WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/65/Add.3 
21 October 2008 
 
 (08-5107) 
Committee on Trade and Development Original:   English 
  
 
GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES 
 
Communication from Norway
 
 
Addendum  
  
 The following communication, dated 16 October 2008, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Norway. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
REPLIES BY NORWAY TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL  (WT/COMTD/65/ADD.2) 
 
1. Could Norway provide a translation or a summa ry of the Report from the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs "Utviklingslandenes markedsadgang til Norge", cited in footnote 4 of document 
WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4?   
 This document has so far only been available in  Norwegian, but an English translation of the 
main recommendations will be made.  2. Could Norway provide the reference to the report mentioned in footnote 5 of document 
WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4 and a translation or summary thereof?  
 Footnote 5 refers to a compilation of comments from a public hearing.  These are only 
available in Norwegian.   
3. The explanation to Diagram 1 in the paper "Trade policy differentiation between 
developing countries under GSP schemes", commi ssioned by the Norwegian Government for 
the purposes of reviewing its GSP scheme, states: 
"In the Diagram, we also show the positions of Botswana and 
Namibia, that obtain special preferences in the Norwegian GSP 
system.  Both were LMC based on 2002 data, but – as noted – 
Botswana has now moved to UMC.  Botswana is richer than Brazil 
and a number of other large agricultural exporters.  According to 'objective criteria', it may be difficult to explain this differential treatment."
1 
 
Given that Norway has chosen the DAC list as the so le criterion related to income levels in its 
revised GSP (see answer to Brazil's question No . 2 in document WT/COMTD/65/Add.1), please 
explain in what manner due account of the above mentioned deficiencies has been taken so that 
                                                      
1 http://www.nupi.no/content/download/ 1229/34404/version/8/file/685.pdf , page 13. WT/COMTD/65/Add.3 
Page 2  
 
  the scheme is based on objective criteria and, at  the same time, attends to the development, 
financial and trade needs of developing countries. 
 
 The OECD's DAC list of ODA recipients is used as basis for establishing the land list of Norway's GSP.  Partly due to their former LDC-st atus, special preferences have been maintained for 
Botswana and Namibia in Norway's GSP.   
 
4. Without prejudice to a discussion on the approp riateness of income classification lists as 
an objective criterion for differentiating develo ping countries, please explain the rationale for 
excluding four countries with population ov er 75 million from the preferential treatment 
accorded to the second tier in the OECD "DAC"  list, used as the basis for Norway's GSP? 
 To attend to the development, financial and trade needs of the poorer developing countries, 
there is a differentiation between LDCs and othe r low-income countries on the one hand, and other 
developing countries on the other hand.  When the d ecision was made to extend the list of countries 
eligible for the duty-free and quota-free market access beyond the LDCs, the population criteria of 
75 million was used, as it is one of the UN criteria for LDC status. 
 
5. When the document "The future of Norway's GSP system"
2, that was commissioned by 
the Norwegian Government for the purposes of  reviewing its GSP scheme, is discussing 
preference erosion concerns it is indicated that:  
"(…) concerns for preference erosion should not be allowed to 
block or hinder multilateral liberalization that may benefit 
development in general, and ot her developing countries.  The 
results of Anderson et al. (2005) suggest that Sub-Saharan Africa may gain more from WTO agricultural reform than other developing countries, in spite of terms of trade losses.  The results 
also indicate that increased trade between developing countries is 
important for the development impact of the current round, and 
that developing countries therefore should undertake liberalization 
themselves.  A proposal is that trade-related aid could be given in 
exchange for such commitments by the developing countries ." 
(page 17 – emphasis added)      
 
Please comment on the above mentioned proposal and on any effects it may produce on the implementation of the decisions referred to in po ints 12, 13 and 14 of Norway's GSP notification 
(WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4).  
 The Norwegian Aid for Trade Action Plan, launched in November 2007, confirms the 
Norwegian Government's strong commitment to cooper ate with developing countries in their efforts 
to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction through increased participation in international 
trade.  Targeted efforts will be made to ensure that the LDCs and other low income countries make 
use of their tariff and quota-free access to the Norwegian market.  
 
 The Action Plan gives an overview of existing co operation, and outline future priority action.  
This includes regional trade and trade between de veloping countries.  New and additional resources 
have been mobilized for implementation of the Ai d for Trade Action Plan.  From 2007 to 2008 there 
was an increase of about 50 per cent.   
                                                     
 
2 http://english.nupi.no/content/download/1284/35909/version/6/file/680b2.pdf    WT/COMTD/65/Add.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. Section 54 of the document "The future of Norway's GSP System"3 refers to "strange 
information practices for grain and oilseeds", pointi ng out to the risk of wrong information on 
the applied tariff for those products (0 per cent or 2.13 per cent).  Please comment on any 
clarifications that have been made on this pa rticular issue since 2005, when the document was 
written. 
 The report referred to was written in 2005.  Norw ay revised its GSP system with effect from 
1 January 2008.  Efforts are being made to ensure  that updated and correct information is readily 
available.    
__________  
                                                     
 
3 http://english.nupi.no/content/download/1284/35909/version/6/file/680b2.pdf , page 49.