VZCZCXRO0742
RR RUEHLN RUEHPOD RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHMO #2979/01 2820347
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 080347Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0278
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 4669
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 5220
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 002979 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/RUS 
STATE PLS PASS USTR (EPORTER, BHAFNER, CKLEIN) 
USDA FAS FOR OCRA (SALMON, KUYPERS) AND FOR OSTA (HAMILTON, 
BEAN) 
VIENNA PLS PASS APHIS (TANAKA) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD ECON WTO RS
SUBJECT: RUSSIAN OFFICIALS TRY TO EXPLAIN RECENT VETERINARY 
LETTERS 
 
REF: A. MOSCOW 2949 
     ¶B. MOSCOW 2788 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) On October 6, Chief Russian WTO Negotiator Maksim 
Medvedkov told us that he views the October 1 letter from the 
Russian Federal Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance 
Service (VPSS) as a request for consultations on the 
effectiveness of the implementation of the November 2006 
U.S.-Russia side letter on meat/poultry plant inspections, 
rather than an outright refusal to authorize U.S. meat 
facilities for export to Russia.  Medvedkov also stated that 
the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) is still 
consulting with other ministries regarding the September 16 
VPSS letter which questioned the continuing validity of the 
November 2006 U.S.-Russia Market Access Agreement and Side 
Letters.  He noted that Economic Development Minister 
Nabiulliana and Agriculture Minister Gordeyev had discussed 
the issue, and in MED's view, the November 2006 agreements 
and side letters are still in force.  Separately, Chief 
Veterinary Officer and VPSS Deputy Head Nikolay Vlasov told 
us that VPSS would not accept any relisting of facilities 
that had previously been removed from the list of authorized 
exporters, but it still might be possible to authorize new 
facilities for export. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
October 1 VPSS Letter: Just a Request for Consultations? 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) In a meeting with Agriculture Minister-Counselor and 
EconOffs on October 6, Chief WTO Negotiator Maksim Medvedkov 
told us that he does not interpret the October 1 VPSS letter 
(Ref A) as an attempt to abrogate the November 2006 
U.S.-Russia Market Access Agreement and Side Letters. 
Instead, he views the letter as a description of recent 
problems with the certification of U.S. meat/poultry exports, 
and an evaluation of the effectiveness of VPSS' cooperation 
with the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).  He 
believed that the letter was intended to begin a consultative 
process to discuss and find solutions to outstanding problems 
in the current certification system for U.S. meat/poultry 
exports to Russia.  Medvedkov added that VPSS had recently 
entered into similar consultations on meat exports with the 
EU following a letter from VPSS. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Embassy officers noted that we still considered the 
November 2006 agreement and side letters to be in force. 
When asked to clarify whether the October 1 VPSS letter meant 
that VPSS would no longer relist plants for export or add new 
plants to the list of authorized exporters, Medvedkov 
admitted there was some ambiguity in the letter and advised 
us to seek clarification from VPSS. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Agriculture Minister-Counselor noted that it would 
be useful to discuss the effective implementation of our 
agricultural agreements, and USDA would certainly consider 
the request for consultations on the side letter after 
November 20, 2008.  There were easy solutions to some issues 
in the VPSS letter, including the question of electronic 
notification of incoming shipments to Russia (the Russia 
e-mail box was full and not able to receive additional 
notifications).  In other cases, the U.S. side was waiting 
for fuller explanations from VPSS about the nature of Russian 
concerns.  For example, on the issue of alleged trace levels 
of arsenic and antibiotics in some tested samples of U.S. 
chicken, the U.S. side had not received an explanation of the 
scientific basis for Russian standards, which were stricter 
than either U.S. or international norms. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Medvedkov acknowledged that some Russian food safety 
standards were not consistent with international norms.  He 
noted that during plurilateral WTO accession negotiations in 
Geneva, Russia had proposed that trading partners identify 
 
MOSCOW 00002979  002 OF 002 
 
 
instances in which Russia's norms were inconsistent.  After 
notification, VPSS could provide the scientific basis for 
Russian standards or eventually bring those standards into 
conformity with international norms.  Medvedkov noted that 
under Russia's current legal regime, VPSS was under no 
obligation to provide a scientific rationale for its sanitary 
norms.  However, he said that amendments to Russia's Law on 
Technical Regulations would hopefully be sent to the Duma in 
November, and would make Russian practice consistent with WTO 
rules on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) and 
technical barriers to trade (TBT). 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
September 16 Letter: Crescendo of Protectionist Voices 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Medvedkov noted that Economic Development Minister 
Nabiullina had discussed the September 16 VPSS letter 
questioning the validity of the U.S.-Russia market access 
agreement and side letters with Agriculture Minister 
Gordeyev, but there was still no unified GOR position on this 
issue.  He noted that MED had taken the position that the 
market access agreement and side letters were still in force 
and that there was an orderly procedure for officially 
withdrawing from a country-to-country agreement, which had 
not been followed by the GOR in this case.  He expressed hope 
that "in the nearest future" either MED or VPSS could provide 
the U.S. side with further clarification on the meaning of 
the September 16 letter.  Medvedkov admitted that an 
increasingly strong chorus of voices within the GOR had been 
arguing for a delay in the implementation of all of the 
commitments Russia had agreed to in advance of accession, 
until the actual date of WTO entry. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
VPSS: No More Relistings, But New Listings May be OK 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) In a separate conversation with USDA/FAS officers, 
Chief Veterinary Officer and Deputy Head of VPSS Nikolay 
Vlasov implied that the decision to issue the October 1 VPPS 
letter had been made by more senior officials at the 
Agriculture Ministry and there was little he could do about 
it.  Vlasov said that, in his reading of the letter, VPSS 
would not be able to relist any plants that had previously 
been delisted for sanitary reasons.  He believed that it 
would still be permissible for FSIS to request that new 
facilities be listed for export, although he would need to 
confirm that understanding with VPSS Head Sergey Dankvert. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) The different interpretations of the October 1 VPSS 
letter that we received from Medvedkov and Vlasov make clear 
that there has been no coordination among ministries 
regarding VPSS actions.  The VPSS is doing everything within 
its power to protect domestic poultry, pork and beef 
producers by restricting the flow of U.S. imports.  Given 
that it has been over three weeks since the September 16 VPSS 
letter, MED either lacks sufficient power or is simply in no 
hurry to rein in the protectionist forces at the Agriculture 
Ministry.  While it is encouraging that MED still considers 
our agreements to be in force, it is cold comfort at this 
point, given that VPSS is still free to disregard the 
procedures for listing and relisting plants that were 
established in the November 2006 side letter on meat 
inspections. 
RUBIN