R 081112Z APR 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8280
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 
USEU BRUSSELS
AMEMBASSY LONDON 
AMEMBASSY BERLIN 
AMEMBASSY PARIS 
AMEMBASSY WARSAW 
AMEMBASSY KYIV 
AMEMBASSY ASTANA 
AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 
AMEMBASSY TOKYO 
AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 
AMEMBASSY OSLO 
AMEMBASSY RIYADH

UNCLAS GENEVA 000293 
 
 
STATE FOR EUR/RUS, EB/TDC 
PASS USTR FOR RHODE, KLEIN, BURKHEAD, OWEN, CHATTIN, 
FIELD 
USEU FOR CHASE AND MULANEY 
MOSCOW FOR BEYRLE AND FISHMAN 
ASTANA FOR HOAGLAND AND WOCKLEY 
LONDON FOR TOKOLA 
KYIV FOR YARNELL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD ECON WTRO USTR RS
SUBJECT: MARCH 2009 INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ON THE 
ACCESSION OF RUSSIA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
 
Meetings on Russian WTO Accession 
 
¶1.  Summary and next steps:  On March 27, the Chairman of the WTO 
Working Party (WP) on the Accession of the Russian Federation 
(Russia) to the WTO convened an informal consultative meeting to 
discuss status of work and next steps in the Russian WTO accession 
process.  WTO members also held plurilateral meetings on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and on the tariff rate quotas 
(TRQs) applied to Russian beef, pork and poultry imports.  The U.S. 
delegation met bilaterally with the Russian delegation on SPS and 
Agriculture issues.  These were procedural meetings and, kept the 
process moving, but at a slow pace.  Comments on the SPS text 
reviewed plurilaterally are due by April 27.  The Chairman indicated 
he would consult with delegations to find a date for a next 
Chairman's meeting to review the substance of Russia's submissions 
(current planning is directed to the week of May 25) and to find a 
date  for an Agricultural Plurilateral to review Russia's revised 
tables on Agricultural Support, a compendium of data on such 
support, and depending on the outcome of his consultations, the 
revised draft WP text on agriculture.  Russia indicated it expects 
to meet again with interested delegations on the TRQ issue within 
about a month and will provide proposals at that time.  .  End 
Summary and next steps. 
 
Chairman's Consultation 
 
¶2.   After the Chairman's introductory review, Russia's chief 
negotiator, Maxim Medvedkov, was invited to give a report on 
Russia's legislative progress.  He provided a short update on the 
status of amendments to the following:  part IV of the Civil Code 
(intellectual property rights-IPR), the Law on Medicines (protection 
of undisclosed data), the Customs Code (to grant ex officio 
authority related to IPR enforcement), the law on activity 
licensing, the law on Technical Regulation (status of international 
agreements), and the adoption of a Government Resolution on imports 
of goods with encryption.  This list omitted additional legislation 
needed to implement WTO provisions related, inter alia, to TBT, 
Customs Valuation, and SPS.  The Chairman repeated his request that 
Russia produce a status chart on legislative work towards 
implementation of WTO provisions.  (Note:  An applicant country 
routinely submits a chart and legislative action plan during the 
late stages of accession negotiations.  End note).  Russia objected 
to this request, claiming it was duplicative and too much work.  The 
U.S. del supported the Chairman's request and subsequently the 
Chairman commissioned the Secretariat to initiate work on the chart 
and action plan for adoption of legislation.  U.S. and other WTO 
members will need to continue to insist that Russia follow standard 
practice and adopt legislation prior to approval of the accession 
package to ensure Russia will meet its commitments to comply with 
WTO obligations from the date of accession. 
 
¶3.  Medvedkov reported that all of Russia's negotiations on market 
access for tariffs and services were now completed (with three 
specific areas excepted, as noted below) and that his delegation was 
assisting the Secretariat in pulling together the draft consolidated 
tariff schedule from Russia's many bilateral agreements.  He stated 
that the work should be completed within six weeks.  The three 
outstanding areas where work continued with delegations and for 
which there would be no entry in the consolidated schedule were 
sugar; high quality beef (HQB definition); and meat and poultry TRQs 
that were expiring at the end of 2009 and would have to be 
renegotiated.  Georgia immediately objected to Russia's statement on 
having completed its market access negotiations, stating that it had 
not yet signed a bilateral agreement with Russia.   Turkey 
intervened twice during the meeting to note that its goods (fruits 
and vegetables) were being subject to 100 percent inspection upon 
entering Russia , inconsistent with WTO norms (Customs Valuation, 
PSI and SPS ).  While Turkey and Russia have a bilateral agreement 
on these issues, Turkey maintains Russia was not observing its 
terms. 
 
¶4.  Secretariat work on compiling the consolidated goods schedule (a 
daunting task involving over 60 separate agreements, errors in the 
electronic files, and multiple nomenclatures to harmonize into 
HS2007) has taken some time.  It had been reported that a new 
Secretariat team has taken over, and the Russians and others had 
expressed concern that this might further delay the work. 
Recognizing that this could undermine efforts to move the 
negotiations forward and after additional consultations, the 
Secretariat reportedly has returned the previous staff to the task. 
The Russian del. also indicated that they were working with 
interested delegations to resolve the remaining issues in the 
services schedule, and should have a resolution "in a few days." 
(Comment:  It is good news that work on the goods schedule is back 
on track.  But while none of the issues with the goods and services 
schedules cannot be resolved, it is unlikely that the problems that 
have delayed circulation of these draft consolidated schedules to 
date will come to closure "in a few days."  End Comment). 
 
¶5. The Chairman's informal consultations did not engage in a 
substantive review of the texts contained in JOB(09)14).  Medvedkov 
introduced the changes and characterized the "majority" of the 
changes that Russia had made in the text of JOB(08)36/Rev.1 since 
the discussions in November as "technical issues and 
clarifications."  The United States, Saudi Arabia, and Norway noted 
however that Russia had not been comprehensive in addressing issues 
that they had raised, and not all of their concerns were dealt with 
in the revised material in JOB(09)14.  All indicated that they would 
provide additional comments, and the Chairman encouraged other 
delegations to do the same.  (Note:  In later bilateral discussions, 
the Saudi Geneva representative confirmed that they were still 
working with Russia on those comments, but that they would table 
additional text unless their issues were resolved within a couple of 
months.  He also noted that their issue of most concern, state owned 
and controlled firms, was not under discussion with Russia because 
it was one of the three "missing" sections of the report and there 
was no text to review. End Note) Medvedkov also reported that 
discussions after the meetings in November had produced additional 
compromise language in some paragraphs and these texts were also in 
JOB(09)14.  (Comment:  The results of drafting efforts of the U.S., 
Russia and EU in December.  End comment).  Finally, there was a 
revised text on agriculture, one of the three missing sections. 
Russia had expected to review this text, along with new data on 
agricultural supports, in a plurilateral meeting in these days, but 
had canceled these plans when a new Agricultural Minister was 
announced.  When consultations with the new Minister were completed, 
new dates would be found.  The US suggested that the draft WP report 
text on agriculture could be reviewed with other WP texts, rather 
than plurilaterally.  Russia and the Chair agreed, but Canada 
indicated that it needed to consult with capital on this and the EU 
indicated that it would support either approach.  The Chairman 
indicated that he would consult further. 
 
Plurilateral Meetings on TRQs and SPS 
 
¶6.  WP members also participated in plurilateral meetings on two key 
issues:  (1) Russia's plans for establishing bindings for meat 
products currently covered by bilaterally negotiated TRQs; and (2) 
the revised WP text on SPS measures.  The meeting on TRQs was 
attended by the United States, EU, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, 
Paraguay, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, China, New Zealand, and 
Australia.  Noting there appeared to be two broad approaches, 
continuation of TRQs or tariff-only treatment, the Russian 
representative walked through several sections of the November 5, 
2008, document on Section 1-B including  TRQs:  product coverage, 
TRQ allocation, and administration methods.  Russia indicated at 
this time it was prepared to continue TRQs on all three products, 
taking into account the existing exception on high quality beef. 
Medvedkov emphasized that new bindings for the tariff lines covered 
would be established through bilateral negotiations, effective 
January 1, 2010.  He also reviewed the proposal Russia had tabled in 
the previous meeting on this issue in November 2008 laying out 
TRQ-based or tariff-only options for the replaced bindings.   He 
noted that the ultimate decision on whether to adopt TRQs or a 
 
 
tariff only approach rested with Russia. 
 
¶7.   Only Argentina and Brazil explicitly spoke in favor of a 
tariff-only solution as the only acceptable outcome.  Most others 
seemed willing to negotiate TRQs or supported a global TRQ. 
Currently the United States and the EU are allocated 70-80 percent 
of the in-quota quantities for poultry, pork, and beef.  The U.S. 
del noted that proposals circulated in November are not consistent 
with our WTO bilateral market access agreement.    In addition, to 
evaluate Russia's proposal to move material to the draft WP report, 
we will need to see specific texts, and these will need to be 
commitments.  We noted our preference for TRQs and specific country 
allocations.  The U.S. also noted, that on the issue of a definition 
of high quality beef (HQB), the "menu approach" proposed by Russia, 
allowing for multiple definitions of high-quality beef, may not meet 
the scope of product coverage granted in the concession in bilateral 
market access agreement.  Russia drew few conclusions from the 
meeting but noted that it would call another in a month and would 
present specific proposals at that time. 
 
¶8.  The SPS Plurilateral meeting reviewed the revised SPS WP report 
text in light of some new materials developed by Russia and the EU 
and the US in trilateral discussions in December.  In a paragraph by 
paragraph review, there were few comments on the material.  Four 
delegations (US, EU, Canada, and Australia) pressed Russia to 
confirm that it would have fully implemented a WTO-consistent SPS 
regime prior to accession.  The Russian del had circulated a brief 
summary paper outlining a proposed process to harmonize its SPS 
measures with international standards.  Delegations asked questions 
on the procedure described in the summary.  Canada and others asked 
about the timing for initiating this process.  Dr. Rozhdestvenskiy 
noted that Russia has an ongoing program of harmonization pursuant 
to Order 159 and that the timing of the new measures was uncertain. 
While the new measure would be in place as of accession, the process 
of harmonization would continue after accession.  In response to a 
question from the U.S. del., Rozhdestvenskiy informed Members that 
the Administrative Regulation on Issuing Permits to Import and 
Export Animals and Products of Animal Origin, Feed and Feed 
Additives, and Products Subject to Quarantine (9 January 2008) was 
being revised and invited comments from dels.  He expects that the 
amendments will be completed in 4-6 weeks.  The United States will 
be providing suggested revisions to the regulation. 
 
Bilateral Meetings 
 
¶9.  In a bilateral meeting on SPS held before the plurilateral and 
Chairman's informal meeting, the Russian del explained that it had 
circulated the summary paper.  U.S. del questioned the process that 
would be used for Russia to harmonize its measures and the timing 
for adoption of the Government Resolution that would establish the 
process.  Russia did not provide a clear answer on when the 
Government Resolution would be adopted, implying that it could be 
done as part of Russia's approval of the terms of accession, i.e., 
after completion of the negotiations.  The U.S. del. also had a 
brief bilateral meeting to discuss next steps on the draft 
agriculture text for the WP report.  The Russian side indicated that 
it had received a few technical comments on its draft text and on 
the compendium of domestic agricultural support programs and would 
submit a slightly revised version shortly. 
 
 
ALLGEIER