12-4965  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1                17 September 2012 
 
 Working Party on the               Original:  English  
Accession of Kazakhstan   
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
 
Submission by the Republic of Kazakhstan 
 
Revision 
 
 
 The following submission is being circulated to Members of the Working Party, at the request 
of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
 
_______________ 
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 2 
 
 
  - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
- (a) Legislative Framework 
1. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that th e legislative basis for the regulation of the 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime in Kaza khstan was established by the following:  Eurasian 
Economic Community (EurAsEC) and Customs Union (CU) Agreements and EurAsEC and 
CU Decisions.  The EurAsEC Agreement on Implem entation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of 
Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanita ry Measures of 25 January 2008 and the EurAsEC 
Agreement on Establishing the EurAsEC Informative System in the Field of Technical Regulation, 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 200 8.  On the Sanitary side, the legislative basis 
was found in the CU Agreement on Sanitary Measu res of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by 
Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010), Decision of the Interstate 
Council of the EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011 "On Entering into Force of Protocols of 21 May 2010 in the Sphere of Implementation San itary, Veterinary-and-Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures" and CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amen ded by CU Commission Decisions No. 342 of 
17 August 2010, No. 455 of 18 November 2010, No. 622  of 7 April 2011, No. 828 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary  and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on the 
Customs Border and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 18 October 2011, No. 829 
"On Amendments to the Common Sanitary and Ep idemiological and Hygienic Requirements for 
Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control)" of 18 October 2011, No. 887 
"On the Draft Protocol on Amendments to the Agr eement of the Customs Union Concerning Sanitary 
Measures of 11 December 2009" of 9 December 2011,  No. 888 "On Amendments to Regulation on 
the Procedure for Conduct of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) Over the 
Persons and Transport, Crossing the Customs Bord er of the Customs Union, Goods Subject to 
Control, Transferred through the Customs Border of  the Customs Union and the Customs Territory of 
the Customs Union" of 9 December 2011, Decisions  of the EEC Council No. 36 "On Amendments to 
the Section 2 of the Common List of Goods, Subjec t to Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance 
(Control) on the Customs Border and the Customs Te rritory of the Customs Union" of 15 June 2012, 
No. 37 "On Amendments to Regulation on the Procedure for Conduct of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) Over th e Persons and Transport, Crossing the Customs 
Border of the Customs Union, Goods Subject to C ontrol, Transferred Through the Customs Border of 
the Customs Union and on the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 15 June 2012, No. 64 "On Amendments to the Common List of Goods,  Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance (Control) on the Customs Border and th e Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  20 July 2012, Decisions of the EEC Collegium No . 32 "On Amendments to the Section 2 of the 
Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary an d Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on the 
Customs Border and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 19 April 2012, No. 33 "On Amendments to Regulation on the Procedure fo r Conduct of State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Surveillance (Control) Over the Persons and Transp ort, Crossing the Customs Border of the Customs 
Union, Goods Subject to Control, Transferred th rough the Customs Border of the Customs Union and 
the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of  19 April 2012, No. 34 "On Amendments to the 
Section 2 of the Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on the Customs Border and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 19 April, 
No. 89 "On Application of the Common Sanitary a nd Epidemiological and Hygienic Requirements 
for Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological  Surveillance (Control)" of 13 June 2012, No. 111 
"On Amendments to the Common List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on the Customs Border and th e Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 
19 July 2012, No. 117 "On Amendments to the Co mmon List of Goods, Subject to Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Surveillance (Control) on the Cust oms Border and the Customs Territory of the 
Customs Union" of 19 July 2012, No. 141 "On Ame ndments to the Decision of the Customs Union 
No 299 "On Application of Sanitary Measures in th e Customs Union" in the Light of Entering into 
Force of Technical Regulations of the Custom s Union"of 23 August 2012).  The veterinary 
framework could be found in the CU Agreem ent on Veterinary and Sanitary Measures of 
11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Inte rstate Council of EurAsEC Decision No. 39 of 
21 May 2010), CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union"  (as last amended by CU Commission Decisions 
Nos. 342 of 17 August 2010, 455 of 18 November  2010, 569 of 2 March 2011, 570 of 2 March 2011, 
623 of 7 April 2011, 724 of 22 June 2011, 726 of 15 July 2011, 810 of 23 September 2011, 830 of 18 October 2011, 831 of 18 October 2011, 834 of 18 October 2011 and 893 of 9 December 2011), 
CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 "O n Common Forms of Veterinary Certificates on 
Imported Goods Subject to Veterinary Control in to the Customs Union Territory" as amended by 
CU Commission Decision No. 832 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Forms of Common Veterinary Certificates for the Importing to the CU  Customs Territory of the Controlled Goods from 
Third Countries" and CU Commission Decision No . 892 of 9 December 2011  "On Amendments to 
the Forms of Common Veterinary Certificates for the Importing to the CU Customs Territory of the 
Controlled Goods from Third Countries", CU Commission Decision No. 624 of 7 April 2011 "On Regulation on the Procedure of Development and Maintenance of the Register of Companies and 
Persons which Carry out Production, Reprocessing a nd (or) Storing Products Subject to Veterinary 
Control (Surveillance) and Imported into the territory of the Custom Union", CU Commission JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 4 
 
 
  Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "On Harmonization of  CU Legal Acts in the Field of Sanitary, 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures with Inte rnational Standards" as amended by CU Commission 
Decision No. 722 of 22 June 2011, CU Co mmission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 
"On Application of International Standards,  Recommendations, and Guidelines", CU Commission 
Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011 "On Amendmen t of the Regulation on Common Procedure for 
Conduct of Veterinary Control at the Customs Bord er of the Customs Union and within the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union", CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary 
Measures", CU Commission Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011 "On Regulation on the Uniform 
Procedure of Carrying Out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of 
Implementation of Sanitary, Veterinary and Ph ytosanitary Measures", CU Commission Decision 
No. 830 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to th e Common Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) 
Requirements Applicable to the Goods Subject  to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" and 
CU Commission Decision No. 893 of 9 December 20 11 "On Amendments to the Common Veterinary 
(Veterinary And Sanitary) Requirements Applicable  to the Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)" and CU Commission Decision No. [xxx] of [xxxxx] 2012 "On Amendments to the 
Common Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) Requi rements Applicable to the Goods Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", CU Co mmission Decision No. 831 of 18 October 2011 
"On Amendments to the Common List of Goods S ubject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" and 
CU Commission Decision No. [xxx] of [xxxxx] 2012 "On Amendments to the Common List of 
Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Sur veillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 33 of 
18 October 2011 "On Equivalence of Systems of Inspection of Objects of Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence of Sanitary, 
Veterinary or Phytosanitary Measures and Condu ct of Risk Assessment", and CU Commission 
Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011 "On Regulati on on Common System of Joint Inspections of 
Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", Decision of 
the EEC Collegium No. 150 "On Amendments to  Regulation on the Common Procedure for Conduct 
of Veterinary Control on the Customs Border of the Customs Union and the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 30 August 2012.  On the phyt osanitary side,  the CU Agreement on Plant 
Quarantine of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Decision of the Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011) and CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010 
"On Assurance of Plant Quarantine in the Custom s Union" (as last amended by CU Commission 
Decision No. 528 of 28 January 2011, the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 76 
"On the Process for Transfer of Control from the Russ ian-Kazakh Border to the External border of the 
Customs Union" of 15 May 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 894 "On Addenda to Regulation on the Procedure for Conduct of Phytosanitary Contro l  (Surveillance) on the Customs Border of the  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Customs Union, approved by CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 July 2010" of 
9 December 2011).  In addition, the following six t echnical regulations of the Customs Union were 
adopted: CU Commission Decision No. 880 "On Food Safety" of 9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 881 "On Labelling of Food Products" of 9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision 
No. 881 "On  Products of Fruit a nd Vegetable Juices" of 9 December 2011, CU Commission Decision 
No. 883 "On Fat and Oil Products" of 9 December  2011, Commission Decision No. 874 "On Safety 
of Grain" of 9 December 2011, and EEC Council D ecision No. 34 "On Safety of Certain Types of 
Specialized Products, Including Dietetic Healthy and Dietetic Prophylactic Meals" of  15 June 2012.   
2. The representative of Kazakhstan further stated that  national legislation remained in effect to 
the extent that it did not contradict the CU Agr eements and CU Commission Decisions.  She further 
explained that issues not specified by the above -mentioned Agreements and Decisions of the 
Commission of CU were dealt with the national legislation, in particular – Law No. 339-II 
"On Veterinary" of 10 July 2002; Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 April 2003, which approved 
the following:  (1) Regulation on the State Veterinary  and Sanitary Control, (2) Rules for Compulsory 
Seizure and Destruction of Animal s, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute 
High Danger to Animal and Human Health, or Ma ndatory Decontamination (Disinfection) and 
Processing Without Withdrawal Thereof, (3) Rules and Conditions of Compensation to Legal and Natural Persons of the Value of Removed and Destroyed Infected Animals, Products and Raw 
Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health, (4) List of 
Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, when Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Cons titute High Danger to Animal and Human Health 
are to be Held, (5) List of Highly Contagious Anim al Diseases, Prevention, Diagnosis and Eradication 
of which are Implemented at the Cost of the Budg et, (6) Rules of State Veterinary and Sanitary 
Control During Movement of Objects Across the St ate Border of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and 
(7) Rules of Organization of Veterinary Control Po sts at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; 
Government Resolution No. 1754 "On Approval of Organization of Slaughtering of Agricultural 
Animals Intended for Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; Government Resolution No. 2331 
"On Approval of Identification of Agricultural Animals" of 31 December 2009; Government 
Resolution No. 132 "On Approval of Rules of Issu ance of Permits for Exportation, Importation and 
Transit of Objects with Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the Territory" of 
19 January 2012; Government Resolution No. 149  "On Approval of Rules of Transportation 
(Movement) of Objects on the Territory of th e Republic of Kazakhstan" of 21 January 2012; 
Government Resolution No. 165 "On the Approval of  the Rules for Entry (Importation) of Food 
Products Subject to Veterinary Control" of 19 February 2008; Law No. 301 "On Food Safety" of 
21 July 2007; Code of the Republic of Kazakhsta n No 193-IV "On Public Health and Healthcare JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 6 
 
 
  System" of 18 September 2009; Government Reso lution No. 125 "On Approval of the Rules for 
Assignment of Registration Numbers to Entities Producing Food Products" of 11 February 2008; 
Government Resolution No. 2267 "On Approval of the Rules for Refusal for Entry, as well as for Production, Use and Sale of Produc ts Intended for Human Consumption, on the Territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as for Use in Business and (or) Other Activities" of 
30 December 2009; Law No. 344-I "On Plant Quar antine" of 11 February 1999, Law No. 331-II 
"On Plant Protection" of 3 July 2002; Government  Resolution No. 1295 "On Approval of the List of 
Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species and Extrem ely Dangerous Pests" of 10 December 2002; 
Government Resolution No. 1287 "On Approval of the Rules on Withdrawal and Destruction of 
Quarantine Products, Infected by Quarantine Objects,  Not Subject to Decontamination or Processing" 
of 3 November 2011; Government Resolution No. 1 730 "On Approval of the Rules for Protection of 
the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan from Plant Quarantine Objects and Alien Species" of 
30 October 2009; Government Resolution No. 1674 "On Approval of Phytosanitary Requirements to 
Imported Quarantine Products" of 30 December 2011; and Government Resolution No. 1396 
"On Approval of the Rules on Registration Tests and State Registration of Pesticides (Chemical 
Insecticides) in the Republic of K azakhstan" of 30 November 2011. 
- (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
- (i) Customs Union Authorities and Responsibilities 
3. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that  within the CU institutional framework for 
regulating in the sphere of SPS measures, the role of the CU Commission had been to coordinate the 
development and implementation of SPS measures by CU Parties, which involved their respective 
sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary authorities.   The CU Commission laid out common general 
principles and adopted common safety requirements for goods marketed within the territory of the 
Customs Union.  These safety requirements covere d sanitary and epidemiological, veterinary, and 
phytosanitary regulations that governed production and trade of the CU.  These CU functions had 
been transferred to the newly created the EurAsi an Economic Commission (EEC), which became the 
successor of the CU Commission as of January 2012.  The EEC would now coordinate the 
development and implementation of SPS measures by the CU Parties. 
4. The EEC was established as a single permanent re gulatory body of the CU and the Common 
Economic Space (CES) by the Treaty on Eurasian Economic Commission of 18 November 2011.  The EEC consisted of a Council and a Collegium.  The competences of the Council and Collegium 
were stipulated by the "Regulation of the Work  of the EEC", approved by the Decision of the 
Supreme Eurasian Economic Council No. 1 of 18 Nove mber 2011.  The Council had a right to veto  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  the decisions adopted by the Collegium.  The Counc il had the following competences with respect to 
SPS measures: 
- adoption, introduction of amendments and adde nda into the Common Lists of Goods subject 
to Sanitary-Epidemiological Surveillance, Vete rinary and Quarantine Phytosanitary Control; 
- adoption and introduction of amendments and a ddenda into the Regulation of Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Control, Regulation on Comm on Procedure for Conduct of Veterinary 
Control, Regulation on Common System of Join t Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods 
(Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), and the Regulation on Common 
Procedure for Conduct of Quarantine Phytosanitary Control. 
 The Collegium had responsibility for the rest  of the issues, including the adoption and 
introduction of amendments and addenda into th e Common Veterinary Requirements and Common 
Forms of Veterinary Certificates, the Co mmon Sanitary Requirements, and the Common 
Phytosanitary Requirements. 
5. Currently, the practice of the development of draft CU legal acts on SPS measures were as 
follows:  
- a CU Party or EEC initiated the development of a draft CU legal act. A Party responsible for 
developing the draft was appointed; 
- a working group, including CU Party representatives, for the review of the draft was 
established; 
- a draft document, discussed and approved at a working group meeting, was submitted to the 
Consultative Committee for publishing on the CU official website for public consultations. 
The period for public consultation was two months; 
- after the process of public consultation, all comme nts and questions were discussed within the 
working group. A final revision of the draf t document was discussed and approved by the 
working group and submitted to the Consultative Committee; 
- the draft document was reviewed at the mee ting of the Consultative Committee. In case the 
draft was approved, it was submitted to the Collegium for approval; 
- the Collegium either adopted the CU docum ents which were under its competence or 
approved the drafts for Council adoption. 
The representative of Kazakhstan further explai ned that this mechanism will be working on a 
temporary basis until establishment of a permanen t mechanism within the EEC.  The permanent 
mechanism was expected to be est ablished in the near future.   
- (ii) National Authorities 
6. Kazakhstan's veterinary service cons isted of the Division of Veteri nary and Food Safety at the 
Ministry of Agriculture, and the Committee of Vete rinary Control and Supervision under the Ministry 
of Agriculture.  The Division of Veterinary and Food Safety was the in charge of strategic planning in 
the sphere of veterinary safety, including budge ting.  The Committee of Veterinary Control and 
Supervision was in charge of developing rules and regulations in this area  and conducting veterinary JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 8 
 
 
  control and surveillance of the objects of veterinary  and sanitary control and surveillance, including 
on the State border, epizootic welfare, as well as the veterinary surveillance of establishments.  
In addition, the veterinary control framework include d (i) veterinary control posts; and (ii) the oblast, 
city and raion territorial branches of the Co mmittee on Veterinary Control and Supervision; 
(iii) subordinated State veterinary organizations  (National Reference Ce nter for Veterinary, 
Republican Anti-Epizootic Entity, Republican Veterina ry Laboratory.  Executive functions in the 
sphere of veterinary were transferred to local executive bodies of the respective 
administrative-territorial units (oblast, city, raion, etc.), which included veterinary branches, as well as State veterinary organizations to  conduct veterinary measures.  
7. The Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiologi cal Surveillance of the Ministry of Health 
was the authorised body responsible for issues rela ted to sanitary and epidemiological welfare.  
Functions of the Committee of State Sanitary and Ep idemiological Surveillance were specified by the 
Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 193-IV "O n Public Health and Healthcare System" of 
18 September 2009.  The representative of Kazakhstan said that the Division of Phytosanitary Safety 
was in charge of strategic planning in the sphe re of phytosanitary safety, including budgeting.  
The Committee on State Inspection in the Agro-Industri al Complex of the Ministry of Agriculture of 
the Republic of Kazakhstan was in charge of de veloping rules and regulations in this area and 
conducting phytosanitary control including border c ontrol, measures on protection of plants from 
pests, monitoring of agricultural lands against plant pests and diseases. 
8. With regard to participation in  international organizations in this sphere, she said that as a 
member of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) since 1993, Kazakhstan intended to 
follow the provisions of the Terrestrial and Aquati c Animal Health Codes.  For the purpose of 
application of OIE Code, Kazakhs tan had ratified International Ag reement on Establishment the OIE 
(the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 109-IV  of 24 December 2008).  In  addition, Kazakhstan 
had ratified the Convention for the Establishment of  the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection 
Organization, in March 2004 and the Internationa l Plant Protection Convention, in April 2010.  
She further explained that Kazakhstan was a memb er of Codex Alimentarius Commission since 2005.  
Hence, the international standards, recommendati ons and guidelines of the OIE, IPPC and Codex 
Alimentarius would be applied in Kazakhstan. 
- (c) Development of Technical Regulations/Mandatory Requirements on SPS  
9. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that CU Parties were engaged in the elaboration 
of mandatory requirements for products within the sy stem of technical regulations adopted pursuant to 
the EurAsEC Agreements on the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of the Eurasian  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Economic Community Members of 24 March 2005 and on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in 
the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008; as well 
as the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of 
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian  Federation of 18 Novemb er 2010; Regulation on 
Development of Technical Regulations of Eurasian Economic Community; Regulation on 
Development, Approval, Amending a nd Cancellation of Technical Regul ations of the Customs Union, 
approved by the Decision of Council of the Eur asian Economic Commission No. 48 of 20 June 2012 
which replaced the Rules of the Development of  the Technical Regulations, approved by EurAsEC 
Interstate Council Decision No. 1175 of 17 A ugust 2008 and CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 
28 January 2011 "Regulation on Development, Adop tion, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical 
Regulations of the Customs Union" (as ame nded by CU Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011). 
10. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the aim of the ongoing legislative and 
implementation work in the CU and Kazakhstan was to ensure ha rmonization with the standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations of the World Animal  Health Organisation (OIE), the International 
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), and the Codex Al imentarius (Codex).  This work, in her view, 
would ensure full compliance of th e SPS regime of Kazakhstan, wh ether measures were adopted in 
the context of the EurAsEC, EEC, or dom estically, with the requirements of the 
WTO SPS Agreement from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO. 
11. She added that the approaches towards ha rmonization of CU measures and the Kazakh 
domestic regulation of sanitary and phytosanita ry issues with the standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations of these international organiza tions were defined in the framework of 
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and partic ipation of Kazakhstan in the activities of the 
relevant international organizations.  She expl ained that CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 
22 June 2011 "On Application of  International Standards, Gu idelines and Recommendations", 
provided that:  in cases in which the CU Commission or the national authorities had not established mandatory requirements in the veterinary, or phyto sanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic 
sphere, the CU Parties would apply standards, r ecommendations and guidelines of the OIE, IPPC, and 
the Codex Alimentarius (Codex) respectively.  Si milarly, if CU veterinary, phytosanitary and 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic mandatory requi rements in effect in the territory of the CU 
were more stringent than releva nt international standards, gui delines and recommendations, in the 
absence of scientific justification of risk to hum an, animal, or plant life or health, relevant 
international standards, guidelines, and recommenda tions, or parts thereof, would be applied.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 10 
 
 
  12. Some Members asked Kazakhstan to provide details on the EurAsEC and EEC processes for 
elaborating SPS Technical Regulations and whet her EurAsEC requirements would supersede or 
replace EEC, CU and national requirements.  
13. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that draft technical regulations, including those 
related to SPS, were developed in  the participating countries using internal procedures before being 
proposed by the authorised national bodies.  For K azakhstan,  the MOA or the MOH, as assigned by 
the Government of Kazakhstan, proposed SPS techni cal regulations to the designated EurAsEC or 
EEC bodies for harmonization, further review, and adoption as provided for in the relevant international agreements or CU decisions.  Fo r EurAsEC, the Commission for Technical Regulation 
and Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measur es in Trade of the EurAsEC Integration Committee 
(the EurAsEC Commission for Technical Regulation) , through the authorised national bodies of the 
EurAsEC Parties, coordinated the Parties' effo rts on the development of technical regulations, 
including sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  After publishing a draft technical regulation and 
collecting public comments, the EurAsEC Integra tion Committee then forwarded the agreed draft 
technical regulation to the EurAsEC Interstate C ouncil for adoption as an Agreement as provided for 
in Article 3 of the EurAsEC Agreement on Tec hnical Regulation Harmonization.  In the CU 
framework, this coordination and transparency ro le was fulfilled by the Consultative Committee on 
Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures (the CU 
Consultative Committee) which received draft techni cal regulations from the authorised bodies of the 
CU Parties, coordinated the deve lopment of a draft text and reso lved disputes concerning it among the 
authorities of the CU Parties.  The Consultative Committee, with the assistance of the EEC, then 
circulated the draft technical regulation for public  review and comment and prepared analysis and 
recommendations on the draft technical regulations  before forwarding the proposals to the ECC for 
adoption through decisions. 
14. The representative of Kazakhsta n also explained that, under the CU, any domestic or foreign 
natural or legal person or governme ntal or non-governmental body could develop a draft technical 
regulation provided that the development of a te chnical regulation was included into respective 
schedule outlining the development of priority t echnical regulations of the CU and the it was 
approved by the authorised body for such works.  Such person or entity was required to publish a 
notice on the development of the draft technical  regulation and then to provide for a public 
consultation and comment on the draft, in acco rdance with the requirements, described in 
paragraph [...].  In addition, third-country inter ested parties, including foreign governments, could 
provide comments on draft technical regulations proposed by any of the EurAsEC or CU Parties, as established in Article 6 of the EurAsEC Interstate  Council Decision No. 1175 and Paragraph 8 of the  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  EEC Decision No. 48, respectively.  After the public  consultation process, the draft was submitted to 
the national body, for SPS matters this was the MO A or the MOH as assigned by the Government of 
Kazakhstan.  Responding to a ques tion on how draft technical regula tions not based on international 
standards, recommendations or guidelines could be re vised prior to application, she stated that the 
applicable laws and CU acts specified the priori ty use of international standards, recommendations 
and guidelines, as the basis for te chnical regulations and that the technical regulation developer was 
required to provide his assessment on how the draft was consistent with international standards in his 
notification of the draft for public comment.  The technical regulation developer was also required to 
identify the standards, recommendations and guidelin es, used in constructing the draft technical 
regulation.  When the national authorised body received comments provided by the public on these 
materials, it forwarded them to the relevant expe rt board established in accordance with Article 9 of 
Law No. 603 and described in paragraph […].  Th is expert board included  experts representing 
government bodies, academia and business/consumers a ssociations and other interested parties.  
The meeting of the relevant expert board was pub lic and its decisions were publicly available.  
The expert board would take into account the requirement to use international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, and, if necessary, urge  appropriate changes.  The resulting draft was 
submitted to the national authorised body which fo rwarded it to the EEC.  The EEC in turn placed the 
draft technical regulation, a notice on how it was developed, and an explanatory note on its own 
official website and on the official websites of th e authorised bodies for technical regulation of the 
other CU Parties.  Interested domestic and fore ign legal and natural persons (including those from 
non-members of the CU), including foreign governments, could submit their comments and suggestions on the draft technical regulations to the authorised body of the CU Party that proposed it 
and to the EEC.  The period for comments was at least 60 days following the publication of the first draft of the technical regulation by a CU Body.  She noted that government bodies submitted draft technical regulations and other documents to the EEC for adopti on and that any amendments to  a 
technical regulation were adopted within the same procedure.   
15. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at a schedule outlining the development of 
priority technical regulations of the CU had been adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 8 December 2010.  Under this schedule, as of Se ptember 2012, SPS technical regulations governing 
food safety, labelling of food products, grain, juice products, oil and fat prod ucts were adopted by 
CU Commission Decisions in December 2011; S PS technical regulations governing specialized 
products, including dietetic meals and food additiv es were adopted by the EEC Council Decision in 
June and July 2012, respectively; SPS technical re gulations governing milk and milk products, meat 
and meat products were under inter-governmental c onsideration; SPS technical regulations governing 
safety of feed stuffs and feed additives, fish and fish products, safety of alcoholic beverages, tobacco JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 12 
 
 
  products had completed public discussion as of Se ptember 2012.  She further explained that a 
schedule outlining the development of EurAsEC priori ty technical regulations had been adopted by 
Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 521 of 19 November 2010.  Included in this schedule 
were SPS technical regulations on grain, food safet y, labelling of food products, tobacco products, 
juice products, oil and fat products, milk and milk products, honey and products  of bee-farming, and 
on the safety of bottled water.  However, curre ntly the development a nd adoption of EurAsEC 
technical regulations was suspended.  Members of  the Working Party asked for clarification as 
regards the overlap between the CU priority techni cal regulations and the EurAsEC priority technical 
regulations.  The representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that a choice had been made to focus on the 
adoption of CU technical regulations, since the CU  procedure for adoption of technical regulations 
was faster.  These CU technical regulations woul d then be used as a basis to propose technical 
regulations covering these products at EurAsEC le vel.  While many of the proposed technical 
regulations had been put on the CU website for public comments or would be placed on that website 
once developed, some technical regulations, such as the technical regulations for milk and milk 
products and grain, fat and oils, and juice had been placed only on the EurAsEC website.  
Some Members raised concerns regarding whethe r there had been a meaningful opportunity to 
provide comments on those technical regulations .  Members of the Working Party asked for 
clarification of the legal provisions applicable in Kazakhstan if technical re gulations with diverging 
provisions covering the same product were adopted at  CU and at EurAsEC level.  Members of the 
Working Party also asked whether the draft techni cal regulations on honey and bottled water safety, to 
be developed by the Kyrgyz Republic for adoption at EurAsEC level, which are not planned to be 
adopted at CU level, will be appli cable to exports to Kazakhstan.  
16. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that EurAsEC Technical Regulations 
superseded Technical Regulations of the Customs Un ion.  She explained that technical regulations on 
honey and bottled water safety, to be developed by the Kyrgyz Republic for adoption at EurAsEC 
level, would be applicable to e xports to Kazakhstan, as well as to circulation of the mentioned goods 
in the territory of the CU.   
17. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that it was expected that the CU Commission 
would have adopted the 47 priority CU technical regulations, including those related to SPS matters, 
by 31 December 2012, and that all of these technical regulations would enter into force no later than 
31 December 2014, after a transitional period to allo w producers, importers, and exporters to become 
aware of and comply with the new technical regulations.  Notification of when EurAsEC or CU Technical Regulations entered into force and su perseded national technical regulations would be 
posted on the website of the CU or EurAsEC as appropriate.  In response to a question from a  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Member of the Working Party, the representativ e of Kazakhstan confirmed that no new national 
technical regulations were being developed.  Ho wever, mandatory national requirements were still 
being developed and ap plied on phytosanitary issues until the adoption of CU-wide common 
phytosanitary requirements.    
18. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at CU Agreements, once they entered into 
force, were international treaties of Kazakhstan,  and, with the exception of the Constitution and 
Constitutional Laws of Kazakhstan, would prevail, in  the event of a conflict, over the provisions of 
laws and other normative legal acts in Kazakhs tan (whether adopted before or after the 
CU Agreement).  With regard to CU Commissi on and EEC Decisions, she explained that such 
decisions had the legal status in the Kazakh domest ic legal system corresponding to that which the 
decision would have had if adopted by the Govern ment or Executive body which had been competent 
to regulate the subject matter at the moment wh en the CU Commission was delegated the relevant 
authority.  She explained that Kazakhstan did not repeal a national law when CU acts applied, but 
these were amended to comply with the CU act.  Pending this alignment,  domestic SPS measures 
continued to apply in so far as they did not conflict with the CU act.  
19. Some Members expressed concern about the ove rlap of CU and national SPS measures and 
the continued adoption of SPS measures at the nationa l level in the CU Parties.  These Members noted 
that these amendments were, not necessarily with a view to harmonise national requirements with 
CU requirements.  In their view, this resulted in  uncertainty regarding a pplication and compliance 
with SPS measures and placed a significant burden  on trade, possibly in violation of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  Moreover, continued devel opment and application of domestic measures in 
each of the CU Parties could result in a lack of harmonization of requirements and increased burden on trade within the territory of the CU.  These Members requested information from the Kazakhstan 
regarding precisely which SPS measures would apply in Kazakhstan and throughout the territory of 
the CU.  These Members also requested information on when domestic authorities would cease developing and applyi ng domestic SPS measures.  The representative confirmed that national 
SPS measures, when in conflict with CU SPS acts, w ould not apply to the extent of the conflict.  
She specified that as regards matters covere d by CU acts, Kazakhstan would cease adopting 
amendments of national SPS measures, for purposes other than alignment of national measures with 
CU acts, at the latest by 1 January 2012.  Until th at date, a transitional period allowed the adoption of 
national measures when preparatory technical work had started before 1 July 2010.  These national 
measures were applicable only in so far as they did not contradict CU acts.  Some Members asked if 
alignment of national measures with CU acts had to occur within a specified time period, and if so, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 14 
 
 
  what period applied.  In response, she explained that there was no specified time period for such 
alignment. 
20. Some Members asked Kazakhstan to describe the exact delineation of competences between 
the CU and the national authorities.  The represen tative responded that the EEC had responsibility for 
establishing specific product requirements, except in the area of phytosanitary requirements.  
This meant that for veterinary and sanitary cont rol, the CU Commission and EEC, as of January 2012, 
had established a list of goods that could be subject to veterinary requirements, and a common list of 
goods subject to unified sanitary requirements.  Ther e was one unified process for control of transfers 
of these products between CU Parties, i.e., within th e territory of the CU, and control at the external 
CU border.  The EEC/ CU Commission had also established unified procedures for inspection of 
facilities.  Furthermore, guidelines for conducting insp ections of establishments would be adopted by 
the EEC by the date of [Kazakhstan's ] [the first CU  Party's] accession to the WTO which would then 
supersede relevant domestic norma tive legal acts.  With regard to phytosanitary measures, the 
CU Commission established the list of products subj ect to phytosanitary control; however, national 
bodies established specific phytosanitary requirements, related to the phytosanitary situation in that 
CU Party.   
21. With regard to other issues, where the national bodies retained authority to regulate, the 
representative explained that national bodies establis hed requirements in respect of processes for 
manufacturing products domestically and penalties in the respective administrative code for violation 
of SPS requirements.  National authorities also deve loped strategies for coping with animal diseases; 
adopted temporary SPS measures, i.e., emergency measures, in the cases of receipt of justified 
information about danger of imported goods; establi shed sanitary requirements for organization of 
work activity of companies in the sphere of ser vices; aligned national sanitary-epidemiological and 
hygiene requirements with CU requirements; and ag reed on sanitary-safety zones (i.e., norms related 
to water safety and applicable onl y domestically).  With regard to phytosanitary issues, national 
authorities established phytosanitary requirements, the list of quarantine pests, domestic quarantine 
zones and internal phytosanitary posts. 
22. She further explained that this division of competence between the EEC and national 
authorities could evolve with the harmonization of requirements at the CU level and how the 
CU Parties addressed these issues.  Competence would be  delegated to the CU as part of this process.  
The representative of Kazakhstan referred, as an example, to CU Decision No. 454 of 
18 November 2010, which adopted a plan of priori ty actions, aimed at harmonization of quarantine 
and phytosanitary measures of CU Parties within th e period of 2011 to 2012.  According to this plan,  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  a CU common list of quarantine pests and CU co mmon phytosanitary requirements for regulated 
products were planned to be de veloped and to enter into force on 1 January 2013.  Thus, the 
competence for these norms would be transferred from national authorities to CU bodies at this time.   
23. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the process of harmonization of national 
laws with CU acts on SPS matters was taking place at the same time and in a parallel process to 
adoption of CU Commission/EEC decisions on SPS matters.  She further clarified that at the national level, Kazakhstan had introduced am endments into the national legisla tion in order to align them with 
the CU legal framework.  In particular, the Law "On Veterinary" was amended on 30 June 2010 
(entered into force on 1 July 2011) and 12 January 2012 in order remove veterinary control on the 
border with CU Parties and retain such control only on the state border concurring within the 
CU customs territory and to abolish registration of feed stuff, except for feed  additives, respectively. 
The Government Resolution No. 132 governing issu ance of import permits was also developed in 
compliance with the provisions of the CU Common Veterinary Requirements.  The Law "On Plant 
Quarantine" was amended in July 2012 in order to remove the requirement of import permits. 
24. Some Members noted that several documents called GOST or MUK appeared to contain 
SPS requirements; however, these documents did not appear to be legal requirements.  
These Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm that un registered documents could only be considered 
as guidelines and could not be used to impose restri ctive measures on trade if the requirements set-out 
in these documents were not met.  In particular , these Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm that 
there were no legal requirements that set a compul sory frequency of self-checks at the level of the 
producing establishments for residues or microbiological levels in food. 
25. In response, the representative of Kazakhs tan explained that GOST were non-binding 
recommendations.  She stated that compliance with  MUKs were internal guidelines and compliance 
with these guidelines was mandatory only for Stat e control bodies and those bodies within the 
Russian Federation conducting State sanitary-epidemiologi cal control and other types of State control.  
She noted that GOST and MUK documents were bei ng updated on a regular basis taking into account 
current amendments in legislation and the technical base (capabilities for testing).  She confirmed that 
there were no binding requirements on how often th e producing establishment had to test for residues 
or microbiological levels in its product.  She not ed that an inspector could ask for documents 
regarding such testing for informational purposes to est ablish that there was a plan of control of these 
issues.  Some Members expressed concerns that  an establishment could be considered as 
non-compliant on the basis of a non-binding guideline and asked whether Kazakhstan would 
implement the Codex Guidelines "For the Design and Implementation of National Regulatory Food JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 16 
 
 
  Safety Assurance Programme Asso ciated with the use of Veterinary Drugs in Food Producing 
Animals" CAC/GL/71-2009, which recognised the monitoring done at a national level, and by a food producing establishment.  The representative of K azakhstan confirmed that it would implement these 
Codex Guidelines as of the date of its accession to th e WTO.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
26. Some Members also noted that the techni cal regulations and secondary normative acts 
containing limitative standards did not take  into account the corresponding standards, 
recommendations and guidelines of international or ganizations or the methodology recommended by 
such organizations to set such standards.  In r esponse, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that 
these technical regulations and secondary normative ac ts related to sanitary and veterinary issues 
would be based on the corresponding standards, recommendations and guidelines of international 
organizations. 
- (d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
27. The representative of Kazakhsta n stated that, as noted above, the CU Commission had issued 
several decisions which provided the legal framework  for protection of animal and human health.  
CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "O n the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary 
Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 893 of 9 December 2011) established the legal basis for veterinary measures in the Customs Union and 
entered into force on 1 July 2010.  CU Commission Decision No. 317 established a list of goods that could be subject to veterinary control, and adopted provisions on:  (i) on the common procedure for 
carrying out of veterinary inspection at the customs border of the Customs Union; (ii) on the common procedure for carrying of joint inspections of f acilities and sampling of goods (products) subject to 
veterinary control(surveillance); (iii) the common veterinary (veterinary and sanitary) requirements 
for goods subject to veterinary control (surveillance); (iv) the common forms of veterinary certificates 
(for movement within the Customs Union); and, (v) the common List of goods subject to veterinary 
control (surveillance).  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that CU Commission Decision 
No. 834 of 18 October 2011 "On Regulation on Comm on System of Joint Inspections of Objects and 
Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterina ry Control (Surveillance)" had approved a new 
procedure for conduct of inspections and repealed the previous regulation on inspections adopted by 
the CU Commission Decision No. 317.  The Co mmon Sanitary-Epidemiological and Hygiene 
Requirements to Goods Subject to Sanitary-Epide miological Control (supervision) as contained in 
CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 " On  the Application of Sanitary Measures in the  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 829 of 18 November 2011) 
established the sanitary requirements, including maximum residue levels for controlled goods. 
28. The following basic national regulatory legal act s constituted the legal framework to protect 
human and animal life and health are:  the Law "O n Veterinary" of 20 July 2002 (as last amended of 
12 January 2012), Law "On Food Safety" of 27 Ju ly 2007, as well as subordinate legal acts in the 
sphere of veterinary, had b een approved for the purpose of implementation of these Laws:  
Government Resolution No. 407 of 28 April 2003, wh ich approved the following:  (1) Regulation on 
the State Veterinary and Sanitary Control; (2) Ru les for Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of 
Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Animal 
and Human Health, or Mandatory Decontamin ation (Disinfection) and Processing Without 
Withdrawal Thereof; (3) Rules and Conditions of Compensation to Legal and Natural Persons of the 
Value of Removed and Destroyed Infected Animals,  Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, 
which Constitute High Danger to Animal and Human Health; (4) List of Highly Contagious Animal 
Diseases, when Compulsory Seizure and Destruction of Animals, Products and Raw Materials of Animal Origin, which Constitute High Danger to Anim al and Human Health are to be Held; (5) List 
of Highly Contagious Animal Diseases, preventi on, diagnosis and eradication of which are 
implemented through the budget; (6) Rules of State Veterinary and Sanitary Control During Movement of Objects Across the State Border of  the Republic of Kazakhstan; (7) Rules of 
Organization of Veterinary Control Posts at the State Border and Customs Checkpoints; Government 
Resolution No. 1754 "On Approval of Organization of  Slaughtering of Agricultural Animals Intended 
for Subsequent Sale" of 4 November 2009; Go vernment Resolution No. 2331 "On Approval of  
Identification of Agricultural Animals" of 31 December 2009; Government Resolution No. 132 
"On Approval of Rules of Issuance of Permits fo r Exportation, Importation and Transit of Objects 
with Regard to Evaluation of Epizootic Situation in the Territory" of 19 January 2012, Government 
Resolution No. 149 "On Approval of Rules of Tran sportation (Movement) of Objects on the Territory 
of the Republic of Kazakhsta n" of 21 January 2012. 
- (i) Veterinary Certificates 29. Members requested information on CU requi rements related to the development and 
implementation of veterinary certificates.  Members sought to ensure that such certificates would be 
consistent with international standards, recomme ndations, and guidelines.  Members also requested 
information on the continued validity of current bilate ral certificates agreed with Kazakhstan.  In their 
view, these bilateral certificates should remain va lid until a replacement was agreed with the 
CU Parties. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 18 
 
 
  30. [With respect to veterinary certificates, th e representative of Kazakhstan stated that 
40 CU common forms of veterinary certificates fo r import into the CU territory from any third 
country had been adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011, for each of the categories of goods subject to veterinary control as established in CU Commission Decision No. 317.  
These certificates were subsequently updated pur suant to CU Commission Decision No. 892 of 
9 December 2011.  She confirmed that in acco rdance with CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 
15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", veterina ry certificates between exporting countries and 
Kazakhstan finalized prior to 1 July 2010 would be valid for import into the territory of the 
Customs Union at least until 1 January 2013.  Furthe rmore, the Decision provided that the competent 
authorities of the CU Parties could negotiate and agree to veterinary certificates with requirements that differed from the CU common form and speci fic CU Common Requirements, if an exporting 
country made a substantiated request prior to 1 Ja nuary 2013 to negotiate such a veterinary export 
certificate.  The decision also provided that bila teral veterinary export certificates, in case an 
authorised body of a CU Party received request  to negotiate a veterinary certificate before 
1 January 2013, initialled by one of the CU Partie s before 1 July 2010, as well as any subsequent 
amendments to such certificates ag reed with the authorised body of such CU Party, would remain 
valid for exports from the relevant country into the customs territory of the CU until an export 
certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on th e agreed positions of the other CU Parties.  
Bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by  one of the CU Parties between 1 July 2010 and 
1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation of relevant goods, only in the 
territory of the CU Party that initialled the certificat e, in case an authorised body of exporting country 
submitted its request to an authorised body of a CU Party before 1 January 2013 until a bilateral 
veterinary export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other 
CU Parties.  While a bilateral veterinary export  certificate could contain requirements that differed 
from the CU Common Form and Common Requirements, such certificates had to ensure the appropriate level of protection as determined by the CU Parties.  These new certificates were also required to include terms, including provisions on the relevant product, that were no less favourable 
than those in an international treaty that was conc luded prior to 1 July 2010 between a CU Party and 
the third country.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
31. Asked to provide more information on the use of veterinary certificates, she said that the 
CU legal framework allowed for negotiating veterinary certificates differing from 40 CU common 
forms of veterinary certificates and specific CU  Common Requirements with a competent body of 
exporting country.  If a third country sought to export to a CU Party a commodity for which veterinary certification was required according to the CU Common List of Goods subject to veterinary 
control, but for which no CU Common Form of cer tificate and no CU Common  Requirements existed,  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  a bilateral certificate with the interested country  could be developed based on a coordinated position 
of the CU Parties, and such a bilateral certificate would be based on relevant international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations as provided for in CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of  International Standards, Guid elines and Recommendations".  
If, according to the CU Common List of Goods s ubject to veterinary control, no veterinary 
certification was required for a commodity, or if  the commodity was not included in the said 
CU Common List, Kazakhstan would not require a veterinary certificate.   
32. A Member requested information on the lat est amendments to the common veterinary 
requirements, noting that certain provisions of these requirements did not appear to be in accordance with OIE recommendations.  This Member asked whet her the intent of these amendments was to align 
these requirements with the OIE. 
33. Some Members expressed concern that th e CU Commission had adopted the 40 common 
forms of veterinary certificates and 38 chapters of common veterinary requirements that did not 
conform to international standards, recommendations  and guidelines, in particular OIE standards, 
recommendations and requirements.  These Members al so raised concerns that contrary to the 
requirements of the WTO SPS Agreement, interested parties, including Members had not been accorded an opportunity to provide comments on these measures before they were adopted.  
The representative of Kazakhstan responded that CU  Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 
now provided a CU process for receiving comme nts from the public on proposed SPS measures.  
34. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that amendments of the common veterinary 
requirements and to the common forms of certificates were being prepared in parallel so as to ensure 
compatibility with international standards, recommendations and guidelines in particular 
OIE standards.  She confirmed that the amendmen ts to the common veterinary requirements and to 
the common forms of certificates would enter into fo rce simultaneously no later than the date of the 
accession of [the first CU Party] [Kazakhstan] to the WTO.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.] 
35. Some Members noted that Kazakhstan had draf ted proposed amendments to a few of the 
CU common veterinary requirements.  These Me mbers expressed concerns that these proposed 
amendments were extremely limited, failed to take  into account Members' comments, were not based 
on scientific principles, could result in arbitrary or un justifiable discrimination, and, most importantly, 
failed to bring the CU common veterinary requirement s into conformity with international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, e. g., by requiring conditions for animal diseases which were not 
listed in the OIE Code.  Members noted Kazakhstan' s commitments in paragraph [xxx] regarding the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 20 
 
 
  CU common veterinary requirements and common  forms and expressed concerns that Kazakhstan 
would not adopt all of the necessary amendments  to achieve compatibility with international 
standards, guidelines and recommenda tions in particular OIE standards by the date of the accession 
first CU Party to the WTO or that these amendm ents would not enter into force as provided in 
paragraph [14].  These Members urged Kazakhstan to  engage in serious efforts, including through 
consultations with WTO Members, with a view  to ensure the timely implementation of the 
commitments in paragraph [14]. 
36. Some Members noted that they had begun to  negotiate specific certificates with the 
CU parties consistent with CU Commission Decision No. 726.  Members stated that the CU parties 
continued to request attestations that went beyond the OIE recommendations without providing 
scientific justification and that the CU Parties seeme d reluctant to negotiate attestations that differed 
from the CU common requirements.  Members also noted that the process for negotiating the certificates was time intens ive and that it was difficult to ensure  that there was consistency among the 
CU parties participating in each negotiating ses sion.  Furthermore, these Members requested 
information on the basis for a CU Party, which did not participate in negotiations of specific 
certificates, to oppose the conclusion and adoption of  the certificates when the certificate contained 
provisions aligned with the international standards.   Members noted ongoing concerns with the lack of 
efficiency in negotiating specific certificates.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, if an exporting Member believed that the SPS requirements of the CU or Kazakhstan resulted in a higher 
level of protection than would be achieved by meas ures based on the relevant international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations, Kazakhstan was prepar ed to consult with the exporting Member on 
such SPS requirements and, if necessary, would,  as a result of such consultations, modify 
requirements included in the relevant certificate to  bring them into compliance with international 
standards, guidelines, or recommendations consiste nt with the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment.] 
37. [Some Members stated that a veterinary certificate should not require certification of 
provisions that were not mandatory requirements u nder CU acts or in the absence of CU mandatory 
requirements, under international standards, reco mmendations, and guidelines, e.g., to certify for a 
disease which was not the object of a CU act or wa s not subject to the same level of surveillance 
within the CU or Kazakhstan's territory as required in the certificate.  If Kazakhstan or the CU sought 
to have stricter animal health requirements than those set-out in the OIE, Kazakhstan or CU must 
demonstrate that, based on risk assessment, as well as active and passive surveillance in Kazakhstan 
or the CU territory for animal diseases that could be present on the territory of Kazakhstan or the CU, 
the animal health status of Kazakhstan or the CU for the disease concerned was such that it justified  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  such stricter requirements.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that veterinary certificates 
would not include provisions for diseases that were  not transmitted by/relevant to the concerned 
product, and would not require certif ication of provisions that were not justified based on mandatory 
requirements applicable and surveillance carried out within the territory of Kazakhstan or the whole 
CU.  In cases where the requirement s for surveillance did not exist for all CU Parties, conditions for 
trade with third countries would not discriminate between exports from third countries and movement 
of goods between the CU Parties.  The Wo rking Party took note of this commitment.] 
- (ii) Establishment Approval, Register and Inspections 38. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that according to CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, many of the goods included in the list of goods  subject to veterinary control were subject to 
three requirements:  (i) the exporting establishment ha d to be included in the Register of Entities and 
Persons Producing, Processing and/or Storing of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control Imported into 
the Customs Territory of the CU (hereinafter – the Register); (ii) the good had to be accompanied by a 
veterinary certificate; and (iii) an import permit ha d to be issued for importation of goods from an 
establishment in the Register.  However, the repr esentative noted that pursuant to CU Commission 
Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011, the CU had agreed to remove certain veterinary control 
measures for specific goods in order to minimize th e overlapping control mechanisms.  In addition, 
CU Commission Decision No. 831 of 18 October 20 11, removed some goods from veterinary control 
completely.  [The representative informed Me mbers that Kazakhstan had initiated additional 
amendments to the list of goods.] 
39. The representative of Kazakhstan emphasised that according CU Commission Decision 
No. 830 of 18 October 2011, producers of certain imported goods were exempted from the registry 
requirements, such as producers of live animals, fe ed grain, natural honey, oil-seed flour for feed, 
animal fat and oil, unprocessed grain straw, extract s and juices from meat, pasta stuffed with fish and 
invertebrates and processed meat.  The Register was published on the website of the Customs Union 
www.tsouz.ru (Section TBD).  
40. A Member requested the scientific basis for main taining some specific products in the list of 
goods subject to veterinary control.  Specifically, the Member requested information on the inclusion 
of products of plant origin.  In addition, the Member requested information on the requirement for 
including the names of establishments exporting pr ocessed dairy products in the Register when 
destined to Kazakhstan.  This Member requested that Kazakhstan eliminate any requirements that did 
not have a scientific justification and a risk assessment. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 22 
 
 
  41. In response to a request from a Member fo r further information on the requirements and 
procedures for an establishment to be included on th e list of establishments authorised to export a 
product to Kazakhstan and the CU, the representa tive of Kazakhstan explained that, prior to 
1 July 2010, Kazakhstan did not maintain a regi stry requirement for establishments of exporting 
countries.  The representative of Kazakhstan explaine d that, as of 1 July 2010, imports of products 
subject to veterinary control, as established in CU Commission Decision No. 317, were required to 
come from establishments approved by the CU Parties and included in the Register.  
42. [The representative of Kazakhstan explaine d that the CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 
18 October 2011 amended CU Commission Decisi on 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 particular good.  In some cases, 
the form of veterinary control had been modified or eliminated.  For example, for some products the 
requirement for veterinary certificates and/or impor t permits had been eliminated.  Similarly, the 
requirement for an establishment to be included in a Register had been eliminated or amended to require only the provision of the name and/or num ber of the final establishment dealing with the 
goods prior to export to the territory of the CU, which was included in the import permit and/or 
veterinary certificate.] 
43. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that pr oducts of plant origin were excluded from 
the List of Goods subject to Veterinary Control, and the requirement of inclusion of third country 
producers exporting dairy products to Kazakhstan into the Register was replaced by the requirement 
to indicate the number and name of the producer in the import permit and veterinary certificate. 
44. [With regard to the list of goods as set-out in Table [xx], the representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that categories of goods would be added to the list of goods subject to veterinary control or 
the form of veterinary control applied to categor ies 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.] 
45. The representative of Kazakhstan further expl ained that since 1 July 2010 and before 
completing work on creating a common web-interf ace of the CU Commission's website, the three 
national lists of establishments from which imports we re authorised were valid for imports into the 
entire CU territory (unless specified otherwise for sp ecific establishments on the lists).  Currently the 
references to these lists were available within the following website: http://tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/vetmeri/Pages/Reestro rg.aspx.  Kazakhstan's national list could be 
found at the following web-link:  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  http://www.minagri.kz/index.php?o ption=com_content&view=cate gory&layout=blog&id=236&Itemi
d=265&lang=ru .  If a CU Party took a decision to add an estab lishment to its national list, the other 
CU Parties had to accept this decision. As a r esult of this decision, products from such an 
establishment could freely circulate within the te rritory of the CU, unless specifically provided 
otherwise in this decision.  The representative expl ained that the CU Parties intended to develop a 
common web-interface of the CU Register of estab lishments and a common information system so as 
to have a unique list of establishments that would consolidate their national lists, but exact timing for 
the development of this database could not be specified.   
46. Members noted that Kazakhstan had never main tained a listing requirement prior to the 
establishment of the CU and that many of these requi rements were not based on scientific evidence or 
proportionate to the risk and would represent an unj ustified burden on trade, and were in their view, 
inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.  In r esponse, the representative of Kazakhstan explained 
that, in her view, the listing requirement itself coul d not be a burden on trade.  The burden on trade 
could result from the application of the wrong mechanism for including an establishment on the 
Register, for example, if the required actions that had to be done by the competent authority of an 
exporting country and/or establishment were not b ased on a risk analysis or were more trade 
restrictive than necessary.  CU Commission D ecision No. 317, as amended, allowed the use of 
different mechanisms for listing establishments that provided the possibility of minimizing the 
application of a more burdensome process than necessary for including an enterprise on the list by basing actions on the results of a risk analysis.  The representative of Kazakhstan also explained that 
the requirement to be in the Common Register of Establishments approve d to export particular 
controlled products was a means to ensure co mpliance with CU veterinary requirements. 
47. In response to a question from a Member, the re presentative of Kazakhstan explained that in 
accordance with a transitional period provided unde r CU Commission Decision No. 317, trade could 
continue from establishments not on a "list" in the Register - when there was no requirement for such 
a "list" prior to 1 July 2010.  Such trade could take  place on the basis of an import permit.  She further 
explained that according to point 11.3 of the CU Re gulation "On Veterinary Checks at the CU Border 
and on the CU Territory" (CU Commission Decision No. 317 as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 342), a transitional period for listi ng establishments had been established, for the 
following products:  animals; genetic  material; apicultural products; raw material of animal origin 
(skins, fur, feather, etc.); feed additives of animal or igin; feed of plant origin, etc., to permit trade to 
continue until common or unified lists were establis hed.  In response, some Members highlighted that 
this transitional period did not cover all commoditi es, such as composite products and gelatine, which 
were not subject to listing requirements before the entry into force of CU Commission Decision JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 24 
 
 
  No. 317.  The representative of Kazakhstan expl ained that pursuant to CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, as amended by CU Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011, gelatine and composite products had 
been included in the list of products subject to a transition period.  In reply to the request for clarification on the transition period and the ques tion on the deadline for the transitional period for 
new establishments, the representative of Kazakhs tan said the transition period was provided for 
continuation of trade with third countries on th ese goods until inclusion of the establishments 
producing such goods into the Register.  Since, Kaza khstan [was planning to abolish] the requirement 
of listing the third country establishments exportin g these products to Kazakhstan, the transitional 
period was no longer required. 
48. The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that since 1 July 2010, in case listing of 
establishment was part of the applicable veterinary requirements, establishments  could be added to the 
list of establishments authorised to export to th e CU (the Register) following an on-site joint 
inspection conducted by the three CU Parties or  following the delivery of guarantees as regards 
conformity with the CU requirements by the expor ting country, if the three CU Parties commonly 
agreed to rely on such guarantees.   Indeed, as of 1 July 2010, the "Regulation of a Common System of 
Joint Inspections of Sites and Sampling of Goods  (Products), Subjected to Veterinary Control 
(Supervision)" approved by CU Commission Decisi on No. 317 of 18 June 2010 had entered into 
force.  This Decision outlined two possibilities fo r exporting countries' estab lishments to become 
eligible to export to the CU.  The first option was that the competent authority of the exporting 
country provided guarantees to the CU that the es tablishment met the requirements of the CU.  
The second option was through a joint inspection conduc ted by all CU Parties.  She explained, 
however, that if a third country had never exported pr oducts of animal origin to any of the CU Parties 
before, and wanted to export to the CU for the fi rst time, exporting establishments proposed by this 
third country would have to be inspected by the CU  Parties before being added to the Register, in 
order to confirm the reliability of the veterinary cont rol system of this country.  Pursuant to the new 
Regulation on joint inspections approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 834 starting on the 
date that the first CU Party became a WTO Member, the CU provided a third way for an establishment to be included into the Register, name ly through a systems audit.  (See paragraph [xx] 
below.) 
49. Some Members asked on which basis CU Parties co uld decide to rely on the guarantees of the 
exporting country for the inclusion into the Register .  Another Member sought clarification as to the 
processes available to exporting countries to have fa cilities added to the Register.  In this Member's 
view, it was unclear whether all options were availa ble to all Members.  A Member expressed concern 
that, in practice, the listing of new establishmen ts was no longer accepted on the basis of written  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  guarantees of the exporting country since the entry in to force of the CU.  In this Member's view, 
Kazakhstan and the other CU Partie s did not have the resources to carry out inspections for any new 
establishment requesting to be listed by an expor ting party and some establishments, even already 
exporting, could not be listed due to this lack of res ources.  In this Member's view, this represented an 
unjustified barrier to trade.   
50. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan st ated that the competent authorities of the 
CU Parties had to have confidence that the competent authorities of the exporting country would effectively ensure that exporting establishments in that country met CU requirements.  He added that 
more detailed criteria on foreign guarantees we re included in the new Regulation "On Common 
System of Joint Inspection of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products) Subject to Veterinary Control (Supervision)" adopted by CU Commission Decisi on No. 834 on 18 October 2011 which replaced the 
regulation of the same name adopted on 18 June 20 10.  That regulation was now in effect, including 
the provisions for accepting the guaran tees of the competent authority of a third country and systems 
audits, which had entered into force on the date  that the first CU Party became a WTO Member. 
51. Some Members expressed continuing concerns that CU Parties could require inspection of 
each facility as a precondition for accepting guarantees fo r inclusion in the Register, even in the case 
where Kazakhstan or another CU Party had previously accepted guarantees from a Member's competent authority.  In these Members' view, requi ring inspections was contrary to the concept of 
accepting guarantees which were based on confidence in the third country's competent authority.  
Members requested Kazakhstan to eliminate the requirement for inspection of a facility as a 
precondition for acceptance of a Member's guarantee for that facility. 
52. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that  according to the CU Commission Decision 
No. 834, there was no requirement to inspect each  facility as a precondition for accepting guarantees 
for inclusion in the Register.  At the same ti me, pursuant to Paragraph 86 of the Regulation on 
Joint Inspections, for the purposes of verificati on of the accepted guarantees, CU Parties could 
subsequently inspect establishments, included into  the Register under guarantees, by the method of 
random selection.   
53. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that CU Commission Decision No. 317 had 
allowed for joint inspections by th e three CU Parties of all establis hments in third countries that 
sought to be permitted to e xport goods to the CU that are subject to veterinary control in the CU.  
Inspections must be carried out on the basis of a request by the competent authority of the exporting 
country.  She further explained that it was possibl e that the representatives of the other CU Parties JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 26 
 
 
  could delegate their authority to another CU Party to carry out an inspection.  However, before an 
establishment could be included in the approved est ablishment list, all CU Parties had to concur. 
54. Some Members expressed concern about the process of approving an establishment by each 
of the CU Parties as set-out in CU Commission Deci sion No. 317.  For example, one Member of the 
CU could approve the addition of an  establishment to the Registry, but the establishment would not be 
added to the Registry due to a lack of response from the other CU Parties.  Further these Members expressed concern that approval, to be added to the Registry, was by consensus and rejection was 
subjective and did not appear to be based on any criteria.  These Members requested information on 
what would constitute a valid reason for refusal to be added to the Register, by CU Parties and for 
other (non-auditing) CU Parties to refuse to lis t an establishment or any time-frames for such a 
decision.  In some Members' view, these decisi ons could be arbitrary and discriminate against 
Members where the same conditions prevailed. 
55. Members of the Working Party also expressed  concerns that the implementation of 
CU Regulation "On Joint Inspections of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control" (CU Commission 
Decision No. 317) was not in line with Codex Guid elines for the design, operation, assessment and 
accreditation of food import and export inspecti on and certification systems (CAC/GL 26-1997), 
which recommended that:  assessment activities by the importing country in the exporting country 
"should concentrate primarily on evaluating the ef fectiveness of the official inspection and 
certification systems rather than on specific commodi ties or establishments in order to determine the 
ability of the exporting country's competent authority (-ies) to have and maintain control and deliver 
the required assurances to the importing country".  Members requested that Kazakhstan conform to 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations.   
56. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan e xplained that with respect to the registry 
requirements of third country establishments, faci lities/establishments of third countries could be 
included into the Register in accordance with th e procedures established by the "Regulation of a 
Common System of Joint Inspections of Sites and Sampling of Goods (Products), Subjected to Veterinary Control (Supervision)" approve d by CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 
18 October 2011 (hereinafter – new Regulation) which replaced the regulation of the same name 
adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 317 of  18 June 2010.  The new Regulation provided 
three ways for a country to have establishments locat ed on its territory included into the Register of 
establishments authorised to export to the Customs Un ion.  At the request of the competent authorities 
of the third country, the CU Parties would conduct a systems audit to determine if the official system 
of supervision of that third country was capable of  providing a level of protection at least equivalent  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  to that provided by CU requirements.  If this au dit of the official system of supervision was 
successful, the CU Parties would include establishmen ts of the audited country on the Register in 
accordance with a list of establishm ents that the competent authority of the third country provided to 
the CU Parties.  If an audit of a third country's o fficial system of supervision was not carried out or 
was not completed or if, as a result of such audit, the third country's official system of supervision was 
not recognised as being capable to provide a level of pr otection at least equivalent to that provided by 
CU requirements, the CU Parties could agree to incl ude establishments of that country on the Register 
on the basis of joint inspections or guarantees pr ovided by the competent authority of the third 
country.  The new Regulation also established the procedures for conducting a systems audit, 
including provisions on visits to establishments locat ed in the third country, with a view of facilitating 
the inclusion of the establishments proposed by  the competent authority  in the Register.  
In connection with a systems audit, the purpose of th e visit was to ensure that, within the framework 
of the third country's regulatory system, related to  production, processing, transporting and storage of 
the relevant goods, all of the country's laws, re gulations and other requi rements on inspection and 
certification, which the CU Party(ies) recognised as cap able to provide a level of protection, at least 
equivalent to that provided by CU requirements at  the stage of analysis of documentation, were 
properly implemented.  If the CU provided a third country the authority to list establishments located on its territory in the Registry, based on guarantees,  the CU Parties could conduct joint inspections of 
a representative percentage of establishments to ch eck and confirm the operation of the third country's 
official system of supervision that was the basis for the guarantees.  Establishments could also be 
included on the Register based on a jo int inspection of the establishment. 
57. Some Members requested more information on how Kazakhstan and the CU intended to 
implement the three mechanisms for including establis hments in the Register.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that currently, all guarantees, received from third countries by an authorised body 
of any CU Party, had to be approved by the author ised bodies of other CU Parties.  In response to 
Members' further questions, the representative of  Kazakhstan explained that the new Regulation 
provided that one basic principle for ensuring veteri nary safety of controlled goods when inclusion in 
the Register was required, was conducting an audit of  foreign official system of veterinary control 
(systems audit) as recommended by Codex Alimenta rius [and the OIE].  As such, the new Regulation 
provided three ways for a country to have establishments located on its territory included on the Register of establishments authorised to export as described in paragraph [xx] above.  
58. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that , in this Regulation 834, CU requirements 
were defined as international standards, guidelin es and recommendations within the meaning of 
CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "O n Application of International Standards, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 28 
 
 
  Recommendations and Guidelines", related to Vete rinary and Sanitary Requirements for Goods, 
CU Technical Regulations for Goods, CU Common Veterinary Requirements, or the different 
requirements that CU Parties have agreed with th e third country in veterinary export certificates, as 
provided in CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", and 
mandatory national requirements fo r goods. In reply to a question, the representative of Kazakhstan 
further explained that in accordance with th e Decision No. 721, international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines were applied as the TC  requirements in case of absence of relevant 
CU documents or national legislation establishi ng mandatory veterinary (veterinary-sanitary), 
phytosanitary or sanitary requirements. 
59. The representative of Kazakhstan further e xplained that the new Regulation established 
CU procedures, including time-frames, for every aspect  of organising and taking decisions on systems 
audits, on-site visits, and includi ng establishments on the Register in each of the cases described in 
paragraph [xx] above.  The competent authorities of CU Parties were notified of requests for audits, 
requests for authorisation to provide guarantees, and for joint inspections of establishments and 
invited to participate.  If a CU Party declined to  participate or did not respond within the prescribed 
time, that CU Party authorised the participating CU  Party or Parties to act on its behalf and accepted 
the decision of the participating CU Pa rty or Parties on the relevant matter. 
60. Finally, the representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that the new Regulation authorised and 
provided criteria for accepting guarantees from the competent authorities of third countries on the 
compliance of goods produced by an establishment located on its territory.  These criteria were the 
following: 
- Level of development of the competent authority of the third country; 
- Level of justification of guarantees of the competent authority of the third country; 
- Risk of entry into and spread of pathogens of infectious animal  diseases in the third country, 
including those common to humans and animals; 
- Epizootic situation in the third country; 
- Results of monitoring tests of goods subject  to veterinary control imported into the 
CU territory from the third country; 
- Data from monitoring of relevant goods done by the competent authority of the third country; 
- Compliance with CU requirements with regard to importing relevant goods into the territory 
of the CU from the third country; and 
- Results of inspections by the competent authorit y of a CU Party or Parties of establishments 
located on the territory of the third country. 
61. [The representative of Kazakhsta n confirmed that the new Regul ation provided for removal of 
an establishment from the Registry (delisting) in only two cases:  at the request of the relevant 
establishment, and at the request of the competent au thority of the third country.  Instead of delisting 
an establishment, the CU could, in line with inte rnational standards or based on risk assessment,  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  temporarily suspend imports from the establishment and/or subject imports from that establishment to 
intensified monitoring.  Except in  emergency situations, understood in the sense provided for in the 
OIE, a temporary suspension of imports from an establishment could be applied only: 
- upon the request of the establishment or the competent authority of the third country; or  
- based on repeated non-compliances with CU requirements either detected during on-site 
inspection and/or re-inspection of the establishm ent by the competent authority of a CU Party, 
or as a result of monitoring and enhanced laboratory testing of the establishment's goods, 
which have been notified to the competent authority of the third country, if such 
non-compliances represented a significant threat to human or animal life and health.   
 The Working Party took no te of these commitments.] 
62. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, 
currently, the Committee of Veterinary Control and Supervision was not entitled to delist an 
establishment on the basis of minor non-compliances with CU requirements or requirements included 
in the certificate not affecting the safety of th e products, observed during on-site inspection or 
laboratory analysis at the border or based on issues which fall outs ide of the Committee's field of 
competence (e.g. controls on potable water).  
63. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, except in case of serious risks of animal or 
human health, its competent authority would not suspend imports from establishments based on the 
results of on-site inspection before it had give n the exporting country the opportunity to propose 
corrective measures.  As required under the new Regu lation, the preliminary report would be sent to 
the competent authority of the exporting country for comments before the report was finalised.  
She noted again that the CU Parties had develope d criteria and reasons for a decision to suspend 
imports from an establishment.  Minor errors woul d not be valid grounds for suspending imports from 
an establishment and she reminded Members that th ere would be an administrative procedure for 
appealing such decisions as well as recourse to the courts.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.] 
64. [Regarding emergency situations, the represen tative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the 
decisions and procedures for the suspension of est ablishments would be in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
65. [The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that in extraordinary cases, the 
CU Commission could take a decision to suspend a group of establishments or all establishments of a third country as the result of the detection of a ser ious systemic failure of the official system of 
control, as specified in the new Regulation.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, upon JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 30 
 
 
  taking such a decision, the CU Commission would ha ve to provide the Competent Authority (CA) of 
the third country with the technical information a nd scientific justification on the risk detected.  
The third country would be requested to take co rrective measures within a specified time-frame for 
their adoption.  Any suspension would not be impl emented before the expiration of the specified 
time-frame.  Once the corrective m easures were taken, the CA of the third country would send a 
report on the corrective measures to the CU Commi ssion.  The CU Commission would evaluate the 
report and it would decide if the corrective measures we re effective and sufficient.  The suspension, if 
implemented, would be lifted within five working da ys after the decision.  In case corrective measures 
were not taken or were considered ineffective by the CU Commission, the decision on a temporary 
suspension of imports from a group of establishments or  all establishments of a third country could be 
implemented.  The representative of Kazakhstan conf irmed that such temporary suspensions would be 
proportionate to the risk to human health or life an d not more restrictive to trade than necessary, as 
provided in the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Work ing Party took note of these commitments.] 
66. Members of the Working Party expressed concer n that the draft inspection guidelines for 
meat, poultry, fish, and dairy were stricter than international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, in particular they were overly pr escriptive and in many cases would be difficult to 
respect in other cases than the CU context.  Requi ring establishments to meet these overly prescriptive 
structural and functional requirements would, in practice, preclude most non-CU establishments from 
passing inspection.  Furthermore, Members highlighted  that these draft guidelines did not take into 
account the possibility for exporting countries to concl ude specific certificates with CU Partners, as 
provided for in CU Commission Decision No. 726 of  15 July 2011, and thus to be subjected to 
specific requirements.  Members asked how equi valence could be recognised when the specific 
standards set in these inspection guidelines could not be met. 
67. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan st ated that the new Regulation recognised the 
principle of equivalence.  Specifically, inspectors we re instructed to evaluate whether establishments 
were complying with relevant CU requirements or th e relevant international standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations, and in such cases, the establishment would be considered in compliance with CU requirements based on the principle of equivalence.   She further explained that if there were cases 
where a CU act or mandatory national requirement wa s more stringent than the international standard, 
the inspector would evaluate compliance with  international standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations, unless a scientific justification for the more stringent measure, as provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement, had been presented to th e competent authority of the third country.  
The competent authority could then propose an e quivalent measure.  If an establishment was included 
on the Register based on guarantees from the compet ent authority of the exporting country, inspectors  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  were bound to check and evaluate whether the guarant ees in the export certifi cation applicable were 
met. 
68. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that as of the date of accession of [the first 
CU Party][Kazakhstan] to the WTO, specific guide lines on inspection that would reflect the principles 
of equivalence and reliance on international st andards, guidelines and recommendations, as such 
principles were described in para graph [xx], would be adopted to ensure the implementation of the 
new Regulation by CU inspectors, in accordan ce with the WTO SPS Agreement.  Under these 
guidelines, inspectors would be instructed in partic ular to verify the compliance of establishments 
with relevant Codex Alimenta rius recommended codes of practices such as CAC/RCP 1-1969, 
recommended International Code of Practice General Principles of Food Hygiene, the 
CAC/RCP 58-2005 Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat, the CAC/RCP 57-2004 Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products, the CAC/RCP 52-2003 Code of Practi ce for Fish and Fishery 
Products and other Relevant International Sta ndards, Recommendations and Related Texts.  
Moreover, inspectors would be provided information and training on the application of the principle 
of equivalence as provided in the WTO SPS Agreement,  in the context of the new Regulation and the 
guidelines.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
69. Some Members expressed concern that the new Regulation set-up a detailed and prescriptive 
system for auditing third-country systems for supervis ion of products subject to veterinary control, 
while it appeared that the requirements for CU Par ties and their respective establishments appeared to 
be less detailed and stringent in some respects.  These Members asked whether and how it would be 
ensured, for example, that the frequency and requireme nts related to on-site vis its as applied to third 
countries and their establishments and to CU Pa rties and their establishments for purposes of 
determination and maintenance of equivalence, would be no less favourable to third countries and 
their establishments, and not discriminate against such countries or establishments. 
70. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stat ed that, in her view, the new Regulation and 
the procedures and requirements for the conduct of audits and inspections applied in respect of 
Members, their products or establishments were in  compliance with the WTO rules and requirements. 
71. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed th at, by the date that[the first CU Party] 
[Kazakhstan] became a Member of the WTO, the new Regulation, as described in the Working Party 
Report, would be applied in compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 2.3 thereof, 
and the GATT 1994.  In particular, she confirmed th at the new Regulation would not arbitrarily or 
unjustifiably discriminate between Members, where id entical or similar conditions prevail, including 
between CU Parties which were Members and othe r Members, with regards to requirements for JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 32 
 
 
  on-site inspections, including for purposes of determ ination and maintenance of equivalence of the 
systems of control of products; and that the new Regulation would not be applied in a manner which 
would constitute a disguised restriction on internatio nal trade.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment.] 
- (iii) Import Permits 
72. As for import permits, the representative of Kaza khstan explained that since July 2010, the 
legal framework for the import permit regime of th e Customs Union was set-out in Section VI of the 
Regulation on Veterinary Controls at the Customs Border of the Customs Union, adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 317.  This Regulation sets-out the following principles:  
- Imports into the CU of certain goods subject to veterinary controls must have an import 
permit issued by the competent authority of th e CU Party which was the point of destination 
for the imports; and 
- The permit was valid for a calendar year, for qua ntities which are specified in the permit.  
 The permit was issued taking into account the epizootic situation of the place of production 
and where the legislation required a registry of en terprises authorised to export the relevant goods to 
the territory of the CU, whether the en terprise was on that list of enterprises. 
73. She further explained that an import permit c ould be requested for any amount of goods and 
that the amount requested could not be the basis fo r refusing to issue the pe rmit.  Import permits had 
three functions:  first, to ensure that the impor ter was in a position to handle the imported goods in a 
safe manner that complied with domestic, e.g., quaran tine requirements; second, to take into account 
the epizootic situation of the exporting country; and th ird, to ensure that specific conditions, adapted 
to the epizootic situation of the exporting country,  were met at the time of importation.  The first 
function, in her view, was not discriminatory since the conditions required to be met by the operator were also checked in case of intern al trade within the CU territory.  The second function was that of a 
legal instrument to block or restrict imports in case of dangerous animal disease outbreaks in the 
exporting country.  The third function could be used , for example, to require that certain imported 
animal products from countries with a specific ep izootic situation be processed in designated 
facilities.  In this case, import permits would be gr anted only to those importers who were able to 
channel the consignments to such facilities.  Impor t permits also optimised logistics for importers and 
provided a means to coordinate activities of regulatory agencies. 
74. As established in Government Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012, import permits were 
issued by the authorised body in  the sphere of veterinary (the Committee of Veterinary Control and  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Supervision under the Ministry of Agriculture) upon request of its territorial branches.  The Chief 
State Veterinary Inspector of a particular region was in charge of the epizootic and veterinary-sanitary 
safety of that region.  Therefore, to obtain an impor t permit, traders applied in writing to the relevant 
oblast/region branch of the authorised body where the imported goods were bei ng shipped.  This was 
done for the convenience of importers.  Applicat ions had to contain a description of the goods' 
characteristics, country and place (establishment) of origin, purpose, transport type, route, the border 
entry point(-s) of Kazakhstan, place of destination in Kazakhstan with indication of the name and 
registration number of production or storage facility).   In addition, Kazakhsta n intended to amend the 
Resolution and add requirements including the locati on of the establishment, quarantine conditions, 
processing, and the establishment's registration nu mber, where required, and (or) name of the 
establishment in the country of exportation.  Oblast  branches verified the co mpliance of transportation 
and storage facilities with veterinary rules, while th e central authorised body verified (i) whether the 
exporting country was subject to a temporary ban due to an outbreak of an infectious disease, 
(ii) whether non-compliance with the CU veterina ry and sanitary requirements had occurred, and 
(iii) presence of exporting establishment in the Register.  In cases where the requirements for 
obtaining import permit were not met, the exporter could re-apply after fulfilling the requirements.  
The authorised body issued the import permit within ten days, but could also refuse a permit by written justification.   
75. A Member of the Working Party asked Kazakhstan to clarify what constituted a 
non-compliance and whether the permit would be deni ed if the information provided by the trader 
would not comply with import permit requirements, e.g., storage.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
replied that pursuant to the "Rules of Issuing of Permits for Importation, Exportation and Transit of 
Goods Taking into Account Epizootic Situati on of the Corresponding Territory" approved by the 
Government Resolution No. 132 of 19 January 2012 , import permits could be refused only for the 
following reasons:  (i) restrictions with respect to certain countries (re gions) introduced with regard to 
unfavourable epizootic situation in exportin g country; (ii) a single non-compliance with 
CU veterinary-sanitary requirements; or (iii), absen ce of an exporting establishment in the Register of 
Exporting Third Countries, where such a requirement applied.  Hence, an import permit would be 
denied, inter alia , if an importer did not comply with the CU veterinary requirements.  Kazakhstan 
being a Party of the Customs Union followed Common Veterinary (Veterinary and Sanitary) Requirements, to Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), approved by CU Commission 
Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010, as amended. 
76. Some Members requested that when Kazakhstan' s authorities denied an application for an 
import permit, they informed each applicant of the detailed reasons for the rejection and the exporting JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 34 
 
 
  country if new conditions existed in that country would be the reason for refusing the import permit.  
The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the authorised body reviewed applications within 
ten working days.  Within this period, the authori sed body either issued an import permit or provided 
the applicant a written explanation of denial. 
77. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that  it had made available to importers, as well 
as to third-country exporters through the we bsite of the Ministry of Agriculture 
[www.minagri.gov.kz] full detailed conditions for im port of specific products.  However, Kazakhstan 
intended at some time in the near future to inte grate its information into the CU common website.  
The representative of Kazakhstan fu rther confirmed that to this end, it would publish a list on the 
website of the National Enquiry Point in English of  the products which were permitted to be imported 
into its territory; the countries a nd establishments authorised to expo rt to Kazakhstan and the territory 
of the CU; and the conditions for import.  Where an  application for an import permit was denied, the 
relevant authority would inform the applicant of the reasons for this rejection within ten working days 
of the decision.  The Working Part y took note of these commitments.] 
78. [Some Members asked Kazakhstan to confirm th at its import permit system would comply 
with OIE rules, i.e., permits would not be refu sed on grounds not recognised by the OIE for the 
animal diseases concerned.  Further, with regard  to the discovery of unauthorised substances in 
cargos, Kazakhstan would comply with the principle of applying an SPS measure only to the extent 
necessary to protect human or animal life and health.  In the view of these Members, a refusal to issue 
import permit after single findings of non-complia nces with no immediate risk for the consumer 
would not comply with this principle.  The repres entative of Kazakhstan confirmed that its procedures 
for considering applications for import permits  would comply with these two principles.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
79. A Member of the Working Party expressed concerns regarding the import permit process for 
products under veterinary control. In light of ot her veterinary and sanitary import requirements (e.g., 
an agreed veterinary certificate), the Member c onsidered the import permit process as an unnecessary 
requirement that could result in a barrier to trade in  violation of the SPS Agreement.  This Member of 
the Working Party noted that when developing SPS me asures to protect human, animal or plant life or 
health within a country, the SPS Agreement required that Members take into account the objective of 
minimising negative trade effects and that such meas ures were not more trade-restrictive than required 
to achieve an appropriate level of SPS protecti on.  The Member of the Working Party questioned 
compliance of the Kazakhstan's measure s with the SPS Agreement obligations.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  80. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that use of import permit system in veterinary 
import control was not prohibited by the SPS Agreem ent.  Further, the representative of Kazakhstan 
emphasised that import permit was important el ement of ensuring safety of the imported goods 
en-route since veterinary authorities of exporting co untries could ensure safety of exported goods only 
within the territory under its control.  She noted th at import permits contained information outside of 
the competence of veterinary authority of exporting country, such as: purpose, transport type, route, the border entry point(-s) of Kazakhstan, place of d estination in Kazakhstan with indication of the 
name and registration number of production or stor age facility, where required, and in the case of 
importing goods falling under CITES - the relevant import permitting number.  This information was 
not present in veterinary certificates. 
81. [In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
minor documentation errors which did not alter the basic data contained in the document were not a 
basis for refusing an import permit.  The legal ci rcumstance that served as grounds for starting this 
administrative procedure for revocation of an im port permit was the discovery of systematic 
(e.g., liable to administrative or criminal prosecution) violations, by the importer of the regulated cargo, of CU Decisions and other CU Acts and the laws of Kazakhstan in the field of veterinary 
medicine (including the presentation of forged veteri nary documents or the discovery of inconsistency 
between the presented documents and the regulated cargo).  Furthermore, she confirmed that the reasons for suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an import permit woul d be consistent with 
international standards, recommendations, and guidelines and the WTO SPS Agreement.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
82. [Further, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that from the date of accession of the 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, the import permit regime a pplicable to goods subject to veterinary and 
quarantine control would be operated under CU Deci sions, other CU Acts, and provisions of the Law 
of Kazakhstan that were publishe d and available to the public and that these measures would be 
developed and applied in compliance with the WT O Agreement.  The representative of Kazakhstan 
also confirmed that information requirements for the purposes of applying for an import permit would 
be limited to what was necessary for appropriate  approval and control procedures and that any 
requirements for control, inspection and approval of individual specimens of a product were limited to 
what is reasonable and necessary as provided for in Annex C of the WTO SPS Agreement.  Moreover, 
she confirmed that her Government would mainta in and notify the public of a clearly defined 
procedure under which an applicant for an import pe rmit could appeal the suspension, cancellation, or 
refusal of an application, have that appeal ad judicated, and receive a written response explaining the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 36 
 
 
  reasons for the final decision and any further action required to obtain a permit.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments.] 
83. Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 317,  at the border, a veterinary inspector 
conducted (i) a documentary check and (ii) a physi cal inspection of the goods being imported.  
Samples at the border were taken only in case a vete rinary inspector detected visible organoleptic 
changes.  The veterinary inspector informed the relevant oblast branch  of the authorised body (at the 
border) about the results of the inspection of the pr oduct subject to veterinary control and about the 
final destination of the product.  Imported goods were  then transported to their final destination where 
they were subjected to a visual inspection of th e consignment.  After passing the inspection, the 
veterinary certificate issued by the competent bod y of the foreign country was replaced with the 
veterinary certificate of the Customs Union.  Th e accompanying documents were stamped with the 
sign "Release permitted" or "Release forbidden".  T hus, the imported goods that passed the veterinary 
control where considered as Customs Union goods and subsequently were subject to the same 
treatment as domestically produced goods.  She adde d that, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 17 of 
the Law No. 339-II "On Veterinary", Law No. 399-II of 10 July 2002, (as last amended on 12 January 2012) if a cargo owner was not satisfied w ith the results of veterinary control, he or she 
could appeal the actions (or failure to act) of veteri nary inspectors to higher State veterinary officials 
and/or in court.   
84. A Working Party Member requested that Kazakhs tan guarantee that there would not be such 
procedures in place which caused undue delays and ensure treatment in no less favourable manner for 
imported products than for like dom estic products.  The Member stated that the control system 
seemed to be kind of double checking - first at the border and then under customs control.  In this 
respect, this Member asked the representative of Kaza khstan to confirm further that there would be no 
undue delays with this system in place.  This Me mber of the Working Party expressed the view that 
additional testing appeared excessive given that a shipment had to be accompanied by a veterinary 
certificate and import permit and come from an appr oved facility and had been inspected prior to 
exportation.  This Member further noted that K azakhstan's requirements for inspection at the border 
and then a full re-inspection for all shipments when  clearing customs appeared to be unjustified for 
SPS reasons, a burden on trade, and inconsistent w ith national treatment.  Another Member of the 
Working Party enquired if and how Kazakhstan wa s planning to introduce the mechanism of random 
inspections instead of samples of each sp ecific shipment (the current system).  
85. In reply, the representative of Kazakhstan stat ed that pursuant to paragraph 6.5. of the 
Regulation on Veterinary Control as adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 317, after  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  documentary checks, physical inspections were carri ed out on a random basis as follows:  not more 
often than one consignment per ten consignments of meat or fish originating from a specific country, 
except for live animals, where each consignment wa s subject to physical inspection.  Physical 
inspection on the border could be conducted by checking of accessible part of the consignment.  
Laboratory tests were conducted only in cases of revealing visible organoleptic changes during 
physical checks (paragraph 3.14.3.).  Kazakhstan had removed the requirement of laboratory checks 
of each imported consignment and replaced it with the system of keeping a register of exporting 
facilities of third countries.  In her view, such a practice was widely used in the most advanced 
WTO Members and was not contradictory to the WTO SPS Agreement. 
- (iv) Transit Permits 86. With respect to transit, the Representative of  Kazakhstan stated that since 1 July 2010, the 
legal framework for the issuance of transit permit was set in Decision No. 317 of the CU Commission, 
in Chapter VII of the "Regulation on the Single Syst em of Veterinary Control at the Customs Border 
of the Customs Union" as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011.  The principles set at CU level were the following: 
- A transit permit was required only for transit of  live animals and raw materials of animal 
origin.  The transit permit was issued by th e CU Party whose territory was the first entry 
point; 
- Veterinary control of controlled goods at entr y points was carried out after the submission of a 
waybill and (or) veterinary certificate; 
- After completion of documentary control, vete rinary inspection of animals was carried out, 
including:  identification numbers of animals were compared (tattoos, chips, ear tags, stamps, etc.) with numbers indicated in veterinary cer tificates, conditions of carriage were verified, 
and the condition of animals and possibility of their further transportation were examined; 
- Examination during transit of controlled goods  (except for animals) was performed only by 
State regulatory authorities at a checkpoint or in the presence of information about 
non-conformity of controlled goods to the declared goods; 
- According to the results of monitoring, the Border Control Inspection Post Officer made a 
decision and put a stamp on the shipping documents and on the veterinary certificate, in 
accordance with the form of Annex No. 3:  "T ransit enabled" or "Tra nsit prohibited", and at 
the point of exit from the customs territory of  the CU, a stamp "Transit Completed", then 
assured it by the seal and signature, indica ting such Officer's name and initials; 
- All necessary data was entered in the register  of transit in the form in accordance with 
Annex No. 9 of that Regulation and entered in to the system of electronic records; and 
- The owner of the controlled goods, who receive d the permit of transit of controlled goods 
through the territory of the CU, had to comply  with the veterinary legislation of the CU. 
87. According to Government Resolution No. 132, tr ansit permits were issued within 30 working 
days upon written application with in dication of the following information: JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 38 
 
 
  - for juridical persons carrying transited goods: name, address and regi stration number of the 
production facility, for physical persons carryi ng transited goods: family name, given name, 
patronymic (if any), address and registra tion number of the production facility; 
- type of the transited good; 
- quantity of transited good and its measurement unit; 
- exporting or importing country and country of origin; 
- type of transport; 
- list of border check points of Kazakhstan thro ugh which the goods will be transited; and, 
- transit route via Customs Union: places of stopping, loading-unloading, places of animal 
feeding, conditions of animal or goods transfer  coordinated with a chief veterinary inspector 
of territorial administrative unit throug h which the goods will be transited. 
A transit permit could be refused only for the following reasons:  (i) absence of any of the above 
information; (ii) unfavourable epizootic situation in the country of origin and transited places; and 
(iii) importing country did not permit such imports.  
88. Some Members expressed concerns regarding the re quirement that controlled goods in transit, 
which had been inspected and were conveyed un der seal, had to comply with CU veterinary 
requirements.  From these Members' perspective, th is requirement could not be justified as a safety 
measure and restricted trade with third countries. 
89. [The representative of Kazakhstan noted con cerns from Members regarding the requirement 
for controlled goods in transit to comply with CU veterinary requirements and confirmed that 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 had been amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 
22 June 2011 to eliminate this requirement, so that , controlled goods transiting through the territory of 
the CU under customs seal would not be subject to CU veterinary requirements.  In addition, the 
representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the re levant provisions of CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, and any administrative regulations and othe r measures relating to the transit of goods subject 
to veterinary control through the territory of K azakhstan would be applied in compliance with the 
OIE Code and the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Wo rking Party took note of these commitments.] 
- (e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control 
90. The representative of Kazakhsta n stated that the Decision of  the Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC No. 30 of 11 December 2009 "On the Agreem ent on Plant Quarantine" (last amended by the 
Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011) provided the legal framework 
for plant quarantine in Kazakhstan.  This Decision s tipulated that regulations must take into account 
the "rules and principles" of the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement.  Customs Union plant 
quarantine measures were further established in CU  Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010 
"On Ratification of Agreement of the Customs Uni on of the Plant Quarantine" (as last amended by  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Decision No. 528 of 28 January 2011 and Decision No. 894 of 9 December 2011).  Decision No. 318 
included the following documents: 
- The list of products under quarantine (regul ated goods, regulated articles of regulated 
products), i.e., which are subject to quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs border of the Customs Union and in th e customs territory of the Customs Union; 
- Regulations on the implementation of quarantin e phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs border of the Customs Union; and 
- Regulation on the implementation of quarantin e phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs territory of the Customs Union. 
91. The representative of Kazakhstan further clarified that the CU did not have common 
phytosanitary requirements and that these were deve loped and implemented at the national level.  
The representative explained that further harm onization among the CU Pa rties was ongoing.  
For example, the CU Parties were in the process of  reviewing and conducting pest risk assessments in 
order to harmonize the quarantine pest and di sease list by 1 January 2013, with subsequent 
introduction of common phytosanitary requirements to  regulated products.  The draft of a common list 
of quarantine pests and diseases had been develope d and was published on the CU website for public 
comment on 21 May 2012.  Until the CU Parties had harmonized their quarantine pest and disease list 
and introduced common phytosanitary requirements, th e national quarantine pest and disease lists and 
phytosanitary requirements for regul ated products would remain valid. 
92. A Member of the Working Party asked Kazakhstan to clarify whether Kazakhstan's 
legislation was based on internationa l standards developed by the IPPC.  In reply the representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on plant quarantine to a large extent 
was based on the provisions and principles stipul ated by the WTO Agreement on Application of 
SPS Measures, the International Plant Protec tion Convention and the Convention for the 
Establishment of the European and Mediterranean  Plant Protection Organization.  For instance, 
Article 13 of the Law "On Plant Quarantine" and the Government Resolution No. 1730 "On Approval 
of the Rules for Protection of the Territory of  the Republic of Kazakhstan from Plant Quarantine 
Objects and Alien Species", of 30 October 2009,  which provided for the procedures of issuing 
documents, inspections and control complied with IPPC standards such as No. 12 "Guideline on 
phytosanitary certificates", No. 23 "Guideline on in spections" and No. 7 "Certification system for 
exports".  Kazakhstan accep ted phytosanitary certificates that complied with the requirements of IPPC 
Standard No. 12 and relied on guarantees of the NPPO  of the exporting country.  She also added that 
the time-frames of laboratory expertise on pests and w eeds were reduced to up to three working days, 
and plant diseases – ten working days.  In addition,  within the framework of the Customs Union, 
quarantine import permits on import of quarantine products were abolished. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 40 
 
 
  93. Trade in regulated products on the terr itory of the Republic of Kazakhstan  in addition  to 
CU regulations was regulated by  the following national legislation: Government Resolution No. 1295 
"On Approval of the List of Quarantine Facilities, Alien Species and Extremely Dangerous Pests" of 
10 December 2002, Government Resolution No 1287 "On Approval of the Rules on Withdrawal and 
Destruction of Quarantine Products, Infected by Qu arantine Objects, Not Subject to Decontamination 
or Processing" of 3 November 2011, Government Re solution No. 1730 "On Approval of the Rules for 
Protection of the Territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan from Plant Quarantine Objects and Alien 
Species" of 30 October 2009, Government Resolu tion No. 1674 "On Approval of Phytosanitary 
Requirements to Imported Quarantine Products" of 30 December 2011, Government Resolution 
No. 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on Registrati on Tests and State Registration of Pesticides 
(Chemical Insecticides) in the Republic of Kazakhstan" of 30 November 2011. 
94. The representative of Kazakhstan said that the Divi sion of Phytosanitary Safety was in charge 
of strategic planning in the sphere of phytosan itary safety, including budgeting.  The Committee on 
State Inspection in the Agro-Industrial Complex of th e Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan was in charge of developing rul es and regulations in this area and conducting 
phytosanitary quarantine control (surveillance) on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 
including phytosanitary quarantine border control (surveillance), measures on protection of plants 
from pests, monitoring of agricultural lands agai nst plant pests and diseases.  In addition, the 
phytosanitary control framework included (i) State quarantine institutions; (ii) the State enterprise 
"Phytosanitary"; (iii) State inspection branches of oblasts, Astana and Almaty; (iv) phytosanitary 
inspectors of the raion (region)(or city) territori al administrations; and (v) border checkpoints and 
internal posts of phytosanitary control.  The St ate enterprise "Republican Center of Phytosanitary 
Diagnostics and Prognosis" conducted surveys of Kaza khstan's territory to determine the location of 
an outbreak.  State enterprise "Republican Quaran tine Laboratory" identified species composition of 
quarantine pests and diseases.  State enterprise "R epublican Plant Introduction Nursery of Fruit and 
Berry Crops" and "Republican Plant Introduction Nurser y of Field Crops" were in charge of detection 
of latent infestation of plant products (seed a nd planting stock).  State enterprise "Phytosanitary" 
conducted localisation and extermination of outbreaks of quarantine pests and diseases.  In reply to 
additional question, the representative of Kazakhstan clarified that state inspection branches of the raion (region)(or city) territorial administrations, ob lasts, Astana and Almaty were in charge of 
(i) control over phytosanitary conditions of the territory and measures on plant quarantine; 
(ii) surveillance of land plots, agricultural lands, gr ain storage and other facilities; (iii) control over 
organization of disinfection measures; (iv) quaran tine inspection, sampling for laboratory testing, 
issuing phytosanitary certificates; (v) control over compliance of entities to phytosanitary rules; and 
(vi) taking administrative action against physical  and juridical persons liable for violation of  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  phytosanitary rules.  Inspectors at the border checkpoints and internal posts of phytosanitary control 
were in charge of  (i) phytosanitary control, in spection, including documentary checks, of imported 
and exported good subject to phytosanitary control as well as goods moving within the territory of 
Kazakhstan, respectively; (ii) issuing orders to cargo owners on conducting necessary plant quarantine 
measures in accordance with legislation in the sphere of plant quarantine; and (iii) taking 
administrative action against physical and juridical persons liable for violation of phytosanitary rules.  
95. [In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that the 
appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection was defined as the required level of 
protection established by a technical regulation fo r products and phytosanitary requirements to 
regulated products, produced on the territory of Kazakhstan aimed at prevention of factual scientifically grounded risks.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that CU Agreements, 
CU acts, and Kazakhstan's legislation did not and would not in future establish additional 
SPS requirements for imported products that ex ceeded the requirements established for CU or 
domestic products.  The Working Part y took note of this commitment.] 
96. The existing list of products under quarantin e (regulated goods) that were subject to 
quarantine phytosanitary control at the customs bor der 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.  The representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that imports of quarantine products of high pest 
risk would need to be accompanied by a phytosanita ry certificate.  No phytosanitary certificate was 
required for imports of regulated products of low pest  risk.  The list of quarantine products with their 
HS codes was included in CU Commission Decision No. 318, as most recently amended by CU Commission Decision No. 859 of 9 December, 2011.   She further explained that a number of 
products were now excluded from the high pest risk list, such as raw cane sugar, sugar from beets, 
natural sands of all kinds, gravel, sand, fish meal, meat meal or meat by-products, protein concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and protei n pre-mixes.  The up-to-date list of goods subject 
to quarantine phytosanitary control was avai lable to the public on the CU website at 
http://www.tsouz.ru/Pages/norma.aspx?IDCL=23bc1 acc-9a25-4060.  In line with international 
practice, when products subject to phytosanitary c ontrol were imported from countries with registered 
cases of quarantine spread areas, imports of pr oducts under plant quarantine control from pest-free 
areas were still allowed, if appropriate informat ion in additional declaration of phytosanitary 
certificate was provided.  In cases during phytosanitary  control it was detected that regulated products 
subject to phytosanitary control we re infected by quarantine organisms, or were in some way 
inconsistent with existing rules and regula tions, these products could undergo disinfection 
(decontamination) at the destination points or at th e border.  In case, if regulated products did not JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 42 
 
 
  undergo decontamination, they would be destroyed or  returned to the exporting country.  Any natural 
or juridical person could appeal the actions (or inacti on) of Government officials regarding this issue. 
97. In reply to a question, the representative of  Kazakhstan clarified that the "appropriate 
information" meant information, presented in the se ction "Additional declaration" of the phytosanitary 
certificate, confirming that controlled goods were cu ltivated in the zones and/or produced in places 
free from harmful quarantine organisms as well  as information on compliance with other 
phytosanitary requirements of Kazakhstan. 
98. A Member of the Working Party asked whethe r, Kazakhstan accepted imports of regulated 
goods from areas affected by certain quarantine pests,  provided that certain mitigation measures were 
applied, as provided in relevant IPPC recommendations, and, if this was the case, whether Kazakhstan 
had defined which mitigation measures it accepted for each combination of pest and commodity.  
The representative of Kazakhstan replied that m itigation measures were acceptable.  However 
currently, normative legal acts of Kazakhstan did not define which mitigation measures could be 
applied in each case.  Kazakhstan confirmed that  it was ready to assess mitigation measures proposed 
by exporting countries within a reasonable period of  time, as set-out in international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations.  
99. In urgent situations (outbreak) the author ised body, depending on the phytosanitary 
conditions of the exporting country, could introduce provisional restrictions or bans importation of 
products subject to phytosanitary control.  In such  circumstances, the authorised body would provide 
all pertinent information about its actions to the relevant service of the exporting country.  
Where repeated supply of infected products subject to  phytosanitary control had been registered, a ban 
the importation of the relevant pr oduct could be imposed.  She added that contentious issues were 
normally open for negotiation.   
100. She noted that, in specific cases, where large amounts of products were imported from 
countries with phytosanitary conditions that had not  been adequately examined, the authorised body 
on plant quarantine could send an expert to the exporting country for inspection of the places of 
production, processing, packaging and dispatch of the product.  In addition, goods subject to 
phytosanitary control could onl y be imported through border ch eckpoints equipped in accordance 
with Kazakhstan's plant qua rantine rules and norms. 
101. [The representative of Kazakhstan stated that when taking phytosanitary measures, 
Kazakhstan's authorities followed the relevant intern ational practice and provisions established in the 
IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement, including con ducting a risk assessment.  She confirmed that,  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, if the phytosanitary requirements of 
Kazakhstan resulted in a higher level of protectio n than would be achieved by measures based on 
relevant international standards, recommendati ons or guidelines, Kazakhstan would apply its 
phytosanitary requirements in accordance with the WT O SPS Agreement.  She also confirmed that the 
authorities of Kazakhstan would consult with e xporting Members on the measures in question, if 
requested.  Furthermore, from the date of accessi on of Kazakhstan to the WTO, if phytosanitary 
requirements applied in Kazakhstan resulted in a high er level of protection th an would be achieved by 
measures based on relevant inte rnational standards, recommenda tions or guidelines, Kazakhstan 
would provide explanations of the reasons for such  phytosanitary measure, including the relevant risk 
assessment, on a bilateral basis following receipt of  a request from an exporting Member pursuant to 
Article 5.8 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Wo rking Party took note of these commitments]. 
102. Pursuant to Law No. 331-II "On Plant Protection"  of 3 July 2002, pesticides had to undergo 
registration and production trials, carried out by research and other organizations of Kazakhstan; 
subsequent registration followed in case of favourable trial results .  The tests had to be carried out 
under the control of the territorial branches of the Committee of State Inspection in the 
Agro-Industrial Complex, in accordance with the "Rules on Registration Tests and State Registration 
of Pesticides (Chemical Insecticides) in the Republ ic of Kazakhstan" approved by the Government 
Resolution No. 1396 of 30 November 2011.  Registrati on trials were carried out to (i) determine the 
biological effectiveness of pesticides; and (ii) detect recommended doses and methods of use for 
production purposes, which were intended for Kaza khstan's soil-climatic conditions and cultivated 
crops.  Production trials represented field trials of  the recommendations that had been elaborated 
during the registration trials.  Registration a nd production tests took two to three years.  
The Ministries of Health and Environment Protecti on examined pesticides subject to registration for 
the purposes of protection of human health and the en vironment.  Pesticides included into the Register 
of Potentially Hazardous Chemical Substances Pr ohibited for Use in Kazakhstan could not be 
registered. 
- (f) Protection of Human Health  
103. The representative of Kazakhstan explaine d that CU Commission Decision No. 299 
established the "Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary-and-Epidemiologic Supervision (Control) 
at the Customs Border and on the Customs Terr itory of the Customs Union" (hereinafter – 
the Common List) (Part I) as amended by CU Co mmission Decision No. 859 of 9 December 2011 and 
as last amended by EEC Council Decisions Nos. 36  and 37 of 15 June 2012, and established food 
safety requirements for corresponding goods.  Products produced in, or imported into the customs JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 44 
 
 
  territory of the CU for distribution to the populatio n, use in industry, agriculture, civil construction 
development, transportation with direct human invol vement, or for private and household use, had to 
conform to the relevant requirements of sanitary  and epidemiological rules, norms, and hygiene 
regulations.  She further explained that the conformi ty to the safety requirements for certain groups of 
goods was to be confirmed by a State Registration certificate, as provided for in CU Commission 
Decisions and domestic law.  The CU Commi ssion had approved a list of goods for which 
State Registration Certificates must be supplied during customs clearance. 
104. The Committee of State Sanitary and Epidemiologi cal Surveillance of the Ministry of Health 
was the authorised body responsible for issues rela ted to sanitary and epidemiological welfare.  
The sanitary and epidemiological service was a single system consisting of (i) the authorised body and its border and territorial branches; and (ii) organi zations of sanitary and epidemiological services (the 
Republican Sanitary and Epidemiological Station, State organizations for sanitary and epidemiological expertise).  When  developing and approving regulator y acts related to the production, 
importation, turnover, use, and destruction of subs tances/processes that could potentially affect human 
health, Government agencies sought the consent of the authorised body on sanitary and epidemiological welfare.   
105. In addition to CU regulations, the national legisl ation in the sanitary sphere was comprised of 
the following acts:  Code of the Republic of Kaza khstan No. 193-IV "On Public health and Healthcare 
System" of 18 September 2009, Law No. 301 "On Food Safety" of 21 July 2007, Government Resolution No. 125 "On Approval of the Rules for Assignment of Registration Numbers to Entities 
Producing Food Products" of 11 February 2008, Government Resolution No. 2267 "On Approval of 
the Rules for Refusal for Entry, as well as for Production, Use and Sale of Products Intended for Human Consumption, on the Territory of the Republic  of Kazakhstan, as well as for Use in Business 
and (or) Other Activities" of 30 December 2009. 
106. In reply to specific request, the Republic of Kazakhstan said that the issue of recognition of 
monitoring, conducted at the national level and at the level of food producing establishment, as an 
equivalent measure of exporting co untry would be considered duri ng audit of the national control 
system of exporting countries.  
107. Some Members noted that under CU Commission Decisions, the State Registration procedure 
applied only to certain groups of goods included in Part II of the Common List was approved by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 299.  Members requested information on whether domestic provisions still applied, and, if so, what criteria were used for determining that a product was marketed for the 
first time in the territory of the CU or the territory of Kazakhstan.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
  108. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan e xplained that national legal acts were applied 
to the extent that they did not contradict CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010.  Such provisions in national law re lated to the determination of the competent authority, the order of 
involvement of organizations and experts into the procedure of State Registration, the order of 
appellation of refusal of State Registration, and keep ing of the national part of the Register of State 
Registration Certificates.  CU Commission Decision No. 299 specified the list of products subject to 
State Registration.  Thus, only products listed in CU Commission Decision No. 299 were subject to State Registration.  The representative of Kazakhsta n explained that the State Registration procedure 
applied: 
- only to certain groups of goods, which were liste d in points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control, set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 299 (these include:  mineral water, bottled drinking water packaged in 
containers, tonic beverages, alcoholic beverages; specia lised foodstuffs, including food 
products for children, food products for pre gnant and nursing women, dietary products; 
biologically active dietary supplements, raw ma terials for production of biologically active 
dietary supplements, organic products; foodstuffs  derived from GMO, GMO; food additives, 
flavourings, technological aids including enzymes; and food contact material); 
- only if the goods were covered by CN codes liste d in the table of Part II to the Common List 
of Goods Subject to Sanitary Controls (CU Commission Decision No. 299); and 
- if the goods were manufactured for the first time on the territory of the CU or imported for the 
first time into the CU territory, and no prior State Registration had occurred, or in cases where 
the introduction of CU requirements necessitate d the issuance of a new State Registration 
Certificate. 
109. The representative of Kazakhstan specified that these three cumulative criteria, to determine 
whether a State Registration Certificate was required, were specified in the last paragraph of point 11 
in Part II to the Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control ("Goods 
specified in points 1 to 11 of the present Part, in cluded in the following comprehensive headings of 
the FEACN CU, manufactured for the first time on the Customs Union customs territory, as well as 
imported for the first time to the Customs Union cust oms territory, are subject to State Registration"). 
110. The State Registration Certificate was issued for a given type of product and was valid for 
exports from the relevant country without time limitati on, provided there had been no violations of the 
regulations during the preceding period.  If there were violations found during surveillance at the 
border, the State Registration Certificate could be temporarily revoked.  Applications for evaluations 
were to be submitted to Committee of State Sa nitary and Epidemiological Surveillance or its 
territorial bodies.  State Registration Certificates we re valid throughout the entire territory of the CU.  
For domestically produced produc ts, sanitary and epidemiological surveillance was conducted by the 
territorial authorities of Committee of State Sanitary  and Epidemiological Surveillance at the stage of 
distribution of products on the Kazakhstan's dom estic market.  In resp onse to questions from a JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 46 
 
 
  Member of the Working Party, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that the State Registration 
Certificates for domestic products were also issued for a given type of product and were valid for an 
unlimited time period.  In her view, the respectiv e procedures and requirements did not discriminate 
between domestic and imported pr oducts.  The process for issuing a State Registration Certificate 
could not exceed 30 days after application was rece ived.  If the application was rejected, Committee 
of State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillan ce sent a letter to the applicant explaining what 
needed to be changed.  After corrections were made, the applicant could re-submit the application. 
111. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at, since 1 July 2010, a State Registration 
Certificate was issued in  accordance with the common CU form  and was valid throughout the customs 
territory of the CU.  The certificate confirmed that the controlled goods conformed to CU Common 
sanitary and epidemiologic and hygienic requirements.  The period of validity of the State Registration Certificate covered the whole period of manufacture or delivery of controlled goods to 
the territory of the Customs Union.   The representative of Kazakhstan further explained that the State 
Registration Certificate was harmonized among the CU  Parties and that each Party recognised the 
right of each other Party to issue this certificate and that a State Registration Certificate would be valid throughout the territory of the CU. 
112. In response to a specific question, the representa tive of Kazakhstan stated that the term "new 
products" meant products developed an d industrially manufactured for the first time on the territory of 
Kazakhstan and also products imported into the territo ry of Kazakhstan for the first time, i.e., which 
were not on sale in Kazakhstan before.  The absence of a prior State Registration indicated that the product was new to the market of Kazakhstan and Stat e Registration was required.  She also explained 
that the producer, supplier, or importer could subm it an application for State Registration of products. 
113. Some Members noted that points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common List of Goods Subject to 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Control included Non-Food Products, such as disinfectants, cosmetics or hazardous chemical substances.  The representa tive of Kazakhstan clarified that CU Commission 
Decision No. 299 covered the protection of human h ealth in general from risks derived from both 
food and non-food products. 
114. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that some commodities were also subject to 
mandatory confirmation of conformity to CU requireme nts.  The list of such commodities, which also 
contained references to quality standards and quality requirement s for these products, was approved 
by the Decision of the Customs Union Commission No . 620 of 7 April 2011 which replaced the list in 
the CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010, and included the following food and feedstuffs:  (i) canned food products (fish, caviar, seafood); (ii) coffee and coffee products; (iii) tea;  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
  (iv) sugar (cane and beet); (v) spices; (vi) fat-fr ee dry milk; and (vii) feeds for animals, including 
formula feeds, pre-mixes, protein feed additiv es, such as oilseeds meal  and cake, fish meal, 
protein-vitamin additives, dry milk for feeding a nd dry milk replacements.  Until 1 January 2011, 
confirmation of conformity for these food products  was carried out in accordance with national 
legislation of each CU Party.  From 1 January 20 11, the declaration of conformity was provided upon 
assessment by the certification bodies and testing laboratories (centres) included into the Single Register of Certification Bodies and Testing Labo ratories (centres) of the CU.  With regard to 
feedstuffs, from 1 July 2010, self-declaration of conformity could be made on the basis of an 
assessment provided by the producer.  Foreign manufacturers, located outside the territory of the CU, could apply for a certificate/declaration of confor mity that was issued in  accordance with national 
legislation of a CU Party or for a CU unifo rm certificate of conformity, as approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 20 10.  The representative of Kazakhstan further 
explained that references to quality standards and qu ality requirements with regard to products on the 
List of Commodities Subject to Mandatory Confir mation of Conformity would be revised as the 
CU Parties adopted CU technical regulations on specific products.  
115. She further noted that pursuant to the Regulation of Conduct of State 
Sanitary-Epidemiological Control adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 299, food products included into Part II the Common List and produced  or imported in the CU territory had to be 
accompanied with a document confirming safety of th e products, i.e. State Registration Certificate, 
issued upon results of testing conducted by the laboratories included into the Common List of Certification Bodies and Laboratories of the CU.  Su ch testing had to be conducted by exporters for 
the purposes of compliance with the Common Sanitary Epidemiological Requirements.  
Food products included into Part I of the Common Li st but not included into Part II the Common List, 
and produced or imported into CU, had to be acc ompanied with a document of producer (or its 
authorised supplier) certifying the safety of produc ts.  The representative of Kazakhstan, however, 
noted that these requirements were applied as an inte rim system of safety control of food products 
which would gradually be replaced with the requirements of technical regulations for respective food 
products.  
- (g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
 WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms  
116. [The representative of Ka zakhstan confirmed that CU Commission Decision No. 721 
"On Application of International Standards, Recommendations and Guidelines" of 22 June 2011 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 48 
 
 
  required that:  in cases in which no mandatory re quirements on veterinary, or phytosanitary, or 
sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements, had been established at CU or national level, the 
CU Parties would apply standards, recomme ndations and guidelines of the OIE, IPPC 
and the Codex Alimentarius respectively.  Sim ilarly, if CU veterinary, phytosanitary and 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic mandatory requi rements in effect in the territory of the CU 
were more stringent than releva nt international standards, gui delines and recommendations, in the 
absence of scientific justification of risk to human, an imal, or plant life or health relevant international 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations, or parts thereof, would be applied.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments.] 
117. The representative of Kazakhstan informed Members of the Working Party that the 
CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "On Harmonization of CU Legal Acts 
in the Field of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosan itary Measures with International Standards" as 
amended by CU Commission Decision No. 722 of  22 June 2011.  CU SPS measures that, after 
examination, were recognised as more stringent than international standards, without scientific 
justification for such restriction or risk to human, an imal or plant life or health would be brought into 
conformity with international standards.  She noted  that foreign governments could bring measures to 
the attention of the CU Parties and participate in the examination.  
118. The representative further informed Members of the Working Party that in connection with 
implementation of CU Commission Decision No. 625,  the CU Commission had by Decision No. 801 
of 23 September 2011, adopted the Regulation "On the Uniform Procedure of Carrying Out 
Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of Sanitary, 
Veterinary, and Phytosanitary Measures", whic h entered into effect on 29 October 2011.  
Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the implementation procedure was unnecessarily burdensome and lengthy.   
119. [The representative of Kaza khstan confirmed that the CU would apply MRLs on 
chlorothalonil, clofentezine, cyprodinil, kres oxim-methyl, iprodione, propamocarb, pirimicarb, 
thiabendazole, carbendazim, famoxadone, coppe r compounds, and lambda cyhalothrin that 
corresponded to international standards in conform ity with the WTO SPS Agreement no later than the 
date of the accession of [Kazakhstan][the first CU party to the WTO], and that these MRLs would be set-out in CU acts.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
120. A Member of the Working Party noted that the harmonization process for MRLs of veterinary 
drugs should also include elimina tion of non-tolerance or very low tolerance in food of veterinary  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
  substances when these substances are authorised in  use in Kazakhstan/CU under similar conditions to 
those in place in exporting countries.  
121. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that nor ms for veterinary drugs were under revision 
and this work was expected to be finalised no later than December 2012. 
122. As regards maximum levels for contaminants , the representative of Kazakhstan informed 
Members that maximum levels for nitrates in lettu ce and cadmium in poppy seeds had been reviewed 
and revised in accordance with international r ecommendations and set-out in amendments to the 
Unified Sanitary and Epidemiological Requireme nts set in CU Commission Decision No. 299.   
123. [Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan conf irmed that as of the date of [Kazakhstan] 
[the accession of the first CU party to the WTO], the maximum levels of nitrates would be revised in 
accordance with international standards, recomme ndations, and guidelines.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment]. 
124. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that  radio nucleide levels and microbiological 
standards were being revised in accordance w ith international recommendations.  The proposals 
would be transmitted to the CU Commission in due c ourse to avoid inconsiste ncy with international 
standards [by the date of accession of Kazakhstan to th e WTO] [as of the date of the first CU party to 
the WTO].   
125. Some Members expressed concerns about CU MR Ls for tetracyclines that were much more 
stringent than international standards and no justif ication for these stringent requirements in the form 
of a risk assessment and scientific justificati on consistent with international standards and 
recommendations had been provided.  These Me mbers requested that Kazakhstan and other 
CU Parties apply the Codex standards for MRLs for tetracyclines.  These Members noted that it 
appeared that some form of ri sk assessment was now being done a nd expressed concern regarding the 
timing and procedures being followed.  Members of  the Working Party noted that the harmonization 
process for MRLs of veterinary drugs should also in clude elimination of non-tolerance or very low 
tolerance in food of veterinary substances when thes e substances are authorised in use in the Customs 
Union under similar conditions to those in pl ace in exporting countries.  Finally, these Members 
recalled CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 Ap ril 2011 on Harmonizati on with International 
Standards and requested that Kazakhstan fu lly adopt and implement this Decision. 
126. One Member requested Kazakhstan to confirm th at, in application of Article 3.1 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, Kazakhstan would review a ll of its existing sanitary and phytosanitary JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 50 
 
 
  measures to ensure that, by the date of accession,  they were based on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations or, in the event that  Kazakhstan or the Customs Union considered 
that international standards did not meet its appropria te level of protection, they were scientifically 
justified in accordance with Article 3.3 of th e WTO SPS Agreement.  In cases where relevant 
scientific evidence was insufficient,  he requested that Kazakhstan confirm that it would comply with 
Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
127. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession, in application 
of Article 3.1 of the WTO SPS Agreement, all sanita ry and phytosanitary measures, whether adopted 
by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU , would be based on international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations as provided for in the WT O Agreement.  Further, the representative of 
Kazakhstan confirmed that measures which were not based on international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, where they exist, would not be applied in Kazakhstan without providing Members 
a scientifically based justification of the me asures, in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, 
including Article 3.3.  In cases where relevant scien tific evidence was insufficient, he confirmed that 
any measure adopted, whether by Kazakhstan or th e competent bodies of the CU would comply with 
the WTO SPS Agreement, in particular with Article  5.7 thereof.  In the event that international 
standards were not considered to meet the appropr iate level of protection,  Kazakhstan would provide 
scientific justification for measures applied in Ka zakhstan, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
- (ii) Risk Assessment 128. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the CU Commission had adopted a Decision 
"On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary, or Phytosanitary Measures and Conduct of Risk 
Assessment, CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 (hereinafter - "Decision on Equivalence and Risk Assessment").  Under this Decision, CU Parties were required, consistent with 
Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement, to ensure th at sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary measures 
were based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or 
plant life or health, taking into account risk asse ssment techniques developed by the relevant 
international organizations, including Codex, OIE,  and the IPPC.  She further explained that the 
CU requirements for conducting risk assessments corr esponded to the provisions of Article 5 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, including a requirement that, as provided in Article 5.3 of the WTO SPS Agreement, in assessing the risk to animal  or plant life or health and determining the 
measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate  level of sanitary, veterinary or phytosanitary 
protection from such risk, the CU Parties would take into account as relevant economic factors:   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
  the potential damage in terms of loss of production or  sales in the event of the entry, establishment or 
spread of a pest or disease, the costs of control or eradication in the territory of the Parties, and the 
relative cost-effectiveness of altern ative approaches to limiting risks.  
129. Some Members of the Working Party noted the requirement applied to certain goods on the 
Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control that imports come from establishments on the 
Unified Registry, as described in paragraph [xx].  These Members expressed concern that applying 
this requirement to certain of the products on the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary 
Control was not based on science or a risk assessment.  In addition, th ere could also be a requirement 
for an establishment to be included in the Register prior to being permitted to  export products to the 
territory of the CU where a veterinary certificate, import permit and State Registration which appeared to be more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection of the 
CU.  Moreover, these Members recalled their concer ns about the absence of risk assessments and 
science to justify measures maintained by the CU  and Kazakhstan that were  more stringent than 
international standards, gui delines, and recommendations. 
130. In response to the request of a Member to provide informati on on the risk assessment bodies 
involved in evaluation of risk, the representative of Kazakhstan listed the following institutions: 
1) in the sphere of veterinary: 
- Kazakh Scientific Resear ch veterinary Institute; 
- Republican veterinary laboratory; 
- National reference Center in veterinary; and, 
- KazAgroInnovation 
2) in the sphere of phytosanitary: 
- Scientific Institute of Plant Protection and Quarantine; 
- Republican Plant Quarantine Laboratory; 
- Republican Methodological Center of Phyt osanitary Diagnostics and Prognosis; and, 
- state enterprise "Phytosanitary" 
3) in the sphere of food safety: 
- National Scientific and Practical Centre of Sanitary and Epidemiological Expertise 
and Monitoring; 
- Kazakh Food Academy; and, 
- Kazakh Scientific Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology. 
131. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that , as of the date of accession of [the first 
CU Party to the WTO] [Kazakhs tan], goods would be included on th e Common List of Goods Subject JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 52 
 
 
  to Veterinary Control in Kazakhstan only if app lication of veterinary measures was in compliance 
with international standards, guidelines and r ecommendations, or if science and a risk assessment 
justified, consistent with the WTO SPS Agreemen t, subjecting a category of goods to veterinary 
measures.  Similarly, the veterinary measures app lied to each category of goods would also be in 
compliance with international standards, recomme ndations and guidelines or based on science and a 
risk assessment.  Furthermore, the representative confirmed that Kazakhstan would remove products 
from the List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control by the date of [its accession to the WTO][the accession of the first CU Party to the WTO][Kazakhstan], if a risk assessment or scientific justification had not been provided.  Moreover, th e representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that risk 
assessments would be conducted in accordance with th e methods of scientific evaluation set by the 
Codex Alimentarius.  The Working Pa rty took note of these commitments.] 
- (iii) Regionalization 132. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that Kazakh officials widely used the principle of 
regionalization, as defined in the WTO SPS Agreem ent, when deciding to take a measure.  
The Common Veterinary Requirements (each chap ter) adopted by the CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 of 18 June 2010 stipulated that the regiona lization principle was recognized.  The procedures 
for carrying out regionalization in the sphere of a pplying veterinary measures were in accordance with 
the OIE Code (Chapter 4.3. OIE, 2011).  Kazakh legi slation in the plant quarantine sphere was based 
on IPPC provisions and international standard s on phytosanitary measures.  Accordingly, 
regionalization applied to all impor ted regulated products.  Phytosanitary certificates were issued in 
the exporting country by agencies of the official National Plant Protection Organization.  Regional characteristics were a factor for the purpo ses of devising phytosanitary measures for use in a 
particular region. 
133. The representative of Kazakhstan added that pr ocedures for carrying out regionalization in the 
sphere of applying veterinary me asures were in accordance with the OIE Code.  The compliance of 
veterinary measures with OIE standards wa s accomplished through Common Veterinary 
Requirements and the Law No. 339-II "On Veterinary" of 10 July 2002. 
134. She further stated that the principle of re gionalization was applied in full accordance with 
provisions of IPPC and ISPM Nos. 1, 4, 10, 14, and 29.  This had to be respected, including in the formulation of veterinary and phytosanitary certificates.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
  - (iv) Equivalence 
135. The representative of Kazakhstan explained th at the appropriate le vel of protection was 
determined by the CU bodies with regard to sanita ry and veterinary measures and by each CU Party 
on the national level with regard  to phytosanitary measures, and were reflected in technical 
regulations for products produced on the territory of th e CU and individual CU Parties, respectively.  
Furthermore, the representative recalled that  the CU Commission had adopted CU Commission 
Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivale nce and Risk Assessment", which provided:  
- for CU Parties to recognise equivalence if an  exporting country objectively demonstrated that 
its measures achieved the appropriate level of san itary or veterinary protection of the CU or 
the appropriate level of phytosanitary pr otection of an individual CU Party;  
- the procedure to follow as regards consultations  with the exporting country(ies) and relevant 
information to be provided by the exporting country(ies);  
- procedural and substantive requirements as regards the judgement on recognition of 
equivalence; and 
- the possibility of inspection, testing or audit in the exporting country(ies) upon a request by 
the CU Parties.   
136. In addition, under the CU Commission Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", 
CU Parties committed to apply the same approach to  requests for national re cognition of equivalence 
in the phytosanitary field addressed to individual CU  Parties.  He also noted that the CU Commission 
Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment" pr ovided for the possibility for exporting countries 
to request equivalence recognition by the CU or its  Parties (depending on respective competences) of 
their control or inspection systems.  He expl ained that CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 
18 October 2011 "On Equivalence and Risk Assessme nt", and all procedures necessary to apply this 
Decision, would be in effect prior to the da te of accession of K azakhstan to the WTO.  
The representative of Kazakhstan stated that, the CU Decision "On Equivalence and Risk 
Assessment" foresaw the following procedure: 
- submission of a request for equivalence recogn ition to a competent authority of a CU Party, 
including, inter alia , information on the type and scope of equivalence agreement requested, 
description of product(s), measure(s) or system(s ) of control and inspections concerned, an 
evaluation of how the measure(s) or system (s) of the exporting country achieved the 
appropriate level of prot ection of the CU or a CU Party, and information on the feasibility and 
performance of the measure(s); 
- interactions between the CU Pa rty and the exporting country in th e context of the determination 
of equivalence; 
- prior to taking a decision on equivalence, th e CU Party would, upon request, provide to the 
requesting exporting country an explanation of the CU's or its level of protection; and 
- notification by the CU Commission or a CU Part y to the exporting coun try of its judgement as 
regards recognition of equivalence in a timely manner and with appropriate explanation where 
it was found that the measure was not equivalent. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 54 
 
 
  137. Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan specified that, in applying this 
CU Commission Decision, CU Parties would fo llow international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations developed by the relevant international organizations, including the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International O ffice of Epizootics and the relevant international 
and regional organizations operati ng within the framework of the International Plant Protection 
Convention.  Members noted that, as set-out in the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee, the importing Member had certain responsibilities:  to  provide an explanation of the objective and 
rationale of the sanitary or phytosanitary measure and identify clearly the risks that the relevant 
measure intended to address.  Moreover, the impor ting Member should indicate the appropriate level 
of protection which its sanitary or phytosanitary me asure was designed to achieve and should provide 
a copy of the risk assessment on which the sanitary or  phytosanitary measure was based.  As stated in 
the WTO Committee Decision, an importing Member was to consider the relevant information and 
experience that the sanitary and phytosanitary servi ces had on the measure(s) for which recognition of 
equivalence was requested.  A key element for consideration was the historic knowledge and 
confidence that the competent authority of the im porting Member had of the competent authority of 
the exporting Member.   
138. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed th at Kazakhstan, from the date of its accession 
to the WTO, would ensure compliance with Artic le 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  He further 
confirmed that, as provided for in Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement, sanitary, veterinary, and 
phytosanitary measures of other Members, even wh en they were different from measures of the 
Kazakhstan or the CU, would be accepted as equi valent, if the exporting country objectively 
demonstrated that its measures achieved the a ppropriate level of SPS protection applied in 
Kazakhstan.  The representative also confirmed that , as of the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the 
WTO, procedures for recognition and determina tion of equivalence, consistent with the 
WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 4 thereof, whether applied by Kazakhstan or competent bodies of the CU, would be based on relevant  international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, namely the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee (G/SPS/19/Rev.2), Codex Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food 
Inspection and Certification Systems (CAC/GL 53- 2003), Codex Guidelines for the Development of 
Equivalence Agreements Regarding Food Import a nd Export Inspection and Certification Systems 
(CAC/GL 34-1999); Chapter 5.3 of the OIE Terrest rial Animal Health Code "OIE Procedures 
Relevant to the Agreement on the Application of  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the 
World Trade Organization" and ISPM 24 "Guide lines for the Determination and Recognition of 
Equivalence of Phytosanitary Measures".  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
  - (v) Non-discrimination 
139. Some Members also requested clarification of whether SPS measures applied in Kazakhstan 
established similar treatment fo r domestic and foreign like produc ts.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that, in her view, non-discrim inatory treatment was provided by the current 
legislation of Kazakhstan and CU  Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, and other CU Acts.  
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and other CU Acts did not set-out separate SPS measures 
for imported goods.  Sanitary-epidemiological, veterina ry and phytosanitary rules, criteria, measures 
and requirements were applied unifo rmly and without discrimination to  all foreign, CU, and domestic 
products and suppliers.  She stated that SPS require ments were implemented with respect to goods 
originating from foreign countries in the same way, th ey were applied in respect  of similar products of 
Kazakh origin.  CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, and other CU Acts, as well as the 
current legislation of Kazakhstan in the veterinary/ sanitary sphere (Article 23 of the Law of Republic 
of Kazakhstan "On Veterinary") we re uniform and established identi cal requirements for both foreign, 
CU, and domestic goods and manuf acturers, including requiremen ts for putting products on the 
domestic market.  Finally, phytosanitary requirement s applied to regulated products originating from 
a foreign country in the same manner as they applied to the same regulated products of Kazak origin. 
140. Non-discrimination principle was ensured in Paragraphs 133, 142 a nd 153 of the Regulation 
on Joint Inspections stipulating the same require ments to the laboratory testing of imported and 
domestic products.  
141. [The representative of Kazakhsta n confirmed that all SPS measur es developed a nd applied in 
Kazakhstan, whether by Kazakhstan or compet ent bodies of the CU, would comply with the 
non-discrimination provisions of the WTO SPS Agreem ent, including those relating to the principles 
of national and most-favoured nation treatment.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
- (h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations 
142. With regard to the transparency requirement s of the SPS Agreement, the representative of 
Kazakhstan said that a single TBT/SPS enquiry point  had been in operation since July 2005.  
The enquiry point notified WTO Members of SPS me asures in effect, as well as on measures that 
were still in preparation.  The enquiry point upon receipt notifications from the WTO Secretariat, EurAzEC member states and other international orga nizations published them quarterly in the official 
publication of the authorised body (Bulletin of the Enquiry Point) and monthly in the common information system (www.memst.kz or www.wto.memst.kz).  Notifications would be prepared in accordance with the "Rules and Procedures for Preparation of Notifications on Pending JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 56 
 
 
  (Being Adopted) Technical Regulations  and Standards".  These rules had been developed in line with 
the notification provisions of the SPS and TBT Agre ements and ensured that notifications took place 
at an early stage when comments could be ta ken into account and prior to the adoption and 
enforcement of these proposed regulations.  The Enquiry Point could be contacted at: 
Address: Orynbor, 11 
  Left Bank   010000 Astana 
  Republic of Kazakhstan 
 Telephone: +(771) 7222 6482 
Tel/fax:  +(771) 7220 5640 
E-mail:  enquirypoint@mail.ru Website: www.wto.memst.kz 
143. A Working Party Member asked the representative of Kazakhstan to clarify as to whether the 
phrase "get familiar with intention" in paragraph 2.3 of the Rules of Completion and Submission of 
WTO Notifications included the opportunity to co mment.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied 
that in general, the scope of the Rules is onl y the methodology of filing of SPS notifications.  
The possibility to comment was provided in the Go vernment Resolution No. 718 of 11 July 2005 as 
last amended in September 2010.  In particular, paragraph 11 provided that the Enquiry Point, upon 
request of the WTO Secretariat, EurAsEC member s and other internationa l organizations had to 
present information (clarifications), standards,  conformity assessment procedures, and other 
SPS measures.  
144. This Member, with regard to provision 2.8 and the Order included in the Annexes, noted that 
the Order was very similar to the notification format used for notifications under the SPS and 
TBT Agreements; however, there were some differen ces.  For instance, the Order did not include a 
section for the comment deadline.  In this regard , this Member enquired why Kazakhstan developed 
its own format instead of using the formats develo ped by the SPS and TBT Committees.  In reply, the 
representative of Kazakhstan said that the mentioned notification format was related to notifications 
on emergency measures in technical regulations, SPS measures, or amendments to them.  The purpose 
of such notifications was to inform interested WTO Members about urgent measures, implemented in 
order to protect human and animal life and health , ensure plant and/or environment protection.  
She emphasised that emergency notification forms developed by the WTO SPS and TBT Committees do not have a section for comment deadline.  The re gular notification format – also included in 
Annex 1 of the Rules of completion and submission – contained the section for the comment deadline.  
145. This Member commented that w ith regards to the operation of the enquiry point, one of the 
issues discussed by WTO Members in the Committee was the importance of inter-agency  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
  coordination.  The enquiry point for both SPS and TBT was established in the Committee on 
Technical Regulation and Metrology of the Mini stry of Industry and New Technology (MEMST).  
In this regard, this Working Party Member asked how MEMST would coordinate with other agencies 
involved in developing SPS measures.  
146. The representative of Kazakhstan stated that the SPS/TBT Enquiry Point was established by 
the Government Resolution No. 718 of 11 July 2005, which authorised the Enquiry Point to coordinate the Ministries Agriculture and Hea lth on the issues of SPS notifications, including 
responding comments from WTO Members.  Pursuant  to this Resolution, Government agencies 
(including the Ministry of Agriculture and Minist ry of Healthcare) provided appropriate information 
to the Enquiry Point upon adoption and applicatio n of TBT and SPS measures within the two-days 
time-limit in order to send such information to the WTO Secretariat, EurAsEC member states and 
other international organizations.   
147. She added that, pursuant to Government Resolution No. 1627 of 30 October 2000, the 
Ministry of Agriculture had established an Inform ation Marketing System to enhance transparency 
through regular exchange of analytical marketing information between agricultural producers, public 
bodies, and other participants on the agricultural market; and through enhanced interaction with 
international organizations.  All relevant drafts, amended and fi nal SPS and (agriculture-related) 
TBT regulations and rules were available from the Mi nistry's website, www.minagri.gov.kz as well as 
from www.memst.kz.  All interested parties could send questions and comments to the Ministry at 
strategy@minagri.kz.  The Enquiry Point also publis hed a quarterly bulletin of  all draft amended and 
final SPS measures.  The Ministry of Agriculture i ssued an analytical bulletin "Agroinform", which 
contained all legal acts, approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, including legislation on veterinary, 
quarantine and plant protection.  In addition, the State sanitary and epidemiological control system 
maintained a regularly updated database on the inci dence of infectious diseases and on the results of 
random laboratory tests of drinking water and food products.  This information was available to all 
interested parties.   
148. In response to a question from a Member rega rding the existence of a process for public 
participation in the development of rules and re gulations, she said that Law No. 124-III "On Private 
Entrepreneurship" of 31 January 2 006 provided for the participation of the private sector in the 
development of regulatory acts that would affect the interests of private entrepreneurs.  In her view, 
the provisions of this law ensured that the public could put forward proposals for the consideration of 
the relevant authorised body.  Besides, in accord ance with the above-mentioned law, a draft law had 
to be examined by accredited Bu siness Associations.  In res ponse to specific questions, the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 58 
 
 
  representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan' s legislation contained no restrictions on foreign 
participation in the development of sanitary and phytosanitary standards (e.g. participation in 
technical committees meetings, providing comments) .  Proposals and comments should be submitted 
through the enquiry point.  Furthermore, Customs Union Commission Decision No. 625 of 
7 April 2011 provided for publication of CU draft SPS measures with a public comment period of at 
least 60 days. Within this period, any interested party could submit its comments on the drafts. 
149. Members noted that many comments on draft technical regulations had been provided to the 
CU Parties and institutions through the public cons ultation mechanism.  Members were concerned 
that few of the submitted comments had resulted in  modifications to the final adopted technical 
regulations, even in cases where the comments noted  discrepancies with international standards or 
suggested alternative appr oaches more aligned with the internati onal standards and facilitating trade. 
These Members therefore sought assurances that m eaningful consideration would be given to 
comments and that the mechanisms provided by CU Commission Decision No. 625 for aligning with 
international standards woul d be fully implemented. 
150. The representative of Kazakhstan said that EEC Collegium Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012 
had approved a new Regulation on Development, A doption, Amending and Cancellation of Technical 
Regulations of the Customs Union. Pursuant to  the Decision, a table of comments and proposals 
resulting from public consultation with correspondi ng answers was published on the CU official 
website.  She further clarified that Mechanism of aligning CU SPS measures with international 
standards provided by CU Commission Decision No. 625 were implemented by the CU Commission 
Decision No. 801 "On Unified Procedure of Expertise of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 23 September 2011. 
151. [The representative of Kazakhstan conf irmed that Kazakhstan would notify its 
SPS notification authority and enquiry point to the WTO SPS Committee.  SPS measures, including 
those relating to inspection, were published in  publications, such as those mentioned in 
paragraph [xx].  Information on all proposed SPS measures and those in effect, as foreseen in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement, could also be  obtained from the SPS notification authority or 
from Kazakhstan's SPS enquiry point.  The Workin g Party took note of these commitments.] 
- (i) Proportionality, Necessity, and Reasonableness 
152. Some Members of the Working Party expr essed concern that SPS measures applied by 
Kazakhstan and other CU Parties to exports to Kazak hstan were not always proportionate to the risk  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
 Page 59 
 
 
  identified.  These Members gave the following exam ples of measures that were disproportionate or 
otherwise inconsistent with international rules:   
- the list of goods subject to veterinary control included goods that did not represent a 
veterinary or sanitary risk which would justify submitting th ese goods to requirements for 
listing establishments on the Common Register, State Registration, import permits, and 
veterinary certificate requirements;  
- imposition of trade restrictive measures, such  as suspension of establishments or mandatory 
pre-export testing, were not reviewed and e liminated after food safety standards had been 
harmonized with international standards or when  steps had been taken to address food safety 
issues;  
- inspectors requesting exporting establishments to  show the results of monitoring of residues 
of veterinary medicinal products in processed products in addition to the monitoring carried 
out on the raw materials;  
- CU Parties not using residue monitoring plans as a tool to manage the risk of exposure, as 
foreseen in Codex guidelines, but requesting pre-export tests;  
- CU Parties requesting systematic inspections  of plant nurseries before allowing export to 
Kazakhstan of plants for planting, in absence of  basis foreseen by the IPPC to have such 
preliminary inspection; and  
- overly detailed and unnecessar y requirements of inspectors during inspections.   
These Members recalled that the principles of propo rtionality, necessity and reasonableness were 
enshrined in a number of Articles of the WTO SPS Agreement, such as Articles 2.1, 2.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6 and Annex C thereof, and that, in their view, K azakhstan should also modify its practices to make 
them more proportionate to th e risks and reasonable.   
153. [In response to these concerns, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that all 
SPS measures, whether adopted by Kazakhstan or th e competent bodies of the CU, would be applied 
in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreement.  In  particular these SPS measures would be applied 
only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and would be not more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropr iate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection 
of the CU and Kazakhstan.  Finally , when determining the appropriate level of sanitary, veterinary, or 
phytosanitary protection, Kazakhstan or the compet ent bodies of the CU, would take into account the 
objective to minimize negative trade effects in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments.] 
- (j)  Conclusion 
154. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, from the date of accession of Kazakhstan 
to the WTO, all SPS measures would be developed, whether by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU, and applied in Kazakhstan in accordance  with the WTO Agreement and in particular, the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  In particular, SPS measures w ould be applied only to the extent necessary to 
protect human, animal, or plant life or health; would be based on scientific principles and, where they JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 60 
 
 
  exist, on international standards, guidelines, a nd recommendations; and, would not be more trade 
restrictive than required to achieve the appropria te level of protection a pplied in Kazakhstan.  
SPS measures would not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or 
similar conditions prevail, including between the terr itory of Kazakhstan and that of other Members.  
SPS measures would not be applied in a manner whic h would constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade, and would not be maintained  without sufficient scientif ic evidence, except as 
provided for in Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent.  The Working Part y took note of these 
commitments.]   
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
Page 61Table [...] - List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0101 Live horses, donkeys, mules and hinnies  Veterinary certificate or 
veterinary passport for sport 
horses Yes No 
0102 Live cattle Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0103 Live swine Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0104 Live sheep and goats Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0105 Live poultry, i.e. chicken ( Gallus domesticus ), ducks, 
geese, turkey and guinea fowl Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0106 Other live animals(1) Veterinary certificate, except 
for two or less dogs or cats 
for personal needs 
For two or less dogs or cats 
for personal needs – 
veterinary certificate or 
veterinary passport Yes, except for two 
or less dogs or cats 
for personal needs No 
0201 Fresh and refrigerated cattle meat   Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0202 Frozen cattle meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0203 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen swine  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0204 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen lamb or goat's meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0205 00 Fresh, refrig erated or frozen meat of horses, donkeys, 
mules or hinnies  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0206 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen food by-products of cattle, 
swine, sheep, goats, horses, do nkeys, mules and hinnies   Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0207 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat and by-products of 
poultry, stated in product item 0105 Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0208 Other fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat and food by-
products  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0209 00 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen, salted*, in brine*, dried* or 
smoked swan fat, separated from the lean meat, and 
poultry fat, not melted or otherwise extracted Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0210 Meat and food by-products salted*, in brine*, dried* or 
smoked*; flour from meat or meat by-products* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0301 Live fish Veterinary certificate Yes Yes  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 62 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0302 Live or refrigerated fish, except filleted fish and other 
fish of product item 0304  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0303 Frozen meat, except filleted fish and fish of product item  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0304 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen filleted fish and other fish 
(including mincemeat)  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0305 Dried, salted or in brine fish; hot smoke or cold smoke 
fish; fish flour of fine grinding and meal and granules, 
ready for consumption* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0306 Shellfish in shell or without shell, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried*, salted* or in br ine*; crustaceans in shell, 
steamed* or boiled*, chilled or non-refrigerated, frozen , 
dried*, salted* or in brine*; Flours of fine grinding and 
meals and pellets of crustaceans, ready for consumption* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0307 Mussels in shell or without shell, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried*, salted* or in brine*; other aquatic 
invertebrates, different from  crustaceans and mollusks, 
live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried*, salted* or in brine*; 
Flours of fine grinding, meals and pellets of other aquatic 
invertebrates, ready for consumption* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0401 Raw milk and raw cream, not concentrated and without 
sugar-added or other sweetening substances Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0402 Milk and cream, concentrated and with added sugar or 
other sweetening substances* Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 63CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0403 Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yogurt, kefir and 
other fermented or acidified milk and cream, 
concentrated or unconcentrat ed, with or without added 
sugar or other sweeteners in flavored or without them, 
with or without the additional fruits, nuts or cocoa * Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0404 Whey, concentrated or unconcentrated, with or without 
added sugar or other sweetening matter; products made 
of natural components of milk, with or without added 
sugar or other sweetening substances, elsewhere not 
specified or included * Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0405 Butter and other fats and oils, made from milk; dairy 
pastas* 
 Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 64 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0406 Cheese and cottage cheese* Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0407 00 Birds' eggs in shell, fresh, canned* or boiled* 
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is required  
only for processed egg products. 
0408 Birds' eggs without shell and egg yolks, fresh, dried, 
steamed* or boiled in hot water*, molded*, frozen or 
preserved otherwise*, with or without added sugar or 
other sweetening substances Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
0409 00 000 0 Natural honey  Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan No 
0410 00 000 0 Food products of animal or igin, not elsewhere specified 
or included Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0502 Bristles pork or Cabaña; badger or other hair, used in 
production of brushes; their waste Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 65CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0504 00 000 0 Guts, bladders and stomachs of animals (except fish), 
whole or in pieces, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, in brine, 
dried or smoked Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0505 Skins and other parts of birds with feathers or down, 
feathers and parts of feathers (cut or uncut edges) and 
down, cleaned, disinfected or treated for stor age, but not 
further prepared; powder and waste of feathers or their 
parts Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0506 Bones and horn-core, raw, low-fat, dominated by 
primary treatment (without shap ing), treated with acid or 
degelatinised; powder and waste of these products Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0507 Ivory, tortoise-shell, whalebone or other marine 
mammals, horns, antlers, hooves, nails, claws and beaks, 
unworked or subjected to primary processing without 
shaping; powder and waste of these products Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0510 00 000 0 Ambergris, castoreum , civet and musk; cantharides; bile, 
whether or not dried; glands and other animal products 
used in the preparation of pharmaceutical products, 
fresh, chilled, frozen or otherwise provisionally 
preserved Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0511 Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included; dead animals of 01 or 03 group, unfit for 
human consumption Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 66 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
0511 99 809 2 Horse hair and its waste, including in the form of 
paintings on the substrate or with or without it Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
from 0511, from 
9601, from 9705 00 
000 0 Hunting trophies, stuffed animals, including pasting 
through taxidermist processing or canned Veterinary certificate only 
for unprocessed hunting 
trophies No for trophies, 
which passed the 
full taxidermic 
processing. Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but the name of the 
taxidermic manufactory (shop) where 
the first processing was made or 
hunting farm  should be indicated in 
the import permit and in the veterinary 
certificate when these are required  
1001 10 000 0 (only feed grain)** Hard wheat Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1001 90 990 0 (only 
feed grain)** Soft wheat  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1002 00 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Rye  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1003 00 900 0 (only feed grain)** Barley  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1004 00 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Oats  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1005 90 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Other corn Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 67CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1201 00 900 0 (only 
feed grain)** Soybeans  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1208** Flour of fine grinding and meals of seeds or fruits of 
oilseeds (except mustard seeds), used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1211** Plants and their parts (including seeds and fruits), used in 
insecticidal or similar purposes, or in veterinary 
medicine, fresh or dried, whole or chopped, crushed or 
ground Veterinary certificate, only  
when declaring for use in 
veterinary, including for 
animal feed Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1212 99 700 0 Others (bee-bread, ambrosia)  Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1213 00 000 0** Straw and chaff of grain, raw, chopped or 
uncomminuted, beaten or not milled, pressed or in the 
form of granules Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1214** Swede, beet leaf (Swiss chard) , root feeding, hay, alfalfa, 
clover, sainfoin, forage kale, lupines, vetches and similar 
forage products, granular or granulated Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1301 90 900 0 Others (Propolis) Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1501 00 Swine fat (including lard) and poultry fat, except fat of 
product item 0209 or 1503 Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 68 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1502 00 Fat of cattle, sheep or goats, except fat of product item 
1503 Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1503 00 Lard stearin, lard oil, oleostearin, oleo- oil and tallow oil, 
not emulsified or mixed or otherwise prepared Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1504 Fats, oils and their fractions, from fish or marine 
mammals, whether or not refined, but not chemically 
modified Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1505 00 Wool grease and fatty substances derived therefrom 
(including lanolin) Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1506 00 000 0 Other animal fats and oils and their fractions, whether or 
not refined, but without altering chemical composition Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1516 10 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, 
partly or wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, 
re-esterified or elaidinized, whether or not refined but 
not further prepared Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1516 20** Fats and vegetable oils and their fractions 
 Veterinary certificate – only 
when declaring for use in 
animal feed purposes Yes No   
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 69CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1518 00 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, 
boiled, oxidised, dehydrated, sulfonated, oxidized by air 
blown, polymerized by heat in vacuum or in inert gas or 
chemically modified in another way other than products 
of product item 1516; unfit for human consumption of 
mix or preparations of animal or vegetable fats and oils 
or fractions of different fats and oils of this group, not 
elsewhere specified or included Veterinary certificate (when 
declaring for use in 
veterinary, including animal 
feed) in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan  
Veterinary certificate 
(declaring for veterinary 
purposes, including for feed 
production), except for 
vegetable fats, except for 
products containing less than 
50% of products of animal 
origin other than meat in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of the Russian 
Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan 
Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of the 
Russian Federation, 
except for vegetable 
fats Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate, except for 
vegetable fats. 
1521 90 Beeswax and other insect waxes and spermaceti, whether 
or not colored, refined or unrefined Veterinary certificate Yes No 
1601 00 Sausages and similar products of meat, meat by-products 
or blood; ready food products, made on their basis* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
1602 Prepared or preserved meat products, meat by-products 
or blood of other  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1603  Extracts and juices from m eat, fish or crustaceans, 
mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the import permit and in the 
Veterinary certificate 
1604 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and its substitutes, 
made from fish eggs  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1605 Prepared or pr eserved crustaceans, mollusks and other 
aquatic invertebrates* Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 70 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
1902 20 Pasta stuffed, whether or not cooked or otherwise 
prepared, containing fish, cr ustaceans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates, sausag es, meat, meat offal, blood 
or blood products of group 04, or any combination of 
these products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of 
animal origin 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, 
except for goods 
containing less than 
50% of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
1904 20 Cereals (except maize) in th e form of grain or flaked 
grains or processed in any other way (except for a thin 
flour and meal), pre-boiled or cooked in any other way, 
containing fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic 
invertebrates, sausages, meat, meat offal, blood or blood 
products of group 04, or any combination of these 
products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of 
animal origin 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, 
except for goods 
containing less than 
50% of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
From 20 Processed vegetables, fruits, nuts or other parts of plants 
and their mixtures, containing sausage, meat, meat 
by-products, blood, fish or crustaceans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates or products from group 04, or any 
combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of 
animal origin 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, 
except for goods 
containing less than 
50 % of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2102 20** Inactive yeast; other dead single-celled microorganisms 
that are used for animal feed Veterinary certificate Yes No  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 71CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From 2104 Soups and broths and billets for its preparation (except 
vegetables); homogenized composite food products, that 
contain sausage, meat, meat by-products, blood, fish, 
crustaceans, mollusks or other invertebrates or products 
of group 04, or any combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of 
animal origin 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, 
except for goods 
containing less than 
50% of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2105  Ice cream, except ice cream, made on the basis of fruits 
and berries, fruit and edible ice*** Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan 
Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of 
animal origin, in respect of 
goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian 
Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan  
 Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
From 2106 Processed cheese and other food products, containing 
sausage, meat, meat offal,  blood, fish, crustaceans, 
mollusks or other invertebrates or the products of 
group 04, or any combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan 
Veterinary certificate, 
except for products 
containing less than 50% of 
products of animal origin, in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of the Russian 
Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan  
 Yes, in case producers of sausages, 
meat, meat offals, blood, fish, 
crustaceans, mollusks or other 
invertebrates or the products of 
group 04, or any combination of these 
products are not included into the 
Register of third countries 
2301 Flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal, fish or 
crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, 
unfit for human consumption; greaves Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 72 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From 2302** Bran, sharps and other remains from sifting, milling or 
other methods of processing cereals or legumes, 
granulated or not granulated, used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
From 2303** Remains of starch manufacture and similar residues, beet 
pulp, bagasse, or sugar cane bagasse and other waste 
from sugar production, grains and other waste from 
brewing or distilling, granulated or not granulated, used 
for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
From 2304 00 000** Oilcake and other solid residues, obtained by extracting 
soybean oil, unbeaten or ground, granulated or not 
granulated, used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
From 2306** Oilcake and other solid residues, obtained by extraction 
of vegetable fats or oils, except waste of commodity 
items 2304 or 2305, unbeaten or ground, granulated or 
not granulated, used for animal feed  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
2308 00** Products of vegetable origin and vegetable waste, 
vegetable residues and byproducts, granulated or not 
granulated, used for feeding animals, not elsewhere 
specified or included Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
2309 Products used for animal feed Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan  
Veterinary certificate only if 
the products contain animal 
products, in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of 
the Russian Federation Yes 
(except feed for 
cats and dogs heat 
treated and in retail 
packaging) Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated 
in the import permit and in the 
Veterinary certificate 
From group 29** Organic chemical compounds (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No Yes No 
  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 73CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From group 30 Pharmaceutical products (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, as 
well as not 
registered 
pharmaceutical 
products, destined 
to the territory of 
the Russian 
Federation Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but for non-registered 
pharmaceutical products names and/or 
numbers of the final establishments 
should be indicated in the import 
permit and in the quality certificate for 
additives of chemical or 
microbiological synthesis 
 
3101 00 000 0 Fertilizers of animal  or vegetable origin, mixed or 
unmixed, chemically treated  or untreated; fertilizer 
obtained by mixing or chemical treatment of products of 
vegetable or animal origin Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan  
Veterinary certificate only if 
the products contain animal 
products, in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of 
the Russian Federation Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate, if the 
products contain animal products 
From 3501 Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
3502 Albumin (protein) (including concentrates of two or 
more whey proteins, containing more than 80 wt.% of 
whey proteins in terms of dry substance), albuminates 
and other derivatives of albumin Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 74 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
3503 00 Gelatin (including rectangular (including square) sheets 
with a surface treatment or wi thout treatment, or colored) 
and gelatin derivatives; isinglass; glues of animal origin, 
except for casein of heading 3501 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan. 
In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
3504 00 000 0 Peptone and their derivatives; other protein substances 
and their derivatives, in no t elsewhere specified or 
included; powder from the skin or pelt, chrome or not 
chrome Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
From 3507** Enzymes, enzyme prep arations, not elsewhere specified 
or included (for the use in veterinary medicine) No Yes No 
From 3808 Insecticides, rodenticides, means of disinfectants and 
similar to them, put up in forms or packing for retail sale, 
or presented as finished products or articles (for use in 
veterinary medicine) No Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, as 
well as goods are 
not registered in 
CU destined to the 
territory of the 
Russian Federation No 
From 3821 00 000 
0** Environments for cultivation of microorganisms for the 
use in veterinary No No No  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 75CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From 3822 00 000 0 Diagnostic or laboratory reagents on a substrate, 
prepared diagnostic or laborat ory reagents on a substrate, 
or without it, except for goods of heading 3002 or 3006 
(for the use in veterinary medicine), certified reference 
materials (for the use in veterinary medicine) No  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan.  
In respect of the 
goods destined to 
the territory of the 
Russian Federation 
the measure is 
applied until the 
adoption of the 
technical regulation No 
4101 Raw hides and skins of bovine (including buffalo) or 
equine animals (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, pickled or 
otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment-dressed 
or further prepared), whether or not dehaired or split 
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
4102 Raw skins of sheep or lambs (fresh, or salted, dried, 
limed, pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, 
parchment- dressed or further prepared), whether or not 
with wool on or split, other than those excluded by 
Note 1c to this Chapter  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
4103 Other raw hides and skins (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, 
pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, 
parchment- dressed or further prepared), whether or not 
dehaired or split, other than those excluded by Note 1b 
or 1c to this Chapter Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
4206 00 000 0 Products from guts (except silkworm gut), Sinuga, 
bladders or tendons Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1 
Page 76 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
4301 Raw fur (including heads, ta ils, paws and other pieces or 
cuttings, suitable for  manufacture of fur), except raw 
hides and skins of heading 4101, 4102 or 4103 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
5101 Wool, not carded or combed  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
5102 Animal hair, fine or coarse, not carded or combed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
5103 Waste of wool or of fine or coarse animal hair, including 
yarn waste but excluding garnetted stock Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
From 9508 10 000 0 Animals in the zoos and mobile circuses and mobile 
menagerie Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but the numbers of farms, 
quarantine bases, names of zoo, 
dolphinariums  and etc. and/or  names 
of the establishments  should be 
mentioned in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
From 9705 00 000 0 Collections and collectors' items in zoology, anatomy 
and paleontology of animals (except exhibits in museum 
storage) Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No  
   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.1
 Page 77CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States (yes/no) 
From 3923, 
From 3926, 
From 4415, 
From 4416 00 000 0, 
From 4421, 
From 7020 00, 
From 7309 00, 
From 7310, 
From 7326, 
From 7616, 
From 8436 21 000 0, 
From 8436 29 000 0, 
From 8436 80 910 0, 
From 8436 80 990 0, 
From 8606 91 800 0, 
From 8609 00, 
From 8716 39 800 Machinery and equipment for transportation, farming, 
temporary overexposure animal s of all kinds, as well as 
equipment for transportation of raw materials (products) 
of animal origin, that were used  
 No (document of the 
competent authority 
exporting country in case of 
difficult epizootic situation) Yes, in cases of 
unsafe epizootic 
situations additional 
conditions will be 
included into the 
import permit No 
Notes: 
(1) Camels are also included in this group. 
* As part of epizootic wellbeing 
** In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation veterinary control is not exercised and none of the measures set-out in columns "Accompanying 
Documents", "Import permit", "Register of establishments of third States" is applied.   
*** Ready-made food products that contain no raw meat components or containing less than 50 per cent of another processed produ ct of animal origin, that are securely 
packaged or sealed in clean containers, and that are shelf stable at ambient temperature or have clearly undergone in their man ufacture a complete cooking or heat 
treatment process throughout their substances so that any raw product is denatured, are not subject to veterinary control when destined to the territory of the 
Russian Federation. 
 
__________