WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
17 March 2003
(03-1525)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  English
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(b) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS ON
FINDING A SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT THEREOF CAUSED BY
INCREASED IMPORTS
LATVIA
The following communication, dated 10 March 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Latvia.
_______________G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 2
I. DECISION NO. 03/2003
17 February 2003
On approval of the report on results of the safeguards investigation concerning increased
quantity of imports of swine and specific pork products
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the law “On Safeguards”, the Report of the
State Bureau of Trade Defence on results of the safeguards investigation concerning increased
quantity of imports of swine and specific pork products is hereby approved.
Report on the results of the safeguards inve stigation concerning increased quantity of imports
of swine and specific pork products
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. On 1 July 2002, under the provisions of Article 6 of the law “On Safeguards” and the
preliminary evidence obtained, the State Bureau of Trade Defence  (hereinafter referred to as the
SBTD) adopted a decision (hereinafter referred to as the Decision) on initiation of investigation
against increased quantity of imports of swin e and specific pork products (Decision No. 09/2002,
published in the issue No. 99 (2674) of the official gazette of the Republic of Latvia “Latvijas
Vēstnesis” on 3 July 2002).
2. The investigation was initiated pursuant to the application (hereinafter referred to as the
Application) submitted on 31 May 2002 by the co-operative company Latvian Pig-Breeders
Association (hereinafter referred to as the LPBA) asking for introduction of safeguard measures for
adjustment of the pork market. The preliminary evidence on the injury caused to the domestic pig
breeders by increasing imports of swine and specific pork products were presented in the Application.
On 17 June 2002 the LPBA submitted an Annex to the aforementioned Application where particularitems stated in the Application were specified. By this Annex, the LPBA submitted also the Pork
industry development program (Author: Latvian State Cattle Breeding and Veterinary Science
Research Centre Institute “SIGRA”, Sigulda, year 1995) and Latvian Swine-Breeding Pedigree Work
Results Implementation Program for years 2002 – 2007 (concerted with Agricultural Branches and
Processing Development Department of th e Ministry of Agriculture, year 2001).
3. On 2 July 2002, the SBTD notified all known interested parties to the investigation:
• sent a request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia to notify
the governments of the exporting countries  (USA, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Estonia, United Kingdom, Lithuania, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Spain, Finland, Germany, Sweden) about the initiation of the
investigation and a request to notify the exporters as the foreign exporters were
unknown to the SBTD;
• Co-operative Company “Latvian Pig Breeders Association”;
• The known domestic pork producers;
• The known Latvian pork importers;
• The meat production and processing associations.
4. To the interested parties a term was stated in the decision, within which the interested parties
were asked to provide written comments and info rmation that might be helpful in the course of
investigation.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 3
5. The SBTD prepared a notification to the Safeguards Committee of the World Trade
Organization (hereinafter referred to as the WTO) a bout the decision to initiate the investigation and
the information was reported to the WTO (WTO document number G/SG/N/6/LVA/2, 19.07.2002).
6. In order to obtain additional information about the situation in the swine-breeding industry in
Latvia, on 10 July 2002, the SBTD sent questionnaires to 169 known domestic pork producers, fromwhich 124 were supporters of the Application, and names of 45 domestic producers were obtained by
the SBTD from the Central Statistical Bureau data (h ereinafter referred to as the CSB) and they were
the producers, in whose farms 20 and more pigs were breeded. The deadline for submission of
questionnaires was set for 19 July 2002. For particular parties under motivated requests the deadline
has been repeatedly extended. The responses from 79 domestic production companies were received,
hence, according to the CSB data about the quantity of production in the 1
st half of 2002, the domestic
pork producers were represented by 45.97 per cent from the total amount of production.
7. From 15 to 25 July 2002 the SBTD received comm ents from the following interested parties:
Latvian Employers’ Confederation, “Vidzemes miesnieks” LLC, Joint-Stock Company “Rigas
Miesnieks”, Latvian Trade Association, “Marupe” LLC, representatives of Latvian meat processing
companies, “Madara’89” LLC, Joint-Stock Company “Liepajas PB”, “Valmieras RPB” LLC and
Latvian Meat Producers and Meat Processors Association.
8. Particular meat processing enterprises submitted to the SBTD an application with request for
a hearing, which was held on 26 July 2002 (the announcement of the SBTD about arrangement of
hearing, published in the official gazette of the Republic of Latvia “Latvijas V ēstnesis” on 16 July
2002, issue no. 109 (2684)). Participants of the hearing were the Joint-Stock Company “Rigas
Miesnieks”, “Trials” LLC, “Lido” LLC, “A RDEKS” LLC, RKF “BLC” LLC, “Saldus galas
kombinats” LLC, “Lagzdinas komercuzne mums” LLC, ”Rubus” LLC, “FOREVERS” LLC,
“M.V.A.” LLC, “GRAVENDALE” LLC and represen tative of domestic producers in LPBA. After
the hearing the Joint-Stock Company “Rigas Miesnieks” submitted their arguments in writing.
9. On 20 September 2002, the SBTD sent questionnaires to all the known pork processors (175
in total), fixing a deadline for submission of the questionnaire responses on 7 October 2002.Responses to 35 questionnaires were received back.
10. The SBTD carried out the verification of data provided by domestic producers, by going to
the on-the-spot investigation visits. The visits were carried out after the selection, guided by the size
and geographical location of the farms.
The following domestic producing companies were visited:
• “Druvas Unguri” LLC;
•  “Jēkabpils lab ība” JSC;
• “Uzvara Strauti” LLC;
•  “Sesava” JSC;
•  “Lielvircava” JSC;
•  “Kroņauce” JSC;
• “PF Vecauce” LLC.
11. On 21 and 22 November and 3 December 2002, the SBTD sent the questionnaires to the
known pork exporters and the embassies of the exporting countries in Latvia, in order to obtain
information about the export capacity of these countries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Latvia was informed as well. Only from one producer a response to the questionnaire wasreceived.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 4
12. The investigation period for evaluation of imports increase and injury of domestic producers
is from 1 January 1999 until 31 May 2002.
B. DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE PRODUCTS
1. Products under consideration
13. Imported products are:
13.1. Live swine intended for slaughter to obtain pork carcasses, as well as edible offal,
Harmonized Commodity Description and Co ding System code 0103, excluding codes
010310000, 010391100, 010391900, 010392900.
13.2. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 0203, excluding codes 020311900, 020312900, 020319900, 020321900, 020322900,020329900.
13.3. Edible offal, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System code 0206:
13.3.1.  Fresh or chilled swine’s edible offal, Harmonized Commodity Description and
Coding System code 020630, excluding code 020630800.
13.3.2.  Frozen edible offal (liver), Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 020641, excluding code 020641800.
13.3.3.  Frozen edible offal (other), Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 020649, excluding code 020649800.
13.4. Pork carcasses and edible offal intended for sale in commercial network in raw form, as
well as for production of pork products (sausages, smoked meat, pates etc.).
14. During the investigation period the exporting countries of products are:
14.1. Live swine intended for slaughter to obtain pork carcasses, as well as edible offal,
Harmonized Commodity Description and Co ding System code 0103, excluding codes
010310000, 010391100, 010391900, 010392900: Estonia, Lithuania, Poland.
14.2. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 0203, excluding codes 020311900, 020312900, 020319900, 020321900, 020322900,
020329900: Austria, Belgium, Belarus, German y, Denmark, Estoni a, Spain, Finland,
France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, USA.
14.3. Fresh or chilled swine’s edible offal, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
System code 020630, excluding the code 020630800: Lithuania, the Netherlands.
14.4. Frozen edible offal (liver), Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System code
020641, excluding the code 020641800: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Spain,Lithuania, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, and Sweden.
14.5. Frozen edible offal (other), Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System code
020649, excluding code 020649800: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Spain,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 5
2. Like or directly competing domestic products
15. The SBTD evaluated, whether the products produced by Latvian domestic producers are
similar to the imported products or are competing with the imported products. It was established that
the products under consideration and the domestic products are identical in their usability. Domestic
products, which are injured by the increasing imports, are:
15.1. Live swine intended for slaughter to further obtain pork carcasses, as well as edible offal,
Harmonized Commodity Description and Co ding System code 0103, excluding codes
010310000, 010391100, 010391900, 010392900.
15.2. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 0203, excluding codes 020311900, 020312900, 020319900, 020321900, 020322900,020329900.
15.3. Edible offal, Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System code 0206:
15.3.1.  Fresh or chilled swine’s edible offal, Harmonized Commodity Description and
Coding System code 020630, excluding code 020630800.
15.3.2.  Frozen edible offal (liver), Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 020641, excluding code 020641800.
15.3.3.  Frozen edible offal (other), Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
code 020649, excluding code 020649800.
16. Pork carcasses and edible offal are intended for sale in commercial network in raw form, as
well as for production of pork products (sausages, smoked meat, pates etc.).
C. 
IMPORT QUANTITY AND MARKET SHARE
1. Unforeseen developments
17. Under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article XIX of GATT 1994, the SBTD evaluated the
circumstances, which raised the unexpected imports increase and critical reduction of purchase prices
of the products under consideration, causing serious injury to the domestic producers.
18. The SBTD concluded that a reason for the injury of domestic producers is a sweeping
decrease of swine purchase price in 2002. The price re duction in Latvia corresponds to the pork price
reduction tendency observed in the global market, in comparison with the price level of year 2001.
19. Though Latvia has established high customs duties on imports of live swine, pork and swine’s
edible offal to Latvia, in fact they fail to comply  with their main function – the restriction of the flow
of the product under consideration in Latvia at prices that cause serious injury to the domestic porkproducers.
20. After analysis of the information available, the SBTD has come to the conclusion that during
the latest three years before the initiation of the investigation, a rapid increase of imports of the
product under consideration to Latvia was promoted by the agreement signed in 1996 by Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania on the free trade of agricultural goods, establishing a customs duty - 0 per centon imports of the products under consideration, whic h are imported from Lithuania and Estonia. At
the same time, a customs duty on imports applied by Latvia to other countries remained on a
sufficiently high level.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 6
21. Lithuania and Estonia, unlike Latvia, for their part have introduced lower customs duties on
imports of the product under consideration (see below) for the countries with large amounts of
production (such as, Denmark, Finland, Poland), and have created much easier access to their
domestic markets, and consequently, the export from these foreign countries in the domestic markets
of Lithuania and Estonia depresses the sales pr ice of product under consideration. Thus, the
prerequisites have developed to Latvian meat procession companies making more advantageous the
purchase of raw materials in Lithuania and Estonia than from the domestic producers in Latvia.
The comparison of customs duties on imports (percentage rates) in Latvia, Lithuania
and Estonia at the end of 2002
Live swine
(LCN code 0103 92 190)
Latvia Lithuania Estonia
Import from Poland: 45 15 0
Import from the EU: 36 16 0
MFN rate: 45 20 39
Fresh or chilled swine’s carcasses or halves of carcasses
(LCN code 0203 11 100)
Latvia Lithuania Estonia
Import from Poland: 36 30 0Import from the EU: 36/qu-0 34/qu-0 0
MFN rate: 36 33.8 33
Frozen swine’s carcasses or halves of carcasses
(LCN code 0203 21 100)
Latvia Lithuania Estonia
Import from Poland: 36 30 0Import from the EU: 36/ qu-0 34/qu-0 0
MFN rate: 36 33.8 25
* qu – quota
22. From the aforementioned it can be concluded that the comparatively high custom duty rates
established in Latvia and aimed at protection of the Latvian market against the inflow of
overproduction of the produced products under consideration that exists in the global market havebecome ineffective. Consequently the Latvian swin e breeders are forced to reduce the sales price of
the produced pork, in order to find an outlet on the Latvian market.
23. During the periods, when the products under consideration have a sufficiently high price in
the global market (as it has been observed from the middle of year 2000 until the end of year 2001),
the fluctuations swine purchase price in Latvia causes no injury to the domestic producers.
24. By a critical decrease of global price of the products under consideration, like it has happened
in 2002, the serious injury was caused to the Latvian domestic producers. The reasons for that
situation, according to the SBTD, are two main factors, which the domestic producers was not able to
foresee:
24.1. Latvia, after the conclusion of the agreement on the free trade of agricultural goods by
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1996, could have predicted a competition with Lithuanian
and Estonian pork producers in Latvia, but it could not foresee the unimpeded inflow of
the goods in the markets of Lithuania and Estonia from other countries producing largeG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 7
amount of the products under consideration, which reducing the price of product under
consideration down to the level of global pork sales price. Consequently the Latvian meat
processing companies choose to purchase the raw material from Estonian and Lithuanian
producers instead of Latvian producers.
24.2. The Latvian domestic producers could not foresee that in 2002 such a critical crisis of the
purchase prices of the products under consideration may arise, that corresponds with a
period of time when the domestic producers need financial resources to make investments
into improvement of the production units according to standards, established for the EU
candidate countries.
2. Consumption and market shares
25. To determine the changes in market shares of pork produced by the domestic producers and
imported pork in total pork consumption of Latvia, the theoretical Latvian consumer market was
constructed.
26. The method for determination of the theoretical Latvian consumer market:
26.1. The theoretical Latvian consumer market of pork (excluding edible offal) was calculated in
the following way:
+ Imports under the code 0103 (live swine), excluding codes 010310000,
010391100, 010391900, 010392900 x (multiplied) 68 per cent (ratio for
getting a meat output from live weight).
+ Imports under the code 0203 (fresh, chilled or frozen pork), excluding codes
020311900, 020312900, 020319900, 020321900, 020322900, and
020329900.
+ Theoretical sales of the domestic producers’ pork on the Latvian market.
Theoretical sales of the domestic producers’ pork on the Latvian market are
calculated in the following way:
(1) Pork in live weight produced by the domestic producers
+ - (subtracted) exports under the code 0103 (live swine), excluding the codes
010310000, 010391100, 010391900, 010392900, = net live weight of pork
produced by domestic producers.
(2) Net live weight of pork produced by domestic producers
x (multiplied) 68 per cent (ratio for getting a meat output from live weight)
= amount of the domestic producers swine carcasses.
(3) Amount of swine carcasses of the domestic producers - (subtracted)
exports under the code 0203 (fresh, chilled or frozen pork), excluding codes
020311900, 020312900, 020319900, 020321900, 020322900, 020329900,
= theoretical sales of the domestic producers pork for Latvian market.
= The theoretical Latvian consumer market of pork (excluding edible offal).
26.2. The theoretical Latvian consumer market of swine’s edible offal is calculated in the
following way:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 8
+ Imports under the code 0103 (live swine), excluding codes 010310000,
010391100, 010391900, 010392900 x (multiplied) 11 per cent (ratio for
getting edible offal output from live weight).
+ Imports under codes 020630 (excluding code 020630800); 020641 (excluding
code 020641800); 020649 (excluding code 020649800) (fresh, chilled or
frozen swine edible offal).
+ Theoretical sales of the domestic producers swine edible offal on the Latvian
market.
Theoretical sales of the domestic producers swine edible offal on the Latvian
market is calculated in the following way:
(1) Pork in live weight produced by domestic producers
+ - (subtracted) exports under the code 0103 (live swine), excluding codes
010310000, 010391100, 010391900, 010392900, net live weight of pork
produced by the domestic producers.
(2) Net live weight of pork produced by the domestic producers
x (multiplied) 11 per cent (ratio for getting edible offal output fromlive weight) = the quantity of swine’s edible offal produced by
domestic producers.
(3) the quantity of swine’s edible offal produced by the domestic
producers - (subtracted) exports under the code 020630 (excluding thecode 020630800); 020641 (excluding the code 020641800); 020649
(excluding the code 020649800) (fresh, chilled or frozen swine’s
edible offal) = Theoretical sales of the domestic producers swine’s
edible offal on the Latvian market.
= Theoretical Latvian consumer market of the swine’s edible offal.
26.3. The consolidated theoretical Latvian consumer market of pork and swine’s edible offal is
calculated in the following way:
+ Theoretical Latvian consumer market of pork (excluding edible offal)
+ Theoretical Latvian consumer market of swine edible offal
= The consolidated theoretical Latvian consumer market of pork and swine’s
edible offal.
27. A ratio for getting slaughter output excluding edible offal (68 per cent from the swine live
weight) and a ratio for getting edible offal amount from live weight (11 per cent from the swine live
weight) is derived from a book “Farmer’s Manual” /“ Zemnieku rokasgr āmata ”/ published in 1991 by
publishing house “Avots”, compiler J.Uzulens, Riga, Page 252.
28. Shares of import products and domestic producers products in the Latvian theoretical
consumer market:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 9
Theoretical market shares of imported swine products Table 1
No YearShare of pork (excluding
edible offal) imports in
Latvian theoretical
consumptionShare of swine edible
offal imports in Latvian
theoretical consumptionConsolidated share of
pork and swine edible
offal imports in Latvian
theoretical consumption
12 3 4 5
1. 1999 10.67 % 10.86% 10.69%
2. 2000 16.24% 4.07% 14.73%
3. 2001 28.85% 18.90% 27.61%
4. 1st half of 2001 27.96% 15.77% 26.47%
5. 1st half of 2002 39.11% 31.13% 38.10%
Theoretical market shares of the domestic producers swine products Table 2
No YearShare of pork (excluding
edible offal) produced
by domestic producers
in Latvian theoretical
consumptionShare of swine edible
offal produced by
domestic producers in
Latvian theoretical
consumptionConsolidated share of
pork and swine edible
offal produced by
domestic producers in
Latvian theoretical
consumption
12 3 4 5
1. 1999 89.33% 89.14% 89.31%
2. 2000 83.76% 95.93% 85.27%
3. 2001 71.15% 81.10% 72.39%
4. 1st half of 2001 72.04% 84.23% 73.53%
5. 1st half of 2002 60.89% 68.87% 61.90%
Dynamics of shares in Latvian theoretical consumer market of the import products and domestic
producers products indicates that the domestic producers market share in the 1st half of 2002, in
comparison with the 1st half of 2001, has substantially decreased:
1. Theoretical Latvian consumer market share of pork (excluding edible offal) decreased by
11.15 per cent.
2. Theoretical Latvian consumer market share of swine edible offal decreased by 15.36 per cent.
3. Consolidated theoretical Latvian consumer market share of pork and swine edible offal
decreased by 11.63 per cent.
3. Increasing quantity of imports
(a) Total amount and value of the imported products under consideration (according to data of
the Central Statistical Bureau):G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 10
Table 3
1999 2000 2001 January – October 2002PRODUCTSLatvian
Combined
nomenclature
codeQuantity,
WValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVL
Live swine 0103 987,729 581,647 913,585 616,274 4,810,004 3,534,443 8,910,029 6,074,635
Fresh, chilled
or frozen
pork0203 2,933,499 1,435,015 4,703,613 4,040,554 7,921,472 7,144,284 9,585,792 8,182,045
Fresh or
chilled swine
edible offal020630 2,260 1,106 0 0 690 437 25,163 4,840
Frozen swine
edible offal(liver)020641 42,909 21,452 46,860 21,928 207,096 87,592 210,928 68,431
Frozen swine
edible offal(other)020649 444,048 145,789 41,625 25,453 307,432 162,592 447,907 198,341
29. Live swine import amount in year 2000, in comparison with year 1999 has reduced by
7.51 per cent, but in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, it has increased by 426.50 per cent. In
year 2002 from January to October, the tendency of  increase continues for the live swine import
amounts. Comparing the imported live swine amounts in 2002 from January to October with the
imported amounts of the same period in 2001, in year 2002 they have increased by 162.20 per cent.
30. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork imports amount in year 2000, in comparison with year 1999, has
increased by 60.34 per cent and in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, – has increased by
68.41 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October compared to respective period of 2001, theincrease of import amount makes 56.72 per cent.
31. Fresh or chilled swine edible offal import amount in year 2001, in comparison with year 1999,
has reduced by 69.47 per cent. In year 2000 this type of product was not imported. Though in year
2002 from January to October is imported already by 3,546.81 per cent more than during the entire
2001.
32. Frozen swine edible offal (liver) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999 has
increased by 9.21 per cent and in year 2001 compared to the year 2000 - has increased by 341.95 per
cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective period of the year 2001 import
amount increase makes 28.74 per cent.
33. Frozen swine edible offal (other) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999 has
reduced by 90.63 per cent and in year 2001, compared to the year 2000 - has increased by 638.58 per
cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective period of the year 2001 import
amount increase makes 108,32 per cent.
34. For all the concerning product codes together the total import amount has increased from
4,410.445 tons in year 1999 up to 13,246.694 tons in year 2001 or has increased by 200.35 per cent.
35. In year 2002 from January to October for all the concerning product codes the total import
from of the year 2001 in total import amount makes 144.79 per cent, i.e., it is by 44.79 per cent morethan during the entire 2001.
(b) Analysis of imports from particular countries
(i) Imports from LithuaniaG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 11
36. The quantity and values of imported products under consideration from Lithuania
Table 4
1999 2000 2001January – October
2002 PRODUCTSLatvian
Combined
nomenclature
codeQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVL
Live swine 0103 285,001 169,266 349,421 213,762 903,930 645,765 2,646,659 1,859,570
Fresh, chilled or
frozen pork0203 0 0 33,134 31,268 730,139 702,380 1,486,731 1,694,976
Fresh or chilled swine
edible offal020630 0 0 0 0 690 437 25,163 4,840
Frozen swine edible
offal (liver)020641 3 8 3 1 3 7 0 00 000
Frozen swine edible
offal (other)020649 3 5 7 1 1 8 0 00 000
37. Live swine import amount from Lithuania in year 2000, in comparison with year 1999, has
increased by 22.60 per cent; in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, - increased by 158.69 percent; but in year 2002 from January to October, in comparison with respective period of the year
2001, it has increased by 449.20 per cent.
38. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork import amount in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, has
increased by 2,103.59 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective
period of the year 2001 import amount increase continues, it makes 458.41 per cent.
39. Fresh or chilled swine edible offal in year 2002 from January to October is imported by
3,546.81 per cent more than during the entire 2001.
40. For all the concerning product codes together the total import amount has increased from
285.741 tons in year 1999 up to 382.555 tons in year 2000 and 1,634.759 tons in year 2001. In
year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, import amount has increased by 327.33 per cent.
41. In year 2002 from January to October for all the concerning product codes the total import
quantity, in comparison with the respective period import amounts of year 2001, has increased by455.84 per cent.
42. The proportion of pork and swine edible offal import amounts from Lithuania in total import
amount of these products in year 1999 makes 6.48 per cent, in year 2000 – 6.70 per cent, in year 2001
– 12.34 per cent, in year 2002 from January to October – 21.68 per cent.
43. The proportion of imports of the products under consideration from Lithuania in the total
quantity of imports during the investigation period makes 12.25 per cent.
(ii) Imports from Estonia
44. The quantity and value of imported products under consideration from EstoniaG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 12
Table 5
1999 2000 2001 January – October 2002PRODUCTSLatvian
Combined
nomenclature
codeQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVL
Live swine 0103 702,728 412,381 532,334 383,246 3,906,074 2,888,678 6,263,370 4,215,065
Fresh, chilled or
frozen pork0203 812,486 600,406 2,652,512 2,832,031 3,649,619 4,016,488 4,466,496 4,169,871
Frozen swine
edible offal
(liver)020641 28,534 7,852 15,088 7,852 32,606 19,755 21,932 11,115
Frozen swine
edible offal
(other)020649 96,030 12,314 15,021 12,314 12,818 12,397 6,436 5,992
45. Live swine import amount from Estonia in year 2000, in comparison with year 1999, has
reduced by 24.25 per cent, but in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, it has increased by633.76 per cent, in year 2002 from January to October live swine import amounts increase tendency
continues, in comparison with the respective peri od imported amounts of year 2001, in year 2002 they
have increased by 114.77 per cent.
46. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork import amount in year 2000, in comparison with year 1999, has
increased by 226.47 per cent and in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, – has increased by37.59 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October, comparing the import amounts to the respective
period of 2001, the increase of import amount makes 51.40 per cent.
47. Frozen swine edible offal (liver) import amount in year 2000, compared to year 1999 has
reduced by 47.12 per cent and in year 2001, compared to year 2000 - has increased by 116.11 per
cent. Respectively, in year 2002 from January to October, compared to the same period of the year2001 the import amount has reduced by 22.48 per cent.
48. Frozen swine edible offal (other) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999 has
reduced by 84.36 per cent and in year 2001, compared to the year 2000 - reduced by 14.67 per cent. In
year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective period of the year 2001 import amount
reduction makes 37.24.
49. For all the concerning product codes together the total import amount has increased from
1,639.778 tons in year 1999 to 3,214.955 tons in year 2000 and 7,601.117 tons in year 2001. In
comparison with year 2000, in year 2001 import amount has increased by 136.43 per cent.
50. In year 2002 from January to October for the entire concerning product codes the total import
amount, in comparison with respective period of the year 2001, has increased by 82.19 per cent.
51. The proportion of pork and swine edible offal import amounts from Estonia in the total import
amount of these products in year 1999 makes 37.18 per cent, in year 2000 – 56.35 per cent, in year
2001 – 57.38 per cent, in year 2002 from January to October – 56.09 per cent.
52. The proportion of imports of the products under consideration from Estonia in total imports
during the investigation period makes 55.76 per cent.
(iii) Imports from EU Member States
53. The quantity and values of imported products under consideration from EU Member States:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 13
Table 6
1999 2000 2001January-October
2002 PRODUCTSLatvian
Combined
nomenclature
codeQuantity,
kgValue,
LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVL
Fresh, chilled orfrozen pork0203 698,279 283,775 1,269,432 770,126 2,902,623 2,064,383 2,723,327 1,810,342
Fresh or chilled
swine edible offal020630 2,260 1,106 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frozen swine
edible offal (liver)020641 4,192 1,984 8,737 3,656 167,390 64,263 188,996 57,316
Frozen swine
edible offal
(other)020649 22,945 5,369 15,733 6,436 294,254 149,849 421,704 188,543 
54. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork import amount from the EU Member States in year 2000, in
comparison with year 1999, has increased by 81.79 per cent and in year 2001, in comparison withyear 2000, – has increased by 128.66 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the
respective period of the year 2001 import amount increase makes 20.40 per cent.
55. Frozen swine edible offal (liver) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999 has
increased by 108.42 per cent and in year 2001, compared to the year 2000 - has increased by
1,815.88 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective period of the
year 2001 import amount increase makes 47.14 per cent.
56. Frozen swine edible offal (other) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999 has
reduced by 31.43 per cent and in year 2001, compared to the year 2000 - has increased by
1,770.30 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective period of the
year 2001 import amount increase makes 106.32 per cent.
57. For all the concerned product codes together the total import amount has increased from
727.676 tons in year 1999 up to 1,293.902 tons in year 2000 and 3,364.267 tons in year 2001.  Incomparison with year 2000, in year 2001 in total import amounts from EU Member States has
increased by 160.01 per cent.
58. In year 2002 from January to October for all the concerning product codes the total import
amount, in comparison with of the year 2001 respective period import amounts, has increased by
28.49 per cent.
59. The proportion of pork and swine edible offal import amounts from EU Member States in
total imports amount of these products in year 1999 makes 16.50 per cent, in year 2000 – 22.68 per
cent, in year 2001 – 25.40 per cent, in year 2002 from January to October – 17.38 per cent.
60. The import proportion of the product under consideration from EU Member States in total
import during the investigation period makes 21.88 per cent.
(iv) Imports from other countries
61. The quantity and values of imported products under consideration from other countriesG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 14
Table 7
1999 2000 2001January – October
2002 PRODUCTS Latvian Combined
nomenclature code Quantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue, LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVLQuantity,
kgValue,
LVL
Live swine 0103 0 0 31,830 19,266 0 0 0 0 
Fresh, chilled or
frozen pork02031,422,734 550,834 748,535 407,129 639,091 361,033 909,238 506,856
Frozen swine
edible offal(liver)020641
9,800 4,302 23,035 10,420 7,100 3,574 0 0 
Frozen swine
edible offal(other)020649
324,716 105,473 10,871 6,703 360 346 19,767 3,806
62. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork import amount from other countries in year 2000, in comparison
with year 1999, has reduced by 47.39 per cent and in year 2001, in comparison with year 2000, –
reduced by 14.62 per cent. In year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective periodof the year 2001 import amount has increased by 42.48 per cent.
63. Frozen swine edible offal (liver) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999 has
increased by 135.05 per cent and in year 2001, compared to the year 2000 - reduced by 69.18 per cent.
In year 2002 from January to October this product was not being imported.
64. Frozen swine edible offal (other) import amount in year 2000, compared to the year 1999
reduced by 96.65 per cent and in year 2001, compared to the year 2000 - reduced by 96.69 per cent.
Though in year 2002 from January to October, compared to the respective period of the year 2001
import amount has increased by 5,390.83 per cent.
65. For all the concerning product codes together the total import amount has reduced from
1,757.250 tons in year 1999 up to 814.271 tons in year 2000 and 646.551 tons in year 2001. In year2001, in comparison with year 2000, total import amount has reduced by 20.60 per cent.
66. In year 2002 from January to October for all the concerning product codes the total import
amount, in comparison with of the year 2001 respective period import amounts, has increased by
43.89 per cent.
67. The proportion of pork and swine edible offal import amounts from other countries proportion
in total imports amount of these products in year 1999 makes 39.84 per cent, in year 2000 – 14.27 per
cent, in year 2001 – 4.88 per cent, in year 2002 from January to October – 4.84 per cent.
68. The import proportion of the products under consideration from other countries in total import
during the investigation period makes 10.11 per cent.
(v) Summary of the imports increase
69. The largest exporting countries of the products under consideration from January to October
in 2002, analysing their export amount proportion in total export by detailed product codes, where theexport amounts were the largest during the aforementioned period, are:
1. Live swine:
1. Products classified under the code 010392110 - Estonia – 100 per cent, in
comparison with respective period of the year 2001, amount has increased by296.62 per cent.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 15
2. Products classified under the code 010392190:
• Estonia – 70.16 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has increased by 114.12 per cent;
• Lithuania – 29.84 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has increased by 449.20 per cent.
2. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork:
1. Products classified under the code 020311100:
• Estonia – 67.01 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has increased by 55.39 per cent;
• Lithuania – 22.45 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has increased by 536.54 per cent;
• Poland – 8.07 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has increased by 985.93 per cent;
• Other countries – 2.47 per cent, in comparison with respective period
of the year 2001, amount has reduced by 65,51 per cent.
2. Products classified under the code 020321100:
• Germany – 69.30 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has reduced by 10.30 per cent;
• Poland – 29.58 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has reduced by 31.52 per cent;
• Other countries – 1.12 per cent, in comparison with respective period
of the year 2001, amount has reduced by 28.16 per cent.
3. Fresh, chilled or frozen edible offal:
1. Products classified under the code 020630300 – Lithuania – 100 per cent, in
respective period of 2001 the product export to Latvia was not made;
2. Products classified under the code 020641200:
• Denmark – 36.46 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has increased by 249.44 per cent;
• Germany – 24.42 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has reduced by 15.69 per cent;
• Spain – 14.25 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has increased by 1.15 per cent;
• Belgium – 12.55 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has increased by 237.60 per cent;
• Estonia – 10.40 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has reduced by 22.48 per cent;
• Other countries – 1.92 per cent, in respective period of the year 2001
there were no product export to Latvia.
3. Products classified under the code 020649200:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 16
• Belgium – 40.62 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has increased by 4,533.10 per cent;
• Germany – 24.80 per cent, in comparison with respective period of
the year 2001, amount has reduced by 12.29 per cent;
• Spain – 19.79 per cent, in comparison with respective period of the
year 2001, amount has increased by 80.18 per cent;
• Other countries – 14.78 per cent, in comparison with respective
period of the year 2001, amount has increased by 523.70 per cent.
(c) The prices of imports
70. Price comparison was made for detailed codes of the products under consideration, where in
year 2002 from January to October the import amounts were the largest in entire respective code
group, analysing data by countries, which during this period of time possessed the largest export
amounts. According to data of Central Statistical  Bureau, the live swine import average statistical
prices in January to October of 2002, in comparison with respective period of 2001, have changed as
follows:
1. Products classified under the code 010392110, imported from Estonia – increased by 36.31 per
cent;
2. Products classified under the code 010392190, imported from:
1. Estonia – reduced by 10.57 per cent;
2. Lithuania – reduced by 7.23 per cent.
71. Fresh, chilled or frozen pork import average statistical prices in January to October of 2002,
in comparison with respective period of 2001, have changed as follows:
1. Products classified under the code 020311100, imported from:
1. Estonia – reduced by 15.84 per cent;
2. Lithuania – increased by 9.12 per cent;
3. Poland – reduced by 8.07 per cent.
2. Products classified under the code 020321100, imported from:
1. Germany – reduced by 8.02 per cent;
2. Poland – reduced by 1 per cent.
72. Fresh, chilled or frozen swine edible offal import average statistical prices in January to
October of 2002, in comparison with respective period of 2001, have changed as follows:
1. Products classified under the code 020641200, imported from:
1. Denmark – reduced by 13.98 per cent;
2. Germany – reduced by 25.88 per cent;
3. Spain – reduced by 19.91 per cent;
4. Belgium – reduced by 37.20 per cent;
5. Estonia – reduced by 20.15 per cent.
2. Products classified under the code 020649200, imported from:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 17
1. Belgium – reduced by .41.69 per cent;
2. Germany – reduced by .13.35 per cent;
3. Spain – reduced by 7.08 per cent.
D.  INJURY TO DOMESTIC PRODUCERS
1. Domestic producers in Latvia
73. As defined in Article 1 of the Law “On Safeguards”, domestic producers are the aggregate of
domestic producers of like or directly competing goods, in the territory of Latvia, or producers
whose collective production of like or directly competing goods, constitutes the major proportion
of the total domestic production of such goods.
74. In Latvia the products under investigation are produced by:
• producers in whose name the Application was submitted and who co-operated in the
investigation;
• producers in whose name the Application was submitted and who did not co-operate
in the investigation;
• other domestic producers who did not submit the Application, but co-operated in the
investigation;
• other domestic producers who did not submit the Application and who did not co-
operate in the investigation, but who were not against initiation and conduction of theinvestigation either.
75. According to data stated in the Application of the LPBA on the number of pigs in farms,
supporters of the Application were breeding 37.1 per cent of the total number of pigs in all types of
farms in Latvia as of 01.01.2002. The share of pigs bred by domestic producers was stated as of the
beginning of the year, because the SBTD had no such data at its disposal on the number of pigs bred
in all types of farms in Latvia as of the moment of submitting the Application.
76. 79 replies were received to questionnaires se nt out to all known producers by the SBTD, of
them the Applicants submitted 69 questionnaires, in their turn, 10 questionnaires were received from
the other farms (total of 45), apart from the supporters of the Application mentioned above.
77. In 2001 all farms having submitted the questionnaires sold 38.60 per cent of the total number
of pigs sold in Latvia, among them:
• the co-operating Applicants account for 35.33 per cent;
• other farms – 3.26 per cent.
78. In 2001 the farms sold 35.72 per cent of total pork sold in live weight, among them:
• the co-operating Applicant account for 32.92 per cent;
• other farms – 2.80 per cent.
79. In the first six months of 2002 pork in live weight sold by all farms accounts for 45.97 per
cent, among them:
• co-operating Applicants account for 42.34 per cent;
• other farms – 3.63 per cent.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 18
80. Producers of products under consideration are different both in terms of organisation size, and
structure. Upon processing of information received from questionnaires sent out to domestic
producers by the SBTD, the farms have been grouped according to the average number of pigs bred
by the farm, in keeping with the statistical grading by the CSB.  Groups with the number of pigs from
2000-4999 (52 per cent), 5000 and more (25 per cent) and from 1000-1999 (8 per cent) are major
farm groups in terms of the share of the number of pigs bred in the first six months of 2002.  Such
farms account for the total of 85.38 per cent of those having submitted the questionnaire in the group
in terms of the number of pigs bred. Although in terms of the number such farms make only 24.05 per
cent of the total number of farms co-operating in  investigation, but at the same time, the most
important pork production takes place there.
81. In most farms pork is normally sold as live weight to meat processors or slaughterhouses. In
some farms pork is sold in carcasses too, with pigs being slaughtered in slaughterhouses owned by the
enterprise or in independent slaughterhouses. Most of the farms breed piglets independently, thus
implementing full pig-breeding cycle. Some farms produce fodder independently, buying fodder
additives apart from that, however larger farms do not produce fodder and buy compound feed
instead.
82. Domestic producers, co-operating in the investigation, produce all types of domestic products
and accounted for 35.72  per cent of the total production volume of Latvia in 2001. As all major pig-
breeders of Latvia cooperated in investigation, the SBTD acknowledges that this number of domestic
producers allows for objective conclusions to be made on condition of the domestic industry.
83. In injury evaluation all the above products are considered in one group, because the SBTD
believes that they cannot be severed from each other. The imports of swine edible offal deprives a part
of the market to the edible offal produced in Latvia. As domestic producers mainly produce pork in
live weight, i.e., meat together with edible offal, the imports of pork and swine edible offal affects
demand for live pigs, too.
2. Situation in the domestic production
84. Due to favourable conditions in the pork market in 2001, pig-breeding industry started to
develop gradually, the number of pigs bred in farms increased. Despite the crisis in early 2002, the
number of pigs in farms continued to grow, according to data of questionnaires submitted to the
SBTD, a slight reduction in number occurred in February – by 5.36 per cent against January, and in
May – by 3.01 per cent against April. However, in June the number of pigs increased again by 11.45
per cent against May. It follows from such dynamics of the number of pigs, that domestic producers
tried to develop their production, despite unfavourable conditions, for Latvia to be able to survive andsuccessfully compete in the European Union pork market, upon joining the EU.
85. Grouping farms according to the number of pigs bred, in the first six months of 2002 the
number of farms breeding from 1-49 bred pigs de creased from 20 to 12, because the number of bred
pigs grew rather dramatically, and the respective farms in the statistical reporting were accounted in a
different group. Farms with the average number of bred pigs from 2,000 - 4,999 hold most bred pigs –52 per cent of the total number of bred pigs, the other major group is farms where the number of bred
pigs is 5000 and more, making 25 per cent of the total number of bred pigs. The average number of
bred pigs only decreased in 2 farm groups – the one with the number of pigs from 1-49 – by 37.33 per
cent and the other with the number of pigs from 400-999 – by 18.34 per cent. In the other farm groups
the number of pigs continued to increase, with the highest growth of the number of bred pigsoccurring in farm groups with the number of bred pigs from 1000-1999 (by 44.25 per cent) and 2000-
4999 (by 44.96 per cent). Such increase in the number of bred pigs may be explained by the fact thatG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 19
large farms implemented reconstruction and modernisation projects, thus increasing their possibilities
to place more pigs in their farms.
86. Another factor affecting increase of the number of bred pigs is demand for pork. With such
drop in demand, farms were not able to sell their pigs, and the number of pigs in farms increased due
to stocks that were not sold. While in early 2002 the injury was caused by the fall of the pork purchaseprice, then, according to information obtained during the on-the-spot visits, in October the farms
encountered difficulties in pig sale, resulting in extra costs for pigs’ over-breeding. Excessive density
of farms resulted in worse conditions of pig-breeding, increase of pig loss, and extra veterinary
expenditures.
3. Sales
87. As the number of bred pigs increased, sales volume grew too. Sales drop occurred in February
2002, when pork quantities sold decreased against January in the quality grade No. 1 by 18.50 percent, the quality grade no. 2 – by 17.71 per cent, and in the quality grade No 3 – by 42.60 per cent
respectively. Compared with the respective month in 2001, in April 2002 a dramatic rise is observed
in the quality grade No. 4 pork sales – by 177.46 per cent. Such growth of pork sales in grade 4 was
caused by falling sales price, resulting in slaughtering of part of sows, especially, in small farms,
being very sensitive to pork price fluctuations. Such farms are unable to continue in conditionsunfavourable for pig-breeding for long. In May 2002, gr ade 3 pork sales were especially high, against
May 2001, they increased by 132.08 per cent. This grade covers low-quality pork.
88. In early 2002 pork purchase prices decreased continuously. With hope for eventual rise of
prices, part of pigs were not sold, however there was no guarantee of short-term nature of such price
fall. As a result, domestic producers had to sell their pigs at lower prices. Pigs that were not sold dueto low prices were over-kept and sold as pork of lower grade. In overcrowded farms, with worse pig-
breeding conditions, the number of ill pigs increases too, which does not conform to high quality
grade requirements any more. In April 2002, against March, the quality grade 2 pork sales decreased
by 20.15 per cent, the quality grade 3 pork sales decreased by 72.48 per cent, and in its turn, in May,
against April, quality grade 2 pork sales increased by 13.92 per cent, and quality grade 3 pork salesincreased by 413.93 per cent. Such sales fluctuations indicate that the quality grade 3 pork sales
increased at the expense of grade 2 and 3 pork that failed to be sold in the previous month. Quality
grade 1 pigs have lower live weight, hence they are less affected by over-breeding and decreasing
quality.
89. Most of the Applicants (87.5 per cent) did no t conclude contracts with pork buyers in 2001.
Many producers sold the pork to the so-called pork d ealers, as well as in the local market or to meat
processor enterprises.
4. Prices
90. As the quality grade 1 pork is in top demand and is produced most of all (pork sales volume
of other grades amounted only to 7.35 per cent of the sales volume of quality grade 1 pork in 2001),
most attention has been paid to changes in sales prices of the quality grade 1 pork.
91. As early as since January 2002, purchase prices of pork in live weight have fallen
continuously. Against December of the previous year, in January prices for quality grade 1 pork
decreased by 14.13 per cent. Comparing pork purchase prices of the first six months of 2002 with
pork purchase prices of the first six months of 2001, in January they were lower by 12.28 per cent, in
February – by 22.35 per cent, in March – by 24.98 per cent, in April – by 29.15 per cent, in May – by
29.09 per cent, and in June – by 27.93 per cent lower than in the respective month of the previousyear.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 20
92. In the first six months of 2002 the average pork sales price in live weight was lower than that
in the first six months of 2001 by 24.45 per cent.
93. Fast fall of prices surprised pork producers unprepared, and it was not possible for them to
reduce costs and adjust production to unfavourable conditions in the pork market in such a short
period of time. Some farms managed to keep pork prices at a higher level than other farms, howeverthat was only possible because the high-quality pork was produced and sold as fresh meat. However,
production of such pork has higher production expenses, because pigs are sold earlier (younger,
transl. ), before reaching their best age with top live weight increase, so the funds invested yield less
return this way. Such farms have also sufficiently large production volume to supply the market with
the necessary pork output, hence other farms encounter considerable problems in entering the market.
In order to breed such pigs, pedigree work is to be developed, and the farm is to breed high-quality
pigs and to ensure favourable keeping conditions for them. Small farms are unable to ensure suchconditions, because they lack investment funds.
94. Despite larger farms having slightly higher pork sales prices than the rest, the group of farms
with the number of fattened pigs from 2000 to 4999 had the average pork purchase price in live
weight of 0.561 Ls/kg, what is lower than in groups fattening from 1,000 to 1,999 and 5,000 and more
pigs.
95. According to the CSB data, sales prices of domestic pork producers in live weight have
decreased throughout the year, against January 2002. Especially great price fall was observed in
March – by 12.92 per cent, in April – by 16.09 per cent, in May – by 17.82 per cent, and in June – by
12.14 per cent, as well as at the end of the year – in October – by 13.87 per cent, in November – by
18.72 per cent, and in December – by 20.05 per cent.
96. The CSB data indicate that in 2001 purchase prices of pork in live weight were higher than
prices of imported pork, however in 2002, starting from March, they became lower than those of
imported pork. Greater fall of pork prices against prices of imported pork was observed in May 2002
– by 16.85 per cent, in July and August the price difference decreased a little, domestic pork prices
were lower than those of imported pork by 5.99 per cent in July, and by 1.69 per cent in August.However, in September and October the price difference increased again, by 11.08 per cent and
14.23 per cent accordingly. Such price difference may be explained by the fact that domestic
producers had to sell pork at lower prices, in order to retain their market share.
97. Comparing the sales price of pork in live weight preferred by domestic producers with the
average declared import statistical value of pigs under the code 010392190, the price reduction
margin was established. The average import declared statistical value has been obtained from the CSB
data over the period from January to November 2002. Upon calculations, the SBTD stated that theaverage weighted price reduction margin for live pigs was 11.73 per cent. Such high level of the price
reduction margin indicates that prices of imported liv e pigs and pork are considerably lower than the
preferred pork price, hence the domestic pork producers are unable to increase their production prices
to be able to compete with cheap imported products.
98. According to data of questionnaires submitted, in most cases (65.67 per cent) meat purchase
prices are set by the buyer, in 20,9 per cent of cases prices are set by agreement, and in 13,43 per cent
of cases prices are set according to market prices. With cheap import entering the market, it is not
profitable for meat processing enterprises to purchase more expensive domestic pork, and as a result
processing enterprises reduce purchase prices. Thus domestic producers have no other way but to sell
their products at the respective price offered.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 21
5. Employment
99. In 2001, for supporters of the Application the number of persons employed in pork-breeding
was as follows:
• Employed in pork production – 724;
• Employed in pork sale – 117.
100. Against 2000, the number of persons employed in pork production increased by 10.87 per
cent, and the number of those employed in sale increased by 28.57 per cent.
101. In 2001, pig-breeding industry was very profitable, hence new work places appeared with
production extension, however continuing unfavourable situation in 2002 may lead to liquidation of
individual large enterprises, resulting in increasi ng level of unemployment in the countryside, which
is high even now. In many areas such enterprises are the only employers of the population.
102. According to information obtained during investigation, upon occurrence of the critical
situation on pig-breeding, individual farms try to decrease their expenses by reducing wages of theircurrent employees, rather than by cutting the number of such employees.
6. Investments
103. Comparing investments of the first six months of 2002 with those in farm groups per farm
of 2001, in most farm groups such investments amount to at least half of investments of 2001. Only in
the first six months of 2002 the farms group investments with the number of pigs from 2,000 to 4,999per farm amount to 50.46 per cent of respective in vestments of 2001. In the first six months of 2002,
total investments amount to 31.59 per cent of the investments in 2001.
104. In the situation when pork prices are lower than self-costs, it is not possible to invest in
development of the enterprise, because one is to think of the ability of the enterprise to survive by
covering expenses that threaten the continuation of such enterprises’ activities most of all.
105. Despite the fact that investments in pig-breeding had decreased in the first six months of
2002, major pig farms are still continuing farm reco nstruction, mainly by their own efforts. During
such reconstruction, modern feeding systems, heat ed floors, modern manure-withdrawal systems are
installed, ensuring funds economy in the future. As a result, more effective use of sties and reduction
of costs are ensured at the expense of heating empty rooms and at the expense of better growth oflivestock weight and elimination of diseases. Thus higher pork quality is ensured, too.
106. Subsidies received by pork-breeders for sows and for promotion of the pedigree work and
supervision program are mainly used to preserve current sows.
7. Utilisation of Capacities
107. The Applicants utilization of the volume of capacity in 1999 amounted to 70 per cent, in
2000 - 64 per cent, in 2001 it increased up to 71 per cent. It follows from such data that the earlier
pig-breeding crisis in 1999 affected use of capacity in 2000, and in 2001 production capacity
increased with favourable conditions for development of pig-breeding.
108. Taking into account that Latvia prepares to join the European Union, many farms, especially
large ones, increase their production capacities, despite unfavourable situation, or at least try to keep
up their earlier production volumes. Obsolete sties are modernised and converted, in order to have as
much effective area as possible. According to information obtained during the on-the-spotG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 22
investigation visits, some large farms after such reconstruction place more livestock than before even
by 70 per cent.
109. According to information received by the SBTD, in 2002 part of farms went bankrupt, others
terminated their activities in pig-breeding industry and converted their production to other agricultural
industries, due to growing import and falling sales prices in the pork market.
110. Large farms are reluctant to reduce their production capacities, because upon liquidation of
part of livestock for the later renew to the same quantity, at least one year is required with continuous
investment of funds. It should be added that re newable flock yield no income over such period.
8. Conclusions on injury
111. During the investigation period, domestic producers suffered injury due to dramatic fall of
pork purchase prices. According to information submitted by 61 domestic producers, the average self-
cost of pork production in live weight amounts to 0.67 LVL/kg. According to data of questionnaires
of domestic producers, in the first six months of 2002, the average pork purchase price in live weight
amounted to 0.588 LVL/kg - for the quality grade 1 of pork, 0.612 LVL/kg - for grade 2 pork, with
the average pork purchase price of all grades in live weight being 0.584 LVL/kg. It follows from such
information that throughout 2002 domestic pork producers were to sell their products below their
production self-costs, thus suffering injury.
112. Prices for imported live pigs are considerably lower than the preferred pork sales price given
by domestic pork producers, therefore domestic pork producers are unable to increase prices for their
products to be able to compete with cheap imported products.
113. Although enterprises submitting questionnaires sold more quality grade 1 pork in the first
six months of 2002 than in the first six months of 2001 by 36.77 per cent, sales income exceeds thatof the first six months of 2001 only by 3.05 per cent.
114. With high pork purchase prices in 2001, many farms started to increase the number of live
bred pigs flock. As such increase of live pigs needs a longer period of time – approximately
10 months, pig-breeders counted on little difference between pork purchase prices and pork sales
prices in 2001. According to evaluation of planned income that would have been derived fromincreased number of live pigs with the average sales price of the first six months of 2001, and actual
income derived in the first six months of 2002, on the basis of data of questionnaires of domestic pork
producers, domestic producers suffered injury amounting to 3,241,562.59 LVL.
115. For all farm groups, in the first six months of 2002 investments per farm amounted to less
than half of those in 2001. Total investments amount to only 31.59 per cent of respective investments
of 2001.
116. With low pork purchase prices continuing for a long period of time, some small farms
terminated their activities or reduced their production volumes. Large farms try to keep up their
current volumes and to increase them as far as pos sible, so as not to lose their place in the pork
market.
E. 
CAUSAL LINK
1. Impact of increasing imports
117. From January to October 2002, against the respective period of 2001, import volumes
increased continuously. From January to October 2002, against the respective period of 2001, the totalG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 23
import of live pigs and pork increased by 94.39 per cent, and pork volume – by 56.72 per cent, in its
turn.
118. According to the CSB data, from January to October 2002 domestic pork prices in live weight
decreased by 19.26 per cent against the respective period of 2001. According to data of questionnaires
of domestic producers, in the first six months of 2002 pork prices in live weight decreased by24.50 per cent against the first six months of 2001.
119. With growing import of live pigs in the first six months of 2002, purchases prices of domestic
produced pork in live weight started to fall dramatically. In 2002 the largest rise in import of live pigs
against January occurred in April – by 43.99 per cent, and in May – by 66.83 per cent. According to
data of domestic producers, over such months the largest drop of pork prices in live weight occurred
against January, by 12.03 per cent - in April, and by 12.97 per cent - in May accordingly.
120. In the first six months of 2001, the share of domestic pork producers in theoretical consumer
market of Latvia was as follows: pork (without edible offal) – 72.04 per cent; swine edible offal –
84.23 per cent; consolidated pork and swine edible offal – 73.53 per cent. In the first six months of
2002, such market shares decreased: pork (without edible offal) to 60.89 per cent; swine edible offal  -
to 68.87 per cent; consolidated pork and swine edible offal – to 61.90 per cent.
121. According to data of questionnaires submitted by meat processing enterprises, in 2000
purchase volumes of pork produced in Latvia in slaughter weight amounted to 52.55 per cent of the
total pork purchase volumes, in 2001 – 49.93 per cent, from January to August 2002 – 45.21 per cent.
2. Impact of other circumstances
122. According to paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Law “On Safeguards”, the SBTD checked
whether there were other factors affecting the situation in domestic pork production, apart fromimports.
123. Analysis of increase of market share showed that in 2001 the total theoretical consumption of
Latvian pork increased by 18.31 per cent against 2000, in its turn, in the first six months of 2002 it
grew by 31.14 per cent against the respective period of 2001. Thus it cannot be stated that aggravating
situation in domestic production was caused by decrease of demand for pork and finished productscontaining pork, because such consumption increased.
124. According to questionnaire data obtained, from 1998 to 2001 local pork producers did not
export pork, except for one farm having exported reproduction livestock in 2001, which is not product
under consideration. Local pork producers sell all their pork in the Latvian market, and there is no
reason to believe that overproduction of pork might have been due to decreasing export, causing pork
sale at lower prices.
125. Decreasing import customs tax rates applicable and increasing customs duty quotas for pork
and swine edible offal of European Union origin promoted growing import volumes too.
3. Further development
126. Assessing the aggravating situation in domestic pork production and increasing imports of
pork and swine edible offal over the investigation period in the first six months of 2002, which
increased by 97.72 per cent against the respective period of 2001, it is to be concluded that there areno obstacles restricting growth of import, and increasing impact of import on domestic pork
production will continue even in the future, causing injury.G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 24
127. The CSB data obtained during the investigation also indicate continuous growth of import,
where total import volumes in 2002 against January changed according to months as follows: in
February – increased by 4.72 per cent, in March – decreased by 10.91 per cent, in April – decreased
by 3.05 per cent, in May – increased by 16.80 per cent, in June – increased by 39.91 per cent, in July
– increased by 21.19 per cent, in August – increased by 24.13 per cent, in September – increased by25.69 per cent, and in October – increased by 32.83 per cent.
128. It is very difficult for domestic pork producers to find new sales market, according to data of
questionnaires of domestic producers, no pork is exported. With domestic pork-breeding coming to
nil, operation of meat processing enterprises will not be hindered, because there will be more
possibilities to process in Latvia the raw materials produced abroad.
129. Possibilities of meat processing enterprises to receive funding for enterprise development on
better conditions than pork producers, as en visaged by SAPARD Program for Development of
Latvian Agriculture and countryside indicate favourable conditions for operation of meat processing
enterprises. Thus the meat-processing sector is supported, and hence continued increase of import at
the expense of aggravating situation in local pork production too.
130. Reduction of pork purchase prices in Lithuania and Poland indicates possibility of growing
pork import in the future too. Pork import quotas stated for nine months from 1 April 2003 in Russiaand aimed against meat import from the EU, wi ll affect growing import from the EU member-
countries to Latvia too. Such facts indicate that overproduction of pork by such countries in Europe
will consolidate crisis in pig-breeding industry, and will have unavoidable negative impact on Latvian
pork-breeders, unless safeguard measures are implemented.
F. 
COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
131. During the investigation, several interested parties presented their comments on other factors
that might have had negative impact on the domestic production situation, as well as comments on
how safeguard measures might affect other interested parties.
132. Among such comments was the view that domestic producers are unable to supply processing
enterprises with necessary pork quantities, because producers are unable to increase the number ofpigs bred. During the investigation the SBTD clarif ied that the number of pigs turned out to increase
in farms as a result of reconstruction and modernisation of farms. The increasing the quantity of pigs
is a long process, however in unstable market conditions it is even more difficult. Unless stable pork
purchase prices are ensured, production may hardly be extended, because there are no funds to be
invested. According to data of questionnaires submitted by meat processing enterprises and domestic
pork producers, in 2001 domestic pork producers having submitted the questionnaires managed to
ensure 94.53 per cent of the total pork quantities purchased by processing enterprises, in the first sixmonths of 2002 – 99.62 per cent of the total pork quantities purchased.
133. Objections have been received concerning non-conformity of pork produced in Latvia to
quality requirements, as well as it has been mentioned that safeguard measures will ensure stable pork
market and domestic producers will be able to produce low-quality pork. The SBTD disagrees with
such statement, because safeguard measures are aimed at promotion of production of pork of betterquality. In unstable market conditions, where prices are lower than production self-costs, it is not
possible to ensure good pork quality. In such a situation, the enterprise is unable to invest in
modernisation of its production process and breeding of purebred pigs, in order to ensure pork
production of higher quality and competition with  imported products. Moreover, each pork producer
is to understand that safeguard measures are applied during a specific period of time, and the marketsituation may change again after their withdrawal, hence during the period of application of such
measures, everything possible is to be done to ensure competitiveness of one’s enterprise afterG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 25
safeguard measures are withdrawn. It should be added that only 22 per cent of meat processing
enterprises have developed quality-determining criteria for pork and swine edible offal, on which
basis the purchase price of products is formed. The SBTD considers that in such a situation it is
difficult for pork producers to determine the quality required for processing enterprises.
134. To the argument that preservation of number of work places in a defended industry, by
applying the safeguard measures, threatens the number of work places in processing enterprises, the
SBTD replies as follows. The safeguards measures  are aimed at improvement of situation in the
threatened industry, in this case – domestic pork production, rather than putting any party concerned
in an unfavourable situation. By failing to implement the safeguards measures, pig-breeding industry
may disappear generally, thus increasing the level of unemployment in the countryside, which is high
even now, as well as affecting the situation in related industries. Safeguards measures are aimed at
prevention of its negative impact on the domestic production, not for forbidding of imports. Inevaluation of possible safeguards measures, interests of processing enterprises also are taken into
account.
135. Processing enterprises expressed the view that the government interference in the market
process will cause retardation of meat processing industry development and may be fatal in attraction
of investors, reducing the share of meat products produced in Latvia and increasing import of finishedproducts. Safeguards measures will certainly influence meat-processing enterprises, however
currently the pig-breeding industry is threatened in the same way too. The SBTD agrees to arguments
of meat processors that interests of one group of producers shall not be protected at the expense of
interests of the other enterprises, therefore the SB TD aims at improvement of the situation in pig-
breeding industry, without making situation in m eat processing industry worse as far as possible.
Taking into account that in 2001, with high pork purchase prices, no decline was observed in meat
processing industry, safeguard measures are unlikely to dramatically aggravate situation in the
industry.
136. Taking into consideration the CSB data on the number of pigs in farms, and assuming that
production volumes in farms are directly proportional to the number of pigs, processing enterprisesobjected that domestic producers having submitted the Application do not represent 58.69 per cent of
all domestic producers in Latvia. As defined in paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the Law “On Safeguards”,
the domestic producers are the entity of producers of like or directly competing products in the
territory of Latvia, or producers, whose production volume of like or directly competing products
constituted majority of the total domestic production volume of such goods. According to the CSB
information presented by the interested parties, farms are grouped according to the total number of
pigs, i.e. including reproduction material and piglets, hence we cannot accept the argument that porkproduction volumes are directly proportional to the number of pigs. As defined by the Law, the
domestic representation is determined by taking into account the volume of production, i.e. pork
volume. As the SBTD has no information available on volumes of pork produced by all supporters of
the Application, we are unable to assure that supporters of the Application did not represent 58.69 per
cent. According to data of questionnaires submitted by the domestic producers, domestic production isrepresented sufficiently, therefore the SBTD had no obstacles for carrying out the investigation.
137. The interested parties mentioned the argument that the increasing quantity of imports did not
affect sales volume of domestic producers, but rather compensated for increasing sales of pork
products. In view of this, the SBTD agrees that  growing import did not affect sales volumes of
domestic producers, however it did affect pork sale prices, because the domestic producers had tocompete with imported products and to sell his products at lower prices, in order to ensure sales
volumes.
138. The representative of the Joint Stock Company “R īgas Miesnieks” assured that in the first
five months of 2002 pork purchase price was at the level of the respective period in 2000, whenG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 26
safeguard measures had already been applied in Latvia, thus import could not be considered as a cause
of price decrease. In the opinion of the SBTD, the attention should be drawn to the fact that in 2000,
after applying safeguards measures, increase of pork purchase prices was achieved in comparison
with 1999, however the price level could not co ntinue to increase, because demand for pork
decreased, and processing enterprises were likely to get provided by cheap pork stock. However in thesecond half of 2000, when pork stocks were over and demand for pork increased again, pork purchase
prices increased too. The average pork purchase price in 2000 increased by 22.10 per cent in
comparison with 1999. In 2001, increasing pork imports had no impact on the domestic pork
production, because extension of livestock diseases resulted in higher pork price in the world, and
imported pork was expensive. In 2002, world pork prices decreased, hence imported pork became
cheaper, the quantity of imports increased, and domestic producers had to reduce pork sale prices in
order to compete with imported products. Consequently, it may be concluded that the import volumesand prices influence the domestic production.
139. The SBTD also received the comment that the price fluctuations caused reduction of profit of
domestic producers, rather than injury, because pork-breeding production costs of an effective farm
was 0.50 LVL/kg in live weight. As the SBTD received no detailed information for self-cost
determination, the SBTD refused such argument. According to data obtai ned by the SBTD from
domestic producers, pork production prime cost is higher.
140. The argument that legalisation of illegal pork accounts for import increase cannot be proved,
because there is no official date on illegal import and its changes. Calculation underlying such
conclusion has been made on the basis of conjectures, hence this is not taken into account. It cannot
be proved either that pork of illegal origin determ ined the price level in Latvia. According to data of
questionnaires submitted by pork processing enterprises to the SBTD, 31 per cent of meat processing
enterprises mentioned legal pork import as a cause of pork purchase price fluctuations.
G. P
UBLIC INTERESTS
141. The safeguard measures are aimed at prevention of injury sustained by domestic pork
producers due to increased imports, and at elimination of further aggravation of the situation indomestic pork production. In order to evaluate the public interests, the SBTD considered possible
consequences resulting from introduction or failure to introduce safeguard measures. It has been
considered that safeguard measures will affect domestic producers, meat processing enterprises and
consumers of finished products.
142. Unless the safeguards measures are introduced, existence of pig-breeding industry would be
seriously threatened. With low pork sales prices continuing for a long period, without covering
production self-costs, development of pig-breedin g industry would be hindered and deprived of
possibility of production adjustment, ensuring lower cost price. In their turn, upon implementation of
safeguard measures, situation in the pork market would stabilise and conditions would be established
for domestic producers to adjust their production to conditions of changing competition, to improve
quality and to cut pork production cost price. With establishment of limitations in import flow, pork
supply would decrease, resulting in growing demand for domestic pork and higher purchase prices for
domestic pork. Thus necessary profit margin would be ensured for domestic producers, allowing for
attraction of investments to production developmen t. During investigation, domestic pork producers
turned out to be able to follow growing dema nd for pork and to have increased pork production
volumes as far as possible.
143. Should the trend of aggravating situation in pig-breeding continue, domestic producers would
be forced to reduce the number of employees in enterprises, or even to suspend production. Many
enterprises are the only employers in the countryside. Enterprises connected with pig-breeding would
suffer too, especially businesses engaged in grain farming and processing, etc. With the situation inG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 27
pig-breeding stabilising, conditions would be established for continuation and development of pig-
breeding industry, which would ensure continuation of previous work places and establishment of
new ones, in its turn.
144. During the investigation, the SBTD received no comments from non-associated importers.
During investigation, most meat processing enterprises turned out to be importers too.
145. Meat processing industry shall not develop at the expense of material aggravation of the
situation in local pig-breeding industry. Co-existence of both such industries should be ensured.
Taking into account interests of meat processing enterprises, safeguard measures recommended by the
SBTD should not suspend import of pork and swin e edible offal, moreover, the impact of such
measures on results of activities of meat processing  enterprises will be taken into consideration, which
is important for determining liberalization terms.
146. Continuation of pork-breeding industry would be  profitable for meat processing enterprises
too, because in case of a critical situation, for example, extension of livestock diseases in pork
exporting countries, stable supply of pork produced in Latvia would be ensured.
H. SAFEGUARDS MEASURES AND THEIR SCOPE
147. The SBTD acknowledges that analysis of inve stigation results prove that pre-conditions of
application of definitive safeguards measures have been fulfilled, and the necessity of such measuresis confirmed, in order to prevent material injury of the domestic producers of Latvia and eliminate
further aggravation of the situation.
148. According to provisions of Section III of the Law “On Safeguards” and paragraph 20.4 of
Regulations No. 212 of the Cabinet of Ministers “Procedures of the Implementation of Safeguards
Measures” of 27.06.2000, the SBTD considers it necessary to introduce defence measures for liveswine and pork in the form of a customs duty.
149. According to provisions of Section IV of the Law “On Safeguards” and paragraph 26 of
Regulations No. 212 of the Cabinet of Ministers “Procedures of the Implementation of Safeguard
Measures” of 27.06.2000, the SBTD considers it necessary to introduce the tariff quota.
1. Determination of safeguards measures
(a) Live swine and pork
150. As injury of domestic producers has been caused mainly by decrease of pork purchase prices,
the SBTD considers that the most appropriate safeguard measure against imports of live swine and
pork is application of the customs duty.
151. The customs duty on live swine of LVL 203 per ton has been calculated as difference
between the sale price of pork in live weight in December 2002 as stated by the CSB – LVL 556 per
ton, being the latest data on the situation in domestic production available to the SBTD, and thepreferred purchase price of pork in live weight as stated by domestic producers – LVL 759 per ton. It
should be added that the preferred pork price is lower than the average statistical sale price of pork in
live weight in 2001, according to the CSB data.
152. The customs duty on pork has been calculated by dividing the above-mentioned customs duty
on live swine by the slaughter weight ratio (79.07 per cent).
153. Customs duties applicable to imports of live swine and their liberalization schedule:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 28
Table 8
Applicable customs duty, LVL per ton
Products subject to
customs dutiesUntil 31
December
2003From 1
January until
31 December
2004From 1
January until
31 December
2005From 1
January until
31 December
2006From 1
January 2007
until the end of
application
period
Products classified
under the code 0103,
except the codes
010310000,
010391100,
010391900,
010392900203 182.7 121.8 60.9 30.45
Products classified
under the code0203, except the
codes 020311900,
020312900,
020319900,
020321900,
020322900,
020329900257 231.3 154.2 77.1 38.55
(b) Swine edible offal
154. The SBTD stated the customs tariff quota for swine’s edible offal, calculating the average
volume of swine’s edible offal over the last three years according to recent CSB data available to the
SBTD (from December 1999 until November 2002).
155. The customs tariff quota for swine’s edible offal was calculated by dividing the above
customs rate on live swine by the slaughter weight ratio (79.07 per cent).
156. The customs tariff quota applicable to imports of swine’s edible offal and its liberalization
schedule:G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 29Table 9
I. Applicable customs tariff quota, in tons
Until 31 December 2003From 1 January until 31
December 2004From 1 January to 31
December 2005From 1 January to 31
December 2006From 1 January 2007
until the end of
application period Products subject to
tariff quota
QuotaCustoms
duty on
import above
the quota
LVL/ tonQuotaCustoms
duty on
imports
above the
quota
LVL/ tonQuotaCustoms
duty on
imports
above the
quota LVL/
tonQuotaCustoms
duty on
imports
above the
quota LVL/
tonQuotaCustoms
duty on
imports
above the
quota LVL/
ton
Products classifiedunder the code
020630, except the
code 020630800;
Products classifiedunder the code
020641, except the
code 020641800;
Products classifiedunder the code
020649, except the
code 020649800454.583 257 500.041 231.3 636.416 154.2 772.791 77.1 840.979 38.55G/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 30
2. Application of safeguards measures
157. Safeguards measures are applicable for four years from the moment of coming into force.
158. Safeguards measures are not applicable agains t imports of products under consideration from
WTO new developing countries listed in the Annex below, according to Article 23 of the Law “On
Safeguards”.
159. As determining the administration system of customs tariff quota applicable to import of
swine’s edible offal is beyond competence of the SBTD, the SBTD will transfer settlement of this
issue to the Republic of Latvia Ministry of Agriculture, the Republic of Latvia Ministry of Finance
and the Republic of Latvia Ministry of Economics immediately after adopting of the decision.
Deputy Director Z. Zvidri ņšG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 31
ANNEX
160. WTO new developing countries against which the safeguard measures are not
applicable, according to Article 23 of the Law “On Safeguards”:
1. Angola
2. Antigua and Barbuda
3. United Arab Emirates
4. Argentina
5. Bahrain
6. Bangladesh
7. Barbados
8. Belize
9. Benin
10. Bolivia
11. Botswana
12. Brazil
13. Brunei Darussalam
14. Burkina Faso
15. Burundi
16. Central African Republic
17. Chad
18. Chile
19. Dominica
20. Dominican Republic
21. Djibouti
22. Egypt
23. Ecuador
24. El Salvador
25. Fiji
26. Philippines
27. Gabon
28. Guyana
29. Gambia
30. Ghana
31. Grenada
32. Guatemala
33. Guinea Bissau
34. Guinea Republic
35. Haiti
36. Honduras
37. India
38. Indonesia
39. Jamaica
40. Jordan
41. Cameroon
42. Kenya
43. Columbia
44. Congo
45. Costa Rica
46. Côte d'Ivoire
47. KuwaitG/SG/N/8/LVA/2
Page 32
48. Qatar
49. Lesotho
50. Madagascar
51. Macao
52. Malaysia
53. Malawi
54. Maldives
55. Mali
56. Morocco
57. Mauritius
58. Mauritania
59. Mexico
60. Myanmar
61. Mozambique
62. Namibia
63. Niger
64. Nigeria
65. Nicaragua
66. Oman
67. Pakistan
68. Panama
69. Papua New Guinea
70. Paraguay
71. Peru
72. Rwanda
73. Senegal
74. Sierra Leone
75. Suriname
76. Saint Kitts and Nevis
77. Saint Lucia
78. Saint Vincent & Northern Grenadines
79. Swaziland
80. Sri Lanka
81. Thailand
82. Tanzania
83. Togo
84. Trinidad and Tobago
85. Tunisia
86. Uganda
87. Uruguay
88. Venezuela
89. Solomon Islands
90. Zambia
91. Zimbabwe
__________