  This ignores the pr inciple of non-discrimi nation (as it supposes 
that all the CU countries are equally monito ring and have all a free status for that 
disease) and disrespects the conditions recommended by OIE for safe import of 
countries with a different status. As an other example:  The draft amendment to 
chapters 25 and 40 of the CU common vete rinary requirements, published on the 
CU website on 4 March 2013, was quoted by Ka zakhstan as an example of harmonization 
work with reference to paragraph 40.  In our view, the draft published on 4 March 2013 
is still not in line with OIE on a number of  points, which we will detail in specific 
comments to the CU on this draft. 
Answer: 
Harmonization of the CU Common Veterinary Requirements launched in 2011 was conducted in 
close cooperation with the competent authorities of major WTO members exporting to the CU market.  This work had been completed by the end of 2012. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Taking into account comments from WTO Members, Kazakhstan has initiated the creation of a 
CU expert group which will analyze the CU vete rinary requirements on their compliance with 
international standards.  
Moreover, interested third countries may send  their comments to the CU Common Veterinary 
Requirements indicating certain requirements that should be further harmonized with international 
standards in accordance with EEC Colleg ium Decision No. 212 of 6 November 2012.  
Question 19  
Paragraph 44:  The penultimate sentence is proposed in 2 different bracketed versions. 
We believe that the first vers ion is the correct one, and is in the line with OIE.  
The second one is not in line with OIE as it could allow e.g. Kazakhstan to request veterinary attestations from an exporting country for a disease for which there is no 
programme in place in Kazakhstan but there is a programme in place in Belarus.  This is 
not in line with OIE.  Referring to Kazakhstan's previous comment that the CU should be considered as one country, we do not believe th at it is appropriate to consider the CU as 
one country in this case, since animal health  official control programmes differ from one 
CU country to another (e.g. CU Commissi on Decision No. 455 of 18 November 2010 
provides for 3 lists of dangerous and qu arantine animal diseases, one for each 
CU country).  However, even if the CU would be considered as one entity, the official 
veterinary attestation can only  be required when the goods are destined to the part of 
this entity where the programme is applied. 
Answer: 
The proposed addition of Kazakhstan into the draft commitment text is in line with paragraph 2 
Article 5.1.2 OIE Code which reads as follows: 
"The international veterinary certificate should not include requirements for the exclusion of 
pathogens or animal diseases which are present in the importing country and are not subject to 
any official control programme.  The measures impo sed on imports to manage the risks posed by a 
specific pathogen or disease should not require a hi gher level of protection than that provided by 
measures applied as part of the official co ntrol programme operating within the importing 
country". 
We consider that CU is "a country" within the meaning of Article 5.1.2. OIE Code for the following 
reasons: 
- there are no cross-border veterinary chec ks in mutual trade between CU Parties; 
- good are accompanied by the veterinary certificates of the unified form, which are 
recognized by all veterinary inspectors within the CU; 
- the same rules apply in trade between CU Parties and trade within different regions within 
one CU Party.  
Therefore, pursuant to Article 5.1.2. OIE Code, CU Parties when negotiating common veterinary 
certificate with third country can require exclusion of pathogens or animal diseases if there is an 
official control programme in any CU Party.  Subsequently, imported goods accompanied with a common veterinary certificate may freely circulate within the CU without additional requirements, inter alia  when goods were initially imported into one CU Party and later moved to the territory of 
another CU Party. 
If CU is not "a country" within the meaning of Ar ticle 5.1.2. OIE Code, then an importing country 
would have to negotiate individual veterinary certificates with each CU Parties separately.   
- (ii) Establishment Approval , Registry and Inspection 
Question 20  Paragraph 47:  The second sentence states : "However, the representative noted that 
pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 [and xxx of xx], the CU JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  had agreed to remove certain veterinary control measures for specific goods in order to 
minimize the overlapping of control mechanisms. 
In December 2012, we submitted our commen ts on 9 October 2012 draft amendment to 
uniform veterinary-sanitary requirements approved by the CU Decision No. 317.  
Can Kazakhstan provide an update for the stat us of its amendment to the list of goods? 
Answer: 
The draft amendments to the Annex of the Comm on Veterinary Requirements approved by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 have been discussed by the CU Parties several times in order to 
address questions and comments received from interested parties during public consultations.  All comments were taken into account and approved at the EEC Working group meeting in August.  Taking into account that the amendments change measures currently applied by the 
Russian Federation, and thus, they will affect curre nt trade, it was decided to publish the revised 
draft amendment for another round of public consultations.  
Question 21  
In document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 – Ques tion 25:  Kazakhstan stated that it 
proposed to ECC to separate HS 0401 into tw o lines for milk – raw milk and processed 
milk.  Kazakshtan also noted that the EEC Council has adopted a Decision in accordance 
with which the CU Parties together with th e EEC Collegium have to develop a uniform 
position on the issue and introduce releva nt amendments into the Common Veterinary 
Requirements.  
We would like to note again that we request Kazakhstan to remove the listing 
requirement for all milk except for "raw" milk .  We seek adoption and implementation of 
this amendment prior to Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO.  
As to Kazakhstan's answer for live fish, we would like to note again that the listing of 
establishment is not required for any living organisms except for live fish (HS 0301), but 
Kazakhstan has not provided scientif ic justification for its inclusion. 
Answer: 
1. On milk products within HS 0401 
On February 2013, Kazakhstan has proposed to separate the HS 0401 into two lines - raw milk 
and processed milk, and remove the listing requ irement for processed milk.  The proposal was 
approved at the EEC working group. 
2. On live fish 
In order to find mutually acceptable solution, Kazakhstan has filed a proposal to the EEC to divide 
HS position for life fish 0301 into two positions:  1) for live fish intended for consumption as 
food; 2) live fish not intended for consumptio n as food (ornamental fish, breeding fish).  
The proposal will envisage that the listing requirement will apply only to live fish intended for consumption as food. The proposal was approved at the EEC working group in August.  
Question 22  
In document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 – Ques tion 26:  Kazakhstan stated the Draft 
amendments into the CU Decision No. 810 of 23 September 2011 were approved by the 
EEC Decision of 9 April 2013 and will be submi tted for approval at the next EEC meeting.  
Can Kazakhstan provide the number of EEC Decision of 9 April 2013?  
Kazakhstan also stated that "Draft amendmen ts to the Annex of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements approved by the CU Commi ssion Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 on 
removal of certain veterinary control me asures, have been agreed upon by the 
CU members except for amendments on processed milk products."  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  In December 2012, we submitted our commen ts on 9 October 2012 draft amendment to 
uniform veterinary-sanitary requirements approved by the CU Decision No. 317. 
- Can you confirm that our comments have been reviewed and taken into account 
upon agreement by the CU members?  When can we expect CU's feedback for our 
comments? 
Answer: 
Amendments into CU Commission Decision no. 810 have been adopted by the EEC Council 
Decision No. 33 of 16 May 2013.  
The draft amendments to the Annex of the Comm on Veterinary Requirements approved by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 have been discussed by the CU Parties several times in order to address the questions and comments received during public consultations.  All comments were 
taken into account and approved at the EEC working group meeting in August.  Taking into 
account that the amendments change measures cu rrently applied by the Russian Federation, and 
t h u s ,  t h e y  w i l l  a f f e c t  c u r r e n t  t r a d e ,  i t  w a s  d e cided to publish the revised draft amendment for 
another round of public consultations. 
Question 23  Paragraph 50:  The second sentence states:  She further noted that in accordance with 
the Common Veterinary Requirements, for seve ral products of animal origin with low 
risk, an import permit and veterinary certificate was required to indicate the name and (or) number of the establishment assigned by  the official veterinary authority of the 
exporting country.  We would agree that this is what Decision No. 830 states; however, 
this is not what CU Parties are applying. 
The CU Parties have implemented a new requ irement that requires favourable audit 
results before products of anim al origin with low risk can be imported in the CU with 
only port permit and veterinary certificate. As an example, according to the CU Decision 
No. 830, for Products used for animal feed: "Inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of the establishm ents should be indicated in the import 
permit and in the Veterinary certificate". 
However, the Customs Union continues to requ est a list of establishments for shipping 
pet food products. 
Answer: 
Pursuant to the Regulation on Joint Inspection s of Objects and Sampling of Goods Subject to 
Veterinary Control adopted by CU Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011, the basic principle used by the CU members to provide import safety is an audit of foreign official surveillance system. 
So far none of the third countries have been audite d by the CU Parties.  Products of animal origin 
for which listing is required from countries that have not been audited can be imported to the CU based on inclusion in the Register of Establishments of Third Countries. 
Currently, within most of the sectors, establishments of third countries producing different 
controlled goods have an access to the CU market based on the corresponding Register of establishments.  
Products, for which listing of establishments is now not required in accordance with Decision 
No. 830, have lost the possibility to have an access  to the CU market based on the listing into the 
Register and, at the same time, they have not ye t authorised to export based on positive audit 
results. 
Taking into account that the audit is a complex and lengthy process, in order not to stop trade, the 
CU Parties agreed to apply provisional scheme that will be applied until all CU trade partners JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  undergo audit.  Under these scheme products for which listing is not required under Decision 
No. 830, pending the audit results, can be imported to the CU based on listing of establishments.   
It should be noted that the audit of official foreign systems of control is based on international 
standards and is in line with international practice.  Many developed countries apply audit 
(approval of exporting countries) as the main condition for exporting products of animal origin to 
their territories.  Thus, in these countries products of animal origin cannot be imported to their territories before this country is included into the list of exporting countries based on audit of its 
official control system.  
Question 24  Paragraphs 52-53:  We continue to have strong reservations wi th the addition of the last 
sentence in paragraph 52 that states "T rade would then be possible for these 
commodities without listing upon favourable audit results".  We request that this 
language be removed from the text.  Decision No. 834 and Decision No. 830 do not state that audits are a pre-requisite for removing the listing requirements.  We have strong 
reservations with Kazakhstan's connectio n and interpretation of CU Commission 
Decisions Nos. 834 and 830.   
We also note that amendments to Decision No. 834 were published which did not 
resolve our concerns.  We submitted our comments on 29 March 2013, but majority of 
comments were not taken into consideration in updated draft that was published for 
public consultation on 10 April and 8 May.  
Answer: 
1. Paragraph 179 has been included into the dr aft amendments to Decision No. 834 in order to 
establish a provisional measure that can be applied for imports of products subject to veterinary control pending the audit results.   
CU Decisions No. 830 and No. 834 have been adopted in  the result of negotiations on accession of 
the Russian Federation into the WTO.  Prior to Russian Federation's accession into the WTO the authorised body of the Russian Federation has sent a letter to the WTO Members with the 
description of the provisional measure that will be applied pending the audit of foreign official 
system of control.  Paragraph 179 was included into the draft with the aim to envisage this 
provisional measure and link CU Decisions No. 830 and No. 834. 
However, taking into account comments received from  interested parties during public consultation 
paragraph 179 has been excluded from the draft amendments to CU Decision No. 834.  
2. Comments received during first two public consultations on draft amendments to Decision 
No. 834 (4 March, 10 April 2013) have been reviewed at the meeting of the EEC working group on 
"Veterinary-sanitary measures". Summary table of comments and proposals have been published 
on the EEC official website on 19 July 2013.  Th e new comments received from third countries on 
the draft notified by the Russian Federation SP S/N/RUS/14/Add.2 of 12 July (the draft published 
on 8 May 2013) were considered recently at the EEC working group meeting in August 2013 by the 
CU Parties and summary table of comments and an swers will be published at the EEC website in 
September. 
Question 25  
Paragraph 54:  We are strongly concerne d with Kazakhstan's interpretation of 
CU Commission Decision No. 834, in particul ar with Kazakhstan's addition to first 
sentence that according to Article 5 of the Decision No. 834 an audit of foreign official 
control systems was the basic principle used by  CU Parties to ensure safety of products 
subject to veterinary control. 
We are concerned with Kazakhstan's answer provided in Question 29 of document 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 that "Audit is the main mechanism of access of products of 
animal origin to the CU market, both for whic h listing of establishments is required and JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  those, for which listing are not required".  As Kazakhstan stated "Establishments can be 
listed based on audit results, or alternat ively, based on guarantees of competent 
authorities of third countries or on resu lts of joint inspections of third country 
establishments".   
We note again that the CU Commission Deci sion No. 834 outlines three possibilities for 
exporting countries' establishments to be come eligible to export to the CU: 
- through a joint inspection conducted by all CU Parties;  
- the exporting country provided guarantees to the CU that the establishment met 
the requirements of the CU; 
- a systems audit to determine if the offici al system of supervision of that third 
country was capable of providing a level of protection at least equivalent to that 
provided by CU requirements per request of the competent authorities of the third 
country.  
Answer: 
The CU Commission Decision No. 834 establishes th at audit is the main principle for ensuring 
safety of products imported into the CU.  In othe r words, to ensure safety of products of animal 
origin imported to the CU territory, they shall be imported from the countries whose official control 
systems have been audited by the CU Parties. 
The audit of official foreign control systems as pre-condition for imports does not contradict WTO 
rules and is in line with international practice.  Many developed countries apply audit (approval of exporting countries) as a main condition for exporting animals and products of animal origin to 
their territories.  Thus, in these countries animals and products of animal origin cannot be 
imported to their territories before the exporting country is included into the list of eligible exporting countries based on audit of its official control system.  
In this regard, we believe that the CU Parties,  as any other WTO Member, have a sovereign right 
to apply audit as the main condition for importing products subject to veterinary control to their territory.   
Question 26  
Paragraph 54:  We are strongly concerned with Kazakhstan's addition "At the same 
time, products, for which listing of establishm ents was not required in accordance with 
Decision No. 830, could be imported to the CU only after favourable audit results.  
Taking into account that audit was a complex and lengthy process, in order not to stop 
trade in these products, the CU Parties had agreed to apply provisional scheme that would be applied until all CU trade partne rs undergo audit.  Under these scheme 
products, for which listing was not required  under Decision No. 830, before audit was 
carried out, could be imported to the CU based on the listing of establishments.  Listing of establishments could be done based on the guarantee of third countries' competent 
authorities or joint inspections.  The listing  of establishments for such products would 
be carried out until audit was completed and th e official system of a respective third 
country was recognised as equivalent.  The CU Parties agreed to introduce relevant 
amendments into Decision No. 834.  These amendments had been published for public 
discussion on the EEC official website.   
We request that this new language be remo ved from the text.  Again, Decision No. 834 
and Decision No. 830 do not state that audits are a pre-requisite for removing the listing 
requirements.  We have strong reservat ions with Kazakhstan's connection and 
interpretation of CU Commission Decisions Nos. 834 and 830.   
We note again that amendments to Decision No. 834 were published which did not 
resolve our concerns.  We submitted our comments on 29 March 2013, but majority of 
comments were not taken into consideration in updated draft that was published for 
public consultation on 10 April and 8 May.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Answer: 
1. The CU Commission Decision No. 834 establishes that audit is the main principle for 
ensuring safety of products imported into the CU.  In other words, to ensure safety of products of animal origin imported to the CU territory, they sh all be imported from the countries whose official 
control systems have been audited by the CU Parties. 
The audit of official foreign control systems as pre-condition for imports does not contradict WTO 
rules and is in line with international practice.  Many developed countries apply audit (approval of 
exporting countries) as a main condition for exporting animals and products of animal origin to 
their territories.  Thus, in these countries animals and products of animal origin cannot be imported to their territories before the exporting country is included into the list of eligible exporting countries based on audit of its official control system.  
In this regard, we believe that the CU Parties,  as any other WTO Member, have a sovereign right 
to apply audit as the main condition for importing products subject to veterinary control to their territory.   
2. Comments received during first two public consultations on draft amendments to Decision 
No. 834 (4 March, 10 April 2013) have been reviewed at the meeting of the EEC working group on "Veterinary-sanitary measures".  Summary table of comments and proposals have been published 
on the EEC official website on 19 July 2013.  Th e new comments received from third countries on 
the draft notified by the Russian Federation SP S/N/RUS/14/Add.2 of 12 July (the draft published 
on 8 May 2013) were considered at the EEC wo rking group meeting on 8-9 August 2013 by the 
CU Parties and summary table of comments and answers will be published at the EEC website 
in September. 
Question 27  In Question 29 of document JOB/ACC/30/ Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan states that 
"Kazakhstan applies and is going to apply guarantees from comp etent authorities of 
third parties in future as one of the mechanisms for listing new establishments in accordance with Decision No. 834.  To date Kazakhstan has received requests for 
accepting guarantees from two countries and has been following all the procedures 
established in the Decision No. 834". 
- Can Kazakhstan describe procedures it fallows in accepting guarantees?  
We would like to note that we continue to have significant concerns with Customs Union 
refusal to implement CU Decision No. 834 provisions for accepting guarantees in 
practice.  We are also significantly concer ned that the CU insists that we provide 
guarantees that product meets Customs Union (CU) requirements even though 
according to the CU Decision No. 726, the trade should continue under agreed bilateral 
certificates with the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan.  
Answer: 
1. Inclusion of establishment into the regist er of third country establishments based on 
guarantees from competent authorities of third countries is carried out in accordance with paragraphs 43-44 of CU Decision No. 834.   
Authorised body of  Kazakhstan shall make decisi on on granting the competent authorities of third 
countries with the right to provide guarantees with regard to compliance of controlled goods 
produced by specific establishment (establishments) based on the following criteria: 
a. degree of development of the comp etent authority of the third country; 
b. degree of justification of guarantees gran ted by the competent authority of the third 
country; 
c. risk of entry into the territory of the th ird country and further spread of pathogens of 
infectious animal diseases, including diseases common to humans and animals; 
d. epizootic situation in the third country; JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  e. results of monitoring tests of goods subject to control imported into the Customs 
Union territory from the third country; 
f. data of monitoring of goods subject to control conducted by the competent authority 
of the third country; 
g. compliance with the requirements of the competent authority, as provided in 
paragraph 10 in respect of goods subject to control imported to the territory of the CU from the third country; 
h. results of inspections by the competent  authority of the Parties of establishments 
located in the territory of the third country. 
After making the decision on granting the right to  provide guarantee Kazakhstan's authorised body 
sends its decision with supporting materials to other CU Parties for approval.  Upon approval by 
the CU Parties a notice is send to the competent authority of the exporting country, who then 
prepares a list of establishments and sends it to the authorised body of Kazakhstan.  Kazakhstan's 
authorised body has to assess the proposal within  one month and make a decision on including the 
listed establishments into the Registry of Esta b l i s h m e n t s  o f  T h i r d  C o u n t r i e s .   I n  c a s e  o f  t w o  
requests received by Kazakhstan, the third countries have already attached the list of their establishments to the request letters.   
Currently, relevant amendments were being introduced into the Decision No. 834 in order to clarify 
and improve the procedures for accepting guar antees from competent authorities of third 
countries.   
2. The listing requirement and requirement to pr ovide veterinary certificates are two separate 
veterinary requirements and they are not intercha ngeable.  When making decision on accepting 
the guarantees from third countries, the CU Partie s take into account the requirements bilaterally 
agreed between the CU Party and third countries.   
We would like to note that import of products of animal origin based on agreed bilateral certificates 
is a transitional measure.  According to the provision of Decision No. 726 those certificates will be applicable until bilateral certificates are agreed between the CU and a third country.  In this 
regard, upon inclusion of establishment into the register of third county establishments based on 
guarantees from the competent authority of the th ird country it is necessary to provide guarantee 
of compliance with CU requirements, not national requirements. 
Question 28  
In Question 30 of document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/ Add.1, Kazakhstan stated that "Prior to 
adoption of Decision No. 834 Kazakhstan had not applied mechanism of listing of third 
country establishments based on guarantees.  The procedures for accepting guarantees 
from competent authorities of third count ries will be carried out based on the 
application by competent authority of third country in accordance with the procedures 
stipulated in CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 July 2011.  Kazakhstan confirms 
that when considering guarantees from compet ent authorities of third countries it will 
take into account history of trade with these countries".  
We are significantly concerned with Kaza khstan's response to this question.  
We strongly believe that where Kazakhstan or  other parties of the CU had in practice 
accepted the guarantees of a third country prior to the adoption of Decision No. 834, 
that these third countries would not be ex pected to start over in the process of 
accepting guarantees and taking take into  account background/historical trade of 
exporting countries and authorised establishments when accepting guarantees.  
We note again, than historically, Kazakhstan  had not maintained a register of approved 
establishments and relied on the agreed  certificates as the guarantee.  
Kazakhstan also stated that "Members comments to the draft amendments to Decision 
No. 834 have been considered by the CU Parties at the working group on veterinary and sanitary measures on 2-3 April 2013.  The draft amendments to Decision No. 834 revised taking into account comments received duri ng public consultations, including on 
guarantee mechanism, was published for another round of public consultations at the 
official EEC website on 10 April 2013". JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  We note again that majority of comme nts submitted on 29 March 2013 were not 
incorporated into another round of public consultation.  In particular, we remain 
concerned with the addition of paragraph 179:  
This Member notes the contradiction of additional requirement "In accordance 
with the regulatory measures, established by the Unified veterinary requirements 
for controlled goods, imported to the cu stoms territory of the Customs Union, 
which are not subject to the listing in the Register of establishments of third 
countries, the following scheme shall apply:  "with points 1, 2, and 3 that require 
the establishment to be listed".  If an audit of a foreign official system of 
supervision was not carried out or is not comp leted, or if, as a result of such audit, 
the foreign official system of supervisio n is not recognized as being capable to 
provide a level of protection at least equiva lent to the level of protection provided 
by the CU requirements". 
This Member notes that the Russian Federation committed to eliminate the 
requirement that establishments producing certain low risk products (e.g. dairy, 
pet food) be registered with CU members prior to export.   
According to the Russian Federation's Working Party Report, paragraph 907:  
"The representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that the CU Commission 
Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 amende d CU Commission Decision No. 317 to 
specify, for each type of good included in the list of goods subject to veterinary 
control, which veterinary measures (import permits, veterinary certificates and/or 
listing of establishments) applied to that pa rticular good.  In some cases, the form 
of veterinary control had been modifi ed or eliminated.  For example, the 
requirement for veterinary certificates and/or import permits had been eliminated.  
Similarly, the requirement for an establis hment to be included in a Register had 
been eliminated or amended to require on ly the provision of the name or number 
of the final establishment dealing with the goods prior to export to the territory of 
the CU, which was included in the import permit or veterinary certificate.   
Per the Russian Federation's commitment in the Working Party Report, 
paragraph 908:  "With regard to the list of goods as set-out in Table 41, the 
representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that categories of goods would 
be added to the list of goods subject to vete rinary control or the form of veterinary 
control applied to categories of goods on the list would be modified only if such 
action was in compliance with the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment." 
In addition, per the Russian Federation's  commitment in the Working Party Report, 
paragraph 935:  "The representative of th e Russian Federation confirmed that, by 
the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the new 
Regulation, as described in the Workin g Party Report, would be applied in 
compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement,  including Article 2.3 thereof, and 
the GATT 1994.  In particular, he confirmed that the new Regulation would not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably  discriminate between Members, where identical or 
similar conditions prevail, including be tween CU Parties which were members and 
other Members, with regards to requirements for on-site inspections, including for 
purposes of determination and maintena nce of equivalence of the systems of 
control of products; and that the new Regu lation would not be applied in a manner 
which would constitute a disguised restrict ion on international trade.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment.  This Member views the new addition to the 
Regulation on Joint Inspection as an additi onal restriction on international trade.  
This Member notes that according to CU  Decision No. 830, the CU removed the 
requirement to provide the list of esta blishments exporting milk and dairy 
products (excluding raw milk and raw cream) , feed of animal origin, feed of plant 
origin, casings, gelatin, hatching e ggs, table eggs, and live animals to the 
Russian Federation (to the whole CU terri tory in the case of live animals) but 
provide veterinary certificates  and by import permits except  for feed of plant origin 
which will not be subject to veterinary cont rols.  Veterinary certificates and import JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  permits provide a more than adequate basis to continue the trade in these goods 
without audit.  
This Member also notes that on 9 October 2012 the EEC also introduced draft 
amendment to CU Decision No. 317 to remove the listing requirement per CU 
Decision No. 830 for Kazakhstan.  This Me mber requests full implementation of the 
CU Decision No. 830.   
This Member requests to delete the proposed paragraph 178 requiring an audit as 
precondition to implement the Russian Federation's commitments to the WTO, 
CU Decision No. 830, and the 9 October 2012 EEC amendment to CU Decision No. 317 as proposed requirement would hinder instead of promote trade in these goods.  
We ask Kazakhstan to reconsider comment received from us.  
Answer: 
1. Prior to the adoption of Decision No. 834, the Customs Union did not accept guarantees from 
third countries.  Some of the CU Parties have accepted guarantees on compliance with their 
national requirements in accordance with their national legislation.  This guarantee was accepted only by this particular CU Party.  
With the adoption of Decision No. 834 the legal basis for accepting guarantees by the Customs 
Union (by all three CU Parties) for compliance with the CU requirements has been established.  In this regard, all the countries wishing to be listed in the CU Register based on guarantees have to undergo the new CU procedures.   
2. Comments received during first two public consultations on draft amendments to Decision 
No. 834 (4 March, 10 April 2013) have been review ed at the meeting of the working group on 
"Veterinary-sanitary measures".  Summary table of comments and proposals have been published 
on the EEC official website on 19 July 2013.  Th e new comments received from third countries on 
the draft notified by the Russian Federation SP S/N/RUS/14/Add.2 of 12 July (the draft published 
on 8 May 2013) were considered at the working gr oup meeting by the CU Parties in August and 
summary table of comments and answers will be pu blished at the EEC website in September.   
Question 29  In Question 31 of document JOB/ACC/ 30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan stated 
"All procedures for conducting an audit are stipulated in Decision No. 834.  Currently, 
the CU Parties are preparing the uniform schedule of audits/inspections and is 
considering the issue of its publication on the official CU website".   
- Can Kazakhstan provide further details on its publication of the schedule for 
audits?  
Answer: 
Currently the requirement on annual publication is not provided in the CU legislation.  However, in 
order to provide transparency of joint inspections and audit CU Parties plan to publish the plan of 
conducting joint inspections and audits on a regu lar basis.  Kazakhstan proposed to include the 
relevant provision into Decision No. 834.  This proposal recently has been discussed at the EEC working group meeting in August.  EEC will consider publication of the semiannual schedule 
agreed by the CU Parties.   
Question 30  Paragraph 56:  We would like to note again that the list of goods as set-out in table 
would be virtually meaningless if Kazakhstan considers audits to be a pre-condition to 
removing the requirement for an establishment list.  We would like to stress again that JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  this is an issue that needs to be favourably  resolved in order for the SPS text to move 
forward. 
Answer: 
The audit of official foreign control systems as pre-condition for imports does not contradict 
WTO rules and is in line with international practice.  Many developed countries apply audit 
(approval of exporting countries) as a main condition for exporting products of animal origin to their territories.  Thus, in these countries products of animal origin cannot be imported to their 
territories before the exporting country is included into the list of eligible exporting countries based 
on audit of its official control system. 
In this regard, we believe that the CU Parties,  as any other WTO Member, have a sovereign right 
to apply audit as the main condition for importing products subject to veterinary control to their 
territory.   
Question 31  Paragraph 56:  We remain strongly concer ned with changes to sentence (line 8):  
"The addition of an establishment from any co untry to the national part of the List could 
only occur after all three CU Parties agreed  on the inclusion of the establishment".  
The Regulation on Joint Inspection allows fo r the inclusion into the register if a Party 
(singular, not Parties ) agreed to accept guarantees.  While we appreciate that the 
changes to the sentence appear to reflect the practice as it is currently being applied, 
this appears to contradict the actual langua ge and process established in the decision. 
We are concerned by Kazakhstan's answer in Question 33 of document 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 that "relevant am endments were introduced into the 
Decision No. 834 in order to clarify the procedures for accepting guarantees from 
competent authorities of third countries, including the timing for receiving the approval 
from the other CU Parties.  In particular, th e following provisions have been added into 
the Decision No. 834: 
"Upon favourable evaluation of the request on accepting the guarantee the 
authorised body of the Party prepares the final decision and sends it to the 
authorised bodies of the other CU Partie s for approval.  The time-frame for the 
approval is not more than 10 working days.  
The authorised bodies of the Parties shall approve the final decision on accepting the 
guarantee in the written form or shall se nd letter indicating the reasons for not 
approving the decision within the established time-frame.  In the absence of the written 
reply during the established time-frame the decision is deemed to be approved".   
We believe changing the legal basis to crea te more burdensome requirements during its 
accession to the WTO indicates that Kazakh stan has no intention of abiding by the 
principals and obligations outlined in the WT O Agreements.  We would like to note again 
that we submitted our comments on the EEC amendment expressing significant concern 
with new provision allows one CU Party to im pose restrictions for the entire CU without 
the consent of all CU Parties.  However, th e consensus from all CU Parties is required 
when the CU accepts guarantees and appr oves establishments.  We consider the 
disparity between the procedur e to accept guarantees and impose restriction to be 
contrary to the principles of the WTO Ag reements.  Based on updated version of 
amendment as published on 10 April and 8 May, our comments were not taken into 
consideration.  
Answer: 
It is not correct to seek for proportionality betw een the acceptance of guarantees and suspension 
of imports from establishments.  Acceptance of guarantees shall be compared with the permanent 
exclusion of an establishment from the list of establishments.  The latter can only be performed at the request of the establishment or a competent authority of an exporting country.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Consensus of all three CU Parties when accepting guarantees is required because CU Parties make 
this decision based on the comprehensive analysis that includes assessment of trade experience of each CU Party with the exporting country.  
At the same time, temporary suspension of import s from an establishment is introduced based on 
the prescriptive criteria stipulated in paragr aph 164 of the Regulation on Joint Inspection.  
In accordance with these criteria, temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment are not imposed automatically.  They can be imposed only at the request of a third country or in case of 
repeated identification of non-compliances, which are notified to the competent authority of the 
exporting country and which pose significant risk to human and animal life and health. 
Prior to introducing the temporary suspension of imports CU Parties apply consistent measures, 
such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special requirements, such as application of 
additional or replacement measures, in order not to stop exports from such establishments.  
Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on identification of repeated violations of the CU requirements and based on risk assessment and th ey do not contradict principles and spirit of 
the SPS Agreement.   
Following the EEC working group meeting in August  2013 it was decided to exclude from the draft 
amendments to Decision No. 834 the provision in accordance with which restriction of imports 
from an establishment imposed by one CU Party automatically applies to the entire CU territory.  
CU Parties agreed that it was necessary to develop and establish a certain mechanism within the CU for making coordinated decisions when imposing suspensions of imports into the CU territory.   
Question 32  
Paragraph 60:  In line 6, the representative explained that the 3 parties of the CU must 
agree to rely on guarantees for a country to be able to utilize this mechanism for 
establishment approval.  In Question 34 of document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1, 
Kazakhstan explained the process that would be used within the Customs Union per its 
amendments that are open for public cons ultation. We note that new amendment was 
published on 8 May with a comment period of  at least 60 days.  The amendments will be 
in force 30 days after it is published in its final form after the completion of the review 
of comment received during public consulta tion.  We reiterate our concerns with the 
process for accepting guarantees and with the draft amendments regarding guarantees 
that have been proposed.  In our view, the draft procedures are time consuming and 
burdensome, and are not intended  to facilitate trade.  We ask Kazakhstan to modify the 
procedures in order to streamline the mechan ism for accepting guarantees.  In answer 
to Question 29, Kazakhstan stated that it  received a request from two countries.  
Can you describe your current internal process used within the CU to coordinate the 
third country request to accept guarant ees guarantees?  Please provide more 
information on the decision making process and the timing of the current mechanism? 
Answer: 
Draft amendments into Decision No. 834 have been initiated in order to meet WTO Member's 
concern and to clarify mechanism for accepting guarantees from competent authorities of third countries (paragraphs 43-44), including time-frames for considering requests, provision of reasons 
for refusal in accepting the guarantee, terms and scope of the guarantee.   
The last public consultation on draft amendments  to CU Decision No. 834 have been closed on 
12 July 2013.  Now, all the comments received during  public consultations periods will be reviewed 
by the EEC working group and taken into account when  developing the final version of the draft.   
Currently, when considering guarantees from thir d countries Kazakhstan follows the procedures 
established in paragraphs 43-44 of the current version of Decision No. 834.  In particular, the 
authorised body of Kazakhstan makes decision on granting the competent authorities of third 
countries with the right to provide guarantees with regard to compliance of controlled goods produced by specific establishment (establishments) based on the following criteria: 
a) degree of development of the comp etent authority of the third country; JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  b) degree of justification of guarantees gran ted by the competent authority of the third 
country; 
c) risk of entry into the territory of the th ird country and further spread of pathogens of 
infectious animal diseases, including diseases common to humans and animals; 
d) epizootic situation in the third country; 
e) results of monitoring tests of goods subject to control imported into the Customs 
Union territory from the third country; 
f) data of  monitoring  of goods subject to control conducted by the competent authority 
of the third country 
g) compliance with the requirements of the competent authority, as provided in 
paragraph 10 in respect of goods subject to control imported to the territory of the CU 
from the third country 
h) results of inspections by the competent  authority of the Parties of establishments 
located in the territory of the third country  
After making the decision on granting the right to  provide guarantee Kazakhstan's authorised body 
sends its decision with supporting materials to other CU Parties for approval.  Upon approval by the CU Parties a notice is send to the competent authority of the exporting country, who then 
prepares a list of establishments and sends it to the authorised body of Kazakhstan.  Kazakhstan's 
authorised body has to assess the proposal within  one month and make a decision on including the 
listed establishments into the Registry of Esta b l i s h m e n t s  o f  T h i r d  C o u n t r i e s .   I n  c a s e  o f  t w o  
requests received by Kazakhstan, the third countries have already attached the list of their 
establishments to the request letters.   
Question 33  Paragraph 71:  In Question 36 of document  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add. 1, a Member asked 
for a confirmation that if a decision on susp ension of exports was made individually by a 
CU Party, that suspension of exports woul d be made only for the territory of the 
CU Party took the decision.  
We are significantly concerned that Kazakh stan stated that "Suspension of exports 
imposed by one CU Party were automatically effective throughout the whole CU territory 
due to the absence of internal borders betw een the CU Parties and the fact that goods 
were moving freely within the CU." 
We note that recently Belaru s imposed restrictions on Kazakhstan's poultry because of 
an outbreak of Newcastle Disease in Easter n Kazakhstan.  Did the Russian Federation 
also impose the ban on Kazakhstan's poultry? 
Answer: 
Currently CU Party's establishments are included into the Register of Establishments and Persons 
that Produce, Process and (or) Store Controlled Goods Moving from the Territory of one 
CU Member-State to the Territory of Another CU Member-state by the competent authorities of the 
CU Party, at whose territory the establishment is situated.  This is due to the fact that systems of official control of CU Parties have been recognized as equivalent in accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 833.  In case of dise ase outbreak in an establishment of a Party, the 
competent authority of this Party changes the status of this establishment to "Temporary 
suspended".  In this regard, the Russian Federation does not have to introduce additional restrictions on establishments situated in the zones with unfavourable epizootic situations of other 
CU Parties, because their status in the Register has already been changed by the competent 
authority of the relevant CU Party.   
Question 34  
Paragraph 73:  We are significantly conc erned with explanations provided by 
Kazakhstan.  In particular by the "Suspensio n of exports imposed by one CU Party were 
automatically effective throughout the whole CU territory due to the absence of internal borders between the CU Parties and the fact that goods were moving freely within the 
CU".  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  We note that this statement is not in line with  current provisions in CU Decision No. 834.  
The statement above appears to be from a draft provision that is still under public 
consultation.  In addition, this draft provis ion is controversial to several Members and 
appears contrary to the provisions of De cision No. 726 which allow for trade under 
bilateral veterinary certificates that may co ntain different requirements to continue.  
If one CU Party introduces "temporary restri ctions" based on the violations of exporting 
country bilaterally agreed requirements with that CU Party, other CU Parties should not 
have a basis to impose temporary rest rictions on the exporting country.  
We are also concerned that the new provision a llows one CU Party to impose restrictions 
for the entire CU without the consent of all CU  Parties.  However, the consensus from all 
CU Parties is required when the CU accepts guarantees and approves establishments. 
We consider the disparity between the proc edure to accept guarantees and impose 
restriction to be contrary to the principles of the WTO Agreements.  Moreover, we are concerned that that temporary re strictions are taken without regard to the actual risk of 
the alleged violation being considered.  As  such, we request that the Customs Union 
modify the mechanism to impose temporary rest rictions to ensure that these restrictions 
are based on a risk assessment.  
Answer: 
1. The provision that suspension of exports imposed by one CU Party were automatically 
effective throughout the whole CU territory has been recently withdrawn from the draft amendments into the CU Decision No. 834.  The pu blic consultations period for these amendments 
has just been closed and comments received from third countries have been considered at the EEC 
working group in August.  The results of the discussion will be published at the EEC website 
in September. 
2. It is not correct to seek for proportionality between the acceptance of guarantees and 
suspension of imports from establishments.  Accept ance of guarantees shall be compared with the 
permanent exclusion of an establishment from the list of establishments.  The latter can only be 
performed at the request of the establishment or a competent authority of an exporting country.   
Consensus of all three CU Parties when accepting guarantees is required because CU Parties make 
this decision based on the comprehensive analysis that includes assessment of trade experience of each CU Party with the exporting country.  
At the same time, temporary suspension of import s from an establishment is introduced based on 
the prescriptive criteria stipulated in paragraph 164 of the Regulation on Joint Inspection.  In accordance with these criteria, temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment are not 
imposed automatically.  They can be imposed only at the request of a third country or in case of 
repeated identification of non-compliances, which are notified to the competent authority of the exporting country and which pose significant risk to human and animal life and health. 
Prior to introducing the temporary suspension of imports CU Parties apply consistent measures, 
such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special requirements, such as application of additional or replacement measures, in order not to stop exports from such establishments.  Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on repeated violations of the CU requirements and 
they do not contradict principles and spirit of the SPS Agreement.   
Following the EEC working group meeting in August  2013 it was decided to exclude from the draft 
amendments to Decision No. 834 the provision in accordance with which restriction of imports 
from an establishment imposed by one CU Party automatically applies to the entire CU territory.  
CU Parties agreed that it was necessary to develop and establish a certain mechanism within the CU for making coordinated decisions when imposing suspensions of imports into the CU territory.   
Question 35  
P a r a g r a p h  8 1 :   W e  n o t e  K a z a k h s t a n  a dded Members concerns regarding a draft 
amendment to CU veterinary requirements th at introduced a new listing obligation for JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  establishments supplying raw materials to establishments that exported animal 
products to the CU.  
We would like to note that on 1 April 2013, we submitted our comments to this draft 
amendment to Uniform Veterinary - Sanita ry Requirements approved by Decision 
No. 317.  
We are strongly concerned with this additi on to the CU requirements that seem to 
impose additional restrictions on products th at are currently eligible for export to the 
Customs Union.  We would request the scient ific basis underpinning this requirement, 
and details regarding the scope of this measure. 
Can Kazakhstan also confirm that published summary table will include the results of 
consultation?  We would like to note that a ccording to paragraph 9, the Department of 
the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Meas ures within ten days after expiration of 
the public consultation period compiled a summary table of comments and answers and 
published it on the official CU website. 
Answer: 
Draft amendment to the CU Common Veterinary Requirements that introduced a new listing 
obligation for establishments supplying raw materials to establishments that exported animal 
products to the CU was sent for further elaboration and risk assessment. 
Question 36  Paragraph 82:  We request a clarification on the scope of products that would be 
affected by new requirements.  
Does this new requirement apply to produc ts intended for purposes other than human 
consumption? 
For example, could salted hides intended fo r use in the clothing industry only be 
exported from facilities approved to export meat to Russia?  
For example, would the chicken in chicken noodle soup need to only come from poultry 
establishments eligible to export to the Customs Union?  
We note that this appears to be an atte mpt to add an establishment list requirement 
where the list requirement has been removed, and does not appear to be consistent with 
the recommendations of the World Organi sation for Animal Health or Codex.  
In addition, in the Russian Federation's WT O obligations, the Russian Federation agreed 
to not add additional requirements unless they were based on a risk assessment. 
We note that veterinary certificates and im port permits provide a more than adequate 
basis to continue the trade in goods whic h include components of animal origin 
produced by establishments that are not regi stered with the CU.  If exported product 
meets the bilaterally agreed requirements for finished products, than that there should be no further requirements for the raw materials.  Compliance with agreed requirements 
provides safety guarantees which are propor tionate to the potential risks derived from 
commodities.  The appropriate mitigations a country should require for a processed 
product are different than those they  should require for raw materials. 
Answer: 
Draft amendment to the CU Common Veterinary Requirements  that introduced a new listing 
obligation for establishments supplying raw materials to establishments that exported animal products to the CU was sent for further elaboratio n and risk assessment.  Kazakhstan will inform 
the Working Party members of the State of CU Parties' considerations on this matter. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Question 37  
Paragraph 47, Decisions [xx] and [xx]:  We wo uld ask to be kept informed of the state 
of play of the amendment of the CU common ve terinary requirements relating to the list 
of goods subject to veterinary control and co rresponding veterinary measures applicable 
for each CN code.  We ask that our comme nts submitted in the public consultation 
process are taken into account.  In particular , we asked that only raw milk and cream be 
subjected to the establishment listing requir ement, and not processed milk and cream – 
as it is foreseen in the table of JOB/ACC/ 30/Rev.2.  We ask that live fishes are not 
subject to the establishment listing requirement. 
Concerning live fishes, we thank Kazakhstan for its previous answer explaining the CU 
reasoning for requiring the listing of estab lishments for live fish.  We understand the 
safety objectives of Kazakhstan however th e listing of fish farms by the importing 
country is not the least trade restrictive me asure to achieve these objectives.  It is 
therefore not considered to be in line with Articles 2.1 and 5.4 and 5.6 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  On this basis, we ma intain our request that live fishes are not 
subject to the listing requirement.   
Answer: 
1. On milk products within HS 0401: 
On February 2013, Kazakhstan has proposed to separate the HS 0401 into two lines- raw milk and 
processed milk, and remove the listing requirement for processed milk. The proposal has been 
recently approved by the CU working group.  
2. On live fish: 
In order to find mutually acceptable solution, Kazakhstan has filed a proposal to the EEC to divide 
HS position for life fish 0301 into two positions:  1) for live fish intended for consumption as food; 
2) live fish not intended for consumption as food  (ornamental fish, breeding fish).  The proposal 
will envisage that the listing requ irement will apply only to live fish intended for consumption as 
food.  The proposal was approved at the EEC working group in August.   
Question 38 
Paragraphs 52 and 54:  We express seriou s concern that audit is described as a 
pre-requisite for the elimination of the listing  r e q u i r e m e n t .   W e  a s k  t h a t  C U  D e c i s i o n  
No. 830 of 18 October 2012, formally in force since 22 August 2012, is applied. 
This notably includes the absence of listing requirement for certain commodities.  It has 
to be noted that this does not mean removing veterinary measures for those commodities.  We are concerned by the explanation given the second part of 
paragraph 54.  We are also concerned by a draft amendment to CU Decision No. 834 
(see next question) which would maintain the listing requirement until a successful 
audit.   
We ask that our comments to the draft amendments to CU Commission Decision No. 834 
on the audit, inspection and listing proced ures, submitted in the process of public 
consultation (draft published on the CU we bsite on 1 February 2013), are taken into 
account.  We are very concerned that th e new version of those draft amendment, 
published on the CU website on 8 May, does not take into account our comments.  We have expressed serious concerns ab out the draft amendments published.  
In particular, we asked that paragraph 179, in the final provisions , be deleted.  We 
asked for a more streamlined and effective pr ocedure for listing of establishments based 
on written guarantees as foreseen in paragraphs 43 and 44.  We are concerned by the disparity of approach between the proced ure for listing establishments based on 
guarantees, which is very cumbersome and requ ires the agreement of all CU Parties, and 
the procedure for suspension foreseen in the draft amendment, which would allow an 
immediate suspension after the decision of one CU Party, valid for the entire 
CU territory. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Answer: 
1. Paragraph 179 has been included into the dr aft amendments to Decision No. 834 in order to 
establish a provisional measure that can be applied for imports of products subject to veterinary control pending the audit results.   
CU Decisions No. 830 and No. 834 have been adopted in  the result of negotiations on accession of 
the Russian Federation into the WTO.  Prior to Russian Federation's accession into the WTO the authorised body of the Russian Federation has sent a letter to the WTO Members with the 
description of the provisional measure that will be applied pending the audit of foreign official 
system of control.  Paragraph 179 was included into the draft with the aim to envisage this 
provisional measure and link CU Decisions No.
 830 and No. 834. 
However, taking into account comments received from  interested parties during public consultation 
paragraph 179 has been excluded from the draft amendments to CU Decision No. 834.  
2. Comments received during first two public consultations on draft amendments to Decision 
No. 834 (4 March, 10 April 2013) have been reviewed at the meeting of the EEC working group on 
"Veterinary-sanitary measures".  Summary table of comments and proposals have been published 
on the EEC official website on 19 July 2013.  Th e new comments received from third countries on 
the draft notified by the Russian Federation SP S/N/RUS/14/Add.2 of 12 July (the draft published 
on 8 May 2013) were considered at the EEC working group meeting in August 2013 by the 
CU Parties and summary table of comments and an swers will be published at the EEC website in 
September. 
3. It is not correct to seek for proportionality between the acceptance of guarantees and 
suspension of imports from establishments.  Accept ance of guarantees shall be compared with the 
permanent exclusion of an establishment from the list of establishments.  The latter can only be performed at the request of the establishment or a competent authority of an exporting country.   
Consensus of all three CU Parties when accepting guarantees is required because CU Parties make 
this decision based on the comprehensive analysis that includes assessment of trade experience of each CU Party with the exporting country.   
At the same time, temporary suspension of import s from an establishment is introduced based on 
the prescriptive criteria stipulated in paragraph 164 of the Regulation on Joint Inspection.  In accordance with these criteria, temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment are not imposed automatically.  They can be imposed only at the request of a third country or in case of 
repeated identification of non-compliances, which are notified to the competent authority of the 
exporting country and which pose significant risk to human and animal life and health. 
Prior to introducing the temporary suspension of imports CU Parties apply consistent measures, 
such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special requirements, such as application of 
additional or replacement measures, in order not to stop exports from such establishments.  Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on identification of repeated violations of the 
CU requirements and based on risk assessment and th ey do not contradict principles and spirit of 
the SPS Agreement.   
Following the EEC working group meeting in August  2013, it was decided to exclude from the draft 
amendments to Decision No. 834 the provision in accordance with which restriction of imports 
from an establishment imposed by one CU Party automatically applies to the entire CU territory.  
CU Parties agreed that it was necessary to develop and establish a certain mechanism within the CU for making coordinated decisions when imposing suspensions of imports into the CU territory. 
Question 39  
Paragraph 57:  The web-link for the Kazakh na tional list of establishments authorised 
for import into the CU does not work.  Could you correct the link? JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Answer: 
The Kazakhstan's national list of establishments authorised for import into the CU is available at 
the web-link http://mgov.kz/veterinarnaya-bezopasnost/ under section Veterinary and Sanitary Measures of the Customs Union.  
Question 40  
Paragraph 59:  We ask to delete "excep t for live fish" (see previous comment). 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has filed a proposal to the EEC to divide HS position for live fish 0301 into two 
positions:  1) for live fish intended for consumption as food; 2) live fish not intended for consumption as food (ornamental fish, breeding fish ).  The proposal will envisage that the listing 
requirement will apply only to live fish intend ed for consumption as food.  The proposal was 
discussed at the EEC working group meeting in Au gust 2013 and this proposal was approved by 
CU Parties. 
Question 41  
Paragraph 61:  This paragraph describes th e draft amendments (as published on the 
CU website on 8 May 2013) to paragraph 43 and 44 of CU Decision No. 834, regarding 
the procedure for listing establishments base d on guarantees of the competent authority 
of the exporting country.  We are concerned that this procedure is  still very burdensome 
and does not provide the trade facilitation tool that it should be.   
The reasons for refusing to accept guarant ees or refusing a specific establishment 
should be clearly laid down and should be in line with the WTO SPS Agreement's 
principles.  If the exporting country is requ ired to provide information to support the 
criteria of paragraph 43, these criteria shou ld be revised.  Requiring the results of 
monitoring of goods by the competent author ity of the third country in a procedure of 
listing based on guarantees is not propor tionate.  The whole procedure should be 
streamlined.  
Answer: 
Draft amendments into Decision No. 834 have been initiated in order to meet WTO Member's 
concern and to clarify mechanism for accepting guarantees from competent authorities of third countries (paragraphs 43-44), including time-frames for considering requests, provision of reasons for refusal in accepting the guarantee, terms and scope of the guarantee.   
The last public consultation on draft amendments to CU Decision No. 834 were closed on 
12 July 2013.  All the comments received during public consultations periods have been reviewed and taken into account by the EEC working group in  August.  The results of the discussions will be 
published at the EEC website in September.   
Question 42  Paragraphs 72 and 73:  We continue to be  concerned by the disparity of treatment 
between the procedure for listing establishments based on guarantees and that for 
suspending an establishment, since the former would require, according to draft amendments to CU Decision No. 834, the consen t of all CU Parties while the latter would 
require a decision by only one CU Party. 
Answer: 
It is not correct to seek for proportionality betw een the acceptance of guarantees and suspension 
of imports from establishments.  Acceptance of guarantees shall be compared with the permanent 
exclusion of an establishment from the list of establishments.  The latter can only be performed at 
the request of the establishment or a competent authority of an exporting country.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  Consensus of all three CU Parties when accepting guarantees is required because CU Parties make 
this decision based on the comprehensive analysis that includes assessment of trade experience of each CU Party with the exporting country.  
At the same time, temporary suspension of import s from an establishment is introduced based on 
the prescriptive criteria stipulated in paragr aph 164 of the Regulation on Joint Inspection.  
In accordance with these criteria, temporary suspensions of imports from an establishment are not imposed automatically.  They can be imposed only at the request of a third country or in case of 
repeated identification of non-compliances, which are notified to the competent authority of the 
exporting country and which pose significant risk to human and animal life and health. 
Prior to introducing the temporary suspension of imports CU Parties apply consistent measures, 
such as increased laboratory monitoring, warning, special requirements, such as application of 
additional or replacement measures, in order not to stop exports from such establishments.  
Such decisions are made by a CU Party based on identification of repeated violations of the CU requirements and based on risk assessment and th ey do not contradict principles and spirit of 
the SPS Agreement.   
Following the EEC working group meeting in August  2013 it was decided to exclude from the draft 
amendments to Decision No. 834 the provision in accordance with which restriction of imports 
from an establishment imposed by one CU Party automatically applies to the entire CU territory.  
CU Parties agreed that it was necessary to develop and establish a certain mechanism within the CU for making coordinated decisions when imposing suspensions of imports into the CU territory. 
Question 43 
Paragraphs 81 and 82:  We ask that our comments to the draft amendment to the CU 
common veterinary requirements, submitted in the process of public consultation (draft 
published on the CU website on 1 February 2013), are taken into account.  The notified 
draft would amend the general requirements so as to specify that third country 
establishments, which produce products cont aining components of animal origin for 
export to the CU, are obliged to use raw materials of animal origin produced by 
establishments which are approved to supply products to the Customs Union territory.  
This is highly burdensome, trade restrictiv e, neither justified nor disproportionate. 
This is also contradictory with the commitmen t to withdraw the listing requirement for a 
number of commodities.  The explanation of paragraph 82 does not address those 
concerns since they refer to "the high ri sk associated with raw products of animal 
origin" while the amendment would apply to exports to the CU of processed products of animal origin. 
Answer: 
Draft amendment to the CU Common Veterinary Requirements that introduced a new listing 
obligation for establishments supplying raw materials to establishments that exported animal 
products to the CU was sent for further elaboration and risk assessment. 
Question 44  Paragraph 84:  We ask for an update on the ad option of the Decision referred to in this 
paragraph. 
Answer: 
We will update the information as s oon as the Decision is adopted.  
Question 45  
Paragraph 90:  Please clarify if the publicat ion of the audit and inspection schedule will 
be carried out each year and in which document this is foreseen.  Please inform of where to find the schedule for 2013. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Currently, the requirement on annual publication is not provided in the CU legislation.  However, in 
order to provide transparency of joint inspections and audit CU Parties plan to publish the plan of 
conducting joint inspections and audits on a regular basis. Kazakhstan proposed to include the relevant provision into Decision No. 834.  This proposal recently has been discussed at the EEC 
working group meeting in August.  EEC will consider publishing of semiannual schedule agreed by 
CU Parties.     
Question 46  
Sections on import and transit permits:  We ask that our comments on the draft 
amendment to Government Resolution No. 132 on import and transit permits (notably our disagreement with the possibility to re fuse an import permit after a single 
non-compliance) are taken into account and ask to be informed as soon as the 
amendment is adopted.  The sections on im port and transit permits will need to be 
amended after this adoption. 
Answer: 
Comments to the draft amendments to Government Resolution No. 132 have been taken into 
account and Kazakhstan will notify WTO Members as soon as the amendments are adopted.   
Question 47  
Division of competence in the field of SPS measures: 
Please clarify division of competence be tween CU, EEC and Kazakhstan concerning 
goods imported to the CU with respect to  lawmaking, acceptance of third country 
establishments and certificates. In which ca ses have the CU countries legal competence 
to make national laws in the SPS field? 
Answer: 
The CU/EEC regulations cover the following SPS measures/issues:  1) common lists of goods 
subject to veterinary, sanitary, and phytosanitary control; 2) common CU veterinary and sanitary 
requirements to products, 3) procedures for carrying out veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary control upon importation of products into the CU territory and movement of  products within the 
CU territory, 3) procedures of listing of esta blishments in the Register of Third Country 
Establishments; 4)common forms of documents certifying the safety of products (e.g. common forms of veterinary certificates, state registration certificates, etc.).  Paragraphs 1-5 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2 list all adop ted CU regulations on SPS measures. 
Other SPS measures/issues, such as rules for issuing import permits, exportation, transit, rules of 
veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary control (surveillance) on the territory of a CU Party, requirements to border posts, and etc. are regula ted by national legislation of the CU Parties.  
The list of national legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on SPS measures is listed in 
paragraph 6 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3. 
Question 48  
Access for goods to the CU territory: 
Do products from establishments listed on the third country list of one of the members 
of the CU countries, have free access to all the CU countries? 
Answer: 
Products exported from the establishments listed on the List of Third Country Establishment of one 
of the CU Parties, have free access to all CU Parties, i.e. they can freely circulate within the territory of the Customs Union.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Question 49  
System audits: Can a country freely choose to which of the CU countries they apply for third country 
listing, and accordingly choose the country wi th most available capacity for system 
auditing? 
Answer: 
A third country can freely choose to which of the CU countries they apply listing their 
establishments, and accordingly choose the country with most available capacity for system 
auditing. 
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control Question 50 
Paragraph 113:  In Question 50 of docume nt JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan 
stated that "The Common Phytosanitary Re quirements of the Customs Union and the 
Common List of Quarantine Objects of the Cu stoms Union are expected to be adopted in 
2014".  
- Can Kazakhstan add this clarification to the text? Answer: 
The clarification will be added to the text.   Question 51  Paragraph 118:  The first sentence states th at "The existing list of products under 
quarantine (regulated goods) that were subj ect to quarantine phytosanitary control at 
the customs border of the CU and the territory of the CU was divided into two groups:  
(i) quarantine products of high pest risk; and ( ii) quarantine products of low pest risk".   
We remain concern that Kazakhstan maintain s phytosanitary control for many processed 
products (HS 1101 00 - Wheat or Meslin Flou r, 1102 - cereal flours, 1103 - cereal groats, 
1104 cereal grains, etc).  We submitted our comment in July 2012 asking the Customs Union to remove phytosanitary co ntrol from many processed products or 
provide its scientific justification.  
In Question 51 of document JOB/ACC/30/R ev.2/Add.1, Kazakhst an confirmed that 
"Classification of quarantine products as of high pest risk was based on the data for 
detection of quarantine objects in quarantine products, on ri sk analysis conducted by at 
least one of the CU Parties, and internatio nal standards on phytosanitary measures.  
The Republic of Kazakhstan is ready to share pest risk analysis conducted for quarantine 
objects. 
- Can Kazakhstan share its PRAs in Englis h for the products noted above with us? 
Answer: 
English translations of risk analysis for pests associated with the processed products stated in the 
question (HS 1101 00 - Wheat or Meslin Flour, 1102 - cereal flours, 1103 - cereal groats, 1104 
cereal grains, etc.), namely PRAs for Khapra beetle (trogoderma granarium) and Bruchid beetle  
(callosobruchus maculates F.) are provided in document WT/ACC/KAZ/79.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Question 52  
Paragraph 119:  We note that based on ou r experience since June 2011 the Customs 
Union members in practice do not recogniz e replacement phytosanitary certificates.  
Specifically, on 4 February 2013, we were in formed by a CU member that according to 
paragraph 4.1.6.2 of the Regulation of Quar antine Phytosanitary Control (Surveillance) 
on the Customs Territory of the Customs Unio n adopted by the Decision of the Customs 
Union Committee No. 318 of 18 June 2010, th e phytosanitary certificate is considered 
invalid if it is issued for the shipment of regulated products afte r its actual departure 
from the territory of the Exporter. 
However, on 6 February 2013 in response to  our comment about replacement certificate 
for Customs Union Decision No. 318 submi tted in July 2012, Kazakhstan stated: 
The draft amendments to the Regulations on the Procedure for Quarantine 
Phytosanitary Control (Supervision) on Customs Border of the Customs Union 
approved by the Decision of the Cust oms Union Commission of 18 June 2010 
No. 318 (hereinafter – the Regulations) published on 6 November 2012 on the 
official website of Eurasian Econ omic Commission for public comment 
http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/P ages/Publichnoe.aspx provides for a 
new wording of paragraph 4.1.6.  
In accordance with the amendments to paragraph 4.1.6 of the Regulation, the 
principles and norms of the Internationa l Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 
No. 12 on the recognition of legitimacy of  a phytosanitary certificate issued for 
replacement were taken into account. 
Can Kazakhstan provide an update on the status of amendment?  When it will be 
published in final form and implemented?  
We have significant concerns with challe nges we continue to encounter regarding 
acceptance of the replacement ph ytosanitary certificate.  We stated in its several letters 
that we are greatly concerned that the inte rnational measures outlined in the most 
recent version of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 12 
dated March 2011 are not implement by Kazakhstan or the CU.  
Answer: 
EEC Council Decision No. 50 of 16 August 2013 appr oved amendments into paragraph 4.1.6 of the 
Regulation on the Procedure for Quarantine Phyt osanitary Control (Supervision) on the Customs 
Border of the Customs Union approved by CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010, 
which provided norms on recognition of phytosanitary certificates issued as replacement.   
Such certificates are recognized provided that the  competent authority of the exporting party 
provides and confirms the following: 
- phytosanitary safety of regulated products; 
- the competent authority of the exporting country has carried out sampling, inspection and 
treatment of regulated products, which are required to meet quarantine phytosanitary 
requirements prior to the shipment of regulated products; 
- the integrity of regulated products from the moment of shipment till the moment of  
importation of regulated products into the customs territory of the Customs Union. 
Question 53  Paragraph 118:  Please clarify why the following sentence was changed and how 
concretely this descriptive sentence is understood by the Kazakh side:  " In line with 
international practice, when products subjec t to phytosanitary control were imported JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  from countries with registered cases of quar antine spread of quarantine organism in 
certain areas, imports of products under plan t quarantine control from pest-free areas, 
or pest-free places of producti on or pest-free production sites, determined in accordance 
with ISPMs Nos. 4 and 10, could be allowed,  if norms and principles of ISPM 20 have 
been applied " .   W h a t  i s  c o n c r e t e l y  m e a n t  w i t h  t h e  r e f e r e n c e  t o  I S P M  2 0 ?   I n  t h e  
penultimate sentence, we ask to add  "being notified emergency measures according to 
ISPM 13" after  "emergency (extraordinary) phytosanitary measures". 
Answer: 
1. In most cases pest-free areas are maintained continuously for several years, while it is not 
so for pest-free places and pest-free production si tes.  Moreover, according to ISPM 10 the concept 
of places and sites of production recognized as fr ee from quarantine pests implies that such places 
or sites of production are situated in an infected area, which in turn poses significant pest risk of 
introduction of pests into the territory of the impo rting country due to the risks of contamination of 
quarantine products and vehicles when they transit through the infected zone.  
Taking into account the sovereign right provided by the IPPC to take measures to prevent the 
introduction and/or spread of regulated pests into the country's territory, Kazakhstan in order to reduce the phytosanitary risks when importing regulated products from such pest-free places and 
production-sites will apply phytosanitary measures provided for in ISPM 20.  
It should be noted that in accordance with pa ragraph 4.2.1.2 of ISPM 20 Kazakhstan recognizes 
that exporting countries may designate on their territories pest free zones, areas and production sites.  
2. In paragraph 118 Kazakhstan refers to its right to apply emergency phytosanitary measures.  
This right is established in paragraph 6 Article 7 of the IPPC, while the ISPM No. 13 establishes exact procedures for notification of non-compliance and emergency action.  In this regard, 
Kazakhstan will add the following sentence into paragraph 118 bis.:  Taking into account ISPM 
No. 13 Kazakhstan would notify the relevant Me mber of application of such measures.  
Question 54  
Paragraph 118:  Is the division into quarantine  products of high pest risk and quarantine 
products of low pest risk based on ISPM 32?  What are the phytosanitary measures to be 
respected for low risk quarantine products?  Is there a phytosanitary check at import into the CU for those commodities?  Do you co nfirm that the products not included in the 
list of goods subject to phytosanitary controls are allowed to enter into the CU without 
phytosanitary restrictions? 
Answer: 
1. Classification of quarantine products to hi gh and low pest risks in the list of quarantine 
products approved by CU Decision No 318 was ba sed on risk assessment of possible contamination 
and infestation by quarantine pests, biology an d hazard posed by quarantine pests, which can 
spread in certain quarantine products, conducted by at least one of the CU Parties taking into 
account ISPM 32. 
2. In accordance with the Regulation on the Procedure of Quarantine Phytosanitary Control 
(Surveillance) at the Customs Border of the Cu stoms Union approved by the CU Commission 
Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010, quarantine products (of high or low pest risk) imported into the 
territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall co mply with the phytosanitary requirements of the 
R e p u b l i c  K a z a k h s t a n  a p p r o v e d  b y  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  R e s o l u t i o n  o f  t h e  R e p u b l i c  o f  K a z a k h s t a n  
No. 1674 of 30 December 2011.  In accordance with paragraph 3.1. of the Regulation each lot of 
quarantine products listed in the List of Quarantine  Products is subject to quarantine phytosanitary 
control (surveillance).  At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 4.1.1 sub-paragraph 2 of 
this Regulation phytosanitary certificate is required only for quarantine products of high 
phytosanitary risk. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  3. Products not included in the list of goods subject to phytosanitary controls are allowed to 
enter into the CU without phytosanitary restrictions. 
Question 55  Paragraph 121:  If there are no mitigation measures in place in case of exports of 
commodities from areas affected by certain qu arantine pest that means from a practical 
point of view that no export is possible until the mitigation measures are defined.  It can 
have important consequences in trade.  Are the mitigation measures proposed by the 
exporting country?  What is a reasonable period of time? 
Answer: 
Currently, legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan do not specify what kind of mitigation 
measures can be applied in each case.  However, the Republic of Kazakhstan is ready to assess 
mitigation measures proposed by exporting countries within a reasonable time-frame, as provided 
for in international standards, guidelines and recommendations. 
Question 56  
Paragraph 123:  Could Kazakhstan  clarify what is meant by " in specific cases, where 
large amounts of products were imported fr om countries with phytosanitary conditions 
that had not been adequately examined, the authorised body on plant quarantine could 
send an expert to the exporting country fo r inspection of the places of production, 
processing, packaging and dispatch of the product ".  A system of approval of individual 
production or processing side by the im porting party would be contrary to IPPC. 
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraph 5.1.5.1 ISPM No. 20 import regulations of the importing country 
often may include specific requirements that shou ld be done in the country of export, such as 
production procedures (usually during the growing period of the crop concerned) or specialized 
treatment procedures.  Moreover, in certain circumstances, the requirements may include, in 
cooperation with the NPPO of the exporting country, an audit in the exporting country by the NPPO of the importing country of elements such as: 
- production systems 
- treatments 
- inspection procedures - phytosanitary management 
- accreditation procedures  
- testing procedures 
- surveillance. 
Thus, such audit does not contradict both the International Plant Protection Convention and 
regulations and principles of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. 
The paragraph 123 will be amended to take into account these provisions.  
(f) Protection of Human Health 
Question 57  Paragraph 129:  Could Kazakhstan confirm th at testing of products by food business 
operators' self-checks are accepted by the CU and that CU inspectors do not request 
testing in official laboratories for the conf ormity with CU requirements?  We propose 
that this is included in the text. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that testing of products by food business operators' self-check are accepted 
and CU inspectors do not request testing in official laboratories for the conformity with CU requirements. 
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Spec ific Provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms Question 58 
General Comment:  We continue to encour age Kazakhstan and the CU Parties to 
harmonize their SPS standards with the inte rnational standards, recommendations and 
guidelines to the maximum extent possible.   We ask that if Kazakhstan or where 
relevant the CU determines that the approp riate level of protection justifies a more 
stringent standard, that Kazakhstan and the CU  provide a scientific justification and risk 
assessment to support the more stringent standard. 
Paragraph 139:  We continue to be very co ncerned by the changes that were made to 
this commitment paragraph.  
In Question 57 of document JOB/ACC/30/Rev. 2/Add.1, Kazakhstan stated "In order to 
avoid misinterpretation of the commitment,  Kazakhstan insists on using the exact 
wording of the SPS Agreement in the text of the commitment and proposes the following 
text in brackets:  [were more stringent than] [resulted in a higher level of sanitary and 
phytosanitary protection then would be  achieved by measures based on].  
We would like to note that second paragrap h of Customs Union Decision No. 721 reads:  
"If the veterinary, phytosanitary and sani tary and epidemiological and hygienic 
requirements in force on the territory of the Customs Union, are more restrictive than 
the relevant international standards, in the ab sence of scientific evidence of risk to life 
or health of humans, animals or plants in re levant part, apply international standards".  
Can Kazakhstan explain its concern with "misinterpretation"?  We are strongly 
concerned with Kazakhstan's refusal to implement CU Decision No. 721 to apply 
international standards based on what appears to be a misinterpretation of the decision. 
Furthermore, we are concerned that the working groups within the EEC are considering amendments to this decision which would seek to expand exceptions to the principles of 
applying international standards. 
Answer: 
1. In order to be fully in line with the WTO SPS Agreement, Kazakhstan has initiated 
amendments into CU Commission Decision No. 721.   These amendments do not seek to expand 
exceptions to the principles of applying internat ional standards.  On the contrary, the amendments 
bring the provisions of the Decision No. 721 in full compliance with the provisions of Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  In particular, paragraph 2 of  the Decision has been modified as follows: 
    "2.  Parties may introduce or maintain sanitary, veterinary (veterinary-sanitary) or 
phytosanitary measures that result in a higher level of protection then measures based on relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations if there is a scientific 
justification, or if Parties determine that this level of protection is appropriate in accordance 
with the provisions of the WTO Agreement On the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures". 
The proposed Draft will be published for public consultations and WTO Members will have an 
opportunity to present their comments.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Question 59  
Paragraph 150 (commitment):  The third line st ates "Proposals would be transmitted to 
the CU Commission".  We suggest referencing the EEC Commission. 
Answer: 
Relevant changes will be made in the text.  Question 60  Paragraph 152:  Kazakhstan stated that it  was in a process of conducting a risk 
assessment on tetracycline; the preliminary conclusion of the risk assessment on 
tetracycline has been published and is under the peer review process.  According to paragraphs 139 and 141, and CU Decisi on No. 721, Kazakhstan would apply 
international standard until scientific justification of risk was provided.  
We are significantly concern th at Kazakhstan applies more stringent standards while in 
a process of conducting a risk assessment.  We are analysing the information provided 
by Kazakhstan. 
Answer: 
CU Parties established the CU MRLs based on international standards or on the available risk 
assessment results.  With regard to tetracycline, CU Parties established MRLs based on the risk 
assessment conducted by the Russian Federation.   
Due to the concerns raised by the WTO Members, Kazakhstan has decided to conduct its own risk 
assessment on tetracycline.   
Question 61  
Paragraph 139:  We ask to keep this paragraph in line with CU Decision No. 721. 
Answer: 
Regarding the proposed commitment language in paragraph 139, Kazakhstan would like to note 
the following.  Under the SPS Agreement there is no obligation for WTO Members to apply relevant 
standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively if there are no national mandatory SPS requirements has been established.  The SPS 
Agreement only provides that WTO Members shall base their SPS measures on international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations, where they exist, unless there is a scientific justification or risk assessment that justify higher level of SPS protection (Article 3).   
The WTO does not prohibit the use of standards adopted by the regional organizations or SPS 
measures of other countries if they are WTO consistent. 
The Decision No. 721, as it stands now, goes beyond WTO obligations.  That is to say, CU Parties 
collectively took a decision to apply international standards in the absence of respective CU 
regulations at this stage of development of the CU.  However, this decision of CU Parties was not 
intended to deny the ultimate right of the CU Parties under the WTO to apply WTO compatible regional standards or SPS measures of other countries. 
Therefore, we would like to keep this text as purely descriptive as it is in the Russian Working 
Party Report.  Alternatively, we propose to keep in the commitment text only those obligations that are envisaged by the WTO SPS Agreement.  In this case, we shall take the first and penultimate sentences out of the commitment text and move it into the descriptive part of the 
text: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  139.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, [in cases in which no mandatory 
requirements on veterinary or phytosanitary,  or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic 
requirements had been established at CU or national level, the CU Parties would apply the 
relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and 
Codex respectively.  Similarly,] if veterinary, phytosanitary or sanitary- epidemiological and 
hygienic requirements in effect in the terri tory of the CU [were more stringent than] 
[resulted in a higher level of sanitary an d phytosanitary protection then would be 
achieved by measures based on]  relevant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, or parts thereof, in the absence of scientific justification of risk to human, 
animal or plant life or health, CU Parties would apply the relevant international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations or parts thereof ,[as provided for in the SPS 
Agreement].   [ T h e  r e p re s e n t a t i v e  o f K a z a k h s t a n  c o n f i r m e d  th a t  t h i s  o b l i g a t i o n  c u r r e n t l y  
was included in the CU legal framework through CU Commission Decision No. 721, and 
would continue to be a mandatory part of the CU legal framework in the future.] The Working Party took note of these commitments]. 
Question 62  
Paragraph 146:  This answer is not clear an d does not address the Members' concerns.  
Could you clarify how withdrawal period are set in Kazakhstan?  How is it made sure 
that those withdrawal periods allow achievin g the very strict MRLs applicable for some 
veterinary drugs?  Could Kazakhstan prov ide the legal basis according to which the 
adjunction of antibiotics to feed is prohibit ed in Kazakhstan?  We cannot agree that the 
withdrawal period is dependent on the freque ncy of the use of the veterinary drugs.  
Answer: 
The package of documents submitted by the applican t for registration of veterinary drugs and feed 
additives contains information about the period during which the drug is eliminated from the body completely, or reduced to a level corresponding to the MRLs established for these drugs.  This information is confirmed by scientific research.  The period of withdrawal of the drug from the 
body is checked during the approbation research conducted by the competent authority.  
Kazakhstan has allowed the use of antibiotics in feed, but only in accordance with the instruction accompanying the particular veterinary drug. 
Question 63  
Paragraphs 144, 147, 149 and 150:  We than k Kazakhstan for its answer to Question 61 
in JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 and have some follo w-up questions:  which standards have 
been adopted for E. sakazakii and Enteriobacte riacea?  Is there an intention to carry out 
harmonization for L. Monocytogenes, E.co li (14), coagulase-positive staphylococci, 
coliforms?  With which timetable?  At which levels nitrates have been harmonized?  
In which CU Decision?  Is the draft amendmen t mentioned in relation to pesticides MRL 
the one which was published for public consul tation in April 2012?  Will it be adopted? 
Answer: 
1. With regard to E. Sakazakii, standard established in the EU Regulation 1441/2001 of 
5 December 2007 have been adopted. 
In accordance with the amendments introduced by the Decision No. 889 of 9 December 2011, with 
regard to standards for E. Sakazakii and Enteroba cteriaceae the following amendments have been 
made:  
For products based on soy protein isolate; dry milk high protein foods; products based on total 
protein hydrolysates; and products without or with phenylalanine levels or with its low content for children under the age of 1 year old, in the section "Safety indicator" – "Microbiological standards" 
– asterisk has been added for "Pathogenic, includin g Salmonella".  The asterisk makes reference to 
the following footnote:  "in case of detection in normalized mass of the product intended for JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  children under 6 months, of bacteria Enterobacteriaceae, which does not belong to Salmonella, 
absence of the pathogen E.sakazakii is controlled in 300 g of the product ";  
For adapted milk formula (dry, liquid, sweet an d sour milk) and products based on partially 
hydrolysed protein in the section "Safety indicator"  asterisk has been added.  The asterisk makes 
reference to the following footnote: "for products intended for feeding infants from 0 to six months 
and from 0 to 12 months:  upon control of E.coli and pathogenic microorganisms, including Salmonella, and upon detection in a normalized mass of product of bacteria Enterobacteriaceae, 
which does not belong to E. coli and Salmonella, the absence of pathogen E.sakazakii is controlled 
in 300 g of the product";  
For low-lactose and lactose-free products in the section "Safety indicator" – "Microbiological 
standards" – asterisk has been added for "Pathogenic, including Salmonella and 
L. monocytogenes".  The asterisk makes reference to the following footnote:  "upon control of 
E.coli and pathogenic microorganisms, including Sa lmonella, and detection in normalized mass of 
the product intended for children under 6 months of bacteria Enterobacteriaceae, which does not 
belong to E.Coli and Salmonella, absence of the pa thogen E.sakazakii is controlled in 300 g of the 
product "; 
2. Concerning L.Monocytogenes, E.coli (14), co agulase-positive staphylococci, coliforms, these 
standards will be reviewed for their compliance with international standards in response to the 
request received from the General Directorate of European Commission on Health and Consumer Protection (EC SANCO G7/LC/mh (2013) 531454) under the procedures established in the EEC Collegium Decision No. 212. 
3. Levels of nitrates have been harmonized by the CU Technical Regulation "On Safety of Food 
Products" as of 1 July 2013.  Please, refer to Annex 1 that contains MRLs for nitrates established by the Technical Regulation.   
The MRLs are set for vegetables and fruits, fresh mushrooms, pickled, marinated, pickled, soaked, 
fermented, dried.  When dry food products are used the levels shall be recalculated for the original product taking into account content of dry substances (solids). 
4. Draft amendment on pesticides MRLs has undergone public consultations on 
31 October 2012 – 1 November 2012.  The issue of its adoption will be resolved at the meeting of the EEC working group in August-September 2013.   
- (ii) Risk Assessment 
Question 64  
Paragraph 152:  We note that Kazakhstan is in the process of conducting its own risk 
assessment for tetracyclines.  We understand th at for ractopamine, Kazakhstan does not 
intend to conduct its own risk assessment,  but instead will rely on the information 
provided by Russia.  What is the standard  operating procedure for conducting risk 
assessments in the CU?  Will each CU Party conduct its own assessment?  What would 
be the rationale to conduct separate assessmen ts?  Will all three Parties work together 
to conduct a risk assessment?  Please expl ain further given that in these two cases 
Members see two distinct ways of proceeding. 
Answer: 
The legislation of the Customs Union establishes the common regulatory framework for sanitary 
measures, including the common list of controlled products and common sanitary - epidemiological and hygienic requirements. 
The common CU sanitary requirements have been developed by the working group on 
Harmonization of Sanitary - Epidemiological and Hygienic Requirements, which included experts of CU Parties on risk assessment and risk management. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  Currently, each CU Party has the right to conduct its own risk assessment. Results of risk 
assessment can be submitted to the EEC Secretariat for consideration by the other CU Parties. 
Moreover, the Eurasian Economic Commission has announced a tender for the right to conduct 
scientific research for official use by the EEC on the following topic:  "Harmonization of the  
Methodology of Assessment of Risk to Human He alth when Exposed to Chemical, Physical and 
Biological Factors in Determining the Food Safety Indicators for Products (Goods) with International Standards".   
Question 65  
Paragraph 152:  This paragraph says that  the Kazakh preliminary conclusions on 
tetracyclines would be subject to a peer review  process.  Could Kazakhstan inform if this 
has been the case, and if yes specify the scie ntific journal in which the publication was 
made? 
Answer: 
The risk assessment has been published in the sci entific journal "Consilium" (No. 1 (43) 2013) 
(website of the journal:  www.medzdrav.kz), which is a specialized medical publication included in 
the list of scientific publications recommended by the Committee for Control in the Field of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  The peer review process for the risk 
assessment on tetracycline has been completed successfully and approved by health, food and 
veterinary scientists.  
Question 66  Paragraph 157:  We ask to include at the be ginning of the paragraph the confirmation 
that Kazakhstan would follow the intern ationally recognised principles and 
recommendations as described in the two previous paragraphs when conducting risk assessments for SPS measures applicab le for import into Kazakhstan.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will include the following sentence in paragraph 157: 
"Kazakhstan confirmed that principles and recommendation developed by the relevant 
international organizations described in paragraphs [155] and [156] were used in conducting risk 
assessment for SPS measures applicable to imports in the Republic of Kazakhstan".    
Question 67  Risk assessment section:  We ask Kazakhstan  to confirm that the risk assessment used 
to justify stricter SPS measures applicable for import into KZ will be based on the 
relevant international standards, guide lines and recommendations, in particular 
CAC/GL 62 2007, Section IV of the Codex A limentarius Commission Procedural Manual, 
Chapter 2.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Hea lth Code and 2.2 of the OIE Aquatic Animal 
Health Code, ISPMs No. 2, 11, 21 and 32.  
Answer: 
In accordance with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, WTO Members shall take into account risk 
assessment techniques developed by relevant inte rnational organizations.  The meaning of the 
word "base on" is more stringent than "take into account".  To take into account is not the same as to base on, or follow. As Panel stated in case Japan - Apples that these techniques should be 
"considered relevant", but "a failure to respect each and every aspect of them would not 
necessarily, per se, signal that the risk assessment is not in conformity with the requirements of Article 5.1".  
Moreover, we note, that Section IV of the Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual 
establishes procedures for conducting risk assessm ent when developing international standards by JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  Codex Alimentarius Commission.  Thus, it is not relevant for risk assessment conducted by 
Governments when developing national standards.  
As for ISPM 32, it deals with categorization of commodities according to their pest risk, but it does 
not establish techniques for conducting pest risk analysis.   
In this regard, Kazakhstan confirms that as prov ided for in the Article 5 of the SPS Agreement it 
will take into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations, including CAC/GL 62 2007, Chapter 2.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
and 2.2 of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code , ISPMs Nos. 2, 11, and 21.  Furthermore, 
Kazakhstan will take into account the categories of commodities according to their pest risk established by ISPM 32.
 
Question 68  
Paragraph 165:  In Question 67 of docume nt JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan 
states "With regard to procedures on reco gnising equivalency in accordance with OIE 
and IPPC standards, this issue is curre ntly discussed at the EEC level".   
- Can Kazakhstan provide an update on its discussion with the EEC? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has already prepared draft procedures on recognizing equivalency in accordance with 
OIE, Codex Alimentarius and IPPC standards.  Th ese draft procedures have been submitted to the 
EEC, which, in turn sent it to the Parties for consideration.   
Question 69  Paragraph 166:  Please provide an update on  the development of procedures necessary 
to apply Decision No. 835 on equivalence. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has prepared draft procedures on recognizing equivalency in accordance with OIE, 
Codex Alimentarius and IPPC standards.  These dr aft procedures have been submitted to the EEC 
and then sent to the CU Parties for consideration.   
(h) Transparency 
Question 70  
In Question 69 of document JOB/ACC/ 30/Rev.2/Add.1, Kazakhstan explained 
CU procedure in place for considering comme nts from third countries.  Can Kazakhstan 
confirm that described proc edure would be followed and the summary of comments on 
the draft technical regulation would be pub lished, including decisions on each comment 
and reasons for such decisions for draft TR on  "Safety of Food Products" and for draft TR 
"On Safety of Grain" as pub lished on EEC on 29 April 2013? 
Can Kazakhstan also confirm that it will pu blish summary of comments for TR for "Meat 
and meat Products (2011), "Milk" (2012), "S afety of feed and feed products" (2011), 
"Fish and Fish products" (2011)?  We wo uld like to note that the we submitted 
comments for all mentioned above.  
Answer: 
Prior to the adoption of the EEC Council Decision  No. 48 of 20 June 2012, CU procedures did not 
provided for publication of answers to comments received during the public consultations.  In this 
regard, answers to comments received during public consultations that took place in 2011 will not 
be published.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  Kazakhstan confirms that CU Parties will follow the procedures described in the answer to 
Question 69 of document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.2/Add.1 and summary of comments on draft technical regulations received during the public consultation s that took/will take place after the adoption of 
the EEC Council Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012, de cisions on each of them and reasons for the 
such decision will published on the EEC website.   
Question 71  Paragraph 177 (new):  We thank Kazakhstan for providing detailed steps that 
Kazakhstan would take for SPS noti fications of draft EEC texts.  
Will the same procedure apply for TBT notifications? In eight line, Kazakhstan states that:  "She  clarified that the 60 day comment period 
through WTO notification would be provided even if the EEC public comment period was 
closed".   
Last two sentences state:  "T he received comments and proposals will be considered at 
the EEC working group meeting.  In accordance with Decision No. 31 the Department of 
the Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Veterinary Meas ures within ten days after expiration of 
the public consultation period shall compile a summary table of comments and answers to these comments and publish it on the official EEC website". 
Can Kazakhstan explain how this would work? 
According to EEC Decision No. 31, received  comments and proposals  will be considered 
at the EEC working group meeting and a summary table of comments and answers would be compiled within ten days af ter the EEC public procedure closes. 
How would Kazakhstan ensure that EEC wo uld still take into consideration comments 
received from Kazakhstan's SPS enquiry poin t if the EEC comment period is closed and a 
summary table is published? 
Answer: 
1. Procedures for notification of draft technica l regulations are described in the WPR Section on 
TBT.  In particular, paragraph 618 contains the following description: 
"564. … The EEC ensured the consideration of the first version of the draft technical 
regulation and related set of documents at the meeting of the Consultative Committee.  Following the consideration by the Consultative Committee, the decision on possibility, starting date and period of public consultations on the draft technical regulation was made, 
which was formalised by a Protocol.  If necessary, the Developer of the draft technical 
regulation within the period established by the Consultative Committee revised the draft technical regulation and the set of related document.  
565. … The Enquiry Point would notify the WTO of a draft technical regulation that would 
affect international trade approximately at the same time when it was published for public consultations.
  This would allow to synchronize the process of receiving comments through 
both mechanisms.   The representative of Kazakhstan also clarified that in cases when the 
deadline established in the notification to the WTO exceeded the public consultation period, CU Parties would still continue to consider comments received from WTO Members. 
618. … From the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, the TBT/SPS Enquiry Point 
would fulfil all obligations on notifications specified by the WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS, 
including notifications on the proposed technical regulations of the Customs Union to the WTO Secretariat and would provide WTO Members with copies of proposed technical 
regulations upon request.  In reply to a specific question, the Representative of Kazakhstan 
noted that Kazakhstan would confirm receipt of comments whenever comments were received from WTO Members on notified legisl ation.  Moreover, in accordance with the 
Regulation on Development, Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  Regulations of the Customs Union, during public consultations CU draft technical regulations 
and notifications about the commencement and co mpletion of public consultations on draft 
CU technical regulation were published on the official website of the EEC.  The same 
information was also published on the official website and bulletin of the Committee on 
Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Republic of Kazakhstan as well as the website of 
the Enquiry Point on TBT/SPS of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  Upon development of the first draft of a technical regulation or upon completion of public consultations, a developer of the 
draft technical regulation (a designated State body of Kazakhstan) prepared and sent the 
relevant notification to the Enquiry Point on TBT/SPS of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
616. … All comments received from third countries would be sent by the CU members to the 
EEC.  The EEC was responsible for processing all the comments, publishing them on the 
official website of the Commission and forwardi ng them to developer of the draft technical 
regulations (relevant competent authority of the CU Party)".   
2. Kazakhstan has initiated amendments to the EEC Decision No. 31 that envisage extension of 
the time-frame for consideration and preparation of summary table of comments and answers 
from 10 to 30 days.  This proposal was considered  at the working group meeting on 4-6 June 2013 
on veterinary and sanitary measures and approved by the CU Parties.   
Question 72  
Paragraph 177:  Do you confirm that the Kaza kh notification authority / enquiry point 
will provide answers to WTO Members' comments provided in the context of the SPS notifications?  When the comments relate to a draft CU text, how will these answers be 
coordinated with the Russian notificati on process and to the answers in the 
CU consultative process? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that its Enquiry point will provide answers to WTO Member's comments 
provided in the context of the SPS notifications.   
The Enquiry Point will notify the WTO of a draft technical regulation approximately at the same 
time when it is published for public consultations.  This will allow to synchronize the process of 
receiving comments through both mechanisms.  Moreover, after Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, its Enquiry Point will coordinate the notification process with the Russian Federation's notification authority in order to ensure that similar dates for comments are established in the 
notifications of the same draft document.   
We note that comments received through the notification process will be considered even if they 
are received after the public consultation period is closed.   
Question 73  
Paragraph 182:  We ask to include in the next commitment paragraph the confirmation 
that Kazakhstan will follow SPS Commissi on Recommended procedures G/SPS/7/Rev 3 
for its SPS notifications, currently in paragraph 182. 
Answer: 
The SPS Committee Recommended Procedures for Impl ementation of the Transparency Provisions 
of the SPS Agreement G/SPS/7/Rev.3 is a non-binding document.  These recommended 
procedures are intended to facilitate Members' implementation of the notification provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, while not creating additional legal obligations.   
In this regard Kazakhstan would not like to make reference to these recommended procedures in 
the commitment paragraph, but is ready to make reference to it in the descriptive part of the text 
in paragraph 182. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
   
 
ANNEX 1:  MRLS FOR NITRATES 
Product Groups Permissible levels, 
mg / kg, not more Note 
Potatoes ( Solanumtuberosum  L.) 250  
White cabbage ( Brassicaoleracea L. ) early (till 
1 September) 900  
White cabbage ( Brassicaoleracea L .) late 500  
Carrots ( Daucussativus  (Hoffm.) Roehl. 
(Daucuscarota L. subsp. Sativus  (Hoffm.) 
Arcang.) early (before 1 September) 400  
Carrots ( Daucussativus (Hoffm.) Roehl. 
(Daucuscarota L. subsp. Sativus  (Hoffm.) 
Arcang.) late 250  
Tomatoes ( Lycopersiconesculentum Mill. ) 150  
 300 protected ground 
Cucumbers ( Cucumissativus L. ) 150  
 400 protected ground 
Red beet ( Betavulgaris L. ) 1400  
Onion ( Alliumcepa L. ) 80  
Green onion ( Allium cepa L. ) 600  
 800 protected ground 
Leafy vegetables (lettuce, spinach 
(Spinaceaoleracea ), sorrel 
(Rumexacetosa L. ), cabbage of lettuce 
cultivars ( Lactucasativa  L. var. SecalinaAlef. ), 
parsley ( Petroselinumsativum Hoffm. ), celery 
(Apiumgraveolens L. ), coriander 
(Coriandrumsativum L. ), dill 
(Anethumgraveolens L. ), etc. 2000  
Sweet pepper ( Capsicum annuum L. ) 200  
 400 protected ground 
Zucchini ( Cucurbitapepo L. var. Giromontia 
Duch. ) 400  
Watermelon ( Citrullus vulgaris Schrad .) 60  
Melons ( Melosativus Sager. Et M. Roem. 
(Cucumismelo L. ) 90  
Lettuce, fresh 
- cultivated in protected ground from 
1 October to 31 March 
- cultivated in non-protected ground from 
1 October to 31 March 
- cultivated in protected ground 1 April to 
30 September 
- cultivated in non-protected ground from 
1 April to 30 September  
4500  4000  3500  2500  
lettuce, iceberg type 
- cultivated in protected ground - cultivated in non-protected ground  
2000 2500  
Meat and cereal cans with vegetables 200  
Food supplement based on algae 1000  
Food for pregnant and nursing women: the 
products on fruit and vegetable basis (fruit and vegetable ju ices, nectars and drinks, fruit 
drinks) 200 
  50 on fruit and vegetable basis, on 
fruit basis 
Food for young children nutrition: products on fruits and vegetables basis, fruit and vegetables cans (fruit , vegetable, fruit and 
vegetable juices, nectars and drinks, fruit drinks, puree products on fruit and (or) vegetable-basis, fruit and dairy, fruit and grain puree): 50 
     200 on fruit basis (except for those 
containing bananas and strawberries) on vegetable-and fruit-vegetable basis, as well as containing bananas and strawberries 
Food for young children nutrition: meat and cereal cans (vegetable-meat cans), fish and vegetable cans. 150 For products containing 
vegetables JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  Product Groups Permissible levels, 
mg / kg, not more Note 
Food for preschool and school children: 
Culinary products from fish and non-fish 
species; 
  fruit and vegetable cans  (juices, nectars, 
drinks, fruit drinks, puree products on fruit and (or) vegetable basis,  fruit and dairy, fruit 
and grain puree, combined products  
 
150 
   50  200  
 
for products containing 
vegetables. on fruit basis, on vegetable and fruit vegetable-basis, as well as containing bananas and strawberries 
Basic raw materials and components used in the manufacture of baby foods: a) fruit, fresh vegetables, puree - semi-finished products beet cabbage vegetables, bananas, strawberries fruit 
b) fruit juice, concentrate, aseptic canning or 
frozen  
    600 400 200 
50 
100  
    fruits 
 
 
 
__________