Geum.ru

WT/acc/rus/70 wt/min(11)/2

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


Rumohra adiantiformis
Подобный материал:
1   ...   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   ...   75

- (v) Resident Inspectors
  1. In response to some Members concerns regarding the mechanism of resident inspectors existing in the Russian Federation, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that resident inspectors will not be mandatory for trade with the Russian Federation. He informed that the activity of resident inspectors was aimed at securing formation of consignments that met CU and Russian veterinary requirements. He also confirmed that in the event a WTO Member requests that the Russian Federation maintains resident veterinary inspectors after the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, it would be ensured that these inspectors would not operate in a manner inconsistent with the obligations of the Russian Federation under the WTO SPS Agreement, relevant bilateral agreements between the Russian Federation and respective Member, as well as within the framework of SPS legislation of the Russian Federation. The SPS measures, applied in accordance with the said legislation, would not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, including between the territory of the Russian Federation and that of other Members, as provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement. The Russian Federation would also ensure that the provisions of Annex C of the WTO SPS Agreement, the transparency requirements of Article 7 and Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement and Article X of the GATT 1994 were respected. To that extent, decisions by resident inspectors could be appealed by interested persons in the same way as decisions taken by the competent authority of the Russian Federation. Fees imposed for procedures on imported products would be in compliance with point 1(f) of Annex C to the WTO SPS Agreement. However, the calculation of these fees would take into account communication, transportation and other costs arising from differences between locations of facilities of the applicant. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

- (f) Importation of Products Subject to Quarantine Control
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 30 of 11 December 2009 "On the Agreement on Plant Quarantine" (last amended on 21 May 2010) provided the legal framework for plant quarantine in the Russian Federation. This Decision stipulated that regulations must take into account the "rules and principles" of the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement. Customs Union plant quarantine measures were further established in CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010 "On Ratification of Agreement of the Customs Union of the Plant Quarantine" (as last amended by Decision No. 528 of 28 January 2011). Decision No. 318 included the following documents:

- The list of products under quarantine (regulated goods, regulated articles of regulated products), i.e., which are subject to quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) at the customs border of the Customs Union and in the customs territory of the Customs Union;

- Regulations on the implementation of quarantine pest control (supervision) at the customs border of the Customs Union; and

- Regulations on the implementation of quarantine pest control (supervision) at the customs territory of the Customs Union.
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation further clarified that the CU did not have common phytosanitary requirements and that these were developed and implemented at the national level. He informed Members that Federal Law No. 99-FZ of 15 July 2000 "On Quarantine of Plants" was being replaced with a new law that did not contradict the provisions of the CU established in Decision No. 318. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that this new law would establish procedures for applying phytosanitary measures, adopting phytosanitary measures similar to technical regulations and for transparency. All drafts would be published on the MOA website and be available for public comment. Furthermore, it was envisioned that this new law would establish a procedure for determining the risk of each object subject to quarantine control, and that appropriate passports (i.e., pest risk assessments) would be issued based on the assessment of the risk and on International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that the new draft law contained the requirements for quarantine zones, storage, and transportation within quarantine zones, and established appropriate research and testing for products subject to quarantine measures in the Russian Federation. According to CU Agreements and Russian legislation, phytosanitary measures were to apply only to the extent necessary to prevent importation and acclimatization of quarantine objects in the Russian Federation. Phytosanitary measures maintained by the Russian Federation were based on the recommendations and principles of the IPPC (Rome, 1951, edition of 1997) as well as those of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the Russian Federation accepted phytosanitary certificates issued on the basis of the IPPC, including by organizations operating under the surveillance of the competent authority of the Government. He explained that in accordance with the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010), importation of products subject to quarantine control ("regulated products") into the territory of the Russian Federation would no longer require an Import Quarantine Permit (IQP).
  2. In reply to a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the Russian Federation recognized phytosanitary certificates issued by public officers who were technically qualified and duly authorised by the official National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) to act on its behalf and under its control, in accordance with IPPC standards and ISPMs which were applicable to this particular matter.
  3. The existing list of products under quarantine (regulated goods) that were subject to quarantine phytosanitary control at the customs border of the CU and the territory of the CU was divided into two groups: (i) regulated products of high pest risk; and (ii) regulated products of low pest risk. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that imports of regulated products of high pest risk would need to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. No phytosanitary certificate was required for imports of regulated products of low pest risk. The list of regulated products with their Russian HS codes was included in CU Commission Decision No. 318.10 He further explained that a number of products were now excluded from the high pest risk list, such as raw cane sugar, beet sugar, natural sands of all kinds, gravel, sand, fish meal, meat meal or meat by products, protein concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and protein pre-mixes.
  4. A Member of the Working Party asked whether, the Russian Federation accepted imports of regulated goods from areas affected by certain quarantine pests, provided that certain mitigation measures were applied, as provided in relevant IPPC recommendations, and, if this was the case, whether the Russian Federation had defined which mitigation measures it accepted for each combination of pest and commodity. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that mitigation measures were acceptable. However currently, normative legal acts of the Russian Federation did not define which mitigation measures could be applied in each case. The Russian Federation confirmed that it was ready to assess mitigation measures proposed by exporting countries within a reasonable period of time, as set-out in international standards, guidelines and recommendations.
  5. A Member questioned whether the basis for determining whether a regulated good was high or low risk was based on the recommendations of the IPPC or if a risk assessment was done to justify the risk determination. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation was developing a procedure for risk assessment in accordance with the new draft Law "On Plant Quarantine". The draft law provided for an automated system of risk management in the process of checking at the border. The Russian Federation planned on using several criteria to determine risk, including a risk assessment of quarantine products in terms of risk of disease (i.e., the phytosanitary status of the exporting country and the systems of control in the exporting country) and phytosanitary certificates from the competent authorities of the exporting countries. All inconsistencies with Russian requirements would be registered in the automated system and this would determine whether the product could be imported (see paragraphs , and for further details). He stated that it was expected that this system would be operational in 2013.
  6. A Member expressed concern that it did not appear that a risk assessment had been the basis for determining whether a product was considered high or low risk and requested further information on where the phytosanitary requirements were established in Russian law. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that prior to the CU, phytosanitary requirements were listed on the IQPs. With the CU Commission decision abolishing IQPs, phytosanitary requirements were now contained in the MOA Order No. 456 and published on the website of the Ministry. He again noted that the new draft Law "On Plant Quarantine" would contain procedures on risk assessment. He explained that the determination of whether a product was a high risk or low risk was based on a pest risk assessment done by at least one of the CU Parties. According to CU Commission Decision No. 454, CU work on phytosanitary measures, including pest risk assessments, must be completed by the end of 2012. He further noted that the Russian Federation was establishing an accreditation body to accredit laboratories and that these requirements were being developed by the MOA.
  7. A Member of the Working Party asked for clarifications on the regime for imports of plants with soil attached. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, according to point 34 of the MOA Order No. 456, "the plants with a lump of basal soil from the areas, places and/or sites of production that are recognized to be free from quarantine pests may be imported into the Russian Federation subject to quarantine phytosanitary control including mandatory laboratory examination of soil samples against the full range of quarantine objects that can spread with the soil". He confirmed that the recognition of pest free areas or places of production under this point would be carried out in accordance with relevant ISPMs on the basis of a request from the NPPO of the exporting country. Imports of plants with soil attached would be allowed, based on this recognition. He further confirmed that Ministerial Order No. 456 would be amended with a view to deleting point 35 and incorporating all relevant ISPMs which are applicable to this particular matter. The Working Party took note of this commitment.
  8. A Member stated its concern that the Russian Federation still required a phytosanitary certificate for a number of processed products, despite the internationally accepted low risk status of these products. The Member also requested clarification as to why some products, such as sheep skins needed both a phytosanitary certificate and a veterinary certificate. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that according to the CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010, which adopted the list of goods subject to phytosanitary control, import to the CU territory of cattle skins and skins from other animals (CN 4101, 4102, 4103) was carried out without phytosanitary certificate of the export country. Nevertheless these products were subject to phytosanitary control at the border. Currently, this meant that each shipment went through a visual inspection, and check of documents. Depending on the situation in the exporting country, e.g., competency of the authorities or other factors indicating risk, sampling could be done. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that each consignment of high pest risk products subject to quarantine had to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate confirming that the phytosanitary state of the product conformed to the conditions specified in the CU and Russian requirements. Phytosanitary certificates were issued in the exporting country by agencies of the official National Plant Protection Organization. A Member requested further information on the phytosanitary certificates necessary for import of high risk goods. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the phytosanitary certificate accepted was the standard IPPC certificate.
  9. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, in accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 1 January 2011, the Governments of the CU Parties, instead of using an IQP system for regulated products of high pest risk, would provide official information on the phytosanitary requirements for imported products on the official websites of the authorised bodies of the CU Parties. For the Russian Federation this information would be available at the websites of Rosselkhoznadzor, the MOA and the CU, as well as in the information system of the EurAsEC in the field of technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and the integrated information system of external and mutual trade of the CU. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that it was working on developing a system of public electronic notifications, at which it would be possible for all participants to see the phytosanitary requirements for all regulated products. This system would be organized by HS code and would also include information on the introduction of temporary restrictions on imported regulated products for all countries. This system was being developed by the Russian Federation, but once in place could be utilized by Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. It was expected that this database would be operational by 1 January 2013 and accessible on the Internet.
  10. He stated that temporary phytosanitary measures were published on the Rosselkhoznadzor and the MOA websites: www.fsvps.ru; and www.mcx.ru. If the Russian Federation implemented temporary phytosanitary measures, the other CU Parties also would need to enforce that measure. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, as of the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, such temporary measures would be applied in accordance with international standards, and in particular the IPPC and relevant ISPMs, and that scientific justification and risk assessment for such measures would be provided to the exporting Member upon request, in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement.
  11. The representative of the Russian Federation emphasised that the formation of the CU had introduced some amendments to the import rules for the regulated products. Furthermore, he stated that the Common List of Regulated Products (Materials, Commodities under Quarantine), Subjected to Quarantine Phytosanitary Control (Supervision) was approved by CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010, amended by CU Commission Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010 and had entered into force on 1 July 2010. According to the Regulation "On Procedure of Quarantine Phytosanitary Control (Supervision) at Customs Border of the Customs Union" which entered into force on 1 July 2010, a phytosanitary certificate would be required only for import of the regulated products of high pest risk. In accordance with the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010, which entered into force on 19 May 2011, an IQP for regulated products was no longer required. Only regulated products of high pest risk needed to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, and for import of the regulated products of low pest risk, no phytosanitary certificate was required. He further informed Members that regulated products imported into the territory of the Russian Federation would have to be in conformity with the Russian quarantine phytosanitary requirements, on the absence of regulated organisms included in Order of the MOA No. 673 of 26 December 2007 "On Approval of List of Quarantine Objects". Order No. 673 contained the list of pests which were not permitted in the Russian Federation. This quarantine pest list applied to all countries wishing to export to the Russian Federation. In addition to the general list contained in Order No. 673, Order No. 456 identified pests reported to be present in particular exporting countries. The lists set-out in Order No. 456 were aimed only at recommending to the third country concerned that it focus its controls on these pests. Third countries remained responsible for ensuring the absence of all quarantine pests included in Order No. 673. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the CU Parties were in the process of reviewing and conducting pest risk assessments in order to harmonise the quarantine pest list by 1 January 2013. Until that time, he explained, national quarantine pest lists would remain valid.
  12. Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the application of certain phytosanitary measures in the Russian Federation was inconsistent with international standards, recommendations and guidelines. Specifically, making certain imported products subject to quarantine control and temporary import restrictions for the reasons stated by the Russian Federation did not appear to be consistent with the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement. These Members were concerned that the Russian Federation considered that a pest was quarantinable solely because the pest did not exist in the Russian Federation and, when requested, did not provide a pest risk assessment or technical justification for its phytosanitary requirements. In the view of these Members, this had resulted in unnecessary restrictions on trade in violation of the WTO SPS Agreement. These Members also noted that the Russian Federation had identified certain quarantine pests, such as ambrosia trifida, for reasons that did not meet the IPPC definition for quarantine status and that the Russian Federation had blocked imports of corn that was under contract for processing, because Russian officials were concerned that the corn would be used for seed. In the view of these Members, significantly less trade-restrictive measures were reasonably available to ensure compliance and achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection. These Members also had concerns about the requirements that had to be met to lift temporary trade-restrictions. In their view, these requirements often resulted in excessive periods of time when products were excluded from the market of the Russian Federation.
  13. A Member expressed concern that Russian Federation inspectors conducted regular inspections of nurseries involved in exporting to the Russian Federation, often without cause and outside of the scope of IPPC guidelines. The Member stated that the IPPC did not allow for importing countries to inspect the nurseries in the exporting country on a routine basis, but only in specific cases, for example, when new trade was being established or when a problem existed. In response to a question of a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that as of the date of its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation, consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement, would not perform plant health inspections in the exporting country on a regular basis, but would allow export of plants for planting based on guarantees provided by the NPPO of the exporting country of a pest free area or pest free places of production as set-out in international standards, recommendations, and guidelines. A joint inspection would take place in the case of repeated non-compliances. The Working Party took note of this commitment.
  14. One Member noted that the Russian Federation had adopted some phytosanitary measures that were inconsistent with international standards and guidelines, and had not provided a scientific justification or a risk assessment done in accordance with Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement. Specifically:

(a) On the import of raw sugar, the Russian Federation requires the submission of a phytosanitary certificate for this product that is processed, for which the reasons given by the Russian Federation do not seem to be compatible with the IPPC and WTO SPS Agreement. This Member asked whether the Russian Federation was prepared to eliminate the application of this document as phytosanitary requirement for a product that is processed, requirements that must be governed by other international standards (Codex Alimentarius).

(b) On imports of leather leaf fern ( Rumohra adiantiformis), requirements requested by the Russian Federation do not correspond to pests associated with this crop, which denotes the absence of a pest risk analysis to justify the scientific application of those requirements.
  1. In response to these concerns, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that when taking phytosanitary measures, Russian authorities followed the relevant international practice and provisions established in the IPPC and the WTO SPS Agreement, including conducting a risk assessment. He explained that Government Resolution No. 329 "On the National Organization for Quarantine and Plant Protection", named Rosselkhoznadzor as the Federal Agency responsible for fulfilling the duties stipulated in Article IV of the IPPC. He confirmed that, from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, if the phytosanitary requirements of the Russian Federation resulted in a higher level of protection than would be achieved by measures based on relevant international standards, recommendations or guidelines, the Russian Federation would apply its phytosanitary requirements in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, in particular Article 3.1 of that Agreement. He also confirmed that the authorities of the Russian Federation would consult with exporting Members on the measures in question, if requested. Furthermore, from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, if phytosanitary requirements applied in the Russian Federation resulted in a higher level of protection than would be achieved by measures based on relevant international standards, recommendations or guidelines, Rosselkhoznadzor would provide explanations of the reasons for such phytosanitary measure, including the relevant risk assessment, on a bilateral basis following receipt of a request from an exporting Member pursuant to Article 5.8 of the WTO SPS Agreement. The representative of the Russian Federation also confirmed that the radiation certificate on import of raw sugar into the customs territory of the Russian Federation>
  2. Some Members raised concerns that CU and Russian measures called for, and their officials applied less favourable treatment to imported products than domestically produced products. They noted that according to the CU Regulation "On Carrying out of Phytosanitary Control" (adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010), visual inspection (examination) of vehicles (bullet 4.2.), and visual inspection (examination) of regulated products (bullet 4.3.) were carried out at the crossing points of the CU border. Furthermore, Article 9, paragraph 5 of Law No. 99 and the new draft Law "On Plant Quarantine", provided that: regulated goods imported into the territory of the Russian Federation would be subject to initial State quarantine phytosanitary control, including inspection, at the crossing points of the CU and a second State quarantine phytosanitary control, including inspection, at destination in the Russian Federation. These Members noted that these products had a phytosanitary document and had been inspected where produced. The requirement of the Russian Federation for inspection when it crossed into the territory of the Russian Federation and then a full re-inspection for all shipments when clearing customs appeared to be unjustified for SPS reasons, a burden on trade, and inconsistent with national treatment.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the procedure for inspection at the border and at destination>
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that in accordance with Article 29.2 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Basics of Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", SPS requirements must be implemented in respect of products originating from foreign countries in the same way they are applied in respect of similar products of Russian origin. Furthermore, according to Article 6 of the draft Federal Law "On Plant Quarantine", phytosanitary requirements applied to regulated products originating from a foreign country in the same manner as they applied to the same regulated products of Russian origin. The appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection was defined as the required level of protection established by a technical regulation for products produced on the territory of the Russian Federation aimed at prevention of factual scientifically grounded risks. He confirmed that CU Agreements, CU acts, and legislation of the Russian Federation did not and would not in future establish additional SPS requirements for imported products that exceeded the requirements established for CU or domestic products. The Working Party took note of these commitments.