WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1
20 November 2012 
 (12-6409) 
Working Party on the 
Accession of Kazakhstan Original:   English 
 
 
 
ACCESSION OF KAZAKHSTAN 
 
Additional Questions and Replies 
 
Addendum 
 
 
 The following submission, dated 12 November 2012,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
 
  
_______________ 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  Question 1  
A Member thanks Kazakhstan for the revised pr oposal on export subsidies and domestic 
support.  We look forward to having the opportuni ty to review this proposal in writing and to 
engage in more substantive discussions on the w ay forward.  In order to allow Members to 
consider the proposal in its entirety and analy ze its full implications, we would respectfully 
request that Kazakhstan include in its written pr oposal a revised set of supporting tables with 
the programmes previously reported under Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) 
in Supporting Table DS:2 re-classified as amb er-box support under Supporting Tables DS:4 to 
DS:9 as appropriate. 
We appreciate the work Kazakhstan has put into  updating its domestic support and export 
subsidies tables and including clearer explanations  in the Consolidated Document.  We continue 
to emphasize in this accession, other accessions,  and other WTO venues that transparency is a 
key objective of domestic support and export subsidy notifications.   
We appreciated the verbal presentation regarding recourse to 6.2 and export subsidies that the 
representative of Kazakhstan presented during the Agriculture Plurilateral and look forward to 
receiving a written proposal.  With that in mind, we have several follow-up technical questions 
regarding several Kazakh programmes, to he lp us better understand how these programmes 
operate.  We will follow up with our policy questions upon receipt of the proposal from Kazakhstan. 
We thank Kazakhstan for the further information provided in its responses to questions.  At the 
Plurilateral Meeting on Agriculture on Thursd ay, 4 October, Kazakhstan made some helpful 
suggestions as to the eventual composition of its domestic support commitments.  We thank 
Kazakhstan for these suggestions.  Could Kazakhsta n please provide a clear explanation of its 
suggestions in writing to allow for comprehensive analysis?  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will send the revised proposal on domes tic support and export subsidies in writing and 
updated DS Tables to the WTO Secretariat prior to the next Plurilateral Meeting. 
Technical questions 
Question 2  All Supporting Table DS:1.  Support notified in S upporting Table DS:1 should be notified based 
on upon actual expenditures (i.e., budgetary outlays ) and not allocated funds.  We note that 
Kazakhstan corrected the terminology for severa l categories, but there are other categories 
which still refer to "budget allocations" instea d of "budgetary outlays".  Please confirm that 
these are indeed outlays and correct the re maining references to allocations.   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that the entire column 3 in  the Supporting Table DS:1 contains data on 
budgetary outlays only.  With regard to termi nology, the reason for the remaining incorrect 
terminology is strictly of a technical nature.  While transferring data from Excel to Word, the 
column 2 was not properly updated.  At the same time, Kazakhstan takes account of this comment and 
will make the necessary amendments in the table.    WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Question 3  
Para. 3  Public Stockholding for Food Security We appreciate Kazakhstan's response in WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/7/Add.3 with respect to requests 
for additional information regarding the opera tion of State grain reserves for food security 
purposes.  Kazakhstan states the purchase price fo r product taken into food security reserves is 
based on production costs and a level of profit ability for producers.  However, Kazakhstan has 
not described how product is sold from the reserve.   Additional details on this process would be 
appreciated. 
Answer:  
As the State grain reserve is maintained for food security purposes, the grain of the State reserve is not 
subject to sales.  At the same time, those volumes of  grain, which are released from the State reserve 
during the process of its renewing, are moved to the State grain resources.  The State grain resources, 
in their turn, are maintained  for the purposes of rendering food aid to foreign countries and 
performing sales both in domestic and export markets.   The grain of the State resources is normally 
sold at current market prices.  
Question 4  Para. 8 Payments for relief from natural disasters We appreciate the more in-depth explanation provided by Kazakhstan in 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/7/Add.3 with regards to the operation of this programme.  However, we 
would ask for further clarification on how sp ecifically Kazakhstan is in compliance with 
Annex 2 Para. 8(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture with regards to whether producers only 
become eligible for such payments when losses  exceed 30% of the average production in the 
previous 3-year time period.  We would also ask that this be noted in the Consolidated 
Document. 
Answer: 
As regards the Annex 2, paragraph 8(a) of the Ao A, compensation payments under the programme in 
question are made only upon a formal recognition and confirmation by the relevant government 
authorities that a highly pathogenic and infectious disease has occurred. 
Once a formal confirmation is made, all susceptib le livestock or livestock products of individual 
agricultural producers are immediately seized by the re levant authorities and are subject to disposal.  
Therefore, the amount of a physical loss of agricultural producers to livestock or livestock products in this case is greater than 30% of the average annua l production in the previous 3-year time period.  
Kazakhstan took account of the comment and made  necessary amendments in the Consolidated 
Document.   
Question 5  
Supporting Table DS:2:  It remains our strongly he ld view that since Kazakhstan is acceding as 
a developed economy and is not eligible for the Article 6.2 exemptions for the policies listed in 
Supporting Table DS:2.  In our view, all Arti cle 6.2 exemptions should be considered 
Amber Box support and would most likely be cla ssified as non-product-specific subsidies that 
should be included in Supporting Table DS:9.   WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan considers all measures listed in th e Supporting Table DS:2 as Amber Box support.  
Since all of the measures in question are non-product-sp ecific support, the data will be recorded in the 
Supporting Table DS:9. 
With regard to "Pedigree Livestock Subsidies" and "Elite Seed Subsidies" programmes, Kazakhstan 
would like to note that these programmes are financed at both republican and local levels.  
However the Ministry of Agriculture and local executive bodies do not disaggregate subsidies under 
these programmes on types of products.  Therefore, these particular programmes are classified as non-product-specific support.  
Question 6  
We appreciate Kazakhstan's inclusion of tables using 5% de minimis .  However, we would find 
it useful for all programmes to be removed under Supporting Table DS:2 for comparison 
purposes. 
Answer: 
The data on domestic support calculations by 5% de minimis  is attached to this document for 
information purposes only (Annex 1). 
Question 7  
Supporting Table DS:5 (WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/ 6/Rev.7):  With regard to Supporting 
Table DS:5, could Kazakhstan provide the reaso n why Market Price Support to some products 
are not reported in some years (e.g. Barley in 2007, Raw cotton in 2011, Poultry in 2007 and 2011)?  Is that reason in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  We are of the view that, if the market price support  programmes for these 
products were in place in these years, and even if there were no actual purchase of the products concerned, Market Price Support shall be calculated  by "the quantity of production eligible to 
receive the applied administered price" in acco rdance with paragraph 8 of Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. 
Answer: 
With the purpose to support agricultural producers,  the Government annually through its agents 
"KazAgroProduct" and "Food Contract Corpor ation" makes procurement announcements.  
Those producers, who plan their products to be purchased by the Government, send their requests to the agents.  If there is no request from agricultura l producers for state procurement, the Government 
does not implement procurement.  
Therefore, the reason for not reporting Market Price Support to certain products for some of the years 
is that there is no data available for these years as there was no request from agricultural producers for 
State procurement of their products.   
Question 8  
One element of the suggestions was to remove  Kazakhstan's recourse to subsidisation under 
Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  - Could Kazakhstan confirm that, if there was agreement on this suggestion, input and 
investment subsidies currently lis ted in Supporting Table DS:2 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7 would not simply be included to increase AMS allocation?  
Answer: 
Following the revised proposal of Kazakhstan, tho se measures, which are currently listed in the 
Supporting Table DS:2, will be moved to Amber Box support.  According to the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture, if product-specific and non-product-specific support exceeds 10% of a respective current output value, it should be included in the calcula tion of current total AMS.  Kazakhstan will follow 
these rules.  
Question 9  The following questions are without prejudice to  further discussions on the aforementioned 
suggestions on the overall composition of Kazakhstan's domestic support commitments. 
We thank Kazakhstan for providing information related to self-designation for the purposes of 
seeking special and differential treatm ent for developing countries.   
To examine the difference in effect between provi ding developed and developing country status, 
Members requested Current Total AMS provided with both a 5% and 10% de minimis .  
We note that Supporting Table DS:4 was provided (with 5% de minimis ) in Annex 2 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.6/Add.1.  We also note  that the total of all commodities (after the 
deduction of AMS) remains the same regardless of whether 5% of 10% de minimis  is used.  
- Given this, could Kazakhstan please explain why it needs a 10% de minimis  level? 
Answer: 
Based on the current level of agricultural sector  development, Kazakhstan has self-designated its 
status as a developing country status.  All th e necessary justifications were presented to 
WTO Members in the course of previous Plurilatera l Meetings on Agriculture.  Based upon results of 
these meetings, Kazakhstan with the purpose to m ove forward the negotiations made significant 
concessions regarding the Article 6.2 of the Ag reement on Agriculture and export subsidies.  
These concessions were made with the understandi ng and under the condition that WTO Members 
will accept Kazakhstan's request for 10% de minimis  level. 
Question 10  
We have frequently raised the issue of longer t erm policy orientation and Kazakhstan's effort to 
fully utilize its Green Box programmes.  We had seen the presentation at the July Plurilateral 
that Kazakhstan intended to address some of th e issues it faces regarding rapid salinization, 
degradation and desertification.  These could be addressed through non-trade distorting 
programmes.  We note, however, as depicted in  the following graph, Green Box spending has 
not increased substantially whereas spending on  trade-distorting input subsidies (under 
Article 6.2) have increased substantially, includi ng in the year (2009) when product-specific 
AMS levels also declined.   
- Could Kazakhstan explain how this focus on  input and investment subsidisation is 
consistent with overall farm policy goals? WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  
 
Answer: 
As already stated, about half of Kazakhstan's popula tion resides in rural areas.  Over 93% of those 
engaged in agricultural production are low-income  farms and households, who face, among other 
things, lack of access to major production inputs.  Therefore, much support is provided by the Government in the form of subsidizing the co sts for major agricultura l inputs such as water, 
fertilizers, herbicides, feedstuffs, seeds and fuel.  Thus, this is not only economic, but social policy.  
At the same time, in accordance with the new Agriculture Development Programme for the period up 
to 2020, the Government of Kazakhs tan is planning to increase invest ments into agriculture with the 
priority spending on infrastructure and research.  
Question 11  
We note Kazakhstan has requested  the omission of two recent years (2008, 2009) from the 
calculation of a base period fo r domestic support commitments.  We would again highlight the 
guidance provided in WT/ACC/4 that information should be based on "monetary values and 
any revenue foregone involved in each measure,  normally using the average of the most recent 
3-year period". 
We thank Kazakhstan for providing data for 2009.   
We understand that Kazakhstan considers 2008 a nd 2009 unrepresentative years "for the 
purposes of its domestic support commitments" fo r the reason that "Kazakhstan's economy was 
hit by the global financial crisis".  Clearly, this did have an effect on AMS levels depicted in the 
Supporting Table DS:4.  However, we note acco rding to Kazakhstan's own data spending on 
both Green Box and Article 6.2 "input subsidies" increased in 2009. 
Changing the base periods could have a signific ant effect on overall levels of commitment as 
demonstrated in the changes in base period utilised below.  We would welcome continued 
discussion with Kazakhstan on this issue in t erms of establishing a representative base period 
for its Final Bound Total AMS commitment. 
 Differences as a result of the difference in base years 
 US$ ('000) % increase compared to 
preferred option 
Average (2007, 2010, 2011) 1,771,727  66% 
Average (2009, 2010, 2011) 1,065,462  
Average (2008, 2010, 2011) 1,300,207 22%  WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Answer: 
With regard to WT/ACC/4 document, Kazakhstan would like to note the following.  
First, Kazakhstan's base period of 2007, 2010 and 2011 corresponds to that of the most recent 
three-year period.  Second, there is no such rule in the guidance as to provi de information based on a 
consecutive three-year period.  Therefore, Kazakhs tan believes that a base period should be based on 
the average of the most recent year s, but not necessary sequential ones.  
In regard to data for 2009, Kazakhs tan would like to clarify that during a period of financial crisis, 
there was a decision to substantially cut the amount  of Government spending on state procurements, 
while increasing spending on other programmes.  This is the main reason why only AMS level was 
affected.  
Question 12  We welcome continued discussion with Kazakhsta n on the issue of its request for export 
subsidies.  While we appreciate the challenges of  landlocked countries, such as Kazakhstan, we 
note that several other recently acceded and a cceding landlocked countries are binding their 
export subsidy commitments at zero, in cluding least-developed countries.  
We note that Kazakhstan has also identified export subsidy commitments taken by Members 
during the Uruguay Round, including by us (a Member).  Kazakhstan would be aware from 
information available from the WTO agriculture tran sparency toolkit that this Member has not 
utilised export subsidies since 1999.  Of the other Members mentioned none of them are 
currently utilising export subsidies for wheat.   
We continue to maintain a positi on that all export subsidies should be eliminated as has been 
discussed in the context of th e Doha Development Round.   
Answer: 
In the course of the last negotiations on agricu lture that took place in Geneva on 4 October, 
Kazakhstan with the purpose to move forward th e negotiations made a revised proposal on export 
subsidies.  According to this proposal, Kazakhstan is seeking the right to use such subsidies during 
transitional period of 10 years, upon expiration of which these subsidies will be phased out.  
A request for transitional period is critical for Kazak hstan as when delivering wheat to world markets, 
domestic agricultural producers face such major cha llenges as lack of storage facilities, insufficient 
transport infrastructure and high transportation costs .  Measures that are curre ntly undertaken by the 
Government to address these challenges will he lp to resolve these problems by 2020.  
Kazakhstan is aware from the recent notificati ons (for the years of 2008-2010) published on the 
official WTO website that there are several WTO Members that are still utilising export subsidies for 
agricultural products.  Moreover, if some WTO Me mbers, including this Member, are not currently 
utilising export subsidies, they are at least entitled to  use such subsidies any time when it is required.  
Kazakhstan is the only landlocked country in the world that exports grain to world markets.  
Therefore, Kazakhstan considers current position of WTO Members with regard to export subsidies as 
discrimination towards newly acceding countries.  Kazakhstan faces much greater challenges while 
delivering wheat to the world markets due to high transportation costs because of landlocked 
geographical position and remoteness from major agricultural markets. 
Taking into account that Doha Development Round is still in the process of discussion of export 
subsidies, Kazakhstan is committed to phase out these subsidies by the time, when Doha Round WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  achieves the agreement on elimination of all export subsidies applied by WTO Members.  In case if 
WTO Members achieve the agreement on eliminati on of export subsidies earlier than 10-year 
transitional period requested by Kazakhstan expire s, then Kazakhstan is committed to follow the 
relevant WTO agreement.  Therefore, Kazakhstan looks forward to a constructive approach from the 
part of the WTO Members in negotiations on export subsidies. 
  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1
 Page 9ANNEX 1 
Supporting Table DS:4 
DOMESTIC SUPPORT:  Republic of Kazakhstan 
REPORTING PERIOD:  Calendar years (2007, 2010, 2011) 
Calculation of the Base Total Aggregate Measurement of Support by de minimis 5% 
Description of basic 
products 
(including non-product 
specific AMS) Calendar year Product specific AMS 
(from Supporting Tables 
DS: 5 - DS:7 below) Product 
specific 
equivalent 
measurements 
of support 
(from DS:8) Calculated AMS Value of production Base total AMS in 
percentage of 
production cost 
1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$  1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$ 1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$ % de minimis 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
Wheat 2007 133,139,312 1,086,408 0 133,139,312 1,086,408 276,280,700 2,254,432 48.2   
2010 3,280,723 22,265 0 3,280,723 22,265 210,406,272 1,427,935 1.6 de minimis 
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Barley 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2010 6,204,340 42,106 0 6,204,340 42,106 26,111,000 177,204 23.8   
2011 0 -232,251 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Raw cotton 2007 9,088,153 74,159 0 9,088,153 74,159 20,279,900 165,483 44.8   
2010 6,452,059 43,787 0 6,452,059 43,787 23,770,655 161,321 27.1   
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Cotton fibre 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2010 153,704 1,043 0 153,704 1,043 30,527,108 207,174 0.5 de minimis 
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Bovine meat 2007 48,910,255 399,104 0 48,910,255 399,104 140,076,297 1,143,013 34.9   
2010 77,726,184 527,494 0 77,726,184 527,494 214,400,168 1,455,040 36.3   
2011 79,339,436 541,123 0 79,339,436 541,123 254,866,970 1,738,282 31.1    
  WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 10 
Description of basic 
products 
(including non-product 
specific AMS) Calendar year Product specific AMS 
(from Supporting Tables 
DS: 5 - DS:7 below) Product 
specific 
equivalent 
measurements 
of support 
(from DS:8) Calculated AMS Value of production Base total AMS in 
percentage of 
production cost 
1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$  1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$ 1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$ % de minimis 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
Pork 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2010 47,326,104 321,182 0 47,326,104 321,182 99,604,330 675,971 47.5   
2011 3,685,432 25,136 0 3,685,432 25,136 109,739,878 748,465 3.4 de minimis 
Poultry 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2010 13,106,999 88,951 0 13,106,999 88 ,951 32,658,657 221,640 40.1   
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Small ruminants 2007 69,627,426 568,155 0 69,627,426 568,155 141,637,218 1,155,750 49.2   
2010 123,420,615 837,602 0 123,420,615 837,602 206,978,224 1,404,671 59.6   
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Horses 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2011 107,846,453 735,551 0 107,846,453 735,551 342,386,509 2,335,196 31.5   
Dry milk 2007 155,067 1,265 0 155,067 1,265 1,071,006 8,739 14.5   
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2011 500,257 3,412 0 500,257 3,412 1,885,889 12,862 26.5   
Fatless Cheese 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Butter 2007 18,647 152 0 18,647 152 7,647,223 62,401 0.2 de minimis 
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -   
Sheep wool 2007 1,245,019 10,159 0 1,245,019 10,159 3,375,700 27,545 36.9   
2010 5,116,247 34,722 0 5,116,247 34,722 4,023,313 27,304 127.2   
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -    
   WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/6/Rev.7/Add.1
 Page 11Description of basic 
products 
(including non-product 
specific AMS) Calendar year Product specific AMS 
(from Supporting Tables 
DS: 5 - DS:7 below) Product 
specific 
equivalent 
measurements 
of support 
(from DS:8) Calculated AMS Value of production Base total AMS in 
percentage of 
production cost 
1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$  1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$ 1,000 
KZT 1,000 
US$ % de minimis 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
Total for all 
commodities (after 
de minimis deduction) 2007       262,165,232 2,139,251         
2010       279,352,548 1,895,844         
2011       187,686,146 1,280,086         
Non-product-specific 
AMS 
(from Supporting 
Table DS:9 below) 2007       53,391,814 435,674 1,089,384,000 8,889,302 4.9 de minimis 
2010       86,088,070 584,242 1,442,630,100 9,790,499 6.0  
2011       110,637,677 754,588 2,286,042,300 15,591,613 4.8 de minimis 
Total: Current Total 
AMS 2007       262,165,232 2,139,251         
2010       365,440,619 2,480,086         
2011       187,686,146 1,280,086         
Average 2007-2011       271,763,999 1,966,474         
 
Note: Average annual exchange rate equals to: 
- KZT 122.55/US$ in 2007 
- KZT 147.35/US$ in 2010 - KZT 146.62/US$ in 2011 
Source: National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
 
__________