hvogt, you are, of course, correct. In the UK this RP is interpreted as the CGA needing some load bearing capability although not that needed of the movement area.
In my view this seems like a reasonable interpretation and 'minimize hazards arising from differences in load bearing capacity' is likely to be achieved by a gradual change in load bearing characteristics as you get further from the runway. Hence the CGA needs to be load bearing to an extent - a property that is not required, either explicitly or implied, by other surfaces around a runway (at least that's how I remember it).
But hvogt is correct to point out that the ICAO needs some interpretation.