Deputy Chairman of the Board of NCE believes that, in the absence of an established information exchange, Russia controls the movement of goods by an "old fashioned" method

Dana Beysenovna, tell us what is the situation at the moment on the Kazakh-Russian border in the light of the latest developments with the introduction of restrictions in respect of products subject to veterinary and phyto-sanitary control?

Kazakhstan is historically an agricultural country, and the entry into the Union was very attractive to a large extent been because of the expansion of sales market for domestic agricultural products, the possibility of full disclosure of the existing potential of the state in livestock and crop production, boosting of trade and economic relations with business partners within EAEU.

The importance of the agricultural sector for the domestic business and state is demonstrated by the statistics. So, in 2015 the Republic of Kazakhstan has exported products of animal and plant origin at 2.1 billion USD, including 0.3 billion US dollars to the EAEU member states and 1.8 billion US dollars to third countries.

The requirements in the veterinary sector have already been harmonized: uniform requirements for the import and movement of goods, common rules for the implementation of control (supervision) of products subject to veterinary inspection at the customs territory and customs border of the Union, uniform veterinary certificates. At the same time, the work on the adoption of a common list of quarantine facilities is on and is close to completion, unified quarantine phytosanitary requirements, uniform rules and norms of plant quarantine on the territory of the Union.

A lot has been done on the formation of the common documentary framework designed to ensure the eventual smooth movement of goods and, as a result, a steady increase in mutual trade turnover within the Union.

However, today there is a situation where the legal basis is not "the foundation", and numerous private initiatives of the sides are focused exclusively on compliance with the internal interests of the state, which has a negative impact on the work of local entrepreneurs, creates additional financial costs, steals time, being in essence nothing more than just another barrier to business.

For example, if we take the area of ​​agriculture, which is subject to phyto-sanitary control, according to the latest information of the Rosselkhoznadzor on the border line of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan there were established 15 preliminary notification points (hereinafter - PNP) for the importation of regulated products. Vehciles with Kazakh goods after crossing the border must notify the PNP on arrival, as well as to present the goods and the accompanying documentation to undergo an inspection.

Taking into account the fact that the length of the Kazakh-Russian state border is over 7,500 km, the PNP are located at the distance of every 500 km. At the same time, according to the decision of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated by 9^th of July  2013 # 697 "On approval of the list of checkpoints across the state border of the Republic of Kazakhstan and stationary posts of transport control on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan" on the Kazakh-Russian border there are 51 checkpoints, but placed PNP by Rosselhoznadzor artificially reduce their number for Kazakh exporters of agricultural products.

According to oral statements of the leadership of Rosselkhoznadzor, the competence framework of PNP has not been yet specified and is not regulated by official legal documents. That is, domestic producers and transporters of agricultural products do not have specific information regarding the timing of the inspections of controlled goods at PNP, the list of the required documentation, the reasons and timing of possible delays and restrictions.

In addition to the above, under such a system, the import of agricultural products to the Russian Federation, taking into account the remoteness of PNP from each other, puts significant additional costs on carriers and is absolutely unjustified loss of financial and time resources, because they can’t choose the optimum, efficient traffic route from point A to point B, and respectively, the domestic business is originally in unequal competitive conditions.

And I must say that this list of problematic issues in the export of Kazakhstani agricultural products is quite extensive. Similar problems arise in the Russian-Kazakh section of the border and the importation of goods subject to veterinary inspection, which gradually acquire a systemic character.

On 2^nd of September 2016 with the efforts of Kazakhstani veterinary service were eased restrictions on the import of animal products subject to veterinary inspection against pasteurellosis.

However, on the same day, on 2^nd of September Rosselkhoznadzor informed the Kazakh side on the imposition of additional conditions that must be met during movement of cattle and products derived from it. The reason for the innovation  became outbreak of dermatitis among cattle which was recorded only in the Atyrau region. This particular requirement was introduced for all products of cattle from the territory of the republic, regardless of the region of origin.

Constantly changing unilaterally "rules" do not contribute to the development of bilateral economic relations and does not allow the authorized body in the face of the Ministry of Agriculture to direct all its efforts on the development of cooperation in the agrarian sector of the Union. The Ministry is often forced to deal with specific issues that arise in the course of cooperation, regularly engaged in the elimination of emerging obstacles during export of the Kazakh agricultural products to the Russian Federation.

What do you think is the main obstacle on the way of Kazakhstani business while moving agricultural products within the EAEU?

These measures are justified by the Russian side, the need for more detailed control (supervision) over the movement of agricultural products, and to prevent the importation of products not meeting the specified requirements.

However, this detalization in the civilized world, in the era of digital globalization, is carried out through information exchange. Modern specialized information systems allow to the smallest detail to keep track of processes of movement of goods, as well as the presence of those or other permits, the issuance of which is should be reflected in the relevant system, and tightened if necessary. The letter of Rosselkhoznadzor also indicated the need to send information about the issued phyto-sanitary certificates to the e-mails of PNP, depending on the route, which is in fact dectated by the number and location of PNPs.

As follows from the above, in the absence of an established information exchange, control of the movement of goods is executed with the use of old fashioned methods, which is the wrong approach to the issue.

Another major problem is the lack of interaction between the existing regulations of the competent authorities of the parties in case of detection of certain diseases of animals and plants, the pre-notification procedure. Available interaction is arranged on the principle of “post factum”, i.e. a notification is made after the introduction of restrictive measures and, accordingly, the opponents have no other way as to adapt to the situation without the possibility of discussion and optimization of details.

At the same time, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation are parties to such global integration groups such as the World Trade Organization, in which also provided a mechanism for parties to notify the introduction of restrictions in the field of veterinary and phytosanitary by notification. However, international standards were not for our businesses that saving straw, as they are currently not being fully respected.

At the same time, the Kazakh side is seriously concerned about currently power decentralization of power institutions in RF, which are the competent authorities in the field of veterinary and phyto-sanitary, lack of a clear vertical structure.

Thus, in the confirmation of the above concerns regarding the uniform application of the established requirements for the movement of controlled agricultural products, I would like to quote a recent interview of the Russian Minister of Agriculture Alexander Tkachev in the Russian federal publication "Gross Domestic Product" - "... every subject of the Federation is alone responsible for ensuring security in the area of ​​veterinary medicine on its territory! That is the regulations are federal, and the responsibility for their implementation is on regional level. Currently, a veterinarian doctor in the region is not subordinated to either the Ministry of Agriculture nor Rosselkhoznadzor, but the governor. It turns a kind of economic separatism: each area controls its own import-export regime. As a result, we get the administrative barriers to the normalization of the situation on the domestic market and entry to foreign markets".

 I also want to note that the Republic of Kazakhstan, being a party to the International Epizootic Bureau, always timely informs the member-states of the EAEU regarding identified outbreaks of certain animal diseases in the country and never undermines the trust by trying to hide these facts.

What ways out of this situation, do you see?

Currently, I see the best solution in the abolition of PNPs on the Kazakh-Russian state border and improvement of existing processes, information exchange between the competent authorities of the parties. It should be a fundamental solution to the problem of movement of agricultural products within the framework of the EAEU in general, and on the Kazakh-Russian sector in particular.

Domestic entrepreneurs in such circumstances are the bad position - they can’t fully plan the movement of goods, can’t be sure that they will deliver the cargo to the destination in time, can’t guarantee even their own good name, since the actions of Rosselkhoznadzor often catch them by surprise. And with all this, quarantine and veterinary products are mostly perishable, and in the case of an unexpected delay may simply lose commercial value, becoming a "food waste".

From all this it follows the conclusion that those principles and objectives, which were laid in the initial stage of the creation of the Union, now are more and more jammed in documentary routine, gradually becoming an end in itself. Harmonization of the requirements and standards in the field of phyto-sanitary and veterinary medicine, in fact is a "paper agreement" that does not have the actual application.

In the recent past, Kazakhstan exported agricultural products to the Russian Federation on the "general" terms, while today Rosselkhoznadzor regularly introduces "individual" requirements for moving of goods from Kazakhstan, which are often more severe than in relation to third countries.

In this light, there appears a quite reasonable question – what does the domestic business, as well as the whole economy of the country get from our stay in the Union and whether "yesterday's border" was more open than its current absence?

In conclusion, I wish to note that the  freedom of movement of goods provided for by the Treaty is the key to private business prosperity of states, expansion of trade turnover between the countries - members of the Union and as a result, mutual and harmonious development of national economies, but constant "bureaucratization" and the difficulties in its implementation is a way to undermine confidence of business of the parties to each other and to complicate mutual trade processes.