RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/REG/GEN/M/9
28 May 2003
(03-2870)
Committee on Re gional Trade A greements
Thirty-Fourth 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, KAZAKHSTAN AND ARMENIA
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN, ARMENIA, BELARUS,
GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, KAZAKHSTAN, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UKRAINE,
UZBEKISTAN, TAJIKISTAN AND THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC
Note on the Meeting of 3 April 2003
Chairman:  Dr. V. Notis (Greece)
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2056/Rev.1.
2. Under Agenda Items C.IV-X of its Thirty-fourth Session, the Committee on Regional Trade
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the fourth 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 Kazakhstan
F. Free Trade Agreement between the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia
G. Free Trade Agreement between Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova,
Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz
Republic
General Statements
3. The Chairman reminded the Committee that following difficulties which had arisen during the
last examination of these Agreements, it had been agreed at the Thirty-First Session of the Committee
held in February 2002 that the examination of these Agreements should be continued, but with greater
flexibility regarding the deadline set to receive re plies to the questions submitted.  Since that time no
further questions had been received and to date all questions posed by Members had received aresponse.  He noted that this was the fourth round of examination of the seven Agreements concluded
by the Kyrgyz Republic with other countries from the former Soviet Union.  Previous examinations
had taken place in October 2000 and February and July 2001;  the proceedings of these meetings had
been circulated in documents WT/REG/GEN/M/5-7. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, heWT/REG/GEN/M/9
Page 2
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.
A. E XAMINATION OF THE CUSTOMS UNION BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC , THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION , BELARUS , KAZAKHSTAN AND TAJIKISTAN
4. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic informed the Committee of some developments
which had taken place within the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC): the Agreement on the
Regulation of Market Access between the customs union member states and services from third
parties had been signed on 6 October 2000 and had entered into force for the Kyrgyz Republic on 22
May 2001; the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the EAEC, which had been signed on 31
May 2001 had not yet entered into force, but had been ratified by the Kyrgyz Republic on 10 April
2002; the Protocol on Arrangements with regard to Information Exchange concerning Transportationof Goods and Transportation Means had been signed and had entered into force on 19 December
2001;  the Agreement on Information Exchange between State Tax and Customs Officers of the
member states had been signed on 25 January 2002, but had not yet entered into force.  He added that
the Kyrgyz Republic had recently notified an unofficial translation of newly applied rules of origin
signed by the member states in the city of Minsk on 30 November 2002.  His delegation hadsubmitted written replies to a number of questions throughout the examination process and he
indicated his delegation's willingness to continue to participate in the active and constructive
examination of all RTAs to which his country was party.
5. The representative of the United States said that she had already indicated that she wanted to
address some housekeeping matters under "Other Business", which had specific relevance to some of
the Agreements under examination.  Over 20 RTAs were on the agenda of the meeting and the
amount of paper alone was quite unprecedented and presented difficulties for her capital-based
experts.  She expressed her appreciation for the Kyrgyz Republic representative's update on recent
developments, but was not in a position to assess if this had resulted in changes to any of the operative
provisions of the Agreements under examination.  Many of these Agreements seemed to be a movingtarget, which made their assessment difficult.  She hoped to provide questions about the status of
some of these changes and what they meant for the pre-existing Agreements.
6. The representative of Japan voiced similar concerns to those just expressed by the
representative of the United States.  After investigation of these Agreements it was apparent that some
of the Parties to the customs union had, in fact, formed bilateral free trade agreements between
themselves and some had bilateral FTAs with some of the 11 countries of the CIS FTA.  Given the
complexity of the situation, he wondered if there were any plans to integrate or streamline theseAgreements.
7. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic replied that he was fully aware of the concerns of
delegations and conceded that there was a certain lack of confidence on the part of WTO Members
about the intention of the member states of the customs union to create a fully-fledged customs union.
He agreed that fuller information as regards law enforcement and the common customs tariff wereexpected from his delegation, but he drew attenti on to the fact that, of the five members of the
customs union, only the Kyrgyz Republic was a WTO Member.  Thus his delegation had some
difficulty in explaining how the work would prog ress until he had a clear picture of the foreseen
bound rates of the members of the customs union which were in the process of accession to the WTO.
He pointed out that at one of the last meetings of the CRTA, the examination of the FTA between theKyrgyz Republic and Moldova had been concluded, which had demonstrated that it was easier to
consider the RTAs of countries once they became Members of the WTO.  To the best of his
knowledge, work towards the conclusion of th e EAEC was ongoing and was being coordinatedWT/REG/GEN/M/9
Page 3
between five capitals.  He asked Members to bear this difficult situation in mind when considering the
examination of this Agreement.
8. The representative of the United States thanked the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic for
his explanation and agreed that it was easier for the Committee to review agreements between WTO
Members.  While underlining the importance of the Kyrgyz Republic notifying these Agreements, sheconceded that the Committee might need to wait until other members of the customs union acceded to
the WTO in order to get a clearer idea of the situation.   She asked the representative of the Kyrgyz
Republic to provide his comments on the latest developments in the customs union in writing as this
would enable her delegation to see if it had further questions.
9. The representative of Japan echoed the previous speaker's concern, saying that his delegation
would attempt to study the Agreement and looked forward to receiving more information, but had no
intention at this point to submit further questions.
10. The Chairman said that the fourth round of examination of the customs union between the Kyrgyz
Republic, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan had enabled the Committee to
clarify a number of points but some remained pending.  He invited delegations with questions to
submit them in writing to the Secretariat by the end of May and that the Parties should provide replies
by the end of October 2003.  Once the replies had been circulated to Members, he indicated that itmight be possible to take up any request for further information without holding an additional round
of examination; otherwise the examination of th e Agreement would be taken up at a forthcoming
meeting of the Committee.
B.-F. E
XAMINATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC AND
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ;  U KRAINE ;  U ZBEKISTAN ; K AZAKHSTAN ; A ND ARMENIA ,
RESPECTIVELY
11. The Chairman said that this was the fourth roun d of examination of the first four of these five
Agreements: the first, second and third rounds of examination had taken  place in October 2000 and
February and July 2001, with the corresponding minutes distributed as documents
WT/REG/GEN/M/5-7.  He added that this was the second round of examination of the FTA between
the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia; the previous round had been held in June 2002 and the minutes
had been distributed as WT/REG114/M/1.  He suggested that the Agreements be considered together,
it being understood that this would have no effect on the examination per se , as each Agreement
would be judged on its own merit and have its own report with its own conclusions.
12. The representative of the United States indicated that her general comments made in relation to
the EAEC Agreement also applied to this set of Agreements.  Given the intricate relationships
between these Agreements, her capital had not yet been able to examine them in detail, and whilethese countries were not the United States' largest trading partners, her delegation still had a systemic
interest in these Agreements.  She added that she considered it premature to conclude the examination
of these five Agreements as her delegation might have further questions.
13.  The Chairman said delegations wishing to submit questions on the free trade agreements between
the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Ka zakhstan and Armenia
should do so by the end of May.  If, in the light of these questions and replies, the Committee found
there to be no need to continue with the factual examination, the Committee could consider the
examinations concluded.  Otherwise a furthe r round of examination could be scheduled.WT/REG/GEN/M/9
Page 4
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
14. The Chairman said this was the fourth round of examination of this Agreement; the first, second
and third rounds of examination had taken  place in October 2000 and February and July 2001, with
the corresponding minutes distributed as docume nts WT/REG/GEN/M/5-7.  He drew the Committee's
attention to the recently distributed document WT/REG82/5, which contained information on rules of
origin applied under this Agreement.
15. The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said that the document on rules of origin had been
submitted in response to questions raised by the representatives of Korea and the United States.  He
reminded delegations that it was an unofficial translation: should any discrepancies or
misunderstandings arise because of language, delegations should submit questions to the Secretariat inwriting.  With regard to the progress in the CIS FTA, he said he had no additional information in
terms of streamlining this particular Agreement with other bilateral FTAs signed by the Kyrgyz
Republic.
16. The representative of Korea said his delegation would study the recent document on rules of
origin in more detail and sought clarification about the relationship between the rules of origin of this
Agreement and the EAEC customs union: was there were any duplication or overlapping between this
Agreement and those of the customs union?  Did the Kyrgyz Republic maintain individual rules of
origin for each FTA, or were common rules of origin established for the customs union and the
bilateral RTAs of the Kyrgyz Republic?  The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic asked the Korean
representative to submit his questions in writing.
17. The Chairman said that some questions on the Free Trade Agreement between Azerbaijan,
Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhsta n, The Russian Federation, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic remained pending.  He proposed that Members wishing to submit
further questions do so by the end of July and that the Parties provide replies by October 2003.  In
response to a request by the representative of th e Kyrgyz Republic, the Chairman agreed to extend the
deadline for the submission of replies by the Parties till the end of November.
__________