Green_Earth
消息 | 相關文件
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan - Accession of Kazakhstan - Draft report of the Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan - Corrigendum
日期:2015/06/09
作者:Kazakhstan
文件編號:WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.14/Corr.1
附件下載:WTACCSPECKAZ9R14C1.doc
因為版本問題,開啟附件時可能會出現錯誤訊息,如「檔案已損毀」的訊息,請您忽略此訊息,即可正常開啟

Accession of Kazakhstan

DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY

on the accession of Kazakshtan

Corrigendum*

 

Paragraph 693 should read as indicated below:

693. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that the Commission had adopted 35 out of 60 planned EAEU technical regulations, including those related to SPS matters, by November 2014, and that all of these technical regulations would enter into force, after a transitional period to allow producers, importers, and exporters to become aware of and comply with the new technical regulations.  A minimum period of six months between the date of publication of a technical regulation and the date of its entry into force was established in the Decisions adopting the technical regulations in order to allow entities to be able to comply with the provisions of a new technical regulation or amendments to a technical regulation. Currently, amendments to EEC Council Decision No. 48 were being considered in order to envisage this rule in the EAEU legislation, which had been adopted on 28 May 2015. Notification of when EAEU Technical Regulations entered into force and superseded national technical regulations would be posted on the EEC website.  In response to a question from a Member of the Working Party, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that no new national technical regulations were being developed. 

Paragraph 696 should read as indicated below:

696. The representative of Kazakhstan with respect to sanitary measures noted that in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 57 of the EAEU Treaty, the Common Sanitary Requirements, adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 299 and applied to products to which technical regulations were to be developed, had to be included into the relevant technical regulations. In other words, CU Commission Decision No. 299 remained as "reference document", codifying all sanitary requirements to products.  However, only the technical regulations, once in force, were directly applicable to the controlled goods.  Sanitary requirements contained in EAEU technical regulations had to be identical to the requirements of the CU Commission Decision No. 299.  When a sanitary requirement was changed, public consultation of amendments into Common Sanitary Requirements and the relevant EAEU technical regulation would be held simultaneously.  With regard to veterinary requirements, she further clarified that in accordance with paragraph 3 of Annex No. 9 of the EAEU Treaty, EAEU technical regulations could contain veterinary-sanitary and quarantine phytosanitary requirements only of general nature, for example the requirement to accompany a product with a veterinary certificate.  In addition, Kazakhstan had raised the issue of duplication and inconsistencies in the technical regulations and EAEU decisions at the EAEU level.  At present, there were two draft amendments to the EAEU Technical Regulation "On Food Safety".  The first draft had gone through public consultations in July 2013 and was under review for approval by the Consultative Committee. The second draft had gone through public consultations in July 2014 and was under discussion by the working group on sanitary measures before review by the Consultative Committee.  Pursuant to the Schedule on Development of CU Technical Regulations, the two drafts were planned for adoption prior to Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO.  These amendments, among other things, were aimed at elimination of discrepancies in the EAEU documents.

Paragraph 712 should read as indicated below:

712. In response to a specific question of a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in addition, at the request of a Member, Kazakhstan would negotiate and mutually agree on bilateral veterinary certificates with a third country for the goods subject to veterinary control imported into the territory of Kazakhstan until EAEU veterinary certificates with the third country for such goods entered into force.  The circulation within the EAEU of such goods imported into the territory of Kazakhstan on the basis of such bilateral certificates agreed by Kazakhstan may be limited to the territory of Kazakhstan.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.

Paragraph 736 should read as indicated below:

736. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that in implementation of CU Commission Decision No. 317 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" of 18 June 2010, as amended by the Decision of the Collegium of the EEC No. 294 "On Introduction of Amendments into Certain Decisions of the Customs Union Commission" of 10 December 2013, Kazakhstan would not require an establishment to be included in the Register as set out in Annex 19 of this Report for importation into the territory of Kazakhstan.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that in implementation of CU Commission Decision No. 317 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" of 18 June 2010, as amended by the Decision of the Collegium of the EEC No. 294 "On Introduction of Amendments into Certain Decisions of the Customs Union Commission" of 10 December 2013, Kazakhstan would not require a successful audit as a pre-condition for importation into the territory of Kazakhstan of goods listed in Annex 19 of this Report.  The circulation within the EAEU of such goods imported into the territory of Kazakhstan listed in Annex 19 of this Report may be limited to the territory of Kazakhstan.  The representative of Kazakhstan further confirmed that these measures would be implemented prior to accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.

 

Paragraph 747 should read as indicated below:

747. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would provide three possibilities for exporting countries' establishments to become eligible to export to the territory of Kazakhstan, as contained in EEC Council Decision No. 94 "On Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" of 9 October 2014, and added to the Register where required pursuant to Annex 19 of this Report including through a system audit, or a joint inspection or alternatively, based on guarantees of competent authorities of third countries.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.

Paragraph 753 should read as indicated below:

753. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that, at the request of the competent authorities of the third country, the EAEU member States would conduct a system audit to determine if the official system of supervision of that third country was capable of providing a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided by EAEU requirements.  If this audit of the official system of supervision was successful, the EAEU member States would include establishments of the audited country on the Register in accordance with a list of establishments that the competent authority of the third country provided to the EAEU member States.  If an audit of a third country's official system of supervision was not carried out or was not completed or if, as a result of such audit, the third country's official system of supervision was not recognized as being capable to provide a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided by the EAEU requirements, the EAEU member States could agree to include establishments of that country to the Register on the basis of joint inspections or guarantees provided by the competent authority of the third country if listing was required for such products. If listing of establishments for a type of product as set out in Annex 19 to this Report was not required  in accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 317 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" of 18 June 2010, as amended by EEC Collegium Decision No. 294 "On Introduction of Amendments into Certain Decisions of the Customs Union Commission" of 10 December 2013, the absence of the establishment on a list would not be a ground for rejection of the import of such product into the territory of Kazakhstan.  The circulation within the EAEU of such product imported into the territory of Kazakhstan listed in Annex 19 of this Report may be limited to the territory of Kazakhstan.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.

Paragraph 772 should read as indicated below:

772. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that as of the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, specific guidelines on inspection that would reflect the principles of equivalence and reliance on international standards, guidelines and recommendations, as such principles were described in paragraph 771 above, would be adopted and applied to ensure the implementation of EEC Council Decision No. 94 "On Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" of 9 October 2014 by EAEU inspectors, in accordance with the WTO  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  Under these guidelines, referred to in paragraph 770 above, inspectors were instructed in particular to verify the compliance of establishments with relevant Codex Alimentarius recommended codes of practices such as CAC/RCP 1-1969, recommended International Code of Practice General Principles of Food Hygiene, the CAC/RCP 58‑2005 Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat, the CAC/RCP 57-2004 Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products, the CAC/RCP 52‑2003 Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products and other Relevant International Standards, Recommendations and Related Texts. The guidelines replaced previously existing national legislation of Kazakhstan concerning inspection of establishments, and would constitute the reference used by EAEU inspectors to assess compliance of exporting establishments with EAEU requirements.  Moreover, inspectors would be provided information and training on the application of the principle of equivalence as provided in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, in the context of EEC Council Decision No. 94 "On Regulation on Common System of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)" of 9 October 2014 and the guidelines.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.

Paragraphs 828 and 829 are deleted (strike-through):

828.     [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, [in cases in which no mandatory requirements on veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements had been established at EAEU or national level, the EAEU member States would apply the relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively, [as provided for by the WTO SPS Agreement]].  Similarly, if veterinary, phytosanitary or sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic requirements in effect in the territory of the EAEU [were more stringent than] [resulted in a higher level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by measures based on] relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, in the absence of scientific justification of risk to human, animal or plant life or health, the EAEU member States would apply the relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations or parts thereof,[as provided for in the SPS Agreement].  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that this obligation currently was included in the EAEU legal framework [through CU Commission Decision No. 721], and would continue to be a mandatory part of the EAEU legal framework in the future.]  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]

[The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in cases in which no mandatory veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements had been established at EAEU or national level, the EAEU member States would apply the relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively, consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement.  In cases where an SPS measure in force on the EAEU territory was [more stringent than] [more trade restrictive than [those based on]] an international standard, the relevant international standards or parts thereof would be applied by the EAEU member State unless and until scientific justification of risk was provided, consistent with the SPS Agreement. She confirmed that the EAEU member State would reply within a reasonable period of time that either the international standard applied or provide relevant scientific justification.  [The representative of Kazakhstan further confirmed that this obligation currently was included in the EAEU legal framework, and would continue to be a mandatory part of the EAEU legal framework in the future.]  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]

[The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in cases in which no mandatory veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements had been established at EAEU or national level, Kazakhstan would apply the relevant standards, guidelines and recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively, in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement. In cases where an SPS measure in force was not based on international standards, where they existed, the relevant international standards or parts thereof would be applied in Kazakhstan, unless there was a scientific justification of such measure in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement or such measure was otherwise justified in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement. The representative of Kazakhstan further confirmed that this obligation currently was included in the EAEU legal framework, and would continue to be a mandatory part of the EAEU legal framework in the future.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.][23]

829.     [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would reply within a reasonable period of time to requests of interested Members whether the relevant international standard was applied or relevant scientific justification was available. The Working Party took note of the commitment.][24]

Paragraph 835 should read as indicated below:

835. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that certain standards for some veterinary drugs had been harmonized with international standards by the CU Commission Decision No. 889 of 9 December 2011. Currently, the results of the previous risk assessments were being revisited within the framework of the works on harmonization of MRLs for remaining veterinary drugs.  The results of the risk assessment carried out by an EAEU member State were published on the official websites of the national competent bodies. The harmonization of remaining MRLs for veterinary drugs was currently in process and would be completed by the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, unless application of an MRL that was not based on an international standard was justified under the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.

 

Paragraph 843 should read as indicated below:

843.     The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession, in application of Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, all sanitary and phytosanitary measures, whether adopted by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the EAEU, would be based on international standards, guidelines or recommendations as provided for in the WTO Agreement.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in cases in which no mandatory veterinary or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements had been established at EAEU or Kazakhstan national level, Kazakhstan would apply the relevant standards, guidelines or recommendations, or parts thereof, of the OIE, IPPC and Codex respectively.  Further, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that measures which were not based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations, where they exist, would not be applied in Kazakhstan without providing Members a scientifically based justification of the measures, in accordance with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, including Article 3.3.  In cases where relevant scientific evidence was insufficient, she confirmed that any measure adopted, whether by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the EAEU would comply with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, in particular with Article 5.7 thereof.  In the event that international standards were not considered to meet the appropriate level of protection, Kazakhstan would provide scientific justification for measures applied in Kazakhstan, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that this obligation currently was included in the EAEU legal framework, and Kazakhstan further would ensure that these obligations continue to be a mandatory part of the EAEU legal framework in the future.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.

Paragraph 850 should read as indicated below:

850.     The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of accession of Kazakhstan, goods would be included on the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control only if application of veterinary measures was in compliance with international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or if science or risk assessment justified, consistent with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, subjecting a category of goods to veterinary measures.  Similarly, the veterinary measures applied to each category of goods would also be in compliance with international standards, recommendations and guidelines or based on science or risk assessment.   Furthermore, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would remove products from the List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control by the date of its accession to the WTO, if the retention of goods on the list was not in compliance with international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or not justified by science or risk assessment, consistent with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  Moreover, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that consistent with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, that risk assessments would be conducted taking into account the risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations and their subsidiary bodies.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.

Paragraph 851 should read as indicated below:

851.     The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, as of the date of its accession to the WTO, in accordance with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, EAEU and Kazakh SPS measures would be based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risk to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations.  She further confirmed that in accordance with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, these assessments would  take into account the standards guidelines and recommendations of Codex, OIE and IPPC, in particular: Codex Guidelines on Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments (CAC/GL 62-2007); chapter 2.1 on Import Risk Analysis of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code; chapter 2.2 on Import Risk Analysis of the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code; International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 2 "Framework for Pest Risk Analysis", ISPMs Nos. 11, 21; and, the categories of commodities according to their pest risk established by ISPM No. 32. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

Paragraph 874 should read as indicated below:

874.     The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would ensure that draft SPS measures applicable to imports into Kazakhstan would be notified to the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, including EAEU SPS measures, in accordance with Annex B of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and following the principles of the WTO SPS Committee's "Recommended Procedures for Implementing the Transparency Obligations of the SPS Agreement" (G/SPS/7/Rev.3).  SPS measures, including those relating to inspection, were published in publications, such as those mentioned in paragraph 869. Information on all proposed SPS measures and those in effect, as foreseen in Annex B of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, could also be obtained from the SPS notification authority or from Kazakhstan's SPS enquiry point.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.

Paragraph 989 should read as indicated below:

989. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, upon accession, Kazakhstan would bind its agricultural export subsidies at zero in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods (CLXXII) and would not provide such subsidies in respect of agricultural products.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.

 

 

Paragraph 990 should read as indicated below:

990. In implementing Article 6.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that while Kazakhstan could provide support through government measures of the types described in Article 6.2, the amount of such support would be included as non-exempt in Kazakhstan's calculation of its Current Total Aggregate Measurement of Support. The representative of Kazakhstan further confirmed that Kazakhstan would have recourse to a de minimis exemption for product-specific support equivalent to 8.5 per cent of the total value of production of a basic agricultural product during the relevant year. The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that Kazakhstan would have recourse to a de minimis exemption for non‑product-specific support of 8.5 per cent of the value of Kazakhstan's total agricultural production during the relevant year.  Accordingly, these percentages would constitute Kazakhstan's de minimis exemption under Article 6.4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. She also noted that Kazakhstan's Total AMS Commitment Level was set forth in Part IV Section I of Kazakhstan's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods (CLXXII). The Working Party took note of this commitment.

 

Paragraph 1177 should read as indicated below:

 

1177.       The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of Kazakhstan concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report.  The Working Party took note of the commitments by Kazakhstan in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 59, 87, 101, 142, 170, 208, 209, 250, 274, 288, 298, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 317, 351, 359, 383, 431, 434, 435, 438, 439, 443, 445, 464, 467, 469, 483, 493, 521, 526, 527, 540, 559, 585, 590, 625, 631, 634, 641, 650, 651, 653, 657, 670, 704, 711, 712, 716, 720, 721, 722, 724, 736, 738, 747, 753, 762, 764, 765, 766, 772, 777, 784, 785, 788, 789, 797, 803, 812, 828, 829, 832, 835, 837, 840, 843, 850, 851, 858, 861, 874, 876, 877, 898, 899, 935, 936, 949, 951, 964, 988, 989, 990, 991, 1015, 1063, 1065, 1069, 1081, 1083, 1104, 1116, 1118, 1129, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1152, and 1176. The Working Party took note that these commitments had been incorporated in paragraph 2 of the Protocol of Accession of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the WTO.

 

__________



* In English only. These changes will be reflected in the final version of the Working Party Report.

 

[23] Language proposed by Kazakhstan.

[24] Language proposed by Kazakhstan.