ࡱ>  @ abjbj5*5* +zW@W@Y$$$8$$%<R`%`%v%v%v%v%v%v%QQQQQQQ$ SR]ULQg*v%v%g*g*Qv%v%Q . . .g*v%v%Q .g*Q . .jJ0LQv%T% e-$*~P2QQ0RQ2Ug,UdLQULQHv%,& .x'$(Cv%v%v%QQ$$-$8436 aid for trade press conference with the director-general 21 November 2007 Chairperson (Keith Rockwell) Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Thank you for your patience. Welcome to this press conference with Director-General Lamy and Deputy Director-General Valentine Rugwabiza. The Director-General will have a brief opening statement and then the DG and Valentine will take your questions. We'll have about thirty minutes. Director-General, please. Director-General Thanks, Keith. As you know, we've just finished this General Council session which was closing this first Aid for Trade global review. The first time international organizations spanning the World Bank, the IMF, UNDP, UNCTAD, OECD, Regional Development Banks, including the Islamic Development Bank, ILO, UPO and others have got together here in the ϲʹ to send a strong message that they stand together in moving forward Aid for Trade. You had a chance to see and hear this yourselves yesterday. As you well know, the ϲʹ's core business is about creating trade opportunities through market opening and equitable disciplines. But, as you probably also know, we do not create trade flows. We pull with a string obstacles to trade from various places but you can't push with a string. And that's where Aid for Trade comes in. Aid for Trade is about generating trade flows and making through various capacity improvements trade feed into growth and growth into poverty alleviation for developing countries. So it's distant, separate agenda from the Round. The mandates we were given were given for the Round in 2001, for Aid for Trade in 2005. There is no ex ante conditionality of any sort between the Round and Aid for Trade. Different tracked, a fire wall. But in reality a potential synergy. What we're trying to do is, at the end of the day, enhance donors' contributions. That's the mandate we got, mobilizing more resources for Aid for Trade. But we know that, in order to do that, we have to gather a number of elements, parameters, structures, people, around the table. And that's what we've been doing. In terms of numbers, you have this Aid for Trade "At A Glance" review where you will find the numbers and we are glad we could do it because it might help you translating these complex issues for readers, viewers, or listeners. You've seen the big numbers. We now have a baseline which is the 02/05 (2005?) average for Aid for Trade, which is to the tune of USD 20 billion. And we know that what we've heard, the commitments that have been taken, or confirmed, takes us somewhere to the tune of USD30 billion for 2010. Does this suffice to match the commitments which were taken at Gleneagles? Probably not. And more to come. But for the moment I think we can roughly say that we are on track in terms of commitments. What we also heard, and that's essential, a huge involvement of recipient countries, who now have taken new steps to clarify their priorities, to stabilize them, to discuss a number of these priorities at regional level, and we all know that this regional level is more and more crucial as international division of labour proceeds. When the port of Dar es Salaam is jammed, it's not only Tanzania who has a problem, but it's also Botswana, Rwanda, Uganda. And that's a reality we have to cope with. Now I know that issues like monitoring and evaluation and having the right numbers or the right databases will not make headlines, but I need a bit of your understanding for the time you spend on that, because it also is the benchmark against which progress can be measured, including by you. We have to provide you with the numbers that allow you all to make the right judgement, which is one of the next steps which we agreed. What is our intention in terms of next steps? Basically two fields of progress. First, the numbers. The sort of analytical toolbox. What we've heard, and we will certainly take this onboard, even if it sometimes slows down the production number, which we've heard repeatedly during these two days, is that developing countries also want to own the numbers. It's a fact that most of the numbers which are produced until now are produced by donors and they are, as expected, influenced by the constituencies to which donors report. This is something we need to improve. We cannot in looking at these numbers, whether they are financial flows, whether they are performance indicators, whether they are results indicators, rely on methodologies which are only donor driven. And there is progress to be made in this direction. And that's one of the things we need to factor into our number crunching as we also improve and the OECD people are very good at that depending on the feedback we get on our number, the next version being better. So that's the first area. The second one is to land this exercise in more practicalities, more country focus, more region focus, and more sector focus. And sector wise, we've now heard repeatedly infrastructures, transport, energy, telecoms, customs facilitation, trade finance, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, as priorities which come again, again and again, and in which we now need to dig together with other international organizations. That's what we will do next year. And I have said to the General Council a few minutes ago that the formula of regional Aid for Trade reviews, which has worked well this time, notably because of the heavy involvement of the regional development banks in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and we can probably extend that to other regions, will be replicated in 2008. Last point, and then I'll go to your questions. In terms of ambiance, you've witnessed that yourself, it's an area where there is a lot of cooperation, very little friction, and I must say I'm extremely grateful to all our colleagues in other organizations, that they've succeeded in muzzling the normal bureaucratic frictions that appear when people start coordinating, monitoring, or evaluating. I think we've succeeded, which is a first step, not the whole of the exercise, but the first step, in establishing Aid for Trade as a priority in the trade community, in the development community, in the finance community, in the planning community, and that for the first time since at least my professional experience has shown connecting together trade people, finance people, development people, planning people, can yield a lot of improvement just by establishing the necessary connection and the necessary trust between these actors, and after all, connection and trust is something that takes us back to our core business in the ϲʹ. Thanks for your attention. We now have a bit of time for questions and answers. Chairperson First question, please, for Sheila Mathrani. Didn't you have your finger up, Sheila? Sheila Mathrani Well, no, but I certainly would like to ... Chairperson Please go ahead. Sheila Mathrani Well, how many Heads of international institutions came here? And what was their reaction, particularly of the Asian Development Bank? Director-General I mean, I don't have a number. My score board is not the number of people I have at lunch or during a meeting, but I mean, most of you were there yesterday, I don't think we've ever gathered such a large number of heavyweights in this business in the ϲʹ. The Asian Development Bank has been onboard from the very beginning. If you've looked at the numbers, you might have noticed that on the sort of USD20 billion baseline for Aid for Trade that we use, Asia itself is for a larger part of this USD20 billion than Africa and Latin America together. Asia is in the tune of 11 on this 20/21, and the rest is for Latin America, Africa, and some Central European countries. So Aid for Trade, infrastructure-building, capacity-building, knowledge-building, is something that the Asian Development Bank has been doing for years. We saw that when we were together in Manila in this review which we co-sponsored. And the headquarters of the Asian Development Bank are in Manila. No coincidence that we started there. So very good support, very good push. And what I understand is happening in the Asian Development Bank is that in the old times it was the management of the Asian Development Bank who were sort of pushing its members on Aid for Trade. The thing has now moved the other way round. Its the members, the board members, of the countries, who now are pushing the management on Aid for Trade. And that's exactly what we try and do. Chairperson Question, Jonathan please. Jonathan Lynn Yes, what reassurances do you have that the planned increase in Aid for Trade to USD30billion, will not simply be a diversion of other money that would have gone into overseas development aid in other sectors. Director-General Well I mean, we have no assurance of that. But we can track it. And we can track it rather simply. The DAC numbers are there. And the proportion of Aid for Trade in overall development assistance is tracked by our numbers. And, by the way, if you look at the 02/05 baseline which is the average we are using, during this period Aid for Trade was a decreasing proportion of overall development assistance. Now it may be that debt alleviation has played a role in this, but my short answer to your short question, is this shows in the numbers we could use. Chairperson Brad, please, and then Jamil. Brad Klapper What types of aid were decided not to be Aid for Trade? What were excluded from the basket? And is there some sort of understanding of the quantifiable effect that Aid for Trade had in the benchmark period? Can you say how that produced in exports, or trade growth? Director-General The answer to your first question is in this booklet. I'll give you the page. It's just before the chapter on methodological considerations. It's the tables which are from pages 60 onwards. And you can find the various definitions of what we include in Aid for Trade, the various, by difference, definitions of what's not included in Aid for Trade, and the sector identified contributions that are gathered by the DAC is approximately 60 to 65 billion a year, on a total of ODA which is probably around the magnitude of 100 billion a year. So we focus on one part of that, which fits with the definitions which you get in the methodological table. And we've discussed the methodologies, and there's no table in the law in methodologies for this sort of thing. It's work in progress. You have this. You can ask questions, improve it, if there are things which are wrong in there, like anybody. Again, it's work in progress. But it's reasonably stabilized now, after the 18 months which we've passed on that and the World Bank, UNDP, UNCTAD, and OECD, us, have the sort of same methodological frame now. But, as I've often said, we've outsourced most of the technical work to the OECD experts, because that's where the expertise worldwide is in the Development Committee of the OECD. On your second question, we do not have yet, indicators of performance, or results that could link a certain volume of Aid for Trade to a certain volume of trade. This is in the making. It's formidably complex because the volumes of trade depend on lots of factors: currency evaluations, conjunctural determinations, the evolution of competition by another exporting country, and many of these factors are not related to Aid for Trade. So it's complex. We can, of course, improve the statistical apprehension of this, but that's why we need to work more on indicators, and that's why we need recipient countries to be part of this work of indicators. For the moment we have a few things extracted from various panels or polling or enquiries. Part of, for instance, the World Bank, "Doing Business" report, not all, but part of that, if you take an indicator like the time it takes to clear a container in a country, it's a reasonable approximation, and if we invest in trade facilitation and in customs modernization, this shows. So that's a relatively simply case. We have 5, 10, 15 indicators of this kind in mind. But it takes a bit of time to move people in this performance direction, but the World Bank has started doing this, the IMF does it, a number of Nordic countries do it, so we can move on this. Chairperson Jamil, please. Jamil Chade Mr Lamy, I have a question on the use of this Aid for Trade. We've seen, for years actually, that food aid is a way of subsidizing also the exports of developed countries. What assurances do you have that the money that is going to be sent, I mean, the Aid for Trade, will not be, let's say, conditioned to investments by the countries who gave the money to buy the equipment or the technical assistance, or whatever you're going to offer, from themselves, in a way subsidizing it again. Then we will need a new round to negotiate rules on Aid for Trade. Is that, I mean, how will you guarantee this? Director-General I don't guarantee this. This huge question on whether development assistance is tied or untied, is still open. There is no international agreement that would bind a sovereign Westphalian nation states into a rule that development assistance is untied as from date "X". And I don't think there's any prospect for getting that soon, even with an extremely atavistic view of what the international system can produce. So, no guarantee of this. There are codes of conduct. There are OECD principles for OECD Members. The Americans have gone in the direction of delinking. The Europeans did it under the influence of the Nordics, quite a long time ago. So no guarantee. And in terms of conditionality, we know that what we're trying in Aid for Trade, we're not changing each and every of the machineries that have been established to provide for official development assistance. This is an option which was considered during the work of the Task Force which worked last year under the Chairmanship womanship of Mia Horn, and, at the end of the day, the orientation that was taken is we're not going to recreate a new big missionary with its own conditionality. So we coordinate, we improve the synergies, we make it more transparent, so that donors and recipients have a sort of clearer matching capacity. In the case of Food Aid, that's an area where new disciplines will appear as a result of the Round. They've been negotiated since 2001. And they are based on the sort of non-commercial displacement concept. So that's an area where we will have, if and when we finish the Round, binding rules that clearly go in the direction of cash more than kind and the kind will be and that's what's already in the papers which Crawford circulated, including last week is much more disciplined than it used to be. But I don't think we will go this time about Food Aid in saying well, if we sell something, then you will buy that, or the other way around. I mean, that's, at this stage, outside of our remit, assuming it would be wishable. Chairperson Yes please, on the left. Unknown speaker Yes, what do you say to those who claim that Aid for Trade is a compensation, a cover-up for the Doha Round deadlock, and when do you expect the Doha Round to conclude? What we hear mentioned these days because there is talk is June or July of next year for a first agreement. What do you think? Director-General On the first question, I speak for the most part to journalists; it is they who ask me how I would answer that question. Only once have I been asked that question by a non-governmental organization, although I have been asked it 55 times over the past year. I suppose there are people with an enormous capacity to make you ask that question, because I have answered it and re-answered it time and again. In certain non-governmental organizations there is a concern which, as I understand it, is based, as it were, on the assumption that for the 120 or so developing countries among the 151ϲʹ Members to accept an outcome to the negotiations that does not live up to their expectations, that outcome has to be counterbalanced elsewhere by promises of financial assistance. This is not serious, it bears no resemblance to the truth. As the developing countries have repeated time and again, as I have repeated, and as the donors have repeated, these are two distinct mandates: there was no talk of Aid for Trade when the negotiations began in 2001 we began to talk seriously of Aid for Trade in Hong Kong in 2005; the fact is, there are no conditionalities linking Aid for Trade with the results of the Round. There has simply been a growing awareness of the fact that what many developing countries stand to gain from the negotiations, i.e. market access as I mentioned, cannot become a reality as long as they lack the capacity to take advantage of those gains. It's as simple as that. I don't think we should be seeing conspiracy theories everywhere. I understand perfectly well that people may be concerned, but I don't see anything in the facts, in what has been accomplished, in what has been said, in our projects, in the projects of the World Bank, of UNCTAD, of UNDP, of UNIDO or the FAO, that bears any resemblance to all that. So as far as I'm concerned the idea is an odd one in any case it is not based on any reality, and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is not what is happening. Turning to your second question: can we conclude the negotiations that we begun in Doha in 2001 within next year? Yes, I think it's possible. Will this necessarily require a prior agreement on what we call, in our jargon, the agricultural and industrial modalities? Yes. We are still steering that course, which is the course that Members decided to follow in other words we have to unblock the issue of the modalities for agricultural subsidies, agricultural tariffs and industrial tariffs before we complete the rest of the agenda. Will we be able to agree on the modalities before the end of the year? No. I think that is now a certainty. Will it have to happen at the beginning of next year if we are to conclude the negotiations on all of the issues within next year? Yes, I think that is the kind of timing we have in mind. Chairperson The next question is for Assis. Go ahead, Assis. Assis Moreira Mr Lamy, have you had or detected any sign of flexibility on the part of certain countries like the United States, among others, in the agricultural area because we see the prices of agricultural products steadily increasing, and this could facilitate adjustment, a stronger commitment to cut back subsidies, since the producers don't need them as much; and this appears to be a structural change in the international agricultural market. Hence my second question, which is in fact linked to the first: do you think that the increase in agricultural prices could perhaps contribute to an earlier conclusion of the Round? Director-General I hardly know where to begin (laughter). I think there is a whole set of factors involved in the increase in agricultural commodity prices on the international market, some of them structural, and some of them cyclical. Exactly how much of each? Take climatic data, for example, which is more cyclical although nowadays people are saying that climatic data is becoming structural, particularly as regards drought. And all this competition with bio-energy, is it cyclical or structural? There is a mixture of the two, in any case, and there is certainly a structural element, but the fact is that nobody really knows how to measure it properly. My feeling is that there is a discrepancy between the time-span for these developments, including the cyclical part of these developments those that appear in the media and the ϲʹ's time-frame. At the ϲʹ, we began in 1985 to discuss disciplines that will probably be valid until, say, 2010 in other words, we are talking along the lines of 25 years. When we began thinking about the first agricultural disciplines in 1985, just before launching the Uruguay Round, we had a context and concepts that served as a basis for regulations which, if we complete the Round, the next one, will still be in force in 2009, so that inevitably the actors that influence these negotiations, the people who take positions, the Ministers, the negotiators, the governments, those who, behind the scenes, push them in one direction or another, are not thinking in terms of six months, one year, or even five years. The time-span in which we are operating, the time-span for the regulation of international trade, is a long one. It is a vast structure compared to the problems of commodities, and in any case those who are resisting additional disciplines, in relation to subsidies for example, those who are resisting tariff cuts, who often accept short-term tariff cuts because it can alleviate the problem of food prices, if you listen to them, what they are saying is we are not at all sure that this is going to last. So I think, all things considered, that there is no "anaesthetizing" effect, so to speak, nor is there any pushing effect, except marginally. It is possible that certain agricultural exporters are a bit less focussed on the need to deal with these questions on the grounds that all is well. But I think this is only very marginal for the simple reason that we are not working on the same time-scales. Chairperson We have time for one more. Questions. Yes, please. Unknown speaker Excuse me for this straight question. Is it right to say that there is no hope that there would be any kind of agreement or breakthrough or whatever before the end of this year? Director-General I mean, there is no good question or bad question or straight questions or non-straight questions. What are the others if your question is a straight question? It's only about the answers. I don't expect a, what you call, "breakthrough", which would be a major development in the negotiation, that would materialize by a sort of formal agreement before the end of this year. It's cooking. It's moving. And I think that those of you who follow both Agriculture and NAMA negotiations know that. It's on the front burner. No doubt about this. But it takes a bit of time. And the conventional wisdom, and the sort of view we've established is that rather than producing half-baked compromise proposals, the final baking of which might be bumpy, Members prefer to do a good, long, sometimes slow, cooking, which will take us into next year, both for the production of compromise papers and a fortiori for their adoption. It's slow but some civilizations know that very good cooking can sometimes be very slow. Chairperson Thanks to all of you, very much. __________ -  PAGE 7 - Uq " # $ {WX""""")#4#5#I#X###)))))**,--#-/-B.R.88888;(;6CACBC^CmCnCoCC D DD'D1DFDSDDDDDDD>EHEWEYE%F)F9FGFFFh7C h7Ch7C h'hhZh>* hBh h6 h|>h h>*hhNABSTUrs$ % $gd"gdgdaa  KL12XY$%JK0"1""""gd""""""""(#)#5#6#H#I#Y#Z#####$$))))))))gd)****,,--"-#-0-1-j-k---A.B.S.T.c3d3888888$$gdgd888;;);*;C;D;<<P@Q@5C6CBCCC]C^CnCoCDDDDLLOO$$gd7CgdFFFFFFFFFG>GBGGGLGuGvGGGGGGHKHHHIII"IAIHIWI[IIIIIIIJJAJEJhJsJZKbKaLcLnLvL{LLLLLLLLLLLMMM#N4NNNOOOOOOOPP(P)PhmH sH hZh>* h>* hh h'h h7Ch7Ch7ChNOOO(P)P7P8PRRRRg\h\t\u\\\\\\\\\s]t]]]F^G^agd)P6P8PAPKPNPRPZPPPNQXQQQR%RyRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSNTXT`TaTkT{TUU^U}UUUUUUUUUVVVV.W5W X XXXXXXXYY7Y8YVYhY ZZZZZZ[ [[[^[hh2t h>*hh5h7Ch hhhmH sH h>*mH sH P^[`[[[[[^\_\g\h\s\t\\\\t]]aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaɸhpqdhpqd0JmHnHu h0Jjh0JU h5 h6 h*hhZh>* h>* h0hhh"aaaaaaaaaaaa5$a$gd$a$gd$$gdgd ) 0:p. A!"#$%6J@J Normal$ a$CJ_HmH sH tH P@"P H Heading 1$$ & F6@&5;KH aJF@2F H Heading 2$$ & F6@&:F@BF H Heading 3$$ & F6@&5B@RB H Heading 4$$ & F6@&F@F H Heading 5$$ & F6@&666  Heading 6 @&66  Heading 7 @&DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List :B@: H Body Text  & F6.)@.  Page NumberDP@D H Body Text 2 & F6 DQ@"D H Body Text 3 & F6 DO2D H Body Text 4 & F6 >+B>  Endnote Text$a$CJ@&@Q@ Footnote ReferenceH*B@bB Footnote Text `CJ: : Index 1#^`#6!r6  Index Heading:0:  List Bullet  & F;T6T  List Bullet 2  & F< 0^`0X8X  List Bullet 4# & F> p0^p`0@1@  List Number & FD hT:T  List Number 2  & F@ 0^`0<Z<  Plain Text CJOJQJ6J@6 Subtitle $@&a$D,D Table of Authorities D#D Table of Figures ! 6>@"6 Title"$a$ 5;KH4O24 Title 2#$a$>*4OB4 Title 3$$a$6@OR@ Title Country%$a$;6.6  TOA Heading&5Z@Z TOC 10'$ p# 0<<]^`0a$5;X@X TOC 20($ p# 0<<]^`0a$:\@\ TOC 33)$ p#@J0<<]^`0a$5T@T TOC 40*$ p# 0<<]^`0a$X@X TOC 50+$ p# 0<<]^`0a$6PP TOC 6(,$ p# <<]^a$CJPP TOC 7(-$ p# L<<]^La$CJPP TOC 8(.$ p# )<<]^)a$CJPP TOC 9(/$ p# <<]^a$CJh$h Envelope Address!0@ &+D/^@ CJOJQJBOB Quotation1]^PO"P Quotation Double2]^TO2T Footnote Quotation3]^CJ4 @B4 Footer 4 C#:@R: Header5$ C#a$YzABSTUrs$%  KL1 2 X Y $ %   JK01()56HIYZ!!!!!!!!""""$$%%"%#%0%1%j%k%%%A&B&S&T&c+d+0000000033)3*3C3D344P8Q85;6;B;C;];^;n;o;<<<<DDGGGG(H)H7H8HJJJJgThTtTuTTTTTTTTTsUtUUUFVGVYYYYYYYYYY0X00"0x0"00$0000000000000x0x000x0x0x0x0x00x000000000000x00000000x000000000000000000000000000000x0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0x0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0x0(0x00000000000000x00000000000000x0808080808008080 080808080x0@0x0@000H00H0H0x00x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0 000X0 @500jl Y0RlF)P^[a18:; ")8Oaa245679<a3 ! T|?T$TT߭TگTTL٭T4iT<TliTlTQTtTlTJTjTTT T|!T"B} } "_n[[DDY     R &ltaaDDY 8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplaceB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity 11200721DayMonthYear0A@ACCCCCCCCHH!H&HS(<447 v&`'zdv]<  >%9p&'+c2'(&#Q@  E 8'I UnI ^[ ]c ^`.^`.^`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(0^`0.0^`0.0^`0.0^`0()h^`.0^`0()p0p^p`0()^`()p@ ^p`()h^`o(0^`0o(()p0p^p`0o(()p0p^p`0o(-0^`0o(()0^`0o(()0^`0o(-p0p^p`0o(()@ 0@ ^@ `0o(()h^`o(. 0^`0OJQJo(-^`.^`.^`.^`()^`()^`.0^`0()0^`0()7i7^7`i- 0^`0o(hH. 0^`0o(hH. 0^`0o(hH. 0^`0o(hH() 0^`0o(hH() ^`o(hH. 0^`0o(hH() p0p^p`0o(hH() p0p^p`0o(hH- hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.O222247 22222 >%~~}}||222247 22222 >%~}|222247 22222 >%<'z&'+&'+&'+&'+8'I]c E^[UnI#Q@  &)Q9Mpqd2t7C^Z(H^@TT TTY@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New"qhrrd YL-d YL-!24dYY3QH)0&)8436jamescostellod                 Oh+'0p  , 8 DPX`h8436james Normal.dot costello2Microsoft Word 10.0@F#@-@-d YL՜.+,0 hp|  ϲʹ-Y 8436 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=?@ABCDEGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqstuvwxy{|}~Root Entry F ֲ-Data >1TableF VWordDocument+zSummaryInformation(rDocumentSummaryInformation8zCompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q