WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/TPR/M/269 
19 November 2012 
 (12-6331) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
9 and 11 October 2012  
 
 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
 
NORWAY 
 
Record of the Meeting 
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Eduardo Muñoz Gómez (Colombia) 
 
 
  Page 
 
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 3 
II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY  5 
III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT 9 
IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 13 
V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY AND  
 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 38 VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 45  
 
 
Note:   Advance written questions by WTO Memb ers and the replies provided by Norway are 
reproduced in document WT/TPR/M/269/Add.1 and will be available online at:  
http://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm.    WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
1. The sixth Trade Policy Review of Norway was held on 9 and 11 October 2012.  
The Chairperson H.E. Mr. Eduardo Muñoz Gómez (C olombia) welcomed the delegation of Norway 
headed by Mr. Dagfinn Sørli, Deputy Director-Gener al of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the 
discussant, H.E. Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria). 
2. The Chairperson recalled the purpose of the Trad e Policy Reviews and the main elements of 
the procedures for the meeting.  The report by Norway was contained in document WT/TPR/G/269 
and that of the WTO Secretariat in WT/TPR/S/269. 
3. Questions by the following delegations had been  submitted in writing at least two weeks in 
advance and had been transmitted to the delegation of Norway:  Australia;  Korea;  United States;  
Switzerland;  Turkey;  Singapore;  Brazil;  Costa Ri ca;  Canada;  Hong Kong, China;  Mexico;  Japan;  
Thailand;  China;  European Union;  Argentina;  South Africa; Chile; and Colombia.  The following delegations submitted written questi ons after the two-weeks deadline:  Pakistan; Philippines; Peru; 
India; and Ecuador. 
4. The Chairperson noted that an examination of  the reports prepared by Norway and the 
Secretariat for this meeting revealed the following:  Norway continued to be a significant exporter of 
oil and gas, and the mainland economy had continued to grow, only mildly affected by global turmoil 
and debt problems elsewhere.  The Norwegian St ate continued to own significant stakes in major 
Norwegian enterprises, and Norway's foreign pr esence as a global investor through the Government 
Pension Fund Global was increasing steadily.  Th e trade policy and investment framework had 
remained stable over the last four years.  Norw ay's close economic and trade relationship with the 
European Union was well known. 
5. He observed that within the WTO, Norway was regarded as a trustworthy and relentless 
advocate of a strong multilateral trading system.  At  the same time, it was seeking to conclude further 
liberalization agreements with its partners in the EFTA framework. Norway was a generous 
contributor to aid-for-trade programmes and simila r initiatives.  No formal complaints had been 
brought against Norway under the WTO Dispute Se ttlement Mechanism.  Its abstention from the use 
of trade remedies was noteworthy.  Norway particip ated actively in the recent negotiations to revise 
the plurilateral WTO Agreement on Government Pr ocurement, and had as a result taken on board 
further obligations in this area. 
6. For industrial products, Norway's import re gime was very liberal with little or no 
tariff protection - even for MFN suppliers. Th e Norwegian fisheries sector was extremely 
outward-oriented.  Openness in services sectors w as essentially determined by Norway's adaptation to 
EU rules and regulations, a nd its integration into the EU single market.  In agriculture, the picture was 
vastly different:  subsidies and border protection we re high, they were well documented, and they had 
not varied significantly since previous Trade Policy Reviews. 
7. The overall situation in Norway was one of  harmony, stability and well-known facts.  
However, there were some recent developments th at were worth mentioning, as they could not be 
reflected in the background documentation.  In presenting its recent budget proposal to the Norwegian 
Parliament, the Government prop osed to switch from specific to ad valorem  import duties on certain 
agricultural items from 1 January 2013.  This might sound like a purely technical change, but 
involved a significant increase in the MFN border prot ection for the affected goods (beef steaks and 
fillets, lamb meat, and hard cheeses) as the boun d rates in Norway's Goods Schedule for these goods 
were now higher expressed in ad valorem  than in specific terms.  It was noted in the Secretariat report 
that Norway implemented such a switch for liquid milk  and cream in 2010.  As a side issue, it should 
be noted that a customs reclassification decision in Ju ly this year prompted the import duty applied to WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 4  
 
  a plant named "Hortensia" to rise from 0 to 72%.  Moreover, we understood that yesterday's budget 
presentation included proposals for changes in Norway 's GSP Scheme, but in the direction of import 
liberalization and a certain rationalization of the ta riff regime applicable to textiles and clothing 
resulting in lower import duties. 
8. Having expertise from Oslo in the room, he w as certain that Members could get first-hand 
information on these and other developments, if Memb ers so desired, in the course of the Review.  
The written questions from Members raised a number of points worth highlighting: 
 Norway's strong reliance on the EU as a market for its exports; 
 
 the high percentage of exports involving petroleum products and their byproducts; 
 
 the high level of protection for agriculture , which has a negative impact on the food 
processing industry, supermarkets , and ultimately, consumers; 
 
 high labour costs, which have an imp act on exports and on the industries which 
compete with imports. 
  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 5 
 
 
  II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE RE PRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY  
9. Transparency is one of the fundamental tenant s of the multilateral trade system. Norway finds 
the TPR to be an extremely valuable exercise.  Its importance tends to be underestimated. The 
monitoring and peer review functions of the WTO produce insight which in turn can inspire reform, simplification and change. In 2009, changes to our  agricultural policy were undertaken as a direct 
result of questions raised by the Secretariat's report and Members' ques tions during our 2008 TPR. 
While we make no promises that similar changes will happen this time, we  do promise that your 
concerns and suggestions  will be considered. 
10. All tools need to be sharpened every once in a while. That is why Norway actively supported 
and championed the new procedures in the fourth review of the TPRB that took place last autumn. 
Our TPR today is being conducted under the so- called "alternative approach". We hope the new 
approach will result in a more focused and dynamic exercise.  
11. We received 292 written questions on a multitude  of topics. We thank Members for their 
interest and for giving us the opportunity to go in to our policies in sometimes excruciating detail. 
Some questions were received at a very late stage, but we are doing our best to have our replies ready 
today.  With the new format, Members have had a week to consider our replies. We hope that our 
replies have helped shed light on your queries.  
12. Let me start by saying a few words on how Norw ay has been impacted by the recent global 
crisis. Secondly, I would like to make a few remark s on topics which have been particularly prevalent 
in the questions from Members, a nd at the same take the opportunity to update the membership on 
some trade relevant proposals included in the national budget for 2013 th at was presented to the 
Parliament yesterday. 
13. The economic crisis has affected us all. For No rway, the effects of the crisis have so far, 
fortunately, turned out to be manageable. Norway is blessed with a magnitude of natural resources. 
Revenues from natural resource exploitation provide us with fiscal space. While petroleum revenues 
are important to the Norwegian economy and have he lped us weather the crisis, we believe that 
economic policies have contributed to fo ster a stable economic environment. 
14. The Norwegian business structure helped shie ld the Norwegian economy from the large drop 
in global demand from 2008 onwards. Both the service sector and the manufacturing sector profited from continued high activity and demand from the pe troleum sector. Norway also has a large public 
sector and well-developed social safety nets, which contributed to stabilising the economy. 
Furthermore, the solid financial situation of the Norwegian state has most likely strengthened 
confidence among households, businesses and pa rticipants in financial markets. 
15. The current system of financial market regula tion and supervision in Norway has to a large 
degree been developed on the basis of experiences and lessons learned during a very serious banking 
crisis some twenty years ago. Comprehensive and consistent regulation has been established across all 
relevant parts of the financial sector. A series of measures to improve banks' access to liquidity were 
introduced during the crisis in 2008, both to he lp maintain banks' lending activities and to prevent 
payment problems for otherwise solvent banks.  
16. Overall, a stable macroeconomic environment, sound financial market regulation and targeted 
policy measures were key factors contributing to the stabilisation of the financial markets and the real 
economy. While Norway's mainland GDP contracted by 1.8% in 2009, it rebounded to growth the 
following year and has since remained positive. We expect this positive grow th to continue although 
we see clear signs that the present slowdown in Euro pe is affecting parts of  Norwegian industry, and 
the exchange rate is under upward pressure.  WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 6  
 
  17. Not surprisingly, many Members have asked qu estions about Norway's agricultural policies 
and related trade policy. We welcome these questi ons, and we understand why this area attracts so 
much attention. We note that the Secretariat's re port portrays Norway as "extreme" when it comes to 
agriculture. We do, however, make no apologies fo r our agricultural policy. At the same time we 
acknowledge that as a country dependent on an open, rules-based trading system, we have a 
responsibility to be transparent and to explain our policies to the WTO membership. 
18. Firstly, Norway continues to take the commitments and obligations in the WTO very 
seriously. Adherence to our WTO commitments is a fundamental premise when discussing and 
shaping domestic agricultural policy. Secondly, we have a responsibility to explain why it is 
warranted and necessary to resort to such a set of  policies. In short, our policies reflect the 
extraordinary challenges related to our cost stru cture, geography and climate. Our priority on 
maintaining, protecting and supporting our agri cultural sector reflects an ongoing emphasis on 
safeguarding various non-trade concerns. 
19. Thirdly, we have a responsibility to ensure that our policies do not unnecessarily disadvantage 
our trading partners in general,  and our developing country tradi ng partners in particular. Our 
subsidies are aimed at sustaining domestic productio n for the Norwegian market, and not to give our 
producers a competitive advantage in international markets. 
20. Norwegians are quality conscious consumers that  value diversity of tastes and experiences. 
Our imports of agricultural products have more than doubled from approximately 18 billion NOK 
in 2002 to 40 billion NOK in 2011. Imports of goods of  particular interest to developing countries, 
such as sugar, coffee, cotton and a range of fruits, vegetables and tropical products enter our market 
duty free.  At the same time, Norwegians strongly s upport maintaining a strong and viable agricultural 
sector throughout Norway. Our policies will always have  to strike a balance between these, and other, 
objectives.  
21. Let me turn to the trade-related issues in the budget proposal presented yesterday. The first 
point for which I know there is some interest rela tes to agriculture.  The Government has proposed to 
change from specific to ad valorem tariffs for a handf ul of tariff lines for cheese, beef and sheep meat. 
Protection of these products is considered essentia l for the fulfilment of our agricultural policy 
objectives. 
22. Let me assure you that we remain squarely within our WTO obligations.  Secondly, the 
proposal aims to ensure that imports of chees es complementing Norwegian products do not suffer. 
Furthermore, measures have been proposed to en sure that the increasing imports of beef from 
developing countries can continue to grow. Finally, we have taken steps to inform our closest trading 
partners of the changes, and would like to under line our willingness to explain, through our delegation 
here in Geneva, all details to any interested parties. 
23. The second point I would like to mention is re lated to our GSP scheme, an issue several 
delegations have expressed an interest in. Le t me recall that the Norwegian GSP scheme was 
established in 1971, and duty-free and quota-free mark et access (DFQF) for all products from LDC's 
was introduced in 2002. In 2008 duty-free and quot a-free market access was extended to include Low 
Income Countries (LIC) with less than 75 million inhab itants. In total, 64 countries are eligible for 
DFQF. 
24. Trade statistics tell us that imports from G SP eligible countries increased by 72% in value 
terms from 2005 to 2010.  And more importantly, the share of GSP imports (of Norway's total 
imports) increased from 10.2% to 13.4%.  This gr owth is due to increased imports from middle 
income countries, and in particular upper middle income countries.  The largest increases – in value 
terms – came from China, Brazil, South Africa, Viet Nam and Thailand.   WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 7 
 
 
  25. Unfortunately, imports from LDCs and other LI Cs remain marginal, despite duty-free and 
quota-free market access.  We have, however, seen so me success stories in the form of new trade 
flows, such as cut flowers from Kenya and Ethiopia and honey from Zambia and Ethiopia. Bangladesh and Cambodia are also doing quite well in the textiles sector.  But the success stories are 
disappointingly few. 
26. An independent study commissioned by the Gove rnment in 2011 identified a number of other 
obstacles to trade than tariffs, including the existe nce of numerous supply-side constraints, in 
particular in the case of the poorest countries. The study presented a number of proposals for improvements to the GSP, and pointed to the im portance of Aid for Trade and other forms of 
development assistance to address the various suppl y-side constraints in the poorest countries. 
27. The Government is following up along two sep arate tracks. The firs t track relates to 
improvements of the GSP system itself, which were presented yesterday as part of the national budget for 2013.  The most significant change is the creation of a new middle tier – named "GSP plus" – 
encompassing 29 countries in the lower middle income category. "GSP plus" will be granted more generous preferences than "ordinary" GSP countri es, but less generous than countries eligible for 
DFQF. The proposal also includes improvements in  preferences and quotas available to all GSP 
countries. If adopted by Parliament, chang es will take effect from 1. January 2013. 
28. The second track relates to Aid for Trade. Norw ay has had an Action Plan for trade-related 
development assistance in place since 2007. Prioritie s are support for good governance, women and 
trade and regional trade. The focus is on LDCs an d other LICs. An independent evaluation of the 
Action Plan has been carried out, and the main point s of this evaluation have been presented in this 
house earlier this year in the CTD in July. We are currently in the process of formulating the next 
generation of the Action Plan which we hope to start implementing in 2013.  In the broader context of 
development cooperation, Norway focuses on stimula ting growth and investment in LDCs and LICs 
through a variety of programs, including the provisi on of investment capital, risk alleviation and 
grants. 
29. Let me also mention that the government has pr oposed to simplify applie d MFN tariffs in the 
textiles and clothing sector, which also will result in  somewhat lower tariffs. This is – as many will 
know, the only industrial sector wh ere Norway still applies tariffs.  
30. My fourth point in relation to the budget proposal  concerns our investment regime, which also 
has attracted some interest from other Members. Unlike most other countries Norway does not have a 
horizontal investment law, but rather sector speci fic regulations.  And although we have an open 
investment regime in general and foreign investors are welcome, we have for many years not had an 
investment promotion agency. The Government is now proposing to establish an "Invest in Norway"-
office in order to improve services offered to prospective investors.   
31. This concludes my update on trade related el ements in the Government's budget proposal 
for 2013.  Let me then turn to a couple of other th emes in the questions received from Members.  First 
of all, a number of questions relate to state-ow ned enterprises and the involvement by the Norwegian 
government in the economy as owner. Compared to many  countries at similar levels of development, 
the level of state ownership in  the Norwegian economy is high. 
32. Norway has a long history of state ownership. Today, a large part of saving in the Norwegian 
economy takes place through the public sector. Norway  is well known for its sovereign wealth fund – 
The Government Pension Fund Global.  Through the GPFG the state acts as a financial investor with 
small ownership stakes in global equity and bond markets. Through its stakes in Norwegian 
companies, on the other hand, the state acts as an active, long-term owner, whose main aim is to 
contribute to the commercial companies' long-te rm value creation and industrial development. WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 8  
 
  33. In relation to trade policy and the present exerci se, the main point in our view is not the 
ownership as such, but under what conditions the comp anies operate.  We ensure that management of 
government ownership is done in such a way as to k eep the role of owner separate from the roles of 
policymaker or regulator.  The State's exercise of its ownership is ba sed on generally accepted 
principles for corporate governance, and on the di vision of roles set out in Norwegian company 
legislation. 
34. Lastly, a number of delegations have asked questions about Norw ay's relationship to the EU. 
As described in the reports, the Government commi ssioned an independent study on Norway's overall 
relations with the EU. The report was handed over to the Government in January this year, and will be 
followed up by a White Paper that will be presented to  the Parliament (the Storting) in the very near 
future. While the details have of course not yet been  revealed, it is a rather safe bet not to anticipate 
any radical changes in Norway's relationship with the EU.   
35. Both the Secretariat and the Government Re ports emphasise the fundamental stability of 
Norwegian trade policy. There have been no major changes in Norway's trad e policy since the last 
review in 2008. Norway's trade policy is an integr al part of the Government's policy to promote 
economically, socially and environmentally sust ainable growth, domestically and globally. 
36. A stable, rules based trading environment is of  fundamental importance to Norway's national 
interests, and the WTO constitutes an important el ement of the global governance architecture.  The 
pillars of our trade policy remain  the same: a stable, multilateral, rules based trading environment 
anchored in the WTO;  complement ed by deeper regional integrati on in the European Economic Area 
and free trade agreements with other important tr ading partners, primarily in cooperation with 
Norway's partners in EFTA;  and supplemented by policies and measures promoting the participation 
of developing countries in internationa l trade and the global trading regime. 
37. As an open, market based economy, Norway is one of the benefactors of a strong and rules-
based international trading system.  Access to international markets is essential in order to achieve our 
goals related to employment and welfare. Norway firmly believes that all members stand to gain 
significantly from strengthening the multilateral trading system and improving market access for 
goods and services.  Norway is strongly committe d to the Doha Round of trade negotiations, and 
would like to contribute to finding the way forward.  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 9 
 
 
  III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT (H.E. MR. YONOV FREDERICK AGAH 
(NIGERIA)) 
38. Since this is the first TPR that I would be participating in, as a Discussant, under the new 
timelines that we agreed to during the review exer cise of the TPRM last year, I wish to preface my 
introductory remarks with a couple of salient aspe cts of the new arrangeme nts, which I consider 
useful and interesting.  First, I am satisfied th at the frontloading of information on the Member under 
Review has, no doubt, clearly served the set objective of a more comprehensive, meaningful and interactive proceeding during the meetings of the TPRB.  Second, although I cannot speak on what 
has been the experience of my other colleagues, who have so far served as Discussants under the new 
arrangements, my personal experience has b een very interesting and challenging.   
39. It has been interesting because I have been ab le develop better insights and greater clarity, 
due to the complete package of information contai ned in the Secretariat and the Government Reports, 
as well as the replies by Norway to the advance written questions submitted to it by some Members.  It has been equally challenging due to the enormous  amount of information that I now had to sieve, 
thus, making the task of ensuring that my intr oductory remarks are analytical, balanced and 
comprehensive much more difficult.  Under these circumstances, my comments on some aspects of 
Norway's trade policies and practices should not be seen as taking sides, but merely reflecting my 
sense of what I consider as the most critical and pr evalent issues.  And I would, as much as possible, 
try to do this in a fair and balanced manner. 
40. To begin with, as you are all aware, Norway has been variously acclaimed as a classic story 
of a country that has moved "from rags to riches"  (Larsen, 2001).  From the perspective of economic 
history, Norway, at the close of the 19
th Century, was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe, 
with one of Europe's highest emig ration rates and social problems. Ten years later, a 40-year period of 
high economic growth began, and the economy accelera ted again in the 1970s due to the upsurge in 
the oil economy, which has today made Norway sec ond to none on most well – established economic 
performance indicators, including taki ng the third place in the world,  in terms of GDP per capita.  
Thus, according to Larsen, "a hundred years ago,  nobody would have guessed that Norway would 
finish the century among the richest countries in th e world.  Norway started the century poor and 
ended up wealthy".   
41. I, therefore, believe that a logical starting point for our discussion today should be by 
recalling not only how this happened, but also the impact of this significant achievement on how some of the essential elements of Norway's economic po licy-making and development work today.  Since 
most of these essential elements have been very well covered in both Reports, or raised in the written 
questions submitted by some Members for this Review , I will only flag them for the purpose of this 
morning's discussion. 
42. As argued and demonstrated by Larsen, ther e is more to Norwegian performance than 
fortunate coincidence (lucky for nice and friendly neighbours, who became rich before Norway ever 
did, geography and oil). An overview of modern Norwegian economic development indicates that the 
answer to Norway's world – class economic perform ance lies in the exploitation of natural resources; 
the active diffusion of foreign technology; and signi ficant State ownership and intervention.  These 
have, generally, been complemented by, inter alia ,  advances within the traditional sectors of fishing, 
forestry and shipping; the emergence and changing na ture of modern industry and enterprise structure; 
agriculture, including its links with  industry; and the growth of the services sector.  Nevertheless, I am 
of the view that there is a need to  also consider all these critical fact ors in the social contexts within 
which the modern Norwegian society has evolved.   Moreover, the background for policy success and 
the perils of policy failure can mostly be found in th e fact that "Norwegian policy is a conglomerate of 
many wise, and some unwise, institutiona l arrangements and ec onomic regulations". WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 10  
 
  43. This appears to me as a consensual conclusion; and I intend to use it as the basis on which to 
focus my remarks with r espect to four broad aspects of Norway's economic and trade policies, viz., 
economic environment and performance; state owne rship and intervention; trade and investment 
regimes; and agriculture.  My choice of these aspec ts of Norway's trade policies and practices is 
random and not based on any order of priority.  Ho wever, the fact is that all those issues have 
remained central during discussions at all previous TP Rs of Norway, particularly the pre-eminent role 
of and intervention by government in the economy, oil and gas, as well as the persisting contradiction 
between a generally liberal import regime for indus trial goods and a very high degree of protection for 
the agricultural sector.  These broad aspects may be  described as constituting a "recurring decimal" 
that has been rolled over from the previous TPRs; and may even come up at discussions today.  I 
intend to conclude my introductory remarks with so me brief comments on the role and contribution of 
Norway to the multilateral trading system and the WTO. 
44. As we have already seen, Norway has recorded a continued history of prosperity that dates 
back beyond the period under review (2008-12).  Indeed, at the last review in 2008, a major delegation had emphatically stated that, "if past is  prologue, one should not be surprised that this 
2008 TPR showcases Norway's continued prosperity".  And I am tempted to add that, in terms of 
economic performance, the views of Members at toda y's Review would not be any different.  Despite 
the global economic upheaval and downturn, arisi ng from the economic and financial crisis, the 
mainland GDP contracted by 1.8% in 2009 but rebounded and has remained on a positive growth 
trajectory.  Although just below the historical trend, the mainland GDP grew by 1.9% and 2.4% in 2010 and 2011, respectively.  While interest ra tes remain low, the unemployment rate has been 
declining steadily towards 3.0%.  The terms of trade, between 2003 and 2011, have been improving 
by an annual average of almost 5.0%, with the surplus on the current account exceeding 10.0% every 
year, since the last review exercise.  In the face of all these somewhat mixed developments, the 
Secretariat Report notes that there have been no si gnificant changes in Norway's general framework 
for trade policy formulation and implementation. 
45. The Secretariat Report notes that State owne rship is considerable in Norway; and has 
generally remained stable over the last four years.  The Government of Norway also notes in its Report 
that "compared to many countries at similar leve l of development, the Norwegian state is highly 
involved in the economy as owner".  The Government further explains that, while the policy is that 
the extent of State ownership should remain at a pproximately the current le vel, a number of reforms 
have been undertaken, since the turn of Century, to  organise the management of its ownership in such 
a way as to keep the role of owner separate from th e roles of policy-maker, regulator and supervisor.  
Many Members, however, have continued to express c oncerns over the high level of State ownership 
and intervention in the Norwegian economy, especi ally with respect to the transparency and 
operations of State enterprises, as well as the attrac tiveness of foreign direct investment. Although the 
Government of Norway presently has parliamentar y approval to decrease State ownership in three 
companies, it is obvious that this policy framewo rk would largely remain in place, as it does not 
necessarily "imply that the Government will not priv atise certain companies or participate in sensible 
industrial transactions". 
46. I believe that, in spite of the concerns expr essed by some Members regarding the high level of 
State ownership and intervention in the Norwegian economy, there are two lessons that should remain 
in focus.  First, the successful economic performance  experience of Norway with the role of the State 
in the national economy provides us with strong eviden ce that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach 
to economic policy and management.  This, therefor e, should lend credence to the efforts by some 
Members, in this Organisation and elsewhere, to en sure that they are provided with adequate policy 
space based on their development needs and aspirations .  It also means that Governments should be 
able, as much as possible, to implement reforms at a pace, timing and sequence that is consistent with 
their capacity and special economic and socio-cultur al circumstances.  Second, there is a need to 
recognise that success and failure are two sides of th e same coin, just as is the case with opportunity  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 11 
 
 
  and risk.  Consequently, it should be realised that  policies that may have worked in one particular 
environment would not necessarily work in another.  In the circumstance, it would be interesting to 
hear from Norway whether its policy on State owne rship and intervention in the national economy is 
informed by these broad concerns with "unbridled liberalisation", or based mostly on economic 
efficiency considerations? 
47. The primary focus of Norway's trade policy is the multilateral trading system embodied in the 
WTO, which it considers as a bulwark against protectionism and as a basis for growth and welfare.  This focus is largely understandable, given that No rway remains one of the greatest beneficiaries of 
the international trading system.  However, Norway is equally an active partic ipant in various regional 
and bilateral trade arrangements, especially the EEA and EFTA that are central to its close 
relationship with the EU. Norway is also activel y pursuing a strategy of negotiating new free trade 
agreements bilaterally and with its EFTA partners.  It would appear to me that, in spite of its best 
intentions, the approach of Norway to bilateral a nd regional trade agreements is unwittingly leading to 
an increasing complex web of trade policies and prac tices, which may hamper the trade interests of 
those Members that are not Parties to such agreemen ts.  For example, I have noted that EEA investors 
must be given the same treatment as Norwegian i nvestors. While Norway does not envisage any 
changes in its relations with the EU, it would seem that its present fragmentary approach to 
integration with the EU is becoming complicated with the emergence of bilateral conventions and 
regulations in various areas of econom ic endeavour.  Despite the fact that Norway has been efficient 
in the administration of its relationship with the EU, it would be interesting to hear what Norway 
considers as the benefits of its fu ll integration with the EU to it s national economy and the multilateral 
trading system?  
48. The issue of Norway's policies in  the agricultural sector is one of the recurring decimals that I 
had earlier referred to.  The Secretariat Report again states that the sector is closely regulated, and 
complex domestic market regulati on often goes hand in hand with hi gh border protection for livestock 
and crops grown in Norway.  However, due to hi gh production costs, the share of agriculture in 
Norway's GNP has declined constantly from around 3% in 1977 to 0.3% at the present.  Although 
domestic policies in the sector remain a major concer n for some Members, it is interesting that I could 
not see any reference to agricultural trade issues in the report submitted by Norway for this review.  I 
am still searching though.  
49. Nevertheless, while one appreciates the ch allenges that a Member, under Review, may 
experience with its policies in any area, it would be mo re useful and in the interest of the system if 
attempt is made to seize the opportunity provided by the review exercise to explain those 
circumstances that may have info rmed its policies in the sector. Moreover, it is my understanding that 
the purpose of the review exercise is to enable the membership appreciate the economic environment 
and those other contexts under which trade policies and practices are formulated and implemented. 
Against that background, I would be very happy to hear why Norway has opted to leaving out 
agriculture in its report for this TPR? 
50. I wish to now move on to those issues that I consider may be a useful "take-away" for 
Norway from this review.  Let me observe, from the outset, that what I am going to say is not new or 
strange. It only significantly draws from and builds on those issues that being discussed by key domestic constituencies in Norway and, perhaps, may be raised by some Members during this review 
exercise.  Here again, I wish to  turn to Larsen, who has identified a list of proposals put forward by 
critics regarding claims about ill – designed policies,  within the context of the debate on whether 
Norway got its policy choices wrong and/or what can be improved.  I wish to reproduce this list, which has been described as a bouquet of critical remarks, verbatim:  The business climate is 
inhospitable to private initiative and there are fe w incentives to excel. The in frastructure needed to 
support our pattern of spread – out residence is  too resource demanding, given what the populace 
actually want. The level of agricultural production is above the optimum, given what people would WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 12  
 
  prefer if they knew the costs. Grants to r esearch and development are small, infrequent, and 
misdirected.  The welfare system is too generous to  be sustainable. The ongoi ng de-industrialisation is 
precarious. There is little reliance on market solutions and, thus, too little competition. There exists an 
environment of hostility toward s ambitions and achievement. 
51. It is important to note that all these claims are based on views expressed by Norwegian 
politicians, commentators in the media, economists, journalists, or business leaders. Apart from the 
listing, Larsen has further attempted to debun k all these lines of critique against Norwegian 
orthodoxy, on the basis that economics is about identifying optimum levels, particularly the part 
played by deliberate institutional arrangements and the implementation of core policies.  Although I 
do not intend to agree or disagree with the various  conclusions that have been reached on all these 
issues, it would be useful to hear the views of the Government of Norway on how it sees the interface 
between the domestic debate and what it may hear  from the membership during this review, including 
how it intends to achieve convergence on the way forward. 
52. As foreshadowed, I wish to now conclude my in troductory remarks by turning to the role and 
contribution of Norway to the multilateral trading syst em and the WTO.  To that end, I wish to thank 
Norway for its commitment to strengthening the ru les – based multilateral trading system, which has 
been ably demonstrated in various respects, part icularly its significant efforts towards the successful 
conclusion of the WTO Doha Development Agenda (DDA), with a view to ensuring the stability, 
security, transparency, and predictab ility of an open global trading system.  I wish to also appreciate 
Norway for its strong commitment to assisting both developing and least developed countries, not 
only in terms of being one of the biggest and consiste nt contributors to the Global Trust Fund, but also 
through improved preferential market access to LDCs and low-income developing countries.  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 13 
 
 
  IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 
AUSTRALIA 
 
53. Australia and Norway have a mature trading rela tionship, which continues to grow.  Over the 
last five years, Australia has more than doubl ed its imports of Norwegian goods.  Norway and 
Australia share expertise in various industrial sect ors, including clean energy, oil and gas, mining, 
chemicals, and marine and shipping.  The bilate ral investment relationship reflects our shared 
strengths, with strong Norwegian direct investment  in the resources sector and in shipping in 
Australia. Norway is an important export destinati on for a number of Australian exports including 
wine, mineral ores, precision instruments and other industrial products. 
54. A strong economy already, the Secretariat Re port makes it clear that Norway has positive 
prospects for continued growth, with rich natural r esources, a highly educated population, a history of 
merchandise trade surpluses and central govern ment budget surpluses and a strong Government 
Pension Fund. Norway should be commended for its ha ndling of the global financial crisis, with well 
timed fiscal and monetary policies contributin g to the rebound in economic performance.  
55. Trade continues to play an important part in the Norwegian economy, including sizable 
exports of crude oil and natural gas. While Norway 's general framework for trade policy has not seen 
significant changes since its last trade policy review , Norway should be commended for continuing to 
be a strong supporter of the multilateral sy stem and the Doha Round negotiations.  
56. There are, however, some areas – and one in par ticular - where we would ask Norway to look 
closely at its policy settings.  Norway's agricultu ral sector remains highly insulated from the world 
market and is subject to extensive government in tervention.  Agriculture in Norway remains among 
the most highly protected in the OECD, and more  than half of the support provided by the 
government goes to the most trade-distorting forms of support, notably market price support.  Tariff 
rates on agricultural products are high, with av erage bound rates exceeding 300% for live animals, 
meat and dairy products and 200% for cereals.  While tariff quotas with much lower in-quota rates 
ensure imports of some of these products, border measures severely limit the potential for imports.   
57. Australia encourages Norway to examine whethe r its high levels of tariff protection and 
domestic support for agriculture are really needed. We  are not convinced by the arguments that have 
been put forward thus far. We strongly support the discussant's further questions in this regard. And 
we note that during the period under review Norway h as made some steps in the right direction – such 
as removing the administered price for beef in 2009  – and we encourage Norway to explore further 
such steps. 
58. Australia welcomes Norway's contribution to  the work of the WTO.  In the Doha 
negotiations, Australia and Norway have worked clo sely together on a range of issues. We appreciate 
the leadership role that Norway has taken in areas as diverse as fisheries subsidies, rules related 
issues, trade and environment and tr ade and development. Norway's l eadership in helping to deliver 
important outcomes of interest to LDCs has been we lcomed.  In all this work the Australian Mission 
in Geneva enjoys working cl osely with the Norwegian Mission under the tireless efforts of 
Ambassador Elin Johansen, to do what we can, at a difficult time, to support and strengthen the 
multilateral trading system. 
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 
59. We are pleased to note that Norway and Ko rea have traditionally maintained close and 
amicable economic and political relations.  This re lationship has been further strengthened since the WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 14  
 
  entry into force of the Korea-EFTA FTA in Septem ber 2006 which has helped boost bilateral trade 
and investment. 
60. Turning to Norway's overall economic perform ance, it is commendable that Norway has 
performed better than most developed economies over the course of the recent global financial and 
economic crisis through effectivel y implementing measures to stimulate its economy as well as ensure 
financial stability. 
61. As far as Norway's trade policies and practices are concerned, we would first like to recognize 
and praise Norway's strong commitment to an open trade regime and the multilateral trading system. 
At the same time, we would also like to encourag e Norway to continue to address the concerns of 
other Members in such areas as the high level of state participation in the economy. 
62. We welcome this TPR as a good opportunity to  extend our appreciation for Norway's active 
role in this Organisation.  We would like to  commend the Norwegian team in Geneva led by 
Ambassador Johansen for its pro active and constructive role in a variety of negotiating groups for 
DDA and non-DDA issues as well as the regular WTO bodies.  Korea and Norway share similar 
views and interest in many areas, including agri culture, and Korea looks forward to continued 
cooperation in these and other areas in the future. 
UNITED STATES 
63. The United States and Norway enjoy a long tradition of friendly relations, based on 
democratic values and mutual respect.  This relati onship is further strengthened by the millions of 
Norwegian Americans in the United States and by the thousands of U.S. citizens residing in Norway.  
Our two countries have an active history of coopera tion and we each appreciate the powerful role that 
international trade plays in global economic and political stability.   
64. The economic relationship between the United St ates and Norway is positive and growing 
across several dimensions.  Total two-way goods trade between the United States and Norway totalled 
$11.9 billion in 2011, and two-way services trade be tween the United States and Norway totalled 
$4.5 billion in 2010.  The U.S. stock of foreign direct investment in Norway was $28.5 billion in 
2011, led by the mining and manufacturing sectors.   Norwegian FDI in the United States was 
$18.1 billion in 2011, led by the wholesale trade sector. 
65. As we have seen in previous TPRs, Norway re mains an open and prosperous nation.  Over the 
last decade, Norway has benefited from improved te rms of trade, running a surplus in merchandise 
trade for more than 20 years. As the Secretaria t and Government Reports make clear, Norway took 
active steps to counter the external shocks of the gl obal economic crisis.  In a ddition to effective fiscal 
and monetary policies, the Norwegian government  remained committed to market opening policies 
and continuously sought to strengthen the intern ational competitiveness of Norwegian goods and 
services.  As a result of the effective measures taken,  Norway fared far better than other countries, and 
in 2010, imports and exports returned to the 2007-level. 
66. We commend Norway for its clear and unwaver ing commitment to the multilateral trading 
system, which remained steadfast in the face of  the global economic crisis.  The United States and 
Norway share a common fundamental desire to en sure the health and vitality of an open global 
trading system, which we view as critical to pr omoting economic growth and development for all 
Members.  The United States agrees with Norway's vi ew that a strong, rules-based system is the best 
guarantee against protectionism, and provides importa nt transparency and predictability for traders 
around the world.  As the Secretariat indicated, Norw ay has been an active pa rticipant in the WTO, 
including in all rounds of multilateral trade ne gotiations and the plurilateral negotiations and  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 15 
 
 
  arrangements conducted within the framework of the WTO.  We have very much valued our work 
together with Norway on quite a number of issues, including services liberalization and fish subsidies. 
67. While Norway maintains a liberal trade and investment regime, the troubling disparity 
between its openness to trade in industrial products a nd its high level of protection for agriculture has 
remained unchanged since its last review.  As highlighted by the Secretariat, the comparison of the 
average tariff rates clearly demonstrates the protec tion afforded to this sector - 40.9% for agriculture 
and less than 0.5% for non-agriculture products.  Th is disparity is also reflected in Norway's 
approach, along with its EFTA partners, to the negotiation of FTAs, which eliminate tariffs on 
markedly fewer agricultural tariff lines than non-ag ricultural tariff lines.  And, as the Secretariat 
report further notes, the protection of primary agriculture production has spillover effects on 
competition in other areas, such as food processing a nd the grocery sector.  Additionally, a lack of 
predictability in tariff adjustments and insufficient advance notification of these adjustments, often 
two days to five days before implementation, cr eate difficult conditions for traders of agricultural 
products.   
68. The Secretariat notes that support to Norwegian agriculture remains among the highest of the 
OECD countries, with close to 60% of farm ea rnings resulting from transfers to producers under 
agricultural policies.  Much of that support is pr ovided through distorting types of policies.  We 
continue to encourage Norway to increase the mark et orientation of its agricultural production and 
trade policies, including reducing the share of production-linked support and increasing market access.  These policy approaches would be fully cons istent with Norway's goals for environmental 
protection and rural development.   
69. In addition to very high levels  of protection for agricultural and food products, traders also 
encounter problematic SPS barriers in Norway.  No rway prohibits the import of beef from animals 
treated with hormones, despite decades of scientific  evidence demonstrating that this practice poses 
no risks to health.  We would encourage Norway to reexamine its measures related to genetically 
engineered products in light of more than 20 years of experience with their safe use.  We would also 
highlight the importance of science-based regula tions to supporting agri cultural innovation and 
functioning trade in agricultural products, both of which will be vital in meeting the world's food 
security needs in the coming decades. 
70. In closing, the United States and Norway have important common interests, including our 
longstanding shared support for the multilateral tradi ng system.  I would like reiterate that we value 
our continued work with the Norwegian government and our other WTO partners to strengthen and to 
build upon the WTO's critical role. 
SWITZERLAND 
71. I am very pleased to note that the Norweg ian economy has managed to better navigate 
through the recent global financial crisis than most developed economies. At large, a stable 
macroeconomic environment, sound  financial market regulation and targeted policy measures 
helped counter the external shock in 2008 and stabilize the financial ma rkets as well as the real 
economy in Norway. The overall economic outlook for Norway is positive with substantial GDP 
growth for 2012-13. 
72. There are however also some ri sks. First, as an open economy, Norway is also vulnerable to 
external problems. The EU still accounts for more  than 80% of Norway's merchandise exports and 
two-thirds of Norway's imports. The European debt  and banking crisis also challenges the Norwegian 
economy. Secondly, like in Switzerland with the Swiss Franc, the appreciating Norwegian krone 
poses a challenge to Norway's exports. Thirdly,  high labour costs make Norway's exporting and 
importing companies vulnerable to weaker growth worldwide. Another risk could stem from the WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 16  
 
  possible creation of an asset bubble in the housing market, which could burst and trigger a downward 
spiral in the economy. Lastly, the extent of stat e ownership remains consid erable in Norway. There 
has been a slowdown in privatizations in Norw ay compared with the years prior to 2005. 
73. I am pleased to say that the bilateral economic  relations between Switzerland and Norway are 
excellent. Norway continues to be an important commercial partner for Switzerland. The bilateral 
economic trade between Switzerland and Norway, wh ich had decreased after the global financial 
turmoil in 2009, strongly picked up again in the l ast three years. In 2011, the trade volume amounted 
to 1.1 billion CHF. Machinery is the most importa nt product group, representi ng over 20% of our total 
exports and 10% of our total imports.  
74. Swiss direct investments in Norway increas ed and added up to 4.3 billion Swiss Francs 
in 2010.  According to Statistics Norway, Norwegia n direct investments in Switzerland amounted to 
1.4 billion Swiss Francs at the end of 2010. Switzerland and Norway also enjoy a fruitful cooperation within the framework of the Europ ean Free Trade Association (EFTA).  
75. Let me stress that our close partnership with  Norway in the context of EFTA does not entail 
the end to our coordinated attempts to successfu lly move forward in the Doha Round.  Our close 
cooperation also includes the WTO where Norway is an active participant. Especially for small but 
highly integrated and open economies like Switzerland or Norway a rules-based multilateral trading system, as provided by the WTO, is crucial. In this  respect, let me highlight our proactive and close 
cooperation with Norway in the negotiations on tr ade facilitation and on services.  I would however 
not be exhaustive if I did not mention also our co mmon interests in the agriculture negotiations where 
we plead – together with other G10 members - fo r the recognition of all Members' sensitivities in 
order to achieve a balanced outcome. 
TURKEY 
76. Turkey and Norway enjoy a long standing friendly and cooperative relationship. The FTA 
between Turkey and EFTA has been in force since 1992 and, it continues to provide a solid 
framework for building up strong economic cooperati on between Turkey and Norway as well.  We do 
not experience any problem in terms of our economi c and trade relations with Norway. However, we 
should point out that bilateral trade volume wh ich stands around US$1 billion annually is far from 
being satisfactory.  
77. Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's visit to Turkey on 9-10 January 2012 provided 
us the opportunity to look into the possibilities to further trade and economic cooperation. During the 
visit, the two sides exchanged views on current regional and international.  
78. Since its previous TPR in 2008, Norway has con tinued to prosper. For a long time, it has been 
in the forefront of developed economies in terms of  economic growth. While the latest crisis caused a 
short pause in Norway's success story, it recove red quickly without recourse to protectionist 
measures. Its standard of living is among the highest in the world, and in terms of social indicators, it ranks among the top tier in almost all.  
79. Norway provides an interesting and rare case wh ere the state still plays a significant role in 
the economy. Its strategy of effective and effici ent use of rich natural resources through state 
controlled entities has been paying well.  
80. In this sense, Norway sets an example of not only managing its economy through prudent 
macroeconomic choices but also of being the activ e business operators in various sectors.  Clearly 
Norway has been so successful in creating professional and efficient owners out of the state agencies 
that they have now become global player s in the field of natural resources.   WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 17 
 
 
  81. While relatively smaller economy, Norway ha s been able to benefit from its strong 
commitment to international trade. In this sense, we appreciate Norway's active work in the WTO to 
promote open markets and strong disciplines in vari ous areas of trade. We commend their efforts in 
various WTO bodies.   
82. Norway's trade policy framework has remained th e same basically since its previous Review. 
Generally it has an open and liberal regime, agricultu re being the exception. It is interesting that 
despite the various forms of support and the attention this sector has been receiving from the Norwegian government, its size and its share in the overall economy is getting smaller. We appreciate 
Norway's concern that agriculture has an important  non-economical aspect which must be taken into 
account in policy making at nati onal and international level. 
SINGAPORE 
83. Singapore and Norway enjoy a good bilateral rela tionship with economic ties that have been 
growing steadily. Norway is our 30
th largest trading partner.  Bilateral trade in 2011 stood at 
US$2.42 billion, an increase of 30% from 2010, and more than quadrupling from US$534 million in 2002, before the EFTA-Singapore FTA came into effect in January 2003.  Singapore was the first 
Asian country to sign an FTA with Norway and its partners in the European  Free Trade Association 
(EFTA).  The EFTA-Singapore FTA, which underwen t its third review in 2010, has facilitated 
impressive growth in both bilateral trade and invest ment.  With US$18.7 billion in total investment in 
Singapore as of end 2010, Norway is our 4
th largest European investor and the 10th largest investor 
globally.  The total stock of Singapore's inv estment into Norway at end 2010 also reached 
US$2 billion, up from just US$24 million at end 2002, including in clean and renewable energy, the 
marine and offshore sectors.  Norway has also cont inued to be an important maritime partner for 
Singapore, with numerous Norwegian shipping and maritime services companies represented in Singapore.   
84. We commend Norway on its good economic perfo rmance for the period under review, despite 
the global financial crisis of 2008-09. While Norway 's mainland GDP contracted by 1.9% in 2009, it 
rebounded to growth the following year. Norway's economy has since remained  on a positive growth 
trajectory while maintaining a low rate of inflati on and unemployment at close to 3%, the lowest in 
Europe. These impressive achievements are th e results of sound economic policies, prudent 
management of the country's significant natural resources and steadfastness in remaining open to 
trade despite the financial crisis and more recent  wave of protectionist pressures.  Singapore and 
Norway both have populations of about 5 million.  We are well-placed to recognise that many of the 
issues identified by the Discussant's insightful re marks are difficult challenges for countries with 
small populations and an outward orientation to the r ealities of the world.  There are no absolute right 
or wrong answers, just a judicious, responsible ex ercise of policy space with mindfulness to reducing 
unintended externalities to others. 
85. As small open economies which are firm s upporters of a strong, rules-based multilateral 
trading system, we cooperate closely with Norway in the ongoing work on at the WTO, including in 
the Government Procurement Agreement and the Information Technology Agreement, as well as in 
the various regular committees.  In particular, we  commend the proactive role and leadership shown 
by Ambassador Elin Johansen and her team in  key WTO bodies such as the General Council and the 
Dispute Settlement Body. Norway's many contri butions to building trust and convergence are 
particularly valuable at a time when consensus amongst members is an extremely scarce commodity.  
Norway's posture at the WTO is a model for all of us to emulate. They have full awareness of the 
political imperatives which require them to maintain the national policies which they do, yet they also 
know what their responsibilities are at the multilate ral level. They demonstrate and adopt the 
necessary balance in negotiations with an eye on the greater good of the multilateral trading system. WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 18  
 
  BRAZIL 
86. As pointed out by the Secretariat Report, No rway has fared better than most developed 
economies through the recent global financial turmoil.  Several factors have contributed to that good 
performance.  The privileged situation of Norway in  terms of natural resources, such as crude oil and 
natural gas, was an important factor, but not the so le one.  In our view, the implementation by Norway 
of adequate countercyclical policies has been fundame ntal to avoid the worst effects of the crisis and 
to pave the way for recovery.  In the current context, where many uncertainties still surround the 
global economy, Norway provides a good example on how  to strike a balance between stimulating the 
economy and ensuring fiscal stability. 
87. Regarding Norway's trade policy, we note th at during the period under review the Norwegian 
market remained fairly open for non-agricultura l products with a low average bound tariff of 3.3%, 
and a zero applied tariff for more than 95% of non- agricultural tariff lines.  Regrettably, we find a 
completely different scenario in the area of ag ricultural products.  Here, the average bound tariff is 
142.8%.  Many bound rates for agricultural tariff lines are expressed as an ad valorem  or a specific 
rate, whichever is the higher.  For some subsectors,  such as meat, live animals and dairy, tariff rates 
exceed 300%. 
88. Given the extremely high tariffs for bovine meat, for example, Brazil can only export that 
product to Norway under tariff rate quotas which are far from being satisfactory and despite a deficit 
of domestic production of bovine meat that amount s to 12,000 tons.  However, the volumes of 
existing TRQs are insufficient to meet the demand, and all TRQs have in-quota rates.  Temporary 
TRQs opened by Norway also present deficiencies, since their relatively short period of 
implementation discourages im ports from distant suppliers. 
89. Protection to domestic producers of agricultural pr oducts in Norway is not limited to boarder 
measures.  Complex domestic regula tion and government subsidies also play a significant role in this 
regard.  Government transfers, for example, are re sponsible for maintaining farm earnings at a high 
level.  According to date from Statistics Norway, th e share of government subsidies in the net income 
in the agricultural sector has sharply rise n from 13% in 1969 to around 80% in 2010. 
90. Turning to the bilateral trade relations, we not e that imports from Brazil accounted for 1.5% 
of all imports of Norway, in 2011.  Norway's impor ts from Brazil are concentrated in some inorganic 
chemical products, followed by seeds and coffee.  On the other hand, Norway's exports to Brazil 
in 2011 represented 0.5% of all its exports.  Tw o sectors – fish and mechanical equipment – were 
responsible for almost 50% of all exports of Norway to Brazil. 
91. Brazil believes that bilateral trade with Norw ay still has significant potential to increase, both 
in terms of volume and diversity, especially taking into account the complementarities between the two countries in the energy sector, for example.  Reduc tions of obstacles in the trade of agricultural 
products would also be essential for that objective. 
COSTA RICA 
92. Costa Rica would like to highlight the contribution made by Norway to the WTO and the 
importance it attaches to a rules-based multilateral tr ading system.  We note with satisfaction the work 
carried out jointly by our delegations in several  WTO-related spheres such as trade facilitation, 
Friends of the System, the Information Technology Ag reement, services and the review of the dispute 
settlement understanding.  We welcome the fact  that our country, together with other 
Central American countries, this year commenced negotiation of a free trade agreement with Norway 
as a member of the European Free Trade Associati on (EFTA), enabling us to tighten our trade links.  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 19 
 
 
  93. Regarding this Review, we should like to commend Norway on the impressive economic 
figures that make it one of the world's most stable  economies, as shown by the budgetary surplus it 
has posted for the past 17 years, a low unemploym ent rate and an exceptional capacity for saving.  
As others have mentioned, we note with satisfac tion that Norway's financial sector has emerged from 
the global financial crisis without any major upheavals thanks to rapid intervention by its authorities.  
Moreover, we find Norway's experien ce in relation to environmental su stainability and exploitation of 
natural resources most interesting and enlightening, as are the efforts made to diversify its economy, 
in which oil continues to play a key role. 
94. Concerning trade, I should like to draw attention to the progress made in harmonizing 
procedures, the almost total lack of recourse to  trade measures, and the competitiveness achieved in 
many sectors of the economy used to performing in  a global context with little protection on the 
domestic market, for example, oil-related engineer ing and services, shipping and telecommunications. 
95. The agricultural sector is, however, somewhat less competitive, possibly because of the high 
level of protection and support.  In this respect , we endorse the comments a nd questions from others 
and would like to know whether Norway is taking measur es to deal with the redu ction in this level of 
protection that will result from the future conclusion of the Doha Round. 
96. My delegation would also like to stress Norw ay's commitment to the WTO's Aid-for-Trade 
Programme and the support given to multilateral technical assistance funds.  Special emphasis 
should be laid on the key components of its Aid-for-Trade Action Plan:  good governance and 
combating corruption;  women and trade and regional trade, all of which are of the utmost relevance 
to enable countries really to benefit from market access opportunities. 
CANADA 
97. Canada and Norway have close and dynamic trade and investment relations.  In 2011, 
Norway was our most important Nordic tradi ng partner and occupies tenth place among Canada's 
partners for trade in goods.  Bilateral trade in goods alone amounts to C$7 billion, with imports of 
Norwegian goods valued at C$4.3 billion and Canadian exports to Norway totalling C$2.8 billion. 
98. At the end of 2011, Norway was the 16th largest source of cumulative FDI in Canada with the 
stock valued at $2.5 billion. As a result, we woul d like to highlight Norway's efforts in supporting 
market openness over the past years, including in ti mes of financial constraint.  In particular, we 
welcome the recent creation of a state-funded export credit company, Export Credit Norway, which will facilitate and encourage Norwegian business expa nsion to international markets such as Canada. 
99. Norway is also a strong global science, tec hnology and innovation contributor with which 
Canada has active partnerships in such areas as o ffshore oil and gas, ICT, life sciences, renewable 
energy, clean technologies, aquaculture, and marine  and ocean-related technologies. Canada looks 
forward to continuing our collaboration in these sect ors, particularly in Arctic and cold water 
technologies.  
100. Since the WTO's previous Review, Norway's economy has remained sound.  There was only 
a slight dip in GDP in real terms in 2009 because of the global economic crisis, but it gradually rose to 
end 2011 with an annual growth rate of 1.7%.  It is  expected that Norway's balance of payments will 
continue to show a surplus of over 10% of GDP up to 2016. 
101. The importance attributed to the Canada-N orway bilateral commercial relationship was 
further highlighted by the signature of a Ca nada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade 
Agreement in 2009.  As a bloc, the EFTA countries we re Canada's eight largest trade partner in 2011, 
with bilateral merchandise trade amounting to $11.5 billion. Canada  exported $4 billion in WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 20  
 
  merchandise to EFTA countries in 2011 , consisting of a broad variety of  goods, while that same year, 
Canada's merchandise imports amounted to $7.5 billion . We are presently engaged with Norway and 
its EFTA partners in discussions on the possibility of extending our Free Trade Agreement to areas 
beyond trade in goods, such as services, inv estment and government procurement. 
102. We also note Norway's commitment to trade liberalization at the regional as well as the 
multilateral level, marked by its success in negotia ting a total of 24 FTAs, including eight that have 
been finalized since Norway's last trade policy review.  Canada commends Norway for its strong 
commitment to the multilateral trading system a nd its principles as embodied in the WTO.  We 
recognize Norway's valuable contribution to finding pragmatic and creative solutions to move beyond 
the current impasse in the Doha negotiations.  Canada likewise acknowledges Norway's generous 
donations to the WTO's work on Aid for Trade.  Norway is a valued and frequently like-minded 
partner for Canada in the multilateral context and we value our close collaboration in this area. 
103. While the Secretariat's report notes the overall openness of Norway's trade policy regime, 
there is one notable exception with regard to agri culture.  We acknowledge that Norway's sensitivities 
in this sector have not precluded it from playing a constructive role in moving the Doha negotiations 
forward; however, we do note that there has been little discernable movement towards a more liberal 
and market-oriented regime for ag riculture since Norway's last TP R in 2008.  We therefore urge 
Norway to review its most restrictive policies in th is sector to identify whether there may be scope for 
liberalization in some areas. 
HONG KONG, CHINA 
104. Hong Kong, China enjoys very cordial trade re lations with Norway. In 2011, Norway was 
HKC's 5
th  largest merchandise trading partner in Eur ope and the total value of the bilateral 
merchandise trade reached some US$600 million.  We  note that, while the majority of Norway's 
external trade ties are with the European Un ion, there has been significant expansion and 
diversification of trade links with other global trad e partners, especially those in Asia.  We are also 
very pleased that our bilateral trade ties were stre ngthened through our free tr ade agreement with the 
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States last year, which will in fact enter into force next 
month with respect to that between Norway and HKC. 
105. Regarding Norway's tariff regime, we note that  it has bound all its tariff lines with an average 
bound rate of 3.3% for non-agricultural products, and with 95% of such products being duty free. 
Nevertheless, tariffs for agricultural products rema in high, with some exceeding 300%, and there is 
also a considerable gap between the average bound rate  and applied rate (143% versus 41%).  As an 
aside, let me recall that I was a Discussant for th e Norway TPR 12 years ago and retrieving from my 
memory the data back then, the average bound rate  was 154% for agricultural products and 3.6% for 
non-agriculture. The applied rate at that time seems to  have been a bit lower than now.  So, I have to 
say, not a great deal of progress seems to have been  made on the very high bound rates in agriculture. 
106. As stated in the Secretariat Report, agricu lture in Norway remains among the most highly 
protected in the OECD area.  Given the immense importance of agriculture in the DDA negotiations 
and the importance of agricultural exports to ma ny developing countries, we would encourage 
Norway to consider further liberalization and great er market orientation in the agricultural sector, 
including narrowing the gap between the applied and the bound rates and further reducing trade 
distorting domestic support, thereby providing greater  predictability to the trade and contributing to 
the DDA negotiations not just in agriculture but in other areas.   
107. Both HKC and Norway are Members of the Information Technology Agreement and offer 
duty free access to a wide range of IT products .  Currently, both HKC and Norway are working  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 21 
 
 
  together with other WTO Members towards expandi ng the product coverage of the ITA. We look 
forward to continuous cooperation with Norway to  bring the discussion to a fruitful conclusion.   
108. On contingency measures, HKC like Norway has a long-held systemic concern that 
anti-dumping measures can be trade distorting and protectionist.  We would like to commend Norway's efforts and its commitment in containing unjustifiable use of contingency measures.  Under 
the DDA, both Norway and HKC are seeking to clar ify and further strengthen the WTO disciplines on 
anti-dumping.  We enjoy a very close working re lationship, and share common positions on a wide 
range of issues in the negotiation process.  Notwith standing the current impasse, we hope the Rules 
negotiations can be revived before long, and we look forward to working constructively with Norway 
and other Members to take them forward. 
109. Norway has a liberal regime in trade in services.  I would like to commend its high standard 
of liberalization and commitment to fair play.  We joined hands as co-demandeurs in a number of 
sectoral plurilateral requests in the Doha negotiatio n and are working closely to explore alternative 
pathways which may help bring the stalled services negotiations forward.  We look forward to this 
continuous partnership in our future work, and asp ire for greater cooperation in areas which we may 
have slightly different approaches, for example, in  the rule-making component of the trade in services 
negotiation. 
110. We thank Norway for the reply to our advan ce question on telecommunication services.  We 
note from the reply that the implementation of the 2009 EU telecom reform package was delayed, but 
the major parts of it are under consideration to be implemented sooner.  We are interested in the 
development of this implementation plan and any impact that it may bring to foreign suppliers.  We 
would appreciate additional information when updates on this issue are available.   
111. We are pleased to note the developments in resp ect of trade facilitation since the last TPR, for 
example, the adoption of electronic means for reporting shipping information to Customs. Norway is 
an active player in the Negotiating Group on Trad e Facilitation, and has a good working relationship 
with us.  We shall continue to work closely with  Norway and others towards an early conclusion of 
the trade facilitation negotiations, which is one of the few negotiation areas which holds promise for 
an early outcome. 
112. We note that Norway, being a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), follows and 
adopts harmonized EU technical regulations.  This unified standard for traders should facilitate the 
free flow of goods to the European Economic Area.   We also understand however that Norway is not 
prevented from developing its own national techni cal regulations.  We hope that Norway will 
continue to introduce its own national technical regul ations only to the exte nt that is necessary, and 
will avoid creating unnecessary obstacles to the trade flow. 
MEXICO 
113. I should like to start by commending the Norwegian delegation on being from the second 
happiest country in the world, just behind its Danish  neighbours.  Norwegians have the highest level 
of satisfaction and subjective well-being according to the OECD's Better Life Index 2011 .  Perhaps if 
they liberalized their agriculture they would beco me the happiest country in the world.  Moreover, 
in 2011, UNDP ranked Norway as the country with the highest level of human development and its 
per capita GDP is the second highest at the global level. 
114. We also congratulate Norway on  having successfully countered the downstream effects of the 
major world recession thanks to good management of its macroeconomic policy, including measures 
to boost the economy and ensure its financial stability  and efficient management of its plentiful oil WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 22  
 
  resources.  This allowed Norway's economy to gr ow once again from 2010 onwards.  According to 
IMF forecasts, Norway's GDP will grow by 1.8% this year. 
115. We believe, nonetheless, that Norway's economy fa ces a number of challenges.  Firstly, even 
though a large percentage of its oil revenue is inv ested in the pension fund, an ageing population is 
exerting pressure on the system's viability as accumu lated commitments exceed the financial assets 
underpinning them (between 2000 and 2010, the number  of those receiving retirement pensions rose 
from 8.5 to 10.2%). 
116. Because of the expansionist policies that booste d Norway's growth during the most difficult 
years of the crisis, nominal interest rates have created a bubble in the housing sector and this may 
ultimately have a negative impact on the real econom y.  The real estate boom has led to a 30% 
increase in property prices since 2008 and it is estimated that household debt could exceed 200% of 
disposable income in 2013. 
117. Norway's terms of trade may be affected  by higher labour costs which hamper the 
competitiveness of some export-oriented sectors an d this could be exacer bated if global economic 
growth remains stagnant.  The economic probl ems in the EU, the main destination for 
Norway's exports, could have a mark ed impact on its economic growth. 
118. In Norway, there is a sharp cleavage between  the openness of the manufacturing sector and 
the high level of protection in th e agricultural sector.  As far as tariffs are concerned, there is a 
noticeable discrepancy between the average boun d rates for non-agricultural products and for 
agricultural products, which reaches around 140 per centage points.  Furthermore, double binding 
(the higher of either specific or ad valorem tariffs) of 55% of all agricultural lines, which include 
products such as dairy produce, meat and cereals, makes protection still higher, and it may even 
exceed 300%. 
119. According to WTO data, Norway occupies the unenviable second place for applying 
the highest average tariff in the world for agricultu ral products, at 49.4%, and is one of ten countries 
that apply at least one ma ximum tariff of over 1,000%. 
120. In addition, domestic support amounting to so me Nkr 22,000 million goes to farmers under 
highly distortive agricultural policy programmes (amber and blue boxes), which account for around 
67% of total allocations.  According to estimat es by the OECD, Norway has the highest level of 
support for the agricultural sector among its member  countries.  In 2011, these subsidies corresponded 
to some 60% of Norwegian farmers' earnings.  A ll these trade distortions concern a sector that only 
accounts for 0.7% of GDP and 2% of total employmen t.  Bearing this in mind, we are even more 
concerned at the Norwegian authorities' decision to continue increasing the level of agricultural 
support. 
121. We note with satisfaction, as indicated in the Secr etariat Report, that Norway is a country that 
implements an overall policy designed to open up the services sector.  Norway's commitments under the GATS cover 70% of services subsectors.  A larg e proportion of its autonomous liberalization is 
not, however, reflected in its multilateral commit ments, especially as regards audiovisual and 
health-related services.  Dental services in Norw ay are among the most expensive in the world, 
Mexico has excellent dentists, we c ould benefit from mode 2 or mode 4. 
JAPAN 
122. Let me start with the macroeconomic environmen t and policies.  According to the Secretariat 
Report, the impact of the global financial crisis ca used Norway's GDP to fall by 1.7% in 2009 and the 
unemployment rate to rise to 3.6% in 2010. In this context, the Norwegian government amended the  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 23 
 
 
  2009 fiscal budget and introduced further expansio nary measures, and Norges Bank largely eased its 
financial policy. Japan commends that their policies le d the recovery of the real growth rate to 1.6% 
and the decline of unemployment to 3.3% in 2011. 
123. In addition, Norway is a country exporting crude oil and natural gas. Since the steep rise in 
crude oil prices improved its trade conditions, No rway achieved more than a 10% surplus on the 
current account every year from 2007 to 2011. Norway 's central government accounts have also been 
in surplus every year since 1995 due to revenue from crude oil and natural gas.  On the other hand, 
production of crude oil and natural gas occupies around 20% of Norway's GDP, government revenue 
and internal investment, and approximately 50% of exports. Therefore, having a large impact on 
Norwegian economy, the fluctuation of prices of thos e natural resources is cause  for concern. Japan is 
highly interested in the diversification of Norwegian industry. 
124. Now I would like to turn to policies related to  trade and investment.  Generally speaking, 
Japan highly commends that Norway positively co mmits to maintaining and strengthening WTO 
systems. Let me move to the specific points on pol icies related to trade and investment. Those are 
related to SPS, Aid for Trade and intellectual properties. 
125. First of all, with regard to safety measures re cently applied after the Fukushima nuclear power 
plant incident in Japan in 2011 to certain food products imported from Japan, we are hoping for some 
specific improvement soon on the basis of scientific principles. 
126. Secondly, according to the Report by Norway and statistics of DAC of the OECD, Norway 
has been a major contributor in terms of Aid fo r Trade. Norway is also strongly committed to 
activities of multilateral funds and organizations for trade-related assistance, for example, the Global 
Trust Fund and the International Tr ade Centre. Japan commends tho se activities. Japan is highly 
interested in Norwegian policies for aid for trade as well, since Norway laun ched an Action Plan for 
trade-related development cooperati on and addresses African development, in particular promotion of 
regional trade and support for working women. 
127. Thirdly, with regard to intellectual property, the Secretariat Report pointed out the 
incompatibility of Norway's domestic laws with  the Patent Law Treaty and the Singapore Treaty on 
the Law of Trademarks.  
CHINA 
128. China notes with pleasure that Norway's ec onomy has performed well during the Review 
period in spite of the global financial turmoil.  This performance has re flected by a strong GDP 
growth, a declining unemployment rate and a continue d current account surplus, is mainly due to its 
sound macroeconomic policies and improved terms of tr ade. It is clear from the data presented in both 
the Government and Secretariat Reports that, while  Norway's mainland GDP contracted by l.8% in 
2009, it rebounded swiftly to growth by 1.9% in 2010 and by 2.4% in 2011. Its employment has 
increased since the spring of 2010, and the unemploym ent rate is declining steadily towards 3%. The 
central government accounts have been in surplu s in every year since 1995, with a surplus of 
400 billion Norwegian Krones in 2011, about 15% of its GDP. 
129. China shares Norway's view that "economic gr owth and development in  all nations depends 
on a strong, rules-based and fair multilateral trading system" and commends Norway for its firm commitment to the multilateral trading system, as well as to the successful conclusion of the 
Doha Round.  I would also like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to the hard 
work undertaken by the Norwegian Mission here  in Geneva. We enjoy very much our close 
cooperation and deep friendship. China also appr eciates Norway's attention on development issues 
and contribution to Aid for Trade initiative, in pa rticular the provision of DFQF treatment for all WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 24  
 
  LDCs and for 14 low-income developing countries. Ch ina also notes with ple asure that Norway has 
never initiated any anti-dumping, countervailing, or sa feguard actions since the inception of the WTO. 
130. On the bilateral side, Norway is China's fourth largest trading partner among northern 
European countries. Statistics show that our bila teral trade amounted to US$7.41 billion in 2011 with 
an increase of 22% over the previous year.  By the end of July 2012, Norwegian enterprises had 
invested in 405 projects in China with an actual investment of US$430 million. In 2011, Norway and 
China enterprises signed 28 contracts on transfer of technology with a total value of US$83.7 million, 
representing an increase of 177% year-on-year. 
131. While Norway's trade regime remains overall open, there were some notable exceptions, 
particularly in the agriculture sector.  As stated in  the Secretariat Report, "while the simple average 
bound tariff for non-agricultural products is 3.3%, th e corresponding average for agricultural products 
is 142.8%. The peak bound rates for manufactured goods, which are found in textiles and clothing, 
range from 11% to l4%; however, the bound rates fo r agricultural tariff lines are typically expressed 
as an ad valorem  or a specific rate, whichever is higher."  China remains concerned about Norway's 
continued high protection of agriculture and encourag es Norway to continue its reforms in this sector. 
EUROPEAN UNION 
132. Since its last TPR, Norway has been successful in  resisting the deep recession that affected 
most of Europe.  In order to alleviate the impact of decreasing demand in 2008-09, Norway adopted a fiscal policy aiming at sustaining demand and spent 3% of its non-oil relate d GDP on public spending 
which was an extraordinary measure by all stan dards.  In addition, the government continues 
developing its long standing and extremely valuable and forward looking policy of investing most of 
the revenues collected from oil and gas exports into a government Fund that nowadays amounts to 
129% of the GDP.  
133. As was stressed by the EU in previous TPRs, the EU and Norway have  developed very close 
relations that are not limited to trade and investme nts issues. In addition to its participation in the 
European Economic Area (EEA) or in Schengen coope ration, Norway shares many EU policy goals 
for example on climate change, environment, EU 2020,  Arctic policy, the Northern Dimension policy, 
EU Foreign Security and Defence policy.  
134. The EU is Norway's main trading partner. Norway  ranks first in EU imports of fish products 
and second in fuels. Norway is the EU's fifth most  important import partner for trade in goods with 
€ 79.4 billion in 2010 and the seventh export partner with € 41.9 billion. 
135. FDI is also an important aspect of EU-Norwa y economic relations. Even if the evolution of 
FDI between Norway and the EU has been slower th an within the EU, it rema ins remarkable that EU 
actors account for 2/3 of all FDI in Norway. Studies s how that there has been a substantial increase in 
the value added created by EU-owned businesses, with an increase in productivity and in job creation. 
The impact of the EEA has certainly fac ilitated FDI moves between the two partners. 
136. Allow me to say a few words on the Agreement on the European Economic Area.  It is a sort 
of extension of the EU single market to Norway, however with some specific features. It guarantees 
the free movement of goods, persons, capital and services as well as non-discrimination throughout 
the European Economic Area. The EEA Agreemen t also provides a framework for Norway's 
structural policies in the fields of competition polic y, state aid, government procurement, as well as 
sectorial policies such as telecommunications and financ ial sector regulations.  It does not consist in a 
custom union, nor does it include the EU's comm on agricultural policy or the common fisheries 
policies but it does contain provisions on various aspect s of trade in agricultural and fish products.  In  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 25 
 
 
  addition, the rules and regulations governing im ports from outside the EEA are similar and often 
identical between EU and EFTA-EEA members.  
137. A key feature of the EEA Agreement, which di stinguishes it from more traditional free trade 
agreements, is its dynamic character. Its comm on rules are continuously updated by adding new 
relevant EU legislation.  The Agreement provides for information and consultation procedures at all 
stages of the decision-shaping pro cess.  For example, Norway can ask for consultations on matters of 
concern and can also seek adaptations to the EU  legislation in its application when special 
circumstances call for this, which may lead to certa in backlog of legislation not yet integrated in 
Norway. 
138. Norway does play a very important role in th e multilateral trading system and in advocating 
resistance to protectionism since the financial crisis developed. Norway continues supporting the 
DDA, which the EU very much welcomes. In fact, as the government of Norway put it in its report: 
"Being a relatively small country with a middle-si zed economy, Norway is dependent on a level 
playing field in international markets and a predictable trading environment".  
139. However, we would like to raise a few issues. Regarding the "predictability issue", the EU is 
concerned with the adoption of measures that are taken without consultation or without prior notice 
such as custom reclassification of products or switch of certain duties to ad valorem  as they are 
contrary to the objectives of predictability that the government claims.  
140. Regarding the role of fisheries in Norway's tr ade, the EU has raised a number of questions 
regarding the functioning of the system of attri bution of licences.  Regarding agricultural production 
and trade, the EU wonders whether the long term objective of the government to increase by 20% the 
production will be accompanied by opening measures facilitating trade. 
ARGENTINA 
141. Argentina welcomes the opportunity to take part in this new TPR of Norway at a time when 
bilateral trade relations between the two countries are being stepped up, as are political relations.  
As part of my previous responsibilities, I was myself in Oslo in May 2011 for the purpose of 
reinforcing our bilateral relations. 
142. During this Review, I shall comment briefly on Norway's trade policy and on trade relations 
with Argentina.  First of all, I should like to  commend Norway on the sustained growth of its 
economy.  In 2011, GDP rose by 2.4% and the unemployment rate has continued to fall steadily to 3%.  This should be a source of pride in today's world. 
143. We congratulate Norway on the way in which it coped with the recent global financial crisis.  
Unlike many other countries, Norway's Government confronted the external problems in 2008 
and 2009 by means of measures to boost the domest ic economy, managing to ensure stability without 
any serious risks to its financial position. 
144. We note that Norway's leading trading partne rs are within the same region.  The EU, 
in particular, accounts for no less than 80 per cent of Norway's exports of goods, and some two thirds 
of its imports.  It is nevertheless positive that the trend towards increasing trade with other parts of the 
world, in particular Asia, has continued over the past four years.  In this regard, we urge Norway to 
continue diversifying its foreign tr ade, especially with Latin America. 
145. Along the same lines, we note that although th e Generalized System of Preferences for 
imports from developing countries remains important for certain products, the scheme has gradually WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 26  
 
  become less relevant for many of Norway's de veloping country trading partners following the 
conclusion of certain free trade agreements. 
146. Agriculture is one of the cornerstones of deve lopment for medium- and low-income countries.  
We therefore note with concern that bound tariffs for many agricultural products are high.  Furthermore, the agricultural sector is closely regu lated, and regulation goes hand in with high border 
protection for livestock and crops grown in Norway.  Milk and dairy, which is the heart of Norwegian 
agriculture, is subject to target pricing, pr oducer levies, production controls, product-price 
equalization, transport support, product storage, inte rnal price rebates, export subsidies, structural 
income support, and regional deficiency payments. 
147. In addition, according to the Secretariat Report, the switch from specific to ad valorem  import 
duty for some dairy products in 2010 was a me asure intended to increase border protection for 
the sector.  Despite this, it would appear that these measures have not sufficed to halt the structural 
change towards a smaller farming sector, which casts even more doubt on the advisability of maintaining them. 
148. I should now like to dwell briefly on our bilatera l trade.  Although it started very modestly, 
it is cause for satisfaction that both Norway 's exports to Argentina and its imports 
of Argentine products have increased.  Total b ilateral trade between the Argentine Republic and 
Norway rose by 46% between 2010 and 2011 and h as shown a steady increase over the past three 
years. 
149. In 2011, total trade between the two countries amounted to US$112 million.  Norway 
exported US$46 million of goods to Argentina.  Its imports of Argentine products in 2011 amounted 
to US$66 million, yielding a surplus of US$20 milli on in Argentina's favour.  The most important 
Norwegian exports include chemicals, iron and steel , machinery for specific industries, scientific and 
technical instruments, and gas.  Norway mainly imported fruit and vegetables, animal and plant raw 
materials, oilseeds and fruits, beverages, leathe r and its byproducts, and vehicles from Argentina. 
150. Despite the foregoing, for both Argentina and Norway bilateral trade only accounts for less 
than 1% of their total trade.  We therefore urge  Norway to continue working with Argentina to 
develop closer bilateral relations so that the full potential of both countries can be realized. 
151. Norway is one of the WTO's founder Member s and a leading member of the multilateral 
trading system and this Organization.  Its dele gation to the WTO represents its country with 
distinction and plays an essential role in decisi on-making in this house.  Argentina shares many 
interests with Norway in the multilateral sphere, in cluding the key role of the development dimension 
and the importance we attach to the WTO.  Like  Norway, Argentina is in favour of a dynamic 
multilateral trading system with an e ffective dispute settlement mechanism. 
152. Argentina and Norway have put forward joint proposals in the negotiations on fisheries 
subsidies and dispute settlement a nd, together with other Members present here, form the Friends of 
Fish Group, whose objective is to bring about a sizeabl e decrease in fisheries subsidies.  I should like 
to end by stating that we shall continue to work together with Norway on these and other issues with a 
view to an open, transparent a nd rules-based multilateral trading system that fosters growth and 
development. 
CHILE 
153. Since the beginning, Norway's history has been li nked to international trade.  This is a fact, 
from the trade that saw the flowering of the Viking civilization, to the discovery of abundant oil  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 27 
 
 
  reserves in the 1970s, to Norway's active participa tion in EFTA, it has always promoted trade beyond 
its own borders.  Put simply, trade forms part of its national identity. 
154. Norway is a successful society, built on the b asis of respect, freedom and the quest for 
well-being for its people.  The facts speak for themse lves.  Low rate of unemployment, low inflation, 
plenteous financial reserves, one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, all under the umbrella 
of a sustainable situation of well-being. 
155. Trade relations between Chile and Norway take place within the framework of the 
EFTA-Chile Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1 December 2004.  Under this Agreement, over 
90% of our exports to Norway enter duty free.  None theless, we regret that there are still restrictions 
on our wine.  Norwegian investment in Chile amount s to US$1,200 million, mainly in the aquaculture 
and financial sectors.  Our aquaculture industries pr incipally compete in producing salmon.  Chile and 
Norway are in fact the world's two leading exporters of salmon. 
156. Within the WTO, our countries share the same position on a number of issues.  For example, 
our ongoing concern for the multilateral trading sy stem, the search for new ways of making progress 
towards the successful conclusion of the Doha Round , permanent readiness to enter into dialogue, and 
trust in the transforming power of untrammelled inte rnational trade.  Our only differences - temporary 
ones we hope - relate to agricultural policies and their distortive impact on international markets, 
as mentioned by previous speakers. 
COLOMBIA 
157. It is clear that proper management of its plentiful natural resources, especially energy 
resources, and the prudent fiscal policy that has traditionally guided its macroeconomic policy, 
allowed Norway to confront the financial crisis with  success.  In this regard , the official aid package 
and the flexible monetary measures implemented in  2009 and 2010 had the expected counter-cyclical 
effect. 
158. The main economic indicators for 2011 are proof of this:  production rose by 2.4%, close to 
the historical trend, the unemployment rate fell to 3% and inflation remained low.  Nevertheless, 
undesired collateral effects can be perceived, for ex ample, a more rapid rise in property prices and the 
high level of household debt. 
159. With regard to trade policy, we do not see any major changes during the review period.  
Of particular note are the introduction of electro nic summary declarations for trade outside the 
European Economic Area, the elim ination of various sanitary charges on consumers and the removal 
of reference prices for beef, in order to facilitate  compliance with Norway's multilateral commitments 
on domestic support.  The tariff regime is sti ll marked by relatively liberal treatment of 
non-agricultural products and a high degree of protection for agriculture. 
160. For non-agricultural products, over 95% of ta riff lines enter duty free and the average bound 
rate is 3.3%.  For agricultural products, on the othe r hand, not only is the average tariff applied high 
(41%), but the average of bound tariffs is much hi gher (143%) and its nature is twofold, i.e. the 
highest amount between the specific tariff and the ad valorem rate recorded is used.  This gives a 
large measure of discretion when applying the level of protection and robs the regime of 
predictability.  For example, in 2010 the sp ecific tariff on milk was replaced by an ad valorem tariff 
that increased protection. 
161. In addition, the agricultural sector continues to  be subject to complex regulations and to a 
network of support programmes such as referen ce prices, producer prices, transport support, 
administration of quotas and export subsidies, measures that not only have an impact on the WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 28  
 
  Government's budget but also mean high prices for consumers.  It is estimated that, on average, the 
prices paid by Norwegian consumers are double interna tional prices, a situation that also affects the 
competitiveness of the agro-industrial sector.  It w ould therefore be helpful to know whether the 
Norwegian authorities intend to take measures to  lessen the protection and regulation of the 
agricultural sector in order to make it more competitive. 
162. As to bilateral trade relations, we signed an agreement in 2008 under the European Free Trade 
Association framework, although it has yet to enter into force.  In recent years, bilateral trade 
has increased, from US$180 million in 2009 to US$250 m illion in 2011, and we hope that this trend 
will continue. 
163. Norway is a notable Member of the WTO.  We acknowledge its ac tive and constructive 
participation both in the Organization's standing b odies and in the Doha Round negotiations and we 
hope to be able to continue to rely on its contribu tions.  As State Secretary Torgeir Larsen mentioned 
at the recent Baltic Sea States Subregional Coope ration Annual Conference "We must continue to 
work together to consolidate th e principles and values we share". 
PAKISTAN 
164. During the 2008 financial crisis, Norway also e xperienced decline in its GDP growth, rise in 
interest rates and unemployment. The trade regime, however, remained liberal and protectionism was 
successfully resisted by the Government. Due to th ese policies, Norway's GDP declined by only 1.7% 
from 2008 to 2009. Fiscal stimulus and low interest  rates in 2009 providing a boost to consumption 
put Norway's GDP back on upward trend. The ma croeconomic indicators have always remained 
stable. The performance of Norway's economy in the period of crisis is commendable.  
165. Norway is richly endowed with natural resources,  such as petroleum, natural gas, fish, forests 
and minerals. So far export of petroleum, natural gas and fish is the mainstay of Norway's exports, the 
minerals sector has not remained in focus, this sector deserved. Perhaps this will be the future 
direction of Norway's investment and trade.  
166. Norway maintains a liberal trade and investment  policies with respect to industrial products. 
Its agricultural sector has remained highly protected , though agriculture accounts only for slightly 
more than 1% of its gross domestic product. Suppor t provided by Norway to its agricultural producers 
as a percentage of total farm receipt is among the highest in the world.  
167. Norway has TRQs for 64 agriculture and horticul ture products and the Norwegian agriculture 
authority holds online auctions for the allocati on of quotas for 54 of these products. Norwegian 
importers are primarily interested in TRQs for grains or niche products. Participation in the auctions is 
inexpensive but the quota holders are not actually re quired to import the entire quantity of allocated 
TRQ. The Agriculture Authority does not have a sy stem to reallocate any unused quota. Norway is 
requested to look into these issues, monitor shortfa lls in imports under TRQs and develop a system to 
reduce quota under fill.  
168. Inspite of Norway's concern in the Doha Round in the area of Agriculture, Norway has played 
an active role to positively push the Round for an equitable and balanced outcome.  Spearheading the 
initiative to the successful negotiation of services waiv er and to provide DFQF market access for the 
LDCs is only an example.  
169. Norway is the second home of a large number of  expatriates from Pakistan, who are playing 
their due role in various areas of activity in Norway.  This is amplified from the fact that a Pakistan 
origin woman H.E. Ms. Hadia Tajik has recently b ecome the Minister of Culture in the Norwegian 
Cabinet. Inspite of excellent political relations and people to people contacts, bilateral trade is much  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 29 
 
 
  below our potential. We are trying to address this is sue with all the EFTA countries to translate deep 
political relations into deep economic and trade lin kage. Given Norway's record of robust economic 
performance and sound macroeconomic policies, Pakist an is interested in learning from Norway to 
successfully manage its resources, to fo recast and plan future expenditures. 
PHILIPPINES 
170. The Philippines and Norway enjoy robust and co rdial relations in all three pillars of 
Philippine foreign policy-economic, political and peop le-to-people cooperation.  The maritime sector 
is one of the most important aspects of Philippin es-Norway bilateral relations, while cooperation in 
the area of renewable energy between th e two countries continues to strengthen.  
171. Beyond investments, the Philippines-Norway cooperation has been growing in other aspects 
as well. New areas of commercial cooperation include aquaculture, telecommunications, the 
petroleum sector and outsourcing.  There has also been a steady increase in the number of Norwegian tourists visiting the Philippines.
 
172. Since the last Review in 2008, the world h as seen how a relatively small nation of about 
5 million people enjoyed top global ranking in various economic sectors:  the second biggest exporter 
of fish and seafood products, the third biggest expor ter of natural gas, the fourth biggest maritime 
nation, the fifth biggest oil exporter, and the sixth biggest hydropower producer.  
173. While the Norwegian economy was affected by  the financial crisis and global recession 
from 2008 onwards, the economic downturn and problem s in the financial sector have been less 
severe than in many other countries due to its well-developed social safety nets.  On the 
implementation of its trade policy framework, the Philippines appreciates that Norway remains 
strongly committed to the multilateral framew ork under the auspices of the WTO.   
PERU 
174. Like Peru, Norway has an open economy and plentiful natural resources, especially 
hydrocarbons, forestry products and in the fisheries sect or.  We in fact have a lot to learn in terms of 
efficient utilization of such resources, improved pr oductivity and the generation of renewable energy 
based on the technological progress made in this field.  We also take careful note of Norway's 
experience in providing shipping and other maritime services. 
175. Both Norway and Peru believe in a stable multilateral trading system in which companies 
have access to international markets and in a dyna mic and effective dispute settlement mechanism.  
At the multilateral level, we appreciate the leader ship of Ambassador Elin Johansen as Chair of the 
Organization's General Council, and her active partic ipation in various bodies such as the Council for 
Trade in Services, the Negotiating Group on Trad e Facilitation, Aid for Trade, Trade and the 
Environment, inter alia.  
176. As far as regional trade agreements are concerned, Norway's Parliament ratified Peru's Free 
Trade Agreement with the European  Free Trade Association, which ca me into force for Norway on 
1 July this year, together with a bilateral agreem ent on agriculture.  It is hoped that these instruments 
will increase the still limited bilateral trade based on exports of traditional products such as fish oil 
and coffee and expand direct investment in strategic areas of our economy.  For the moment, Norway is the sixth largest European investor in Pe ru, with capital stock approaching US$500 million. WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 30  
 
  INDIA 
177. Blessed with abundant natural resources, Norw ay ranks amongst the richest countries in the 
world with a per capita income of US$97,600. Th e Norwegian economy has done fairly well during 
the period under review, recovering quickly from the global financial crisis. Through a judicious mix 
of monetary and fiscal policies that cut interest rates and increased public spending to boost economic 
activity, Norway managed to make a quick turnaround from a contraction in its GDP during 2008-09, 
to a positive growth rate of 2.4% in 2011.  
178. The financial crisis has, however, highlighted  the vulnerability of the Norwegian economy to 
external factors and underlined the need for great er diversification. Norway remains fundamentally 
dependent on export of natural res ources, especially crude oil and natu ral gas. As a result, the sudden 
drop in oil prices in 2009 severely impacted Norw ay's exports and overall economic performance.  
179. At the same time, Norway's economy remains cl osely linked with that of the EU through the 
agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).  As  a result, many of Norway's trade regulations 
are either identical or aligned with the trade ru les applied by the EU. With the EU accounting for 
more than 80% of Norway's exports and two thir ds of its imports, the Norwegian economy remains 
inevitably susceptible to economic developments in the EU.  
180. Despite being a largely open economy, Norway 's bound rates continue to be high and its 
agricultural sector remains closely regulated thr ough high tariffs for livest ock and crops grown in 
Norway. The average bound rate for agricultural pr oducts is 142.8%, with peak bound rates exceeding 
300% for live animals, meat and dairy and 200% for cereals. Milk and diary is particularly heavily 
regulated using instruments such as target pricing,  producer levies, production controls, product price 
equalization, transport support, product storage, inte rnal price rebates, export subsidies and structural 
income support. As pointed out by the Secretaria t report, a new multilateral agreement in the WTO on 
further reductions in agricultural subsidies could have major implications for Norway.  However, 
there are no signs yet of Norway taking determined  steps to prepare for a negotiated outcome in the 
WTO. 
181. Bilateral trade between India and Norway has witnessed encouraging growth during the past 
several years. It reached US$1.18 billion in 2011-12 , that included India's exports to Norway worth 
US$334 million and imports from Norway worth US$843 million.  More than 70 Norwegian companies are doing business in India through joint ve ntures with Indian partners or through wholly 
owned subsidiaries. Increased synergy in offshore and maritime sectors has led to joint ventures in 
off-shore exploration and ship build ing. In the area of renewable energy, Norwegian companies like 
SN Power are setting up hydroelectric and solar pow er generation plants in India. (Norway has 
invested US$96.2 million in India since April 2000.) 
182. Similarly, major Indian IT companies like TC S, Infosys, L&T and WIPRO have increased 
their presence in Norway and many Indian small & medium enterprises are developing IT solutions 
and services for the Norwegian market. India has also become a leading source of foreign skilled 
workers in Norway with approximately 3,000 Indi an professionals engaged largely in the IT and 
petroleum sectors.  
183. As of 2011, Norway's investments in India through the Government Pension Fund amounted 
to US$1.8 billion in equities and US$142 million in fixed income securities. The key investment 
sectors are IT services, oil & gas, finance, utiliti es, health care, consumer goods and services.  
184. Government-to-Government interaction between India and Norway is taking place at various 
levels including meetings of the Joint Working Groups on hydro carbons and environment. The two 
countries have also signed an agreement on avoi dance of double taxation, MOU on cooperation in   WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 31 
 
 
  fisheries and a Maritime Transport Agreement. Nego tiations for a free trade agreement with EFTA are 
underway.  
185. There is a vast potential for economic engagement  between India and Norway in the future in 
areas such as renewable energy, especially sola r and hydro power, shipping and deep sea drilling, 
hydro carbons, IT related services, etc. India looks  forward to working with Norway to tap this 
potential and to enhance our cooperation further. 
186. On the multilateral front, India shares Norway's  disappointment at the current impasse in the 
Doha Round and agrees that a positive and balanced outcome is essential for the global economy and 
developing countries in particular. We commend Norway's strong commitment to the multilateral 
trading system and the active engagement of the Norwegian delegation, in the WTO negotiations and 
regular work of the organization.   
187. Norway's GSP scheme which provides DFQF access  to the Norwegian market for all LDCs 
and for 14 low income developing countries is praise worthy. Norway is also an important contributor 
to Aid for Trade initiatives providing trade relate d technical assistance to developing countries and 
LDCs. 
ECUADOR 
188. Norway's sixth TPR shows sustained and gra dual recovery from the effects of the global 
economic crisis.  During the review period, th is involved the implementation of expansionist 
macroeconomic support and fiscal stimulus policie s to boost the country's financial and economic 
stability.  In 2011, GDP rose by 2.4% and the unemplo yment rate continued to fall to 3%.  This was 
made possible by a number of factors that are to Norw ay's advantage, for example, its plentiful natural 
resources, mainly oil and gas, which have enabled th is Member to record a surplus in trade in goods 
for over two decades.  Thus, between 2007 and 2011,  the current account surplus posted an annual 
surplus of 10%.  Moreover, a large proportion of No rway's revenue from the exploitation of its natural 
resources is saved and invested in a Government pension fund and each year the Government's budget 
has recorded a surplus. 
189. In addition, it should be noted that in Norway there is a large measure of State ownership, so 
much so that, as indicated in the Secretariat Repor t, Norway has no specific privatization goals but 
rather the privatization process has slowed down to a considerable extent since 2005.  Ecuador agrees 
with the Norwegian Government's position that the State's role in promoting development, 
particularly industrial development, by taking a shar e in companies, is both appropriate and important. 
190. As to trade, at the multilateral level Norway is  in favour of reinforcing the disciplines in the 
WTO Agreements and remains committed to a su ccessful conclusion of the Doha Development 
Round, as can be seen from its active participatio n in the Doha negotiations and in the WTO's 
standing bodies. 
191. In any event, it should be noted that two thirds of Norway's imports come from the 
European Union, even though in recent years there ha s been a slight increase in trade with other parts 
of the world, especially Asia.  As regards its fo reign trade policy, Norway has opted to follow the 
trend of negotiating free trade agreements, and has signed 33 so far, with several more negotiations 
under way with other countries. WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 32  
 
  192. Regarding Norway's commitment to support th e development of developing countries, 
since 1971 Norway has had a GSP scheme for imports from developing countries, of which Ecuador 
is one of the beneficiaries.  Nevertheless, Norw ay's GSP still has tariff quotas that govern preferential 
access under the scheme.  Consideration should be  given to making the scheme more flexible, 
particularly for agricultural products with value- added.  Along the same lines, MFN customs duties on 
the majority of manufactures have been unilate rally eliminated so these are imported virtually 
duty free.  Irrespective of their origin, the average bound rate on non-agricultural products is 3.3%, with the highest bound rates ranging from 11 to 14%. 
193. On the other hand, tariff binding for agricultural products, which are those of most relevance 
to the vast majority of developing countries, rema ins high with an average rate of 142.8%.  This 
reflects an exception to the trade liberalization polic y advocated by Norway and appears to have its 
origin in non-trade issues which dominate the support and protection programmes Norway 
implements in favour of domestic agriculture.  It should be borne in mind, however, that despite the 
stringent and complex regulation of Norway's dom estic agricultural market, the number of farmers 
continues to fall. 
194. Trade relations between Norway and Ecuador are still at a fairly early stage and between 2008 
and July 2012 Ecuador only exported products tota lling US$26.5 million.  Furthermore, 79% of these 
exports consisted of bananas.  We believe that Norway's market has greater potential and that 
Ecuadoran exports could increase still further and b ecome more diversified, but this would mean 
facilitating market access, not only as regards tariff s but also technical, sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures. 
195. In this connection, Ecuador would appreciate it if, during the biennium prior to the seventh 
TPR, the Norwegian authorities would consider th e possibility of lowering the average tariff and 
eliminating tariff peaks and spikes in the agricu ltural sector, notably by streamlining the current 
technical and sanitary procedures.  Ecuador hopes that Norway's sixth TPR will lay the groundwork 
for a rapid improvement in market access for agri cultural products, especially those with value-added 
from developing countries, and for reviewing the technical standards and sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures. 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
196. The Norwegian economy has performed well dur ing the period under Review, despite the 
global economic and financial crises. We can see that  it is only through international trade that the 
high standard of living and the demands of the Norwegian population and businesses for a diverse 
supply of goods and services can be met. And, wi th its economy so directly linked to the overall 
health of the world economy, we agree that an open trading system allows Norway to better exploit its 
comparative advantage. In other words, trade openne ss and access to global supply chains are crucial 
to the smooth functioning of the Norwegian economy. 
197. We enjoy quite a close trading rela tionship with Norway. It is our 9
th largest trading partner in 
Europe, with the value of two-way trade reaching a total of US$897 million in 2011.  Like us, Norway 
is a strong supporter of the multilateral trade system and we particularly appreciate the efforts of the 
Norwegian government to promote its developmen t.  We also recognize that the MTS is now 
struggling, and that more goodwill is needed  from like-minded Members such as Norway, to 
encourage a beneficial outcome of the DDA. 
198. The Norwegian economy sets an example for us, w ith its belief that support for a strong, rule-
based system is the best guarantee against unilatera lism and protectionism.  We also share the belief 
that future economic development for all depends  on Members working hand-in-hand to provide a  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 33 
 
 
  stable, secure, transparent, predictable and fair inte rnational trading environment, in which we can all 
do business together with trust and confidence.  
199. We therefore encourage Norway to continue to play a proactive role in promoting and 
safeguarding the common economic and social in terests within the framework of the WTO 
multilateral system.  The best way to meet the challenges facing an increasingly globalized world 
economy is to continue to develop global governance architecture.  The challenge for the WTO is to 
encourage trade policy aimed at maintaining, im proving and strengthening the multilateral trading 
system to facilitate the integration of all Members. 
EL SALVADOR 
200. The content of the Reports shows that Norway is particularly interested in improving 
market access for transport and other shipping services, energy-related services, telecommunications 
services and maritime insurance, underlining No rway's interest in supporting services-related 
economic activities. 
201. We note that no significant changes have occurre d in Norway's general framework for trade 
policy formulation and implementation over the past four  years, but also that changes have been made 
to the customs trade regime with th e adoption of the EU/EMARS system ( Safe Sea Net ) for reporting 
shipping information to customs.  Likewise, sinc e 1 January 2011, an advance electronic summary 
declaration has been mandatory for all movement  of goods between Norway and non-EEA countries.  
Bearing this in mind and the treatment applicable  to the aforementioned Member States, we should 
like to hear Norway's views on whether this type  of measure could have an impact on the export 
initiatives of developing countries such as El Salvador. 
202. According to the Reports, in the agricultural sector products of domestic origin receive 
special treatment that helps to keep food pri ces high and we also note that market access for 
non-agricultural products is almost entirely open.  Consequently, in the course of this exercise, 
the measures Norway is currently considering in or der to harmonize its relevant policy in sectors of 
importance to it could be examined. 
203. As regards our bilateral relations, we are in  the process of tightening and strengthening our 
trade relations, which date back to 1935.  Our Governments agreed to mark a new stage in our 
relations from 2010 onwards, with the creation of a bilateral mechanism for consultation on common 
issues in order to strengthen our bilateral relati ons, enabling us to identify and define areas for 
cooperation and other regional and in ternational matters of common interest such as the environment 
and climate change, the most relevant of which we re reaffirmed by our Governments during the visit 
of the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affa irs to El Salvador on 6 January 2012. 
204. Concerning key economic sectors, we are review ing and identifying support from Norway for 
the development and strengthening of our micro and small enterprises, together with opportunities to 
share renewable energy-related experience and technology so as to diversify this sector in 
El Salvador, as well as shipping-related openings. 
205. At the multilateral level, we pay tribute to Norway as a faithful defender of the multilateral 
trading system, participating in the WTO with the ai m of keeping up the pace of trade liberalization, 
particularly in areas of interest to it in order to strengthen and upgrade the rules-based multilateral 
trading system that fosters the expa nsion and liberalization of trade. 
206. I should also like to underline the active role pl ayed by Norway in the negotiating round, and 
its contributions as a donor to the WTO's technical assistance and cooperation programmes, as well as 
in areas such an intellectual property,  agricultural negotiations, fisheries, inter alia , making WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 34  
 
  contributions to the process either individually or through the groups to which it belongs such as the 
G-10, Friends of Ambition (NAMA), Friends of Anti-Dumping Negotiations and Friends of Fish. 
207. We recognize that Norway supports a strong mu ltilateral trading system with an effective 
dispute settlement mechanism.  It participates activ ely in the negotiations to revise the plurilateral 
Agreement on Government Procurem ent and will be expanding consid erably its obligations towards 
the other signatories.  In addition, with a view  to supporting the WTO's regular work, Norway has 
chaired bodies, committees and working groups, s ubmitting documents and proposals in order to 
make a contribution to the debates on matters relati ng to intellectual property and biodiversity, rules, 
agriculture, inter alia.  We trust that Norway will continue  showing such dynamism and also 
encourage it to continue supporting measures for developing countries in  all the areas dealt with in the 
WTO, especially measures intended for small economies. 
HONDURAS 
208. We note from the Secretariat Report that Norw ay has been one of the developed economies 
that has emerged the most satisfactorily from the global financial crisis.  As a result of the sound 
measures implemented by its Government, it ma naged to overcome the upheavals in 2008, 
boosting its economy and ensuring its financial stability. 
209. Apart from benefiting from one of the highest living standards in the world, Norway has 
plentiful natural resources.  Its performance since th e previous Review in 2008 has been remarkable, 
owing to a large extent to the sizeable exports of cr ude oil and natural gas, the existence of a liberal 
import regime and the implementation of  appropriate macroeconomic measures. 
210. Although its leading trading partners are to be found within the same region, the trend 
towards increasing trade with other pa rts of the world, in particular Asia, has continued over the past 
four years, allowing Norway to benefit from im proved terms of trade as prices for its exports 
of energy, energy-intensive products, and fish have been favourable. 
211. There have been no significant changes in its  trade policy.  We commend Norway on the 
great importance it attaches to the integration of developing countries, and in particular the poorest 
among them, into the world economy and the multila teral trading system.  We also welcome 
Norway's active participation in the WTO's work in relation to Aid for Trade and assistance to 
developing countries. 
212. Early this year, Honduras, together with Guatemala, Costa Rica and Panama, commenced 
negotiations on a trade agreement with the Europe an Free Trade Association (EFTA), composed of 
Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein.  For Honduras and the other Central American 
countries, this would mean expansion of the tradin g portfolio for agricultural products to countries 
such as Norway and at the same time would be th e ideal complement to the Association Agreement 
between Central America and the European Union.  We hope to conclude this agreement within the 
next few months. 
MOROCCO 
213. Norway was one of the few countries showi ng positive and stable economic indicators 
for 2011.  GDP growth is around 2.4%, the unemployment rate is 3% and interest rates are low.  This 
positive economic performance is attributable to the earnings from exports of oil and natural gas and 
to the sound management of public finance by Norw egian Governments, as shown by the creation of a 
government pension fund which is both a public savi ngs fund to offset any increase in government 
spending and an account for the long- term management of oil revenue.  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 35 
 
 
  214. In addition, the sound economic indicators are re inforced by a stable trade policy under which 
Norway exports 80% of its goods to its European pa rtners and imports two thirds of its needs from 
them, under agreements signed within the framewo rk of the European Economic Area and the 
European Free Trade Association. 
215. The ongoing crisis in the euro zone, however, r uns the risk of hindering Norway's trade with 
its surrounding environment, Europe, and this explai ns the efforts made to diversify its trading 
partners, in particular towards Asia.  The Moro ccan delegation considers that Norway is a good 
example that could serve as a model. 
216. In Norway, the State is involved in economic activity in order to guarantee its stability and 
make a positive contribution to i ndustrial development through ownership of several companies.  This 
State intervention takes place in a climate of ope nness, marked by competition and the absence of 
protection of domestic markets, even in t hose sectors in which Norwegian companies face 
international competition, for example, in the oil, engineering, services, shipping, telecommunications 
and fisheries sectors.  Moreover, during the global financial crisis, Norway mitigated the shock by 
the Government's decision to inject liquidity into  the banking system and guarantee long-term loans. 
217. Norway also firmly believes in the multilateral tr ading system and takes an active part in the 
WTO's work.  It contributes financially to Aid for Tr ade in favour of several developing countries, as 
well as in other technical assistance activities for LDCs.  It should be emphasized that Norway has 
signed free trade agreements with around 100 countr ies, covering industrial products, fisheries and 
fisheries byproducts, as well as agricultural products. 
218. Norway has also applied the Generalized Syst em of Preferences in favour of exports from 
developing countries since 1971 and from LDCs since 2002, giving them exemptions from tariffs and 
quotas with free market access.  The Generalized Syst em of Preferences has not yielded the expected 
results for developing countries and LDCs so it woul d be timely to prepare a study at the multilateral 
level on the measures to be implem ented in order to integrate these  countries into the multilateral 
trading system more effectively. 
219. Turning to another topic, Norway has aptly expressed concern at potential deterioration of 
working conditions and social protection, as well as a possible increase in unemployment, as the 
foreign labour force increases in a general context of economic crisis. 
220. On 19 June 1997, Morocco signed an agreemen t in Geneva on the gradual introduction of a 
free trade area with the European Free Trade Associ ation (EFTA), which is composed of Switzerland, 
Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.  This agreement ca me into effect in March 2000.  It has led to an 
overall volume of trade between Morocco and No rway amounting to DH 1.7 million in 2011, 
as compared to DH 1.03 million in 2010, an increase of 65%, both as regards imports (85% rise) and 
exports (increase of 45%).  As to investment in Morocco, Norway occupied 47th place among foreign 
investors in 2010, for a total of DH 6.7 million, compared to DH 22.9 million in 2009.  In conclusion, I should like to commend the Government of Norway on its economic response and its renewed 
commitment to the multilateral trading system. 
NIGERIA 
221. Nigeria is happy to note from the Secretariat Report that Norway has fared better than most 
developed economies through the recent global financ ial turmoil.  Unlike many other countries, the 
Norwegian Government was able to counter the ex ternal shock in autumn 2008 with measures to 
stimulate the domestic economy and ensure financial stability with no serious risk to its financial 
position.  Interest rates, which had been geared towards containing inflationary pressures, were cut 
sharply. The 2009 Fiscal Budget was the most expansi onary budget in more than 30 years. As the WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 36  
 
  economy rebounded in 2010, the Government began to  reign in the fiscal stimulus. Mainland GDP 
grew by 2.4% in 2011, and the unemployment rate is  declining steadily towards 3% and interest rates 
remain low. 
222. No significant changes have occurred in No rway's general framework for trade policy 
formulation and implementation over the last f our years. Norway supports a strong multilateral 
trading system with effective dispute settlement. Th is has ensured predictabl e and transparent trade 
regime.  
223. Norway was one of the "founding fathers" of the GATT in 1948 and is an original WTO 
Member.  It has maintained support and commitment  to the strengthening and liberalisation of the 
multilateral trading system and has remained activ e in the Doha Development Agenda negotiations. 
My delegation, therefore, commends the active part icipation of the delegation of Norway in the 
negotiations. 
224. On Aid for Trade, Nigeria is happy with the commitment of Norway to assist developing 
countries and LDCs in their efforts to achieve  economic growth and poverty reduction through 
increased participation in international trade.  In this context, the Action Plan launched in 2007 is 
presently being reviewed based on the experience gained  since the Plan was launched. It is our hope 
that Norway would continue with the commitment to enable countries take advantage of market 
access opportunities.  
225. Norway and its partners in the European Fr ee Trade Association (EFTA) have opted for an 
extensive framework of free trade agreements , covering 33 countries at present. Further FTA 
negotiations are ongoing. In addition, the EFTA Stat es have signed joint declarations on cooperation 
with some countries. Nigeria, hopes that the use of  preferential trade agreements by Norway will not 
obviate its support and commitment to strengt hening the multilateral trading system.  
226. At the bilateral level, Nigeria's relations with Norway have been generally warm since the two 
countries establish diplomatic relations. In 2000, the Federal Government  of Nigeria signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding with Norway, for tec hnical cooperation in the oil and gas industry. 
The MOU was renewed to reflect the realities in the oil sector and is anchored on critical projects as 
well as capacity building and skills acquisition. 
URUGUAY 
227. Our country has friendly and constructive relati ons with Norway and these have recently been 
reinforced in the various spheres of our bilatera l relations, both at the po litical and economic levels 
and in the creation of forums for trade, technological, social and cultural cooperation. 
228. Accordingly, over the past two years, there have been various high-level political visits 
between the two countries.  In October 2011, for example, the Uruguayan President, accompanied by a large delegation comprising government author ities and public and private enterprises, visited 
Norway.  The Norwegian Minister of Environmen t and International Coope ration visited Uruguay, 
accompanied by various government officials.  It is important to mention the tangible progress made 
in the bilateral agenda, the incre ase in trade flows and the high level of dialogue and coordination 
between the two countries at the re gional and international levels. 
229. As far as investment is concerned, in A ugust 2006 Uruguay signed a framework agreement 
with the Nordic Investment Bank, to which No rway belongs.  This agreement was approved by 
Uruguay by means of Law No. 18.117 of 17 April 2007.  It provides that Uruguay and Uruguayan companies are formally eligible for access to the Bank's financing programmes, in accordance with  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 37 
 
 
  the criteria determined by the Bank, with the pa rticipation of firms from the Nordic and Baltic 
countries.  This option has already been used for major undertakings in Uruguay. 
230. In addition, it should be emphasized that  since 2007 one large Norwegian company 
commissioned by the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining has been engaged in exploration on the sea shelf in Uruguay's exclusive economic zone.  Other Norwegian companies are operating in 
Uruguay in a legal climate that is stable for busin ess and this investment trend has been on the rise, 
extending to other areas such as energy, shipping and fisheries. 
231. As several delegations have already stated and as indicated in the Secretariat Report, Norway 
gives its agricultural sector a high level of protection, an aspect that gives rise to concerns and worries 
on the part of countries exporting agricultural pr oducts, which are seeking the adoption of the 
necessary reforms to this sector with a view to more open markets. 
232. As a final remark, I should like to underline the interest of both countries in joining forces for 
the successful conclusion of the Doha Developm ent Round and for a stronger multilateral trading 
system based on predictable, transparent and balanced  rules.  At the same time, recognition is due to 
Norway for the efforts made over the years through financial support for the va rious technical training 
programmes provided by the WTO and other bene fits aimed at least developed countries. WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 38  
 
  V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY AND ADDITIONAL 
COMMENTS 
233. Norway's economic performance was the subject of many interventions, and quite a few 
speakers pointed to some of the challenges facing th e Norwegian economy, both in the near future as 
well as in a long term perspective. One point is that our strong economic performance creates its own 
challenges.  An appreciating currency has made our export industries less competitive. Wages are 
growing faster in Norway than in our trading part ners.  Last year, the average hourly wage cost in 
Norwegian manufacturing was 54% higher than the aver age for our trading partners in the EU. As in 
many other European countries, productivity growth h as abated in recent years.  In order to sustain 
competitiveness in the long run, productivity must incr ease. In addition, real wage increases should be 
more in line with productivity growth. 
234. With the Central Bank's key policy interest ra te at 1.5%, fiscal policy is geared towards 
preventing overheating.  The 2013 budget is thus fi scally neutral, with govern ment expenditure of oil 
revenues well below the level permitted by the Fiscal  Policy Guidelines.  The majority of revenues 
from the extraction of Norway's oil and gas resource s are collected by the Norwegian state. Public 
revenues from the petroleum sector are placed in our sovereign wealth fund - the Government Pension 
Fund Global. The expenditure of petroleum revenu es in any given year is determined, not by 
petroleum revenues of the preceding year, but by the expected long-term real rate of return of the 
Fund's assets. This fiscal framework helps provid e economic stability and makes our economy less 
vulnerable to oil price fluctuations. 
235. Another challenge mentioned is the rising cost of  housing.  The average square meter price of 
housing in Norway more than doubled between 1998 and 2011.  This trend has been caused by a 
growth in wages, low interest rates, tax incentives for investment in real estate and population growth 
caused by immigration.  The increased demand for housing has not been met by a corresponding 
increase in supply.  Household debt is currently at  over 200% of disposable income.  The Norwegian 
government has taken steps to address the surge in  house prices, including a tightening of guidelines 
for residential mortgage lending. 
236. Like many other countries Norway faces challeng es related to an ageing population.  Public 
pension expenditures are expected to increase rapi dly in the coming decades.  While the assets of the 
Government Pension Fund Global are not earmarked  for pension expenditures, its purpose is to 
facilitate the government savings required to me et its pension obligations in the future. 
237. A number of delegations have commented on the relatively high level of state ownership, and 
the Discussant challenged us to elaborate on the polic y considerations that may lie behind this fact. 
The short answer is that the reasons and consider ations have varied over time as society and the 
political landscape has changed. 
238. In the years after the Second World War access to  capital from abroad was limited.  A limited 
private capital market in Norway and a political desire  to bring about industrial growth led the State to 
contribute long term capital with the aim of encour aging industrial developmen t. In addition, security 
considerations lay behind the State's involvement in  the development of defence related industries. 
239. When the production of oil and gas began in the 1970s, the desire for a strong stake in the 
extraction of the newfound resources lay behind the establishment of a state-owned petroleum 
company.  And during the banking crisis in the earl y 1990s, the State's take-over of shares in many 
banks was regarded as essential in order to avoid th e bankruptcy of critical financial institutions.  In 
more recent years, a number of state-owned companies has been established as a result of the 
divestment of state agencies, for instance in te lecommunications, hydropower and transportation. 
Public hospitals are also organized as state-owned companies.   WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 39 
 
 
  240. My point is that the State's direct ownershi p has been motivated by  various objectives and 
political considerations through the years. And the scope and nature of state ownership has also 
changed.  Some companies have gone bankrupt, some have been sold off completely and some have 
been partly privatized. The general conclu sion still holds today; different objectives and 
considerations may explain the state's ownershi p and involvement in the various companies. 
241. The second set of issues raised seems to relate  to the operation of commercially oriented 
companies partly or wholly owned by the stat e. The implicit argument seems to be that the 
involvement of the state in commercial companies may make life more difficult for private investors 
and companies who are competing in the same market s.  I understand that the question is being raised, 
but let me point to the simple fact that there is only one set of laws in Norway.  There is not one 
company law for wholly owned private companies and another company law for companies where the 
State has an ownership interest. Companies operating in Norway, private or state-owned, operate under the same market conditions and competition rules. 
242. In addition, Norway is bound by international rules. Technical regulations and competition 
rules are basically the same throughout Europe – otherwise known as the European Single Market. 
Any attempt to give favours to specific companies, with or without state ownership, in Norway or 
Germany, Poland or the UK, will be under the scrutiny of the EU Commission or the EFTA 
equivalent – the EFTA Surveillance Authority. 
243. Let me also make it clear that the extent of  state ownership does not mean that the State 
intervenes at will in the operation of the market. No rway is a market based economy where the rule of 
law prevails.   
244. Finally, let me point out that the role of the st ate, including the extent of state ownership, is 
the subject of public debate in Norway. Some woul d like to see a less active state, while others would 
like to see a more active state.  This brings me to the reference made by the discussant to a list of 
critical remarks to the current state of affairs in No rway. I believe that the Discussant is pointing to an 
essential explanation behind the social and economic  development of Norway, namely the existence 
of an open public debate, and the fact that the gove rnment's policies are being tested against the will 
of the population at regular intervals through the power of the ballot.  
245. We noted a large number of comments related to our GSP-scheme, and several delegations 
pointed to the disappointing development of impor ts from LDCs and LICs.  As I mentioned on 
Tuesday, this is a concern shared by the Norw egian government, and a concern which is being 
addressed through improvements to the GSP system  itself and a strong focus on Aid for Trade and 
capacity building development assistance. 
246. Let me just point to another challenge which we  are trying to address, namely the fact that 
51 out of a total of 140 GSP-eligible countries a nd territories have not yet fulfilled the necessary 
requirements to receive GSP treatment.  In order to r ectify this unfortunate situation, customs officials 
from Norway have in the past and will in the future  travel to these countries and hold seminars for the 
trade community and relevant government authorities.   The objective is to make countries aware of 
the system, and encourage them to provide the necessary documentation (i.e. which government authorities are empowered to stamp the GSP-certificat es) to enable the implementation of preferential 
treatment.  
247. Another issue raised was the system for adva nce electronic information.  Since July 2009 
Norway and the EU apply the same measure of secu rity for goods entering or leaving the borders of 
their customs territories.  Advance electronic info rmation allows customs authorities to evaluate a 
consignment prior to its arrival to establish whether or  not it is of such a nature that further controls 
are necessary. This is facilitating trade as many more shipments will be customs cleared when they WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 40  
 
  arrive at the border without further controls. Advan ce notifications can be filed 24/7 and are treated on 
a continuous basis. No fees and charges apply and the system is based on the relevant parts of the 
WCOs "SAFE Framework of Standards". 
248. Quite a few delegations touched upon issu es related to the Norwegian SPS-regime. The 
sanitary area is one of the areas where Norway is fully harmonized with the EU through the EEA 
Agreement. In practice this means that Norway appl ies the same control mechanisms as the EU when 
it comes to border measures (the phytosanitary fiel d is, however, not a part of the EEA Agreement, 
but the Norwegian legislation in this field builds on the same principles as in the EU). The 
implementation of emergency measure s relating to food safety is simultaneous in the EU and Norway. 
For our trading partners this is an advantage. Once a member, an entity or a good is approved for 
exports to the EU/EEA-area this applies to the whole area of the internal market. In other words there 
is no need for new approvals specifically for exports to Norway. 
249. Please allow me also to clarify a few issues mentioned by delegations.  One Member referred 
to "temporary TRQs" in relation to bovine meat . Please note that Norway does not open temporary 
TRQs, but has a system of administrative tariff reduc tions as described in para. 16 on page 79 of the 
Secretariat Report. There are no quantitative limitati ons to imports under this  regime, but the tariff 
reductions apply for a limited period of time. 
250. Another Member and the Chair in his opening st atement mentioned tariff reclassification and 
subsequent increased duties on certain products. We  assume they are referring to a recent issue 
regarding the flower Hortensia.  We would like to cl arify that Norway did not raise any duties.  What 
happened was a technical correction of the co mmodity code for the product in question. 
251. This leads me naturally towards another main  theme in Members' interventions, namely 
agriculture. Let me start by responding to the Discu ssant, when he asked why there is no mention of 
agriculture in the Government Report. The explana tion is probably that we made a choice of areas 
where we thought there was a particular need for an  update since our last TPR. However, I appreciate 
the Discussant's point that the TPR provides an opportunity to explain to Members those 
circumstances that have informed our policies in this  particular area – even if, I might add, that these 
policies remain relatively unchanged from the last Re view.  This delegation has taken duly note of the 
Discussant's point, and will make sure that his advice is forwarded to the team that will be responsible 
for preparing our next TPR. 
252. Several Members made comments in relation to our tariffs and tariff quotas.  First, a point 
relating to what is referred to as our system of "m ixed" duties.  While 48% of our agricultural tariff 
lines are bound as specific or ad valorem  tariffs, whichever is higher, onl y one of the two is applied in 
a single calendar year, as tariffs are adopted by the Parliament for one year at the time. This provides 
for predictability as tariffs may not be raised duri ng the calendar year beyond the level adopted by the 
Parliament. 
253. As to the allocation of tariff quotas, there is no penalty for unused quota-shares.  The quotas 
are however tradable, meaning that  there is an economic incentive in reselling unused quota-shares. 
Trade statistics give absolutely no indications th at companies buy quota shares in order to prevent 
imports from taking place. Low TRQ fill-rates are mainly due to economic reasons such as low demand and difficulties in meeting quality specifications.  The quotas are well known among importers and are utilized when it is economically  attractive to do so.  A final word regarding 
agricultural tariffs - we are happy to inform our wine-producing friends that wine can be imported 
duty-free from all sources into Norway.  
254. Many Members have encouraged Norway - in di plomatic, but unmistaken terms - to "examine 
whether the high levels of tariff protection and domest ic support for agriculture are really needed", to  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 41 
 
 
  quote one statement made two days ago. Let me as sure you that we have heard your message, loud 
and clear, and that your message will be conveyed faithfully to our political masters. 
255. Let me, however, also respond by making it clear that there are limits to how much Norway 
can do, and how far we can stretch, in a liberalizi ng direction on agriculture. This remains as true in 
our domestic policy formulation, as it remains in our negotiating positions in the WTO.  
256. While we acknowledge the important role of ma rket signals in stimulating an efficient 
allocation of resources, we are, quite frankly, concer ned that the strongest market signal that would be 
sent to an unprotected Norwegian agricultural sect or is that we shouldn't have a Norwegian 
agricultural sector at all. For reasons well known to those that have followed our policies and 
positions in this house, this would be beyond wh at we can agree to, whether unilaterally or 
multilaterally. 
257. That does not mean that our agricultural sector is standing still.  Agricultural productivity has 
doubled during the last twenty years and continues to improve.  Furthermore, we see a strong upward 
trend in product development, where our producers are moving into high quality niche markets to diversify their production and take  advantage of value added. 
258. Neither does it mean that our markets are clo sed. I have already mentioned in my opening 
statement the large increase in imports of agri cultural products to Norway, and the value our 
consumers place on the diversity and choice these imports represent.  This is set to continue, hand in 
hand with further strengthening of  our domestic production, as demand continues to rise with a 
growing population. The recently announced improve ments to our GSP scheme represent a desire on 
the part of the Government to stimulate incr eased trade flows from developing country trading 
partners. 
259. Our commitment to respecting the existing rules and obligations in the WTO is already a key 
driver of reform in Norway.  I have previously mentioned the steps taken following our last TPR, where market price support for beef was elimin ated in order to comply with our subsidy 
commitments.  A working group is currently consid ering whether similar steps are warranted for other 
products where we have high leve ls of trade distorting support. 
260. Of even more significance, Norway stands pr epared to do our part in fulfilling the Doha 
mandate on ambitious steps towards further openings  in agriculture. The current impasse in the 
negotiations, including on agriculture, is not of our  choosing, and the deadlock does not stem from 
unwillingness on our part to take our share of the respons ibility.  We have shown in the past that it is 
possible to find solutions that ba lance the need for an ambitious outcome with gradualism and the 
need to take into account legitimate concerns.  We  encourage all Members to think creatively about 
how to take negotiations forward, and assure you that Norway will do its part. 
DISCUSSANT 
261. It is my personal assessment that the sixth TPR of Norway has been ma rked by an active and 
interactive participation of Members. In particul ar, the number of advance written questions submitted 
by Members before the beginning of the first day of the review exercise increased from 277 to 292 at 
the end of the meeting.  I wish to note that this does not include other questions or issues that were 
raised from the floor.  Indeed, I would not be surprised if questions still arise from today's deliberations of the TPRB. 
262. This development may be largely traced to th e overall high level of interest that Members 
have in the role and position of Norway as an important WTO Member.  I also sense that for some, 
this may have been due to Norway's status as a ma jor trading partner or key interlocutor in other WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 42  
 
  various areas of bilateral, regiona l and multilateral cooperation.  I also think that, in some cases, the 
aspect of shared values embedded in historical a nd socio-cultural antecedents cannot be ruled out. 
Nevertheless, whatever may be the motivation fo r Members' interest in the economic and trade 
policies of Norway, I wish, generally, to focus my cl osing remarks on what I consider as the elements 
of consensus relating to Norway's trade policies a nd practices.  In doing this, however, I do not intend 
to take over or undermine the role of the Chair in  providing Members with a summary of this review 
exercise.  Apart from this, I would also wish to draw attention to two issues that were not covered in my introductory remarks, namely, the role of th e oil and gas sector, and technical standards and SPS 
regulations. 
263. However, before doing this, I consider it very pe rtinent to make one clarification.  You would 
all recall that during the first day of this revi ew exercise, I had unequivocally stated that "my 
comments on some aspects of Norway's trade polic ies and practices should not be seen as taking 
sides, but merely reflecting my sense of what I cons ider as the most critical and prevalent issues".  In 
that context, I tried throughout my introductory remarks to simply make some inferences from those 
aspects of Norway's trade and practices that I had identified; and then asked Norway to indicate its 
perspectives on those inferences, including whethe r the inferences were actually the case.  To my 
mind, this did not amount to drawing conclusions bu t raising those questions that could enlarge the 
scope or deepen the discussions during the review  exercise, more so as the membership of this 
organisation is highly diverse.  I am making this cl arification mostly to assure you that it was not my 
intention to reach any conclusions, ev en if it had appeared that that was not the case.  My guess is that 
such a perspective may have ar isen only because I am not a good communicator and, therefore, was 
unable to convey the true meaning of my messages. 
264. Following on that digression, it would appear to me that, based on what I heard during the 
first day of this meeting regarding Norway's economic and trade policies, there is significant 
consensus amongst Members on, at least, the following three points.  First, Norway has continued to 
prosper; and has fared much better than most de veloped economies in the course of the recent global 
economic and financial turmoil, through the adoption of sound economic policies, prudent 
management of its enormous natu ral resources, and steadfastness in remaining open to trade despite 
the crisis and the more recent wa ve of protectionist pressures.   
265. Second, Norway has demonstrated a clear and unwavering commitment to the multilateral 
trading system and the successful conclusion of th e Doha Round, which is consistent with the 
country's view that a strong rules-based system is the best guarantee against protectionism, and 
provides important transparency and predictability fo r traders around the world.  In that respect, the 
country has been applauded by Members for its ma ny contributions towards the building of trust and 
convergence, particularly at this period in time  when consensus amongst Members is an extremely 
scarce commodity. 
266. Third, since the last TPR in 2008, there has been little discernible movement towards a more 
liberal and market-oriented agricultu ral trade regime in Norway.   Indeed, even if Norway does not 
owe Members an apology for the concerns expresse d relating to some aspects of its policies and 
practices in agriculture, I am constrained to e xpress support for the call and encouragement by 
Members that the country should review its mo st restrictive policies in the sector, including 
identifying whether there may be any scope for unilate ral liberalisation in some areas.  Moreover, as 
pointed out by one of Norway's major trading part ners, it would be a signifi cant contribution and in 
the overall interest of the system, if Norway provides an indication as to the long-term prospects of 
agricultural trade liberalisation within the context of  the country being able to actualise its objective to 
increase agricultural production by 20%.  
267. With regard to oil and gas, my interest is mo stly in the ability of Norway to formulate and 
sustain its longstanding and forward looking policy of  channelling most of the country's oil and gas  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 43 
 
 
  revenues into the sovereign wealth fund, Gove rnment Pension Fund Global, which has today 
amounted to about 129% of GDP.  I believe that th is can be a very useful lesson for other Members 
that are equally rich in natural resources, but ha ve remained unable to insulate their economies from 
the toxic effects of the enclave oil sector on the real economy and diversification, as well as economic growth and poverty reduction.  I am, however, also struck by the asymmetrical distribution of 
investments from the Fund across countries and regions, the fact that the rate of return may have been 
paramount in such decisions, notwithstanding. 
268. On technical standards and SPS regulations, it h as been noted that Norway, as a member of 
the EEA, follows and adopts harmonised EU technical  regulations, including the simplification of 
inspections and formalities in respect of security me asures.  I am, therefore, concerned as to whether 
this may have also contributed to the poor u tilisation of Norway's preferential market access 
opportunities by LDCs and low-income countries.  As we heard from the opening remarks "an 
independent study commissioned by the Government in  2011 identified a number of other obstacles to 
trade than tariffs, including the existence of numerous  supply-side constraints".  In the circumstance, I 
would encourage Norway to also consider the imp lications of technical standards and SPS regulations 
for the low-level of utilisation of its GSP System by  the beneficiary countries, and territories, if this 
has not yet been identified as part of the problem.  Moreover, if traders from other developed countries are known to have found the SPS barriers in  Norway problematic, the situation of those 
from poorer countries could be much worse. 
269. Finally, I started my introductory remarks on th e first day of this TPR by drawing significant 
inspiration from a Norwegian economist.  I, theref ore, consider it fit and proper to conclude my 
closing remarks by sharing with you some of hi s thoughts on the transformation of Norway, within 
the last century, from a position of need to one in  which citizens may bask in the abundance of goods 
and services.  In that regard, I wish to conclude by  adopting Larsen's conclusion in his treatise on the 
history of economic policymaking in Norway. 
270. A core lesson of Norwegian economic policy is  that sharing the fruits of prosperity 
establishes an atmosphere of security, identity and belonging, and ensures that an individual believes 
in the opportunity to make use of her energy and talents.  Instead of fighting over the distribution of the pie, people then cooperate to increase the pie.  The good thing with this good thing is that it is 
replicable. 
271. I wish, however, to add that the use of "her" by the author does not mean that there are no 
male Norwegians.  Rather, I think, this largely re flects an important aspect of Norwegian policies and 
attitudes towards gender equalisation, including le gislation and surveillance agencies to prohibit 
discrimination and monitor adherence.  The reward for this has been a leap in production capacity by 
putting female talent to work where it can contribute the most. 
EUROPEAN UNION 
272. The EU would like to thank the delegation of No rway for the replies given to our questions, 
as well as the additional information this morning no tably on issues of great importance to the EU.  
We do not have any follow-up questions or addition al questions this time, but we hope that Norway 
has benefitted from this exercise, and will reflect on the issues and concerns that Members have raised 
during these two days, including on the points raised by the EU in the first day statement on which we expect to continue our dialogue. WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 44  
 
  UNITED STATES 
273. The United States thanks Norway for its hard wo rk in preparing for this Trade Policy Review, 
and we appreciate Norway's efforts to respond to  our questions. The United States has one follow-up 
question.  We welcome the add itional information regarding Norway's licensing requirements on 
imports of alcoholic beverages a nd agriculture products, including produc ts that might be used as feed 
in animal production.  We would greatly appreciate if Norway could please explain what are the 
requirements to which similar domestic products are subject?  WT/TPR/M/269 
 Page 45 
 
 
  VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
274. This sixth Trade Policy Review of Norway has provided an excellent opportunity for us all to 
appraise Norway's trade policies and practices and how they have evolved since 2008. I thank Deputy 
Director-General Mr. Dagfinn Sørli, Ambassador Elin Østebø Johansen and the other members of Norway's team for their transparency and fort hcoming attitude. I would also like to thank the 
discussant, H.E. Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah, and Members of the TPRB for their contributions.   
275. In the course of the review, Members commended Norway for its effective handling of the 
impact of the global financial crisis on the dome stic economy, achieved with a swift and resolute 
fiscal stimulus and without recourse to protectionist  policies.  Norway remains one of the world's 
most prosperous nations, and accumulated reserves  put Norway in a favourable position in meeting 
future challenges and fending off future shocks.   
276. Members reiterated their appreciation for No rway's longstanding participation in the WTO 
and its consistent commitment to a strong and e ffective multilateral trading system. Many Members 
highlighted a full range of areas where they wo rk closely with Norway to move the Doha 
Development Agenda forward. Members also paid tr ibute to Norway's Action Plan for trade-related 
development assistance and its generous donations to Aid for Trade. Reform of the GSP system to 
benefit poorer partners and Norway's experience with  such reform, were the subject of considerable 
interest. Norway was also commended for refrain ing from the use of trade remedy measures in 
international trade.   
277. Norway is closely linked to the EU through th e European Economic Area, a framework which 
is now almost twenty years old. Norway is al so expanding a considerable network of free trade 
agreements, primarily in co-opera tion with its EFTA partners.   
278. Members acknowledged that Norway's trade re gime is generally open and liberal. The 
exception continues to be agriculture, where No rway's level of support remains high, and is 
accompanied by considerable border protection and ex tensive market intervention. The benefits of 
agricultural reform have been highlighted in pr evious trade policy reviews of Norway; the same 
arguments remain today. During these two days, Norway has confirmed that unilateral import 
liberalization and major agrarian reform is not on the domestic political agenda.  Nevertheless, in 
relation to agriculture, it is worth highlighting some points that have emerged in our discussions;  let 
me assure you, Mr. Deputy Director-General, that we have taken careful note of your comments in 
this regard this morning:  
 Agricultural production and trade:  Norway was once again encouraged to increase the 
market orientation of its agricultural production.  Members have noted Norway's ambitions to 
increase production, focusing on the home ma rket. Productivity gains can make a positive 
contribution, but trade should not be overl ooked as a powerful tool in forward-looking 
policies to foster innovation, wider consumer choice and in turn, further gains to productivity.   
 Predictability:   Norway has a considerable binding s overhang in agriculture, with added 
flexibility resulting from its dual specific and ad valorem  bindings. Norway's use of this 
flexibility reduces other Members' predictable ac cess to Norway's market.  Temporary market 
opening, implemented on short notice, limits th e scope for reliable potential suppliers to 
satisfy consumer demand.   
 Potential for increased trade : Several Members have stated that flourishing bilateral trade is 
nevertheless not living up to its true potentia l. Increased access to Norway's agricultural 
market may stimulate further trade in produc ts and services where No rway has a distinct 
comparative advantage.   WT/TPR/M/269 
Page 46  
 
   SPS:  Questions were raised about the scientific justification for some specific measures, 
including the treatment of GMOs. Some Members highlighted the importance of science-based regulations to support agricultural i nnovation and functioning trade in agricultural 
products.   
279. Beyond agriculture, some other issues also mer it attention and further reflection.  We have 
taken careful note of Deputy Director-General Mr. Sørli's remarks this morning. 
 Technical barriers to trade:  Some delegations have noted that Norway only notifies to the 
WTO technical regulations that are purely nati onal and differ from those applied elsewhere in 
the EEA. Norway was encouraged to develop nati onal technical regulations only to the extent 
necessary, avoiding the creation of unnecessary obstacles to trade flows.   
 Services:  Current access is liberal, but not fully  reflected in Norway's multilateral 
commitments. Given the chance, foreign suppliers, also outside the EEA, may add further welfare gains to the Norwegian economy.   
 State ownership: Opinions differ somewhat among th e Membership regarding Norway's 
model for state ownership.  While some Members may see merit in state engagement in successful industrial development, other Memb ers remain concerned about possible trade 
effects of state ownership, separation of rol es, efficiency considerations, competition in a 
level playing field, and the continuous cha llenge to ensure proper corporate governance.   
280. This successfully concludes our sixth Review of Norway.  The many advance questions and 
interventions by Members indicate the important ro le of Norway in the multilateral trading system. 
Norway's active engagement and economic success is an inspiration for its many friends and partners. 
We wish Norway continued success in its future economic and social develo pment and hope that the 
reflections of these two days will help to shape its trade policies towards achieving its highest goals 
and aspirations.  
 
__________