Background:

During February 2006, three American export companies, one Turkish transport company, and three Kyrgyz Import companies faced arbitrary import restrictions at the Kyrgyz border on a combined total of over 1000 tons of frozen poultry. Of this total, approximately 700 tons were of certified American origin and USDA accredited. The balance is of Brazilian origin and is also internationally accredited. All 1000 tons of poultry was refused entry into the Kyrgyz Republic by the recommendation of the Veterinary Department of the Minister of Agriculture on the grounds that it might potentially be infected with avian flu. All 1000 tons then spent several weeks sitting in refrigerated trucks and rail cars at rail station Bishkek 1 and customs post Ak-Tilek pending approval of entry or dismissal.

AmCham Advocacy Step #1: Investigation

All AmCham advocacy projects start with a thorough investigation of the facts of the case, any relevant Kyrgyz and International law, and in-depth interviews with as many knowledgeable parties as possible.

In the case of the import restriction issue mentioned above, our investigation led us to interview the directors of each of the involved companies, as well as the Director of the Kyrgyz Veterinary Department, and the Director of the Kyrgyz Customs office. Additionally, we researched relevant Kyrgyz and WTO law. Our research in this case uncovered the following details:

Following are the shipping details for several of the export companies specifying date of arrival at Kyrgyz border, weight and origin of poultry

Company X

14.01.2006  45,256 kg (origin: Brazil) (Shipped via Istanbul, Turkey)

31.01.2006  247,500 kg (origin: US) (Shipped via Poti, Georgia CIS)

03.02.2006  174684 kg (origin: Brazil) (Shipped via Poti, Georgia CIS)

Company Y

06.02.2006 430,500 kg (origin: US) (Shipped via St. Petersburg)

Company Z

 10.02.2006 200,000 kg (origin: US) (Shipped via St. Petersburg)

Following is the relevant legislation culled from World Trade Organization publishings with the help of an American lawyer.

 
Over 50 railcars of chicken were held                           An anonymous call requested $80,000 to free it

*Relevant Legislation:

Article 2 paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 4 of the World Trade Organization

Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

Article 2

Basic Rights and Obligations

2. Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5.

3. Members shall ensure that their sanitary and phytosanitary measures do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, including between their own territory and that of other Members.  Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.

Article 4

Equivalence

1. Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own or from those used by other Members trading in the same product, if the exporting Member objectively demonstrates to the importing Member that its measures achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.  For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.

AmCham Advocacy Step #2: Building the Case

The above research led us to build a case leading to the following conclusion:

Such as there is no scientific evidence supporting the accusation that the American chicken in this case may be contaminated with the Avian Flu (as required by Article 2 paragraph 2 of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures*); and as all chicken is internationally certified and so must be viewed as equivalent to Kyrgyz certified chicken (as required by Article 4 of the same*); and as neither the United States nor Brazil has known cases of Avian Flu on its soil; and as trade in local poultry has not also been suspended — suggesting an unfair bias against foreign poultry (as prohibited by Article 2 paragraph 3 of the same*); therefore we must ask for a formal review of the Kyrgyz Agricultural Ministry’s acting recommendation to suspend all imports of foreign chicken, especially that of known United States origin, and to comply with this request in a timely manner as outlined in WTO guidelines.

AmCham Advocacy Step #3: Finding Stakeholders

The next step in the AmCham Advocacy process is to determine who are the stakeholders. In this import restriction case we determined that there are many organizations both private and public that will be hurt if the chicken in question is not allowed across the Kyrgyz border. A short summary of this list follows:

1. Transport Companies

2. Export and Import Companies

3. The governments of the countries considered by the Kyrgyz Republic to be "harboring bird flu."

4. The Kyrgyz people themselves (who will now be forced to pay higher chicken prices)

5. International organizations (a closed border means increased smuggling, lower tax collection, increased 

    corruption and organized crime, and greater instability).

Using the above list as a guide, we began to contact businesses, business associations, NGO's, and even foreign government representatives who shared our concern for the consequences of a total blockade of foreign poultry products at the Kyrgyz border. Some of these stakeholders ignored our request to join the fight, others supported us but did not want to become directly involved. But all we needed were to find that precious few number of organizations who are willing to become directly involved in the fight against corruption; and we found them (author's note: your allies are never who you think they will be).

AmCham Advocacy Step #4: Planning the Strategy

This step is the most important. Who in the government has the power to fix the import problem? What is the best way to convince him or her to do so? How can we work best with our stakeholders to make our advocacy as effective as possible?

In this case it was decided that the businesses involved would hold a press conference to shine light on the problem using the media as a tool. While the business associations and government representatives would right letters to the member of government responsible for stopping the poultry at the border. The AmCham would then work to organize meetings with relevant government officials who might be able to help.

 AmCham Advocacy Step #5: Working the Plan

On Monday at 3:00 we had a meeting with Kubanychbek Kulmatov, the Deputy Director of Customs regarding the chicken problem. He told us that customs cannot allow chicken to enter the country because of an order passed by Veterinary Services on 11.03.2004 forbidding the import of chicken from countries with suspected cases of bird flu.

Before this meeting, we met with the Director of Veterinary Services (a division of the Ministry of Agriculture). He told us that his office is responsible for deciding which countries make it onto the list of forbidden countries. America is not now, and never has been on that list. He also signed a letter for us stating that the chicken in question should in fact be allowed into the country.

We brought this up with the Deputy Director of Customs. He dismissed it, saying that the chicken in question passed through countries with known cases of bird flu (i.e. Turkey and Georgia) and so it might too be infected. However, the Director of Veterinary Services told us that their 03.11.2004 order does not forbid transit through countries with known bird flu cases as long as proper documentation is maintained showing the origin of the chicken to be a non-bird flu country (the chicken in question does have such documentation).

The Deputy Director of Customs refuted this too saying that he never signed any orders and it is the Director of Customs “Sarsen Omarkulov” who signed the order forbidding entry of the chicken. Also, he maintained that there is no way of knowing that the chicken really is from America even if it does have all the paperwork (i.e. it could have been switched on the train).

Omarkulov was unresponsive to our request for a meeting (all our phone calls and messages to him went unanswered for a day). We contacted Kyrgyz President Bakiev’s advisor “Bekboev” about this situation and brought him abreast of the facts of the case. He told us there was nothing he could do either (another dead end). However, all of this footwork did turn up 2 more useful pieces of evidence in this case.

1. A letter signed by the Director of the Veterinary Department “Talantbek Uzakbaev” confirming that the

    chicken in question should be allowed into the Kyrgyz Republic.

2. A letter signed by Customs Director Omarkulov forbidding the entry of the chicken in question into the Kyrgyz

    Republic.

Next, our office took part in a meeting between the Kyrgyz Director of Customs and the Economic Officer of the US Embassy. We presented the Director of Customs with the facts of the case including signed affidavits from the head of the Kyrgyz Department of Veterinary Services and asked on behalf of the United States and the American Chamber of Commerce to allow the chicken entry in the Kyrgyz Republic. Again, our request was denied.

This chicken import issue, we discovered, was no longer a simple matter of customs bureaucracy. The Kyrgyz Government itself had decided to forbid access to the Kyrgyz market of all chicken that had passed through any country with a reported a case of bird flu (even if the chicken in question is of certified US origin).

Further investigations led us to discover that this whole import fiasco was originated by one man: the Kyrgyz Deputy Prime Minister. Finally, with the discovery of a responsible party, we coordinated a letter writing campaign directed at the Deputy Prime Minister with letters from various government organizations, business associations, and the involved parties themselves.

This action, unfortunately, proved fruitless as well.

The next day we got more discouraging news. An anonymous phone call from someone within the Kyrgyz Government told us that the chicken would be released only if we were willing to offer an $80,000 gift.

The next step was to get our case heard by the Prime Minister himself.  Working in close cooperation with the American Embassy and other parties we were able to have our case heard in a private meeting between the Prime Minister, the Director of Veterinary Services, and the Minister of Health. As a result of that meeting, the Minister of Health contacted the American Embassy two days later with the news that all of the American chicken stuck at the border is now free to enter the country.

We celebrated this as a victory, but we soon learned that our celebrations were premature. The very next day after the Minister of Health ordered the chicken released, his order was blocked by the Attorney General. We redoubled our efforts.

The next evening, AmCham Director David Larson took television news crews down to the customs station where the chicken was being held. He spoke out on television about the illegal holding of the chicken and asked the Kyrgyz government to intervene. The next day, AmCham planned to hold a major press conference repeating this message.

The next day we go our greatest setback of all. When David Larson arrived at the press conference he found that the directors of the chicken companies had changed their mind and no longer wanted to appear on camera. Further investigation revealed that these men received anonymous phone calls the night before threatening them with death if they went on television again.

It took some convincing, but the directors finally agreed to go on with the press conference even in face of this new threat. In a speech on national television, the AmCham Director spoke out against this terrible act of corruption and asked individual members of society to get involved with the case. The speech made its way to radio, newspapers, and several television stations.

Outcome:

1 week after the press conference, the chicken was released, and given to its rightful owners.

The chicken is released! A victory for AmCham Kyrgyz Republic and transparent wealth creation