аЯрЁБс>ўџ dfўџџџcџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСq ПNbjbjt+t+ )bAAЗIMџџџџџџ]ъъъъъъъўўўў86 B,ў4<2‚‚(ЊЊЊ………љ;ћ;ћ;ћ;ћ;ћ;ћ;$f=єZ?о<ъ……………<ЉъъЊЊл‚ЉЉЉ…тъЊъЊљ;ўўъъъъ…љ;ЉЉЏ2У0 ъъљ;Њnр›W%˜РўўgBЫ;.World Trade OrganizationG/AG/NG/W/120 15 February 2001(01-0749)Committee on Agriculture Special SessionOriginal: English FIFTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 5-7 FEBRUARY 2001 Statement by Norway G/AG/NG/W/90 (Proposal by the EC) The EC proposal contains a number of elements that we would like to endorse. In particular, we share the proposal’s emphasis on the need for balancing trade and non-trade concerns relating to a multifunctional agriculture. Like the EC we believe that negotiations in the agricultural field would be further facilitated by broader АФУХСљКЯВЪЙйЭјзЪСЯ negotiations. We also agree that participation of developing countries, and in particular the least-developed, in the multilateral trading system should be promoted as improved market access for agricultural products is of vital importance to many developing countries as a vehicle for economic growth and poverty alleviation. Furthermore, the EC proposal underlines the need for flexibility when undertaking tariff reductions, which enables Members to take into account the particular situation of specific sectors. Given the special character of agriculture, we agree that the special safeguard clause should be continued for the purpose of providing sufficient protection against sudden import surges and price fluctuations. On export competition, it is important to treat equally the subsidy element of all export measures in order to create a more level playing field. Officially supported export credits in agriculture should as pointed out by the EC, be covered by specific АФУХСљКЯВЪЙйЭјзЪСЯ rules and disciplines. Food aid should also be subject to such treatment, without restricting the availability of genuine food aid in fully grant form and while taking fully into account possible negative effects of the reform process on net-food importing developing countries. As part of a balanced approach we acknowledge the need for stricter disciplines on export competition measures. With regard to domestic support, we agree that aid, which is variable in relation to market prices and paid on products, which are exported, can be particularly trade-distorting. As proposed by the EC such aid requires specific discipline. Furthermore, we endorse the proposal to maintain the Blue Box as well as the Green Box. Moreover, the Peace Clause should be maintained as the logical corollary of the specific nature of the Agreement on Agriculture. We also share the view of the EC that the specific role of agriculture as a provider of public goods, and thus the multifunctional role of agriculture, should be recognised. Finally, the proposal contains a number of valuable proposals relating to developing countries. Market access for products originating in LDCs should be improved in terms of predictability and product coverage. Both developed countries and the more developed developing countries should as a first step grant duty free and quota-free market access on a preferential basis for essentially all products from LDCs. We also agree with the EC proposal that necessary flexibility be provided to address developing countries’ concerns. G/AG/NG/W/91 (Proposal by Japan) Japan has submitted a comprehensive proposal. Like Japan, we would like to stress the multifunctional roles agriculture plays in society. The Japanese proposal is based on the fundamental concept of coexistence of various types of agriculture. We agree that every country should have the right, according to mutually agreed rules, to secure its agriculture. Every Member should thus be granted flexibility in national policy design to foster domestic agricultural production necessary to address domestic NTCs, based on each country’s production conditions and policy objectives. As a result of differences in production conditions between and within countries and in order to be able to sustain domestic production required to properly address NTCs, countries with a comparative disadvantage need to be allowed to have recourse to a policy measure combination that includes, to a large extent, the use of production-related policy measures. On the other hand, as outlined also in the Japanese proposal, export competition measures should not be deemed part of a long-term strategy to address NTCs. We agree with Japan that it is necessary to examine thoroughly experience gained from implementing the Uruguay Round and that agriculture cannot be sufficiently managed by market mechanisms alone. We also agree that the agricultural negotiations should be conducted and concluded in a single undertaking as part of a broad round. As regards market access, Japan has rightly pointed out that access opportunities, tariff levels, TRQ administration and safeguard mechanisms are important issues that need to be addressed. For countries with low self–sufficiency and a narrow product range resulting from for example natural production conditions domestic production of key agricultural products is sensitive to further increases in minimum access quotas. We concur with the Japanese proposal that the present basic framework of rules and disciplines on domestic support should be maintained. This implies continuing the Blue Box as well as the Green Box. Finally, we agree that due consideration should be given to the special needs of developing countries inter alia as regards food security. G/AG/NG/W/92 (Proposal by Canada) The Canadian submission contained in W/93 consists of two separate proposals. The first suggests Green Box policies to be permanently recognised as not countervailable. This is a proposal that Norway would like to endorse. The second proposal to impose an overall limit on all types of support is unfortunately not acceptable. We do not understand the rationale of capping Green Box support as long as it is non-trade distorting. The same applies to the Blue Box. Such support is subject to production-limiting programmes and therefore has only limited effects on trade. As regards amber support, such support is already subject to specific ceilings that have been reduced since the Uruguay Round. We are prepared to undertake further reductions in domestic support, and propose that a distinction should be made between AMS support to export-oriented products and to products for the home market. The latter should be subject to less stringent reduction commitments. G/AG/NG/W/94 (Proposal by Switzerland) The Swiss proposal emphasises the need to give due consideration to non-trade concerns as well as to the special needs of developing countries. The Swiss submission contains a description of their experiences from implementing the existing agreement. As stipulated in Article 20 experiences to date are to be taken into account in the negotiations, and we welcome the presentation of which effects the agreement has had in Switzerland. The proposal stresses that further analyses should be conducted and that the rules must be in keeping with the objective to achieve sustainable development. We agree that all relevant aspects have to be examined throughout the negotiations and taken into account when preparing the rules and disciplines for agricultural trade in the future. Furthermore, Switzerland, as well as other Members, has pointed to the fact that the negotiations have to meet several concerns in order to gain sufficient public support. The Swiss proposal refers to a number of such elements which we would like to endorse, for example that further reform must not only avoid harm to the environment, but that it must seek solutions favourable to the economy, to social conditions and to the environment. The promotion of sustainable development and environmental concerns should thus, as pointed out in our own proposal, be taken into account in the negotiations. We agree with Switzerland that a flexible approach to tariff reductions is needed and that tariff quotas should be administered in ways that are transparent and equitable. Like Switzerland we believe that there should be no absolute multilateral ceiling on the green box and that disciplines should be developed for all export competition instruments. Finally, we would like to echo Switzerland’s call for a coordinated and consensual approach with due consideration to the interests of all parties. G/AG/NG/W/95 (Proposal by Swaziland) We would like to thank Swaziland for its contribution and for sharing with us its national experiences and views on the continuation of the reform process. The Swaziland proposal throws light on the challenges many developing countries are facing and emphasizes the importance of pursuing reform in ways that are beneficial to all Members, including countries such as Swaziland. We endorse the view that the reform process should proceed in ways that support the development needs of developing countries and the integration of developing countries in the world economy. It is important to bear in mind the diversity of situations that exist in the developing world. While the developing countries are almost universal in their request for better market access in agriculture, some developing Members have production handicaps relating to natural, social, cultural, economic and institutional constraints and emphasize their need for keeping adequate flexibility in national policy design. Norway endorses the need to address the different concerns of developing countries in the continuation of the reform process. Furthermore, we support the proposal to extend to all developing countries the right to have recourse to the Special Safeguard mechanism. We are looking forward to further discussions of this and other proposals to address the special needs of developing countries. G/AG/NG/W/96 and G/AG/NG/W/97 (Proposals by Mauritius and SIDS) We would like to thank Mauritius for its comprehensive proposal, and we would also like to take this opportunity to commend the Mauritius delegation for the active role it has played in the AIE process and so far in the negotiations. Its interventions have clearly demonstrated the concept of diversity, which definitely is a key feature of the 140 Members of this Organisation. The special situation characterising agriculture and trade of Mauritius and other small island developing states is also eloquently elaborated in the proposal G/AG/NG/W/97 submitted by Dominica, Jamaica, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. Our comments also relate to this proposal. As noted in their proposal, the general weakness of agriculture in SIDS is a direct consequence of diseconomies of scale and scope and high unit costs of input factors and transport, relating to inherent SIDS characteristics such as smallness, remoteness, geographical dispersion, vulnerability to natural disasters and scarcity of necessary production resources. On non-trade concerns we appreciate the Mauritius view that SIDS should within a rules based framework be allowed to use appropriate means to ensure that agriculture plays its multifunctional role. In its proposal Mauritius states that particular attention should be paid to trade arrangements that procure SIDS with the means to pursue their agricultural policy objectives. Due consideration should be given to this aspect. We also believe the proposals on food security and S&D should be appropriately taken into account in the negotiations. On the issues of market access we need to pay special attention to the fact that most SIDS depend on only one or two agricultural commodities for export. While diversification efforts should be intensified, we should simultaneously ensure market access for their traditional key commodities is not eroded. Regarding domestic support, sufficient flexibility should, within mutually agreed rules, be ensured in order to allow Mauritius and the other SIDS economies to design appropriate policy combinations adapted to their special needs and production conditions. Finally, we fully endorse the proposal to maintain the peace clause in order to provide legal security to the multilaterally negotiation result in agriculture. G/AG/NG/W/98 (Proposal by Korea) We would like to welcome the Korean proposal. Like Korea we underline the need to carefully analyse the experiences and effects of the existing Agreement, as foreseen in Article 20, a) and b). Furthermore, the Korean submission contains a number of possible guidelines for the negotiations, accompanied by concrete proposals in each of the areas for negotiation. We agree with Korea that tariff reductions should be based on the final bound rates of the Uruguay Round commitments and that the special safeguard should be maintained. We also agree that the framework of amber, blue and green box support should be kept and have put forward a specific proposal in this respect. Like Korea we favour addressing direct export subsidies, export credits and state trading enterprises to create a level playing field. We also endorse the need for further developing specific measures of special and differential treatment for developing countries in the areas of market access, domestic support and export competition. Last, but not least we concur with Korea when it refers to the need to take into account the safeguarding of the multifunctionality of agriculture and the provision of public goods such as food security, environmental protection and rural development. G/AG/NG/W/100 (Proposal by Caricom) Norway would like to thank the Caricom countries for having presented their submission, which we believe points to a number of issues that we need to look very carefully at in the negotiations. The Caricom submission emphasizes the need to balance the trade and non-trade concerns, reminding us that there are important non-trade objectives that are of critical importance to Members, including many small developing countries such as the Members of Caricom. The proposals from the Caricom group, SIDS, Mauritius and Swaziland demonstrate the diversity of country situations. In the negotiations our challenge will be to arrive at conclusions which will be of benefit to all participants. The proposal underlines the importance of market access and trade preferences. Norway recognises that improved, stable and predictable market access for agricultural products is of vital importance to many developing countries as a vehicle for economic growth and poverty alleviation. The Caricom proposal on market access stresses the significance of technical and financial assistance as a means to enable developing countries to take advantage of opportunities offered by the multilateral reform programme. As the proposal is rightly pointing to, many small developing economies are at present suffering from various supply side constraints of technical, institutional or infrastructural nature. It seems that capacity building in these areas would be crucial in order to overcome such constraints and prevent small developing countries from being marginalised in the global world economy. As underlined in our proposal Norway believes trade-related technical assistance to developing countries should be increased considerably. I would also like to stress that Norway has been advocating including technical assistance on the regular АФУХСљКЯВЪЙйЭјзЪСЯ budget. Furthermore, The Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries should be reviewed in order to ensure its effective implementation. G/AG/NG/W/102 (Proposal by India) Norway would like to welcome India’s proposal, which touches upon important questions relating to food security, poverty alleviation and development. We believe India rightfully points to a number of issues that should be addressed in the negotiations. We understand and appreciate the key role that agriculture plays in most agrarian developing countries, and share the view that the sector can be essential in order to overcome poverty and food insecurity. We also agree that agriculture in developing countries is most often of a subsistence nature that does not distort global markets. Further, we understand the call for multilateral trade reform to better take account of the development needs of developing countries; both in terms of improved market access and adequate flexibility in national policy design. All in all India’s proposal underlines the specificity of the agricultural sector and that market forces alone cannot address non-trade concerns and ensure the achievement of vital national policy objectives. Having said this, we would like to point out that even though agriculture in developed countries does not contribute substantially to GDP or to employment at aggregate national levels, it does help to secure the viability of rural communities, often in remote areas. Agriculture in developed countries may also contribute to for instance protecting the environment and to obtaining long term food security. Not being measurable by GDP does not imply that non-economic, or non-trade concerns are not important. In fact, non-trade concerns are explicitly referred to and recognised in our reform mandate, as relevant to all Members. Due to unfavourable production conditions countries may not be able to safeguard their non-trade concerns without considerable government intervention. To which extent different policy measures may have negative spillover effects on other countries is an important question that needs to be addressed in our negotiations. The challenge ahead of us consists of refining the agreement on agriculture in a way that is acceptable to all of us. For instance, Norway recognises that improved market access for agricultural products is of vital importance to many developing countries as a vehicle for economic growth and poverty alleviation. We will, inter alia in order to address the concerns raised by India and many other Members, pay special attention to products of particular interest to developing countries when considering further MFN tariff reductions. Furthermore, we acknowledge the need for stricter disciplines in particular on export competition measures and AMS support to export-oriented production. However, every Member, developing as well as developed countries, should be granted flexibility in national policy design to foster production necessary to address domestic NTCs. We are looking forward to discussing these issues further with India as well as other partners in order to increase mutual understanding, take account of the needs of all Members and bring us closer to reaching the long-term objectives of the reform process. __________ G/AG/NG/W/120 Page  PAGE 4 G/AG/NG/W/120 Page  PAGE 5 -@JNwŽУФезъьэюe‰+O"KЏ$е$H*Š*Я3ђ3ы8э89GAHAIAmAЊMЋMЌMЗMЪMЫMбMвMгMдMэMюMєMѕMіMїMNNњјєђяђђђјьфђђсђђђђђнђјђђјйддбдддбдйmH jU5mH 56NH5CJOJQJmH CJ5:CJ,>* 5:CJ,: ->?@JKїђђк ађЖ„ађђž0ђђ~ $$–lж0+p#$$–l4ж+p# $$–l”ˆџ4ж+p# $d„ўЄ№$$$–l4ж+p#`$$$dh$ ->?@JKLMNgw‹ŒŽФжзыьэюЋЌ? @ Э Ю   MNdefˆ‰но)*+NO !"JKZ [ ­$Ў$Џ$е$ж$F*G*H*‰*Š*б.в.Э3Ю3Я3ё3ђ3ы8ь8э899Ш;Щ;щ<ъ<GAHAIAlAmAxEyEєGѕGБIВI§§§ћ§§ћ§§љћ§љћ§§ћ§§§ћ bKLMNgw‹ŒŽФжзыьэюЋЌ? @ Э Ю њњьјњњфижжггггжжгжжжжжжжж$ $$–lж+p#$ ЦаТ@$$–l”`џж+p#$$Ю   MNdefˆ‰но)*+NO !"JKZ [ ­$Ў$Џ$е$ж$F*§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§F*G*H*‰*Š*б.в.Э3Ю3Я3ё3ђ3ы8ь8э899Ш;Щ;щ<ъ<GAHAIAlAmAxEyEєGѕG§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ѕGБIВIЅLІLЊMЋMЌMЗMеMжMзMиMјMљMњMћMќM§MўMџMNNNNNN§§§§§§§њёёё§шшш§ц§ц§ф§ц§§њGH G$ Ц 9r B#B G$ Ц 9r  $ВIЅLІLЊMЋMЌMЗMеMжMзMиMјMљMњMћMќM§MўMџMNNNNNN§њњјњњњјѕјѕјњјѕјјH G G' 0&P Аƒ. АШA!А "А #а$ %ААSI [4@ёџ4Normal $ ЦаCJmH F"F Heading 1$„а„0§Є№@& Ца5;J2J Heading 2"$ & F~„а„0§Є№@& Цh:JBJ Heading 3"$ & F„а„0§Є№@& Цh5FRF Heading 4"$ & F€„а„0§Є№@& Цh@@ Heading 5 & F„а„0§Є№@&6.. Heading 6 Є№@&.. Heading 7 Є№@&.. Heading 8 Є№@&. . Heading 9 Є№@&<A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraph Font4Tђ4 Block Text„ „ Є№8B8 Body Text & FyЄ№ Цh6P6 Body Text 2  & FzЄ№:Q": Body Text 3 & F{„pЄ№Hў2H Body Text 4 & F|„p„0§Є№ Ц8pRMRRBody Text First Indent & F„а Ца<Cb<Body Text Indent „аЄ№HNarHBody Text First Indent 2„аFR‚FBody Text Indent 2„аdрЄ№DS’DBody Text Indent 3 „аЄ№CJ:+Ђ: Endnote Text $ ЦаCJ\$В\Envelope Address&€„@ „ќџ„єџ„№/„Д+DМ CJOJQJ8&@ЂС8Footnote ReferenceH*6в6 Footnote Text„аCJ* *Index 1 „н„#џ.!т. Index Heading$/$List „а„0§(2(List 2 !„ „0§(3"(List 3 "„а„а(42(List 4 #„p„0§(5B(List 5 $„ „а20R2 List Bullet % & F‚D6bD List Bullet 2& & Fƒ„ „0§ ЦƒH7rH List Bullet 3' & F„„а„ Цžа@H8‚H List Bullet 4( & F…„p„0§ ЦЙ H9’H List Bullet 5) & F†„ „ Цд 6DЂ6 List Continue *„аЄ№>EВ>List Continue 2+„а„аЄ№:FТ:List Continue 3 ,„ Є№>Gв>List Continue 4-„ „аЄ№>Hт>List Continue 5.„p„0§Є№81ђ8 List Number/ & F‡ ЦhD:D List Number 20 & Fˆ„ „0§ ЦƒD;D List Number 31 & F‰„а„ ЦžD<"D List Number 42 & FŠ„p„0§ ЦЙD=2D List Number 53 & F‹„ „ Цд4ZR4 Plain Text5 CJOJQJ*Jb*Subtitle6$@&<,<Table of Authorities7<#<Table of Figures 8 Ца€,>’,Title9$ 5;KH*ўЂ*Title 2:$>**ўВ*Title 3;$66ўТ6 Title Country<$;... TOA Heading=5DDTOC 1!>$„а„а„0§Є<Є< Цp# 5;BBTOC 2!?$„а„а„0§Є<Є< Цp# :DDTOC 3$@$„а„а„0§Є<Є< Цаp#@J5>>TOC 4!A$„а„а„0§Є<Є< Цp# BBTOC 5!B$„а„а„0§Є<Є< Цp# 6>>TOC 6C$„а„аЄ<Є< Цp# CJ>>TOC 7D$„а„LЄ<Є< Цp# CJ>>TOC 8E$„а„)Є<Є< Цp# CJ>>TOC 9F$„а„Є<Є< Цp# CJ.@r.HeaderG Ц а9r . @‚.FooterH Ц а9r J bџџџџ!DFHJLON)KЮ F*ѕGN*,-./ВIN+06=?O!дџ•€!дџ•€№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№@INWXZ‡‹x|ей_4q4 5535:5л5т5з6о6ј6џ6я8і8#;/;ŸHЃHЗIЪIдIэIїIJJ./DH`aђѓЧШkl??гдZ[[\uv‚ƒРСіїћќ    Џ А " # э ю З И   вг=>ЄЄ*+гдz{€’“˜™((žŸњћ01š›‘мнZ[Ÿ Ќ Ќ S"T"##u#v#И$Й$У%Ф%u'v'((c)d)™+š+K,L,і,ї,‘-’-*.+.,/-/Е0Ж0`1a1ж5з5с6с688Ь9Э9Š:‹:M;N;V=l=m=n=>>l>m>П?Р?G@H@yAzAŒAŒACCzC{CѕCіCŽDD9E:EВEГEёGђGІHЇHЌIЖIЗIЪIдIжIзIзIиIэIїIљIћIJJџџ Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.doc Greenleaves[\\Hudson6\Agcd\#Agcd\AGRI\Special Session\Ngw-St'ment, subs, proposal\W120-state-Norway.docBardin.\\Hudson5a\DMS\dmssys\work\2001\1\10\1085d.doc Ungphakorn~C:\Users\ungphakorn\ALL_WORK\WTO ISSUES\MY COMMITTEES\Agriculture\NEGOTIATIONS\countries_papers\statements\ngw120_norway_e.doc|џџџђRжƒ3џџџџџџџџ}џџџ^Ѕ† 2џџџџџџџџ~џџџЎAЮ1џџџџџџџџџџџЦЭќн0џџџџџџџџ€џџџ:ІЪU)џџџџџџџџџџџpк|(џџџџџџџџ‚џџџŽ{юЬ'џџџџџџџџƒџџџ8rв…&џџџџџџџџˆџџџўЭі…џџџџџџџџџ‰џџџЮєьџџџџџџџџџ47У d№ˆtџџџџџџџџџ'zо,Rњuџџџџџџџџџ“‚ц•џџџџџџџџџ]<湉и9/ƒO'89=џџџџџџџџџ >ў%А7шИ%Г&'+p№ЏџџџџџџџџџиЩ20Y>Oю?О>xkџџџџџџџџџл,A| џ„д„˜ўЦд.„Й„˜ўЦЙ.„ž„˜ўЦž.„ƒ„˜ўЦƒ. „д„˜ўЦдOJQJo(З№ „Й„˜ўЦЙOJQJo(З№ „ž„˜ўЦžOJQJo(З№ „ƒ„˜ўЦƒOJQJo(З№„h„˜ўЦh. „h„˜ўЦhOJQJo(З№„а„0§Ца.„а„0§Ца.„а„0§Ца.„а„0§Ца()„„Цh.„ „0§Ц ()„p„0§Цp()„ „Ц()„p„Ц@ ()„„Цho(„ „0§Ц o(()„p„0§Цpo(()џ„p„0§Цpo(-„а„0§Цаo(()„ „0§Ц o(()џ„ „0§Ц o(-„p„0§Цpo(()„@ „0§Ц@ o(()„„Ца.„„Цh()„„Ца()џ„„Цh(a)џ„„„„Цh.џ„„Цh-џ„ „0§Ц -„ „0§Ц ()„„Цho(.„а„˜ўЦа^„а`„˜ўOJPJQJ^Jo(-€ „ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „p„˜ўЦp^„p`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№€ „@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ўOJQJo(З№€ „„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „р„˜ўЦр^„р`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№€ „А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ўOJQJo(З№€ „€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ўOJQJo(o€ „P„˜ўЦP^„P`„˜ўOJQJo(Ї№ „а„0§ЦаOJQJo(-№„„Ца.„„Ца.„„Ца.„„Ца()„„Ца()„„Ца.„ „0§Ц ()„ „0§Ц ()џ„7„i§Ц7-„„Ца.„„Цh.„„Цh.„„Цh)„„Ца)„„Цh.„ „0§Ц )„ „0§Ц )џ„8„h§Ц8-„„Ца.„„Ца.„„Ца.„„Ца()„„Ца()„„Ца.„ „0§Ц ()„ „0§Ц ()џ„7„i§Ц7-„h„˜ўЦho(.џџџиЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ247У иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2‰џџџ >ў%ƒџџџƒџџџ‚џџџ‚џџџџџџџџџ€џџџ€џџџˆџџџџџџ~џџџ~џџџ}џџџ}џџџ|џџџ|џџџ'zоиЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ247У иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2 >ў%ƒџџџ‚џџџџџџЖФџџџБе<жџџџ~џџџ}џџџ|џџџ'zо“иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ247У иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2 >ў%ƒџџџ‚џџџџџџЖФџџџБе<жџџџ~џџџ}џџџ|џџџ'zоOю?иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ247У иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2 >ў%ƒџџџ‚џџџџџџЖФџџџБе<жџџџ~џџџ}џџџ|џџџ'zоГ&'+Г&'+Г&'+л,A|Г&'+Г&'+Г&'+Г&'+иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ247У иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2 >ў%ƒџџџ‚џџџџџџЖФџџџБе<жџџџ~џџџ}џџџ|џџџ'zоиЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ247У иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2иЩ2 >ў%ƒџџџ‚џџџџџџЖФџџџБе<жџџџ~џџџ}џџџ|џџџ'zоƒO'џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ@ €№™JР@G‡ŸTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡ŸArial?5 ‡ŸCourier New;€Wingdings#1ˆаhоƒRІоƒRІСzR†Љ Ш<л х=„!ЅРДД€0dЄJРH1@ џџ7C:\program files\microsoft office\templates\WTODoce.dotRESTRICTEDCode Greenleaves Ungphakornўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0|˜АМам№  , 8 D P\dltфRESTRICTEDCodeEST Greenleavesree АФУХСљКЯВЪЙйЭјзЪСЯDoce.dot Ungphakorn2gpMicrosoft Word 8.0@@жЃ26—Р@$>ё$˜Р@$>ё$˜РЉ Ш<ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎDеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ<ј hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М зфАФУХСљКЯВЪЙйЭјзЪСЯЄJ1 RESTRICTEDCode TitleШ(NVЎ _PID_GUIDSymbol1фAN{711360E7-97E8-11D1-BD86-000629B04860}G/AG/NG/W/1202  !"#$%&'()*+,-./01ўџџџ3456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRўџџџTUVWXYZўџџџ\]^_`abўџџџ§џџџeўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF йC%˜РPлz%˜Рg€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ28@WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ)bSummaryInformation(џџџџSDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ[CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџPлz%˜РPлz%˜РџџџџџџџџџџџџР ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq