WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/65/Add.2 
9 October 2008 
 
 (08-4795) 
Committee on Trade and Development Original:   English 
  
 
GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES 
 
Communication from Brazil
 
 
Addendum  
  
 The following communication, dated 7 October 2008, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Brazil.  
_______________ 
 
 
SECOND GROUP OF QUESTIONS BY BRAZIL ON THE NOTIFICATION  
BY NORWAY (WT/COMTD/N/6/ADD.4) 
 
 
On 8 April 2008, Norway notified to the WTO a fu rther revision of its Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP).  The notification was circulated on 10 April 2008 in document WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4.  The scheme was presented at the Committee on Trade and Development on 5 May 2008 and discussed at the 70
th Session of the CTD on 15 July 2008, when Norway provided 
replies to questions posed by Brazil in advance of th at meeting in the form of a room document, later 
circulated as WT/COMTD/65/Add.1.   Based on the replies provided, as well as on a deeper examination of the notification contained in document WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4 and th e technical studies mentioned therein, Brazil 
wishes to seek further clarification on the following points: 
 
Question 1 : Could Norway provide a translation or a summary of the Report from the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs "Utviklingslandenes markedsadga ng til Norge", cited in footnote 4 of document 
WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4?    
Question 2 : Could Norway provide the reference to the report mentioned in footnote 5 of 
document WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4 and a translation or summary thereof?   Question 3 : While per capita income may be one objective criterion for assessing poverty levels, 
that indicator does not give a precise idea of inequali ties in income distribution inside countries, nor 
provide for an appropriate comparison of poverty levels between countries.  The explanation to 
Diagram 1 in the paper "Trade policy differe ntiation between devel oping countries under GSP 
schemes", commissioned by the Norwegian Government for the purposes of reviewing its GSP scheme, states:  
"In the Diagram, we also show the positions of Botswana and Namibia, 
that obtain special preferences in the Norwegian GSP system.  Both 
were LMC based on 2002 data, but – as noted – Botswana has now WT/COMTD/65/Add.2 
Page 2  
 
  moved to UMC.  Botswana is richer  than Brazil and a number of other 
large agricultural exporters.  Accord ing to 'objective criteria', it may be 
difficult to explain this differential treatment."
1 
 Given that Norway has chosen the DAC list as the sole  criterion related to income levels in its revised 
GSP (see answer to Brazil's question No. 2 in document WT/COMTD/65/Add.1), please explain in 
what manner due account of the above mentioned defi ciencies has been taken so that the scheme is 
based on objective criteria and, at the same time, at tends to the development, financial and trade needs 
of developing countries.  
Question 4 : The paper "Trade policy differentiati on between developing countries under GSP 
schemes", commissioned by the Norwegian Government  for the purposes of reviewing its GSP, seems 
to conclude in favor of the extension of pref erences and aid for trade not only to LDCs but to 
countries qualified as "second poorest" according to income criteria.  In that regard, the last paragraph 
of that document reads: 
 
"… The LDCs certainly need our support and our trade preferences, but around 4/5 of the world's poor are in other countries that also need market access"
2. 
 Without prejudice to a discussion on the appropriateness of income classification lists as an objective 
criterion for differentiating developing countries, please explain the rationale for excluding four 
countries with population over 75 million from the pref erential treatment accord ed to the second tier 
in the OECD "DAC" list, used as the basis for Norway's GSP? 
 Question 5 : The document "The future of Norway's GSP system"
3, that was also commissioned 
by the Norwegian Government for the purposes of re viewing its GSP scheme, states that "LDCs lack 
capital, skills, infrastructure and technology, and th ey have only to a limited extent been able to 
exploit the favorable trade rules granted by Norway  (and some other industrial counties)." (page 2).  
Further on, the paper expresses the opinion that "( …) it is widely accepted that the poorest countries 
need much more than market access in order to su cceed.  Trade related aid is therefore important for 
these countries.  This has also been acknowledged by  the Norwegian Government, e.g. in a report to 
the Parliament (St.meld. nr. 35, 2003-2004), and trad e-related aid to e.g. the agricultural sector is 
currently stepped up." (page 16).  When discussing pref erence erosion concerns by beneficiaries, it is 
indicated that:   
"(…) concerns for preference erosion should not be allowed to block or 
hinder multilateral liberalisation that may benefit development in 
general, and other developing countries.   The results of Anderson et al. 
(2005) suggest that Sub-Saharan Africa may gain more from WTO 
agricultural reform than other developi ng countries, in spite of terms of 
trade losses.  The results also indi cate that increased trade between 
developing countries is important for the development impact of the 
current round, and that developing countries therefore should undertake 
liberalisation themselves.   A proposal is that trade-related aid could be 
given in exchange for such comm itments by the developing countries ." 
(page 17 – emphasis added)     
 
                                                      
1 http://www.nupi.no/content/download/ 1229/34404/version/8/file/685.pdf , page 13. 
2 http://www.nupi.no/content/download/ 1229/34404/version/8/file/685.pdf , page 24. 
3 http://english.nupi.no/content/download/1284/35909/version/6/file/680b2.pdf    WT/COMTD/65/Add.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Please comment on the above mentioned propo sal and on any effects it may produce on the 
implementation of the decisions referred to in points 12, 13 and 14 of Norway's GSP notification 
(WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4).  Question 6 : Section 54 of the document "The future of Norway's GSP System"
4 refers to "strange 
information practices for grain and oilseeds", poin ting out to the risk of wrong information on the 
applied tariff for those products (0 per cent or 2. 13 per cent).  Please comment on any clarifications 
that have been made on this particular is sue since 2005, when the document was written. 
  
__________  
                                                     
 
4 http://english.nupi.no/content/download/1284/35909/version/6/file/680b2.pdf , page 49.