Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 73 
 
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) AGRICULTURE  
(i) Main features 
1. The total area of land dedicated to agricultural activities in Norway has been relatively stable 
over the years, at roughly 1 million hectares, or just over 3% of the total land area.  The area used as 
wheat fields, meadows, and pastures has been incr easing, while the cultivated area for barley, oats, 
and green fodder crops has shrunk.  Land most suitabl e for farming tends to be located in the most 
populous and rapidly growing regions.1  However, few alternatives to farming as a source of 
employment and income are thought to exist in many remote rural areas.   
2. Due to climatic conditions, agricultural production in Norway is characterized by a relatively 
narrow range of goods.  In addition to the holding of  sheep, the primary activity has traditionally been 
livestock (for milk and meat) and crops, i.e. grass and cereals, much of which is used as animal feed 
(Table IV.1).  In terms of food consumption (ene rgy), Norway is approximately 50% self-sufficient 
overall;  however, self-sufficiency is around 100% fo r milk and dairy produc ts, eggs, and certain 
types of meat (Table IV.2).   
Table IV.1 
Production income in agriculture, 1989, 2004, and 2010 
(NKr million) 
 1989 2004 2010 
Total production income 24,525 20,938 26,132 
Crops (total) 6,092 5,901 6,835 
Grains, dry peas, and oil-seeds 3,053 2,583 2,455 
Potatoes 522 503 628 
Horticultural products (vegetables, fruit, berries and flowers) 2,330 2,680 3,514 
Other crops 187 135 238 
Livestock products (total) 17,551 14,304 18,414 
Milk 9,176 6,018 7,531 
Meat, including pork 7,016 7,224 9,552 
Wool 226 161 122 
Eggs 757 577 837 
Fur-bearing animals 290 248 278 
Other livestock products 86 76 93 
Other income 644 747 900 
Changes in stocks 238 -14 -17 
Expenditure -17,728 -18,266 -23,064 
Net result 6,797 2,672 3,068 
Government subsidies 5,054 8,775 9,834 
Real interest on borrowed capital -1,573 -945 -677 
Remuneration for labour and own capital 10,277 10,501 12,225 
Source: WTO (2008); Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Inst itute, and Statistics Norway  online information.  
Viewed at:  www.nilf.no/statistikk /totalkalkylen/2012/BMgrupper/Totalkal kylen-Resultatmal and www.ssb.no/ 
aarbok/tab/tab-353.html.    
                                                      
1 Land used for agricultural purposes in per cent of the total area is highest in the counties of Vestfold 
(19.6%), Østfold (19%), Akershus (17%), and Rogaland (11.6%).  By contrast, the ratio for the northernmost, sparsely populated county of Finnmark is 0.2%.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 74 
  
Table IV.2 
Key indicators on selected dome stic production, average 2008-09 
(Million kg, unless otherwise indicated) 
Product Production Expo rts Imports Consumption 
Cheese 86.4 13.9 8.6 81.1 
Butter 17.0 3.4 0.4 14.0 
Wheat 350.7 0.0 302.8 556.0 
Rye 37.0 0.0 9.6 40.5 
Barley 504.1 0.0 54.6 487.4 
Oats 291.3 0.0 30.0 282.3 
Beef and veal 85.6 0.0 10.2 94.5 
Mutton 24.1 0.0 3.0 26.7 
Pork 123.2 0.8 2.3 126.4 
Poultry meat 82.7 0.0 0.0 82.3 
Eggs 57.4 1.3 1.0 57.1 
Apples (tonnes) 8,100 0.0 60,270 68,370 
Source:  WTO Secretariat estimates , based on WTO document G/SCM/N/220/NOR, 2 September 2011;  data provided by 
 Statistics Norway and the Norwegian authorities.  
3. The number of registered farms and hours worked  in agriculture has b een declining steadily 
for decades.  While Norway had nearly 155,000 agricu ltural holdings in 1969, the number declined to 
just below 100,000 in 1989, and to 45,500 in 2011.  Similarly, the number of man-years worked in 
agriculture declined from some 192,000 in 1969 to 55,000 in 2010.2  With stable land use, the size of 
the average agricultural holding has more than trip led over the last 40 years.  The tendency towards 
fewer, larger farms also applies to livestock production.3  Total meat production has increased by 75% 
over the last 30 years due to major expansions in poultry and pig farming.  However, policies and 
regulations limit the size of individual holdings, to  maintain holdings of different sizes and enable 
production in less favourable areas.  The demand  for milk has fallen due to lower domestic 
consumption and Norway's Uruguay Round commitments  on export subsidies.  A quota system has 
been employed to reduce milk production, which has declined by 20% over the last 25 years.   
4. Due to high production costs, the share of agriculture in Norway's GNP has declined 
constantly from around 3% in 1977 to 0.3% at present.  Transfers to the sector have become 
increasingly important to maintain farm earnings at politically acceptable levels.  Data and definitions 
used by Statistics Norway indicate that the share of government subsidies in total remuneration to 
labour and capital, i.e. net income in the agricu ltural sector, has risen from 13% in 1969 and 43% in 
1989 to 75-80% (Table IV.1).4   
                                                      
2 Agriculture currently accounts for 2% of total empl oyment in Norway, down from 10% in 1970.   
3 According to Statistics Norway, the average Norwegian dairy farm has 23 milk cows in 2012 
compared to 15 cows ten years ago.  The average farm with egg-laying hens has expanded from 1,000 to 2,100 hens over the same period, and for pigs the average herd has risen from 34 in 2002 to 75 in 2012.  
Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed at:  h ttp://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/04/10/jordhus_en/.   
4 Recent estimates suggest th at support to the agricultural sector p eaked around 1980 in real terms, and 
has fallen steadily since then, primarily reflecting the c onstantly declining number of farmers.  However, 
support per man-year has increased markedly (up 36%) since 2005.  The accumulated support (with interest) 
since 1976 amounts to NKr 2,400 billio n or nearly 70% of the current va lue of the State Petroleum Fund 
(Gaasland, 2012). Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 75 
 
 
(ii) Policy framework 
5. White Paper No. 9 (2011-2012) sets out four basic objectives for Norway's agricultural and 
food policy:  food security, production in all parts of Norway, increasing the value added, and sustainable agriculture.
5  Consumers are to be provided with wholesome, high quality products, and 
the production process should be mindful of aspects re lated to the environmen t, public health, and 
animal welfare.  The agricultural policy aims at  safeguarding agricultural resources, developing 
know-how, and contributing to the creation of empl oyment and value added in farming and farm-
based products throughout Norway.  As the res ponsibilities for food policy and the management of 
the entire food production chain is shared between the Ministries of Agriculture and Food;  Fisheries 
and Coastal Affairs; and Health; the Government has initiated a programme to simplify and improve 
the statutory framework, and clarify the division of responsibilities between the three ministries.  
The 2011 White Paper notes that conditions for agri cultural production are less favourable in Norway 
than in many other countries due to a cold climat e, short cultivation seasons for crop production, and 
scattered agricultural lands.  Nevertheless, it not es that the domestic population is projected to 
increase by 20% over the next 20 years, and pr oposes an increase in domestic land-based food 
production in line with the population growth.6   
6. Key parameters of agricultural policy, includi ng certain product prices, support measures, 
welfare schemes, and implementation issues, are negotiated annually between the Government and 
the two nationwide farmers' organizations, the Norw egian Farmers' Union (Norges Bondelag) and the 
Norwegian Farmers' and Smallhol ders' Union (Norsk Bonde –– og Småbrukarlag).  Some of the 
principal features of the most recent Basic Agricu ltural Agreements are summarized in Table IV.3.  
The system of Basic Agricultural Ag reements has been in place since 1950.7  The system is 
underpinned by Norway's border protection measures  as well as domestic market regulation based on 
the Marketing Act (Omsetningsloven) of 10 July 193 6.  The Act covers certain meats (beef, mutton, 
pork, and poultry); milk, butter, and cheese; eggs; ce reals and oilseeds; potatoes, vegetables, fruit and 
berries; and fur skins.   
7. Pursuant to the Marketing Act, the Norwegian Agricultural Marketing Board 
(Omsetningsrådet) attempts to balance the supp ly and demand for key Norwegian agricultural 
produce and ensure the attainment of the followi ng objectives:  (i) stable producer prices with 
minimal geographical price dispersion;  (ii) stable market conditions for producers selling their goods;  
(iii) stable supply to all consuming areas at relativ ely uniform prices;  and (iv) ensuring that farmers 
obtain prices closely matching the target prices se t out in the Agricultural Agreement, while the 
average market prices for the year should stay  at or somewhat below the agreed level.8  The mix of 
specific instruments employed to regulate the mark ets may have varied somewhat over time, but the 
guiding principles for the system have remained largely unchanged.  Target prices for beef were 
abolished with effect from 1 July 2009, and repl aced by volume-based regulation.  Amendments to 
the Marketing Act in 2009 were of administrative nature, notably reducing the number of members of 
                                                      
5 Meld. St. 9 (2011-2012), Landbruks- og matpo litikken, Velkommen til bords , approved by the 
Government on 2 December 2011.  The present government  also issued a White Paper (No. 39) on agriculture 
and climate change in 2008, identifyi ng the need to strengthen research on options for mitigation measures in 
agriculture.  A White Paper (No. 12) presented in 2002  on animal husbandry and an imal welfare also remains 
relevant for current policies.   
6 The specific means to meet this target may be  presented in the annual budget exercises.   
7 Agreements between the Government and farmers' associations between the 1930s and 1950 covered 
product prices only.  The two nationwide organizations normally negotiate jointly with the Government and sign 
the agreement jointly.   
8 These objectives for domestic market regulation are formulated in White Paper No. 19  
(1999-2000) on Norwegian agriculture and food production.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 76 
  
the Marketing Board (from 19 to 11) and authorizing the Board to delegate certain matters to the 
Norwegian Agricultural Authority, which provide s general secretariat functions to the Board 
(Chart IV.1).   
Table IV.3 
Main elements of agricultural agreements, 2007-11 
Agricultural 
Agreement Main elements  
2011 Total frame for increase in transf ers:  NKr 1.42 billion, of which NKr 365 million provided from the state budget  
 Target prices raised by NKr 860 million.  Removal of food production levies financi ng the Norwegian Food Safety 
Authority   
2010 Total frame for increase in transfers: NKr 950 milli on, of which NKr 375 million pr ovided from the state budget 
 Net increase in target prices of NKr  420 million.  Increased support to small grass-based farms.  Increased support 
through the National Environmental Progr amme (NKr 150 million) to maintain cultural landscapes.  Changes in the 
transport subsidy scheme for beef, sheep, and pigs.  Change s to animal welfare schemes.  Switch from specific to 
ad valorem  import duty on liquid milk and cream   
2009 Total frame for increase in transf ers: NKr 1.2 billion, of which NKr 570 million provided from the state budget 
 Target prices raised by NKr 290 million.  Market regulation for beef moved to volume-based regulation 
 Extraordinary investment support worth NKr 200 million 
2008 Prices:  target prices increased by NKr 1.5 billion, partly due to an extraordin ary rise in production costs, especially 
fuel and oil-based products, fer tilizer, and feed concentrates 
 Subsidies:  subsidies to small farms increased, as were regional deficiency payments, pa sture supplements, and various 
payments to organic farmers 
2007 Prices:  total market price support through target prices increased by NKr 545 million. Target prices went up for all 
products except pork 
 Subsidies: desire to slow down the ra pid development towards larger farm un its reflected in the agreement, with 
subsidies mainly applying to smaller herds and acreage.  Pasture supplements and cultural landscape support increased, 
as were various payments to organic farmers 
Source:  WTO (2008);  and Norges Bondelag online in formation.  Viewed at:  www.bondelaget.no.   
The Norwegian 
Agricultural 
Marketing Board 
(NAMB)
Market regulators
Tine SA (Milk) Nortura SA (Meat) Norske felleskjøp BA (Grain)Chart IV.1
Market regulation for agricultural products
Source: NAMB. Annual report 2010 (in Norwegian).The Norwegian 
Agricultural Authority 
(Secretariat)Ministry of Agriculture and 
FoodAuditor
 
 Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 77 
 
 
(iii) Farmer-owned cooperatives 
8. In response to a deep crisis in the Norweg ian farming sector in the 1920s, measures were 
taken to strengthen farmers' positions  in agricultural markets.  The first version of the Marketing Act 
(1930) established marketing fees and product funds, equalizing the prices  paid to farmers irrespective 
of end-use.  Producer cooperatives, which allowed fa rmers to derive income also from the processing 
of agricultural commodities, were given a prominen t role in supply management.  These organizations 
still exist, and three perform executive functions as market regulators, receiving compensation for 
costs incurred in the perform ance of their duties.   
9. Tine SA is a producer cooperative with more  than 16,300 members, processing and selling 
milk and dairy products throughout Norway.  Th e annual turnover of the Tine Group is close to 
NKr 17 billion.  Tine is market regulator for milk.  Since 2004, all aspects rela ted to market regulation 
has been handled by a separate organizational unit (T ine Råvare).  The unit supplies the rest of the 
Tine Group and other industrial users with milk at a uniform price.  As market regulator, Tine is obliged to purchase all milk offered to it by milk producers in Norway, and to purchase surplus milk 
fat in the form of butter from entities outside the Tine Group.   
10. Nortura BA, owned by more than 28,000 farmers, is the market regulator for meat and eggs.  
Nortura was formed in 2006 as a result of a merger  between Gilde Norsk Kjøtt BA and Prior Norge 
BA.
9  The cooperative employs about 6,500 workers at  37 production sites across the country.  Its 
annual turnover is around NKr 17 billion.  Among its primary assets are well-established domestic brands for various meat products and eggs.   
11. Norske Felleskjøp is an umbre lla organization for two regional "felleskjøp", i.e. cooperatively 
owned producers/suppliers of agricultural inputs such  as animal feed, seeds, fertilizer, equipment, and 
machinery.  While Norske Felleskjøp, which has 7 employees, is responsible for the market regulation 
for grains, much of the day-to-day implementation rests with Felleskjøpet Agri and Felleskjøpet Møre 
og Romsdal.
10  As market regulator, Norske Felleskjøp prepares forecasts for the production of 
domestically grown grain and estimated consumpti on;  issues price predictions, and fixes price 
quotations;  proposes import quotas and producer le vies;  and implements measures to dispose of 
procured grains.  While Tine and Nortura are sole  regulators over their subsectors, market regulation 
activities for grains may be undertaken by Norske Felleskjøp as well as by other grain traders.  In such cases, the allocation of grain purchases is managed through tenders.   
12. Approximately 1,400 growers of fruit, vegetabl es, and berries own AL Gartnerhallen.  The 
producer cooperative, which has an annual tur nover of around NKr 1.4 billion, sells its goods to 
industrial users, and wholesale and retail traders.  Although active market regulation is not in place for 
fruit and vegetables, the Agricultural Agreement esta blishes target prices for apples, food potatoes, 
and ten other vegetables.  Consequently, AL Gart nerhallen may occasionally participate with other 
                                                      
9 The Norwegian Competition Authority initially blocked the merger, concerned that it would further 
weaken competition in the poultry sector.  The Norwegia n Consumer Council also voiced a negative opinion 
about the merger.   
10 Felleskjøpet Agri, which is the largest supply coope rative, operates in 15 counties, while FK Møre 
og Romsdal is based in the county of the same name.  Felleskjøpet Agri, owned by 43,000 farmers, has 
2,300 employees and an annual turnover of approximately NKr 10 billion.  In addition, Felleskjøpet Rogaland 
Agder (headquartered in Stavanger) is the supply coope rative for farmers in four counties (Rogaland, Vest 
Agder, Aust Agder, and most of Hordaland).   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 78 
  
producers of fruit and vegetables in supply manageme nt activities (such as storage) through the Green 
Growers Cooperative Market Council (G røntProdusentenes Samarbeidsråd-GPS).11   
13. In all, Norway has 16 nationwide cooperative or ganizations, which together form FNAC - the 
Federation of Norwegian Agricultural Cooperatives (Norsk Landbrukssamvirke).  The cooperatives 
are engaged in production/sale of agricultural produce,  livestock breeding, supplies, financial services, 
or advisory services.12  In addition to the four cooperatives mentioned above, HOFF SA (which unites 
some 500 potato growers in the industrial processing  of potatoes) and Honningcentralen (owned by 
some 1,550 beekeepers, and engaged in honey proce ssing and marketing) have considerable trading 
activity.  Moreover, Oslo Fur Auctions Ltd. is the sales and marketing arm of the Norwegian Fur 
Breeders' Association (Norges Pelsdyralslag).13   
(iv) Border measures 
14. Norway's bound tariffs on agricultural products ar e high, due to the tariffication of non-tariff 
measures in the Uruguay Round.  For nearly 800 ta riff lines, Norway's commitments are expressed as 
dual bindings, i.e. a bound rate that is the higher of a specific duty or an ad valorem  rate.14  T h e  
average bound rates exceed 300% for live animals,  meat, and dairy produc ts; and 200% for cereals 
(Chapter III), i.e. for the most important agricultu ral commodities produced in Norway.  At the other 
end of the scale, commodities not suitable for cultiv ation in Norway (and accordingly imported), such 
as cotton, rice, sugar, and tropical products, are bound at zero or very low levels of duty.15   
15. Preferential tariff-rate quotas facilitate mutual duty-free trade in cheeses between Norway and 
EU/EFTA, and duty-free imports of certain quantities of selected food products, fruit, and vegetables.  
The GSP scheme provides for duty-free imports of m eat, corned beef, honey, and canned vegetables 
within established quota levels.  Norway's WT O commitments on tariff-rate quotas also ensure 
imports of certain quantities of even the most heavily  assisted agricultural goods , i.e. meat, butter, and 
eggs.  However, all of Norway's WTO TRQs have in-quota tariff rates.   Most of the tariff quotas are 
auctioned (see Table III.4).16  The high auction prices and fill rates for the TRQs on beef, mutton, 
                                                      
11 Other members of GPS are Norgesgrønt BA, Nordgrønt BA, and members of "Produsentforeningen 
av 1909". 
12 The 16 members of FNAC are Tine Gruppa , Nortura SA, Norges Skogeierforbund, AL 
Gartnerhallen, HOFF SA, Norges Pelsdyralslag, and Honningcentralen (sales cooperatives);  GENO, Norsvin, 
TYR Norsk Kjøttfeavlslag, and Norsk Sau og Geit (livestock breeding);  Felleskjøpene and Felleskjøpet Rogaland Agder (supplies);  Landkreditt and Gjensidige Forsikring (financial services);  and Norsk 
Landbruksrådgivning (advisory services).  Except for Gjensidige, the cooperatives are 100% farmer-owned and 
market leaders in their respective lines of business.  Gjensidige, traditionally providing non-life insurance as a 
mutual association, i.e. owned by its customers, tr ansformed itself into a public limited-liability company 
in 2010 and has been quoted on the Oslo Stock Exchange since then.  However, the Gjensidige Foundation 
(representing the customers) still owns nearly 63% of the company's shares. 
13 Norwegian fur breeders account for around 10% of world production of fox skins and 1% of all mink 
skins.   
14 Dual bound rates have been established for 795 of the 1,441 agricultural tariff lines, i.e. 55% overall.  
The incidence of dual bindings is highest for dairy products (100%), animals and products thereof (90%), and 
cereals and preparations (76%).  For tariff lines with trade, which allows  the calculation of AVEs for specific 
duties, the Secretariat has found that the ad valorem  rate normally represent the highest bound tariff in Norway's 
Goods Schedule.   
15 Refers to rice and sugar for human consumption.  Rice and sugar, used as ingredients in animal feed, 
compete directly with domestically produced feed grain and other feedstuff, and thereby trigger significantly 
higher bound rates.   
16 Some quotas are allocated on a first-come, first-se rved basis or according to  historical performance 
or other criteria.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 79 
 
 
pears, and apples are evidence of significant quota rents caused by the gap between domestic and 
world market prices.  On the other hand, the symbo lic price (NKr 0.01/kg) paid in advance for quota 
entitlements to commodities such as chicken and tu rkey meat, butter, and eggs suggest that the 
importers normally do not expect to use their quotas.17  The in-quota tariff rate may discourage some 
imports, while sanitary concerns prevent the impor tation of eggs and poultry from many sources.  
Other factors may also be at play, for example certain quotas may be too small to be economically meaningful, due to the cost of organizing tr ansportation and distribution of the goods.   
16. The gap between Norway's applied and bound ra tes for agricultural goods may be due, to a 
large extent, to the fact that most agricultural goo ds are subject to specific rates of duty, whose AVEs 
at current import prices are lower than the ad valorem  option of the dual ad valorem /specific bindings 
in Norway's Goods Schedule.
18  However, the primary purpose of tariff protection is not to detach 
Norway from the world market, but to ensure that the target prices stipulated in the Agricultural 
Agreement are met but not exceeded.  The Agricultu ral Agreement establishes upper price limits for 
many commodities.19  Domestic market prices in excess of the upper price limits for two consecutive 
weeks will automatically trigger administrative tariff  reductions.  Furthermore,  without waiting for the 
price limits to be exceeded, the Norwegian Agricultural Authority (NAA) may reduce tariffs 
temporarily to avoid price pressure building up in the domestic market.  In 2011, the NAA granted 82 general and 13 individual tariff reductions for products within HS  Chapter 2 (meat);  43 general 
and 116 individual tariff reductions for vegetables (H S Chapter 7);  and 60 and 24, respectively, for 
milled products (HS Chapter 11).
20 
(v) Domestic programmes 
17. Norway's domestic support notified to the WTO has been relatively stable over time, at 
around NKr 20-22 billion per year.  Norway's Aggr egate Measurement of Support (AMS) ceiling has 
been fixed at NKr 11,449 million since 2000.  No rway exceeded this ceiling by NKr 106 million 
in 2008 (Table IV.4).  According to the authoriti es, the AMS commitment for rye, oilseeds, and goat 
milk had not been taken into account when d eciding on prices and support levels for 2008.21  The 
AMS for these commodities (NKr 188.6 million) toge ther with large production volumes for multiple 
products explained the "amber" box support in excess of the ceiling in 2008.  In order to avoid future 
breaches of its commitment, Norway decided to abo lish the target price for beef.  The change took 
effect in mid 2009.   
                                                      
17 Questions have been raised in the Committee on Agriculture regarding Norway's practice of 
auctioning quotas and low quota-fill rates (see, for example, WTO documents G/AG/W/83 and 
G/AG/W/86/Rev.2).  Some Members co nsider that auctioning may reduce the value of Norway's market-access 
concessions to them, and that it creates uncertainty for tr aders.  In Norway's opinion , its auctioning of TRQs 
ensures that quotas are administered equitably and efficiently, the system is operated in a transparent manner, 
quota rents are captured by the Treasury rather than by private operators, and the m easure is not inconsistent 
with WTO requirements (s ee also WTO, 2008).   
18 As Parliament adopts the customs tariff for one  year at a time, changes from specific to ad valorem  
import duty are rare.  Commodities subject to specific im port duty have usually been so for decades.  However, 
Norway's switch from specific to ad valorem  import duty on liquid milk and cream in 2010 was a conscious 
decision, to raise the applied bord er protection for these goods.   
19 The upper price limits are expressed as the target price plus a supplement.  The supplement amounts 
to 5% for milk, 10% for lamb, pork, and eggs, and 12% for apples and certain vegetables.  For commodities 
without specific market regulation, such as chicken meat , a reference price is calculated based on the average 
wholesale price during the previous year.  For chickens, the upper price limit amounts to the reference price plus 10%.   
20 The difference between general and individual tariff reductions is explained in Chapter III(2)(ii).   
21 WTO document G/AG/N/NOR/59, 1 November 2010.  WTO (2008) pointed out that while Norway 
maintained target prices for rye and oilseed crops, thes e commodities had not been included in Norway's AMS.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 80 
  
Table IV.4 
Current Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS), 2008-10 
(NKr million)  
Description of basic products (measure type) 2008 2009 2010 
Total market price support (targ et prices) 12,490. 7 11,198.2 10,635.5 
Wheat 520.1 310.8 407.7 
Barley 609.9 559.1 647.1 
Oats 322.6 288.3 321.7 
Rye 52.2 32.7 40.9 
Oilseeds 29.7 23.3 35.7 
Goat milk 57.2 64.2 68.2 
Milk 4,498.9 4,840.4 5,132.1 
Beef 2,598.2 1,407.5 0 
Pork 2,319.7 2,267.7 2,512.6 
Sheep 1,033.1 830.1 868.7 
Eggs 449.1 574.1 600.8 
Total associated fees and levies (farm feed adjustment) -1,333.6 -1,365.1 -1,370.1 
Goat milk -5.9 -7.1 -8.0 
Milk -466.8 -531.4 -604.6 
Beef -252.2 -151.3 0 
Pork -415.0 -457.5 -519.9 
Sheep -70.6 -61.6 -66.6 
Eggs -123.1 -156.2 -171.0 
Total non-exempt direct payments 300.3 283.8 301.6 
Goat milk (base deficiency payments)  55.4 59.7 65.5 
Sheep meat (base deficiency payments)  90.3 86.8 97.0 
Wool (deficiency payment) 154.5 137.3 139.1 
Transport subsidy (beef, pork , sheep, eggs) 63.0 64.4 48.1 
Product-specific equivalent measurements of support 34.6 50.8 33.4 
Beef (price support)  0 14.5 0 
Potatoes (price support)) 34.6 36.3 33.4 
Current total AMS 11,555.0 10,232.1 9,648.5 
Note: The target price for beef is no lo nger in place (since 1 July 2009).  Product-sp ecific EMS has been calculated from this date.  
Price support for poultry and beef (in 2010), and support to fruit, berries, and vegetables have been reported as de minimis  
support.  In addition, non-product-specific support (s ubsidies for feed transport and inse mination, less taxes on pesticides) i s 
within the de minimis  level.   
Source : WTO documents G/AG/N/NOR/ 59, 1 November 2010, and G/AG/N/NOR/64, 2 May 2012.   
18. Norway's current total AMS comprises primarily  market price support, involving implicit 
transfers from consumers to the producers through th e system of target prices.  Producer levies are 
used to finance various kinds of market regula tion activities, but also information and marketing 
campaigns, administrative costs, etc.  The farm feed  adjustment in Table IV.4 is an estimate of the 
additional costs incurred by livestock and milk farmer s on concentrated feed due to the market price 
support for grains and oilseeds.   
19. Outlays on green box and blue box measures ha ve totalled around NKr 11 billion annually 
(Table IV.5) since 1995.  However, a shift from bl ue to green box has occurred, as the acreage and 
cultural landscape scheme (blue box)  was replaced by the national environmental programme with 
effect from 1 January 2005.  Payments under this pr ogramme cover farmers' additional costs linked to Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 81 
 
 
the maintenance of the agricultural landscape and the fulfilment of other environmental 
requirements.22   
Table IV.5 
Green box and blue box measures, 2008-10 
(NKr million) 
Type of measure Value of the measure during the reporting period 
2008 2009 2010 
Green box 6,862. 7 7,091.5 7,237.3 
General services 817.7 875.9 902.2 
Public stockholding for food security purposes 6.3 6.7 5.7 
Payments for relief from natural disasters 95.2 30.0 50.0 
Structural adjustment assistance provided through:    
    Producer retirement programmes 110.9 106.1 98.0 
    Investment aids 443.8 625.0 549.4 
Environmental programmes 4,156.6 4,186.4 4,356.3 
Other (Vacation and replacement  scheme) 1,232.2 1,261.4 1,275.7 
Blue box 3,981.5 4,137.6 4,394.9 
Payments made on 85% or less of the ba se level of production of which:    
    Structural income support  1,025.4 972.1 1,090.5 
    Regional deficiency payments to milk production 452.4 464.1 522.8 
    Regional deficiency payments to meat production 625.0 581.5 600.3 
Livestock payments made on a fixed number of head 1,878.7 2,119.9 2,181.3 
Total  10,844.2 11,229.1 11,632.2 
Source : WTO documents G/AG/N/NOR/ 59, 1 November 2010, and G/AG/N/NOR/64, 2 May 2012.   
(a) Milk and dairy products 
20. Nine different instruments are used to regulate the milk and dairy sector in Norway, i.e. 
border measures, production quota, target price, price equalization, market regulation activities, 
export subsidies, raw materials compensation/internal  price rebates, structural income support, and 
regional deficiency payments.  High tariffs, rangi ng from 18% to 145%, effectively shut out most 
imports at the ordinary rate of customs duty.  Th e exception is flavoured dairy products (e.g. yoghurt 
and kephir) and certain types of cheeses.23  The increased duty-free TRQ for cheeses from the EU 
(rising from 4,500 to 7,200 tonnes), applicable from 1 January 2012, is expected to be filled.   
21. The system of farm-based production quotas to regulate the domestic supply of milk was 
introduced in 1983, when the total basic annual quot a amounted to 1,993 million litres of cow milk.  
The total basic quota subsequently increased somewhat , but was never completely filled due to time 
lags in the administrative transfer of quotas betwee n farms, and the inability of many farms to fill 
their quotas.  The production-quota system was used to reduce milk production gradually in the 1990s.  The system was made more flexible in  1997, when purchase and sale of milk quotas was 
introduced.  Farmers have been permitted to sell a proportion of their quota production to 
entities other than the Government since 2003.
24  The leasing of milk quotas has been allowed since 
                                                      
22 See document G/AG/N/NOR/55, 4 December 2009, fo r further details on the national environmental 
programme, including regional environmental programmes.   
23 Although tariffs are generally high, there is also tariff dispersion.  Customs classification issues may 
determine whether certain new products gain access to the Norwegian market.   
24 Until 2003, farmers retiring from milk production were obliged to sell their entire quota to the 
Government at a fixed price.  The Government could resell the quotas to other producers, but mostly chose to withdraw them to reduce overall production.  Since 2003 , farmers have been allowed to sell up to 50% of their WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 82 
  
1 March 2009.  As a general ru le, the annual production of a si ngle farm may not exceed 400,000 
litres of cow milk or 200,000 litres of goat milk.  A "penalty" of NKr 3.20 per litre applies to over-quota deliveries of cow milk to dairies.  New entr ants either have to le ase available quotas or buy 
production quotas in the market or from the Norwegia n Agricultural Authority (at NKr 3.50 per litre).  
Total production amounted to 1,506 million litres of cow milk and 20 million litres of goat milk in 
2010.   
22. The Agricultural Agreement for 2011-12 establish es a target price of NKr 4.66 per litre cow 
or goat milk from 1 July 2011, and NKr 4.73 from 1 January 2012, for a total quantity of 1,520.1 million litres.  The target price has incr eased gradually since 2007, when it was just below 
NKr 4 per litre.  Analysing a 40% increase in th e retail price of cow milk from 2005 to 2010, the 
Norwegian Agricultural Authority concluded that approximately 60% of the increase was due to 
higher target prices and changes in taxation, while 40% was ascribed to higher margins for processors, 
distributors, and retailers.
25   
23. The price equalization scheme ensures that the m ilk price paid to the farmer does not depend 
on end-use or geographical location.  The scheme is  financed entirely through levies on certain milk 
products and administered by the Norwegian Agri cultural Authority.  The scheme thus generates 
transfers between products, i.e. liquid milk, liquid cr eam, yoghurt, and sour cream are taxed, while 
butter, cream for ice cream, matured cheeses, and m ilk powder are cross-subsidized.  Subsidies are 
paid for the transportation of milk in Northern No rway, and between producers and dairies.  Payments 
are also made to dairies (other th an Tine) participating in the scheme.26  Together, the levies on milk 
for consumption (NKr 1.91 per litre) and crea m (NKr 13.37), typically redistribute around 
NKr 1.4 billion annually.27   
24. Income from the regular production levy on farm deliveries of raw milk amounted to 
NKr 130.1 million in 2010, and the "penalty" levy  on over-quota deliveries raised an additional 
NKr 50 million.28  Expenditures on various market regulation activities under the Norwegian 
Agricultural Marketing Board, and compensation to Tine for administrative costs related to market 
regulation, amounted to NKr 103.2 million.29 
25. The allocation of Norway's milk production be tween fresh milk and dairy products implies 
that Norway is self-sufficient in liquid milk, has a structural surp lus of white (hard) cheese, and a 
regular, but variable, surplus of butter.  A steady  increase in cheese consumption in recent years has 
allowed for higher imports as well as additional dom estic production of cheese for the retail market.  
The subsidies provided for cheese (principally Jarlsbe rg) produced and exported by Tine are financed 
through the price equalization scheme.30  However, exports as a means to regulate the domestic 
cheese market has not been applied since 2008.  By contrast, Norway usually exports some 
                                                                                                                                                                     
quota to other farmers at a freely negotiated price, while the remainder must be sold to the Government.  The 
Government retains the option to resell or withdraw the purchased quotas.   
25 Norwegian Agricultural Authority (2011). 
26 In addition to Tine, the scheme involves Synnøve Finden AS;  Q-Meieriene AS;  Normilk AS;  
Rørosmeieriene AS;  Kraft Foods Norge AS;  Lillehammer Ysteri AS; and Aksut AS.   
27 The Norwegian Agricultural Authority has proposed to  adjust some of the levies with effect from 
1 July 2012, lowering the rate for drinking milk by NKr 0.11, and increasing the rate for cream by NKr 0.20 per litre.   
28 The levy was NKr 0.09 per litre in the first ha lf of 2010, and NKr 0.08  per litre thereafter.   
29 The specific activities concerned internal price reba tes for milk used in schools, compensation for 
storage capacity held by Tine as market regulator, trans port subsidies, export subsidie s for butter, storage costs, 
internal price rebates for sales to "special markets", in ternal price rebates for butter oil, and compensation for 
goat milk used as fodder.   
30 Some licensed production of Jarlsberg also occu rs in the United States and in Ireland.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 83 
 
 
3,000 tonnes of subsidies butter as part of its a nnual market regulation activities.  A glitch in the 
market regulation for butter occurred in late 2011 as s upply shortages persisted in the retail market for 
several weeks (Box IV.1).   
Box IV.1:  Norway's "bu tter crisis", December 2011  
Norwegian farmers generally produce more milk than the milk consumed domestically in the form of 
liquid milk and dairy products.  Surpluses are exported in the form of cheese and butter.  Tine, as market 
regulator, is responsible for balancing the market for milk and milk products.  Milk production is regulated by quotas limiting the annual output per farm to 400,000 litres (or 750,000 litres for cooperative units 
involving several farmers).  Out-of-quota deliveries are possible, but the remuneration is very low.  Very 
few farmers are able to plan production to match their quota precisely, thus common fill rates are in the 92-95% range.   
In the first ten months of 2011, Tine received around 25 million litres less milk than expected.  The 
shortfall has primarily been ascribed  to a cold and rainy summer, which reduced the growth of forage, and 
thus the milk output of grazing cows.  However, changes in the consumption pattern (low-carbohydrate 
diets gaining popularity) meant that the demand for butter was higher than the "normal" product mix.  
Although Tine adjusted its output matrix to produce mo re butter, the rise in consumption was stronger.   
Reports warning of possible supply shortages appeared in the media in late October.  In late November, 
Tine notified the Norwegian Agricultu ral Authority (NAA) that domestic production would be insufficient 
to fill all retail shelves with Norwegian butter during  the pre-Christmas period.  It therefore recommended 
the NAA to reduce the MFN duty to facilitate impor ts.  The NAA cut the ordinary import duty from 
NKr 25.19 to NKr 4.00 per kg. for the month of December.  At the time, approximately 90% of the annual 
WTO tariff-rate quota of 575 tonnes, auctioned one year  earlier at the minimum pr ice of NKr 0.01 per kg., 
also remained available for use.  However, finding butter in Norway's vicinity turned out to be time-
consuming as butter stocks were low in northern Europe.  Many Norwegian supermarkets therefore ran out of butter.   
WTO quotas may be traded among the holders.  Tine bought some of the quota entitlements to satisfy its 
industry customers.  Synnøve Finden AS, which held 260 tonnes of the WTO-quota, eventually managed to purchase and ship butter from Belgium.  However, many consumers were not attracted by an unfamiliar 
brand, and by the time the "crisis" was receding, the unsold butter was withdrawn from the retail shelves 
and offered to industrial users.  Undisturbed by the temporary turmoil, the NAA's auction of the WTO-quota for 2012 (in mid-November 2011), yielded an auction price of NKr 0.02 per kg for 294 tonnes, while 
the remainder of the quota was sold at the minimum price.  Tine, which did not participate in the 2010 
auction, now holds 200 tonnes of the 2012 quota.   
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food suspended the penalty levy for out-of-quota milk deliveries from 
December 2011 until March 2012.  Farmer s will also be allowed to exceed  their production quotas by up 
to 4% in 2012, but this flexibility is not available to the largest farms.   
Source : Statens Landbruksforvaltning, Aftenposten, Dage ns Næringsliv, and Stavanger Aftenblad on-line 
 information (various articles).  Viewed a t:  www.slf.no, www.aftenpos ten.no, www.dn.no, and 
 www.aftenbladet.no.   
26. Internal price rebates, i.e. price support, is accorded for inputs used in processed agricultural 
products.31  In the milk and dairy sector, the scheme applies to liquid milk as well as most dairy 
products, including butter, butter oil, and cheese.  Inte rnal price rebates may also be accorded for goat 
milk used in the production of animal feed.  Rebat es for milk used as raw material, financed from the 
state budget, amounted to NKr 113.5 million in 2009 and NKr 107.2 million in 2010.32   
                                                      
31 The measure is designed to level out differences in raw material costs and thus allow equal 
competition between Norwegian and EU manufacturers in processed agricultu ral products subject to reciprocal 
free trade under Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement.   
32 Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Ins titute (2011), "Mat og Industri 2011 Status og 
utvikling i norsk matindustri".   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 84 
  
27. Structural income support is provided as a lump sum payment to equalize income between 
smaller and larger holdings.  The scheme is regi onally differentiated for milk cows, but not for 
goats.33  Norway is divided into ten zones for the regional deficiency payment for cow milk, and the 
payment (i.e. supplement to the target price) varies from zero in Zone A to NKr 1.75 in the 
northernmost zone.  The base deficiency payment for goat milk is NKr 3.11 per litre throughout 
Norway.  Up to 1,536 million litres of cow and goat milk  may be eligible for the deficiency payments.   
(b) Meat and eggs 
28. The Agricultural Agreement establishes target pric es for lamb and pig meat.  For beef, which 
does not have a target price (since 2009), the mark et regulator (Nortura) publishes a six-monthly 
"planned average wholesale price", which becomes the basis for upper price limits and efforts to 
regulate the market.  The main inst rument to control upward movements in the producer price for beef 
is administrative tariff reductions, which normally  trigger imports from neighbouring countries.  
Norwegian production of beef amounts to approxi mately 80,000 tonnes annually, which covers 
86-90% of domestic demand.  Beef exports are now relatively insignificant.  A major share of 
Norway's beef imports enter under annual duty-fr ee (GSP) ceilings of 2,700 tonnes from Namibia and 
Botswana, 500 tonnes from Swaziland, and the addi tional duty-free quota of 500 tonnes reserved for 
Namibia and Botswana under Norway's agreement with SACU.  About 250 tonnes of beef were 
imported outside of the quota system in 2010.34   
29. The production of pig meat has increased by approximately 10% over the last five years.  
Exports currently exceed imports, and export subsidi es are applied to around  3,000 tonnes annually as 
part of the market regulation activities.  Some pi g meat is also exported for outward processing and 
subsequently imported as fina l products.  Administrative tariff reduc tions are generally not required to 
respond to supply shortages in the domestic market , but employed seasonally to promote the sale of 
pork ribs ahead of the Christmas festivities.   
30. Norway's production of sheep meat, at 23,000-24,000 tonnes annually, together with around 
1,200 tonnes of imported lamb, meets the domestic demand of around 25,000 tonnes.  The market is 
considered stable and balanced, and no market  or production-regulating measures were applied 
during 2010.  The TRQ of 600 tonnes of lamb meat from Iceland is almost fully utilized, as is the 
WTO TRQ (206 tonnes).  In addition, Namibia, Botswana, and Swaziland have duty-free access for 
400 tonnes of sheep meat and lamb meat.  This quot a is mainly filled by Namibia.  Administrative 
tariff reductions were not applied in 2010.  Such reductions normally lead to imports of frozen lamb 
meat from New Zealand.   
31. Norway is self-sufficient in poultry meat.  Do mestic production, principally of chicken, 
increased along with rising consumption until the end of 2008, when domestic  demand levelled off.  
The target price and corresponding market regulation in struments were terminated at the end of 2006.  
Since then, the Norwegian Agricultu ral Authority has been calculating a domestic reference price, 
which is used to determine the need for administ rative tariff reductions, but may not be the basis for 
any other form of market regulation.  Imports are relatively insignificant, and the fill-rates for the 
                                                      
33 The income support for farms keeping goats for milk production amounts to NKr 117,000 per farm 
with a herd of 27 or more goats, or NKr 4,333 per animal for farms with fewer than 27 goats.  For farms with 
more than 5 milk cows, the income support is NKr 117,000 per farm in Northern Norway, NKr 106,000 in parts 
of Rogaland county, and NKr 111,000 elsewhere in Southern Norway.  The payment is also regionally differentiated for farms with fewer than 5 milk cows.   
34 This refers primarily to imports from South America under the GSP scheme, i.e. at 90% of the 
ordinary MFN import duty.  Beef from Uruguay, Brazil, an d Argentina also filled most of the annual WTO TRQ 
of 1,084 tonnes.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 85 
 
 
WTO TRQs amounted to 15% for chicken meat, zero for turkey meat, and 29% for meat of ducks, 
geese, and guinea fowl in 2010.  A favourable sanitary  status for poultry in Norway, and the risk of 
salmonella-infected imports also discourage importation.   
32. Producer levies raised NKr 176 million in 2010, of which NKr 130 million was spent on 
market regulation, mostly for subsidized exports and storage of frozen swin e meat.  The levies also 
finance a number of activities related to breeding and animal health.  Information and marketing 
campaigns are funded by pooling resources from the producer levies collected separately on meat, eggs, and poultry meat.
35   
33. The Agricultural Agreement provides for per-ani mal structural income support for producers 
of bovine meat, sheep meat and lamb, pig meat and pigs for breeding, and poultry.  Base deficiency 
payments are available for sheep and lamb meat , goat meat, and wool, and regional deficiency 
payments are granted to producers of meat and e ggs in specific less-favoured regions.  Transport 
subsidies are used to equalize differences in farm -gate returns caused by the varying distance to 
slaughterhouses, processing plants, and major consumer markets.   
34. The production of swine meat and poultry is to some extent constrained by Law No. 5 of 
16 January 2004 relating to regul ation of occupational animal husbandry (Husdyrkonsesjonsloven).36  
According to its corresponding Regulation (No. 611 of 1 April 2004), special permission is required 
for farms exceeding established limits for the number of chickens, turkeys, egg-laying hens, pigs for 
slaughter, and sows.   
35. The Norwegian egg market has been character ized by surplus production and subsidized 
exports of eggs in recent years.  The current su rplus is linked to the Animal Welfare Act adopted 
in 2009.  The law, which banned the use of traditi onal cages for egg-laying hens from 1 January 2012, 
led to some farmers sticking to traditional pro duction methods, until forced to shut down, while 
farmers investing in equipment in compliance with the new rules used the opportunity to expand production within the limit established in accordan ce with Law No. 5 of 16 January 2004, i.e. 
maximum 7,500 egg-laying hens per farm.   
36. Egg products are mostly manufactured by Nort ura Eggprodukter AS.  While its production of 
egg yolks is largely absorbed by domestic demand, th e surplus of egg white is exported.  Norway also 
exports certain quantities of egg powder as well as eggs  in shell.  In 2010, the Norwegian Agricultural 
Marketing Board spent NKr 43 million on market regulation activities, including export subsidies 
(NKr 16.9 million), early slaughter of hens (NKr 11. 3 million), eggs for use in animal feed, internal 
price rebates for sales to clients in international sh ipping and "special markets", and cold storage.   
(c) Grains 
37. Norway's annual production of grains peaked in the early 1990s at around 1.4 million tonnes, 
and has subsequently declined stead ily.  The main reason for the declin e appears to be the withdrawal 
of land used in the cultivation of grains.
37  Barley, oats, and wheat are the main cereals grown in 
                                                      
35 Thus, although poultry meat is no longer subject to market regulation, the production levy was fixed 
at NKr 0.17 per kg. chicken or turkey meat in 2010.  The levy is established by the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Food for the entire calendar year.  For meat of swine, mutton, beef, and veal the Ministry determines the 
maximum levies, and the Norwegian Ag ricultural Marketing Board sets and adjusts the actual levies according 
to market developments during the year.   
36 This law replaced an original law adopted in 1975.   
37 Nationen , "Rapport: I 2018 kan Noreg måtte importere halvparten av kornet", 24 April 2012.  
Viewed at:  http://www.nationen.no/2012/04/23/lan dbruk/mat/matproduksjon/korn/norsklandbruk/7386018/. WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 86 
  
Norway.  Norway imports durum wheat (e.g. for th e production of pasta) and rye, and the size and 
quality of the domestic wheat harvest determines th e need for imported wheat.  The self-sufficiency 
ratio for food and feed grains overall is 50-60% me asured in volume, but just over 30% in energy 
terms. 
38. The Uruguay Round resulted in high bound tariffs for cereals and preparations, averaging 
around 200%.  As part of a new regime for the ma rket regulation of grains, Norway introduced a 
system of administered tariffs for imports with effect from 1 July 2001.38  Imports are forecast as the 
difference between the projected demand and the expected domestic harvest, and the administered tariff rates are determined by the Norwegian Agri cultural Authority based on the difference between 
the Norwegian wholesale price and the world market pr ice.  The result is relatively stable domestic 
prices for flour and animal feed grains as long as the domestic prices for the primary commodities stay above the international level.
39  The Agricultural Agreement set s target prices for food wheat, 
food rye, oilseeds, barley, and oats. 
39. As market regulator, Norske Felleskjøp is oblig ed to ensure the purchase of all domestically-
grown cereals and oilseeds, and to deliver the regulated commodities to producers of flour and animal 
feed.  Surplus food grains may be sold to producers of animal feed at a reduced price.  Storage of 
surplus feed grains and other measures require th e approval of the Norwegian Agricultural Marketing 
Board.  The Board collected some NKr 35 million in  producer levies on grains and oilseeds in 2010, 
while expenditures on market regulation amounted to NKr 29 million.  Most of this amount was spent 
on storage of 55,000 tonnes of feed oats.40   
40. Internal price rebates are used to encourage as  much domestic grains as possible to be sold 
through the market regulation scheme.  The rebate is accorded to Norske Felleskjøp and other grain 
traders as they purchase grain (and peas) from farm ers.  The rebate is taken into account when 
establishing the administered tariffs, and thus lowe rs the costs for industrial users of all grains, 
whether domestically-produced or imported.   
(d) Fruit and vegetables 
41. Norway's self-sufficiency ratio is roughly 50% for vegetables, while nearly 95% of fruit and 
berries consumption is covered by imports.  Mo st vegetables and fruit are imported from other 
European countries.  Although the Norwegian market  may be limited in vol ume terms, sellers are 
attracted by high prices.   
42. The Agricultural Agreement establishes target pr ices and corresponding upper price limits for 
apples, food potatoes, and ten other vegetables, in cluding carrots, cabbage, cucumber, and tomatoes.  
The prices cover the whole year, or the principal marketing season for local produce.  Tariff protection is provided in the form of seasonal ta riffs.  As prices for fruit and vegetables were 
depressed in Europe in 2011, the domestic price level followed the evolution of import prices, and most target prices were therefore not attained.   
                                                      
38 Introduced after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, the regime is not part of Norway's WTO-
committed TRQs.   
39 Since 2001, the tariff-inclusive import price has been lower than the price of domestically produced 
grain.  Imports are thus regulated by the size of the TRQs.  Naturally, supplementary imports may take place, 
but at the ordinary MFN rate of duty.  High grain prices worldwide in early 2011 led temporarily to zero in-quota tariffs.  However, this did not last for long as lower world market prices and higher domestic target prices 
reintroduced the price gap between the Norwegian and world markets.   
40 The result of a poor domestic harvest in 2009 was limited quantities of wheat for human 
consumption and quality challenges for the manufacturers of  animal feed, particularly feed using oats.    Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 87 
 
 
43. The Green Growers Cooperative Market Council may sporadically coordinate market 
regulation activities in response to excess supply of Norwegian produce.  Thus, nearly 7,000 tonnes of 
food potatoes were processed into potato flour at a cost of NKr 15 million in 2009.  The NAMB financed the storage of up to 1,300 tonnes of apples harvested in 2009, and up to 2,500 tonnes 
in 2010.  The Agricultural Agreement (2011-12) set s aside up to NKr 10 million for the storage of 
fruit, paid as a supplement per kg. of delivered fruit.   
44. Due to competition from imported tapioca, an inte rnal price rebate of NKr 2.50 per kg. was 
introduced for potato starch and glucose for industria l use, effective 1 January 2011.  The rebate is 
paid to the manufacturer of the potato starch.  The Agricultural Agreement (2011-12) raised the rebate 
to NKr 3.50 per kg.  The agreement also extended the allocation of NKr 20 million for potatoes used 
in the distillation of spirits (maximum NKr 9.50 per litr e).  Price rebates are also available to suppliers 
of fruit and vegetables for deliveries to primary schools, according to a regulation issued by the 
Ministry of Health and Care in 2004.
41   
(vi) Export measures 
45. Norway has export subsidies for various co mmodities inscribed in its Goods Schedule 
(Table IV.6).  Except for processed  agricultural products, these subs idies have always been producer-
financed.  The producer levies are adjusted according to the expected state of the domestic market:  
the higher the expected surplus, th e higher the levy.  The Norwegian system thus discourages farmers 
from engaging in export pr oduction, but rather invites them to focus on commodities where the 
domestic market is not saturated by local produce.   
Table IV.6 
Export subsidies, 2008-11  
(NKr million, calendar year) 
 2008 2009 2010 2011a Annual 
expenditure 
commitments 
(WTO) 
Bovine meat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 
Swine meat 2.4 30.1 72.2 45.2 86.7 
Sheep and lamb meat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 
Poultry meat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.47 
Egg and egg products 10.3 17.2 16.9 14.3 17.2 
Butter 23.3 40.4 12.4 0.5 53.2 
Cheese 144.4 135.4 141.0 140.1 245.8 
Whey powder 0.0 0.0 0.0 .. 0.025 
Fruit and vegetables 0.0 0.0 0.0 .. 0.56 
Honey  0.0 0.0 0.0 .. 0.007 
Processed agricultural products 25.3 25.7 31.9 26.2 36.4 
Total 205.7 248.8 274.4 .. 493.1 
.. Not available. 
a Preliminary figures. 
Source: WTO documents G/AG/N/NOR/52, 4 November  2009, G/AG/N/NOR/57, 27 October 2010, and 
G/AG/N/NOR/61, 3 November 2011.   
                                                      
41 Regulation No. 623, 1 April 2004.  This is a subscription programme for grades 1 to 7, under which 
parents pay NKr 2.50 per fruit per day, and the subsidy (NKr 1 per fruit/day) is added.  The total subsidy is 
around NKr 18 million for 2012.  The scheme is administered by the Fruit and Vegetables Information Centre 
(Opplysningskontoret for frukt og grønt), and the suppliers are selected by tender.  Thus, the programme may also subsidize imported fruit.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 88 
  
46. Norway's exports of agricultural commodities and land-based food products are modest, 
amounting to NKr 4.4 billion in 2011.42  The milk quota and other measures to control production 
have reduced the surpluses somewhat, and Norway 's actual expenditures on export subsidies have 
been well below the bound levels for most products in recent years.  The exception is eggs and egg 
products, where the WTO commitment effectively ca pped the subsidized exports in 2009 and 2010.  
Export subsidies for swine meat have increased substantially since 2008.   
(vii) Evolution of support and protection 
47. The OECD notes modest progress since 1986-88 in reducing the level of support, and in 
policy reform towards greater market orientatio n in Norway's agriculture sector.  Measured in 
Producer Support Estimate (PSE), support to the sector  has declined from 70% in 1986-88 to 60% at 
present.43  Nevertheless, agriculture in Norway remains among the most highly protected in the 
OECD area.   
48. The removal of the administered price for beef  and increased flexibility in milk-quota leasing 
are seen as steps in the right direction.  Paymen ts based on output are now around one third of the 
1986-88 level.  However, payments based on current  production factors have increased.  While the 
share of the potentially most distorting forms of s upport has declined significantly, such measures still 
account for over 50% of Norway's PSE, due to continued reliance on market price support.   
49. Looking at product-specific assistance, the OECD  finds that Single Commodity Transfers 
(SCT) accounted for 54% of the total PSE during 2 008-10.  The share of SCT in gross commodity 
receipts was highest for wool (around 70%), and low est for sheep meat (less than 40%).  Overall, the 
gap between the prices received by Norwegian farmers and world market prices has narrowed 
significantly since the mid 1980s, but the current ratio is  still close to 2:1.  The price gap is largest for 
poultry and wool. 
50. A new multilateral agreement in the WTO on fu rther reductions in agricultural subsidies 
could have major implications for Norway.  Based on the state of play of the negotiations in December 2008, the Norwegian Government estim ated that Norway's new annual ceiling for amber 
box, blue box, and present de minimis  support would be around NKr 9.5 billion, including a reduction 
in amber box support of just over 50% (to NKr 5,438 million), and a ceiling for blue box support of 
NKr 3.56 billion.  Expanded TRQs in combination with zero in-quota import duties would also impose more serious challenges for Norway's market regulation system than current WTO 
commitments.  According to the authorities, these parameters would be very close to what Norway 
would consider acceptable given its policy obj ectives for the agriculture and food sector.
44  However, 
despite the leeway for unilateral action and possibl e future obligations, there are no signs yet that 
Norway has taken steps to prepare for a negotiate d outcome in the WTO, or advance reforms.   
                                                      
42 By contrast, the corresponding imports totalled NKr 39.9 billion (Norwegian Agricultural Authority, 
2012).  According to OECD (2012), Norway's deficit in agri-food trade tripled from 1995 to 2009, from 
US$1.5 billion to US$4.65 billion.   
43 OECD (2012).   
44 Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2011), p. 80. Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 89 
 
 
(2) FORESTRY  
51. Forests cover around 40% of Norway's territory.  The Norwegian State, which is a major 
property owner in Norway, manages its interests through Statskog SF.45  Nevertheless, private owners 
account for 97% of the 119,600 registered properties a nd approximately 80% of the total forest area.  
Around half of the forest properties have not offered any round wood for sale during the last ten years.  
About 30% of the forest properties are owned in co mbination with agricultural holdings;  this is a 
common feature in the more remote rural areas.  Fo r many forest owners, fishing, hunting, and other 
recreational activities on their properties is rapidl y becoming an important source of supplementary 
income (sale of rights, cabin rental, leasing).   
52. The Norwegian Forest Owners' Federation unites 38,000 private forestry owners organized in 
eight district cooperatives and 300 local societies.46  As a cooperatively owned economic 
organization, the Federation accounts for 80% of all co mmercial felling of trees in Norway.  It is also 
involved in the marketing of round wood.47  The Federation provides advi sory and extension services, 
including information about the timber market, and is promoting sustainable long-term forestry management.   
53. The forest industry was Norway's largest expor t industry until the 1950s.  Overexploitation of 
forest resources provoked fears of deforestation in the early 20
th century and led to the introduction of 
forest policies, reforestation, and improved for est management.  Although  the annual felling volume 
has remained roughly stable over the last 80 years,  the annual increment of new forest has risen 
rapidly.  Thus, the annual commerc ial round wood removal of 8.3 million cubic metres is now only 
one third of the estimated annual growth of Norway's forests (24.6 million m3).48   
54. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is res ponsible for government policies for the sector.  
The present legal framework comp rises the Forestry Act No. 31 of 27 May 2005, and regulations 
pursuant to this Act.  Norway provides NKr 400-500 million annually in subsidies to the sector (See 
Table III.10).  The Ministry has delegated the disbur sement of most grants to the county governors, 
local authorities, and Innovation Norway.  Grants are provided for industrial and environmental 
purposes in forestry, and for forest management planning, as well as for infrastructure projects.49  
Increased support for the production of wood energy is  part of the Government's efforts to reduce 
fossil fuel emissions.   
55. The Forest Trust Fund, which is a unique sch eme, is a mandatory investment scheme to 
encourage long-term private investments in sustai nable forest management activities, such as the 
planting and maintenance of young forests, investment  in forest roads, etc.   The scheme requires the 
forest owner to deposit between 4% and 40% of the gross sales value from round wood into a Forest 
Fund account related to the property.   Subsequently, when a disbursement is made, only a fraction of 
it (15%) is considered disposable income.  Moreover,  the taxation of forest owners' incomes is based 
on the average taxable income over the previous five  years, thereby allowing them effectively to 
reduce their marginal tax rates and to defer their tax payments.   
                                                      
45 Statskog, established as a state enterprise in 1993, owns properties (not only forests) totalling 
60,000 square km of land, i.e almost 20% of mainland Norway.  Statskog purchased a major private forest holding (1,100 square km) for NKr 1.725 billion in October 2010.     
46 The Federation, in turn, cooperates with similar organizations in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark 
though the Nordic Forest Owners' Associations.   
47 Another organization (Norskog) sells timber through its subsidiary Nortømmer.   
48 Energy wood consumed by  households accounts for an  additional 3.5 million m3 per year. 
49 The area subject to new plantings and young forest upkeep is now only half the level of 20 years ago, 
and one sixth of the level in the early 1990s for the construction of forest roads. WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 90 
  
56. The contribution of forestry and the forest industry to Norway's GDP was approximately 
0.5% in 2009.  Annual turnover in the sector is a bout NKr 44 billion (2010).  Wood is an important 
raw material in the construction of residential dw ellings, and Norway's sawmills and other enterprises 
produce wood-based products for the construction industry.  An export-oriented wood-processing 
industry manufactures paper, cellulose, and other out put such as chipboard and hardboard.  However, 
the sector is struggling to obtain acceptable profitabilit y;  the price of timber has declined by more 
than 50% in real terms over the last 30 years.   
(3) FISHING AND AQUACULTURE  
57. Fishing has always been the b asis for settlement and employment along the Norwegian coast.  
Norway's rugged coastline amounts to nearly 29,000  km, including fjords and bays, and offers a 
multitude of possibilities for coastal fishing and fish farming.50  Moreover, the Norwegian Exclusive 
Economic Zone of nearly 1.4 million square kilo metres provides important marine resources for 
Norwegian and foreign fishing vessels.   
58. The sector's contribution to GDP may appear modest (0.5%), and the number of persons 
employed directly in commercial fishing and fish farming is less than 20,000.51  However, with a total 
caught and farmed volume of 3.5 million tonnes (2009), Norway ranks 12th among the world's seafood 
producing nations.  As only a fraction of this volum e (about 3%) is consumed domestically, Norway 
is the world's second-largest exporter (after China) of fish and seafood.52  Accounting for nearly 6% 
of Norway's exports (in value), the fisheries sector  ranks third after oil/gas and metals.  The EU is 
Norway's principal market, followed by the Russian  Federation and Japan.  A significant part of the 
EU's fish-processing industry is reliant on imports from Norway.  In all, Norway sells fish to more 
than 150 countries.   
59. The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs is  responsible for the sector as well as for the 
ports and sea transport infrastructure.  Priority ar eas include:  (i) conservation and long-term optimum 
utilization of living marine resources;  (ii) respon sible management of the marine environment;  
(iii) contributing towards a profitable and efficient i ndustry;  (iv) aquaculture regulation;  (v) food 
safety and animal welfare;  (vi) market access for No rwegian fish;  (vii) maintaining a diverse fishing 
fleet and dynamic coastal communities;  (viii) mari ne safety and navigability;  and (ix) promoting 
competitive sea transport.  The Ministry is assisted by the Directorate of Fisheries in tasks such as 
regulation, guidance, inspection, monitoring of r esources, and control.  The Norwegian Food Safety 
Authority advises the Ministry on matters related to food safety, fish health, and fish welfare.  Other 
institutions contributing to the sector are the No rwegian Coastal Administration, the Institute of 
Marine Research, the National Institute of Nutr ition and Seafood Research, the Coast Guard, and the 
sales organizations.53  The Norwegian Seafood Council, w hose marketing activities support the 
exporters' own sales efforts, is the industry's main  source of statistics and trade information.   
60. Key legislation pertaining to the sector in clude the Act of 26 March 1999 relating to the 
regulation of participation in fisheries, the Marine  Resources Act of 6 June 2008, the Aquaculture Act 
of 17 June 2005, the Food Law of 19 December 20 03, the Animal Welfare Act of 19 June 2009, the 
                                                      
50 Adding Norway's 239,000 isla nds, the total coastline is es timated at 100,915 km.   
51 In 2009, Norway had 12,730 registered fishers, while the fish farming industry employed less 
than 5,000 people directly in the production of fish, including juvenile fish, hatcheries, breeding stock, research, and education. 
52 Norway's annual per capita consumption of fish and fish products is about 23 kg. 
53 Together with the Directorate of Fisheries, the Coast Guard and the sales organizations carry out key 
functions for the control and enforcement system in Norway.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 91 
 
 
Fishery Prohibition Act No. 19 of 17 June 1966, and the Raw Fish Act of 14 December 1951, as 
amended.   
(i) Aquaculture 
61. Since the first successful efforts to farm salmon on a commercial scale in the early 1980s, the 
growth of the Norwegian aquaculture industry has been impressive.  Atla ntic salmon and rainbow 
trout account for almost 98% of the current produc tion value of aquaculture, but some quantities of 
cod, halibut, wolf fish, mussels, oysters, and various other marine species are also being farmed.  Most sea-farms are open-cage systems located along the coast.  While the fish-farming industry still accounts for only one quarter of Norway's total production of fish by weight, the high value of its 
output makes the fish-farming larger than the captive fisheries segment.  According to the Directorate 
of Fisheries, total first-hand sales value of the a quaculture industry exceeded NKr 30 billion in 2010.   
62. All farming of fish and shellfish and sea ranching requires a licence from the Norwegian 
authorities.  Farming licences for Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout are allocated through special allocation rounds, and against payment.  Licences for other species are not limited and are free of 
charge.  Each licence is normally linked to a specific site, but salmon and trout licences typically 
cover two or three sites.  The licences are transferra ble and may be mortgaged.  However, in order to 
ensure fair allocation of benefits from the use of common sea areas, no single operator may control 
more than 25% of the total production capacity for farmed salmon and trout.   
63. With the Aquaculture Act of 17 June 2005, the authorities' focus shifted from regulating 
ownership of licences to regulating the management of the installations.
54  Veterinary services inspect 
the installations, and the Norwegian Food Safety Au thority and private and governmental laboratories 
perform analysis for compliance with the Food Safe ty Act, for example for hygiene, disease, or 
residue control purposes.  A technical standard has been developed for aquaculture installations, inter 
alia, to prevent farmed fish from escaping, and aqu aculture activity is limited in the most vulnerable 
fjords (National Salmon Fjords).   
64. Productivity has risen markedly in the Norwegia n fish-farming industry over the years.  At 
nearly 370,000 kg per man-year in 2010, the aver age production level is now 2.5 times higher than 
in 1995.  The average production cost per kg of fa rmed salmon was NKr 20 in 2010.  The OECD is of 
the opinion that there is still room for expansi on of the aquaculture industry along the Norwegian 
coast.55  Further growth would appear to depend on the opportunity for profitable expansion in a 
global market, and on the environmental sustainability  of an increase in production.  High tariffs and 
non-tariff measures restrict access to some foreign countries.  In addition, trade remedy actions have 
constrained exports of Norwegian salmon to the EU and the United States in the past.  However, the 
EU rescinded its anti-dumping measures against No rwegian salmon in July 2008 (and trout in 
August 2008).56  Moreover, the sunset review of the U.S.  anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders 
on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway  resulted in the revocation of the measures 
in March 2012.57   
                                                      
54 The Act replaced the Fish Farming Act of 1985 and the Sea-Ranching Act of 2001.   
55 OECD document TAD/FI(2010)9/PART28, 19 October 2010. 
56 Norway made use of the dispute settlement mechanism to challenge these measures in the WTO.   
57 The revocation was published in the Federal Register  on 2 March 2012, but made effective from 
13 February 2011.  The anti-dumping and countervailing measures were first imposed in 1991.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 92 
  
(ii) Capture fisheries 
65. Most key fish stocks in Norwegian waters ar e shared with other countries, and Norwegian 
fishing vessels are active in international and fore ign waters.  Norway participates in the regional 
management commission in the Northwest Atlantic (NAFO) and the Northeast Atlantic (NEAFC), 
and holds consultations with the Russian Federa tion, the EU, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and 
Greenland for bilateral fishing arrangements, to  establish reciprocal fishing possibilities and 
determine a mutually acceptable distribution of catch quotas.58  In addition to the exchange of quotas, 
the countries agree on licensing arrangements for ves sels fishing in each other's economic zones.   
66. All commercial fishing by trawlers and purse seiners requires a licence in Norway, and long-
liners and coastal vessels are regulated through annual permits.  The licences and permits are 
combined with individual vessel quotas.  The tota l annual catch, which covers  approximately 95% of 
the landed value of fish, determines the aggregat e catch levels.  All fishing vessels over 15 metres, 
including foreign vessels fishing in the Norwegia n Exclusive Economic Zone, are required to carry 
satellite tracking devices on board, and must file electronic catch reports to the Directorate of Fisheries.   
67. Except as permitted under plurilateral and bila teral fishing arrangements, the Fishery 
Prohibition Act bars foreigners from fishing insi de the Norwegian Exclusive Economic Zone.  A 
fishing vessel may only be bought by a Norwegia n citizen or a body with equivalent rights.
59  I n  
principle, only active fishers are permitted to  own fishing vessels in Norway, although some 
exemptions have been granted to certain industrial co rporations to allow them to integrate vertically 
into the catch sector.  The Norweg ian fish-processing industry is not subject to any form of general 
licensing requirement or rules or restrictions with respect to location or ownership, including foreign 
investment.   
68. The total annual catch varies but is currently around 2.5 to 3 million tonnes.60  In 2011, the 
first-hand value of the landed fish amounted to NKr 16 billion, divided between ground fish species 
(50%), pelagic fish (45%), and shellfish.61  Although low profitability has led to bankruptcies and 
individual withdrawal from fishing the in past, the operating margin was in the 12-16% range 
during 2006-08.   
69. The Government signed a General Agreement w ith the Norwegian Fishermen's Association 
in 1964.  The purpose was to ensure fishermen's income was on par with the average wage of an 
industrial worker.  Subsidies towards the capture i ndustry peaked at nearly NKr 4 billion in 1980, but 
since 1990, when payments still amounted to nearly  NKr 1.4 billion, support has declined to well 
below NKr 100 million per year.  The General Ag reement was terminated with effect from 
1 January 2005.  A minimum-income scheme has b een established, mostly for fishers on smaller 
                                                      
58 Norway is also party to a trilateral agreement on  capelin (with Greenland and Iceland), and coastal 
state agreements on blue whiting (with  Iceland, Faroe Islands, and the EU), mackerel (Faroe Islands and 
the EU), and Norwegian Spring Spawning herring (with the Russian Federation, the EU, Faroe Islands, and 
Iceland).   
59 Article 2 of the Act defines the equivalent of a Norwegian citizen as:  (i) persons resident in Norway;  
(ii) an enterprise whose head office is located in No rway, with the Chairman and the majority of its Board 
members being Norwegian citizens resident in Norway for th e last two years.  In addition, at least 60% of the 
share capital and voting rights must be held by Norwegia n citizens;  and (iii) the Norwegian State, foundations 
and trusts governed by the State, and Norwegian municipalities.   
60 The peak catch in 1977 was 3.4 million tonnes.   
61 The principal ground-fish species caught in Norwegian waters are cod, blue whiting, haddock, and 
saithe, while the most important pelagic fi shes are capelin, mackerel, and herring. Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 93 
 
 
vessels with intermittent fishing activity.  Paym ents under this scheme totalled NKr 2.8 million 
in 2011.  Support is also provided for the transp ort of landed fish to the processing industry in 
vulnerable regions or to relieve temporary excess supply in other areas (see Table III.10).  Grants for the decommissioning of fishing vessels, part-financed by the industry itself, were phased out fully 
in 2010.
62  Some support is also provided to the seali ng fleet and sealing processors.  Vessels used for 
fishing and hunting are exempted from the CO 2 tax on mineral oil, natu ral gas, and LPG, and a 
reduced CO 2 tax rate applies to mineral oil used in the herring meal and fish meal industries.  The 
estimated value of the tax concession was NKr 155. 8 million for the vessels, and NKr 1.1 million for 
the herring meal and fish meal industry, in 2010.   
70. According to the Raw Fish Act (Act No. 3, 14 December 1951), the processing, sale, or 
export of raw fish or products thereof may be pr ohibited by Royal Decree, unless the fish has been 
sold through, or with the consent of, an approved fishermen's sales organization;  there are currently 
six authorized sales organizations.63  The organizations have legal competence to regulate the first-
hand sale of raw fish, normally by establishing a minimum price for each specie and monitoring that 
the price decisions are respected.  A sales organization may also act as a first-hand purchaser, 
although this is rare.  Depending on the market or catch  situation, the organizations may direct fishing 
vessels to specific ports, or temporarily halt or restri ct fisheries.  The organizations are financed by a 
levy collected on the first-hand sales value of the catch.   
71. According to Act No. 73 of 11 June 1993, the Mi nistry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs may 
establish minimum import prices for foreign fish a nd fish products.  The minimum prices should 
normally be set at the same level as any minimum prices applicable to first-hand sales of landed 
catches in Norway pursuant to the Raw Fish Act.  Th e Act is to be used in situations where market 
disturbance is caused by "significant" imports of fish and fish products at "abnormally" low prices.  
However, according to the Norwegian authorities the Act has never been used, and any future 
measures under this Act would be implemented in accordance with Norway's  obligations under the 
GATT.   
(4) ENERGY  
(i) Hydrocarbons 
72. In 2010, the petroleum sector accounted for 21% of Norway's GDP, 26% of government 
revenue, 26% of total investment in Norway, and 47% of Norway's exports of goods and services.  In 
four decades of petroleum production on the Norweg ian continental shelf, the sector's accumulated 
contribution to Norway's GDP is nearly NKr 9,000 billion.64  The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy 
estimates that approximately 44% of Norway's tota l petroleum resources have been extracted, leaving 
the sector a significant role for the future, pa rticularly in the supply of natural gas.65   
                                                      
62 The scheme was accompanied by a structural quota system, which allowed, for example, the owner 
of two vessels to scrap one vessel and transfer the entire quota to the remaining vessel for a fixed period.  
Although the Norwegian fishing fleet is relatively old (on average 25 years), the fleet declined from more 
than 10,000 registered vessels in 2002 to 7,000 vessels in  2007.  Mainly, small vessels were scrapped, while the 
number of large fishing vessels has increased.   
63 The sales organizations by-laws must be sanctioned by Royal Decree.   
64 Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (2012) .  The accumulated investments during this period, 
excluding exploration costs, total approximately NKr 2,500 billion.    
65 Of the remaining recoverable reserves, around tw o thirds have been discovered and assessed while 
one third is an estimate of possible reserves in hitherto  unexplored areas, or smaller discoveries that may yet be 
made in the proximity of existing infrastructure.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 94 
  
73. Norway's production of crude oil peaked in 20 01 at about 3 million barrels/day.  The average 
daily production has declined by around 40% si nce then, but Norway was still the world's 14th largest 
oil producer and 7th largest exporter of crude oil in 2010.  Meanwhile, production of natural gas has 
been on the rise.  Norway currently ranks second (after the Russian Federation) among the world's 
exporters of natural gas, and the pr esent production volume (about 100 million Sm3) is set to rise to a 
peak in around 2020.   
74. A white paper presented to Parliament in 2011 relayed four main policy messages: 
(i) increased recovery of petroleum resources in ex isting fields; (ii) the development of new, but 
usually smaller discoveries, in the vicinity of exis ting infrastructure; (iii) active exploration of opened 
acreage, both in mature and frontier areas; and (i v) the opening of additional areas for petroleum-
related activity in Norwegian waters.66  Although Norway's production of crude oil has been 
declining, as expected, technological advances have  facilitated the extraction of oil from many fields 
for a much longer period than originally foreseen .  However, annual production has outstripped the 
addition of new proven reserves in most recent years.  Substantially increased expenditures on 
exploration activities from 2006 resulted in numerous discoveries, but mostly of small reserves.  A 
breakthrough was reached in 2011 with the announ cement of two major discoveries – a field later 
named "Johan Sverdrup" in the North S ea, and "Skrugard" in the Barents Sea.67  Preparations to open 
an area around the Arctic island of Jan Mayen for petroleum activity began in 2009.  Moreover, the 
recently concluded Treaty concerning Maritime De limitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and 
the Arctic Ocean between Norway and the Russian Federation will open a further part of Barents Sea 
South for petroleum activities.68   
75. The Petroleum Act No. 72 of 29 November 1996 establishes that the property rights over 
Norway's oil and gas resources are vested in the St ate.  The Act, as amended, and various Royal 
decrees and regulations issued under the Act, provi des the legal basis for th e licensing system that 
regulates Norwegian petroleum activities, including th e granting of exclusive rights to explore for, 
produce, and transport produced petroleum.69  The legal authority to tax these operations derives from 
Petroleum Taxation Act No. 35 of 13 June 1975.70  All major policy decisions related to Norway's 
petroleum sector are taken by Parliament (the Storting), as are decisions to open new areas for activities.  In addition, all development projects ex ceeding NKr 10 billion are presented to Parliament 
for acceptance and appropriation of funds for State pa rticipation, if the Norwegian State participates 
in the development, before the project is formally approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.  
The Ministry, which holds overall responsibility for th e management of Norway's petroleum resources 
                                                      
66 Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (2011). 
67 In all, 54 exploration wells were drilled in Norw egian waters in 2011, resulting in 16 discoveries in 
the North Sea, 3 in the Norwegian Sea, and 3 in th e Barents Sea.  The "Johan Sverdrup" discovery was 
particularly significant, not only because of its size, but also because it occurred  in a "mature" area, i.e. in a part 
of the North Sea that has been extensively mapped and developed over the years.   
68 The Treaty entered into force on 7 July 2011.  Protracted negotiations to establish the maritime 
delimitation began in 1970.  A compromise struck in 1978 between Norway and the Soviet Union defined the 
undisputed areas of the Barents Sea, but only perm itted fisheries in the disputed area (grey zone).   
69 For the English version of most of these Royal decrees and regulations, see Norwegian Petroleum 
Directorate online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.npd.no/en/Regulations/  
70 Petroleum companies are subject to ordinary corporate income tax (28%), taxes on emissions of 
carbon dioxide (CO 2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and a special petroleum tax of 50%.  Revenue from sales of 
crude oil is calculated according to a "norm price" es tablished by the authorities.  Deductible expenses are 
operating costs; depreciation (linear ov er 6 years); exploration, R&D, a nd decommissioning costs; acreage fees, 
CO 2 and NOx duties; net financial costs; and (for the 50% tax) an uplift equal to 30% of a company's 
investments (7.5% per year over 4 years).  The petroleum tax system is designed to be investment neutral, i.e. a project considered profitable before tax should also be profitable after tax.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 95 
 
 
and for the award of exploration/production licen ces, cooperates with other public authorities and 
state-owned entities in the execution of its tasks (Chart IV.2).   
Chart IV.2 
Organization of public authorities in relation to petroleum activities
Source: Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Facts  - The Norwegian Petroleum Sector 2011.Parliament 
(Storting)
Government
Ministry of the 
EnvironmentMinistry of 
LabourMinistry of 
Fisheries and 
Coastal AffairsMinistry of 
FinanceMinistry of 
Petroleum and 
Energy
Climate and 
Pollution 
AgencyPetroleum 
Safety 
AuthorityNorwegian 
Coastal
AdministrationGovernment 
Pension 
Fund -
Global Norwegian 
Petroleum
Directorate
Gassco AS
Statoil ASAPetoro ASPetroleum
Tax 
Office
 
76. As a main rule, a production licence is gran ted to a consortium of oil companies.  The 
companies may have applied individually or in groups for the rights to specific blocks announced by 
the Government in a "licensing round".  The co mposition of each consortium is the discretionary 
decision of the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, who will also nominate an "operator" among the participants in each production licence.  The operato r is responsible for the day-to-day activities under 
the licence vis-à-vis the authorities and the other st akeholders in the licence.  Ownership of the 
petroleum produced rests with the licensees.  Partic ipating shares in production licences may be sold 
or swapped with other oil companies, subject to the consent of the Ministry.   
77. Since April 1965, Norway has held 21 licensing rounds, i.e. approximately every two years.  
At the outset, the development of Norway's petroleu m resources was accorded exclusively to foreign 
multinational oil companies.  However, a policy of  50% state ownership in all new licences and the 
development of "national champi ons" began in the early 1970s.  The State's assets were initially 
concentrated in Statoil, but from 1985 they were sep arated in the State's direct financial interest 
(SDFI).
71  The principle of 50% state ownership was replaced by a new policy in 1993, whereby the 
participation of the Norwegian State and level of its ownership, are decided case-by-case.   
                                                      
71 Under the SDFI arrangement, the State pays its pr oportionate share of all investments and costs in 
return for the corresponding share of the income.  Following the part-privatization of Statoil in 2001, a new 
entity (Petoro AS) was established to manage the SDFI.  As for the original "natio nal champions", Norsk Hydro 
acquired Saga Petroleum in 1999, and the oil and gas division of Norsk Hydro merged with Statoil in 2007.  The current level of State ownership in St atoil is 67% (see Table III.11).   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 96 
  
78. As areas of the Norwegian continental shelf have matured, new players have been attracted to 
explore smaller areas.  A supplementary annual "licensing round" was introduced in 2003 for production licences in mature areas.  The arrangeme nt encourages exploration in the vicinity of 
existing offshore installations, as new small discove ries may be profitable if use can be made of 
existing or planned infrastructure, but unprofitable once such infrastructure has been shut down, 
decommissioned, and possibly removed.  In all, ni ne supplementary licensing rounds have been held 
since 2003.  Approximately 50 oil companies (N orwegian and foreign) are now active on the 
Norwegian continental shelf.   
79. Some 92-93% of Norway production of natural gas is exported via pipelines to terminals in 
the United Kingdom (2), Germany (2), Belgium, and France.
72  The total capacity of the Norwegian 
pipeline system is approximately 120 billion standard cubic metres per year.  The pipeline grid on the 
Norwegian continental shelf totals almost 8,000 km, and is mostly owned by the Gassled-joint 
venture.73  Gassco AS, a 100% state-owned company established in 2001, is the operating company 
for Gassled.  As Norway considers its gas trans portation system a natural monopoly with considerable 
initial investment costs, gas transport tariffs ar e governed by special regulations issued by the 
Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.  The aim is to ensure that economic rents are ascribed entirely to 
the producing fields and not extracted through the transportation system. 
80. According to Statistics Norway, the oil and gas industry employed directly nearly 
65,000 workers in 2010.  However, with the current  high level of investment and the demand for new 
technological solutions, employment directly and in directly linked to the offshore petroleum sector 
may well exceed 200,000 full-time jobs.  Moreover, the interplay between th e petroleum companies, 
the service-and-supply industry, and research inst itutions has fostered a large and increasingly 
outward-oriented engineering and petroleum services industry.   
(ii) Electricity  
81. Norway had 1,423 power plants with a total inst alled capacity of 31.7 GW in December 2011.  
Electricity accounts for 49% of Norway's consumption of energy, and the electricity produced is 
almost entirely (95-98%) hydro-based.74  Norway is the largest hydropower producer in Europe, with 
a total storage capacity of around 84 TWh.  Fully inte grated in a Nordic spot market for trade in 
electricity (Nord Pool Spot) and with a sub-se a cable connecting to the Netherlands (NorNed), 
Norwegian producers are able to trade in electricity  depending on their reservoir levels and the price 
outlook for the domestic market.75  As the Norwegian supply of electric power is dependent on 
precipitation, and domestic demand, particularly for heating, is also influenced by the weather, 
Norway's position as a net exporter or net importer of electricity in any year may be largely ascribed 
to meteorological conditions.  Norway was a net exporter of electricity from 2007 to 2009, while 
imports covered nearly 6% of the domestic consumption in 2010.   
                                                      
72 Natural gas from the "Snøhvit" field in the Barents Sea is turned into liquefied natural gas (LNG) at 
an on-shore facility and shipped worldwide from there.   
73 Gassled was established in 2001 and has no employees.  Instead, committees are established ad hoc  
to deal with specific tasks.  The St ate's share in Gassled is 45.79%.  
74 According to Statistics Norway estimates for 2008, aside from electricity, ener gy is consumed in the 
form of petroleum products (36%), coal and coke (3.2%), wood and waste (6%), district heating (2%), and natural gas (3.7%).   
75 Participants in Nord Pool Spot are Denmark, Es tonia, Finland, Norway, an d Sweden.  The principal 
Norwegian network operator (Statnett) is developing plans for interconnectors with the United Kingdom and 
Germany, as well as new interconnect ors with Sweden and Denmark.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 97 
 
 
82. Norway's legal framework for the generation,  distribution, transmission, and trade of 
electricity comprises the Energy Act No. 50 of 29 June 1990, the Water Resources Act No. 84 of 
24 November 2000, the Watercourse Regulation Act. No. 17 of 14 December 1917, and the Industrial 
Licensing Act No. 16 of 14 December 1917.  Norwegian waterfalls are considered  part of the national 
wealth.  The principle was codified in 1909, and inscribed in the Industrial Licensing Act of 1917.  
Norway's water resources have therefore been developed primarily by the public sector, as private investments have been regulated by co ncessions valid for a maximum of 60 years.
76  In 2008, some 
150 enterprises owned by local authorities and co unty councils held around 52% of Norway's 
electricity generation capacity and the state-owned Statkraft owned 36%;  the remaining capacity was 
in private ownership.77  The Norwegian State also owns about  90% of the main transmission grid, 
which is administered by the transmission system  operator Statnett SF, while local authorities and 
county councils own most of the re gional transmission and distribution grids.  Foreign ownership is 
limited and concentrated in trading companies.   
83. Although the energy sector is covered by the EEA  Agreement, Norway's legal framework has 
been little affected by the acquis communautaire , as Norway has been running ahead of the EU in 
liberalizing its electricity market.  The Energy Ac t of 1990 largely covers changes by the EU in 1996 
and 2003.78  However, the third legislative package for an internal EU gas and electricity market, 
adopted in July 2009, introduces new requirements for transmission system operators and market 
regulation that may require amendm ents in Norwegian legislation.79  The precise impact will have to 
be assessed as the new provisions are transposed into national legislation once the package has been 
incorporated into the EEA Agreem ent.  The transmission system operators of Denmark, Finland, 
Iceland, Norway, and Sweden wound up their cooperation through Nordel in mid-2009 and 
transferred all operational tasks to ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity).  The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) currently works 
with its Nordic counterparts through NordReg,  but many of NordReg's present functions may 
ultimately be taken over by the (EU) Agency fo r the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (ACER) 
located in Ljubljana, Slovenia.  NVE's relati onship with ACER remains to be determined.
80   
84. The EFTA Surveillance Authority decided in 2001 to examine the Norwegian concessions 
system and other asymmetries in the licensing rules applicable to private and public ownership of 
hydroelectric facilities.  Following a reasoned opini on issued by the Authority in 2002, the Norwegian 
authorities signalled that they would consider possi ble alternatives to the established model.  The 
matter was taken to the EFTA Court in 2006, af ter the EFTA Surveillance Authority was informed 
that Norway intended to continue its system unalte red.  The EFTA Court ruled in June 2007 that an 
EEA State has the right to decide whether hydropower  resources and related installations are in public 
and/or private hands, provided the objective is pursu ed in a non-discriminatory manner.  Faced with 
the choice to liberalize the concession rules for private investors, or to  apply the preference for public 
ownership in a more consistent manner, the Norw egian Government decided on the latter.  The EFTA 
                                                      
76 At the end of the concession period, the power st ations and the watercourses are returned to the 
Norwegian State free of charge.   
77 Around half of the privately held production capacity was acquired before 1909 and is therefore not 
subject to the return clause.   
78 Directive 96/92/EC concerning common rules for th e internal market in electricity, and Directive 
2003/54/EC concerning common rules for the internal mark et in electricity and repea ling Directive 96/92/EC.   
79 Directive 2009/72/EC, Regulation (EC) No. 713/2009, and Regulation (EC) No. 714/2009;  all dated 
13 July 2009.   
80 As Norway is not an EU member state, the format  of NVE's participation in ACER will need to be 
defined in connection with the incorporation of the thir d energy market package into  the EEA Agreement.  The 
new requirements for independent national regulators contained in the package, and their impact on NVE, will need to be assessed further as part of the implementation process.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 98 
  
Court's ruling was implemented temporarily from August 2007, and the Industrial Licensing Act and 
the Watercourse Regulation Act were amended in 2008 to strengthen the principle of public 
ownership of hydropower resources.  Therefore, further concessions to private investors will not be granted.   
85. Power-intensive industries have been able to purchase electricity on long-term contracts since 
the 1950s.  While the EFTA Surveillance Author ity has not demanded changes in existing 
agreements, it has insisted on market-based prici ng in all future contracts.  The Norwegian 
Government presented a guarantee scheme for the purchase of power on long-term contracts to the Authority in August 2009.
81  The scheme will enable 80 to 90 pow er-intensive enterprises to cover 
their payment obligations under long-term contract s (up to 80% coverage) through state guarantees 
administered by the Norwegian Guarant ee Institute for Export Credits (GIEK).82   
86. The new regime for the hydropower sector allows  for the continuation of industry ownership 
within the notion of public ownership.  Owners of asset s, which are to be return ed to the State without 
compensation at the end of the concession period, may now sell these assets or merge with publicly 
owned energy companies as long as the private sh are of the merged company does not exceed one 
third.  Hydropower production facilities may also be leased for periods up to 15 years.  State support 
is available for energy-saving measures under th e Energy Fund administered by Enova SF (see 
Table III.10), and to enterprises negotiating long-term power contracts jointly.   
87. According to Statistics Norway, electricity pr ices for households have traditionally been low 
in Norway, but since 2003 roughly on par with the OECD  average.  An electricity tax is levied at the 
general rate of NKr 0.1139 per kWh.  Manufacturi ng, mining, and quarrying are subject to a reduced 
rate of NKr 0.045 per kWh, while energy-intensive industries, such as electrolysis, are exempt from the electricity tax in line with the EU framework fo r the taxation of energy products and electricity.
83  
Consumers in Finnmark and some municipalities of north ern Troms pay a reduced electricity tax rate.   
(5) MANUFACTURING  
88. The manufacturing sector has declined consider ably in importance since the early 1950s, 
when it accounted for one quarter of all value creation in Norway.  Employment in manufacturing 
continued to rise until the late 1970s, reaching almost 400,000 full-time jobs.  The decline in 
manufacturing has been particularly pronounced in the wood processing industry, textiles and 
clothing, and the beverages and tobacco industries.84  Norway's industrial sector employs around 
230,000 people and accounts fo r 9% of GDP.  The sector is thus smaller in relative terms than in 
many other European countries.  Much of the rema ining industry is raw-materials based, but four 
decades of petroleum activity on the Norwegian continen tal shelf has also helped to spur the growth 
of engineering enterprises and industrial know-how.   
                                                      
81 The EFTA Surveillance Authority approved the guarantee scheme in March 2011.   
82 The scheme is designed to be market-based and th us self-financed.  The ceiling for all such purchase 
guarantees is set at NKr 20 billion.   
83 Directive 2003/96/EC, 27 October 2003.  The wood processing industry is in principle not 
considered tax exempt, but enterprises may avoid paying the electricity tax if they spend an equivalent amount 
on environmental (e.g. ener gy-saving) measures.   
84 As from 2008, tobacco products are no longer manufactured in Norway.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 99 
 
 
(i) Food processing industry  
89. Although some production lines have disappeared, No rway's food industry is still significant 
and accounts for more than 20% of manufacturing em ployment.  The industry is very diverse, ranging 
from single undertakings (on-farm processing) and small production facilities scattered across 
Norway, to larger enterprises controlled by th e farmer-owned cooperatives, Norwegian-based 
industrial groups (e.g. Orkla, Rieber&Søn, Kavli, Friele, Bama), and mult inational corporations 
(Kraft Foods, Carlsberg Group, Foodvest Group, Coca-Co la Company, Nestlé).  The turnover of the 
Norwegian food-processing industry totalled NKr 154 billion in 2010.   
90. Except for coffee and other tropical products, th e industry is mostly based on the processing 
of domestic land-based commodities and fish.  The Norwegian food industry  has three distinct 
segments: (i) fish processing; (ii) basic pro cessing of agricultural commodities (e.g. milk, dairy 
products, meat);  and (iii) produc tion of goods involving a higher degree of processing, such as pizzas, 
marmalade, margarine, bakers' wa res, and pastries.  The fish processing industry, which accounts for 
approximately 20% of the food indus try's turnover, is strongly export- oriented with little or no tariff 
protection in the home market, and thus de pendent on access to foreign markets.   
91. Border protection for the primary production of  land-based commodities is largely extended 
to the basic food-processing industry.  The farm er-owned cooperatives are market leaders, and 
industry concentration is high.85  Although market shares vary among meat products, Nortura holds 
high shares for chicken (75%), lamb (70%), and sl aughtered pig meat (65%).  The supply of liquid 
milk and other milk products is dominated by Tine (85%), who also holds 85% of the market for 
brown cheese and 70% for white hard cheeses.86  The barriers to entry are particularly high in the milk 
market, while the cheese market, which is less homogeneous, has a mo re diversified supply 
structure.87  An increase in cheese imports is expected following the larger duty-free TRQ recently 
agreed with the EU pursuant to Artic le 19 of the EEA Agreement.   
92. While there is border protection for the higher degree of processing segment under the MFN 
regime, competition is, in practice, determined by the framework for trade in processed agricultural 
products with the EU (Protocol 3 to the EEA Ag reement).  For these enterprises, known as the "R ǺK 
industry", a complex set of import duties based on pr oduct formulas, internal price rebates, and export 
restitutions apply to ensure that Norwegian food processors may compete on equal terms with the EU 
industry (Table AIV.1).  No protection is intended for the "industrial component" of the final product, 
i.e. for the additional processing as such.  However, the system appears to be complicated by the fact 
that the price data for the "agricultural component" has not been adjusted since 1994.88  
Overcompensation or undercompensation may occur due to the technical complexity and differing 
price paths for raw materials.89  The internal price rebates are a pplied to final products sold on the 
                                                      
85 The top three suppliers in the Norwegian market have a combined market share of 99% for milk, 
97% for fresh poultry, 93% for eggs, and 85% for cheese (Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2011a, Annex 12). 
86 Brown cheese is a Norwegian specialty.  Tine ha s several well-established brands in its product 
portfolio.   
87 The private-owned Q-Meieriene is the only noteworthy competitor to Tine in the market for drinking 
milk.  The high tariff makes imports of fresh milk unprofitable, and the supply of domestic milk is strictly regulated under the production quota system.  Tine's li nks with milk-producing farms are reinforced through 
ownership and redistribution of profits.  Its dividend for 2011 was a deferred payment of NKr 0.42 per litre raw 
milk.  No foreign dairy association has so far decided to establish production in Norway.   
88 Compensatory measures (price rebates) have been applied to account for the unequal evolution of 
raw material prices in Norway  and the EU since 1994.   
89 According to the Norwegian Agricultural Economics  Research Institute (2011a), Norway applies 
import protection beyond the "agricultural component" for marmalade made from strawberries, raspberries, or WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 100 
  
domestic market, while export res titutions (bound by the annual ce iling of NKr 36.4 million under the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture) are paid for processed  food sold abroad or to "special markets".90  
93. The present Protocol 3 arrangement entered into force in 2002 and was revised in 2004.  The 
parties review the agreement annually.  While the EU  has expressed interest in liberalizing bilateral 
trade in processed agricultural products further, Norw ay refers to the intention of the Protocol 3 
Agreement, which is to create a level playing fiel d within the frames of the existing preferential 
tariffs.91   
94. The general import regime for processed agri cultural products is supplemented by outward 
and inward processing schemes.  Outward processing of  meat and dairy products is regulated by 
annual quotas.92  Upon return, import duty is assessed on the value added obtained abroad for "R ǺK-
goods".  An inward processing scheme allows duty- free imports of primary agricultural commodities 
for processing and subsequent export, to optimize the use of the production capacity in Norwegian 
food industries.93  The system of administrative general and i ndividual tariff reductions also applies to 
processed agricultural products.   
95. The food industry is little affected by business cycles, compared with other enterprises in 
manufacturing.  The global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 had only a marginal impact on the sector 
in Norway.  However, while the Norwegian food industry still has a solid grip on the domestic 
market, the trend toward increasing competition from imports has continued.  Norway's imports of 
land-based food products increased from about NKr  8 billion in 1995 to NKr 24 billion in 2010.  
Exports have risen much more slowly and are still below NKr 5 billion per year.94  For food involving 
a higher degree of processing (R ǺK-goods) the trade gap widened from less than NKr 2 billion 
in 1995 to NKr 7 billion in 2010.  The growth in labour productivity lagged behind wage growth in 
the food industry during the same period, and the i ndustry is reporting difficulties in finding sufficient 
skilled labour.  However, investments in the food  sector (including foreign investment) have risen 
steadily since 2005, reaching NKr 6.6 billion in 2010.   
96. The food processing industry benefits from the general tax deduction scheme for R&D 
activities (SkatteFUNN), and regional transport supp ort generally available for enterprises located in 
remote rural areas.95  By contrast, the sector is affected  by specific tax measures on its final goods 
such as excise duties on alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, chocolate a nd confectionery, sugar, 
and beverage packaging, and the research duty on ready-made food (see Chapter III(2)(vi)).  A 
number of user-financed fees and charges of the No rwegian Food Safety Aut hority were eliminated 
with effect from 1 January 2012 (Chapter III(2)(v)). 
                                                                                                                                                                     
blackcurrant, while the EU protects th e "industrial component" for a number  of products, including marmalade, 
and applies quotas on imports of chocolate and mineral water from Norway.   
90 Regulation No. 636 of 10 June 2009 defines "special markets" as sales to Svalbard, Jan Mayen, 
offshore installations, tax-free outlets at international airports, diplomatic missions and NATO, and international 
shipping.   
91 The Norwegian authorities believe that the agreement is functioning as intended, and point to 
steadily increasing trade.   
92 In 2010, the quota was set at 1,080 tonnes for meat (HS Chapter 2);  3,120 tonnes for dairy 
(Chapter 4);  5,520 tonnes for meat products (Chapter 16);  and 200 tonnes for reindeer.  The quotas are auctioned.  While quota amounts are set annually, li cences may be granted for up to three years.   
93 Regulation No. 27, 20 January 1999.   
94 However, Norway's significant surplus on trade in processed fish makes it a net exporter of food 
products.   
95 Transportation subsidies are also paid to equali ze regional price differences on primary commodities 
(meat, eggs, and grains).  In the dairy sector, transport support is financed through the price equalization scheme.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 101 
 
 
97. The high food prices and limited product choi ce in Norway compared with neighbouring 
countries has been the subject of much debate.96  Most, but not all, of the price difference can be 
attributed to Norway's agricultural policies, tax po licy, high production costs, and generally high costs 
in Norway.  Against the backdrop of increased c oncentration in the grocery market, the Norwegian 
Government appointed a public commission in Februa ry 2010 "to inquire into the power relations in 
the food supply chain – in order to facilitate tran sparency and monitoring, secure consumer interests 
and adequate society control".  The commission, wh ich presented its report in April 2011, noted that 
the Norwegian grocery market is now effectiv ely controlled by four nationwide "umbrella-
organizations", that the level of concentration is  high in parts of the food processing industry, the 
product range is smaller than in comparator countri es, and that product choi ce and pricing conditions 
are determined in annual negotiations (known as the "hunting season") between the supply industry 
and the purchasing units of the umbrella organizations.97   
98. Inspired by the Grocery Supply Code of Practice in the United Kingdom, the majority of the 
commission's members recommended the introducti on of a law regulating the negotiations and 
stipulating a code of conduct for the retail sector; a law on franchising; the establishment of an 
ombudsman for the grocery sector; a new online price in formation facility for the comparison of retail 
prices, accessible to the general public; and additional marking and labelling requirements.98  T h e  
commission's report and its recommendations have been  subject to a public hearing.  The Government 
is currently considering the matter based on the public debate.   
(ii) Metals (including automotive) 
99. The Norwegian metal industry produces base meta ls such as aluminium, nickel, lead, zinc, 
tin, and copper, but is also a major producer of ir on and steel, and ferro-alloys.  With few exceptions, 
the industry is based on imported raw materials.99  Thus, the Norwegian aluminium industry, which is 
Europe's largest, relies on imported aluminium oxide.  The metal industry is a major user of electricity.  The location of many production plants has therefore historically been determined by the 
vicinity to major waterfalls.  A number of small i ndustrial communities, almost entirely dependent on 
the local smelter, exist in Western Norway and in  Nordland county.  The metals industry employed 
12,500 people directly in 2008.   
100. Conditions for the industry were particularly  favourable during 2003-07 with strong order 
books and rising prices.  The price for nickel, which is an important component in electronics and in rechargeable batteries, rose by 250% from early 20 06 until April 2007, then declined sharply.  The 
global financial crisis and corresponding decline in  economic activity pushed metal prices lower.  
During a seven-month period in 2008-09, Norwegia n metal producers saw prices fall by 20% on 
                                                      
96 The price for a standard basket of food products and non-alcoholic beverages in Norway exceeded 
the EU(27) average by 55% in 2008 (Norwegian Official Report (2011), pp. 14 and 82).   
97 Among the less transparent terms and conditions  highlighted by the commission are payments 
claimed by the grocery chains for "joint marketing efforts".   
98 The Norwegian Competition Authority presented a very critical note on the Commission's analysis 
and findings, arguing, inter alia,  that Norway's system of border protection for agricultural products contributes 
to high levels of concentration in the food industry  and in distribution.  The Authority suggests import 
liberalization, regulatory changes, and more effective en forcement of the Competition Act on the supply side as 
means to enhance competition throughout the food chain.  It has been argued that the Norwegian border 
protection regime reduces competition in food processing and retail, as foreign grocery chains are discouraged 
from entering the Norwegian market since they can only make limited use their established network of foreign suppliers (see Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute, 2011b). 
99 In the past, the production of nickel, copper, and zinc was based on domestic ores.  Surface mines at 
Bjørnevatn (Finnmark county), from which iron ore was extracted for 90 years (1906-1996), were reopened in 2009.  The first new shipments of iron ore concentrate went to China.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 102 
  
average, new orders by 56%, and production by 25%.100  However, with steady demand from East 
Asia and low inventories, production volumes picked up and were almost back to pre-crisis levels by 
mid-2010.  The rebound in metal prices was even st ronger, and the producer price index exceeded the 
2007 peak (by 4%) in May 2010.  Since then, renewe d volatility and price pressure has again affected 
the industry's profitability.   
101. Most Norway's metal industry production is e xported with only minor processing, but final 
products, such as tubes and accessories, are manufactur ed in Norway.  A thriving industry supplying 
components to foreign car manufacturers was built up from the 1950s at Raufoss (Oppland county), and at other sites in Norway.
101  The sector was hit hard by the global turmoil in 2008, and one 
producer (Fundo Wheels) was forced to close tem porarily in early 2009.  Although Norsk Hydro has 
divested some of its interests in automotive stru ctures, Hydro remains a major supplier of aluminium 
components to the transportation business around the world, and its divested plants in Norway 
continue under foreign ownershi p.  Kongsberg Automotive, headquartered in Norway and with 
32 production facilities worldwide, has become an impor tant supplier to the global vehicle industry.   
(6) SERVICES  
102. Norway has traditionally been a net exporter of commercial services, as a substantial deficit in 
travel and tourism has been outweighed by surp luses in other sectors, led by shipping and other 
maritime services.  However, Norway's services acc ount moved into deficit in the aftermath of the 
global financial crisis (Tables IV.7 and IV.8).   Whereas world freight volumes and shipping rates 
have remained subdued since 2009, the relative strengt h of the domestic economy has stimulated the 
continued growth of travel and outward tourism, which reached an all-time high in 2011.   
Table IV.7 
Norway's exports of commercial services, 2007-11 
(US$ million) 
  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Commercial services  40,208 45,141 38,537 39,506 42,378 
Transportation 18,879 21,027 15,626 15,679 15,951 
of which sea transport 14,490 15,823 11,076 10,833 .. 
Travel 4,367 4,807 4,082 4,576 5,189 
Other commercial services 16,962 19,307 18,829 19,251 21,237 
Communications services 578 787 683 737 .. 
Telecommunication services 433 602 522 564 .. 
Construction 364 465 430 336 .. 
Insurance services 243 234 243 212 .. 
Financial services 1,126 1,447 1,586 1,374 .. 
Computer and information services 1,831 2,166 2,643 3,023 .. 
Royalties and license fees 540 690 637 498 .. 
Other business services 11,842 12,958 12,131 12,673 .. 
Personal, cultural and recreational services 438 561 477 398 .. 
Audio-visual and related services 235 284 258 204 .. 
.. Not available. 
Source:  IMF, Balance of Payments Stat istics.  Figures for 2011 are WTO es timates based on national data. 
                                                      
100 Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed at: www.ssb.no/magasinet/analyse/art-2010-10-11-
01.html  
101 Plastic materials are also used in the production of some components and parts.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 103 
 
 
Table IV.8 
Norway's imports of commercial services, 2007-11 
(US$ million) 
  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Commercial services 38,328 44,363 36,498 42,358, 43,849 
Transportation 13,850 14,386 9,470 11,684 10,977 
of which sea transport 10,375 11,147 6,806 8,693 .. 
Travel 11,823 14,228 12,366 13,974 16,741 
Other commercial services 12,656 15,749 14,661 16,700 16,132 
Communications services 448 1,146 891 1,620 .. 
Telecommunication services 350 1,038 825 1,546 .. 
Construction 55 68 49 48 .. 
Insurance services 171 102 112 63 .. 
Financial services 1,214 1,133 1,179 1,260 .. 
Computer and information services 1,597 1,695 1,579 1,674 .. 
Royalties and license fees 614 767 553 536 .. 
Other business services 7,828 10,162 9,722 10,887 .. 
Personal, cultural and recreational services 729 675 577 612 .. 
Audio-visual and related services 298 360 316 303 .. 
.. Not available. 
Source:  IMF, Balance of Payments Stat istics.  Figures for 2011 are WTO es timates based on national data. 
103. Norway's sector-specific commitments in  its GATS Schedule cover 110 of the 160 sub-
sectors.102  No sector-specific commitments have been made in postal services, audiovisual services, 
or health-related and social services.  Norway's Article II MFN exemptions cover road transport, 
audio-visual, and air transport services, as well as certain measures to maintain and develop Nordic 
cooperation.  Professional qualifications must be fu lfilled for the provision of legal, accounting, and 
auditing services, while the architect and engineering professions are not legally protected in Norway.   
104. The EU Services Directive was incorporated  into the EEA Agreement in April 2009.103  The 
Directive, inter alia,  affects the commercial presence of EU services providers in Norway and the 
cross-border provision of services.  For the services covered, the Directive does not oblige Norway to 
harmonize its legislation with the EU, but required the screening of national authorization schemes to 
ensure that they are non-discriminatory, justified (by an overriding reason relating to public interest), 
and proportionate.  The Directive also provided for the establishment of a point of single contact where services providers can receive information a nd complete all procedures needed for access to a 
services activity.  Acceptance of the Directive was not  without political controve rsy.  In particular, 
concerns were raised in relation to possible "s ocial dumping" and the underm ining of existing labour 
rights.   
105. Similar to most EU member states, Norway opted to implement the directive through a 
horizontal law and a regulation.
104  As part of the screening and mutual evaluation process, Norway 
notified 78 authorization schemes and regulatory re quirements to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.105  
                                                      
102 See WTO (2008). 
103 Directive 2006/123/EC of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. 
104 Act No. 103, 19 June 2009 and Re gulation No. 1644, 18 December 2009. 
105 The notified measures include decisions taken by local authorities, such as permits to sell and serve 
food and alcoholic beverages; authorizations to assume responsibility for, and administer, construction projects; and licences to provide tattoo and piercing services.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 104 
  
The evaluation of the 78 regulatory measures wa s carried out directly by EU institutions.106  T h e  
European Commission presented the results of th e mutual evaluation process for the 30 EU/EEA 
members, and further proposals to deepen th e single market for services, in January 2011.107   
106. Adaptation to the Services Directive required certain amendments to legislation, but no 
substantial revisions, according to the Norwegia n authorities.  For example, Norway lifted a 
requirement for real estate agents to have a sp ecific legal form; abolishe d a requirement for debt 
collectors providing cross-border services to be registered (and authorized) in Norway; clarified the conditions for granting authorizations to trade in used goods; and established time-limits for the 
processing of several types of applications.   
(i) Financial services 
107. The Ministry of Finance is responsible fo r defining policy and granting licences for the 
banking and insurance sector.  Reporting to the Ministry, the Financial Supervisory Authority 
(Finanstilsynet) supervises banks, finance companies, mortgage companies, and insurance companies, 
as well as securities traders, real estate agencies,  and accounting and auditing firms.  The Ministry, 
and to some extent the Authority, issue regulations pursuant to the main financial services laws, i.e. 
the Commercial Banks Act No. 2 of 24 May 1961 (as amended); the Savings Banks Act No. 1 of 
24 May 1961 (as amended); the Fi nancial Institutions Act No. 40 of  10 June 1988 (as amended); and 
the Insurance Act No. 44 of 10 June 2005.  The basic legal framework has not changed since 
Norway's last Review.
108   
108. Due to the EEA Agreement, Norway's legislati on is updated regularly to reflect changes in 
EU rules and regulations.  Within the EEA, regula tion of the banking and insurance system is based 
on the principle of home country control in relati on to prudential supervision together with the 
principle of a "single passport", allowing banks an d insurance companies lic ensed to do business in 
one EEA member state to do business in any other EEA member state through the establishment of a branch or by cross-border provision of its ser vices.  Norway's GATS commitments cover the full 
spectrum of financial services.
109  However, cross-border supply of  banking and insurance services 
from non-EEA countries is restricted.  Banks fro m non-EEA countries must establish a subsidiary 
(within the EEA) and/or a branch in Norw ay to provide banking services in Norway.   
109. At the end of 2011, Norway's financial system  included 220 credit institutions (142 banks, 
30 mortgage companies, and 48 finance compan ies), 22 life insurance companies, 96 non-life 
insurance companies, and 20 securities funds.  The combined assets of the credit institutions 
amounted to NKr 5,405 billion, and a further NKr 907 billion was managed by the life insurance 
sector.  The structure of the Norwegian financia l sector has not changed significantly since 2003, 
when the main commercial banking group merged w ith the largest savings-bank group to form DnB 
NOR.  The most notable development occurred durin g 2008 and 2009, largely as a consequence of the 
global financial crisis, when several banks establishe d their own mortgage companies to facilitate the 
                                                      
106 In this exercise, the EFTA EEA member states we re examined together with EU member states, and 
Norway was grouped with Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Iceland.  While the EU institutions examined 
existing schemes and requirements, any new scheme pr oposed by Norway will have to be notified to, and 
evaluated by, the EFTA Surveillance Au thority according to the cr iteria laid down in the Services Directive (i.e. 
non-discrimination, public interest, and proportionality). 
107 European Commission (2011). 
108 Since 1990, Norway has had a standing Commission (Banklovkommisjonen) charged with 
evaluating Norway's financial services legislation.  Th e Commission has presented several reports and proposals 
to amend laws and regulations.   
109 See WTO (2008). Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 105 
 
 
issue of mortgage-backed bonds.  The assets of these  mortgage companies totalled NKr 1,620 billion 
at the end of 2011.   
110. Concentration is relatively high in banking an d in life-insurance as the top three institutions 
control nearly 60% of the market for credit and 82% of the life-insurance market.  The DNB Group 
has a total market share of 32%, followed by the Sparebank1 Alliance (13%), and Nordea (10%).  A 
tendency for smaller savings banks to merge or jo in larger regional savings banks has re-emerged 
during 2010 and 2011, but with limited effect on market  concentration overall, due to the modest size 
of these banks.   
111. Despite strong credit growth and aggressive  lending practices during 2004-07, Norwegian 
financial institutions were able to tackle the effect s of the global financial crisis with only moderate 
government intervention compared with other countries.  Drawing upon Norway's experience of a deep financial sector crisis in the early 1990s, the authorities acted swiftly to ensure access to liquidity 
and longer-term funding.  The Financial Supervis ory Authority introduced a temporary ban on short 
selling in financial shares in October 2008.
110  Two weeks later, Parliament authorized the Ministry of 
Finance to swap government securities against colla teral or in return for Norwegian covered bonds 
(OMF) within a limit of NKr 350 billion.  The G overnment followed up with the launch of a credit 
package in February 2009, including the establishm ent of a Government Bond Fund with capital of 
NKr 50 billion, and a State Finance Fund (also with capital of NKr 50 billion).111  The purpose of the 
two funds was to help banks maintain normal le nding to enterprises and households.  As deposits 
were already considered sufficiently insured through the Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund 
(Box IV.2), no extension of existing guarantees was deemed necessary.112   
112. Following the approval of the capitalization schem e by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the 
State Finance Fund began operations in May 2009 and set a deadline for applications for capital 
injections of 30 September 2009.  In  all, 28 banks were granted fundi ng totalling NKr 4.1 billion.  As 
the capital provided was relatively expensive and introduced caps on, inter alia, the payment of 
dividends, banks had an incentive to replace these contri butions with equity or other forms of market-
based funding on commercial terms in a normal functioning market.  During 2010 and 2011, ten 
banks chose to repay in full the capital received from the State Finance Fund, and the outstanding 
capital of the Fund totalled NKr 631.3 million at the end of 2011.113   
113. The Government Bond Fund, which is manage d by the Government Pension Fund Norway 
(Folketrygdfondet) began purchasing bonds issued  by Norwegian enterprises on commercial terms 
in 2009, and was also a net purchaser in 2010.  Du ring 2011, the Fund was a net seller of bonds, and 
only NKr 8.1 billion of the total commitment of NKr 50 billion remained invested in the bond market 
at the end of 2011.114   
114. The principal instrument carrying the Norweg ian banking system safely through the global 
financial crisis appears to have been the swappi ng of covered bonds agains t government securities.  
                                                      
110 The rules regarding short selling were made stricter in 2010.   
111 Banks seeking capital injections from the State Finance Fund would have to accept disciplines on 
executive pay and bonuses.   
112 However, intervention was required with the collapse of one Icelandic-owned Norwegian bank and 
the Norwegian branch of another Icelandic bank in Oct ober 2008.  Glitnir Bank ASA was sold to a group of 
Norwegian savings banks, while Kaupthing Bank hf NUF was wound-up and all deposits repaid.   
113 Ministry of Finance (2012).   
114 The estimated return on the invested funds was 13.1% in 2009, 7.6% in 2010, and 4.4% in 2011.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 106 
  
At the height of its use, the swap arrangement provided liquidity of some NKr 230 billion to 
Norwegian banks.115  The phasing out of the scheme began in late 2009.   
Box IV.2:  The Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund  
The principle of a deposit guarantee scheme funded by the banks themselves was introduced as a 
voluntary mechanism for savings banks in 1921 and made mandatory in 1924.  A voluntary guarantee fund set up for commercial banks in 1938 became compulsory throug h the Commercial Banks Act in 
1961.  During Norway's severe financial crisis in the early 1990s, a Government Bank Insurance Fund was 
added as a last line of defence in case banks' cap ital adequacy requirements and their own guarantee 
arrangements proved inadequate in the event of a systemic crisis.  The government-owned fund was 
dismantled in 2002.  The Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund was formed on 1 July 2004, as the guarantee funds of the savings and commercial banks were merged.  The Fund is governed by Act No. 75 of 
6 December 1996 and its statutes. 
The Norwegian deposit insurance scheme (since 1996) fully guarantees deposits up to NKr 2 million per 
depositor per bank.  While membership is compulsory for Norwegian banks, branches of foreign EEA-based credit institutions operating in Norway may opt to join the scheme thus obtaining coverage 
additional to that provided by their home-country schemes.  Three foreign-owned Norwegian banks and 
six branches of foreign credit institu tions are members of the Fund.   
The Act on Guarantee Fund stipulates the payment of an annual levy based on each bank's deposits and 
equity capital until the minimum capital of the Fund has been reached, i.e. 1.5% of the guaranteed deposits 
and 0.5% of the combined risk-weighted liabilities of th e member banks.  Following the merger of the two 
guarantee funds in 2004, savings banks were exempted fr om the levy for three years, as their scheme had 
been fully funded.  Payment of th e levy was suspended for all members from 2005, as the Fund had 
reached its legal minimum.   
As the only OECD member in the EEA, Norway did not  need to issue state guarantees for the insurance of 
deposits during the global financial crisis in 2008.  However, reductions in the market value of the Fund's 
assets led to payments at one third of the ordinary levy for 2008, and full payment of the ordinary levy 
in 2009 and 2010.  No further payment has been required in 2011 or in 2012.  At the end of 2011, the 
assets of the Fund amounted to NKr 22.8 bi llion (the legal minimum is NKr 21.6 billion). 
Considering measures to build an even stronger Norwegian banking sector, the Government has proposed 
(in May 2012) to reintroduce the payment of the annual  levy irrespective of the financial situation of the 
Fund.  The proposal is currently circulating among the stakeholders for comment.  
 
Source: NOU 1995:25; Act No. 75 dated 6 December 1996; the No rwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund annual reports 
(various issues); and Meld. St. 24 (2011-2012):  Finansmarknadsmeldinga 2011.    
115. With very few exceptions, Norwegian banks re ported full-year profits throughout the period 
2008 to 2011.  The average after-tax return on equity was 13% in 2010 and 10.8% in 2011.  In 2010, 
the level of loans in default rose from an unprecedente d low in 2007 to a level roughly on par with the 
period 1997-03.  Attempting to stave off the development of a bubble in the housing market, the Financial Supervisory Authority issued guidelines on the granting of mortgages in March 2010, and 
revised guidelines in December 2011.
116   
                                                      
115 Except for the largest bank (DNB), banks were unable to make immediate use of the swap 
arrangement as they first needed to establish credit institutions to issue the covered bonds (OMF).   
116 The revised guidelines, inter alia,  state that a mortgage should normally not exceed 85% of the 
market value of the dwelling, and that a stress test should include a 5 percentage point increase in the mortgage 
interest rate.  Many Norwegian households may be vulnerable to interest rate hikes, as a survey in autumn 2011 indicated that only 1.6% of them had opted for fixed-rate mortgages.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 107 
 
 
116. Norway does not participate directly in key fora such as the G-20, the Financial Stability 
Board, or the Basel Committee, but ongoing in ternational processes to update and strengthen the 
regulatory framework for financial services affect Norw egian legislation in this area either as new EU 
rules are implemented in the EEA or through na tional adaptation of international recommendations 
and guidelines.  Implementation of new standards set by Basel III and the EU's fourth revision of its 
Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV) will lead to stricter capital requirements internationally as 
well as for Norwegian banks.  Like the EU ECOFIN  Council decided in October 2011, the Financial 
Supervisory Authority of Norway has request ed all Norwegian banks to meet a minimum 
Tier 1 capital ratio of 9% by 30 June 2012.  While ce rtain details of CRD IV remain to be agreed, the 
Ministry of Finance has signalled that it may aim at quicker phase-in of the new requirements than 
foreseen by the EU in its CRD IV framework.  Th e future Norwegian regulatory system may require 
banks to maintain additional equity or other fu lly loss-absorbing capital as counter-cyclical buffers, 
and hold systemically important banks (in Norway) to higher standards than those set by Basel III for other banks.  The harmonization of deposit guarantee schemes in the EU has caused some concern to 
the Norwegian authorities, as full enforcement of a uniform coverage level of  €100,000 would imply a 
reduction in the present coverage level in Norway of  more than 60%.  Norway has therefore engaged 
actively with the EU to preserve the guarantee of NKr  2 million maintained for the last 16 years.   
117. The Norwegian insurance sector has felt the impact of the global financial crisis in a different 
manner than the banks.  Insurance companies, which mainly hold their assets in fixed-income 
securities, bonds, stocks, and real estate, have been affected by volatile stock prices.  The impact has 
been more muted for non-life insurance companie s as they hold less stocks, and cost cutting has 
helped them maintain a "combined ratio" of less than 100%.  While declining interest rates have 
pushed bond prices upwards, a sustained period of low interest rates will pose a challenge for 
Norwegian life-insurers, as the average annual inter est rate guarantee in thei r insurance policies still 
exceeds 3%.  Risks also emanate from longer life e xpectancy of the insured population.  While the 
detailed provisions of the EU Solvency II Dir ective are not yet known, the Norwegian authorities 
expect that some life-insurance companies will have  to strengthen their buffer capital to satisfy the 
new requirements.  Companies with a large number of  paid-up policies are particularly vulnerable.   
118. In the new supervisory architecture of the EU , it is envisaged that Norway, Iceland, and 
Liechtenstein will participate in macro-level superv ision (the European Systemic Risk Board - ESRB) 
on an ad hoc  basis on issues of particular EEA relevan ce, while they will be granted permanent 
observer status to the three supervisory author ities – the European Banking Authority (EBA), the 
European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) , and the European Insurance and Occupational 
Pensions Authority (EIOPA).
117  As the first (and so far only) authorities to implement an EU-wide 
Memorandum of Understandi ng of 1 June 2008 on cross-border financial stability, ministries, central 
banks, and supervisory authorities of the Nordic and Baltic countries signed an agreement in 2010 on 
cross-border stability, and crisis management and resolution.118  The agreement establishes the first 
European cross-border stability group.   
(ii) Telecommunications 
119. Norway began reforms in the telecommunications  sector in 1988 with the liberalization of 
terminal equipment and internal networks.  The monopoly on fixed-line telephony was abolished on 
1 January 1998.  In Norway's GATS Schedu le of Commitments, which incorporates the 
                                                      
117 Expectations that the supervisory authorities may take decisions binding on the national authorities 
are challenging for Norway, as its Constitution prohibits th e delegation of authority to a supranational body of 
which Norway is not a member.   
118 Memorandum of understanding of 17 August 2010 between the ministries of finance, central banks, 
and supervisory authorities of Denmark, Estonia, Finland,  Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 108 
  
telecommunications Reference Paper and covers virtually all basic and value-added services, Norway 
has agreed to impose no limitations on market access or national treatment for the first three modes of supply.  Norway implements the EU aqcuis communautaire  in this area by virtue of Annex XI to the 
EEA Agreement on electronic communication, audiovisual services, and information society.  The 
Annex covers telecommunication services, postal ser vices, data protection, information society 
services, and audiovisual services.  The number of legal acts regulating the telecommunications area has risen six-fold since the EEA Agreement was signed in 1994.  Transposition of the 2009 EU telecoms reform package into national legislation is under way in Norway.   
120. Electronic Communications Act No. 83 of 4 July  2003, as amended in 2007, together with 
Regulation No. 401 of 16 February  2004 (as amended) constitutes the basic legal framework for 
telecommunications services in Norway.
119  The sector is supervised and regulated by the Norwegian 
Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT), an  autonomous agency under the Ministry of 
Transport and Communications.  The NPT is primarily fi nanced by operator and spectrum fees.  It is a 
member of the Independent Regulators Group (IRG), and participated as an observer in the European Regulators Group (ERG);  the ERG was replaced by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic 
Communications (BEREC), and the head of the NPT has been participating as observer in the BEREC 
Board of Regulators.  However, the precise arrange ments for NPT's participation in BEREC have yet 
to be determined.   
121. Providers of public telecommuni cation networks and services must register with the NPT 
before starting operations.  According to the NPT,  Norway had 176 operative providers of electronic 
communication services at end 2011.  With certain ex ceptions, licences are required for the provision 
of services involving the use of radio frequencies.  Operators are generally free to set their own end-user rates.  Disputes between services providers  may be submitted to the NPT for resolution.  If 
mediation is unsuccessful, the NPT issues a regulatory decision.  A decision must go for administrative appeal to the Ministry of Transpor t and Communications before it can be referred to 
the courts.   
122. The NPT uses guidelines issued by the EFTA Su rveillance Authority to identify specific 
markets for electronic communication services and to determine the existence of significant market 
power (SMP).  The former state monopoly Telenor is still considered to possess significant market power in most markets, but other providers also have SMP status in specific segments.
120  T h e  
regulatory measures, including price caps, applied to these providers vary depending on the segment 
and the degree of market power.  Internationa l price comparisons by the OECD find Norway 
consistently below the OECD average for all measured indicators.121   
123. According to the NPT, the turnover in the No rwegian market for electronic communications 
services amounted to NKr 29.3 billion in 2011,  a reduction of 0.9% compared with 2010.122  Fixed-
line telephony (traffic) peaked in 2001, and the market is now dominated by mobile devices and 
services.  However, the rise in mobile subscriptions appears to be levelling off, as is overall traffic and 
SMS messaging.  The pricing models are moving towards package offers.   
                                                      
119 Various other regulations govern related areas such as frequency spectrum, registration and 
authorizations, network services, equipment.   
120 In September 2011, the NPT anno unced that Telenor would no lo nger face regulation in the retail 
market for leased lines (market 7) or the wholesale ma rket for leased lines above 8 Mbps (market 14).  The 
decision took effect immediat ely for market 7, and six months later for market 14.   
121 OECD online information.  Viewed at: www.oecd.org/sti/telecom/pricebaskets   
122 Post og Teletilsynet (2012). Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 109 
 
 
124. According to the Ministry of Government Admi nistration, Reform and Church Affairs, 99.7% 
of Norwegian households had access to  basic broadband communication in 2011.123  I n  
September 2011, the Ministry launched a temporar y support scheme, limited to NKr 15 million, to 
help finance the extension of broadband access  to the remaining 7,000 households.  By 
February 2012, the Ministry had received 14 ap plications for a total of NKr 40 million.   
125. Provider market shares in Norway differ so mewhat depending on the indicator used, i.e. 
number of subscriptions, traffic, or turnover.  A ccording to turnover data for 2011, Telenor held a 
66% share of the market for fixed-line telephon y (including broadband), for private customers, 
followed by Telio (9%), and Tele2 (9%).  In the corresponding market for business clients, the top 
three providers were Telenor (69%), Ventelo (12% ), and TDC (7%).  For mobile telecommunication 
services, the top four providers accounted for 90% of all sales to private and business customers.124   
126. Telenor was partially privatized in 2000.  It is  one of the world's major mobile operators with 
146 million mobile subscriptions around the globe.  The Telenor Group also has a strong position in 
European satellite transmission, the distribution of radio and TV signals in the Nordic countries, and 
in conditional access technology worldwide.  It has mobile operations in 11 countries, and is present 
in 19 additional markets through its  ownership (35.66%) in VimpelCom Ltd.  Foreign operations now 
account for nearly 75% of group revenues and almost 60% of the operating profit.   
(iii) Maritime transport 
127. Norway has been one of the world's l eading seafaring nations since the late 19th century.  
Norway's maritime industry includes shipbuildi ng, ship-owning, classification services, ship 
financing, and maritime insurance.  It employs approximately 100,000 people directly (including 
some 15,000 foreign seafarers on vessels registered in Norway), and accounts for about 5.5% of the total value creation in Norway.   
128. Following a dramatic decline in the Norwegian -flagged fleet in the mid-1980s, the Norwegian 
International Ship Register (NIS) was introduced in  1987.  The NIS is open to Norwegian and foreign 
shipping companies, and offers flexible conditi ons for the employment of foreign seafarers on 
domestic terms.  Vessels not included in NIS (mostl y ferries, fishing boats, large pleasure craft, and 
freighters in domestic traffic, and some of the offshore vessels) are registered in the ordinary 
Norwegian registry (NOR).
125  However, many Norwegian ship -owners also continue to avail 
themselves of ship registries elsewhere.  Acco rding to UNCTAD, the Norwegian-owned merchant 
fleet under national and foreign flag was the world' s seventh largest at the end of 2010, encompassing 
nearly 2,000 vessels with a total capaci ty of 43 million deadweight tonnes.126   
129. The Ministry of Trade and Industry is res ponsible for formulation and management of 
maritime transport policy.  Several other ministries (Defence, Environment, Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Justice, and Transport and Communication) also have responsibilities in this 
area.  Subordinated to the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Environment, the 
Norwegian Maritime Authority (Sjøfartsdirektoratet) has jurisdiction over ship s registered in Norway 
and foreign ships arriving in Norwegian ports.  Th e Authority works closely with the International 
                                                      
123 The figure refers to band width of 0.64 Mbit/s.  For 94% of the households, the minimum capacity is 
4 Mbit/s, and minimum 25 Mbit/s for 67% of the households.   
124 The main providers were Telenor (50.7%), NetCom (24.6%), Tele2 (9.5%), and Network Norway 
(5.2%). 
125 NOR is open only to EEA nationals or companies with minimum 60% EEA ownership.  However, 
waivers to the ownership threshold are possible.   
126 UNCTAD (2011).  WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 110 
  
Maritime Organization on issues of maritime safety and security, as well as environmental protection, 
and with the International Labour Organization on issues regarding seafarers' working and living 
conditions.  Effective 1 January 20 12, the NOR and NIS registries were merged with the Authority, 
and currently function within the Authority's  Department of Ship Registration.   
130. The main legislation governing maritime trans port comprises the Maritime Code No. 39 of 
24 June 1994, as amended; the Mariti me Safety and Security Act No. 9 of 29 June 2007; and the Port 
and Seaways Act No. 19 of 17 April 2009.  Through the EEA Agreement, Norway has implemented more than 100 EU legal acts in its legal framewo rk, particularly in relation to marine safety, 
environmental regulations, and state aid.  Norway is also an active participant in EU efforts to 
promote short sea shipping, the removal of bottlen ecks, and the development of "Motorway of the 
Sea" projects.   
131. Domestic transport policy has been shaped according to the EEA rules on state aid and 
competition.  In line with the principles set out in document COM(2003) 595
127, all 91 ferry services 
forming part of the national road system have b een subject to public tender and, as necessary, the 
establishment of compensation for public service ob ligations.  Some local ferry/boat services have 
also been tendered.  The tenders do not appear  to have drawn much foreign interest.   
132. Under competition policy provisions, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated in 2006 an 
investigation into the agreements between a ferry  transporter and the port authorities in Sandefjord 
(Norway) and Strömstad (Sweden).  The transpor ter (Color Line) was fined €18.8 million for anti-
competitive behaviour from 1994 to 2005 when case was concluded in Decem ber 2011.  The EFTA 
Surveillance Authority has also examined the regula tions of the port authority of Kristiansand, in 
particular a requirement for passenger and goods tr ansporters to provide all-year services.  The 
investigation ended in 2009, as the Norwegian Coast al Administration (Kystverket) agreed that a 
second operator (Fjord Line) could serve the port of Kristiansand in the summer season only.  Two joint cases (E-10/11 and 11/11) are pending be fore the EFTA Court regarding the alleged 
"overcompensation" for public service obligations to Hurtigruten ASA. 
133. Norway introduced a revised tonnage tax system for the final taxation of profits from 
shipping activities with effect from 1 January 2007.  The tax regime applies to shipping companies 
headquartered in Norway and may be used for most  vessels registered in the NOR or NIS, or under 
foreign flag.  A system of net salaries for ships'  crews employed on NOR-registered vessels has also 
been continued.  Thus, Norway's tax regime for sh ipping companies is comparable to those applied by 
EU member states and compatible with the stat e aid rules in the EEA.  The Norwegian Maritime 
Strategy, presented by the Government in 2007, ad vocates global regulation of the maritime industries 
to prevent tax competition.
128  Norway would back internati onal initiatives to reduce state tax 
subsidies to maritime transport.   
134. Norway is active in all international fora re lated to global shipping policy issues, and has 
signed several conventions related to maritime tr ansport.  Norway is a signatory to the UN 
Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferen ces, but has not entered into any bilateral code-
sharing agreements or other restrictions covering the transport of freight and passengers.  Norway's 
GATS Schedule includes specific commitments on in ternational maritime transport, maritime 
auxiliary services, and harbour services, while excluding cabotage services.  An overview of 
                                                      
127 Communication from the Commission on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No. 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States 
(maritime cabotage).  Viewed at: http://eur-lex.eur opa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=CELEX:52003DC 
0595:EN:HTML. 
128 Ministry of Trade and Industry (2007). Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 111 
 
 
Norway's applied and preferential regimes and its GATS commitments is presented in Table AIV.2.  
The maritime transport sector appears very liberal, overall.  Norway's GATS commitments cover virtually all sectors listed in the maritime model schedule and are formulated on a status quo  basis.  Its 
subsequent FTAs add further commitments on cabotag e, international pushing and towing, and the 
commercial activities of classification societies.  The applied MFN regime is erga omnes  and identical 
to the treatment granted to FTA partners.  Foreign- registered vessels have access to cabotage trades.  
The principal requirement for non-EEA seafarers on non-EEA registered vessels is to obtain a 
resident permit for permanent operations, i.e. longer than three months.   
 Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 113 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Council of the European Union (2010), Council conclusions on EU relations with EFTA countries,  
14 December. Viewed at: www.consilium.europa.e u/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/ 
118458.pdf. 
Eksportfinans (2012), Fourth quarter report 2011 , 1 March. Viewed at:  http://www.eksportfinans.no/ 
media/29046/fourth%20quarter%20report%202011.pdf. 
European Commission (2011),  Towards a better functioning Single Market for services – Building on 
the results of the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive , COM(2011) 20 final, Brussels, 
27 January. 
Gaasland, Ivar (2012), "Oljesmurt jordbruk", Samfunnsøkonomen , No. 5. 
GIEK (2010), Annual Report  2010 .  Viewed at: http://www.giek.no/filarkiv/arsrapporter/styrebe 
retning_2010_endelig.pdf/no. 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2002), Meld. St. 12:  Om dyrehold og dyrevelferd .  Viewed at: 
http://www.regjeringen.no/Rpub/STM/20022003/ 012/PDFS/STM200220030012000DDDP DFS.pdf 
(in Norwegian). 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2009), White paper No. 39:  Climate Challenges – Agriculture part 
of the Solution.   Viewed at: http://www.regjeringe n.no/pages/2242617/PDFS/ STM200820090039000 
EN_PDFS.pdf. (Summary in English). 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2011a), NOU 2011: 4:  Mat, makt og avmakt – om 
styrkeforholdene i verdikjeden for mat .  Viewed at: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/lmd/documents/ 
nou-er/2011/nou-2011-4.html?id=640128 (in Norwegian). 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2011b), White paper No. 9:  Landbruks – og matpolitikken, 
Velkommen til bords .  Viewed at: http://www.regjer ingen.no/pages/36314528/PDFS/STM 20112012 
0009000DDDPDFS.pdf (in Norwegian).  
Ministry of Finance (2012a), Meld. St. 24 (2011-2012): Finansmarknadsmeldinga , 11 May.  Viewed 
at:  http://www.regjeringen.no/nn/dep/fin/Dokument/p roposisjonar-og-meldingar/stortingsmeldingar/ 
2011-2012/meld-st-24-20112012.html ?id=681352 (in Norwegian). 
Ministry of Finance (2012b),  Prop. 1LS (2011-2012) for budsje ttåret 2012: Skatter, avgifter og 
toll 2012 .  Viewed at: http://www.statsbudsjettet. no/upload/statsbudsjett _2012/dokumenter/pdf/ 
skatt.pdf (in Norwegian). 
Ministry of Finance (2012c), Revised fiscal budget.  Viewed at: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/ 
press-center/press-releases/2012/revised-n ational-budget-2012.h tml?id=682404. 
Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (2011), Meld. St. 28 (2010–2011), Report to the Storting (white 
paper): An industry for the future – Norway´s petroleum activities.   Viewed at: http://www.reg 
jeringen.no/upload/OED/Petroleumsmeldingen_201 1/Oversettelse/2011-06_White-paper-on-petro-ac 
tivities.pdf (in English). 
Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (2012), Facts – The Norwegian Petroleum Sector 2011.  Viewed 
at:  http://www.npd.no/en/Publications/Facts/Facts-2012/. WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 114 
  
Ministry of Trade and Industry (2007), Norwegian Maritime Strategy 2007: Steady as she goes . 
Viewed at:  http://www.regjeringe n.no/upload/NHD/steadyasshegoes.pdf. 
Ministry of Trade and Industry (2011), Meld. St. 13 (2010-2011): Aktivt eierskap – norsk statlig 
eierskap i en global økonomi , April. Viewed at: http://www.re gjeringen.no/pages/16193771/ PDFS/ 
STM201020110013000DDDPDFS.pdf. (Summa ry in English viewed at: http://www.regjeringen.no/ 
pages/36076278/PDFS/STM201020110013000EN_PDFS.pdf.)  
Ministry of Trade and Industry (2012), Meld. St. 22 (2011-2012): Verktøy for vekst .  Viewed at: 
http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/378623 79/PDFS/STM201120120022000DDDPDFS.pdf. 
Norwegian Agricultural Authority (2011), Markedsrapport 2010, Rapport No. 6/2011 , 10 February, 
Oslo. 
Norwegian Agricultural Authority (2012), Omverdenen til norsk landbruk og matindustri 2011,  
Report No. 5/2012, 15 February, Oslo. 
Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (2011a), Mat og Industri 2011 Status og 
utvikling i norsk matindustri,  September, Oslo. 
Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (2011b), Dagligvarehandel og mat 2011, 
Perspektiver for verdikjedene for matvarer , November, Oslo. 
Norwegian Customs and Excise Service (2010), Tollvesenets årsmelding 2010,  Annual Report 2010,  
Oslo. 
Norwegian Institute of Intern ational Affairs, NUPI (2012), Norsk handel med de fattigste – Mellom 
profitt og utviklingspolitikk;   Arne Melchior, Brian Perry, and Karl Rich; February, Oslo. 
OECD (2012), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2011,  Part II, Chapter 13. 
Post og Teletilsynet (2012), Det norske markedet for elektronisk e kommunikasjonstjenester 2011: PT-
rapport nr. 4 2012, 9 May .  Viewed at: http://www.npt.no/ikbV iewer/Content/ 138141/Det%20nor 
ske%20markedet%20for%20elektronisk%20kommunikasjon%202011.pdf. 
Statistics Norway (2012), Økonomiske analyser , 1/2012, 16 February.  Viewed at: http://www.ssb.no/ 
emner/ 08/05/10/oa/201201/oa2012-1.pdf (Norwegian only). 
UNCTAD (2011), Review of Maritime Transport .  Viewed at:  www.unctad.org/en/Docs/rmt 2011. 
en.pdf. 
WTO (1991), Trade policy review:  Norway , Geneva.  
WTO (1996), Trade policy review:  Norway , Geneva.  
WTO (2008), Trade policy review:  Norway , Geneva.