WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/TPR/M/205 
10 December 2008 
 (08-6071) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
22 and 24 November 2008  
 
 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
 
NORWAY 
 
Minutes of Meeting  
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
 
 Page 
 
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 3 
II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY 4 
III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT 8 
IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 12 V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF  NORWAY AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 26 
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 30 
 
 
 
 
Note:   Advance written questions by WTO Memb ers and the replies provided by Norway are 
reproduced in document WT/TPR/M/205/Ad d.1 and will be available online at 
http://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm.  
   WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
1. The fifth Trade Policy Review of Norway was held on 22 and 24 October 2008.  The 
Chairperson, H.E. Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Niger ia), welcomed the delegation of Norway, headed 
by Mr. Dagfinn Sørli, Senior Official a nd Chief Negotiator, as well as the discussant, 
H.E. Ambassador Teehankee of the Philippines.  The discussant had made available in document 
WT/TPR/D/180 the main issues that he intended to raise. 
2. The Chairperson recalled the purpose of the Tr ade Policy Review Mechanism as well as the 
main elements of the procedures for the meeting and timeframes for Barbados to respond to written 
and oral questions.  The Report by Norway was contained in document WT/TPR/G/205 and that of the WTO Secretariat in WT/TPR/S/205.  Questions from the following delegations had been 
submitted in writing at least two weeks in advance of  the meeting:  China;  Brazil;  New Zealand;  
Canada; Switzerland;  European Communities;  Ecua dor;  the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  United St ates;  Argentina;  Japan;  Peru;  Colombia;  and Australia.  The 
delegations of Mexico;  Chile;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  and the Republic of Korea had submitted 
written questions after the two-week deadline. 
3. The Chairperson observed that both reports  highlighted the strong economic growth 
experienced by Norway, enabling it to consolidate its position as a country with one the highest living 
standards in the world.  This had been a result of sound macroeconomic policies, particularly fiscal 
policy, and a notable improvement in Norway's term s of trade.  He noted, however, that the economy 
seemed to be slowing down and suggested that Me mbers might like to know about any policy changes 
that Norway was envisaging to help its economy w eather the international financial crisis.  As 
indicated by the Secretariat Report some barriers to trade and investment pers isted and further reforms 
to its agriculture sector were advised.  For its pa rt, however, Norway had noted that any agreement 
within the DDA would pose serious challenges to its agriculture sector.  The Chairperson asked 
Norway whether it foresaw adopting policies that w ould address its non-trade concerns in agriculture 
and, at the same time, be more closely aligned with the market-based solutions it followed in other 
sectors. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 4  
 
  II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY 
4. The representative of Norway
 noted that the Review had been a useful exercise in 
transparency and had provided Norway with an opportunity to comprehensively review its trade 
related policies. 
5. With respect to the general economic situati on, the Norwegian economy had been growing at 
a brisk pace over the previous few years, with averag e growth rates close to 5%.  Growth in 2007 had 
reached 6.2%. The main impetus behind this growth  had been strong growth in the purchasing power 
of households, fuelled by several years of low interest rates along with a significant increase in 
business investment.  Norway's terms of trade had improved significantly since its last Review.  Prices for crude oil, metals, and other intermediate  exports from Norway had been spurred by strong 
demand from emerging economies, while prices for many manufactured goods that Norway imported 
had declined.  This had contributed to higher pr ofitability for Norway's export-oriented businesses, 
and allowed real wages and purchasing power to increase.  
6. The expansion in the mainland economy had cau sed record employment growth, with the 
unemployment rate having reached a 20-year low.  Low imported inflation and a strong increase in 
labour immigration had made it possible to mainta in a high production level without the increase in 
prices and wages that might have otherwise occurred .  Inflation had been well below the target of 
2.5% and the unemployment rate was 2.4%.  
7. In spite of positive developments in Norway's  economy, signs of slower growth had become 
evident, with slowing household consumption and dec lining residential investments.  In the National 
Budget for 2009, mainland GDP growth had been estimated at 3.1% in 2008 and 1.9% in 2009.  As 
the international financial crisis had grown, uncer tainty about the outlook for the world economy had 
also increased, making short-term economic prospects for Norway more uncertain. 
8. General government finances were strong.  The general government balance had shown a 
surplus of 18.5% of GDP in 2006 and 17.5% in 2007, primarily due to revenues from the petroleum sector.  Net revenues from the petroleum sector were  transferred to the Government Pension Fund – 
Global, the Government's instrument for converting wealth from oil and gas reserves to a broad-based 
portfolio of international securities.  The Pension Fund was fully integrated into the Fiscal Budget, 
and the non-oil budget deficit was covered by an annual  transfer from the fund.   The market value of 
the Government Pension Fund – Global was estimate d to reach NOK 2,316 billion by the end of 2008, 
corresponding to nearly 93% of GDP.  In spite of the difficulties associated with making forecasts, the 
Norwegian economy was fundamentally strong a nd well positioned to deal with a period of 
uncertainty. 
9. The recent turmoil in international financial markets had affected Norwegian banks: while 
fundamentally strong, the banks' funding situation ha d deteriorated.  As regular sources of funding 
had been drying up, the Norwegia n Central Bank had increasingly provided liquidity through central 
bank instruments.  In order to facilitate conti nued financing from the market, the Government had 
established a special facility to offer government bonds to the banks against collateral.  This facility 
had recently been authorized by the Parliame nt (Stortinget), and would be operational on 
1 November.  This initiative would not entail an increase in state owne rship of financial institutions. 
10. The State owned around one third of the Oslo St ock Exchange capitalization in January 2008 
and was a major shareholder in several of the larger  commercial listed companies.  However, the State 
was the sole owner of only a very limited number of  companies.  The State was an active, long-term 
owner, whose main aim was to contribute to the companies' long-term valu e creation and industrial 
development.  Its ownership also contributed to saf eguarding the public interest in Norway’s natural 
resources and the revenues therefrom.  An important  part of the State’s ownership policy was that  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 5 
 
 
  these companies, which also were involved in extensive international business activities, should 
maintain a strong base in Norway. 
11. The international trade was important to Norway's economy.  The value of external trade 
corresponded to more than 76% of GDP in 2007.  No rway's high standard of living and the demands 
of its population and businesses for a diverse suppl y of goods and services could only be met through 
international trade.  Its trade policy was thus an  inseparable part of both its economic and foreign 
policy.  Norway was among the most open economies in the world, with largely no tariffs for industrial products, and liberal access for fore ign service providers.  This openness underpinned 
Norway's own economy, while at the same time benefiting its trading pa rtners.  New customs 
legislation had been passed by Parliament and w ould be implemented on Janua ry 1 2009.  Its purpose 
was to modernize and simplify the legislative frame work for trade and it would be notified to the 
relevant WTO Committees in due course. 
12. In order to benefit from comparative adva ntages and economies of scale, Norwegian 
companies needed to participate in internati onal markets.  Moreover, Norway’s open economy 
exposed domestic producers of goods and services to an increasingly globalized environment.  One of 
the Government’s key priorities was to strengthe n the international competitiveness of Norwegian 
goods and service producers by ensuring that th e business environment remained conducive to 
innovation, investment, and growth.  A stable, rule s-based trading environment was of fundamental 
importance for Norwegian economic operators.  At the same time, economic policies, including trade 
policy, needed to ensure that the benefits of trade and economic growth were distributed in an 
equitable way, both nationally and globally.  Tr ade was not only essential to Norway’s own economy, 
but was viewed by the Norwegian Government to be of key importance to ensure global economic 
and political stability. 
13. Norway had taken a number of specific steps to promote trade with developing countries by 
implementing improvements to its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).  These improvements had been the result of a comprehensive review unde rtaken by the Norwegian Government, with the 
aim of increasing imports from developing countries  and in particular from LDCs and other low-
income countries.  Norway's GSP granted duty free and quota-free market acces s into Norway for all 
goods from 64 low-income countries, including all 50 LDCs. 
14. Norwegian trade policy enjoyed broad political s upport in the Stortinget.  Trade policy had 
increasingly become a topic for public debate, w ith public opinion attaching importance to the 
integration of developing countries into the world economy.  In addition to the traditional debate on 
the economic merits of trade and development, emphasis was increasingly being put on such aspects 
as health, environment, and food and consumer safet y. The Government consulted extensively with 
non-governmental groups, including representatives of  trade and industry, labour, consumer and other 
interest groups.  Such consultati ons necessitated and contributed to  increased transparency around 
trade policy formulation in Norway.  Norwegian tr ade policy was based on three institutional pillars: 
the multilateral system of the WTO, the EEA-agreeme nt and free-trade agreements, mainly through 
EFTA. 
15. The global character of major Norwegian exports  and imports implied that the well-being of 
Norway's economy was directly linked to the overall health of the world economy.  Thus, the primary 
focus of Norway's trade policy was the multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO. Other elements of its trade policy were based on the fundamental principles of the multilateral trading 
system and were complementary and supplementary  to its WTO commitments.  Norway was one of 
the founding members of the GATT and remained st rongly committed to the multilateral framework.  
A strong, rules-based system was the best guara ntee against unilateralism and protectionism, and 
provided stability, security, transparency, and predic tability for traders, and was a prerequisite for 
long-term global economic gr owth and development.  WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 6  
 
  16. Norway deeply regretted that it had not been  possible to reach agreement on modalities for 
Agriculture and NAMA in the su mmer.  While any agreement would pose serious challenges for 
Norway’s agriculture sector, Norway would continue  to insist that a positive outcome of the Doha 
Development Agenda (DDA) was essential for the gl obal economy, for developi ng countries and for 
its own economy.  Norway remained strongly committed to completing negotiations as soon as 
possible; building on the substantial progress that  had been achieved.  A strong, rules-based 
international trading system had become even more important given the period of great global 
uncertainty.  Although there were no quick or easy fixes to the global food crises, economic instability or the financial crises, the best way to combat these challenges was more international cooperation 
and not less.   
17. The representative of Norway noted that th e Agreement on the European Economic Area 
extended the internal market of the 27 EU Member  States to three EFTA countries, including Norway 
and covered approximately three-qua rters of Norway's foreign trade.  The EEA Agreement was a free-
trade area covering the free movement of goods, pe rsons, capital, and services.  It was not a customs 
union and there was no common customs tariff.  The EEA Agreement did not include the EU's 
Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy, but it contained provisions on various 
aspects of trade in agricultural and fish prod ucts, such as rules on sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures.  As the EEA Agreement was not a cust oms union, trade policy towards third countries was 
outside its scope.  A key feature of the EEA Ag reement, which distinguished it from most other 
FTAs, was its dynamic character.  Its common rules were continuously updated by adding new EU legislation.  This aspect was essential given the la rge output of Community legislation related to the 
Internal Market.  
18. The third pillar of Norway’s institutional framework for trade comprised the extensive 
network of FTAs entered into by Norway and its pa rtners in the European Free Trade Association.  
EFTA had entered into eighteen FTAs and five declar ations of cooperation, and several negotiations 
were ongoing.  In addition, Norway and China ha d started bilateral negotiations on a free-trade 
agreement in the fall.  FTAs could not replace the need for a multilateral trade regime.  Norway, 
however, did consider RTAs and FTAs as co mplementary to the multilateral regime by 
accommodating the need for deeper economic inte gration.  EFTA FTAs had traditionally covered 
trade in industrial products including fish and ma rine products, and processed agricultural products.  
In addition, each EFTA country had concluded bilatera l agricultural agreements with each of the third 
country partners.  During the previous few years,  the parties had recognized  the growing importance 
of new trade issues and the scope of the FTAs had been expanded to incorporate trade in services, 
provisions on competition, state aid, protection of intellectual property, investments, and government 
procurement.  
19. Aid for Trade was an integral part of Norway's trade and development policies, and it 
acknowledged that access to market s was not always sufficient to take advantage of market  
opportunities.  Norway had contributed to Aid for Tr ade programmes, and would continue to do so in 
the coming years.  As a follow-up to the Governments "Action Plan on Aid for Trade", launched in 2007, Norway had increased its Aid for Trade budget by 50% from 2007 to 2008. Priority was given 
to Africa and the least developed countries, an d the funds were channelled primarily through 
multilateral organizations as recommended by the WT O task force on Aid for Trade.  Norway would 
assess its Aid for Trade Action Plan in 2010.  In creasing investments in the productive sectors, in 
particular in the LDCs, was important in order to  reduce poverty.  The Norwegian Investment Fund 
for Developing Countries (Norfund) had been established ten years ago, for this purpose;  its capital was approximately NKr4.5 billion.  Norfund investments took place directly and indirectly through funds and local financial instituti ons, focusing on enabling developing co untries to take advantage of 
trade opportunities.  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 7 
 
 
  20. Arable land represented only 3% of the total ar ea in Norway.  The arctic and sub-arctic 
conditions in Norway were characterized by a hars h climate, low temperatures, and a short growing 
season.  The fairly narrow range of agricultural production was protected by tariffs, while a wide 
range of agricultural products we re imported duty free.  The Secretariat had written that Norwegian 
consumers paid particularly high prices for some ag ricultural products and that  these prices were a 
result of the agriculture sector being less market -based than other sectors of the economy.  This, 
however, failed to take the general cost level in Norway into account. Norwegians spent a lower 
percentage of their income on food than peop le in most other countries, both developed and 
developing.  High costs of agricultural production in Norway were also a result of geographic, 
topographic and climatic conditions, as well as political  priorities.  There was broad political support 
in Norway for the Government’s aim to maintain a viable agriculture sector throughout the country.  
A number of the points raised by the Secretariat, a nd certain Members in their questions, pertained to 
issues that belonged in the on-going negotiations.  Norway affirmed that its measures were fully 
consistent with its WTO obligations, and assured Members that Norway would implement fully the 
outcome of the Doha Round.   
21. Since 2000 there had been a strong rise in labour immigration to Norway. By the fourth 
quarter of 2007 around 273,000 immigrants worked in Norway, corresponding to 11% of the labour force.  High demand for labour and a gradual opening  up of the labour market through changes in the 
immigration regulations had led to a significant increase in the number of non-EEA nationals working 
in Norway.  From 2004 to 2007 there had been an  80% increase in the number of work-related 
permits to citizens of countries that were not memb ers of the EEA.  A new Immigration Act, adopted 
by the Norwegian Parliament in May 2008 and sche duled to enter into force in 2010, was more 
transparent than the old one with regard to the rights and duties of service providers that were 
independent professionals or contractual service suppliers.  In a special report to the Parliament (Report to the Storting No. 18 (2007-2008)) on Labo ur migration the Government had made it clear 
that labour migration contributed to a more effici ent labour market and enhanced value creation while 
contributing to social diversity and cross-cultural understanding.  The Government had also made its 
intentions known to further change the immigra tion regulations to make it easier and quicker to 
acquire a work permit. The report had been  approved by the Parliament in June. 
22. In summary, the Norwegian economy was in good shape despite the tur bulence in the world 
economy.  Although Norway might be entering a peri od of slower growth, it was well equipped to 
weather the stormy markets.  As an open, market -based economy, Norway was one of the benefactors 
of a strong and rules-based international trading system.  Access to international markets was of 
utmost importance to achieve its goals of employment  and welfare.  Norway firmly believed that all 
members stood to gain significantly from strengt hening the multilateral trading system and improving 
market access for goods and services.  Economic gr owth and development in  all nations depended on 
a strong and fair multilateral trading system.  Norw ay was strongly committed to the Doha Round of 
trade negotiations, and wanted to conclude th e DDA as soon as possible:  a successful conclusion 
would send a clear and strong signal that the inte rnational community was capable of finding common 
solutions, a signal that would bode well for negotia tions in other important areas.  The world was 
facing a number of serious challenges.  While wo rk at the WTO would not by itself solve these 
problems, a strong multilateral trading system would need to be part of the solution. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 8  
 
  III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT 
23. The discussant
 noted that the trade and economic policies of Norway were designed to 
promote sustainable economic growth and the equitable distribution of these benefits to its citizens.  It 
was clear from the data presented in both the Government and Secretariat Reports that Norway had been more than successful in achieving one of the highest standards of living on the planet, with per 
capita GDP at US$82,185 and growth rates averaging 5.2% for the period under review.  For a highly 
industrialized economy, this kind of growth was quite impressive but could also be a source of some 
concern.  Norway had ranked at the top of th e Human Development Index six times and was now 
ranked second.  Norway ranked 15
th in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index 
and second in the Environmental Sust ainability Index, after Finland. 
24. Monetary policy had been careful and yet respons ive to the business cycle.  Interest rates had 
been raised several times by the Norges Bank to st ave off inflationary pressures brought about by very 
high capacity utilization rates.  The Norwegian krone had been allowed to float, thus explaining its 
rapid appreciation versus, for example, the U.S. dolla r in recent years.  Inflation had been kept in 
check due to declining import prices, increasing domestic competition and the influx of foreign 
labour.  The average rate of inflation from 2004 to 2007 had been 2%, and a bit higher in 2008 at 
3.5%, although this was still within the targ eted inflation band set by authorities.  
25. The Norwegian Government had noted that fi scal policy was geared towards a gradual and 
sustainable increase in the use of  huge surpluses, largely generate d by petroleum revenues.  These 
large accumulated budget surpluses, which were tran sferred into a fund maintained outside Norway, 
were now either equal to or exceeded Norway’s annual GDP, and latest estimates ranked Norway’s 
Global Pension Fund as the second largest soverei gn wealth fund while also ranking highest in 
transparency.  Some concerns had been expressed by the OECD in its July 2008 Survey of Norway 
relating to a future funding gap and the continue d sustainability of relying on the Global Pension 
Fund’s income to fill the budget deficit.  There were  plans to transition the fund to a more traditional 
social welfare contribution-based plan. 
26. Unemployment, which had dropped from 4.5% in 2004 to 2.5% in 2007, was extremely low, 
which must have influenced the Norwegian G overnment’s support for the strong rise in labour 
immigration.  The number of permits issued to la bour migrants had tripled since 2004.  The discussant  
commended Norway for its positive policy on labour migration as a tool to contribute to a more 
efficient labour market and enhanced value creation.   He suggested it would be interesting to hear 
what steps were being taken by the Government to ensure a smooth social integration for labour 
migrants. 
27. In its Report, the Norwegian Government ha d acknowledged that only through international 
trade could a high standard of living and the dema nds of the Norwegian population and businesses for 
a diverse supply of goods and services be met.  At the same time, with a small population base, of 
4.7 million people, the ability to export goods and services and the maintenance of open markets 
abroad was of vital importance to Norway.  The Government had reported that the marked 
improvement in Norway's terms of trade was due to  recent strong growth in China and other emerging 
economies, which had boosted prices for metals, crude  oil, and other exports of intermediate goods.  
This had happened at the same time that prices of imported manufactured goods had declined.  Crude 
petroleum and natural gas prices alone, for example, had more than doubled be tween the beginning of 
2004 and the end of 2007. 
28. Norway's merchandise exports were dominated by commodities, particularly petroleum and 
natural gas, and this might be of concern.  Th e energy sector represented 21% of GDP, 25% of public 
revenue and 58% of merchandise exports.  The di rection of Norway's merchandise trade did not 
change significantly during the Review period and the EC remained Norway's main trading partner, in  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 9 
 
 
  particular the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, th e Netherlands, and Denmark.  China, however, 
was fast emerging as an import source, in 6th place  overall with a share of 6% in 2007.  Services 
exports had grown faster than imports, and the sector accounted for 66% of GDP. 
29. Norway was an active and constructive particip ant in the WTO, and all aspects of the DDA 
negotiations.  While its negotiati ng positions might not be shared by other WTO Members, each 
Member needed to pursue its individual national interests in the negotiations.   
30. In its Report, Norway had affirmed that th e primary focus of its trade policy was the 
multilateral trading system, and that regional effort s, through the EEA and EFTA, as well as bilateral 
ones, were based on the multilateral trading system  and were complementary and supplementary to 
Norway's WTO commitments.  It was clear, howev er, that Norway's ties with its EEA and EFTA 
partners were of immense economic significance:  accounting for 77% of Norway's trade in 2007.  In 
the discussant's view of the full potential of these re lationships had yet to been attained because of 
their inherent limitations:  the EEA did not cove r the EC Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policy, 
and liberalized trade in th ese goods remained limited. 
31. In the context of the EFTA, Norway was pa rt of an expanding network of free-trade 
agreements that included some 50, mostly developi ng, countries.  The Government had highlighted in 
its Report that the agreements with developing co untries took into account the different level of 
economic development of the trading partner, inter alia,  by providing for an asymmetrical approach 
with respect to transition periods.  More significan tly, the Secretariat Report noted that while FTAs 
signed by EFTA provided for free trade in non-agri cultural goods (fish included) where tariffs are 
generally already low if not zero, there is onl y improved access for some processed agricultural 
products, and trade in basic agricultural products is  only covered in bilatera l agreements negotiated 
separately.  The discussant felt it would be interest ing to know if Norway was seeking to negotiate 
new agreements with more developing countries and whether it would consider mainstreaming all 
basic and processed agricultural products in future ag reements, especially in light of the significant, 
positive impact this might ha ve on developing countries. 
32. The Norwegian Government saw trade policy towards developing countries as playing a 
central role in the formulation of its foreign a nd development cooperation policy.  Norway had been 
active in the WTO's work on aid for trade, c ontributing on average US$138 million per year over 
2001-05 mainly through the Integrated Framework, and mostly directed at trade-related infrastructure 
development.  Norway was also a significant provi der of assistance to developing countries through 
the DDA Trust Fund, support for the Advisory  Centre on WTO Law, the JITAP under the 
International Trade Centre, and other schem es.  The discussant commended Norway’s recent 
announcement that in the 2009 Budget it would be able  to meet its pledge to allocate 1% of Gross 
National Income to development assistance.  
33. Under its new GSP scheme, Norway extende d duty-free and quota-free access (DFQF) to 
imports from 64 countries:  LDCs as well as 14 low income developing countries.  It appeared, 
however, that the value of preferences granted w ould be low for countries benefiting from Norway's 
GSP scheme but not from DFQF access, because non-ag ricultural tariffs were already low if not at 
zero, and agricultural concessions tended to be limited.   
34. The discussant noted that Norway maintained barriers to foreign investment in certain 
activities and that the State's participation was significant in large companies in sectors including 
telecommunications, electricity, financial services, and petroleum and gas extraction.  According to 
the Government, part of the State’s ownership pol icy was that these companies remained based in 
Norway.  The Government considered that state ownership ensured control over natural resources and 
that revenues were used for the good of the Norw egian society as a whole.  State ownership thus 
remained extensive;  80 companies were fully or  partially owned companies by the Government.  WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 10  
 
  Nevertheless, to improve transparency, the Norweg ian Government had organized the management of 
its ownership in such a way as to keep the role  of owner separate from the roles of policymaker, 
regulator, and supervisor.  The Government did not currently have a privatization agenda and 
intended to maintain the State’s ownership of business and industry at around the 2006 level.  
Privatizations had slowed down c onsiderably over the review period.   The discussant asked whether 
Norway agreed with the suggestion from the OECD  that a decrease in state ownership (as well as 
opening up the agriculture and food processing sectors to foreign competition) would improve competition and invite more innova tion in the Norwegian economy. 
35. Norway's import regime was generally transpar ent.  New customs legislation introduced in 
2004 had not resulted in any substantial changes to customs procedures, and was intended to 
consolidate existing practices into one systematic se t of rules.  Norway's average applied tariff was 
6.7%, which was significantly lower than the averag e bound rate of 28.9%.  Tariffs were particularly 
low for non-agricultural products:  with 95% of these tariff lines being duty free.  However, in 
agriculture the average applied tariff was 35.8%.  Peaks as high as 555% applied to meat and dairy 
products; 348% to fruits and vegetabl es; and 306% to beverages and spirits.  Even for non-agricultural 
products, where the average applied tariff was only 2. 5%, there were peaks of more than 330%.  It 
was therefore not surprising to find negativ e tariff escalation between unprocessed and semi-
processed products (mainly due to high protection of agricultural raw materials), and positive 
escalation between semi-processed and fully processed products.  Norway had also made 232 commitments relating to tariff quotas in the WTO. These covered some 300 tariff lines at the eight-digit HS level.  However, tariff quotas had only b een established for 24 eight-digit HS lines; and low 
tariff quota fills persisted for a num ber of products such as meat of  swine, sheep and goats, turkey, 
poultry, eggs and butter.  This matter had b een raised at Norway's previous review. 
36. Norway had in place a number of programmes to assist its exporters, including drawback and 
customs warehousing schemes.  Export financing a ppeared to be extensive and might involve 
subsidized interest rates and minimum local-conten t requirements.  Norway's relatively large number 
of incentive schemes were, however, of a horizontal nature (thus not favouring particular industries) 
and were limited by EEA disciplines.  Neverthe less, in 2006 alone, Norway had paid out 
US$934 million in support for non-agricultural activ ities, and US$1.59 billion for agriculture.  
37. While Norway's government procurement was open and subject to GPA disciplines, only a 
small portion of contracts were granted to foreign suppliers.  As noted by the Secretariat, in 2006, 
96% of the 410 contracts went to domestic supplie rs.  The discussant asked the Norwegian delegation 
to provide additional information in this respect, as some Members had submitted questions on this 
subject. 
38. The discussant noted that Norway had not used anti-dumping or countervailing measures 
since 1985 and had repeatedly stated that anti-dum ping measures were often used as a protectionist 
tool, distorting trade and resource allocation.  Most technical regulations and SPS measures were 
harmonized with the EC.  Norway had no non-prefer ential rules of origin, but the sensitivity of the 
textile sector became obvious from its preferential ru les of origin.  For purposes of customs valuation 
97% of all declared values were accepted as th e transaction value.  The discussant asked Norway 
whether customs valuation was related to the use of  "average prices" when all import declarations 
were handled by the TVINN electronic clearance system, and for information on the situation vis-a-
vis the remaining 3% of cases where declared values were not accepted. 
39. The discussant highlighted that Norway offe red a high level of protection for the few 
agricultural goods it produced.  In addition to re latively high tariffs, the OECD had estimated 
Norway's support to be the second highest among its members, representing 66% of the gross receipts 
to farmers.  Imports of goods that were produced  domestically only took place if domestic production 
could not meet domestic demand.  AMS estim ates in 2004 totalled US$1.81 billion, mainly  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 11 
 
 
  administered through target pricing, and most prev alent in the milk, beef and pork production.  Direct 
payments under the Blue Box were substantial:  expenditures amounting to US$1.26 billion in 2004, 
largely on dairy, meat, and livestock.  The AMS and the Blue Box, combined, accounted for close to 82% of total expenditures in 2004.   Export subsidies were concentrated mainly in cheese, and at a 
total of US$63 million in 2004, we re still substantial.  The discussant hoped Norway could provide 
information on how these numbers had evolved afte r 2004, and on whether the Government planned 
to reduce protection including through greater recourse  to Green Box expenditures, in the light of the 
DDA negotiations and rising world food prices.  The Secretariat Report had quoted the Norwegian 
authorities as saying that Norway was prepared to acce pt changes that would  require the reform of its 
agriculture sector. 
40. Exports of oil and gas were of great importance for Norway's economy, accounting for 65% 
of total merchandise exports.  The investments in this sector spilled over to many other industries in 
the economy that provided it with supporting goods a nd services.  StatoilHydro, one of the world's 
largest offshore oil and gas companies, was partially controlled by the State.  Nevertheless, Norway's 
regulatory framework also attracted private, including  foreign investment into oil and gas exploration. 
41. Norway was relatively open to foreign participa tion in its financial sector.  But the provision 
of cross-border supply of services by non-EEA banks and insurance companies w as restricted in some 
cases.  Also, authorization was required when domestic  or foreign investors increased their share in a 
financial institution established in Norway.  The te lecommunication sector was also relatively open to 
foreign participation.  The Secretariat Report noted that market competition had increased since 2004 despite the dominant presence of Telenor, a state-c ontrolled operator in most telecom markets.  The 
number of broadband and VoIP ope rators had increased, and that telecommunication prices in 
Norway were among the lowest in the OECD, especi ally for fixed and mobile telephony.  Norway 
was one of the few countries in the world that a llowed maritime cabotage services, although this 
remained limited to EEA nationals and companies.  Similarly, liberalization of air transport had 
occurred mainly within the EEA framework.  While th e majority of sea ports and airports were owned 
by the State, provision of auxiliary services was ope n to foreigners.  The discussant was interested in 
knowing whether Norway had plans to further liber alize the maritime and air transport sectors with 
respect to participation of non-EEA countries.  He noted that the importance of the fish and aquaculture industry had also been highlighted in the reports. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 12  
 
  IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 
42. Members welcomed the delegation of the Norway, and commended Norway for its support of 
the multilateral trading system, and its ac tive participation in the DDA negotiatons. 
43. The representative of China
 noted that Norway was an important trading partner of China and 
that there had been a positive momentum in trad e and economic relations:  cooperation in areas of 
trade, investment and technology had deepened to  their mutual benefit.  According to Chinese 
statistics, bilateral trade had amounted to US$3.2 bill ion during the first eight months in 2008, with an 
increase of 26% over the same period in 2007.  Ch ina and Norway had had a first round of  FTA 
negotiations on 18 September 2008.  As at end Augus t 2008, Norwegian enterprises had invested in 
301 projects in China with real investment at above US$300 million.  The value of contracts signed 
between Norway and China on the transfer of technology had reached US$730 million.  Since 1999, 
Norway had provided NKr150 million of aid to China. 
44. China was glad to observe Norway’s strong econom ic performance since its  previous Review.  
Norwegians had one of the highest living standards in  the world.  Inflation had been kept in check.  
Unemployment had been very low and budget surpluses had been large.  From the trade perspective, 
Norway was a strong supporter of the multilateral tr ading system and maintained an open trade 
regime, with 95% of non-agricultural products ente ring duty free. Norway had not applied any anti-
dumping or countervailing measures during the revi ew period.  Norway's efforts to achieve 
sustainable development were also worth mentioning .  China also applauded Norway for its attention 
to development issues, particularly duty-free- quota-free market access offered to 64 low-income 
countries.  Norway was also an active par ticipant in WTO’s work on aid for trade.  
45. China remained concerned about Norway's con tinued high protection of agriculture. It noted 
that Norway's manufacturing sector was relatively small and that oil and gas and services sectors remained of great importance to its economy. 
46. The representative of Brazil
 reported a substantial growth in  bilateral trade with Norway, 
which had expanded threefold from US$434 million to US$1.17 billion from 2001 to 2007.  This 
trend appeared to be continuing in 2008.  Brazil was the largest trade partner for Norway in Latin 
America and Norway had recently become the larg est market for Brazil's exports among the Nordic 
countries.  There had been increased diversification in  the products traded between the two countries.   
47. Brazil was pleased that Norway's trade polic ies were based on the acknowledgement that 
open trade was mutually beneficial for exporters  and importers, however it observed that this 
approach was not fully adopted in the agriculture  sector.  The stark contrast between Norway's 
market-based policies for trade in manufactured goo ds and its practices in the agriculture sector was 
frustrating for many developing countries and agri cultural exporters. Without calling into question 
Norway's renowned commitment to development, its agricultural policies and practices were not 
furthering this cause.  Though the agriculture sect or represented only 0.5% of its GDP, Norway's 
average applied tariff on these products was 38.5%, with  peaks that reached 555%.  As an example of 
this targeted protection, Norway 's average MFN applied tariff for "animals and products thereof", 
which accounted for almost 12% of all agricultural tariff lines, was 129.2% and more than 30% of its 
tariff lines were above 75%.  Such a tariff structur e negated market access for foreign suppliers in a 
number of commodities and significantly undermined Norway's calls for developing countries to undertake commitments in sectors in which they  had sensitivities, such as services and NAMA.  
Nevertheless, Brazil acknow ledged Norway's contribution and co mmitment towards the advancement 
of the Doha trade talks. 
48. Norway was a strong demandeur for market access in maritime transport services, being one 
of the co-sponsors of the plurilateral request on Mar itime Transport in the Doha Round. Nevertheless,  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 13 
 
 
  in Norway's revised offer in services, some rest rictions were still in place and new ones had been 
introduced. The proposed schedule discriminated in fa vour of EEA members, which ran counter to the 
agreement reached during the Uruguay Round to lim it MFN discrimination.  Regarding national 
treatment, Norway required that ships with more  than 40% foreign owne rship should have "a 
management function in Norway" and "a domiciled  representative in Norway".  Brazil expressed 
concern that Norway's previous mode 4 commitme nt for "shore personal" had been changed from 
'none' to 'unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section', which might indicate a roll-back. 
49. Brazil shared Norway's vision of the importance of strengthened disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies.  Multilateral action was needed to deal with the excessive and unc ontrolled subsidization of 
fishing activities worldwide.  The creation of more exceptions for developed countries that did not 
need them could easily become loopholes in new disc iplines, diminishing the level of ambition in the 
final outcome of the fisheries subsidies negotiations  and compromizing the ability of the new rules to 
control the depletion of fish resources. 
50. With respect to Norway's Generalised System of Preferences, Brazil said that it had posed 
questions to Norway in the Committee of Trade and Development, which were answered in the last 
regular session of the CTD.  Brazil looked forw ard to continuing the discussion on this issue. 
51. The representative of New Zealand , recalled that the Secretariat report had noted Norway's 
continued reforms during the review period, often driven by its participation in the European 
Economic Area (EEA) Agreement.  New Zealand concu rred with the Secretariat that this may also 
have widened the gap between Norway and other (non-EEA) trading partners as evidenced by the 
continuance of some trade-distorting policies. 
52. It was difficult to make informed comments on recent agricultural developments, as Norway 
had only just notified its agricultural domestic s upport and export subsidy expenditure for the years 
2002 to 2004.  Prohibitively high tariffs remained on agricultural products and Norway continued to 
spend heavily on its agriculture sector, currently the second highest in the OECD and well above the 
average.  New Zealand encouraged Norway to con tinue with its reforms of the agriculture sector. 
53. While the trading relationship between New Z ealand and Norway was modest, there were 
areas of particular importance and value, and oppor tunities for further interaction and dynamism.  
New Zealand appreciated Norway's strong commitme nt to assisting developing countries.  It was 
particularly pleased to note the expansion of du ty-free and quota-free access for 14 additional least 
developed countries in 2008.  Norway's Foreign Mi nister had recently commented on these issues and 
pointed to the paradox that Norwegian agricultural subsidies and import taxes acted as a barrier for 
products from developing countries.  New Zealand encouraged Norway to  continue this trend, and to 
direct attention and efforts at other areas of trade policy that could be liberalized to enable greater 
market access for non-EU or EEA countries. 
54. Norway had noted in its statement that it remained strongly committed to completing the 
DDA negotiations as soon as possible.  It appeared fr om Norway's statement that it had been relying 
on a positive outcome of the negotiations to make the push towards developi ng more liberal economic 
policies.  New Zealand encouraged this development. 
55. The representative of Canada  noted that Canada and Norway had solid and dynamic relations 
in trade and investment.  In 2007, Norway ranked seventh among Canada's trade partners for goods:  
bilateral goods trade alone amounted to US$8.4 milli on.  Norway, was an important source of FDI 
into Canada, and a beneficiary of FDI from Cana da.  Since its last review, Norway's economic 
performance had been vigorous, stimulated by wo rld demand for oil and gas.  GDP had grown and 
general government finances were sound.  It was exp ected that Norway would generate a surplus of WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 14  
 
  17.3% of its GDP in 2007.  The economic well- being of Norway and its openness to trade and 
investment could not be underestimated in its im portance to the economic prosperity of Canada. 
56. Canada commended Norway for its efforts in trade policy liberalization, reflected in its 
continued support for advancing the Doha Developmen t Agenda and in its generous donations to the 
WTO’s work on Aid for Trade.  These efforts had b een complemented by trade liberalization at the 
regional level, marked by Norway’s success in negotiating, with its EFTA  partners, 18 FTAs and 5 
declarations of cooperation.  Canada was pleased  to have signed a FTA with Norway and its EFTA 
partners in January 2008. 
57. While the Secretariat had reported on the overa ll openness of Norway's trade policy regime, 
there were some notable exceptions, particularly ag riculture.  Norway had been a strong supporter of 
the DDA negotiations while recognizing that an agr eement would pose serious challenges for it in that 
sector. There had, however, been little discernable movement towards a more liberal and market-
oriented regime for agriculture since Norway's pr evious Trade Policy Review.  Support to agriculture 
remained extremely high, the second highest leve l among OECD Members. Trade distorting domestic 
support remained high, while much less use had been made of green box support, which would not 
distort production and trade.  Export subsidies remained close to commitment levels for some 
products, while they had recently increased significan tly for others, as they did for pork in 2004.  
Border protection was high for agricultural pro ducts that competed with Norwegian domestic 
production.  Although some limited access was provided through tari ff quotas, Canada was concerned 
that these remained generally underfilled, and that  possible impediments to access through tariff quota 
administration had not been addressed. 
58. Norway was not only one of the freest economies in the world, but was also highly 
globalized. It had developed some world-class science and technology capabilities, especially in offshore and renewable energy, environmental frien dly technologies, and marine and ocean related 
technologies. 
59. The representative of Switzerland
 was pleased to note that the Norwegian economy had been 
flourishing, enjoying substantial r eal income growth with low inflation and very low unemployment.  
Benefiting from rising world energy prices and favourab le supply shocks in the wake of globalization, 
this good performance also reflected fiscal restra int, successful monetary policy and the economy's 
capacity to attract foreign labour.  The mainland economy had been in a strong upturn since 2004, with average annual growth above 5%.  This strong economic expansion, among the highest in 
developed countries, differed from previous upturns in  that inflation had remained relatively low, 
despite strong growth and increasing capacity utilizati on.  The main reasons were: first, similar to the 
situation in Switzerland, the opening of the labour market to the new EU countries provided Norway 
with access to a reserve of labour which benefite d the country through hi gher non-inflationary 
growth;  second, higher imports from low-cost countries and high prices for a number of Norwegian export products resulted in a consid erable improvement in Norway's terms of trade since the end of 
the 1990s;  and third, businesses in Norway had become more efficient, lowering their production 
costs and making it profitable to expand their workforces.  Compared with other countries, 
productivity gains had been particularly strong in  the banking industry and other service sectors. 
60. There were, however, some risks at present. To  avoid the present financial market turmoil 
resulting in a reversal of some of the positive driving forces in the Norwegian economy, active, 
prudent economic policies would be required, esp ecially in a context of lower oil prices.  
Nevertheless, growth in the Norwegian economy seeme d likely to remain strong in the period ahead, 
which was welcome news when the economic situ ation worldwide was so uncertain.  An ample 
supply of labour could be expected to continue to support a good level of economic growth in the 
medium-term, but this would also require Norway to  pursue its structural adjustment reforms.  As  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 15 
 
 
  suggested in a recent OECD study, competition coul d be further enhanced in some sectors of the 
Norwegian economy, particularly in the food sector. 
61. Bilateral economic relations with Norway were excellent, and Norway remained an important 
commercial partner for Switzerland.  Bilateral trad e had decreased somewhat in real terms from 2002 
to 2003 but had shown an upward trend since 2004.  Sw iss direct investment in Norway had increased 
to CHF2.3 billion in 2006. According to Statis tics Norway, Norwegian direct investment in 
Switzerland amounted to CHF820 million at the end of  2005.  Switzerland and Norway also enjoyed 
fruitful cooperation within the framework of the EFT A.  Switzerland's close partnership with Norway 
in the context of EFTA did not entail the end to th eir coordinated attempts at a successful conclusion 
of the Doha Round.  
62. The representative of the European Communities  noted that the EC and Norway enjoyed a 
long-standing, cooperative and very close relationshi p.  This was clearly reflected by their strong 
economic relationship under the framework of the EEA .  It formed what was, with the exception of 
agriculture and fisheries, a genuine single market.  Their close cooperation also comprised many other 
policy strands, such as education, social and econo mic cohesion, research, and environment.  The EC 
was Norway's primary trading partner and investor. 
63. Norway was an interesting example of what a strong and rules-based multilateral trading 
system could offer to relatively small countries, wh ich was the best way to ensure increased trade, 
growth and prosperity.  The EC was pleased to h ear Norway's strong commitment to uphold the good 
functioning of the WTO.  The EC commended the ha rd work of Ambassador Glenne in pursuing and 
leading DDA negotiations, and the creditable role of  Minister Store as facilitator of discussions on 
TRIPS-related issues. 
64. Norway was richly endowed with natural res ources such as oil and gas, hydropower, fish, 
forests, minerals, and timber.  These primary pr oducts corresponding to 78% of Norway's total 
exports.  Norway set an example for best practic es in managing natural resources endowments in a 
sustainable fashion.  Its strategy was simple and effective:  saving for later, investing abroad, and 
reinvesting in skills and productive capacity. 
65. The sound management of its economy and na tural endowments had put Norway in the 
forefront of Western countries' growth performan ce.  Norway's sustained economic expansion was 
underpinned by strong macroeconomic policies, a co mmitment to low inflation and fiscal restraint, 
and the strategy of investing the bulk of oil revenu es abroad.  Norway's enviable economic prosperity 
had provided its population with one of the highest sta ndard of living of the world, while ensuring that 
some of the benefits of its economic success were  channelled to less developed countries.  Thus 
Norway had been tireless in its efforts to promot e trade-related technical assistance and cooperation, 
and to encourage greater integration of the deve loping countries, especially the LDCs, into the 
multilateral trading system.  Norway had made recen t changes to its GSP scheme, and in particular 
the way in which it sought to focus the greatest benefits on developing countries in greatest need. 
66. While it was fair to praise Norway for its achievements and best practices, it was also 
necessary to point to areas where the EC had rema ining concerns.  There was a glaring disparity 
between Norway’s openness to trade in industrial products and its high level of protection for 
agriculture, sheltering it from global competition.  Th e situation was made more unpredictable taking 
into account tariff peaks, tariff escalation, seasonal ta riffs, target prices and subsidies, individual tariff 
reductions, and the current administration and auctioning  of tariff quotas.  It was not surprising that 
competitive agricultural exporters had trouble exporti ng to Norway’s market.  The EC encouraged the 
Norwegian Government to take appropriate me asures to reduce protectionist measures in the 
agriculture sector and to share with Members its plans in this direction. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 16  
 
  67. The representative of Ecuador
 noted that Norway had reaped important gains from its 
participation in international trade.  Its trade re lations had been characterized by both lower import 
prices and higher export prices, particularly for hydrocarbon products.  This, coupled with an increase in domestic demand boosted by rising productivity, had allowed Norway to grow at an average rate of 
5.2% per year over 2004-07, and reduce une mployment to very low levels (2.5%). 
68. Ecuador saw Norway, an original WTO Member, as an example of how to sustain high living 
standards through the sound management of revenu es resulting from high petroleum and gas prices.  
In this respect, Norway's experience could be of  great value to developing countries who also 
exported petroleum and, thus, faced the challenge  of managing the resulting revenues responsibly.  
Furthermore, Norway's aid for trade, of appr oximately US$138 million per year during 2001-05, 
should be highlighted and acknowledged by all WTO Members. 
69. Under the DDA negotiations, Ecuador and Norw ay shared many common interests, among 
which participation in the "Friends of Fish" group,  which was highlighted for its work in promoting 
the reduction and rationalization of fishing subsidies.  In addition, both countries shared a common 
view with respect to the State's ownership of natura l resources as well as its active participation in the 
economy as a whole. 
70. On the other hand, given Ecuador's export basket, Norway's average MFN applied tariff on 
agricultural products seemed alarmingly high.  Theref ore, Ecuador urged Norway to reconsider its 
domestic support policies which, despite some re forms, continued to be the second highest among 
OECD countries. 
71. The representative of the Separate Customs Te rritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
 
(Chinese Taipei) congratulated Norway on its overall economic and trade success and noted that 
international trade played a pivotal role in Norw ay’s economic development.   The bilateral trade 
relationship had been very close;  total trade vol ume had grown by 27.3% in  2007.  Chinese Taipei 
and Norway had similar views in several negotia ting fronts including agriculture, NAMA, services, 
and anti-dumping.  There was obviously ample room for further cooperation. 
72. The representative of the United States  noted that the U.S. and Norway enjoyed a long 
tradition of friendly association.  Their relationshi p was strengthened by the millions of Norwegian-
Americans that lived in the United States and by th e thousands of U.S. citizens residing in Norway.  
Both countries appreciated the powerful role of international trade in global economic and political 
stability; and the importance of trade to the integr ation of developing countries into the world 
economy. 
73. In Norway’s previous TPR in 2004, the discussan t had identified three co re issues central to 
discussions, oil, the Government's strong role in the economy, and "the obvious gap between a very 
liberal regime for industrial goods and a high degree of protection for the agriculture sector".  The same three core issues continued to be releva nt to any analysis of Norway’s performance, 
productivity, and competitiveness. 
74. It was not surprising that the 2008 TPR showcased Norway’s continued prosperity.  Norway’s 
standard of living remained among the world's highest, and the domestic economy had performed 
strongly.  The Secretariat’s Report credited Norway's  enviable economic position in large part to the 
profits it had accrued from oil and gas exports, No rway’s generally liberal import regime, and the 
Government’s sound macro economic policies.  While market access for non-agricultural products was 
nearly fully open, the Government continued its heavy assistance to domestically produced 
agricultural goods.  This contributed to Norway’s hi gh food prices.  The Unite d States agreed with the 
Secretariat’s conclusion that Norway would do well to reduce such assistance and align its  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 17 
 
 
  agricultural policy with the market -based solutions the Government pur sued in other sectors, for these 
had been key to Norway's prosperity. 
75. Norway’s general legal fram ework had remained basically unchanged since the 2004 TPR 
and therefore a few concerns lingered from the pr evious review.  For example, Norway’s global 
average applied MFN tariff in 2008 was 6.7%, while its average bound rate was substantially higher, 
at 29.1%.  The Government was urged to consid er aligning its bound rates with its much lower 
applied duty rates:  closing the gap between these rates would increase the predictability of Norway's 
trade regime.  The disparity between Norway’s openn ess to trade in industrial products and its high 
level of protection for agriculture also remained unc hanged.  This issue had been raised by the United 
States at Norway’s 2000 and 2004 trade policy reviews,  and was flagged again.  Agriculture remained 
highly sheltered from global competition.  This w as even more striking when taking into account 
tariff peaks, escalation, dispersion, and seasonal tariffs.   
76. Support to Norwegian agriculture was estimated  to be the second highest within the OECD 
(at 66% of the value of gross farm receipts).  For those goods, imports normally only took place if 
domestic production could not meet domestic demand.  Over 2004-06, the Secretariat affirmed that 
farmers benefited from prices that were more th an twice as high as those on the world market.  
Furthermore, direct payments under the Blue Box were significant, and a few products benefited from 
export subsidies.  The low fill rate of Norway’s ta riff quota auctions in a number of cases (hens' eggs 
and turkey meat, for example) was still of concer n to the United States.  Policies that, without 
scientific basis, banned or effe ctively banned imports of certain  meat and products of modern 
biotechnology should be a concern to all agricult ural exporters.  These trade-distorting policies 
continued to trouble the United States.  
77. In value terms, Norway was the world's sec ond largest exporter of seafood.  During the 
review period, Norway had implemented a series of market mechanisms to manage its fisheries, and 
continued to reduce subsidies.  These actions we re commendable.  The United States appreciated 
Norway’s active involvement in the rules negotiati ons on fisheries subsidies.  However, given its 
global commercial prominence in fisheries trade, an d its generally strong support for environmental 
and development issues, the United States felt that Norway could be more ambitious in prohibiting 
operational subsidies in the fisheries area. 
78. Norwegian privatization had slowed down consid erably since 2004.  The State continued to 
participate in several economic activities, administer ing interests in 80 fully or partially owned state 
enterprises.  Norway had made some progress in refo rming its state sector, both in privatizing some 
state enterprises and in trying to put more distance between state managers and regulators, and the 
United States was interested to hear Norway’s  views on how its policy changes had improved the 
transparency and operations of its state enterprises,  as well as the attractiveness of foreign investment 
in Norway. 
79. The representative of Argentina  noted that Norway's generally open trade regime was one of 
the forces behind its strong economic performance during the review period.  The multilateralization 
of regional liberalization, together with great er openness in agriculture, should allow for the 
continuation of Norway's economic success in a less  favourable international environment.  Norway 
had been able to approach openness to trade and investment from a pragmatic point of view, favouring strategic areas, such as postal services, transport, and control over natural resources. 
80. There was a large difference between the aver age MFN tariffs on agricultural and those on 
non-agricultural products.  This difference was worrisome  to Argentina, given that most of its exports 
to Norway were agricultural products.  Howeve r, Argentina believed that the Doha Round of 
negotiations may help reduce this gap. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 18  
 
  81. Despite a decrease in Argentinean exports to Norway in 2007, bilateral trade had increased 
significantly since 2004.  Between January and August 2008, both exports to and imports from 
Norway had also increased, thus trade was expected  to reach record levels by the end of 2008. 
82. The representative of Japan
 noted that Norway’s domestic economy had performed well since 
its previous TPR, due mainly to the high price of crude oil, growing private consumption and 
increasing investment.  This favourable performance  was illustrated by factors such as strong GDP 
growth, an improved unemployment rate, and a curren t account surplus.  Japan also noted Norway's 
large fiscal surplus and its low level of centr al government debt compared with other OECD 
countries. 
83. In a bilateral context, Japan and Norway en joyed long-standing amicable relations, including 
through the Japan-Norway Trade and Economic Cons ultation.  In multilateral fora, they shared 
common interests and cooperated in many areas of  DDA negotiations such as agriculture, NAMA, 
and rules negotiations.  Japan, however, was concerned about the lack of diversification of Norway's 
trade since its previous TPR, and noted a suggesti on by the OECD that a continued move toward 
privatization would increase competition and conseque ntly stimulate innovatory activity in Norway’s 
industrial sector.  Japan and other Members had fl agged their concerns in the TBT Committee about 
Norwegian regulations relating to Deca-BDE and those proposed on certain hazardous substances in 
consumer products.  Japan requested an explana tion on how Norway would address these concerns. 
84. Japan was considering the introduction of a mariti me tonnage tax and asked for more specific 
information on the background against which Norway's system had been introduced, for example, the 
transitional procedure from the old system to the new one;  ships to which the system applied;  the tax 
rate per ton;  and the conditions for the applicability of the system. 
85. The representative of Peru  was pleased to see the positive macroeconomic indicators which 
showed how robust Norway's economy was, as well as with its economic openness.  Major challenges 
remained, however, including high levels of protec tion in the agriculture sector and negotiations on 
fisheries subsidies.  In addition to improvements in trade relations between Norway and Peru, EFTA 
and Peru were at an advanced stage of FTA ne gotiations.  Peru was confident these negotiations 
would offer new opportunities to their businesses and br ing benefits to their people.  Like Norway, 
Peru believed in complementarities between unilatera l, bilateral, regional, and multilateral initiatives 
to free up trade.  In this respect in addition to hopi ng for a successful outcome to bilateral talks, Peru 
also hoped for an ambitious outcome to the Doha round.  
86. The representative of Colombia , noted that Norway's economic policies were similar in many 
aspects to those adopted by several developing countri es, namely:  the State played an important role 
in the economy;  the State held significant participation in companies that provided goods and services;  Norway's export basket was mainly made  of commodities rather than industrial products;  
there were restrictions to foreign investment in certain key sectors of the economy;  the State held 
monopolies in the provision of many public services;  and there was a high level of protection in 
agriculture. 
87. Norway's economic policies had translated into high levels of living standards, human 
development, and labour productivity.  The sam e policies might result in diverse outcomes in 
different countries due to differences in governance and in the functioning of  public institutions.  
Norway's management of its trade and fiscal surp luses constituted an example of good governance.  
Norway had adopted a long-term approach to its pe troleum revenues by investing them abroad in a 
Sovereign Fund, which mitigated exchange rate pressu re and the negative effects of fluctuations in 
international prices while at the same time securi ng enough funds to pay for future pension liabilities.  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 19 
 
 
  88. Colombia noted Norway's skills as a maritime nati on.  Norway extracted most of its exports 
(i.e. fishes and petroleum and gas) from the se a, its manufacturing sector was closely linked to 
petroleum offshore exploration, and 36% of its services exports came from maritime transport 
services provided by one of the world's largest merchant fleets. 
89. Norway granted high tariff protection and subs idies to the production of certain agricultural 
goods.  However, Colombia concluded that given the agricultural sector's low contribution to GDP 
and the fact that Norway was an important importe r of food products, Norway's agricultural policies 
sought to populate rural areas rather than to secure food provision. 
90. Norway had not applied contingency measures during the review period, had only adopted 
technical regulations based on inte rnational standards, was up to date  with its WTO notifications, did 
not have a single trade measure challenged at the WTO, had expedited cust oms procedures, applied 
duty-free treatment to 95% of its tariff lines, a nd had an average MFN applied tariff of 6.7%.  
However, Colombia noted that 10.7% of Norway's tariff lines were not ad valorem , and the average 
applied MFN tariff on agricultural products was 35.8%. 
91. Trade flows between Colombia and Norway, had been increasing, and reached US$52 million 
in 2007.  Norwegian investment and tourism flows in to Colombia had also increased.  Furthermore, in 
2008 Norway and Colombia had completed th e negotiation of a free-trade agreement. 
92. Colombia commended Norway for being one of  the world's most generous countries, 
providing 1% of its GDP in the form of aid, including aid for trade.  In addition, it had served as a mediator in world affairs, including in the banana dispute in the WTO. 
93. The representative of Australia
 reported that Australia and Norway enjoyed a positive 
bilateral relationship and worked together on a range  of multilateral issues.  In particular, Australia 
valued its cooperation with Norway on climate ch ange issues including its involvement in the 
Umbrella Group. Australia also valued the constr uctive cooperation and shared engagement shared 
with Norway on many multilateral trade issues, a nd Norway's support provided to LDCs.  Australia 
looked forward to continuing to work with Norway  to conclude the Doha Round as soon as possible.  
Given the turbulence on the world’s markets, it w as more important than ever that there was 
leadership on trade reform and concluding the DDA would help sustain confidence in global cooperation and institutions in the face of  the international financial crisis. 
94. Australia and Norway’s trading relationship w as modest but long-standing.  In 2007-08 total 
two-way merchandise trade was valued at A$551 milli on, substantially in Norway’s favour.  Services 
trade between the two countries was valued at A$396 million in 2007, dominated by transportation 
and education-related travel. 
95. Norway had continued to undertake reforms since its 2004 Review and its economy had 
expanded strongly.  Like others, however, Australia continued to be concerned at No rway’s high level 
of assistance to the agriculture sector, which was est imated to be 66% of the value of gross farm 
product, the second-highest within the OECD.  Norw ay also maintained a high level of tariff 
protection for agricultural products.  Australia strongl y encouraged Norway, as member of the G10, to 
reduce its assistance and improve market access fo r agricultural products.  Australia was also 
concerned that Norway’s trade policies continued to address non-trade issues using measures with the 
potential to distort trade.  Norway was not unique in its attempts to address environmental issues and 
maintain human settlement in sparsely populated areas, and Australia encouraged Norway to use 
other, less trade-distorting measures that did not link payments to farm production. 
96. The representative of Mexico
 noted that Norway was an important trade partner, and that 
Mexico was the first Latin American country to  have preferential access to EFTA markets after WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 20  
 
  signing a free trade agreement in 2001.  Accord ing to statistics from Mexican authorities, trade 
between Mexico and EFTA members had incr eased by 74% between 2000 and 2007, reaching 
US$1.8 billion at end 2007.  In particular, trade w ith Norway had increased by 124% over the period. 
97. In the previous nine years Norwegian dir ect investment in Mexico had amounted to 
US$89.8 million, of which 85% corresponded to the provision of professional services. 
98. Norway's sound economic fundamentals had be en strengthened by its trade openness.  
Mexico commended Norway for its recent economic success, with mainland GDP growing at an 
annual average of 5.2% during 2004-07. 
99. Mexico saw room for improvement in the prot ection of agricultural products, which could 
create new trade opportunities to Mexi co.  Norway was very receptiv e to foreign goods as it applied 
an average MFN tariff of 6.7%, and granted duty-fr ee access to 95% of non-ag ricultural tariff lines.  
In contrast, agricultural products were subject to an average MFN applied tariff of 35.8%, and only 
38% of the tariff lines for these products were granted duty-free access. 
100. Mexico commended the Norwegian delegation fo r its positive participation in the current 
NAMA negotiations.  Norway's contributions had been  of great help to advance discussions about the 
Swiss formula, SVEs, flexibility to developing countri es and other areas.  With respect to agricultural 
negotiations, Norway maintained a more conservative position as part of the G-10.  Mexico noted that 
68% of Norway's agricultural tariffs were specific,  and that the conversion of most of these into 
ad valorem  would be welcome. 
101. Mexico also commended Norway for its leadership  in the WTO and its role as mediator in the 
banana dispute. 
102. The representative of Chile
 noted Norway had continued to undertake reforms to its trade 
regime, which had allowed for greater flexibilit y in its economy and increased the level of 
competition its markets. 
103. Norway had an open trade regime, with a low average applied MFN tariff and a large number 
of tariff lines for which the applied tariff was lower than 1%.  However, Norw ay's agriculture sector 
was somehow separated from the rest of the economy due to the high level of protection it received.  
Norway pursued a non-market-oriented support policy for the sector, which resulted in high consumer 
prices for agricultural products.  Chile hoped that as a result of the current WTO round of negotiations 
Norway's agricultural policies would become more ali gned with the policies applied in the rest of the 
Norwegian economy. 
104. In the fishing sector, Chile commended Norway for reducing the subsidies it granted to the 
sector, and urged the Norwegian authorities to continue  on this path.  Chile and Norway together held 
70% of the world market for salmon. 
105. Chile shared the same views as Norway on th e use of anti-dumping measures and on the need 
to deepen services liberalization.   
106. Since 2004, bilateral trade between Chile and Norway had taken place under the rules of the 
FTA between the EFTA and Chile.  As a result of th is agreement, trade had tripled between 2005 and 
2007, and Chile expected this growth to continue in the near future.  With respect to foreign direct 
investment, Norway invested some US$16 billion in Chile in 2007 alone;  the majority of which was directed to the aquaculture sector (salmon).  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 21 
 
 
  107. Norway was an example of how the applica tion of the right trade policies was key for 
economic development.  Chile hoped that more c ountries would follow this example, including 
Norway itself when reforming its agriculture sector. 
108. The representative of Hong Kong, China  reported very cordial bila teral trade relations with 
Norway.  In the previous five years, bilateral trade had averaged annual growth of 8.6%.  Total 
bilateral merchandise trade amounted to US$640 milli on in 2007 and there was potential for further 
expansion.  
109. Hong Kong, China was pleased to note that Norway  had bound all its tariff lines, with 95% of 
the tariff lines for non-agricultural products being duty  free.  On the other hand, there was, in general, 
a gap between the average applied rate of 6.7% and the average bound rate of 28.9% and Norway was 
encouraged to narrow this gap. 
110. Hong Kong, China, shared Norway's systemic concern that anti-dumping measures were trade 
distorting and often used for protectionist purposes.  It commended Norway's efforts and its commitment in containing the use of contingency measures.  Under the Doha Development Agenda, 
Norway and Hong Kong, China were seeking to cl arify and further strengthen the WTO disciplines on 
anti-dumping.  Hong Kong, China and Norway enjoyed a very close working relationship, and shared 
common positions on a wide range of issues in the anti-dumping negotiations.   
111. Services were also an important negotiating area for both economies.  With services 
constituting a dominant part of its economy, Norway  had been pursuing continuous and progressive 
liberalization in trade in services.  Hong Kong, Chin a particularly appreciated Norway's efforts to 
introduce measures to increase market competition in the infrastructural sectors of banking and 
telecommunications services.  Hong Kong, China appreciated that maritime transport was of 
particular importance to Norway.  It considered that logistics services were also crucial to the 
expansion of global trade in goods and services a nd economic growth.  In this regard, Hong Kong, 
China encouraged Norway to conti nue its efforts in further liberaliz ing both sectors, for example by 
opening more port services operations to local and fo reign private operators, and undertaking further 
commitments in its next offer.  It also noted that  Norway maintained some horizontal limitations on 
national treatment with respect to the establishm ent of commercial presence, and encouraged Norway 
to consider removing or relaxing these limitations, in particular those with citizenship requirements. 
112. The representative of India
 highlighted some of the charact eristics of the Norwegian economy 
including extensive state participation, and hi gh government expenditures, which were largely 
subsidized by high taxes and oil revenues.  India also  noted the importance of fisheries, metal, and oil 
to the economy and that the Norwegian merchant fleet carried a large part of the world's trade. Almost 
three quarters of Norway's land was unproductive and th e country was a net food importer.  This had 
not been an impediment to Norway enjoying one of  world’s highest standards of living, which the 
Secretariat report had attributed to oil and gas in come, a generally liberal import regime, and sound 
macroeconomic policies.  On the other hand No rway's own report had stressed the role of 
international trade, and sustainable development as a governing principle of its foreign and trade 
policy. 
113. In its 2007 Report, the Heritage Foundation found that Norway’s economy was 69% free, and 
it ranked 19th out of 41 countries in the European region.  This report, however, also pointed out that though the average tariff rate was low, some non- tariff barriers complicated trade, and the labour 
market was fairly rigid.  In this regard the Secr etariat Report had stressed that closing the gap between 
applied and bound rates would increase the predictab ility of Norway’s trade regime.  Similarly, 
granting national treatment to foreign investors in  areas such as fisheries, audio visual services, 
maritime and air transport, telecom, financial services would go a long way to further enhance the 
openness of Norway’s investment regime.   WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 22  
 
  114. Indo-Norwegian relations had been gaining mo mentum and depth in recent years, supported 
by high-level official visits and the establishment of strong institutional mechanisms.  Since Norway’s 
previous Review, meetings of the Indo-Norwegia n Joint Commission and the Joint Working Group on 
Hydrocarbons had taken place. 
115. India and the EFTA had launche d FTA negotiations; the agreem ent would include trade in 
goods, services, investment, intellectual property rights , and technical cooperation.  India hoped that 
the negotiations would be completed early and would further cement commercial and economic 
relations between India and the EFTA.  
116. India-Norway trade growth had been positive with total trade between the two countries 
reaching almost US$900 million in 2006.  Indian exports to Norway amounted to U$290 million and 
Norwegian exports to India stood at around US$580 million.  India felt there was a need to expand 
existing trade and efforts needed to be made on both sides to balance it for the sustainable 
development of trade relations.  There was signi ficant scope for improvement in foreign direct 
investment:  India hoped Norway, with the world’ s second largest soverei gn wealth fund and its 
cutting edge technologies, would seriously explore oppor tunities to tap the vast potential of the Indian 
market. 
117. The representative of Korea
 noted that bilateral relations with Norway had been excellent 
over the years, and this relationship was further strengthened in 2005 by the conclusion of FTA under 
the umbrella of the Korea-EFTA FTA.  Since the entr y into force of this agreement in September of 
2006, bilateral trade figures had grown sharply to re ach US$2 billion in 2007, and were expected to 
surpass US$3 billion in 2008. 
118. Korea envied Norway's economic success.  Norway had not only benefited from the higher 
price of hydrocarbon products over the previous fo ur years, but it had managed the accrued wealth 
very wisely.  In this context, Korea believed No rway offered a case-book ex ample of national wealth 
management, which Korea hoped Norway could shar e with the TPR Body on a future occasion.  
119. Korea asked for the Norwegian delegation's view s on the extensive intervention of the State 
in the Norwegian economy.  More specifically, it asked how Norway had succeeded in taming 
privatization pressures and gained support to reta in control over the economy through various state 
enterprises.  Furthermore, Korea asked what concre te measures Norway had taken to ensure that the 
state enterprises did not fall into the "inefficiency trap". 
120. Korea commended Norway for its pro-active ro le in the current DDA negotiations, which had 
enabled Members to move forward on a number of is sues.  Korea and Norway shared similar views 
and interest in a variety of areas, most notably  in agriculture and anti-dumping, and Korea looked 
forward to continued cooperation in these and other areas in the future. 
121. The representative of Singapore  noted that despite the great physical distance between 
Singapore and Norway, the two countries had devel oped a strong trading relationship. Norway had 
become an even more important trade partner, af ter the conclusion of the FTA between Singapore and 
EFTA in 2002, which had given a significant boost to b ilateral trade with Norw ay.  Before it entered 
into force in 2003, bilateral trade had amounted to US$534 million, compared with US$1.3 billion in 
2007. 
122. Norway was one of the top ten investors in Singapore.  Norway's investments had increased 
fivefold between 2003 and 2007.  In addition, a No rwegian manufacturer of solar panel components, 
had announced a US$300 million investment to  build a plant in Singapore in 2008.  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 23 
 
 
  123. Singapore commended Norway for being one of  the world's leading maritime nations;  
Norway was ranked among the world's top five in the UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport in 
2007.  Norway continued to be a key maritime partner to Singapore.   Norwegian investors constituted 
the third largest ship-owning group in Singapore,  and many Norwegian shipping companies had 
substantial operations in Singapore. 
124. Singapore commended Norway for its open economy,  its sound economic policies, its recent 
economic success, and its resulting high standards of  living.  It also commended Norway for its 
constructive participation in the WTO's work on aid for trade and significant provision of assistance to developing countries. 
125. The representative of Guatemala
 stated that although Norway's  population was less than 0.1% 
of the world's population, the size of its economy gr anted Norway an important place in the world.  
According to WTO statistics, Norway was the 27th largest exporter of goods and the 38th importer of 
goods in 2005.  Norway was one of the world's fi ve largest exporters of seafood, petroleum, and 
maritime services.  Moreover, other indicators, such  as the size of the GDP and the population's living 
standards,- confirmed the importance and the peak  currently experienced by the Norwegian economy. 
126. During the review period, Norway had carried out reforms that had increased the flexibility 
and level of competition of its economy.  Howe ver, Guatemala was concerned about Norway's 
agricultural policies, which departed considerably  from its market-based policies for other sectors;  
thus, it encouraged Norway to review them. 
127. Norway's efforts to help Guatemala to reach p eace and put an end to three decades of armed 
conflict had been of great importance.  Norway had also played an important role as mediator in the 
WTO, as for example in the banana dispute and in the intellectual property negotiations. 
128. The representative of Honduras  noted that Norway enjoyed one of the world's highest 
standard of living, and that its domestic economy had performed strongly since its previous Trade 
Policy Review in 2004, in large part due to the profits accrued from oil and gas exports, a generally 
liberal import regime, and sound macroeconomic policies.  Norway had continued to undertake 
reforms driven by its participation in  the European Economic Area Agreement. 
129. As a result of strong economic growth, Norway's GDP per capita was just over US$82,000 in 
2007.  The services sector had continued to expand,  to reach 66% of GDP, while activities related to 
petroleum and gas extraction represented 21% of GDP in  2007.  Inflation had been kept in check, due 
in part to declining import prices, increasing dome stic competition, and large inflows of foreign 
labour. 
130. Norway granted at least MFN treatment to all its trading partners, and had not introduced 
significant changes to its general legal framewor k since its previous Review.  Honduras commended 
Norway for its active participation in the WTO's wo rk on aid for trade, and for the increase in the 
assistance it provided to developing countries.  
131. The representative of Nigeria  acknowledged Norway's contribu tion to the multilateral trading 
system, especially its contributions to the DDA Gl obal Trust Fund.  Nigeria also commended Norway 
for its active participation in the WTO’s work on aid for trade, and for its generous donations to 
finance technical assistance programmes and training  activities to developing countries in general, and 
LDCs in particular.  The fact that Norway ha d established a new mechanism to facilitate the 
participation of capital-based e xperts from LDCs in the Negotia ting Group on Trade Facilitation was 
further testimony to the seriousness Norway attached  to the participation of the LDCs in the DDA 
negotiations. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 24  
 
  132. At the bilateral level, Nigeria enjoyed excelle nt trade and economic re lations with Norway.  
The two countries were major petroleum producers, and both Governments were heavily involved in 
petroleum activities.  The Norwegian offshore experi ence was of great interest to Nigeria, and the 
Norwegian Government had been  very supportive in sharing sub-sea technical experience and 
knowledge with Nigeria.  Nigeria hoped to continue this relationship in order to build local capacity 
and skills, so that more Nigerian goods and services might be used in the country’s petroleum-related 
activities.  A considerable number of Norwegian supply and shipping companies were active in the 
petroleum exploration and transportation sectors of the Nigerian economy.  The Norwegian experience demonstrated that the oil and gas sect or could serve as a powerful engine for economic 
growth and employment. 
133. Nigeria commended Norway for its economic succe ss and high standard of living.  Norway's 
enviable economic position was largely due to th e profits accruing from oil and gas exports, a 
generally liberal import regime, and sound macroeconomic policies.  Norway’s services sector had 
continued to expand, accounting for about 66% of GDP  in 2007.  It was no coincidence that Norway 
undertook extensive sector-specific commitments unde r the GATS and that these were also reflected 
in its revised offer in the services negotiations.   
134. Nigeria encouraged Norway to fulfil all its notif ication requirements, particular in areas such 
as agriculture, state trading, and import licensing, in order to ensure the full tr ansparency of its trade 
policy regime.  Nigeria urged Norway to address c oncerns related to the protection it granted to 
agriculture, which was funded by Norwegian taxpayers  and also charged to Norwegian consumers in 
the form of high prices for some agricultural products. 
135. Nigeria asked whether Norway intend to extend the duty-free and quota-free treatment 
granted under its GSP scheme to developing countr ies whose GDP had not increased in recent years 
but whose population was higher than 75 million.  Ni geria asked whether Norway had plans to help 
increase trade with LDCs and many vulnerable and fra gile low-income countries.  Since the adoption 
of SPS measures and technical regulations that were  either purely national or  differed substantially 
from those harmonized throughout the EEA might inhib it real market access, including the ability of 
the LDCs and the selected low-income countries to  benefit effectively from Norway's GSP scheme, 
Nigeria requested further clarification about the appl ication of these measures.  Nigeria also asked for 
more details on the legal requirements and the necessary procedures for natural persons from low-
income countries to acquire work permits in Norway.  
136. The representative of Turkey
 welcomed Norway's strong economic performance during the 
review period, which represented th e fastest growth trend in the past 30 years.  Among the factors that 
contributed to the strong growth, Turkey highlighted the improved terms of trade, rising productivity, increased domestic demand, and strong growth in some emerging economies.  Norway's fiscal position was strong, inflation was under control, an d unemployment remained at quite low levels.  
Norway also had the highest level of labour productivity among OECD countries.  
137. Despite this positive performance, in the shor t term, economic growth might slow down as 
the economy reached its full capacity, and import gr owth might decline, while unemployment and 
inflation rates might increase.  Moreover, as pointed  out in the Government Report, long- term budget 
projections indicated some major policy challenges.   Nevertheless, Turkey was confident that the 
Norwegian Government was fully aware of all these considerations. 
138. Due to the importance of trade in Norway's ec onomy, the Government used it as a tool to 
increase the living standards of the Norwegian populati on.  In the context of the Doha Development 
Agenda, Turkey commended Norway fo r its active participation in the WTO, particularly in the area 
of aid for trade.  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 25 
 
 
  139. Norway's average applied MFN tariff was 6. 7%, and applied tariffs on non-agricultural 
products remained low, while the average tariff applie d to agricultural products remained significantly 
higher.  Moreover, about 6% of Norway's total ta riff lines fell under the definition of international 
tariff peaks. 
140. Turkey had concerns about Norway's agricultura l policies, which were in significant variance 
with other market-based policies a pplied by Norway.  In addition to relatively high tariff protection, 
the Norwegian agriculture sector also benefited fro m one of the highest levels of support among 
OECD countries.  Turkey encouraged Norway to  adopt market-based principles in agricultural 
markets in order to benefit consumers, who paid high prices for agricultural products. 
141. Turkey also noted that the FTA between Turkey  and EFTA, which entered into force in 1992, 
constituted the main framework for bilateral trad e relations with Norway.  Despite the distance 
between the two markets and the uncomplimentary natu re of the their export baskets, bilateral trade 
had exceeded US$1 billion in 2007.  Turkey expected that the "Str ategy Document" signed by Turkey 
and Norway in March 2008 would further improve their bilateral trade relations. 
142. The representative of Pakistan  noted that the Norwegian economy featured a combination of 
free market activity and government intervention.   Norway was richly endowed with natural 
resources, such as petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals.  Although petroleum and 
natural gas exports accounted for one third of  Norway's total exports, the domestic economy 
continued to be the main driver of growth .  The record budget surplus and the very low 
unemployment rate registered in 2007 symbolized the strength of Norway's economy. 
143. Norway's open trade regime allowed it to partic ipate effectively in the international trading 
system.  Norwegian terms of trade had improved markedly and merchandise trade had increased at an 
average rate of 15% over the review period. 
144. Norway was active in the bilateral, regional, and multilateral trading environments, reflected 
by its membership in the EEA, EFTA, and the 16 FTAs signed within EFTA's framework.  Norway 
had also taken a series of specific steps to prom ote trade with developing countries, mainly by 
implementing improvements to its GSP scheme and increasing its contribution to the WTO's aid for 
trade initiative. 
145. Pakistan was concerned over the distortions caused by the assistance to domestically 
produced agricultural products and en couraged Norway to reduce such  assistance.  The average tariff 
on agricultural products was also high, and Norway's  overall tariff was subject to negative escalation 
between unprocessed and semi-processed goods.  Pakist an also encouraged Norway to close the gap 
between the treatment it granted to its EEA and other WTO partners. 
146. Given Norway's record of robust economic performance and sound macr oeconomic policies, 
Pakistan was interested in learning how Norway managed not to spend petroleum revenues, and was 
able to save them in the Government Pension F und – Global to cover future expenditures associated 
with the aging of the population. 
147. The discussant  reiterated the words of the Chair on the first day of the Review by 
acknowledging that the TPR exercise could neither be used to enforce rights and obligations in the WTO, nor as an avenue to cause Norway to cha nge its policies, but it should provide a forum for a 
frank exchange of views. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 26  
 
  V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NORWAY AND ADDITIONAL 
COMMENTS 
148. The representative of Norway
 stated that Norway had tried to respond as thoroughly as 
possible to the many questions and comments raised by Members, in order to achieve greater transparency in and understanding of its trade policies and practices. 
1. Economic and institutional environment 
149. The petroleum wealth was expected to contribut e to a permanent increase in the welfare and 
prosperity of Norwegian citizens.  A key feature in  order to successfully handle this wealth was to 
separate spending of petroleum income from its accumu lation.  This approach necessarily involved a 
significant degree of saving in periods of high oil extraction or oil prices. 
150. On this basis, a set of fiscal policy guide lines was endorsed by a large majority of the 
Norwegian Parliament in 2001, these included:  pe troleum revenues needed to be gradually phased 
into the economy, approximately in line with th e expected real return (4% per year) from the 
Government Pension Fund – Global;  and emphasis w as to be given to smoothing fluctuations in the 
economy in order to secure good capacity utiliza tion and low unemployment.  These guidelines 
facilitated the stable development of the Norwegia n economy, both in the short and long run, by 
sheltering the fiscal budget from the effects of volatility in petroleum prices;  facilitating balanced phase-in of petroleum revenues over time;  enab ling budget policy to be used for stabilizing 
production and employment;  and contributing to pr edictability of the expenditure of petroleum 
revenues. 
151. As in most OECD-countries, Norway still faced  increasing pressures on public finances in the 
face of expected demographic cha nges, even when taking into account the pension reform and the 
room for increased spending of petroleum income in the years to come according to the fiscal 
guidelines.  This challenge would be an important pa rt of the political agenda in Norway in the years 
ahead.  Thus, in 2007, Norway had already starte d to reform the public pension system, aiming to 
curb pension expenditures a nd stimulate labour supply. 
152. In companies where the State had ownership inte rests, it acted as an active, long-term owner, 
whose main aim was to contribute to the comp anies’ long-term value creation and industrial 
development.  Decisions to buy or sell shares were taken on a case-by-case basis, and important decisions depended on parliamentary approval.  Tran sparency and predictab ility increased confidence 
in state ownership.  The public was granted acce ss to non-confidential information about the operation 
of state-owned companies and the State’s owners hip policies in order to ensure accountability.  
153. The State and other shareholders chose a board  of directors, which was responsible for 
managing the company.  According to law, matters that required decisions by the owners must be 
raised and be decided upon at the general mee ting.  Companies were managed according to good 
corporate governance principles, which should ensu re a market return on capital investment and 
sound industrial development over time.  The State set ra tes of return in order to monitor and evaluate 
company developments.  Additionally, the Government  had separated the role of owner from the roles 
of policy-maker, regulator, and supervisor.  The ultim ate test of performance rested with the market.  
Privatization was not, however, an issu e for the present Norwegian Government. 
154. Norway had an open and transparent regime for investment and the provision of most 
services.  However, there were some differences in treatment between EEA service providers and service providers from other countries.  This w as based on the deeper integration between EEA 
countries provided for in the EEA.  But while such  differences in treatment existed, they did not 
necessarily represent any major impediments to ec onomic actors.  Companies originating in a non- WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 27 
 
 
  EEA country could in most cases get access at th e same level as companies from an EEA-country 
simply by establishing a subsidiary or having a local citizen act as their legal representative.  
Moreover, non-EEA companies could benefit from a ccess to all 30 EEA countries once they had been 
established in Norway.  The EEA was not an impedi ment for economic integration, but an important 
vehicle to promote cross-border trade and investment. 
155. The Norwegian Government fully acknowledged th e challenge of integrating immigrants into 
Norwegian society, and had implemented an Action Pl an for their integration and social inclusion.  
The purpose of the Action Plan was to promote a tolerant and multicultural society where rights, obligations, and opportuniti es were the same for all, regardless of  ethnic background, gender, religion, 
sexual orientation or degree of functioning. 
156. Related to the issue of WTO participation, Norway assured Members that it regarded WTO 
notifications as an essential element in providing tran sparency about trade related measures, and that 
outstanding notifications, in particular in the area of agriculture, from th e year 2005 onwards were 
being prepared, and would be  submitted when finalized. 
157. With regard to the gap between bound and applied rates, Norway noted that the increase in 
trade regime predictability resulting from closing this gap was important not just in Norway, but in all 
Members, and would be a key result from the ongoi ng DDA negotiations.  According to Norway, the 
ambitious NAMA coefficient for developed countries outlined in the draft modalities text would bring  
their bound NAMA tariffs down to very low levels, a nd would result in a considerable reduction of 
the gap between bound and applied ra tes, particularly in the few areas where NAMA tariffs remained, 
such as textiles and clothing.  As for agriculture, the cuts envisaged by the form ula in the Chair’s text 
would cut over 90% of Norway's agricultural tariff lines by an average of over 60%.  Additional cuts 
for tropical and diversification pr oducts and products where there w as tariff escalation would increase 
this figure even further.  
158. The preference margin for ordinary GSP countries had been increased by 20 percentage 
points within the WTO minimum access quotas for agricultural products, thus improving the 
preference margin for all developing countries.  In ad dition, some adjustments had been made in order 
to simplify Norway's GSP scheme.  Efforts were being undertaken to improve information about the 
system, in particular in least developed and low income countries, and to assist countries in meeting 
the requirements for GSP treatment. 
159. Free-trade agreements were important in order to develop trade with developing countries, 
and the majority of Norway’s FTAs were with developing countries.  Through EFTA, Norway had 
FTAs with Chile, Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mexico, Morocco, The 
Palestinian Authority, SACU, Singapore, Tunisia, and Turkey.  Furthermore, negotiations had been 
concluded with Canada, Colombia , and the Gulf Cooperation Council,  and negotiations with Algeria 
and Peru were ongoing.  Negotiations between EF TA and India had been launched recently, and 
Norway and China had begun bilatera l negotiations in September 2008. 
160. Norway had concluded bilateral agricultural ag reements with each of the EFTA states in 
parallel to the EFTA-FTAs because EFTA states di d not have a common agricultural policy, while 
bilaterally it was possible to give tailor-made con cessions to the free-trade partner without taking into 
account the sensitivities of all the EFTA states.  As a consequence the concessions and liberalization 
were more extensive than they would otherwise have been. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 28  
 
  2. Trade policies by measure 
161. Customs valuation took place on the basis of the declared transaction value, not on any 
average values.  As stated in the Secretariat Repor t, 97% of all imports were declared by the importer 
by using the transaction value.  The remaining 3% we re mainly gifts, products returned for repair, and 
samples of merchandise without any transaction involv ed.  It was correct that the TVINN electronic 
declaration system used a system of average transaction values, but the purpose of this system was not 
customs valuation, but rather to detect and select de clarations that might contain errors or that might 
require closer examination by customs officials. 
162. Norway only notified emergency measures and SPS measures that differed from what was 
covered by the EEA-Agreement.  Since 2004, Norw ay had submitted 15 notifications to the WTO, 
five of which were emergency notifications.  This demonstrated that the number of regulations that 
were purely national or differed substantia lly from the EEA-Agreement was limited. 
163. Norway had notified to the WTO the re gulation that abolished the decaBDE, 
(G/TBT/N/NOR/6).  After extensive public hearin gs and consultations in the TBT committee, the 
regulation prohibiting decaBDE was adopted on 9 D ecember 2007 and entered into force on 1 April 
2008. 
164. Norwegian authorities were currently examining the comments received in  the public hearing 
and meeting with different stakeholders concerni ng a proposal to regulate 18 hazardous substances 
found in consumer products.  In the TBT comm ittee meeting on 5-6 November, Norway would 
provide further information regarding the process, as  well as considerations regarding the proposed 
regulation. 
165. Norway affirmed that it was not possible to give a precise estimate of the percentage of 
government procurement actually aw arded to foreigners based on current available data.  Norway was 
taking steps to improve future reporting. 
3. Sectoral policies 
166. Norway noted that its market was by no means closed for agricultural products.  Outside 
domestically produced agricultural goods, Norwegian tariff protection was zero or only marginal.  
Norway was a net importer of agricultural products, as the value of imported agricultural products far 
exceeded the value of agricultural production.  During 2004-07, agri cultural imports had increased by 
37% in general, 50% from developing countries, an d 70% from LDCs.  Norway remained within its 
bound commitment levels for domestic support a nd export competition for all commodities.  
Furthermore, Norway was fully committed to the mandate of the DDA, and it was prepared to 
undertake substantial reductions in support levels  and tariff barriers as mandated by the Doha 
declaration.   
167. The discussant
 noted that Norway had not fully repl ied to questions from Australia and New 
Zealand on farm support and the possibil ity of advancing reforms unilaterally. 
168. The representative of Norway stated that Norway  had made some technical revisions in its 
revised services offer, mainly to  streamline the terminology and ma ke the wording more consistent, 
but Norway did not consider that these changes had altered the substance of existing commitments.   
169. The main reason for the introduction of changes to the tonnage tax system was to ensure a 
level playing field within the EEA for the shippi ng sector.  More detailed information was submitted 
in writing.  WT/TPR/M/205 
 Page 29 
 
 
  170. Work permits were required for most foreign citi zens wishing to work in Norway.  Generally, 
a person needed a concrete, current offer of full time employment to get a permit.  Wages and 
working conditions should not be of a lower standard  than the applicable collective agreement, wage 
scale or normal standard for the location and profession.   No distinction was made between applicants 
from low income and other countries. WT/TPR/M/205 
Page 30  
 
  VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
171. The fifth Trade Policy Review of Norway has allowed this Body to appraise in detail the 
evolution of the country's trade policies since 2004.   I thank Chief Negotiator Mr. Sørli, Ambassador 
Johansen and their team for engaging so constructiv ely in this Trade Policy Review exercise.  I would 
also like to thank the discussant, Ambassador Te ehankee, and Members who participated in the 
discussion as part of this exercise. 
172. I should like to emphasize that this has been a very positive review.  We have heard 
widespread praise by Members for Norway's recent economic success, and its high standard of living 
and level of human development.  Members have noted that this success is not only the result of 
improved terms of trade but also of sound macr oeconomic policies and the general openness of 
Norway's trade and investment regime. 
173. Equally Members have commended Norway for its  support for and active participation in the 
multilateral trading system and the Doha Develo pment Agenda.  In particular, Members noted 
Norway's attention to development issues through its contribution to the Global Trust Fund, and its new GSP and Aid for Trade initiatives, which have been enhanced over the review period.  Some 
Members shared Norway's concern that anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures could be used as 
protectionist measures, and thus commended Norw ay for not using these in struments.  However, 
Members also suggested that Norway would enhan ce the predictability of its trading regime by 
closing the gap between bound and applied tariffs .  Norway undertook to submit its lagging WTO 
notifications as soon as possible. 
174. Members observed that some of the issues raised  at Norway's previous Review remained of 
concern today, notably, agricultural policies.  They drew attention to a contrast between these policies 
and the very liberal import regime for industrial products.  Norway has emphasized the importance it 
gives to ensuring a viable domestic agriculture sector, and that protection to agriculture covers a narrow range of products and is in line with its WTO commitments.  Nevertheless, Members urged 
Norway to undertake further reform and liberalization of the sector.  
175. With respect to questions about the high level of state participation in the economy, Norway 
has noted that the present government places a strong  emphasis on state ownership, which is seen as 
contributing to safeguard the public interest.  To improve transparency and efficiency, the roles of 
policy-maker and market regulator have been separ ated from the role of owner.  Norway also 
responded to various questions con cerning its foreign investment re gime, measures affecting imports, 
intellectual property rights, and policies in sect ors such as maritime transport and professional 
services. 
176. In conclusion, it is my sense that Members considered Norway as an example of how to 
sustain high living standards through policies that foster close integration in the global economy and sound management of natural resources.  Members re cognized that Norway's trade regime is generally 
liberal, but encouraged Norway to liberalize agricultu re in order to benefit its  domestic consumers and 
help strengthen the multilateral trading system, of which Norway has historically been one of the 
strongest supporters. 
177. I would like to close this meeting by thanki ng, once again, the discussant and the Members 
who took part in this meeting for contributing to  an informative review.  May I also thank the 
interpreters for their hard work.  I would also lik e to thank the delegation of Norway for addressing 
the various issues that Members have raised both in  writing and orally.  However, we look forward to 
receiving responses to the follow-up questions within the next month. 
__________