RESTRICTED  
  
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1  
 
12 June 2014  
(14-3416) Page: 1/27  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
WORKING PARTY ON THE ACCESSION OF 
KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WTO 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
Addendum 
 The following submission, dated 11 June 2014, is being circulated to Members of the 
Working Party, at the request of the Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
 
 
_______________ JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
-  Sanitary and Phytosani tary Measures ..................................................................... 3  
(a) Legislative Fra mework ............................................................................................ 3  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation of Trade in Agricultural Products ........... 4  
(c) Development of Technical Regulation s/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 5  
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control ........................................................ 15  
-  (i) Veterinary ce rtificates ...................................................................................... 15  
-  (ii) Establishment Approval, Registry and In spection ........................................... 22  
-  (iii) Import Permits ............................................................................................... 23  
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control .................................................. 23  
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agre ement ............................................................................................. 24  
-  (i) Harmonization with Internat ional Standards and Norm s ................................. 24  
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations ..................................... 25  
(j) Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 26  
 JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  The following comments and questions relate to documents JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4 and 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1. 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(a) Legislative Framework 
Question 1  
Paragraph 5 included new language at the en d explaining the relationship between the 
Food Safety Technical Regulation and the sect oral or vertical tec hnical regulations that 
are in different stages of adoption.  Please  explain how the requirements on meat and 
dairy will co-exist with the sectoral or vertic al technical regulations that have recently 
been approved. 
Answer: 
According to Article 3, paragraph 1 of the CU tec hnical regulation "On Food Safety", the technical 
regulation shall be applied taking into account the requirements of the CU technical regulations that establish mandatory requirements for certain types of food products and related requirements 
to the processes of production (manufacturing), st orage, transportation, marketing and utilization, 
complementing and (or) specifying the requirements thereof.  In addition, the requirements for certain types of food products and related requirements to the processes of production 
(manufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing and utilization established in other technical 
regulations of the Customs Union cannot change the requirements of the horizontal technical regulation "On Food Safety". 
Horizontal technical regulation of the Customs Union "On Safety of Food Products" establishes 
requirements that are common to all types of food products, in particular: 
1) safety requirements (including sanitary and epidemiological, sanitary and veterinary) to food 
products, and to production processes (manufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing 
and utilization; 
2) the rules of identification of objects of the technical regulation; 3) forms and procedures for assessment (confirmation) of conformity of objects of technical 
regulation with the requirements of the technical regulation. 
Vertical technical regulations of the Customs Union "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" and 
"On Safety of Milk and Dairy Products" establish specific requirement to the relevant products, in particular: 
1) terminology; 
2) safety requirements for meat and meat prod ucts, milk and dairy products, as well as the 
processes of production (manufacturing) , storage, transportation, marketing and utilization, 
which complement requirements of the technical regulations "On Food Safety"; 
3) the rules for identification of meat and meat products, milk and dairy products; 4) requirements for labelling of meat and dairy products; 
5) conformity assessment schemes. 
Question 2  We thank Kazakhstan for further clarifyi ng which SPS measures would apply in 
Kazakhstan and throughout the territory of th e CU in paragraph 6 ("national legislation 
remained in effect to the extent that it did not contradict the CU Agreements, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  CU Commission Decisions and EEC Council and Collegium Decisions").  In Spring 2013, 
we encountered a case where Kazakhstan was implementing import requirements more stringent than those of the EEC, notably for th e import of live bovine animals.  While the 
EEC itself confirmed to us in May 2013 that current certificates for live cattle remain 
valid for access to the CU, including Kazakh stan, until the new certificate is finalized 
Kazakhstan continues to impose measures more stringent than those of the EEC.  
Will Kazakhstan explain how it can maintain it s specific import requirements despite the 
EEC May 2013 confirmation that the current certificates are valid? 
Answer: 
Currently, within the framework of the State program "Agrobusiness-2020", the Government 
allocates considerable amount of resources for importation of pedigree cattle into the country with 
the aim to improve genetic potential of cattle in Kazakhstan.  Kazakhstan plans to import more 
than 70,000 heads of cattle by 2016, whereas more than 35,000 heads have already been imported.  The cattle is mainly imported from Australia, Canada, the USA, the Russian Federation, 
etc. 
Thus, currently cattle is imported to Kazakhstan in large quantities virtually from all over the 
world, i.e. from countries with different epizootic situations, different levels of development of 
animal breeding and veterinary services. 
In some cases, infected animals or animals suspected of being infected with such diseases as 
brucellosis, leukemia, bluetongue, and animal diseases exotic for Kazakhstan (Schmallenberg disease, bluetongue) have been identified during quarantine. 
One of the examples is cattle imported from Austria.  In particular, 722 heads at the value of 
1,790,100 euros, were imported from this country.  During quarantine of those animals 87 heads positively reacted to Schmallenberg disease and diarrhea virus.  Therefore, these animals were 
destroyed.  As a result, businesses and state budget incurred significant losses.  
Taking into account this incident, businesses included additional requirements into their contracts 
on the purchase of cattle.  In particular, importers shall send a state veterinary inspector to the 
exporting entity.  These inspectors shall visit th e exporting establishments during the quarantine 
of animals to ensure that the animals, which will be imported to Kazakhstan, are healthy, that they come from territories free from infectious and exotic diseases and comply with the relevant documentation.   
It should be noted that there are no changes in veterinary certificates.  
(b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
Question 3  
We appreciates that Kazakhstan has sought to  provide additional information to support 
its ractopamine ban by drawing our attentio n to the risk assessment undertaken by the 
Russian Federation, and we encourage Kazakhstan to look to science as the basis for its 
measures.  In this regard, we would enco urage Kazakhstan to submit this risk 
assessment on ractopamine to the Joint F ood and Agriculture Organization/World 
Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for a third party 
evaluation of the validity of the assessmen t.  In paragraph 12 of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4, 
Kazakhstan reinforces its commitment to  international standards through its 
membership in the OIE, IPPC and Codex Alimentarius.  Since the EEC's measures on ractopamine are more stringent than the Codex standard established by JECFA, we 
would view Kazakhstan's submission of the risk assessment to JECFA for review as a 
demonstration of its commitment to the Codex standard.  With this understanding in mind, would Kazakhstan consider bringing th e risk assessment to the attention of the 
JECFA Secretariat or raise this matter at th e next meeting of the Codex Committee on 
Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food? JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees with the conclusion of the risk  assessment held by the Russian Federation with 
respect to ractopamine.  SPS Agreement does not require a WTO Member to conduct its own risk assessment if the Member recognizes the results of  the risk assessment held by other countries or 
organizations.  Therefore, Kazakhstan considers that there is no need to conduct such human and 
financial resource consuming assessment at this stage.  
(c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS 
Question 4  
We welcome the new information provided in paragraph 19, but think it would be best 
to separate this into two paragraphs starti ng the second paragraph with the sentence, 
"The EEC placed the draft technical regulation , the notification on its development, and 
an explanatory note on its official website."  In addition, we suggest striking the word 
"possibility" from the following sentence  "Following the consideration by the 
Consultative Committee, the decision on possi bility, starting date, and period of public 
comment… ."  We believe it would be us eful to add a sentence about the WTO 
notification process that will be taken in para llel with the public consultation process.  
Lastly, as explained in the plurilateral, a se condary notification and public consultation 
process is possible when significant changes have  been made to a draft.  Please add this 
information as well. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will divide paragraph 19 into two paragraphs and will add the mentioned clarification in 
the following way: 
 19. Responding to a question on how draft te chnical regulations not based on international 
standards, recommendations or guidelines could be revised prior to their application, she 
stated that the applicable laws and CU acts  specified the priority use of international 
standards, recommendations and guidelines, as the basis for technical regulations and that 
the technical regulation developer (relevant CU Party's authorised body or the EEC) 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 th e standards, recommendations and guidelines, 
used in developing the draft technical regulation.  When Kazakhstan was responsible for developing technical regulations, it designated a state body responsible for development of 
the draft technical regulation (hereinafter – the developer of draft technical regulation).  
The developer of draft technical regulation prepar ed the first draft of the technical regulation 
and based on proposals from the competent authorities of the CU Parties, formed a CU 
working group that included experts representing government bodies, academia and 
business/consumers associations and other interested parties.  The draft technical regulation 
was discussed at the CU working group meetings.  The CU working group would take into 
account the requirement to use international standards, recommendations and guidelines, and, if necessary, propose appropriate changes.  Upon completion of the first draft of the 
technical regulation, the developer of the draf t technical regulation sent the draft, an 
explanatory note, and a notification on development of the technical regulation to the EEC.  The EEC ensured consideration of the first version of the draft technical regulation and 
related set of documents at the meeting of the Consultative Committee.  Following the 
consideration by the Consultative Committee, the decision on possibility , starting date and 
period of public consultations on the draft technical regulation was made, which was 
formalised by a Protocol.  In cases when Consultative Committee decided that further 
revision was If necessary, the developer of the draft technical regulation within the period 
established by the Consultative Committee revise d the draft technical regulation and the set 
of related documents.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
   19bis.  The public consultation began when  the EEC placed the draft technical 
regulation, the notification on its development, and an explanatory note on its official 
website.  This information was also published at the official websites of the authorised 
bodies for technical regulation of the CU Partie s.  Interested domestic and foreign juridical 
and natural persons (including those from non-members of the CU), including foreign governments, could submit their comments and proposals on the draft technical regulations 
to the EEC.  The period for comments was at least 60 days following the publication of the 
first draft of the technical regulation by the EEC.  Kazakhstan intended to notify the 
SPS-related draft technical regulations to the WTO SPS Committee in parallel to 
the public consultation. In case of si gnificant changes in the draft technical 
regulation, there would be a new round of public consultations and new WTO 
notification would be sent to the WTO Secretariat.   The EEC processed comments and 
proposals received from interested parties during public consultations and WTO notification 
procedure and sent them to the developer of the draft technical regulation.  The developer 
of draft technical regulation within 20 working days from the date of receiving comments 
and proposals from the EEC ensured the discussi on of the comments and proposals by the 
working group and prepared a summary of comme nts, which included information on their 
acceptance or justification for their rejection, and sent it to the EEC.  In accordance with 
EEC Collegium Decision No. 48, the EEC published on its website the table of comments and answers.  The developer of draft technical regu lation within 30 working days from the date 
of sending summary of comments to the EEC, re vised the draft technical regulation and the 
related documents taking into account comments and proposals received during the public consultations, specifically those comments that were based on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations.  The EEC sent the draft technical regulation and related 
documents to the Parties for their internal a pproval and published them on the official 
website.  Upon completion of the internal approval of the dr aft technical regulations by the 
Parties, the draft technical regulation was sent to the Consultative Committee that 
submitted it to the EEC Collegium for approval.  The draft technical regulation and related documents and disagreements that could not be solved during the negotiations were 
considered by the EEC Collegium.  After the co nsideration, the EEC Collegium submitted the 
draft technical regulation and related documents either to the EEC Council for approval, or to 
the developer for revision.  The EEC Council adopted the final draft technical regulation at its 
meeting.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that any amendments to a technical regulation were adopted by the same procedure.  
Question 5  
Paragraph 19:  Could Kazakhstan indicate it s intention to notify the SPS related draft 
Technical regulation to the WTO SPS committ ee in parallel to the public consultation 
process carried out by EEC?  Could Kazakhstan  also indicate that significant changes to 
the draft Technical Regulation would also be the ground for a new public consultation 
and WTO notification? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will divide paragraph 19 into two para graphs and will add the proposed information in 
paragraph 19 bis in the following way: 
 19. Responding to a question on how draft te chnical regulations not based on international 
standards, recommendations or guidelines could be revised prior to their application, she 
stated that the applicable laws and CU acts  specified the priority use of international 
standards, recommendations and guidelines, as the basis for technical regulations and that the technical regulation developer (relevant CU Party's authorised body or the EEC) 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 th e standards, recommendations and guidelines, JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  used in developing the draft technical regulation.  When Kazakhstan was responsible for 
developing technical regulations, it designated a state body responsible for development of 
the draft technical regulation (hereinafter – the developer of draft technical regulation).  
The developer of draft technical regulation prepar ed the first draft of the technical regulation 
and based on proposals from the competent authorities of the CU Parties, formed a CU working group that included experts representing government bodies, academia and 
business/consumers associations and other interested parties.  The draft technical regulation 
was discussed at the CU working group meetings.  The CU working group would take into account the requirement to use international standards, recommendations and guidelines, 
and, if necessary, propose appropriate changes.  Upon completion of the first draft of the 
technical regulation, the developer of the draf t technical regulation sent the draft, an 
explanatory note, and a notification on development of the technical regulation to the EEC.  
The EEC ensured consideration of the first version of the draft technical regulation and 
related set of documents at the meeting of the Consultative Committee.  Following the 
consideration by the Consultative Committee, the decision on possibility starting date and 
period of public consultations on the draft technical regulation was made, which was formalised by a Protocol.  In cases when Consultative Committee decided that further 
revision was If  necessary, the developer of the draft technical regulation within the period 
established by the Consultative Committee revise d the draft technical regulation and the set 
of related documents.   
 19bis.  The public consultation began when  the EEC placed the draft technical 
regulation, the notification on its development, and an explanatory note on its official 
website.  This information was also published at the official websites of the authorised 
bodies for technical regulation of the CU Partie s.  Interested domestic and foreign juridical 
and natural persons (including those from non-members of the CU), including foreign governments, could submit their comments and proposals on the draft technical regulations 
to the EEC.  The period for comments was at least 60 days following the publication of the 
first draft of the technical regulation by the EEC.  Kazakhstan intended to notify the 
SPS-related draft technical regulations to the WTO SPS Committee in parallel to 
the public consultation. In case of si gnificant changes in the draft technical 
regulation, there would be a new round of public consultations and new WTO 
notification would be sent to the WTO Secretariat.   The EEC processed comments and 
proposals received from interested parties during public consultations and WTO notification 
procedure and sent them to the developer of the draft technical regulation.  The developer 
of draft technical regulation within 20 working days from the date of receiving comments 
and proposals from the EEC ensured the discussi on of the comments and proposals by the 
working group and prepared a summary of comme nts, which included information on their 
acceptance or justification for their rejection, an d sent it to the EEC.  In accordance with EEC 
Collegium Decision No. 48, the EEC published on its website the table of comments and answers.  The developer of draft technical regu lation within 30 working days from the date 
of sending summary of comments to the EEC, re vised the draft technical regulation and the 
related documents taking into account comments and proposals received during the public consultations, specifically those comments that were based on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations.  The EEC sent the draft technical regulation and related 
documents to the Parties for their internal a pproval and published them on the official 
website.  Upon completion of the internal approval of the dr aft technical regulations by the 
Parties, the draft technical regulation was sent to the Consultative Committee that submitted it to the EEC Collegium for approval.  The draft technical regulation and related 
documents, and disagreements that could not be solved during the negotiations were 
considered by the EEC Collegium.  After the co nsideration, the EEC Collegium submitted the 
draft technical regulation and related documents either to the EEC Council for approval, or to 
the developer for revision.  The EEC Council adopted the final draft technical regulation at its 
meeting.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that any amendments to a technical regulation were adopted by the same procedure.   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Question 6  
CU Commission Decision No. 752 of 16 Au gust 2011 had established a minimum 
transitional period (6 months) for entry into  force of all technical regulations.  Can 
Kazakhstan confirm that this decision is still in  force?  If so, please add this information 
to paragraph 23. 
Answer: 
In accordance with Paragraph 2 of the EEC Council Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012, the 
CU Commission Decision No. 752 of 16 August of 2011 is no longer in force. 
At the same time, Kazakhstan has initiated the amendments into EEC Council Decision No. 48 on 
minimum transitional period of 6 months for entering into force of the technical regulations of the Customs Union.  The proposal was received positively and the amendments will be introduced as 
soon as possible. 
Question 7  Paragraph 23:  As it seems the Decision No . 752 of 16 August 2011 has been replaced by 
Decision No. 48, a Member asks confirma tion that the 6 months minimum period 
between the date of publication of a TR and its entry into force is  secured somewhere in 
the CU legal framework and that its reference now replaces the reference to Decision 
No. 752. 
Answer: 
In accordance with Paragraph 2 of the EEC Council Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012, the CU 
Commission Decision No. 752 of 16 August 2011 is no longer in force. 
At the same time, Kazakhstan has initiated the amendments into EEC Council Decision No. 48 on 
minimum transitional period of 6 months for entering into force of the technical regulations of the Customs Union.  The proposal was received positively and the amendments will be introduced as 
soon as possible. 
Question 8  We are concerned with the overlap between CU horizontal and vertical (or sectoral) 
technical regulations.  In addition, we are concerned about the apparent overlap 
between technical regulations and other al ready adopted and in force Customs Union 
decisions.  Members have addressed other ar eas of overlap in paragraph 25 but these 
additional concerns are lacking.  We prop ose some new Members language be added to 
the report following paragraph 24 (include d below).  We also seek a response from 
Kazakhstan to be added to the text. 
24bis.  Some Members expressed concern about the overlap between CU Technical 
Regulations and other CU Decisions in the veterinary and sanitary fields.  
For example, Members noted overlaps and contradictions between  CU Decision 299 
and CU Technical Regulations, such as the Food Safety Technical Regulation. 
Members also noted overlaps and contradictions between CU Decision 317, in 
particular the CU common veterinary requirements, and Annex 5 to the Food 
Safety Technical Regulation, which appeared  to contain veterinary requirements.  
Members sought clarity on what requirements  were applicable for imported goods.  
In addition, those Members identified overlaps between different Technical 
Regulations, i.e. between the Food Safety  Technical Regulation and the vertical 
T e c h n i c a l  R e g u l a t i o n s  s u c h  a s  t h e  T R  f o r  g r a i n ,  m e a t ,  d a i r y ,  e t c .   T h e y  a s k e d  i f  
exporters could find all applicable requirements in the vertical TRs. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan will include the proposed Member's language in paragraph 24 bis and will add the 
following answer in paragraphs 24 ter and 24 quarter : 
"24ter.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that, with regard to sanitary 
requirements, in accordance with the CU Agreement on Sanitary Measures, with the 
adoption of technical regulations relevant sanitary requirements stipulated in CU Decision 299 had to be abolished.  The pl an of amendments into CU Decision 299 was 
adopted together with the relevant technical regulations.  The delay in amending 
CU Decision 299 is due to the current discu ssion between the CU Parties on replacing 
sanitary requirements incorporated into the CU technical regulations by making references to the CU Common Sanitary Requirements (CU Decision 299) in order to exclude 
duplications. 
With regard to veterinary requirements, Kazakhstan had raised the issue of duplication and 
inconsistencies in the technical regulations and CU Decisions at the CU level.  At present, 
there were two draft amendments to the CU tec hnical regulation On Food Safety.  The first 
draft went through public discussion in September 2013 and was sent to the CU Parties for internal approval.  The second draft had been sent for consideration by CU Parties and then 
would be published for public consultations.  These amendments, among other things, were 
aimed at elimination of discrepancies in the CU documents. 
24quarter .  Regarding the discrepancy between horizo ntal and vertical technical regulations, 
it should be mentioned that with regard to ve terinary measures there were no discrepancies.  
Moreover, according to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the CU technical regulation On Food Safety, 
"the technical regulation shall be applied taking into account the requirements of the CU technical regulations that establish mandatory requirements for certain types of food 
products and related requirements to the proce sses of production (manufacturing), storage, 
transportation, marketing and utilization, complementing and (or) specifying the requirements thereof".  In addition, the requir ements for certain types of food products and 
related requirements to the processes of  production (manufacturing), storage, 
transportation, marketing and utilization established in other technical regulations of the Customs Union could not change the requirements of the horizontal technical regulation On Food Safety. 
Horizontal technical regulation of the Customs Union "On Safety of Food Products" 
established requirements that are common to all types of food products, in particular: 
1) safety requirements (including sanitary and epidemiological, sanitary and veterinary) 
to food products, and to production processes (manufacturing), storage, transportation, 
marketing and utilization; 
2) the rules of identification of objects of technical regulation; 
3) forms and procedures for assessment (confirmation) of conformity of objects of 
technical regulation with the requirements of the technical regulation. 
Vertical technical regulations of the Customs Union "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" 
and "On Safety of Milk and Dairy Products" established specific requirement to the relevant 
products, in particular: 
1) terminology; 2) safety requirements for meat and meat products, milk and dairy products, as well as 
the processes of production (manufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing and 
utilization, which complement requirements of the technical regulations "On Food Safety"; 
3) the rules for identification of meat and meat products, milk and dairy products; 
4) requirements for labelling of meat and dairy products; JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  5) conformity assessment schemes. 
In general, Kazakhstan was planning to initiate amendments to the adopted CU technical 
regulations or CU Decisions in order to eliminate overlaps and contradictions between the horizontal and vertical technical regulations, or between the CU technical regulations and 
CU Decisions, when such contradictions and/or overlaps existed."  
Question 9  Paragraphs 5 and 24:  The CU has adopted mu ltiple texts introducing requirements for 
similar commodities.  The multiplication of re ferences created an uncertainty on which 
standard should apply and the reasoning behind.  For example: 
 Requirement for 
Chloramphenicol in milk Requirement for dioxin in milk 
CU Decision No. 299 of 
28 May 2010 not allowed 
<0.01 mg/kg <0.0003 as of 01.01.2012  shall not be allowed <0.01 for a series of milk products (no date) listed as "baby food products" 0.000003 (in terms of 
fat) 2. Dioxins shall be determined in case of reasonable assumption that there is a possibility of their presence in raw materials. 
CU Decision No. 880 Food safety technical regulation 9 December 2011 (application 1 July 2013, but this date was later on moved for meat and dairy products by virtue of Decision No. 129 of 11 June 2013) shall not be allowed 
(<0.01 mg/kg)  0.000003 
(in terms of fat) 2. Dioxins shall be determined in case of reasonable assumption that there is a possibility of their presence in raw materials. 
CU decision 67 technical regulation on dairy  October 2013 0.01 as of 1 May 2014 
0.0003 as of 1 July 2015 A Member's comment:  What is the reason for changing back and forth this limit?  not allowed (within the 
measurement accuracy) A Member's comment:  There is no longer a defined compliance level: what will be now the level above 
which the presence is established 
for an imported product?  If the result depends on the performance of the laboratory which analyses imported products, how a same level will be ensured also for intra cu controls?  What level will be used as reference ?  
Another example:  CU technical regulation on  milk and dairy sets limits for penicillins at 
0,004 mg/kg whereas the CU Decision 299 establishes two levels according to the 
substance:  0,004 or 0,03 mg/k g (cloxacillin, dicloxacillin).  
CU Decision 129 indicated that provisions of  the Food safety technical regulation 880 
related to meat and dairy are not applic able, pending the entry into force of 
corresponding provision in specific technica l regulations.  However, in the interim 
period, it is mentioned that either the CU or  the national legislation applies, which does 
not give a lot of clarity to an exporting country.  
These technical regulations are now adopted for meat and meat products, and for milk 
and dairy products. 
Is there an intention to repeal the CU provis ions in the Food safety technical regulation 
880 and in Common sanitary norms CU Decision  299 that would be redundant or differ, 
compared to the ones of the sectorial CU technical regulation and complement the CU JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  technical regulation with missing provisions, so  that clarity is provided within one single 
text for a given commodity?  
Answer: 
Amendments to Decision No. 880 are being introduced  in order to eliminate duplicative provisions 
with respect to milk and meat products.  To this end, the EEC Collegium adopted Decision No. 129 of 11 June 2013.  Currently, amendments to Decision No. 880 have been developed, which will 
soon be published for public consultation.    
It should also be noted that there is no tolerance level for chloramphenicol, i.e. presence of this 
substance in food products is prohibited.  The le vels indicated in the table above are the detection 
limits of a device used for conducting tests with respect to presence of chloramphenicol and dioxin 
in food products.  The changes in the limits are related to the limited technical capacities of laboratories of CU Parties.  The laboratories will be gradually equipped with more advanced equipment, which will allow to reach higher detection limits.  
With regard for dioxins, the MRLs for dioxin are established for all food product groups, except for 
baby foods (dioxins residues are not permitted in food for infants, children of preschool and school 
age).  Monitoring of dioxin shall be carried out by manufacturer (supplier , importer) and (or) by 
the authorized body only in cases of environmen tal degradation associated with the accidents, 
man-made and natural disasters leading to the formation and introduction of dioxin into the environment, and presence of reasonable assumpti ons about the possibility of their presence in 
food raw materials. 
Comparative Table on the Tolerance Leve ls of Dioxins in Food Products.   
(mg/kg, not more) 
Product name Common 
Sanitary and 
Hygienic 
Requirements 
299 Chapter. II 
р.1 CU Technical 
Regulation 
021/2011 Technical Regulation 
033/2013 
Meat and Meat Products; poultry, eg gs and their processed products   
Canned meat (beef, lamb and products 
thereof); Chicken eggs and products thereof 0,000003 
(in terms of fat) 0,000003 
(in terms of fat)   
Canned meat (pork and products thereof) 0,000001 
(in terms of fat) 0,000001 
(in terms of fat)   
Liver and products thereof;  
Canned liver 0,000006 
(in terms of fat) 0,000006 
(in terms of fat)   
Poultry and products thereof 0,000002 0,000002   
Milk and milk products 0,000003 
(in terms of fat) 0,000003 
(in terms of fat) Not allowed (Annex 10 
For children of pre-school and school 
age) 
Creamy vegetable spread, creamy 
vegetable melted mixture  0,000002 
(in terms of fat) No data   
Fish, non fish species and prod ucts produced from them    
All types of fish products and marine 
mammals, including dried products 0,000004 0,000004   
Fish Oil 0,000002 
(in terms of fat) 0,000002 
(in terms of fat)   
Oil-bearing raw materials and fat products   
Vegetable oil (all kinds) and theur fractions 0,00000075 
(in terms of fat) 0,00000075 
(in terms of fat)   
Beef fat, including melted 0,000003 (in 
terms of fat) 0,000003 
(in terms of fat)   
Pork fat, including melted 0,000001 0,000001   
Poultry fat, mixed fat, including melted, fish 
oil 0,000002 0,000002   JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  As shown in the table, the tolerance levels for dioxins in Common Sanitary and Hygienic 
Requirements and CU Technical Regulation 021/2011 "On Food Safety" are the same. 
Question 10 What would be the required level for chloramp henicol in dairy after the entry into force 
of the Technical Regulation for dairy CU 67? 
Answer: 
Pursuant to the Technical Regulation "On Safety of Milk and Dairy Products" adopted by EEC 
Council Decision No. 67, chloramphenicol in food products is prohibited.  Technical Regulation 
No. 67 establishes detection limit for chloramphenicol as of 1 July 2015 at the level of less than 0.0003 mg/kg.   
Question 11 
Sometime a substance is indicated in the ta ble of requirements but no limits are given 
e.g. dioxin in CU 299 Table 9 "other products ":  no set level, no absence is required. 
Sometimes the indication "not allowed" appear s without any limit is given e.g. dioxin in 
CU 299 for biologically active subs tance Table 10, Table 11, Table 12. 
Can an explanation be provided for substances  being mentioned in table of requirements 
without any objective? 
Answer: 
Such situation occurs with respect to processed food products, for example, food concentrates.  
For such products, the detection limits should be referred to individual primary products from which the processed product is produced.   
Question 12  
In the interim period until entry into force of the specific Technical Regulations 67 and 
68, could it be clarified which CU technica l regulation or which national legislation 
applies for the dairy and meat products? 
Answer: 
During the interim period prior to entry into forc e of the Technical Regulations Nos. 67 and 68, CU 
Commission Decision No. 299 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" and 
CU Commission Decision No. 317 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" apply.   
Question 13 
In a same CU text, some contradictions we re noted:  e.g. in Annexes 3 and 5 of 
Technical Regulation meat CU 68 norms fo r doxycyclines (molecule part of the 
tetracyclines family) differ from  the generic tetracyclines requ irement.  We observe that 
the generic requirement for tetracycline is no t compliant to Codex Alimentarius and far 
more stringent than the one of a Member whereas some other antibiotics MRLs have 
been aligned with Codex or with this Me mber' norms (tetracyclines in Annex 5).  
How the contradictions within CU requirements (between different CU texts or within a 
single text) are going to be solved by the CU legislator?  Will Codex compliance be used 
as a basis for this review? JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Answer: 
The issue of contradiction in the requirements for tetracycline group in the Technical Regulation 
"On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" has been discussed within the CU.  Upon results of the discussion, the decision was taken to exclude the MRLs for doxycycline since they do not comply 
with the results of the risk assessment.  Curre ntly, the draft amendments have been developed 
and discussed within the CU.   
Question 14  
A Member proposes a new paragraph 24 bis to capture these concerns and very much 
awaits the clarification of Kazakhstan on the CU framework: 
 24 bis.  Some Members expressed concern about the overlap between CU Technical 
Regulations and other CU Decisions in the veterinary and sanitary fields. 
For example, Members noted overlaps and contradictions between  CU Decision 299 
and CU Technical Regulations, such as the Food Safety Technical Regulation. 
Members also noted overlaps and contradictions between CU Decision 317, in 
particular the CU common veterinary requirements, and Annex 5 to the Food 
Safety Technical Regulation, which appear ed to contain veterinary requirements. 
Members sought clarity on what requiremen ts were applicable for imported goods. 
In addition, those Members identified overlaps between different Technical 
Regulations, i.e. between the Food Safety  Technical Regulation and the vertical 
Technical Regulations such as the TR for gr ain, meat, dairy, etc.  A member noted 
discrepancies in tetracyclines levels in the technical regulation for meat on the one 
hand and in CU decision 299 and Food safety TR on the other hand and asked to confirm that the levels indicated in annex 5 paragraph 43
(1) of the meat technical 
regulation were given priority.  They as ked if CU would eliminate redundant text 
and consolidate requirements, so that exporters could find all applicable requirements in the vertical TRs.  
(1) 
43. Doxiciclin 
(tetracyclines) Cattle meat 
liver 
kidneys 0.1 
0.3 0.6  
Hogs meat 
pork fat 
with skin 
liver 
kidneys 0.1 
0.3 0.3 0.6 
  
 24 ter.  Kazakhstan's answer.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will include the proposed Member's language in paragraph 24 bis and will add the 
following answer in paragraphs 24 ter and 24 quarter : 
"24ter.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that, with regard to sanitary 
requirements, in accordance with the CU Agreement on Sanitary Measures, with the 
adoption of technical regulations relevant sanitary requirements stipulated in CU Decision 299 had to be abolished.  The pl an of amendments into CU Decision 299 was 
adopted together with the relevant technical regulations.  The delay in amending 
CU Decision 299 is due to the current discussion between the CU Parties on replacing sanitary requirements incorporated into the CU technical regulations by a making references 
to the CU Common Sanitary Requirements (CU Decision 299) in order to exclude 
duplications. 
With regard to veterinary requirements, Kazakhstan had raised the issue of duplication and 
inconsistencies in the technical regulations and CU Decisions at the CU level.  At present, 
there were two draft amendments to the CU tec hnical regulation On Food Safety.  The first 
draft went through public discussion in September 2013 and was sent to the CU Parties for JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  internal approval.  The second draft had been sent for consideration by CU Parties and then 
would be published for public consultations.  These amendments, among other things, were 
aimed at elimination of discrepancies in the CU documents. 
24quarter .  Regarding the discrepancy between horizo ntal and vertical technical regulations, 
it should be mentioned that with regard to ve terinary measures there were no discrepancies.  
Moreover, according to Article 3, paragraph 1 of the CU technical regulation On Food Safety, the technical regulation shall be applied ta king into account the requirements of the 
CU technical regulations that establish mandatory requirements for certain types of food 
products and related requirements to the proce sses of production (manufacturing), storage, 
transportation, marketing and utilization, complementing and (or) specifying the requirements thereof.  In addition, the requirements for certain types of food products and 
related requirements to the processes of  production (manufacturing), storage, 
transportation, marketing and utilization established in other technical regulations of the Customs Union could not change the requirements of the horizontal Technical Regulation On 
Food Safety. 
Horizontal technical regulation of the Customs Union "On Safety of Food Products" 
established requirements that are common to all types of food products, in particular: 
1) safety requirements (including sanitary and epidemiological, sanitary and veterinary) 
to food products, and to production processes (manufacturing), storage, transportation, marketing and utilization; 
2) the rules of identification of objects of technical regulation; 
3) forms and procedures for assessment (confirmation) of conformity of objects of 
technical regulation with the requirements of the technical regulation. 
Vertical technical regulations of the Customs Union "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" 
and "On Safety of Milk and Dairy Products" established specific requirement to the relevant 
products, in particular: 
1) terminology; 
2) safety requirements for meat and meat products, milk and dairy products, as well as 
the processes of production (manufacturing) , storage, transportation, marketing and utilization, which complement requirements of the technical regulations "On Food Safety"; 
3) the rules for identification of meat and meat products, milk and dairy products; 
4) requirements for labelling of meat and dairy products; 
5) conformity assessment schemes. In general, Kazakhstan is planning to initiate amendments to the adopted CU technical 
regulations or CU Decisions in order to eliminate overlaps and contradictions between the 
horizontal and vertical technical regulations, or between the CU technical regulations and CU Decisions, when such contradictions and/or overlaps existed." 
With respect to doxycycline, the issue of contradiction in the requirements to tetracycline group in 
the Technical Regulation "On Safety of Meat and Meat Products" have been discussed within the CU.  Upon results of the discussion, the decision was taken to exclude the MRLs for doxycycline since they did not comply with the results of the risk assessment.  Currently, the draft 
amendments have been developed and discussed within the CU.   
Question 15  
If we read correctly CU Decision 129, it seem s that the national sa fety limits could still 
apply for meat and dairy.  How are provisio ns of CU Decision 129 compatible with the JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  description given on safety limits in Work ing Party Report paragraph 29 according to 
which all safety limits at national levels ar e replaced by CU safety limits (which was a 
very welcome clarification)?  
She clarified that only sanitary  safety limits set at the CU level could be applied on the 
territory of the CU Parties.  That is, CU Pa rties could not adopt specific MRLs or other 
sanitary requirements at the na tional level in the absence of  those at the CU level.   
Is the above description anchored in a CU text? 
Answer: 
In Kazakhstan, only CU documents apply with respect to sanitary requirements to food products 
subject to regulation at the CU level, including MRLs. 
Question 16  Paragraph 30:  We request to confirm the absence of  compulsory frequency of testing, 
not only for self checks but also for official checks . 
Answer: 
The CU legislation does not establish binding requirements on how often self checks or official 
checks (by the Competent authority of an export ing country) for residues levels, contaminants 
levels, microbiological levels have to be carried out.  This confirmation has been added into 
paragraph 31 in the following sentence: 
She confirmed that there were no binding requir ements on how often the producing establishment 
had to test for residues or microbiological levels in its product or how often official checks for 
residues and microbiological chec ks should be carried out.   
Question 17  Paragraph 31:  We request to confirm that th ere is no binding requirement applicable in 
the CU on how often official checks (by the Competent authority of an exporting 
country) for residues levels, contaminants le vels, microbiological levels have to be 
carried out. 
Answer: 
The CU legislation does not establish binding requirements on how often official checks (by the 
competent authority of an exporting country) for residues levels, contaminants levels, 
microbiological levels have to be carried out.  This statement has been added into paragraph 31 in 
the following sentence: 
She confirmed that there were no binding requir ements on how often the producing establishment 
had to test for residues or microbiological levels in its product or how often official checks for 
residues and microbiological chec ks should be carried out.   
(d) Trade in Goods Subject to Veterinary Control - (i) Veterinary certificates 
Question 18  
Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1:  The draft 
amendment to CU veterinary requirements th at introduced a new listing obligation for 
establishments supplying raw materials to establishments that export animal products 
to the CU has been withdrawn (see notification G/SPS/N/RUS/15/Add.2).  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Kazakhstan has now harmonized their measures  with the Russian Federation related to 
goods subject to veterinary control (Annex to JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4).  The Annex needs to 
be updated in accordance with the updated EEC table provided by Russia by the recent 
notification G/SPS/N/RUS/33.  Also, the CN Code 0308 related to aquatic invertebrates 
seem to be totally missing from the tabl e provided in Annex to JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4. 
Answer: 
The Annex on veterinary measures has been updated in the SPS text according to the 
EC Collegium Decision No. 294 of 10 December 2013, which harmonized the veterinary measures 
with the Russian Federation related to goods subject to veterinary control, including CN Code 0308 "aquatic invertebrates".  
Question 19  
A Member note that recently adopted Technical Regulations re ferred to the safety of the 
products in their title and scope, in spite of containing quality requirements.  We are 
concerned that a products not responding to  a quality requirement such as fat content 
would be considered as unsafe as it had experienced restrictions based on such 
standards.  We request confirmation that emergency measures can only be linked to 
safety issues and not to quality requirements. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that emergency measures can be linked only to safety issues.  
Question 20  Furthermore, we consider its comments on th e need for scientific justification not to 
have been fully taken into account in the fi nal adopted documents.  For example, the CU 
Technical Regulation on dairy sets a principl e of control in the event of environmental 
conditions justifying it for dioxins but not for radionucleids, which is not justified.  
This is often the basis for CU to requir e testing of the transformed products for 
radionucleids, which is more requiring than wh at would be logic to do:  test when there 
is a suspicion of contamination, and recognis ing testing of raw material as a sufficient 
guarantee that transformed pr oducts deriving from compliant raw material are also 
safe. 
We see that an approach of testing in case  the environmental situation suggests such a 
need has been included for dioxins.  Can Ka zakhstan confirm that such an approach is 
also applicable to radionucleids?  Is th ere an intention to introduce it in the 
CU requirements? 
Answer: 
The situation with radionuclides in CU is different than with dioxins.  It is well known that 
territories of Kazakhstan, Belarus and the Russian Federation historically have been subject to radiological contamination, for example, due to  Semei nuclear-weapon testing polygon, Chernobyl 
nuclear catastrophe etc.  Thus, the majority of citizens have been affected and the level of 
accumulated radionuclide level in their bodies is higher than in other countries.  Therefore, the CU regulations require testing for radionucleids.    
Question 21  
Paragraph 38, last sentence states:  "The Re presentative of Kazakhstan also added that 
the CU Party that received a request from a third country to initiate the negotiation on veterinary certificates, or the EEC, if the th ird country had sent its request to it, was 
responsible for coordinating the certificate negotiations and CU Parties' negotiating 
positions, as well as preparation and provisio n of feedback on third countries' proposals 
and requests regarding veterinary certif icates."  In JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1, 
Kazakhstan states that "Coordination of cert ificates negotiations currently takes time JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  because CU Parties have received a large num ber of applications from third countries 
and have limited financial and human resources ."  We continue to have concerns with 
the lengthy process for negotiating new CU certificates.  We note that we have 
experienced significant delays with CU Partie s response to our proposals.  For example, 
after in person negotiations for one of our priority certificates, we followed up with 
written proposal in July 2012.  To this date , we have not received the Customs Union 
response to our proposal, despite several pr omises by the EEC and the CU Parties to 
comment by December 2012.  It seems that the Customs Union does not have procedure 
for coordination of certificate negotiations.  Who is responsible for coordination if a third 
party submitted its request to CU Parties an d EEC?  We request a standard coordination 
mechanism so that there is a clear and transparent process in place. 
Answer: 
CU Commission Decision No. 726 foresees approval of bilateral certificates by reaching consensus 
between CU Parties.  The approval process for vete rinary certificates is a negotiating process, on 
the one hand, between the CU Parties, on the ot her hand, between CU and the exporting country. 
This process is consistent with international practice and conducted on an open basis.   
Regarding certificate for dairy products noted by a Member, the certificates have been negotiated 
and initialled by CU Parties and a Member at the end of March 2014.  
Question 22  We continue to have concerns with the ac tual harmonization of veterinary measures 
with the respective OIE requirements.  In a ddition, we are concerned with Kazakhstan's 
and the CU's desire for only "freedom fr om" animal health diseases where the WTO 
provides for less trade restrictive measures that could allow trade to continue even 
where freedom from the disease does not exist.  In this vein, we would request that 
additional Members language be added to th e text in paragraph 42.  The new language 
(in italics) would be added to the end of th e second sentence and would state after "by 
requiring conditions for animal diseases  which were not listed in the OIE Code, or 
requiring freedom from animal diseases wher e less restrictive conditions for trade were 
provided in the OIE for the concerned commodities. "  We also request that Kazakhstan 
add a reply that would be added to the text of the Working Party Report.  
Answer: 
Harmonization of the CU Common Veterinary Requirements was carried out in 2012 as part of 
Russia's accession to the WTO.  In particular, the timeframes of the absence of animal diseases by 
type of controlled goods were reduced taking into account the regionalization principle.  As part of 
the harmonization process, amendments were introduced into more than 20 chapters of the 
CU Common Veterinary Requirements as the re sult of consultations with some of the 
WTO Members.  In addition, with the aim of further harmonization with OIE recommendations, 
amendments are planned to be introduced to  certain chapters of the Common Veterinary 
Requirements, which passed public consultation in 2013 and which are currently under consideration by the Working Group due to the comme nts received during the public consultations. 
Requirements for animal diseases established in  the CU Common Veterinary Requirements are 
consistent with the OIE recommendations.  In accordance with Article 5.1.1. of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code (hereinafter- OIE Code), there are different options (recommendations) for imports of goods depending on the status of animal  health in the country.  The Code offers various 
options because of differences between countries in their animal health situations OIE.  
As provided in the OIE Code: " The animal health situation in the exporting country, in the transit 
country/countries and in the importing country should be considered before determining the 
requirements for trade.  To maximise harmonisatio n of the sanitary aspects of international trade, 
Veterinary Authorities of Member Countries should base their import requirements on the standards of the OIE. "  CU countries have chosen one of the options (recommendations) provided 
by the OIE Code with regard to certain diseases taking into account level of protection that 
CU countries deem to be appropriate.  These requirements are generic and apply for trade within 
the CU as well as with third countries. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  At the same time, given the different status of animal health in the exporting countries and the 
level of development of the country, and with  the aim to promote trade, a procedure for 
negotiating bilateral veterinary certificates between the CU and the exporting countries is provided by the CU legislation.  Such veterinary certificates may contain requirements different from the 
Common Veterinary Requirements. 
The relevant answer will be included into paragraph 42 bis. 
Question 23 
Paragraph 42:  A Member underlines that the CU requirements for freedom of the 
disease in the exporting country are in its view not always compatible with the OIE 
recommendations, and supports additional members' language in paragraph 42 after 
diseases which were not listed in the OIE code , or "by requiring freedom of the territory 
or region of origin when less trade restrictive conditions fo r trade were provided in the 
OIE Code for the concerned commodity" and Kazakhstan's answer in a new 42 bis. 
Answer:  
Requirements for animal diseases established in  the CU Common Veterinary Requirements are 
consistent with the OIE recommendations.  In accordance with Article 5.1.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (hereinafter- OIE Code), there are different options (recommendations) for 
imports of goods depending on the status of animal  health in the country.  Because of differences 
between countries in their animal health situations, the OIE Code offers various options.  As provided in the OIE Code:  " The animal health situation in the exporting country, in the transit 
country/countries and in the importing country should be considered before determining the 
requirements for trade.  To maximise harmonisatio n of the sanitary aspects of international trade, 
Veterinary Authorities of Member Countries should base their import requirements on the standards of the OIE. "  CU countries have chosen one of the options (recommendations) provided 
by the OIE Code with regard to certain diseases taking into account level of protection that 
CU countries deem to be appropriate.  These requirements are generic and apply for trade within the CU as well as with third countries. 
At the same time, given the different status of animal health in the exporting countries and the 
level of development of the country, and with  the aim to promote trade, a procedure for 
negotiating bilateral veterinary certificates between the CU and the exporting countries is provided by the CU legislation.  Such veterinary certificates may contain requirements different from the 
Common Veterinary Requirements. 
The relevant answer will be included in paragraph 42 bis. 
Question 24 
Paragraph 44 bis:  A Member has a specific concern related to BSE requirement of the 
CU:  
44bis.  A Member of the Working Party expr essed concern that bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) requirements set-out in  existing bilateral certificates as well 
as in the CU common veterinary certificate for live cattle, did not conform to OIE standards, since they respectively foresa w testing of animals for BSE and required 
the absence of a genetic link with animals a ffected by BSE.  The representative of 
the Kazakhstan clarified that in respect to BSE, as of the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, bilateral certificates as well as the CU common certificates would, as provided for in th e WTO Agreement, be in conformity with 
OIE standards.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will add this commitment language into the SPS text with one modification as 
following : JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  44bis.  A Member of the Working Party expressed concern that bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) requirements set-out in exis ting bilateral certificates as well as in the 
CU common veterinary certificate for live cattle, did not conform to OIE standards, since they respectively foresaw testing of animals for BSE and required the absence of a genetic 
link with animals affected by BSE.  The repres entative of the Kazakhstan clarified that in 
respect to BSE, as of the date of accession of the Russian Federation Kazakhstan to the 
WTO, bilateral certificates as well as the CU common certificates would, as provided for in 
the WTO Agreement, be in conformity with OIE standards.  The Working Party took note of 
this commitment. 
Question 25  We request that Kazakhstan favourably cons ider adding this commitment language to 
the text after paragraph 45. 
"A Member of the Working Party expre ssed concern that bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) requirements set-out in  existing bilateral certificates as well 
as in the CU common veterinary certificate for live cattle, did not conform to OIE 
standards, since they respectively foresa w testing of animals for BSE and required 
the absence of a genetic link with animals a ffected by BSE.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan clarified that in respect to BSE, as of the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, bilateral certificat es as well as the CU common certificates 
w o u l d ,  a s  p r o v i d e d  f o r  i n  t h e  W T O  A g r e e m e n t ,  b e  i n  c o n f o r m i t y  w i t h  O I E  standards.  The Working Party took note of this commitment." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will add this commitment language into the SPS text. 
Question 26 
Regarding the commitment in paragraph 45, we continue to have concerns with some of 
the bracketed language in the text.  One of the main concerns is in the last sentence 
states "[In accordance with the OIE code, CU  veterinary certificates would not include 
requirements for the exclusion of pathogens or animal diseases which were present in 
the CU and were not subject to any official  control programme.  The measures imposed 
on imports to manage the risks posed by a specific pathogen or disease would not 
require a higher level of protection than that  provided by measures applied as part of 
the official control programme operating within  the CU.]  It implies that Kazakhstan can 
request veterinary attestations from an exporting country for a disease for which there is no programme in place in Kazakhstan but there is a programme in place in Belarus.  
Based on our experiences, the CU seeks to implement disease free attestations for the 
entire CU where only one CU Party has surv eillance in place.  Moreover, no CU risk 
assessments have been provided  to justify the measures.  
We encourage Kazakhstan to remove the sentence.   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes the following commitment text that replicates the OIE Terrestrial Animal 
Health Code (paragraph 2 Article 5.1.2): 
…The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed th at veterinary certificates would not include 
provisions for diseases that were not transmitte d by/relevant to the concerned product, and would 
not require certification of provisions that were not justified based on mandatory requirements 
applicable and surveillance carried out within the territory of Kazakhstan or the [whole] CU. 
[Veterinary certificates for goods destined to Kazakhstan could contain veterinary attestations for 
the diseases, for which Kazakhstan, but not other CU Parties, had in place in the relevant territory 
either a control or eradication programme, or surveillance programme demonstrating that the 
disease was not present]. JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Question 27 
Paragraph 45:  A Member reiterates its reques t to ensure non discrimination as to the 
animal health guarantees requ ired from an exporting country.  In certain cases, this 
Member was requested to provide guarantees whereas for the given disease no or only 
certain CU members had in place official  surveillance and official eradication 
programmes across the whole country (e.g . only one member had an official 
programme, or there was only voluntary sc heme conducted by operators, such as 
vaccination schemes).  The answer provided  b y  K a z a k h s t a n  i n  t h e  p r e v i o u s  r o u n d  
continues to raise concerns as Kazakhstan se ems to consider justified that a CU member 
not having any official control in place for a given disease may still require official freedom to be provided as a guarantee.  This Member maintains its request to consider 
additional language currently in brackets.  [In accordance with the OIE code, in cases 
where at least one, but not all, CU Parties had in place in the relevant territory either a control or eradication programme for a disease, or surv eillance programme 
demonstrating that the disease was not present,  veterinary attestations for that disease 
would only be required for goods destined to the CU Party(ies) having the relevant 
programme in place.] and delete the alternative text. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes the following commitment text that replicates the OIE Terrestrial Animal 
Health Code (paragraph 2 Article 5.1.2): 
The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed th at veterinary certificates would not include 
provisions for diseases that were not transmitte d by/relevant to the concerned product, and would 
not require certification of provisions that were not justified based on mandatory requirements applicable and surveillance carried out within the territory of Kazakhstan or the [whole] CU. 
[Veterinary certificates for goods destined to Kazakhstan could contain veterinary attestations for the diseases, for which Kazakhstan (but not other CU Parties) had in place in the relevant territory either a control or eradication programme, or surveillance programme demonstrating that the 
disease was not present]. 
Question 28 Paragraph 47 also contains a key commitment.  Can Kazakhstan please provide the one 
document would be necessary fo r processed animal products? 
Answer: 
When importing processed products of animal origin into the customs territory of the 
Customs Union and when moving such goods between  CU Parties, only one document is required 
which is veterinary certificate. 
Question 29 Paragraph 47 needs to be updated, as the adopted specific Technical Regulations for 
meat and dairy (CU Decisions 68 and 69) prov ide for the veterinary certificate to be 
maintained as the only document for crossing  the border.  It should be indicated in 
which document it is provided that the stat e registration and declaration of conformity 
are eliminated for those products. 
Answer: 
The technical regulations on meat and dairy prov ide for the veterinary certificate are the only 
document required for crossing the border.  These products are not subject to state registration.  
With regard to declaration of conformity, Kazakh stan will initiate amendments to the Technical 
Regulation on Safety of Food Products (Decision No. 880) in order to specify in the Technical Regulation that the veterinary certificate shall be the only document for accompanying meat and 
dairy products upon their importation to the CU.    JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Question 30 
We appreciate the new information that  was added in paragraph 49 regarding 
replacement veterinary certificates.  Howeve r, we understand that the legal basis for 
accepting replacement veterinary certific ates does not currently exist in the 
Customs Union legal framework.  We underst and that an amendment to the veterinary 
legislation will need to be undertaken.  Can Kazakhstan please provide an update on the 
status of the amendment? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan initiated amendments to the Regulation on Common Procedure of Veterinary Control 
at the Customs Border of the Customs Union and in the Customs Territory of the Customs Union, approved by CU Commission Decision No. 317 to include rules on recognition of a replacement 
certificate in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 5.2.3 of the OIE Code. 
The amendments were discussed and approv ed at the Working Group meeting on 
veterinary-sanitary measures on 4-6 December 2013.  
Question 31 
Paragraph 49:  Could be completed with refe rence to CU Decision amending CU 317 and 
allowing replacement certificates. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan initiated amendments to the Regulation on Common Procedure of Veterinary Control 
at the Customs Border of the Customs Union and in the Customs Territory of the Customs Union, approved by CU Commission Decision No. 317 to include rules on recognition of a replacement 
certificate in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 5.2.3 of the OIE Code. 
The amendments were discussed and approv ed at the Working Group meeting on 
4-6 December 2013 and have been published for public consultation on 31 December 2013 till 
10 March 2014.  Currently, comments received during public consultation are being consolidated 
for review within the CU. 
Question 32  
In JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1, Question 19, a Member points out that Kazakhstan's 
reference to the CU being treated as one country has been inconsistent.  Kazakhstan's response indicates that the CU should indeed be treated as one country and that otherwise separate veterinary certificates wo uld have to be negotiated for each of the 
CU states.  However, as pointed out in the Member's question, the CU continues to 
maintain separate lists of dangerous and quarantine animal diseases under 
CU Commission Decision No. 455 of 18 Novemb er 2010.  Could Kazakhstan explain how 
it intends to standardize the definition of the CU as a single entity in order for the 
implementation of SPS measures to be consistently applied? 
Answer: 
The CU territory can be regarded as a single territory because there are no border checkpoints 
between the CU Parties and controlled goods can freely move within the CU territory.  For example, permit to import controlled goods ob tained on the territory of one CU Party is also 
valid for entry into the territory of other CU Parties.  Moreover, conditions for movement of 
controlled goods within CU territory are also common. 
The status of the CU as a single space with regard to application of SPS measures is established in 
the CU legal documents.  In particular, there are Common CU Veterinary and Sanitary 
Requirements, the Unified List of Controlled Goods, common forms of veterinary certificates, and 
others.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Decision No. 455 that approved the Consolidated  List of Hazardous and Quarantined Animal 
D i s e a s e s  c o n t a i n s  t h r e e  s e p a r a t e  l i s t s  o f  a n i m a l  d i s e a s e s  o f  e a c h  C U  P a r t y .   H o w e v e r ,  t h e s e  diseases are largely the same. 
Thus, in fact, the CU territory can be regarded as a single entity with regard to application of SPS 
measures.  
- (ii) Establishment Approval , Registry and Inspection 
Question 33 
In paragraph 53, please add the following la nguage to the end of the first sentence, 
"which would become effective on the date  of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO." 
Answer: 
Sentence 1 of paragraph 53 will be amended as follows:  
"The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Ka zakhstan excluded products of plant origin from 
the list of goods subject to veterinary control in accordance with EEC Council Decision No. 33 of 24 May 2013, which would become effective on the da te of Kazakhstan's accession to the 
WTO ." 
Question 34 A key issue that remains unresolved is the issu e of completion of a successful audit as a 
pre-condition to the implementation of CU Commission Decision No. 830, as discussed in 
paragraphs 55-57.  We appreciate the response to Question 12 in JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add 1 where Kazakhstan no ted that the related paragraph that had 
been proposed as an amendment to CU Comm ission Decision No. 834 had been removed.  
However, our concerns remain as we understand that Kazakhstan and the CU intend to 
still maintain the requirement for an estab lishment list where the requirement had been 
removed, until after an audit is successfully  conducted.  We continue to work with 
Members and Kazakhstan to find an acceptable resolution. 
Answer: 
CU Commission Decision No. 834 was approved in the course of negotiations of the 
Russian Federation with WTO Members.  Currently, Kazakhstan continues to work actively with 
CU Parties and WTO Members to address this issue.  
Question 35 Paragraphs 64 and 66 should be bracketed as  it appears to reflect a draft amendment 
outlying how guarantees may operate, but it is only a draft.  We continue to work with 
Members and Kazakhstan on this key issue as  we need to see a functioning guarantee 
system in place. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan put in brackets description of planned amendments to Decision No. 834 in 
paragraph 64.  The last sentence of paragraph 66 on planned amendments to Decision No. 834 is 
already in brackets.   
Question 36 Regarding paragraph 77, the new language at  the end of the paragraph, "CU Parties 
agreed that it was necessary to develop an d establish a certain mechanism within the 
CU for making coordinated decisions when imposing suspensions of imports into the 
CU territory", makes a reference to a deve loping and establishing a new mechanism JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  regarding imposing suspensions across the CU  territory.  Please explain what this 
means.  Members have expressed strong co ncerns that one CU Party could impose 
suspensions on imports across the entire CU  territory and we were pleased that the 
proposed amendment that would have inco rporated that requirement has been 
removed. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan once again clarifies that the amendment had been withdrawn.  Thus, each CU Party 
imposes restrictions on import of the controlled goods only into its own territory.  
Question 37 Paragraph 86 in document JOB/ACC/30/R ev.4 and Question 36 in document 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.3/Add.1 relate to a draft am endment that had been proposed to add a 
new requirement for establishments supplying  raw materials to establishments that 
export animal products to the CU.  In resp onse to Members concerns, Kazakhstan states 
that the new amendment was sent for further elaboration and risk assessment.  
Could Kazakhstan please provide an update  on the status of this amendment?  
Answer: 
Currently, the new requirement for raw material supplied to establishments has not been 
considered within the CU.  
- (iii) Import Permits Question 38 Could Kazakhstan please provide an update on the status of the amendments to 
Government Resolution No. 132 as discussed in paragraph 100?   
Answer: 
Draft amendments to the Government Resolution of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 132 are at the 
final stage of review by the interested govern ment bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
The amendments will be submitted for approval to  the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
(e) Trade in Goods Subject to Phytosanitary Control 
Question 39 
Paragraph 122:  A Member requests Kazakhstan  to confirm that PRAs carried out by one 
of the CU party are taken on board for designin g the CU legislation only if they are valid 
for the all CU region, i.e. reflect the diversit y of the region as to regards climatic and 
environmental conditions, as well as pest status  and official measures of controls on the 
related pests. 
Answer: 
The CU legal acts in the field of plant quaranti ne are developed in order to protect the customs 
territory of the CU from entry and spread of quarantine objects.  Pursuant to paragraph 1 Article 2 of the CU Customs Code, the customs territory of  the CU comprises the territories of Belarus, 
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.  Border territories of the CU Parties are similar in their 
agro-climatic, plant cover and weather conditions.  
Phytosanitary risk assessment with regard to certain quarantine organisms is conducted taking 
into account agro-climatic and weather conditions, fodder resources.  In addition, PRAs determine 
the list of quarantine products, which could be a so urce of introduction and spread of quarantine 
pests.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  At the same time, major emphasis is made to determination of economic injury caused by a 
quarantine pest with respect to quarantine products  during vegetation in open or protected ground 
as well as during storage and transportation of quarantine products. 
Moreover, as it is known in the course of transp ortation and growing of quarantine products in 
protected grounds regardless of place of origin  (greenhouse, orchard house, storage etc.) 
conditions favourable for reproduction, acclimatization and further spread of quarantine pests in the territory of the CU are created.  
When conducting phytosanitary risk assessment in  accordance with the IPPC standards Nos. 11 
and 21, a comprehensive study of harmfulness of pe st with respect to quarantine product during 
its growth, transportation, storage etc. is carried  out.  Therefore, CU Parties when developing 
CU legal acts use the results of phytosanitary risk assessment conducted by one of the CU Parties.   
Question 40 
Please break paragraph 128 into separate pa ragraphs to distinguish between Members 
language and the reply from Kazakhstan. 
Answer: 
The paragraph will be separated to distinguish Members language and reply from Kazakhstan.  
Question 41 
Paragraph 128:  A Member requests Kazakhstan  to confirm that the system described in 
this paragraph would not result within the CU:  
- in a system of individu al approval for export,  
- nor of preliminary audit conditioning the possibility for a country to continue 
exporting,  
- nor of listing obligations of pest free ar eas, pest free places of production, pest 
free sites of production when the corresponding guarantees could be provided by 
other means foreseen by IPPC, such as ce rtificates and were previously seen as 
sufficient in existing trade relations. 
Answer: 
Audit referred in paragraph 128 will be conducted in special cases, such as establishment of new 
trade relations, when there is a problem, or in cases of repeated inconsistencies.  
In order to reduce the risk of introduction and sp read of quarantine objects on the territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan, exporting countries shall provide information on the list of zones, 
production places, production sites free from quar antine objects regulated on the territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan established by international standards on phytosanitary measures, as well as timely update of previously provided information in accordance with principles and norms of 
IPPC and NPPO.  At the same time, in cases where quarantine objects were detected from 
imported products and the exporting country had not taken appropriate measures, Kazakhstan may apply emergency (extraordinary) phytosanitary measures to restrict or ban import of such 
products in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 7 of the IPPC.  Kazakhstan will notify concerned 
members on application of such measures  in accordance with ISPM 13.    
(g) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Spec ific Provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement 
- (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms 
Question 42 
A Member requests an update on the follow-up given to its request of 15 April 2013 for 
harmonisation of certain CU norms in accord ance with EEC Decision 212.  In previous 
meeting, it was indicated that 4 CU working groups had been set up and should finalise JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  their assessment of the request around Octo ber 2013.  What is the outcome of this 
evaluation? 
Answer: 
Expert Group meeting has considered this Member 's request on harmonization in November 2013 
in accordance with EEC Collegium's Decision No . 212 of 6 November 2012.  The results of the 
evaluation will be reported to and approved by the Consultative Committee. 
Question 43  
Paragraph 144:  A Member reiterates its conc erns expressed in plurilateral meetings and 
through written comments regarding foreseen amendments to CU Decision No. 721, and proposed changes to paragraph 144. 
Answer: 
Amendments have been initiated in order to align the Decision No. 721 with the WTO Agreement 
on the Application of SPS measures.  
Kazakhstan is ready to work with WTO Members on commitment language and subsequently 
cancel the amendments to CU Decision No. 721.   
Question 44 We must reiterate our concerns with the changes that have been proposed to 
paragraph 144 and the proposed amendments to CU Commission Decision No. 721 that 
have been notified and published for pub lic comment.  We have requested that the 
amendments to the decision be withdrawn.  CU Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 was 
adopted during Russia's accession to the WTO to address Russia's harmonization 
obligations.  There were two components that were addressed, in addition to those 
found in CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011. 
The proposed amendments also fail to account for a key element of CU Decision No. 721.  
The proposed amendments drop what "measure " applies in the absence of a scientific 
justification for any element of an EEC SPS me asure that provides a more stringent level 
of protection than that accorded under in ternational standards, recommendations, and 
guidelines.  We will continue to work with Members and Kazakhstan to find language for 
the commitment paragraph that is  acceptable to all parties. 
Answer: 
Draft amendments do not repeal Paragraph 1 of  the CU Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011.  
Amendments have been initiated in order to align the Decision No. 721 with the WTO Agreement 
on the Application of SPS measures.  Currently, amendments to the Decision No. 721 have been 
withdrawn.  Kazakhstan is ready to work with WTO Members on commitment language and 
subsequently cancel amendments to CU Decision No. 721.   
(h) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations  
Question 45 
During the SPS Plurilateral, Kazakhstan agreed  to remove the brackets from the around 
the text in paragraph 185.  Please confirm that this will be reflected in document 
JOB/ACC/30/Rev.5. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan removed brackets from the text.  JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  (j) Conclusion 
Question 46 A Member requests Kazakhstan to undertake the following commitment: 
[The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that from the date of accession all 
SPS measures would be applied in full conformity with the WTO Agreement, 
SPS Agreement, and Agreement on Import  Licensing Procedures in particular 
without application of transitional peri od.  The Representative of Kazakhstan 
confirmed that from the date of its a ccession to the WTO, all existing in 
Kazakhstan and Customs Union SPS measures - laws, regulations, orders and decrees, instructions and guidelines and ot her regulatory measures directly and/or 
indirectly affecting international trade in agricultural and food products would be 
brought in conformity with the SPS Agreem ent.  The Representative of Kazakhstan 
added that Kazakhstan would not introd uce any new additional certification, 
testing requirements or sanitary regist ration for the products which had been 
determined safe for use and human consumption by official competent bodies of 
exporting countries which were duly re ported to the relevant international 
organizations (the International Plant Prot ection Convention (IPPC), World Animal 
Health Organisation (OIE) and the Codex A limentarius (Codex)) had been informed 
and recognized by Kazakhstan/Customs Union in accordance with SPS Agreement.  From the date of accession Kazakhstan/C ustoms Union shall ensure official 
publication of criteria for preliminary author ization or protection of certification of 
imported agricultural products.  The Repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
the requirements for SPS and other types of certification in Kazakhstan/Customs Union would be drafted, adopted an d implemented in line with the 
WTO transparency principle and would not cr eate unjustified delays.  Upon request 
of WTO Members Kazakhstan/Customs Unio n would consult with them as to the 
impact on trade of such SPS requirem ents in order to resolve possible 
trade-related concerns raised by Members.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.] 
Answer: 
The proposed commitment language is already present in the SPS text JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4 
(hereinafter – SPS text) in differe nt paragraphs.  In particular,  
1) A draft commitment from the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO to apply all 
SPS measures in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreement is already stipulated in 
paragraph 194 of the SPS document JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4.  This commitment also means that 
Kazakhstan has to bring all its SPS measures in compliance with the SPS Agreement prior to its accession to the WTO and without recourse to a transitional period. 
2) With regard to the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, in the Chapter "Quantitative 
Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas" of the draft Working Party Report of 
Kazakhstan, there is a general commitment in accordance with which the administrative procedures of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the operation of its import licensing regime and 
their application would, from the date of accession, be in compliance with all relevant 
provisions of the WTO Agreement, including th e Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 
(paragraph 417 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.10). 
3) With regard to the introduction of additional  certification, testing requirements in sanitary 
registration of products, it should be noted that SPS Agreement allows WTO Members to adopt any SPS measures in accordance with international standards or based on risk 
assessment.  Moreover, in accordance with the SPS Agreement, such measures shall be 
applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.  The relevant commitment language is provided in paragraphs 193 and 194 of the SPS text.  In particular, in accordance with this draft commitment text, Kazakhstan shall apply its 
SPS measures only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health 
and they shall not be more trade restrictive than  required to achieve the appropriate level of JOB/ACC/30/Rev.4/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  sanitary or phytosanitary protection of the CU and Kazakhstan.  In addition, when 
determining the appropriate level of sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary protection, Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU, shall take into account the objective to minimize negative trade effects in acco rdance with the WTO SPS Agreement.   
4) Concerning the publication and transparency issues, there are several commitment 
paragraphs in the Draft Working Party Report of Kazakhstan.  In particular, in paragraph 102, Kazakhstan is confirming that it would make available to importers, as well 
as to third-country exporters through the website of the Ministry of Agriculture 
[www.minagri.gov.kz] full detailed conditions for import of specific products.  Furthermore, 
information on CU veterinary requirements was available on the CU website at the following address:  http://www.eurasian commission.org/ru/act/texnreg /depsanmer/regulation/Pages/
Ветеринарно -санитарные -меры .aspx.  It further confirms 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 and establishments authorised to 
export to Kazakhstan [and the territory of the CU]; and the conditions for import. 
In paragraph 191, there is a draft commitment, in accordance with which Kazakhstan shall notify 
its draft SPS measures applicable to imports into Kazakhstan to the WTO SPS Committee as 
provided for in the SPS Agreement.  Information on all proposed SPS measures and those in 
effect, as foreseen in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement, can also be obtained from the SPS notification authority or from Kazakhstan's SPS enquiry point. 
Moreover, paragraph 44 of the SPS Chapter stipulates a draft commitment that if an exporting 
Member believes that the SPS requirements of the CU or Kazakhstan resulted in a higher level of 
protection than would be achieved by measures based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, Kazakhstan is prepared to consult with the exporting Member on 
such SPS requirements and, if necessary, as a re sult of such consultations, will modify its 
measures in order to bring them into compliance with international standards, guidelines, or recommendations consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.   
Therefore, Kazakhstan considers redundant to undertake the proposed commitment. 
 
__________