00-4864 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/TPRB/146
14 November 2000
TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF NORWAY
TPRB'S EVALUATION
The Trade Policy Review Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded its third
review of Norway's trade policies on 21 and 23 June 2000. The text of the Chairperson's concluding
remarks is attached as a summary of the salient points which emerged during the discussion.
The review enables the TPRB to conduct a collec tive examination of the full range of trade
policies and practices of each WTO member countries at regular periodic intervals to monitorsignificant trends and developments which may have an impact on the global trading system.
The review is based on two reports which are prepared respectively by the WTO Secretariat
and the government under review and which cover all aspects of the country's trade policies, including
its domestic laws and regulations, the institutional framework, bilateral, regional and other
preferential agreements, the wider economic needs and the external environment. A record of the
discussion and the Chairperson's summing-up together with these two reports will be published in duecourse at the complete trade policy review of Norway and will be available from the WTO Secretariat,
Centre William Rappard, 154 rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21.PRESS/TPRB/146
Page 2
MORESince December 1989, the following reports have been completed: Argentina (1992 and
1999), Australia (1989, 1994 and 1998), Austria (19 92), Bahrain (2000) Bangladesh (1992 and 2000),
Benin (1997), Bolivia (1993 and 1999), Botswana  (1998), Brazil (1992, 1996 and 2000), Burkina
Faso (1998), Cameroon (1995), Canada (1990, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998), Chile (1991 and 1997),
Colombia (1990 and 1996), Costa Rica (1995), Cô te d’Ivoire (1995), Cyprus (1997), the Czech
Republic (1996), the Dominican Republic (1996), E gypt (1992 and 1999), El Salvador (1996), the
European Communities (1991, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 2.000), Fiji (1997), Finland (1992), Ghana(1992), Guinea (1999), Hong Kong (1990, 1994 and 1998), Hungary (1991 and 1998), Iceland (1994
and 2000), India (1993 and 1998), Indonesia (1991, 1994 and 1998), Israel (1994 and 1999), Jamaica
(1998), Japan (1990, 1992, 1995 and 1998), Kenya (1993 and 2000), Korea, Rep. of (1992, 1996 and
2000), Lesotho (1998), Macau (1994), Malaysia (1993 and 1997), Mali (1998), Mauritius (1995),
Mexico (1993 and 1997), Morocco (1989 and 1996) , New Zealand (1990 a nd 1996), Namibia (1998),
Nicaragua (1999), Nigeria (1991 and 1998), Norw ay (1991, 1996 and 2000), Pakistan (1995), Papua
New Guinea (1999), Paraguay (1997), Peru (1994 and 2000), the Philippines (1993), Poland (1993and 2000), Romania (1992 and 1999), Senegal ( 1994), Singapore (1992, 1996 and 2000), Slovak
Republic (1995), the Solomon Islands (1998), South Africa (1993 and 1998), Sri Lanka(1995),
Swaziland (1998), Sweden (1990 and 1994), Switzerl and (1991 and 1996), Tanzania (2000), Thailand
(1991, 1995 and 1999), Togo (1999), Trinidad and Tobago (1998), Tunisia (1994), Turkey (1994 and
1998), the United States (1989, 1992, 1994, 1996 a nd 1999), Uganda (1995), Uruguay (1992 and
1998), Venezuela (1996), Zambia (1996) and Zimbabwe (1994).PRESS/TPRB/146
Page 3
MORETRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF NORWAY
CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
We have had a positive and open discussion on Norway's trade policies.  Members of the
TPRB were clearly impressed by Norway's solid economic performance and the high standard of
living.  This was achieved, due in good part to a liberal trade regime, disciplined macroeconomic
policies and the deft management of its natural resources.  In this respect, Members highlighted the
creation of a special fund to help the inter-generational distribution of oil and gas income.  Members
commended Norway for its support to developing and least developed countries, including through
both direct aid and tariff preferences.  They unequivocally welcomed Norway's active andconstructive participation in the WTO, not the least through the leadership of the General Council by
Ambassador Bryn.
On trade policies, Members expressed divergent views on Norway's position.  They
acknowledged Norway's overall commitment to liberal trade and investment policies.  However,several questioned the high level of support granted to the agricultural sector.
Members recognized that Norway maintains low MFN tariffs on manufactured products.
Moreover, in practice those products often enjoy duty free access under the several preferential
agreements Norway maintains.  In this respect, Norway was invited to extend this treatment to all
WTO Members.  Members also noted that Norway does not make use of trade defence measures.
They observed that it is the only country to have eliminated ahead of time virtually all quantitative
restrictions maintained under the Agreement on Textile and Clothing.
Members pointed out that although investment and ownership are generally open to
foreigners some restrictions persist.  In some cas es, there is preferential treatment for EEA investors.
They encouraged Norway to relax these restrictions and multilateralize the preferential treatment
granted to EEA investors.  Members stressed the high degree of liberalization already achieved in the
services sector.
The concept of multifunctionality lay at the heart of the discussion on Norway's high level of
assistance to agriculture.  While some Members stated support for such concept, others gave priority
to the principle of non-discrimination across sectors.  Members also raised numerous questions on the
specific instruments used to protect and assist agriculture, particularly Norway's application of tariffs,
tariff quotas, SPS measures and export subsidies.
Members also asked for details in a number of other areas including:- measures to encourage and diversify trade;
- the gap between applied and bound rates for certain manufactures including textiles
and motor vehicles;
- import charges and environmental levies;- importation of patent protected products;
- review of competition legislationPRESS/TPRB/146
Page 4
END- activities of state enterprises, particularly in tobacco and alcoholic beverages;
- state role and privatization in banking, telecommunications, postal and petroleum
activities;
- regulation of and activity in maritime transport;
- assistance to shipbuilding;  and
- regulatory framework for financial services.Members appreciated the comprehensive oral and written responses provided by the
Norwegian delegation in the context of this meeting, as well as Norway's undertaking to provide
written responses to some additional specific questions as soon as possible.
In conclusion, it is my sense that Members fully acknowledged Norway's success in prudently
managing an economy richly endowed with natural resources.  Appreciation was also expressed for
the enlightened policy Norway follows with rega rd to support to developing, including least
developed countries.  There was recognition of the liberalization and deregulation effort undertaken
by Norway since its last Trade Policy Review and encouragement for it to continue in this path.  In
this regard, several Members believed that liberalization should also include the agricultural sector
both to bring it in line with Norway's policies in ot her areas, as well as to strengthen the multilateral
trading system as a whole.