RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG/GEN/M/6
8 March 2001
(01-1129)
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
Twenty-Eighth Session
CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC,
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION;  UKRAINE;  UZBEKISTAN;  MOLDOVA;  KAZAKHSTAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN,  ARMENIA, BELARUS,
GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, KAZAKHSTAN, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UKRAINE,
UZBEKISTAN, TAJIKISTAN AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
Note of the Meeting of 22 February 2001
Chairman:  Dr. V. Notis (Greece)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/1484.
2. Under Agenda Items D.I-VII of its Twenty-eighth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the second round of examination of the
following regional trade agreements (RTAs):
A. Customs Union between the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Tajikistan
B. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation
C. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and UkraineD. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan
E. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova
F. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan
G. Free Trade Agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova,
Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the KyrgyzRepublic
General Statements
3. The Chairman indicated that this was the second round of examination of the seven RTAs
concluded by the Kyrgyz Republic with other countries from the former Soviet Union, which had
been examined previously at the twenty-seventh Session of the Committee.  In order to avoidunnecessary repetition, he indicated that the examination of the RTAs would be carried out under
three different groups:  the customs union agreement, the five bilateral free-trade agreements (FTAs),
and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) FTA.
4. The Chairman brought the Committee's attention to document WT/REG71/7 which was being
distributed in the room.  That document, which had been submitted by the Kyrgyz Republic the day
before the meeting, contained the text of the Agreement on Foundation of Eurasian Economic
Community.WT/REG/GEN/M/6
Page 2
5. Thanking the delegations that had submitted questions in writing following the first round of
examinations, the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  said that replies had been provided within the
timeframe set by the Chairman and hoped that the Members had found them satisfactory.  Informing
the Committee on the developments that had taken place since the last meeting, he said that on
10 October 2000 the Presidents of the Customs Union members had signed the Agreement onEstablishing the Eurasian Economic Community with the purpose of further formation of the Customs
Union and the Common Economic Area.  Provisions of the Agreement mainly dealt with the
establishment of the institutional framework on the basis of pre-existing bodies.  The Agreement had
been submitted to the Parliament of the Kyrgyz Re public for ratification and the unofficial English
translation of the text of the Agreement was being distributed by the Secretariat as document
WT/REG71/7.  Members of the Customs Union ha d continued forming the Common Customs Tariff,
which was still in its early stage of development.  Recent changes in the customs tariff of the RussianFederation had had major positive impact on harmonizing tariffs.  In the year 2000,  foreign trade
turnover of the Kyrgyz Republic had increased by 2 per cent, while imports had decreased by
3.6 per cent.  The increase in trade turnover had been mainly determined by trade with the
CIS countries.  The Kyrgyz Republic had not taken any trade restrictive measures in the year 2000,
and he reassured Members of his country's firm adherence to the principles of the multilateral tradingsystem.  He also indicated that the Free Trade Agreement between Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic
had been notified to the WTO in December 2000 and that information on it would be submitted in a
short period so that its examination could go along with the process of review of other agreements
concluded by the Kyrgyz Republic.  He reiterated his delegation's readiness for fruitful discussion in
order to facilitate examination of the RTAs to which the Kyrgyz Republic was a signatory.
A. E
XAMINATION OF THE CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC , THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION , BELARUS , KAZAKHSTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
6. The Chairman reminded delegations that the first round of examination of the customs union
had taken place in October 2000 and that the minutes of that meeting had been distributed in
document WT/REG/G EN/M/5.  Replies supplied by the Kyrgyz Republic to the questions posed by
Members had been distributed in document WT/REG71/6 in the beginning of January.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
Section I.2 – Type of agreement
7. Referring to question 1 of WT/REG71/6, and given Article XXIV:5(c) requirement regarding
the need for interim agreements leading to a custom s to include a plan and schedule for the formation
of the union, the representative of Japan asked whether a plan and schedule had been submitted and if
so where could it be found.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied that it was not yet
feasible to provide information on the length of the transition period.
Section I.3 - Scope
8. The representative of Canada thanked the delegation of the Kyrgyz Republic for all the
information provided, which was of help to understand that Agreement as well as its context with
respect to the other Agreements concluded by the Kyrgyz Republic.  She requested that clarification
be provided with respect to the 15 per cent ceiling of sensitive products that could be excluded from
the customs union, referred to in the reply to qu estion 4 in document WT/REG71/6.  Noting that the
ceiling was an allowable maximum but not a requirement, she asked what was the base year for the
ceiling, i.e. whether it was a moving ceiling recalculated every year or fixed at the time of signature orentry into force of the Agreement.  Referring to th e statement contained in the reply that read: "It is
not feasible at this time to provide information on the period of time for which after the establishmentWT/REG/GEN/M/6
Page 3
of the Common Customs Tariff each Party will be able to establish its own tariff rates for sensitive
goods", she asked whether or not a sunset clause existed so that after a certain time the Parties could
no longer establish such a list.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that the 15 per cent
ceiling had been set as a result of a compromise among the Parties and would apply during thetransition period.  That figure would be subject to further changes and therefore was of a movingnature.  He also replied that the Agreement did not include a sunset clause.
9. Noting that he was also interested on the basis for the 15 per cent ceiling, the representative of
Japan requested that the reply to question 5 in WT/REG71/6 be supplemented by the provision of the
actual list of sensitive goods in HS tariff lines.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied that
the list of sensitive goods was being developed and that it would be notified to the WTO once ready.
10. Noting that his delegation was also interested in the questions posed by Canada and Japan, the
representative of the European Communities asked for the date of entry into force of the Agreement
on Common Customs Tariff (CCT Agreement) sign ed on 17 February 2000, and whether the date of
entry into force was the same for all the Parties.  Noting that the CCT Agreement had not yet entered
into force for all the Parties, the representative of  the Kyrgyz Republic indicated that a reply to that
question could be partially found in the re ply to question 6 in document WT/REG71/6.
11. The representative of Canada sought confirmation on the replies provided to her two
questions, namely that that there was no sunset clause in terms of a list of sensitive products;  and that
the 15 per cent ceiling applied to the interim period but that it might change during that period to
another figure.  She wondered whether any change w ould have to be to a lower figure or whether it
could also be to a higher figure.  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied that the ceiling
could either go down or up, but that it was not possi ble at that point in time to know how it would
change.
Section II - Trade Provisions
Section II.1 - Import restrictions
12. Noting that reply to question 6 in document WT/REG71/6 indicated that the CCT Agreement
had entered into force on 31 August 2000, the representative of the European Communities asked
whether it was correct to say that the five-year period for establishing the common customs
tariff (CCT) had began from that point.  He asked what was the expected time table for establishing
the CCT.  That information was important in the co ntext of Article XXIV:6 negotiations which could
be of interest for his delegation, since that factual situation would be the basis for assessing whether
or not the EC had a genuine interest that needed to be pursued.  The representative of the
Kyrgyz Republic replied that his country would try to form the CCT within the 5 years period
established by the Agreement.  Once the CCT was developed it would be submitted to the Secretariat .
Section III - General Provisions of the Agreement
Section III.4 -Relations with other trade agreements
13. The representative of Japan quoted part of the reply to question 10 in WT/REG71/6 which
stated that "bilateral arrangements regarding phasing  out the existing restrictions in trade between the
Parties to the CIS Free Trade Area Agreement are expected to be signed by 1 February 2001 with theParties which have ratified the Protocol".  He also quoted Section III.4 of the Standard Format on the
FTA between the Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakstan, contained in document WT/REG81/3, which
stated that the latter FTA "… was based on the CIS Free-Trade Area Agreement, of 15 April 1994",
and the relevant sub-sections of the other bilateral FTAs, which stated however that the agreements
did not "…establish any specific relation with other bilateral, plurilateral and/or multilateral tradeWT/REG/GEN/M/6
Page 4
agreements".  In light of all those statements, he wondered whether the FTA between the
Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakstan, and the other FTAs involving the Kyrgyz Republic, were bilateral
agreements or not.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic requested that the question be
submitted in writing.
14. Welcoming the information provided, the representative of Australia associated his delegation
with the Japanese question and noted that despite all the information provided, the nature of the
linkage between the various agreements under examination was not entirely clear to his delegation.
15. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic requested that all oral questions posed during that
day's meeting be submitted in writing.
16. The Chairman said that the second round of examination of the Customs Union between the
Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan had allowed the
Committee to clarify a number of questions, but some others were pending.  He invited delegations toforward oral and any other additional questions to the Secretariat by 23 March 2001 and the Parties to
submit replies not later than 30 April 2001.  The next round of examination would be scheduled for
July 2001.
B-F. E
XAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ;  UKRAINE ;  UZBEKISTAN ;  M OLDOVA ;  KAZAKHSTAN
17. The Chairman recalled that while the five Agreements would be examined jointly, each of
would be judged on its own merit and would have it s own report with its own conclusions.  He noted
that the first round of examination of the five Agreements had taken place in October 2000 and that
the minutes of that meeting had been distribu ted in document WT/REG/G EN/M/5.  The written
replies to the questions posed by Members had been distributed in the multi-symbol document
WT/REG73-76, 81/4.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
Section I.3 - Scope
18. The representative of the United States sought confirmation that all tariffs and quantitative
restrictions had been eliminated between the respective Parties in each of those FTAs.
19. Noting that the replies to several questions indicated that there was no exception to the
duty-free treatment, the representative of Canada asked whether such exceptions could however be
introduced from time to time and, if so, on what basis they would be introduced.  She also askedwhether, as in the customs unions, those exceptions would be subject to a ceiling in terms of trade
volume and, if so, whether that ceiling could be changed.
20. The representative of Australia indicated that he had a similar question to the one posed by
the United States representative.  His delegation was also looking for a confirmation that 100 per cent
of trade was covered by each Agreement under examination for each Party.  If that was not the case,
he suggested that a table be prepared indicating the percentage of trade covered by each Agreement
for each Party to the respective Agreement.
21. Referring to the reply to question 3, the representative of Japan asked whether partners of the
Kyrgyz Republic under each of the bilateral FTAs maintained any exceptions to the free-trade
treatment.WT/REG/GEN/M/6
Page 5
22. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic asked that all questions be submitted in writing so
that adequate replies could be provided also in writing.
Section II - Trade Provisions
Section II.1 and 2 - Import and Export Restrictions
23. The representative of the European Communities as ked, for each of the Parties in each of the
FTAs, what measures might be in place in terms of import or export licensing and export duties and in
particular whether the licences were of an automatic or non-automatic nature.  That point was also
related to the coverage of the Agreements, given that the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic had
stated that if a licence was automatic and not a restriction to trade, the product to which it concerned
could count towards the scope of the Agreement.
24. The representative of Japan indicated that he would submit some follow-up questions on
safeguards and anti-dumping in writing.
25. The Chairman said that the second round of examination of the Customs Union between the
Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan had allowed the
Committee to clarify a number of questions, but some others were pending.  He invited delegations to
forward additional questions to the Secretariat by 23 March 2001 and the Parties to submit replies notlater than 30 April 2001.  The next round of examination would be scheduled for July 2001.
26. The Chairman said that the second round of exam ination of the five bilateral FTAs between
the  Kyrgyz Republic and Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Kazakhstan had
allowed the Committee to clarify a number of questions, but some others were pending.  He invited
delegations to forward oral and any other additional questions to the Secretariat by 23 March 2001and the Parties to submit replies not later than 30 April 2001.  The next round of examination would
be scheduled for July 2001.
G. F
REE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN , A RMENIA , B ELARUS , G EORGIA ,
MOLDOVA , KAZAKHSTAN , THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION , UKRAINE , UZBEKISTAN , TAJIKISTAN
AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
27. The Chairman noted that the first round of examination of the Free Trade Agreement between
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic had also taken place in October 2000 and that the
minutes of that meeting had been distributed in  document WT/REG/GEN/M/5.  The written replies to
the questions posed by Members had been distributed in document WT/REG82/4 in January 2001.
Section I - Background Information on the Agreement
Section I.3 - Scope
28. The representative of the United States asked precisely what were the excluded products from
the coverage of the Agreement which were subject to MFN duties.  The representative of the
Kyrgyz Republic indicated that his country did not apply any exception to the free trade régime at the
moment.WT/REG/GEN/M/6
Page 6
Section III - General Provisions of the Agreement
Section III.4 -Relations with other trade agreements
29. The representative of Canada asked that a clarification be provided on the relationship
between the CIS and the bilateral Agreements, given that with the exception of Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Belarus, Georgia and Tajikistan, the Parties to thos e Agreements were the same;  in particular she
wondered whether the former was an expansion of the bilateral Agreements.  As a follow-up the
question posed by the representative of Canada, the representative of Japan asked whether the Parties
had any intention to coordinate their FTAs.
30. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic requested that those questions be submitted in
writing.
31. The Chairman said that the second round of examination of the Free Trade Agreement
between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia,  Moldova, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic had allowed the Committee to clarify a
number of questions, but some others were pending.  He invited delegations to forward oral and any
other additional questions to the Secretariat by 23 March 2001 and the Parties to submit replies not
later than 30 April 2001.  The next round of examination would be scheduled for July 2001.
32. The Committee took note of the comments made.
__________