WORLD TRADE WT/TPR/M/15
5August 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3091)
Trade Policy Review Body
11-12 June 1996
TRADE POLICY REVIEW
NORWAY
MINUTES OFMEETING
Chairperson: H.E. MsAnne Anderson (Ireland)
Page
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BYTHE CHAIRPERSON 2
II. OPENING STATEMENT BYTHE REPRESENTATIVE OFNORWAY 3
III. STATEMENT BYTHE FIRST DISCUSSANT 6
IV. STATEMENT BYTHE SECOND DISCUSSANT 8
V. STATEMENTS BYMEMBERS 11
VI. REPLIES BYTHE REPRESENTATIVE OFNORWAY
AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 19
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS BYTHE CHAIRPERSON 32WT/TPR/M/15
Page2
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BYTHE CHAIRPERSON
1. Thesecond Trade Policy Review ofNorway washeldon11and12June1996. TheChairperson
welcomed thedelegation ofNorway, headed byMr.AtleLeikvol, Director-General, Foreign Economic
Affairs, oftheMinistry ofForeign Affairs, Trade andShipping, andthediscussants, Dr.Vassili Notis
ofGreece andMr.Peter BrñooftheSlovak Republic. Asusual, bothdiscussants would speak intheir
personal capacities andnotasrepresentatives oftheircountries. Inaccordance withtheestablished
procedures, thediscussants hadmade available, inadvance, outlines ofthemainissues theyintended
toraise.
2. TheChairperson recalled thepurpose oftheTrade Policy Reviews andthemain elements of
theprocedures forthismeeting. Thereport bytheGovernment ofNorway wascontained in
document WT/TPR/G/15 andthatoftheWTO Secretariat indocument WT/TPR/S/15; themainissues
toberaised bythediscussants werecontained indocument WT/TPR/W/19. Copies ofwritten questions
submitted bythree delegations (Hong Kong, Canada andtheCzech Republic) hadbeentransmitted
tothedelegation ofNorway. Iffullreplies could notbeprovided during themeeting, supplementary
written replies should beprovided later.
3. Recalling thatintergovernmental organizations could attend meetings oftheGeneral Council
through decisions taken onthebasisofadhocarrangements, theChairperson proposed thattheTrade
Policy Review Body invite theFAO, EFTA, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD andtheWorld Bank, which
hadrequested observer status, toitsnextmeeting. Itwassoagreed.WT/TPR/M/15
Page3
II. OPENING STATEMENT BYTHE REPRESENTATIVE OFNORWAY
4. Therepresentative ofNorway thanked theWTO Secretariat forthepreparation ofits
comprehensive report andnoted thathispresentation would focus onthree major areas ofrelevance
forNorwegian tradepolicy: (i)Basic features related toNorwegian economy andtrade; (ii)Institutional
framework related todomestic andinternational developments; and(iii)Sectoral andspecific topics.
Henoted thatNorway 'sgeographical situation hadsome bearing onthediscussions; itslowpopulation
density andlongdistances constituted ademographic andgeographic point ofdeparture forNorwegian
economic activities andpolicies.
(i) Economy andTrade
5. Theeconomic situation hadbeencharacterized bystrong growth since thefirsttrade policy
review ofNorway in1991. Total GDP hadgrown onaverage by3.5percentperyearbetween 1991
and1995, supported byincreased petroleum production. Therecovery hadgathered momentum and
growth wascurrently ledbyanincrease inprivate consumption, investments intheenterprise sector
inmainland Norway (i.e.excluding theoffshore sector), andgrowth inexports ofoilandgas.Itwas
estimated thatinvestments intheenterprise sector inmainland Norway would increase by12percent
in1996.
6. There hadbeenstrong growth inemployment since 1993; theunemployment ratehadbeen
significantly reduced from thepeakof6percenttoclose to4percentatpresent.
7. Inflation hadcontinued todecline andcurrently stood at1.25percent. TheNorwegian krone
hadremainedstablesinceDecember1992,andmonetarypolicywasorientedtowardsensuringitskrone's
exchange ratestability vis-à-vis other European currencies. Thefiscal balance wasexpected toshow
asurplus ofalmost 4percentin1996, andthecurrent account surplus wasestimated toreach 5per
cent.
8. TheNorwegian economy washealthy. Major challenges weretoensure competitiveness of
Norwegian business andindustry andtomaintain budget discipline inorder tocopewithincreased
expenditures duetotheaging ofthepopulation, coinciding withtheexpected decline ofpetroleum
revenues atthebeginning ofthenextcentury. Aspecial Petroleum Fund hadbeenestablished asan
instrument toaccumulate national savings tomeetfuture financial obligations.
9. Due tothesmall domestic market, Norway was highly dependent ontrade and
internationalization. In1995, exports amounted to38percentofGDP andimports to32percent.
Access tointernational markets wasofutmost importance toachieve Norway 'soverall goalof
employment andwelfare. Norwegian exports could bebroadly divided intothree equal categories:
oilandgas,traditional goods, andservices. Within services, theshipping sector represented about
halfoftheexports.
10. Since thelastreview, trade relations withtheEuropean Union hadbecome more important.
Including theformer EFTA member countries theEUreceived about 75percentofallNorwegian
merchandise exports andprovided about 70percentofmerchandise imports. Figures forcentral and
eastern European countries were 2and3percent, forNorth America 8and10percent, andfor
developing countries asawhole approximately 9percentforbothexports andimports.WT/TPR/M/15
Page4
(ii) Structural reforms andinstitutional framework
11. Anopentrade environment wasessential toachieving domestic growth aswellaspromoting
international economic andpolitical stability. Support foranopen multilateral trading system was
therefore anintegral partofNorwegian economic andforeign policy.
12. SincethelastreviewofNorway,anumberofimportantstructuralreformshadbeenimplemented,
including ataxreform, reorganization oftheelectricity market, elimination offinancial support to
fisheries, andagricultural policy reforms.
13. Themain thrust ofthese reforms hadbeen toderegulate markets, increase international
competitiveness andreduce support tobusiness andindustry, while maintaining population settlement
patterns andensuring equal opportunities. Inthisrespect there wasdirect interaction between trade
liberalization anddomestic structural changes.
14. Completion oftheUruguay Round, andtheentry intoforce oftheEEAAgreement andseveral
free-trade agreements represented important developments inNorway 'sinstitutional framework.
15. TheWTO Agreements hadbeenimplemented according toNorway 'sobligations andschedules.
Norwegian tariff cutsforindustrial products were particularly predominant forproducts withpeak
tariffs suchastextiles. Industrial tariffs weredown toaweighted average of2percent. Under the
Agreement onTextiles andClothing Norway hadliberalized itsremaining quantitative restrictions on
1January 1996, andintended toabolish allrestrictions notlaterthantheyear2000, fiveyears ahead
ofschedule.
16. Thedispute settlement mechanism andgeneral strengthening ofrules were ofparticular
importance toNorway. Legislation onanti-dumping, countervailing duties andsafeguards hadbeen
amended toensure conformity withtheWTO agreements. Nosuchmeasures hadbeeninitiated during
thepasttenyears.
17. InthetwonewUruguay Round sectors, TRIPS andservices, Norway hadfullyimplemented
theresults, andthenecessary notifications hadbeensubmitted.
18. On10June1996,theNorwegianParliamentapprovedthesecondandthirdprotocols,onfinancial
services andmovement ofnatural persons; Norway expected tobewithin thedeadlines set.Norway 's
offer onbasic telecom services opened voice telephony andinfrastructure services tointernational
competition. Norway continued tohopethatitsfullyliberal offeronmaritime transport services would
contribute totheestablishment ofatrulymultilateral, m.f.n.-based agreement.
19. Under theEEA Agreement, inoperation since 1January 1994, EUlegislation ontheSingle
Market wasextended toNorway, thussubstantially widening thefree-trade relations established through
the1973 EC-Norway FreeTrade Agreement. TheAgreement covered EUlegislation intheareas
offreemovement ofgoods, services, labour andcapital. Theareas notcovered included theEU
Common Agricultural Policy andCommon Fisheries Policy, andlegislation ontaxation. Itwasnot
acustoms union andthusdidnotprovide forcommon external tariffs ortrade policy.
20. Norway andtheother EFTA countries hadconcluded free-trade agreements withPoland,
Hungary, theSlovak republic, theCzech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Israel andTurkey.
Free-trade agreements hadalsobeensigned bytheEFTA countries withLatvia, Lithuania andEstonia.
Inaddition, Norway haddeveloped anewsetoftrade andeconomic agreements withRussia andtheWT/TPR/M/15
Page5
other members countries oftheCommonwealth ofIndependent States (CIS); thesehadbeennegotiated
asclosely aspossible toWTO rules.
21. Theunderlying rationale forconcluding theagreements hadbeen tosecure Norwegian
competitiveness inthesemarkets; tofacilitate bilateral economic integration through alegalframework
regulating andpromoting mutual trade andinvestment; andtocontribute totheprocess ofpolitical
andeconomic reform inthese countries. Norway believed thatthedynamics ofregionalism were
complementary tothemultilateral system andcontributed toglobal trade, provided thatregional
agreements were consistent withmultilateral trade rules. Regional agreements paved thewayfor
Norway 'sglobal liberalization efforts, accelerating theelimination orreduction oftariffs onanm.f.n.
basis. Norway would continue topursue regional andbilateral agreements inaccordance withWTO
conditions.
(iii) Sectoral andspecific topics
22. Agriculture, although accounting foronlyabout 2percentofGDP, played animportant rôle
inregionaldevelopment,environmentalprotectionandconservationoffoodsecurity.Significantchanges
inagricultural policy inrecent years were theresult ofpolicy goals introduced in1993 aswellas
developments inthemultilateral trade system.
23. Keyfeatures were thereduction ofassistance tothesector, lowering ofconsumer prices on
agricultural commodities toachieve pricelevels more inlinewithneighbouring markets, andreduction
ofcosts. Theaimwastoencourage more competitive primary production aswellasprocessing, while
supporting production inremote areas andaccommodating environmental concerns.
24. FollowingimplementationoftheWTOAgreementonAgriculture,allnon-tariffimportmeasures
foragricultural products hadbeenreplaced bycustoms tariffs; internal support measures hadbeen
adapted andreduced; andexport subsidies hadbeencut.Theunweighted average reduction inimport
duties was36percentforagricultural products. Reduction ofduties foragricultural products had
beenaccelerated; tariff levels fortheyear2000 hadbeenimplemented from 1July1995.
25. Norway wasparticularly concerned thatthemultilateral trade system benefit thedeveloping
countries, especially theleast-developed countries. TheNorwegian GSPwasrevised in1995. Most
manufactured goods hadenjoyed duty- andquota-free access totheNorwegian market since 1971;
asaresult oftherevision, allindustrial andagricultural goods fromtheleast-developed countries were
eligible forpreferential treatment, withzerodutyonallproducts except forgrain, meatandfeeding
stuffs, which qualified fora30percentreduction within certain quantitative ceilings. Forother
developing countries, preferences ranged from100to10percenttariffcuts;mostagricultural products
were included.WT/TPR/M/15
Page6
III. STATEMENT BYTHE FIRST DISCUSSANT
26. Thefirstdiscussant (Dr.Vassili Notis) congratulated theSecretariat foritsreport, andwas
pleased tonotethatNorway 'seconomy washealthy andmoving intheright direction Theserious
recession inthe1980s wasfollowed, byaperiod ofsustained growth inthe1990s, withannual rates
intheorder of3percent,rising to5.7percentin1994. Ingeneral, economic growth wasassociated
withasteady decrease intheinflation ratefrom 4.1percentin1990 toreach 1.4percentin1994,
withaslight increase to2.4percentrecorded in1995.
27. Understandably, therecession ofthe1980s hadstrongly affected employment, withrates
increasing from2percentto7percent,however, subsequent economic growth during the1990s had
onlyslightly improved theunemployment rate. Compared withother countries thefigure wasnot
high,at4.9percentin1995, or6percentincluding participation injobcreation programmes; however,
itwaswellabove the2percentrecorded inthe1980s. Herequested anexplanation ofthissituation,
andwhether itcould beattributed solely totheincreased productivity ofthe1990s orifother factors
were preventing thegrowth ofemployment.
28. Akeysector oftheNorwegian economy wasoilandnatural gasprocessing. According to
theSecretariat, theeconomy wasbetter placed thantenyears previously toadapt topossible fallsin
oilprices, andrecent intensification inproduction could beconsidered asanattempt toreduce future
price uncertainties. Ifthisweredonewithout strong negative effects onprices inother sectors, there
would befurther increases inthecurrent account andinState budget surpluses.
29. Tostabilise receipts, andreduce their effect onthecompetitiveness ofother sectors, the
Government established aStatePetroleum Fundin1990; thesurpluses weretobeinvested inaportfolio
offoreign financial assets. Thishadnotbeenthecasesince theFund wascreated, andtheauthorities
hadusedreceipts tostimulate theeconomic recovery. Itwasforeseen thatthiswould notbethecase
asfrom1996, andherequested further information regarding theplacement ofthe1996fundsurpluses.
30. Herequestedfurtherinformationontheprojectfortheproductionofelectricallypoweredvehicles
mentioned intheSecretariat report.
31. Inservices, thebasic telecommunications sector washighly liberalized andNorway 'slistof
commitments intheGATS wasoneofthebest; henoted thatthere would benolimitation tomarket
access orcommercial presence from 1January 1998.
32. Following thebanking crisis ofthelate1980s andearly 1990s, theGovernment ofhadset
uptheBankInsuranceFund,andaftersuccessivecapitalinjectionsfromthis,becamethesoleshareholder
inthethree main banking institutions. Recovery ofthissupport would betoalarge extent through
there-privatization ofbanks. Heasked forinformation onthestatus ofaproposal toreform the
guarantee fundarrangement, which wastobepresented toParliament inspring 1996.
33. Three categories oflimitations appeared onNorway 'slistofcommitments inthebanking sector.
Firstly, aproposal thatwould leadtotheabolition ofcurrent reciprocity conditions onforeign bank
establishment wastobepresented toparliament. Heasked forinformation onthecurrent situation
ofthisproposal andwhether thereweresimilar intentions concerning thetwoother types oflimitation,
(i)onnational treatment forbankmanagement, i.e.permanent residence inNorway orEEAmember
Statenationality andresidence inNorway fortwoyears; and(ii)therequirement ofcommercial presence
inanEEA Member State fortheprovision ofcertain services.WT/TPR/M/15
Page7
34. There were alsothree limitations intheinsurance sector. Thefirstconcerned cross-border
trade ininsurance services. Intermediation ofauthorized brokers established inaStatenotamember
oftheEEAwaslimited tocertain types ofinsurance. There werealsolimitations onnational treatment
concerning ownership andmanagement personnel. Thirdly, there wasalimitation oncommercial
presence: brokerage firms were required tobeorganized asjointstock companies. Herequested
information onthecurrent status oftheexamination ofthelatter limitation, andwhether anysimilar
examination wasintended forthetwoother limitations inthissector.
35. Henoted thattheNorwegian fleetwasthethirdlargest intheworld, andtheNorwegian offer
inthissector wasoneofthebestonthetableintheGroup ofNegotiations onMaritime Transport.
There hadbeenadecline inthenumber ofvessels, while theaverage ageoftheflagfleethadalso
declined; thisledtotheconclusion thatthenumber ofoldvessels soldwashigher thantheregistration
ofnewships Heasked theNorwegian delegation whether thiswasasource ofconcern totheNorwegian
authorities.
36. Shipswithmorethan40percentforeignownershipwererequiredtobeoperatedbyaNorwegian
ship-owning company withitsheadoffice inNorway orbyaNorwegian management company. He
asked whether there wasaceiling onthepercentage offoreign ownership.
37. Themention ofdirect registration intheNorwegian International ShipRegister, referred to
intheSecretariat report raised thequestion whether indirect registration alsoexisted. Heasked for
clarification ofthispoint.
38. AGovernmentWhitePaperonmaritimetransportpolicy,presentedtotheNorwegianParliament
on15March 1996, wasexpected tobediscussed inJune1996. Included wereproposals onexpanding
thetaxreimbursement scheme forseafarers andadjusting rulesfortaxation ofNorwegian-controlled
foreign companies. Herequested more detailed information.
39. Thetreatment ofthemaritime sector indifferent countries hadabearing ontheelaboration
ofmaritime policy. Insome countries, themaritime sector wastreated aspartofthenational heritage,
andcertain conditions wereimposed toobtain rights toflythenational flag;forexample, onownership,
participation of"foreign physical persons" inmanagement andthepercentage offoreign labour.
Other countries qualified themaritime sector simply asaservice supplier inthemost economical
conditions. Inthiscasenolimitations existed regarding therighttoflythenational flag. Heasked
which ofthetwotendencies wasprevalent inNorway andwhether there waslikely tobeanychange.
40. AccordingtothereportsubmittedbytheNorwegianGovernmentmaritimetransportrepresented
about 90percentoftheinternational transport ofgoods. Consequently, liberalization inthissector
would bebeneficial toallcountries. With verylittletimeremaining fortheconclusion ofthe
negotiations taking place intheWTO, heasked whattheconsequences would be,inNorway 'sview,
ifthese negotiations were notcompleted.WT/TPR/M/15
Page8
IV. STATEMENT BYTHE SECOND DISCUSSANT
41. Thesecond discussant (Mr.Peter Brño) saidthatNorway 'sactive participation intheUruguay
Round negotiations, aswellasthequality ofitsconcessions andearly ratification, proved itsclear
commitment toanopenmultilateral trading system. Tariffs intheindustrial sector werelowandNorway
hadmade commitments forfurther reductions of44percent. Duty-free market access forfree-trade
partners andabroad GSPscheme further indicated thatliberalization wasanessential element in
Norway 'strade policy objectives forindustrial products. Initial steps intheagricultural sector had
alsobeeneffected andcommitments were undertaken inallareas under theUruguay Round.
42. National legislation onpreshipment inspection, customs valuation andrules oforigin were
considered byNorway tobeconsistent withWTO agreements; minor modifications hadbeenmade
tosubsidiesandanti-dumpinglegislation.ProvisionsonsafeguardsalreadyexistedaspartoftheCustoms
Tariff.
43. Concessions offered in96services sectors, together withNorway 'sactive participation in
negotiations inthefinancial services, basic telecom andmaritime sectors, proved thatanopenrégime,
based onfaircompetition andmultilaterally adopted rules, alsoplayed animportant rôleinNorway 's
trade policy objectives intheareaofservices.
44. Norway 'slegislation onintellectual property rights confirmed effective policy. Provisions
under consideration toauthorize customs officials tointervene andseizeinfringing imports orexports
would further improve theefficiency ofexisting legislation; specific legislation ongeographical
indications would support compliance withtheTRIPS Agreement.
45. Norway 'swasstrongly involved inregional trade, withparticularly highconcentration intrade
withtheEU.Inhisview, Norway 'sapproach could beregarded astradecreating rather thandiverting.
Hesuggested thattaking intoaccount theproduction, tradeandinvestment potential, inseeking closer
relations withitsgeographical neighbours, which implied access toamarket ofover400million people,
Norway could notbeconsidered ascreating regionalism. Neither didheconsider thatNorway 'strade
policies werediversionary when current tariffrateswere3.6percent,tobereduced to2percentafter
implementation ofUruguay Round commitments; 45percentofimports would beduty-free; and
broad GSPcoverage reduced thepreferential margin toabareminimum. Thirdly, moves toenhance
thenatural direction oftradeaspect should notbeconsidered asdiverting under themultilateral system.
46. These considerations, however, excluded agriculture. Itwasimportant fortrade initiatives
tobecompatible withcommitments inthemultilateral framework; inthisrespect, heasked for
information regarding anyfuture stepsenvisaged toincorporate theagricultural sector intopreferential
agreements andthepossibility ofintroducing anevolutionary clause, suchasthatcontained intheEEA
Agreement, intoallsuchagreements.
47. Norway 'stariffs weregenerally low.However, tariffescalation wasnoted intextiles andtextile
products, plastics andfootwear. Inagriculture, even aftertheimplementation oftariff reduction
commitments, tariff protection wasalsoveryhigh.
48. Norway 'sGSPscheme, oneofthemostcomprehensive among developed countries, granted
duty-free access formanufactured products except textiles, clothing andfootwear. However, inthe
agricultural sector, onlyproducts specifically included inthescheme enjoyed unlimited duty-free access.
Revision oftheGSPscheme would initially improve market access forbothdeveloping andleast-
developed countries buttheexclusion ofproducts ofparticular interest todeveloping countries couldWT/TPR/M/15
Page9
undermine thequality oftheconcessions provided; strict technical standards, andsanitary and
phytosanitary regulations could erode GSPbenefits.
49. TechnicalregulationsinNorwaytookaccountoftheworkcarriedoutintherelevantinternational
organizations andwere harmonized withthose intheEU. However, some were stricter thanthose
internationally adopted andtosome extent thisprotectionist element could disqualify exports ofgoods
from some developing countries. Efforts forenvironmental protection were appreciated, butthese
should notbeusedforprotection purposes. Certain negative effects ontradecould benoted inrelation
tothe"White Swan" environmental labelling scheme. Heasked whether, having passed relevant testing
procedures, products could beimported without the"White Swan" label, andwhatstepswereneeded
tofulfil thisrequirement.
50. Quotas ontextiles andclothing, footwear from Chinese Taipei, andwhale meat andrelated
products were effected through import licensing requirements; these were expected tobemodified
onimplementation oftheWTO Safeguards Agreement. Norway didnotcurrently apply anysafeguard
oranti-dumping measures. Given thatNorway 'sgeneral rulesfortheimposition ofsafeguard measures
wereinsufficient under therequirements oftheAgreement, heenquired about theplans andtimetable
foradopting suchlegislation.
51. Minimum access quotas adopted byNorway under theUruguay Round, aswellastariffquotas
under theGSPscheme, wereallotted byauction. Itcould beargued thatthissystem could impose
additional costs onconsumers, disrupt markets andleadtomonopolization. Heasked whether there
werepositive arguments forthissystem andwhether itwasfullyinconformity withtheAgreement
onImport Licensing andother Articles oftheGATT. Herequested further information onthe
functioning oftheauctioning system, forexample, whether quota allocations could bepartially orfully
re-sold.
52. StatetradinghadplayedakeyroleinNorway'sagriculturaltrade.Twocompaniesheldexclusive
rights toimport grainandfeeding stuffs. Although monopoly rights wereabolished on1January 1995,
thenewsystem implied relatively small changes topurchasing arrangements withfarmers. Other
companies involved inStateimport monopolies, including foralcoholic beverages andpharmaceuticals,
hadbeendirectly involved indomestic supply. Thecurrent régime, covering production, foreign trade
anddomestic distribution ofalcoholic beverages wasstillover-regulated andtradedirecting given the
additional hightaxes andexcise duties. Progress hadbeenmade butfurther liberalization would be
welcomed.
53. Norway 'sVAT levelwasamong thehighest inEurope, at23percent, although there were
anumber ofexceptions. Hequestioned therationale behind thishighlevel, given thebudget surplus
estimated at1.8percentofGDP in1995.
54. Subsidies, invarious forms, wereusedbyNorway tosupport regional development, research,
environmental improvement, andexport promotion, aswellasforsectoral assistance inagriculture
andshipbuilding. Since subsidies were tosome extent categorized astrade disruptive measures, he
asked forcomments onfuture policy inthisarea.
55. Agriculture wastheonlyhighly protected sector intheNorwegian economy. PostUruguay
Round tariffs averaged around 100percent, withadvalorem ratesonanumber ofselected products
ashighas300to600percent. Heexpressed acertain understanding ofpastagricultural policies for
cultural, landscape andenvironmental objectives, andmaintaining dairy farming asthebackbone of
many ruralcommunities, butconsidered thatdistortive elements remained forinternational trade. Trade
incertain agricultural products wasregulated byseveral marketing boards, andborder protection wasWT/TPR/M/15
Page10
high.Therewerevariousformsofdomesticsupport,togetherwithminimumpricesforselectedproducts
andstrict sanitary andphytosanitary measures. Realcompetition wasthusundermined. Ontheother
handNorway hadtaken stepstoimprove costefficiency andmarket orientation inagriculture through
tariff cutsandsimplified support schemes.
56. Thefisheries sector wasalsomore highly regulated andprotected thanothers. Gradual
liberalization wasnecessary, particularly withpreferential trade partners, toallow more competition
inthisarea. Heasked forclarification oftheterm"abnormally lowprices" withregard tominimum
import prices; further information onrestrictions onforeign ownership ofvessels; andontheprocessing
offishonforeign vessels inside thefishing limits; andforadefinition oftheExclusive Economic Zone.
57. Theprimary objective ofNorway 'sregional policy, tomaintain theoverall population pattern,
waseffected mainly through theuseofregional aidschemes, intheformofgrants, loans, taxconcessions
andloanguarantees. Policies werefocused ontherestructuring ofregions depending onasingle industry
andofineffectiveindustriesinspecificregions,andonretrainingtheworkforce.Supportforjobcreation
would helptoachieve these policy objectives. Nevertheless, agradual decrease ofsubsidies was
necessary.
58. Several questions could beraised regarding Stateownership andprivatization inNorway. A
number ofkeycompanies were under statecontrol, including twoofthelargest commercial banks
andtheState OilCompany. Herequested information onthesituation ofgasdistribution networks,
electrical power stations, theelectricity network, water supply, andtelecommunications. Heenquired
about thefuture policy fortheprivatization ofwholly orpartially state-owned companies andforthe
decontrol ofprices.WT/TPR/M/15
Page11
V. STATEMENTS BYMEMBERS
59. TherepresentativeofHongKongnotedthatbilateraltradewithNorway,hadgrownatanaverage
rateof15percentduring the1990s. Herequested further details ofNorway 'sreview ofthecost-
effectiveness oflowtariffs, which could leadtotheremoval ofso-called nuisance tariffs, aninitiative
supported byhisdelegation. Norway hadnottaken anyanti-dumping, countervailing orsafeguard
measures sincethelastreview, reflecting anopenattitude totrade. Hisdelegation hadnoted Norway 's
partial liberalization programme under theAgreement onTextiles andClothing andbelieved thatfurther
liberalization ofNorway 'stextiles régime would improve market access. Norway 'scontribution to
development objectives wastobecommended.
60. Therepresentative ofCanada noted thesimilar positions ofNorway andCanada, inthateach
mustmanagecloseeconomicrelationswithamuchlargerneighbour.TheEEAAgreement,hadprovided
access forNorwegian industrial andservice enterprises totheEUmarket onsimilar terms tofirms
within theEU.Herequested comments onareasnotcovered bytheEEAAgreement thatcaused concern
tothebusiness community.
61. Regardingenvironmentalpolicies,herequestedfurtherinformationontheexcisetaxesoncarbon
dioxide andsulphur dioxide emissions, andtheirsubsequent modification. Withrespect totheWhite
Swan eco-labelling programme, which hisdelegation considered wasoperated inagenerally openand
transparent manner, heasked whether itsworkprogramme waspublished forpublic review, andwhether
White Swan would benotified under theterms oftheTBTCode ofGood Practice.
62. Henoted thatthelarger partofNorway 'strade wasonaduty-free basis butthatsome tariffs
remained, forexample onfishspecies ofparticular interest toNorway; export control measures on
fishwere alsomaintained. Hisdelegation hadnoted thederestriction oftheimport régime for
pharmaceutical goods, andrequested information regarding anydistinct treatment thatwould beput
inplace fornon-State-imported goods under EEA consistent measures.
63. Thedegree oftariff escalation intheforestry sector wassurprising, given thehighexport
orientation ofthisindustry, aswellasthemining industry. Herequested anupdate onthestatus of
areview onrestrictions onmining exploration toEEA nationals.
64. Henoted Telenor 'smonopoly position asatelecom equipment provider andtheconsequent
difficulties encountered bysome smaller Canadian suppliers.
65. Norway hadnotmentioned anyconsultation process usedbytheGovernment forformulation
oftrade policy initiatives. Heasked howandatwhat stage industry representatives andthepublic
were consulted.
66. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic saidthatNorway waspursuing areasonable policy
ofsustainable development, bothdomestically andexternally. Remarkable results hadbeenachieved
interms ofeconomic growth, limited unemployment, lowinflation, andsound monetary andfiscal
policies. Theoilandgassector remained thebackbone oftheeconomy. Steps hadbeentaken to
reduce thevulnerability oftheeconomy tovolatile oilandgasrevenues andherequested comments
fromtheNorwegian delegation ontherôleandproportions ofoilandnatural gasextraction especially
inNorway 'sfuture economic prospects.
67. Following thebanking crisis intheearly 1990s theNorwegian Government became amajor
shareholder inthecommercial banks. Heasked whether Norway intended toreduce therôleofthe
Government incommercial banking.WT/TPR/M/15
Page12
68. Norway 'stradeandeconomic policies towards developing countries andcountries intransition
wereworthy ofparticular attention. Norway hadfinanced WTO technical assistance forleast-developed
countries; itsGSPscheme fordeveloping countries ingeneral wasgenerous.
69. Norway 'sfocus onEuropean economic integration wasunderstandable. Although alarge
percentage oftrade waswithEuropean partners, itslinkwiththeexternal economic environment had
beenassociated withitssupport ofthemultilateral trading system. TheUruguay Round hadfurther
exposed theNorwegian economy toforeign competition. Anumber ofrestrictive measures hadbeen
replaced bymeasures expanding trade opportunities toforeign suppliers.
70. NorwaywasaheadofitsUruguayRoundimplementationobligations,acceleratingimplementation
ofmarket access commitments insensitive areas suchastextiles andagriculture. Further liberalization
wasrequired, however, inagriculture. Hisdelegation remained optimistic asaresult ofNorway 's
autonomous tariff reductions below bound levels andefforts tocomply with commitments.
71. Therepresentative ofSingapore considered thattheNorwegian Government deserved tobe
more highly praised foritsachievements ineconomic growth, lowinflation andunemployment.
Singapore wasNorway 'ssecond largest trading partner, andthetwocountries shared theview that
themultilateral trading system asembodied intheWTO wasparticularly important forsmall-sized
economies. Along withother ASEAN countries, Singapore wasconscious ofNorway 'sefforts to
integratedevelopingcountries,particularlyleast-developedcountries,intothemultilateraltradingsystem
andthefinancial contribution fortechnical assistance tothese countries.
72. Therepresentative ofIceland noted thatNorway 'smostimportant trade policy developments
since1991hadbeentheconclusion oftheUruguay Round andtheentry intoforceoftheEEA. Norway
hadactively participated instrengthening themultilateral trading system. Ithaddisplayed astrong
commitment totheprinciples offreetrade anditsexemplary economic performance wasbased onan
open, liberal economy, heavily dependent onforeign trade. Norway 'sefforts andearlyimplementation
ofcertain commitments under theAgreement onAgriculture wereappreciated. Protection remained
highincertain areas; however, applied tariffs foranumber ofitems weresignificantly below bound
rates. Inthefisheries sector, elimination ofnon-tariff barriers andsubstantial reduction insubsidies
andother government support measures were ofprimary concern. Hisdelegation would welcome
indications regarding theelimination offinancial support tothefishing sector.
73. Therepresentative ofAustralia joined other delegations incommending Norway 'ssupport for
anopenmultilateral trading system, andwelcomed theearlyimplementation ofbound tarifflevels under
theAgreement onAgriculture. Norway 'srelatively opentrading régime inservices reflected theprocess
ofderegulation andliberalization thathadbeenandwould continue tobeimplemented. Changes
undertaken inregard toNorway 'smembership oftheEEAhadledtoliberalization inimportant markets
suchasbanking andtelecommunication. Benefits werealsoavailable tothird-country service suppliers
through the"single licence" provision andtheextension toWTO members ofother liberalizing
provisions.
74. Highlevels ofprotection intheagricultural sector continued tocause concern. Average tariffs
formost agricultural products were 98percent. However, withaverages ofover200percentfor
certain products, andout-of-quota advalorem dutyratesranging above 600percentonfarmandfood
products, shewondered what further action wasintended bytheNorwegian Government toreduce
thehightlevels ofprotection andassistance. Forreasons ofsecurity inthedomestic market andadequate
supply, theNorwegian Grain Corporation wasauthorized toadjust tariffs onagricultural products.
Sherequested more detailed information onthetiming andmethod ofsuchadjustments andhowthe
responsibility hadbeengiven totheGrain Corporation. Sheasked howNorway would ensure thatWT/TPR/M/15
Page13
in-quota tariffratesforminimum access tariffquotas allocated atauctions would notbebreached, and
anexplanation ofNorway 'sdecision nottoallocate itstariff quotas onthebasis ofpastimport
performance withallowance fornewimporters. With reference totheEEA andother free-trade
agreements, sheasked forconfirmation thattariff quota access under suchagreements wasabove any
m.f.n. access under theUruguay Round. Noting thatformeatofdeerandmeatofelkthein-quota
tariff wasequal totheout-of-quota tariff rate,confirmation wassought thatthere would benotariff
quotas forthese products. Agricultural trade wasnotdirectly covered intheEEA Agreement; she
requested anexplanation oftheoperation oftheevolutionary clause contained intheAgreement, aimed
attheprogressive liberalization ofagricultural trade. Details werealsorequested ontherelation of
thisclause toProtocol 3oftheEEA; thestage ofnegotiations onthisProtocol; andtheintended form
andscope ofanyagreement inthisarea. TheEEAAgreement allowed safeguard measures under certain
circumstances. Sheasked howNorway determined when asafeguard measure would beapplied and
thenature ofsuchameasure.
75. Shenoted thatconsideration wasbeing given toarevision ofthemining law,which currently
restricted exploration rights toEEA residents; Norway wasencouraged topursue arevision which
would remove suchrestrictions.
76. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Union noted thegratifying economic situation inNorway.
Since thelastreview, Norway 'sliberalization inmostsectors hadtranslated intosubstantial reductions
inprice levels aswellasinsupport andprotection intheagriculture sector. Inaddition, unilateral
reductions applied inmanufacturing wentfarbeyond ratesbound intheUruguay Round. Inseveral
services sectors, Norway hadalsoapplied anumber ofunilateral measures wellbeyond itsmultilateral
commitments. Certain areas ofinvestment hadbeenexcluded from theliberalization process; he
sought information onthepossible further liberalization intheseareas. Heasked forfurther information
regarding Norway 'sposition onbringing investment intothemultilateral framework.
77. Norway 'spolicy ofextending preferences arising from bilateral agreements onaunilateral
basishadfurther opened itsmarkets toother trading partners. Thisliberalization extended tointernal
taxes, where Norway made nodiscrimination between domestic andforeign goods. Most privileges
accorded toState monopolies hadbeenabolished, however, herequested clarification ofNorway 's
intentions toopencompetition intheareaofalcoholic beverages.
78. Therepresentative ofPakistan welcomed Norway 'sefforts topromote trade withdeveloping
countries through financial andtechnical assistance aswell asthrough theimplementation of
improvements totheGSPscheme, particularly intheareas ofagricultural products andtextiles. He
expressed thehope thatconsideration ofthephasing outofbilateral textiles quotas within aperiod
offiveyears orsooner would bepursued.
79. TherepresentativetheUnitedStatesnotedthat,withseveralexceptions,Norway'stradingsystem
wasfreeandopenandNorway should becommended forthatsystem.
80. With regard totheEEA Agreement, heasked whythishadnever been reviewed inthe
GATT/WTO. Hebelieved thattheEUanditspartners considered theEEA tobeamodification of
its1973 free-trade agreements, butrequested comments onthispoint. TheEEA Agreement covered
onlyindustrial goods andnotagriculture andherequested comments fromtheNorwegian delegation
regarding therequirement under Article XXIV thatfree-trade agreements cover substantially alltrade.
Thesame Article clearly stated thatpreferential agreements should notraisebarriers forthirdparties.
HeaskedtheNorwegiandelegationtoexplainhowtheadoptionofEUpolicies,generallymorerestrictive
thanmeasures previously maintained inNorway, could beinconformity withArticle XXIV.WT/TPR/M/15
Page14
81. Intheareaofagriculture, heasked what further steps were intended bytheNorwegian
Government tobring itsprices intolinewithitsneighbours. Healsoasked iftherewereplans toinclude
agriculture inthepreferential agreement withtheEUinthefuture, andwhether anyspecial arrangements
existed inrelation toagriculture.
82. Inrelation tocustoms matters, hequeried howNorway could reconcile itsActof11June1993,
which allowed minimum values oncertain fishproducts intheevent ofmarket disturbances, withits
obligations under theWTO Valuation Agreement. Article 7.2oftheAgreement provided thatcustoms
value shallnotbedetermined onthebasis ofminimum values.
83. TheUnited States applauded theopening ofNorway 'sinvestment régime, particularly the
ergaomnes application ofnewlawsinrealestate, financial services andindustrial acquisitions, and
theintention toapply future liberalization ofcapital movements required under theEEA without
discrimination. Heasked ifthere wereplans toextend non-discriminatory treatment toother sectors
suchastransport. Healsoenquired whether theuniform notification andscreening system, relating
totheacquisition ofbusiness undertakings hadhelped tomaintain non-discriminatory treatment of
foreign investors.
84. Norway 'snotification obligations under theGATT 1994 hadbeenalmost flawless; heasked
when Norway intended tomake itsfewmissing notifications.
85. Therepresentative ofIndia noted thatNorway 'ssignificant economic progress since thelast
review hadbeenpartially duetotheGovernment 'sfiscal andmonetary policies, designed tofoster
non-inflationary growth. Norway hadtaken anumber ofunilateral reforms toimprove itsalready
liberal tradepolicy, prompted bothbyparticipation intheUruguay Round andmembership oftheEEA.
Thehighpercentage oftrade withpreferential trading partners leftlittlefortherestoftheworld and
hesuggested thatNorway should trytodiversify itstradewithaviewtostrengthening themultilateral
system.
86. Inthecontext ofenvironment andhealth-care issues, Norway 'stechnical regulations and
standards, aswellassanitary andphytosanitary regulations andtheeco-labelling practices hadtrade
distortionary anddiversionary effects which required close attention. However, Norway 'sefforts to
educate developing countries onthese regulations, thusenabling them tocapture larger shares ofthe
agricultural market, wereappreciated. Henoted thatareview ofthealready comprehensive GSPscheme
wasbeing undertaken, andhoped thatfootwear items ofinterest tothedeveloping countries would
beincluded inthescheme.
87. Given therelatively highprotection intheagriculture andfisheries sectors, heencouraged
Norway toprovide further access inthese areas. Henoted thatunder theGATS nolimitations on
market access ornational treatment existed under Mode IIIincertain tourism sectors; Norway was
encouraged toconsider applying amore liberal approach under Mode IV.
88. TherepresentativeofJapannotedhisdelegation'sappreciationofNorway'searlyimplementation
ofitsUruguay Round commitments, including theelimination oftariffs forimports ofautomobiles
andautomobile parts. Japan hadenjoyed atradesurplus withNorway, mainly duetoexports ofships
andautomobiles. Thissituation changed in1995when Norway 'simports ofships wereconsiderably
reduced; Japan'simports from Norway exceeded exports byabout $95million inthatyear.
89. Norway 'spromotion efforts fortheexpansion offoreign investment hadresulted inonlyone
Japanese company investing inNorwegian industry. Norway 'srelatively small internal market, high
wage andsocial security obligations, andhighprices andtaxes reduced itsattraction forinvestment.WT/TPR/M/15
Page15
90. Norway 'scontribution toservices negotiations wasremarkable, however, restrictions under
Mode IIIwereapplied toobroadly. Heencouraged Norway tofurther liberalize theservices sector.
91. With regard toanypossible future accession ofNorway totheEU,herequested thatadraft
modification ofthetariff schedule andtrade statistics besubmitted totheWTO. HisGovernment
considered thatcompensatory adjustment would berequired before completion ofaccession. Healso
requested thatinthiscaseanti-dumping taxation would notbeautomatically applied toimports from
Japan aswascurrently thecasewithEUmembers.
92. Therepresentative ofNewZealand shared theSecretariat 'sassessment thattheNorwegian
market wasmore openthanatthetimeofthelastTrade Policy Review. Norway wastobecommended
forseveral positive changes, particularly theautonomous liberalization inanumber ofareas. However
there were some important qualifications tothisassessment.
93. Intheagriculture sector, acceleration ofNorway 'stariffication commitments wereappreciated.
However, out-of-quota dutyratesonfarmandfoodproducts remained high, withanaverage of200per
centforawiderange ofproducts ofinterest toNewZealand; thisunderlined thepressing needfor
continued substantive reform. Hewasinterested tohearNorway 'sresponse toquestions already asked
regarding theallocation mechanism fortariff quotas.
94. Possible tradediversion arising fromNorway 'sextensive preferential tradearrangements was
alsoofconcern. ThebulkofNorway 'stradetookplaceunder EEAandotherpreferential arrangements.
TheEEAAgreementdidnotcoveragricultureandtheevolutionaryclausesuggestedthatthecommitment
toprogressiveliberalizationofagriculturaltradewasaverylong-termobjective.Herequestedcomments
from theNorwegian delegation inthisrespect. More generally, oneresult ofthese agreements was
asignificant differentiation inmarket access opportunities among trading partners.
95. AthirdareaofconcernwasNorway'sextensivesubsidies,whichdistortedthedomesticeconomy
andcould adversely affect conditions oftrade forthird countries. Hebelieved thatitwould bein
Norway 'sinterest tosubstantially reduce therange andamount ofsubsidies.
96. Subsidies werealsousedforenvironmental improvement andparticipation intheWhite Swan
environmentallabellingscheme.Continuedsubsidiesforfisheriesandshipbuildingcontributedtoglobal
oversupplyoffishingcapacityandthustocontinuedpressureonfishstocks.Reductionsinsuchsubsidies
would make bothgood trade policy andenvironment sense. Heasked theNorwegian delegation to
comment onthecompatibility between Norway 'straderégime andenvironmental objectives. Thepulp
andpaper industry wasalsosubsidized anddistinct m.f.n. tariff escalation wasmaintained onwood
andwood products. Hiscountry believed thattrade liberalization inthisareawould bebothfully
compatible withtheobjectives andprinciples oftheWTO andcould make asubstantial contribution
tosustainable development. Herequested Norway 'sviews.
97. Norway 'scontribution todevelopment through itsGSPscheme andfinancial contribution to
WTO activities wastobecommended.
98. Therepresentative ofHungary stated thathisGovernment shared theNorwegian experience
thatthedynamics ofregionalism were complementary tothemultilateral system andthatregional
agreements wereapotential vehicle foracountry 'stradepolicy liberalization. Bilateral traderelations
withNorway weregood, however, therewasroom forimprovement ofaccess totheNorwegian market,
inparticular intheagricultural sector.WT/TPR/M/15
Page16
99. Norway 'searlyimplementation ofbound tarifflevels wasappreciated, although tariffs remained
high. Herequested further explanation oftheNorwegian Grain Corporation 'sauthority toadjust tariffs.
While commending Norway formeasures being taken toimprove market orientation inthissector,
Hungary would encourage Norway topursue further policies directed atintroducing more competition
intheagricultural sector.
100. Therepresentative ofPerunoted twoareas ofconcern. Firstly, Norway 'sGSPscheme was
oneofthemostcomplete; however, concessions werenotextended tothetextiles sector fordeveloping
countries. Heasked ifthere were plans toinclude thissector, andwhen apossible revision would
takeplace.
101. Secondly, concerning Norwegian investment abroad, heasked whether taxincentives existed
topromote investment indeveloping countries, inparticularly least-developed countries, andifnot,
whether anystudies were being carried outinthisfield.
102. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland stated thatregional integration efforts hadnotcreated trade
distortion, instead theyhadcontributed tocompetition inNorway 'sexternal trade notonlyvis-à-vis
European markets.
103. ThegreaterflexibilityofNorway'sinvestmentrégimewasalsoappreciated,withbetterconditions
forforeign investors, aswellasamore favourable climate fordevelopment oftrade. Similar
developments hadalsotaken place inthefieldofservices. Inmany areas Norway 'smodel system
oriented towards trade growth benefited notonlyNorwegian society butalsomultilateral trade asa
whole.
104. Herequested further information onthefunctioning oftheNorwegian Competition Authority
andthetypes ofmeasure taken bytheNorwegian Government onthebasisofevaluations undertaken
bythisauthority.
105. Therepresentative ofRomania noted thevarious positive trends towards trade liberalization
andopening ofcompetition inNorway since thelastreview. Heshared theview ofseveral other
delegations thatNorway 'spreferential tradeagreements wereinconformity withthemultilateral trade
rules, were nottrade distortive, andhadinfactledtoanincrease intrade withallcountries. His
country 'strade andother relations withNorway were verygood.
106. Norway 'simportant rôleinsupporting themultilateral trading system wasappreciated, through
implementation ofitsUruguay Round commitments andinservices, though itsactive participation
inthenegotiations onservices, andparticularly, intheareaofmaritime transport.
107. Therepresentative ofKorea raised specific points ofinterest tohisdelegation intheareaof
government procurement. Norway attached greatimportance toenvironmental protection issues. An
environmental profile ofthebidder wasrequested forprocurement atbothcentral andlocalgovernment
levelandpreferencewasgiventoenvironment-friendlyproducers.Althoughthispracticeappliedequally
todomestic andforeign bidders, inhisview itrisked becoming atrade barrier, especially tothose
producers lessequipped withenvironmental-friendly technology. Herequested anexplanation ofthe
legalbasis andstandards upon which thispractice wasbased.
108. Concerninglocal-contentrequirementsinthepurchaseofshipsoroilrigs,hesoughtclarification
whether thelocal-content ratio wasregarded asmore important thanother factors inNorwegian
Government procurement. Furthermore, arequirement forNorwegian Government procurement of
durable goods wastheprovision ofafter-sales service within fivehours ofarequest. SuchastipulationWT/TPR/M/15
Page17
seemed tonecessitate alocalpresence; hesought clarification ofthismatter. Only theNorwegian
language wasusedinmostofthedocuments needed forbidding inNorway; itwashoped thatthose
documents would bemade available inatleastoneWTO official language.
109. Therepresentative ofChile stated thathiscountry wasgeographically similar toNorway with
similar interests inareassuchasfishery andforestry; however, other fields ofinterests wereemerging.
Inthisrespect, Latin America represented only1percentofNorway 'sexternal trade.
110. Norway 'sefforts topromote andencourage better integration ofdeveloping countries inworld
trade were appreciated. Hisdelegation alsoappreciated Norway 'sefforts towards liberalization and
widening competition, aswellasobjectives fortheelimination orreduction ofsupport inthefields
offisheries andagriculture. Further measures wererequired inagriculture, andheasked forfurther
details onthemandate oftheCouncil tobeestablished.
111. Henoted thattheNorwegian authorities intended toadopt measures toincrease imports of
tropical products fromdeveloping countries. Herequested further information onmeasures other than
minimum access quotas, which hadalready beenestablished, toincrease theparticipation ofdeveloping
countries intrade inagricultural products.
112. Referring tothemonopoly onalcoholic beverages, herequested further information onthe
restrictive licensing system forimports, exports andwholesale distribution introduced in1995, and
ontheopportunities forprivate wholesalers tocompete withthenewly created State-owned company
inthisfield.
113. There werestillrestrictions inthefieldoftextile products andclothing andheasked whether
further liberalization inthisareawasintended inthenearfuture.
114. Therepresentative ofEgypt commended theNorwegian Government foritsefforts toencourage
theintegrationofdevelopingcountriesinthemultilateraltradingsystem,specificallytheFundestablished
bytheNorwegianGovernmentintheWTOforfinancingtechnicalassistancetoleast-developedcountries.
Along withother delegations heappreciated theintention oftheNorwegian Government toimprove
itsGSPschemeandhopedthatcoveragewouldbeextendedtoproductsofinteresttodevelopingcountries
suchastextiles andagricultural products. Heasked forinformation ontheprocedures forapplying
seasonal tariffs onfresh fruits andvegetables especially tomatoes andpotatoes.
115. Concerning theintended removal ofthe1934 and1946 Import Laws, herequested further
information ontheentry intoforce ofthenewlegislation tobelinked toimplementing regulations for
theWTO Agreement onSafeguards.
116. TherepresentativeofPolandcommendedNorwayfortheoveralleconomicandtradeperformance
ofthelastfewyears. Norway 'scommitment topromoting liberal trade policy bothdomestically and
through theWTO multilateral trading system wasparticularly appreciated.
117. Henoted Norway 'sactive participation inongoing maritime transport services negotiations.
andinthisrespect requested anexplanation oftherôles ofthetwoships registers NOR andNIS.
Healsosought Norway 'sviewoftherôleofthe"socalled" cheap flagsinthissector.
118. Heasked howtheNorwegian delegation viewed theimpact onthescope ofitsoffer, tabled
under theMaritime Services negotiations oftheUNConvention onaCode ofConduct forLiner
Conferences, inrespect ofpreferences forthemembers, especially initsArticle 2.Norway had
prolonged into1996itsconstruction grantscheme, untiltheentryintoforceofanewOECD Agreement.WT/TPR/M/15
Page18
Heasked whattheimpact ofthesemeasures would beoncompetition intheareaofmaritime transport
services. Clarification wasalsosought onthestatus oftheWhite Paper onmaritime policy, submitted
toNorway 'sParliament inMarch 1996.
119. Regarding Norway 'sintention toapply anyfuture liberalization ofcapital movements required
bytheEEA Agreement without discrimination, heasked formoredetailed information onthetimetable
forimplementation ofthisliberalization programme andonthecurrent situation intheareaofcapital
movements inNorway.
120. Details werealsosought onthereport ofthecommission appointed toexamine current sectoral
support measures, including State aids; andontheprogress oftheprivatization programme inthe
banking sector withrespect tore-privatizing banks thatweretaken overbytheStateduring thebanking
crisis.
121. Therepresentative ofBrazil noted thatinthereport bytheGovernment ofNorway, tradepolicy
andenvironmental objectives werelinked. Herequested further elaboration regarding theachievement
ofenvironmental goals through trade policy instruments andthelimits imposed byenvironmental
protection objectives.WT/TPR/M/15
Page19
VI. REPLIES BYTHEREPRESENTATIVE OFNORWAY AND ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
122. Thereplies bytherepresentative ofNorway weredivided intofourbroad themes: (i)economic
structure andmultilateral andregional relations; (ii)tradepractices bymeasure; (iii)agriculture and
fisheries; and(iii)other sectoral issues. Following thereplies, theChairperson opened thefloor to
Council members forfurther comments andquestions.
(i)Economic structure andmultilateral andregional relations
Macroeconomics andthepetroleum sector
123. Therepresentative ofNorway recalled thatquestions hadbeenasked whyperformance insome
areaswasnotbetter thanactually recorded; therôleoftheoilsector; thesustainability ofpresent trends,
andmeasures undertaken toavoid excessive dependence onthepetroleum sector.
124. Firstly, hesaid,exports ofpetroleum made upabout onethirdoftotalexports. Norway was
thesecond largest oilexporter intheworld, afterSaudi-Arabia. Oilandgasproduction accounted
forsome 13percentofGDP, andrevenues fromthissector made up14percentoftotalfiscal budget
revenue.
125. Itwasnot,however, onlytheoffshore sector thathadcontributed tothegood economic
performance. Economic policies hadbeengeared actively towards achieving increased employment,
reduced inflation andincreased competitiveness.
126. Inresponse tothequestion regarding slowimprovement intheunemployment situation, in
thecourse oftherecent upswing there hadbeenstrong growth inemployment. Thisgrowth had,on
theotherside,beenaccompaniedbystronggrowthinthenumberofpeopleactivelyseekingemployment.
Theresult hadbeenthatunemployment hadnotdeclined asmuch astheincrease inemployment would
indicate.
127. Several delegates hadmade reference tothePetroleum Fund. ThemainaimoftheFund was
toserve asafinancial instrument toachieve alongtermsustainable budgetary policy. TheFund would
make theuseofpublic petroleum revenues transparent, andmake iteasier todecouple spending of
revenues from current revenue creation. Anaccumulation ofsavings intheFund wasperceived to
beanimportant instrument inmeeting future financial obligations.
128. TheGovernment hadproposed thatallaccumulation intheFund beinvested abroad. This
would alleviate pressures onthedomestic economy andcontribute toavoiding anerosion of
competitiveness; domestic spending ofpetroleum revenues would thusbepostponed, according tothe
long-term aimsoftheFund. Asmall allocation totheFund wasmade in1995 andtheallocation for
1996 wasestimated tobearound 2.5percentofGDP.
129. Intheareaofinvestment andcapital movements, liberalization wasimplemented onan
ergaomnes basis inaccordance withOECD Capital Code commitments andasaresult oftheEEA
Agreement. Thesameprinciple wasapplied outside theOECD area. There waslittlescope forfurther
liberalization inthisfield.
130. Procedures fornotification andscreening under ActNo.79of23December 1994 were
non-discriminatory; foreign investors weregranted national treatment. Since entry intoforce ofthe
Act,280business acquisitions hadbeenreported, noauthorizations hadbeendenied andonlythree
cases hadbeensubject tocloser examination.WT/TPR/M/15
Page20
131. RegardingspecialmeasuresundertakentopromoteNorwegianinvestmentabroad,internationally
agreed rules onexport credits andexport guarantees were applied byNorway. Aspecial credit
arrangement wasestablished under theforeign aidscheme topromote Norwegian investment in
developing countries, aswellasmeasures tosupport training andpre-investment projects. These
measures were reported totheOECD.
Regionalization
132. TherepresentativeofNorwaysaidthatNorway'sexperiencewasthatthedynamicsofregionalism
were complementary tothemultilateral system andtherefore contributed toincreased global trade.
Norway sawnocontradiction between pursuing further regional integration andefforts toliberalize
ataglobal level. Concerns hadbeenraised bysome delegations about possible distortive effects on
third countries. This question would bedebated intheWTO Committee onRegional Trading
Arrangements, towhich Norway hoped tocontribute. Hereferred toquestions andcomments bysome
delegations regarding thetrade coverage oftheEEA, andtherequirements under Article XXIV of
GATT 1994thatfree-trade agreements cover "substantially alltrade". Themeaning of"substantially
alltrade" hadnever beendefined intheGATT; attempts hadbeenmade atquantification, butthese
hadnotbeen conclusive. TheReport oftheWorking Party ontheEuropean FreeTrade Area -
ExaminationoftheStockholmConventionnotedamongotherthingsthatthephraseusedinArticleXXIV
was"substantially allthetrade" not"trade insubstantially allproducts".
133. TheEEA contained provisions aiming atprogressive liberalization ofagricultural trade, the
broadening ofexisting bilateral agricultural agreements andtheelimination oftechnical barriers to
trade, forexample intheSPSarea. Theintention oftheclause wastoreview theconditions oftrade
inagricultural products attwo-yearly intervals. Withregard tospecial arrangements withtheEUrelated
toagriculture, theEEA currently provided fortariff concessions foralimited number ofproducts.
TheAgreement alsocontained provisions ontradeinprocessed agricultural products; theseprovisions
hadnotyetentered intoforce. Providing perspectives onfuture trade relations between theEUand
Norway onthebasis ofthese provisions would atthisstage bepurespeculation.
134. AquestionwasraisedwhethertheEEAwasinconformitywiththerequirementofArticleXXIV
thatpreferential agreements should notraisebarriers totrade forthirdparties, anditwasclaimed that
EUpolicies appeared tobemore restrictive thanthose measures previously maintained byNorway
before theEEA. Inresponse, theRepresentative ofNorway noted thattheEEA wasnotacustoms
union and,assuch, didnotprovide foracommon external trade policy.
135. Onthequestion ofreview oftheEEA intheGATT/WTO, theEEA wasnotified pursuant
toparagraph 3oftheUnderstanding regarding Notification, Consultation, Dispute Settlement and
Surveillance, on28November 1979. TheEEA wasthusnotified asit"...expands anddeepens the
freetrade relations established through theFreeTrade Agreements concluded in1972 and1973..."
Notification tookplace before theentry intoforce oftheAgreement asrequired. There were no
provisions ontheestablishment ofaWorking Party toexamine agreements notified, although there
wasprovision forreview. TheTPRM wasapparently meant partly toreplace thereview under the
Understanding.
136. Therepresentative ofCanada requested information onthereaction oftheNorwegian business
community totheEEAAgreement, andinwhich areasnotcovered bytheAgreement theywereseeking
improvements. Therepresentative ofJapan asked forclarification oftherelationship ofGATS Article V
totheEEA Agreement.WT/TPR/M/15
Page21
137. Therepresentative ofNorway replied thatareas notcovered bytheEEAthatmayhavecaused
concern were theprimary sectors ofagriculture andfisheries. These areas were notincluded, and
Norway would havepreferred better access totheEUmarket forfisheries exports; trade infisheries
wasregulated bycertain provisions intheEEA, bothformarket access andcertain aspects of
competition. There wasstrong support fromthebusiness andindustry infavour oftheEEAAgreement.
Problems predominantly concerned whether theEEAAgreement wassufficiently wellknown among
business andindustry throughout theEuropean Union, interms ofmaximum exploitation ofprocedures
forinformation, consultation, anddecision-making. Onthequestion ofconformity, Norway believed
thattheEEA Agreement anditsimplementation wasfullyinconformity withGATS Article V.
Relations withdeveloping countries, including GSPandtextiles.
Generalized System ofPreferences
138. Thedelegation ofNorway waspleased tonotethattherecent revision oftheGSPscheme and
theaccelerated dismantling oftextiles andclothing restrictions hadbeenwellreceived. Atthesame
time, hehadtaken notice ofcomments made during theTPR onhowtofurther improve trading
opportunities forLDCs.
139. Themain partofNorway 'sforeign trade wasconducted withother European countries, in
particular withneighbouring countries. Ontheother hand, imports oftextiles andagriculture
demonstratedthatdevelopingcountriescouldobtainsubstantialsharesinexportmarketswithcompetitive
products; Norway would continue toexplore waysofimproving market access fordeveloping countries.
Arecent White Paper onrelations withdeveloping countries putparticular emphasis ontheuseof
import promotion policies asavehicle forgrowth indeveloping countries. Inaglobal WTO context,
Norway hadadvocated improved access fordeveloping country products aswellastechnical assistance,
inparticular totheLDCs. Hereferred totheWTO fundfortechnical assistance todeveloping countries,
andinvited other members tocontribute tothatfund.
140. Under theNorwegian GSPscheme, mostmanufactured goods enjoyed duty-free andquota-free
access totheNorwegian market. Theleast-developed countries were granted GSPtreatment forall
textiles. TheNorwegian Government would examine thepossibility ofbroadening theproduct coverage
fortextiles fromother GSPbeneficiaries; thisprocess would beinitiated intheimmediate future. A
proposal byonedelegation, toinclude footwear intheGSPtreatment, hadbeennoted. Anassessment
ofagricultural imports from developing countries would alsobemade andagainst thisbackground
areview oftheproduct coverage andpreference margins intheNorwegian GSPscheme would be
conducted; 25percentofimports ofagricultural products were exports from developing countries.
141. Regardingincreaseduseofminimumaccessquotasbydevelopingcountries,undertheNorwegian
GSPscheme allleast-developed countries hadduty-free access forallproducts covered bysuchquotas.
Other developing countries were eligible fora10percenttariff cutonthein-quota tariff rate.
Textiles
142. Norway hadpursued apolicy ofgradual liberalization ofimports oftextiles bothasregards
tariffs andquantitative restrictions. Tariffs would bereduced within theperiod agreed inthe
WTO Agreement fromapeaklevelof25percentforsome categories toamaximum of13.7percent.
Least-developed countries weregranted zero-duty under theGSPforalltextile products. Quantitative
restrictions hadbeenconsiderably reduced andwere nowapplied onamaximum offourcategories
ofproducts. Themostrecent liberalization wasimplemented unilaterally on1January 1996; further
liberalization would bewellinadvance oftheWTO schedules andbytheyear2000 allQRswouldWT/TPR/M/15
Page22
beeliminated. Theliberalization ofthetraderégime ontextiles hadcontributed toincreasing theshare
ofimports from developing countries from 15to45percentoftotaltextile imports during thepast
20years.
143. Therepresentative ofIndiarequested details ontheschedule forthepossible five-year phase-out
ofthequantitative restrictions ontextiles mentioned intheNorwegian report. TheNorwegian delegation
hadtaken noteofarequest byonedelegation toprovide amore precise timetable forthephase-out
ofquantitative restrictions ontextiles andefforts would bemade toprovide this.
(ii) Trade practices bymeasure
Environment
144. TheNorwegian representative recalled concerns expressed byseveral delegations thatthepolicy
oftheNorwegian Government "topromote andsustain economic growth within thelimits setbythe
environment" asstated intheGovernment Report maycontain apotential forhidden protective purposes.
Norway firmly believed thatinthisareapublic support mayhavepositive effects, ifitwascarried
outwithout trade distortion ordiscriminatory effects. Norway wasconfident thatitspolicies were,
andwould continue tobe,formulated taking dueconsideration oftheobjectives ofbalance between
environment andtrade, aswellasnational andinternational considerations.
145. TheWhite Swan eco-labelling system wasajointNorwegian, Icelandic, Finnish andSwedish
system organized under theNordic Council. Theprogramme hadbeenpresented inaninformal joint
meeting between Committee onTrade andEnvironment andtheCommittee onTechnical Barriers to
Trade inlateFebruary. Itwasavoluntary system, andthelabelwasawarded toanyproduct satisfying
specific criteria. Theorigin oftheproduct wasirrelevant andseveral ofthelicensees wereimporters
ofproducts fromoutside theNordic area. TheWhite Swan work programme waspublished forpublic
review. Norway waspresently examining apossible notification under theTBTCode ofGood Practice.
146. Aquestion hadbeenraised concerning subsidies tothepulpandpaper industry; mention was
made inthereport bytheSecretariat of"support measures fortheforestry sector". These supports
were, however, measures toprevent deforestation andtosecure forest regeneration andthushadan
environmental objective. InNorway 'sviewthesemeasures promoted sustainable forest activities; they
hadbeennotified totheCommittee onSubsidies.
147. Followingarequestforfurtherdetailsontheproductionofelectricpersonalindependentvehicles
(PIV), these were provided inwriting andcirculated tomembers. Ananalysis hadshown thatthe
energy consumption andemissions forproduction ofthePIVwere significantly lower thanfor
conventional small cars.
Tariffs
148. Several delegations hadasked forclarification oftariff escalation incertain sectors including
textiles andclothing, footwear andplastic products. Since thelastTPRofNorway, thedegree oftariff
escalation hadbeenreduced, mainly asaresult oftheUruguay Round tariff negotiations. Under the
harmonizing formula, adopted byEFTA countries andtheEU,hightariff levels weretobereduced
more thanlowlevels withthespecific intention ofdealing withtariffescalation. Inthetextiles sector,
thishadledthehigh-end tariff ratestobereduced by45percentoveraten-year period, instead of
the39.7percenttrade weighted average tariff-rate reduction resulting from theRound inthecase
ofNorway.WT/TPR/M/15
Page23
149. Closer scrutiny ofthetariffs onunprocessed andmore processed plastic products didnotgive
anyindication oftariff escalation. Almost alltariff rateshavebeenbound at6.5percentwhere they
werenotalready setatzero. Forwood andwood-products, bound rateswereallsetatzero. Tariff
escalation would, thus, notconstitute asignificant problem bytheyear2000.
150. Revenue from tariffs hadincreased relatively strongly from 1994 to1995; thiswasaresult
ofthetariffication ofagricultural protection, asimplemented according totheWTO Agreement, and
thecorresponding increase intariff revenue wassome 5percentofvalue added inagriculture. In
general, totaltariffs accounted forasmall proportion ofpublic revenue, three-quarters ofpercentof
thefiscal budget income.
151. Norway wascurrently exploring thepossibility ofelimination of"nuisance tariffs" inconnection
withtheBudget proposal for1997
Safeguard Measures
152. Inresponse toaquestion onsafeguard measures inthecontext oftheEEA, therepresentative
ofNorway confirmed thatnoanti-dumping, countervailing dutyorsafeguard measures hadbeeninitiated
during thepasttenyears, including under theEEAAgreement. EEAsafeguard provisions required
thatameasure berestricted inscope andduration towhatwasstrictly necessary inorder toremedy
thesituation, andthatpriority begiven tosuch measures aswould leastdisturb trade relations.
Procedural provisions included arequirement forprior notification andconsultation.
153. Regarding theproposed national legislation onimport andexport regulation, thebillbefore
theParliament would replace theexisting lawof1946 onimport andexport bans. Thepurpose of
thisActwastoformally bring Norwegian legislation inthisareaintolinewithpresent practice while
taking dueaccount ofinternational trade policy obligations under theWTO Safeguards Agreement.
Taxation
154. Therepresentative ofNorway referred tocomments regarding thereasons formaintaining the
highrateofVAT, at23percent; highbudget surpluses recorded; andthenumber ofexemptions.
Norway sawaneedtorunbudgetary surpluses toincrease savings andtobebetter equipped tomeet
future financial obligations, areduction intheVAT ratewould reduce oreveneliminate thesurplus.
ThereexistedanumberofexemptionstothegeneralVATrules.TheGovernmenthadrecentlyproposed
theabolition ofsome exceptions andwasassessing whether further exceptions should beabolished.
155. Carbon dioxide taxes, introduced in1991, werecombined withasulphur dioxide tax;rates
were higher thansimilar taxes inother countries. Taxes onfossil fuelswere subsequently reduced
duetocompetitiveness concerns, although totaltaxlevels onsuchfuelswerestillconsiderably higher
thanbefore 1991. Assessment oftheeffects oncompetitiveness were ongoing.
156. TheState wasamajor shareholder inNorwegian industry; excluding petroleum andmining
about 15-20 percentofNorwegian industry wasowned bytheState. However, theGovernment did
notparticipate inthecommercial activities ofthesecompanies onadaytodaybasis, nordidState-owned
companies enjoy morefavourable working conditions thanprivate companies. TheGovernment 'smain
taskwastodecide onthemain direction ofthecompany 'sactivities andtoensure thateachcompany
hasacompetent Board ofDirectors. Board members wererecruited from thebusiness community.
Beyond thesetasks Government involvement concerned onlymatters requiring theattention orconsent
oftheParliament, suchassaleofshares orincrease inshare capital.WT/TPR/M/15
Page24
157. Inthemanufacturing sector themajor companies wholly orpartly owned bytheState were
Norsk Hydro, thelargest company inNorway, andtwocompanies producing mainly military products.
There were noplans tochange theState'sengagement inthese companies.
158. Three mining companies were owned bytheState. Onewasprofitable, butthetwoothers,
located onSpitzbergen andinFinmark, wererecording heavy losses. Thecoalmine onSpitzbergen
would bemaintained; inanewly presented White Paper before Parliament, theironmine inFinmark
wasproposed forclosure before theendof1996.
159. TheState-owned enterprise Statkraft SFproduced about 30percentofenergy inNorway.
Statnett SF,alsoaState-owned company, owned 85percentofthemain transmission gridandwas
thecornerstone ofmarket organization. Thetwocompanies wereformed in1992inconnection with
theliberalization oftheenergy market inNorway; development ofagood market structure was
considered more important thanprivatization ofState-owned electricity companies. Thisimplied a
cleardivision between production andownership ofthegrid,andsecuring alloperators inthemarket
freeaccess tothegridonanon-discriminatory basis. There werenoplans toprivatization thissector.
160. Themajor Norwegian oilcompany, Statoil, was100percentState owned andparticipated
inalllicences awarded ontheNorwegian shelffrom 1973 to1993. Incombination withthedirect
Stateparticipation, Statoil heldmorethan50percentintheselicences. Asofthe15thLicensing Round,
in1996, Statoil competed onequal terms withother companies foritsparticipating interest. Statoil
operated asacommercial company; there were noplans forprivatization ofthecompany.
161. Close toonequarter ofNorwegian support wastotheshipbuilding industry. There weretwo
schemes: support intheform ofsubsidized interest expired in1989 -payments from thescheme in
1994wereobligations fromoldcontracts. Theother scheme wasrelated tocontract andconstruction
loans, andwasduetobeabolished inJanuary 1996. However duetodelays intheratification process,
theOECD Agreement hasnotyetentered intoforce. Once thatAgreement wasinforce, Norway would
abolish thisremaining support scheme totheshipbuilding industry.
162. About onesixthoftotalsupport fellwithin thecategory ofresearch anddevelopment. Public
support toR&D wasrelatively highforseveral reasons. Amajor goalofNorwegian industrial policy
wastosecure comprehensive research anddevelopment activity. Onlyaverylimited number oflarge
industrial enterprises inNorway carried outR&D, andalarge proportion ofNorwegian industry was
insectors notnormally R&D-intensive, suchasrawmaterials. Consequently, arelatively largeshare
ofR&D activities wereundertaken inresearch institutions wholly orpartly financed bypublic funds.
Total R&D expenditures inNorway asapercentage ofGDP wereslightly below theOECD average.
163. Approximately onequarter oftotalsupport related toregional development. Forreasons of
lowpopulation density andlongdistances, features ofNorwegian economic activity inmany regions,
regional support schemes compensated forextra costs stemming from location inremote areas. An
overall policy objective wastomaintain thepopulation pattern inNorway, andconsequently theregional
support schemes would bemaintained, inconformity withinternational obligations.
164. Thesupport scheme forenterprise development forsmall andmedium-sized enterprises notified
byNorway stipulated anamount ofabout NKr800million, while thecorrect figure should havebeen
NKr140million, bringing thetotalsupport toSME'sdown toamuch lower level.
165. Theremaining support schemes wereforenvironmental improvement. Norway firmly believed
thatinthisarea,public support could havepositive effects provided theschemes werenottradedistorting
orhaddiscriminatory effects.WT/TPR/M/15
Page25
166. AlltheNorwegian support schemes were notified totheWTO induetime.
167. Further reduction ofState aidtoindustry wasanimportant element inNorwegian industrial
policy; many schemes hadbeenreduced. Great importance wasattached tothemultilateral work on
thisissue within theframework ofWTO, theEEA andtheOECD.
Banking
168. Therepresentative ofNorway confirmed theGovernment hadinjected substantial capital into
thebanking system during thebanking crisis tomaintain capital adequacy atasatisfactory level. Support
loans hadbeenpaidbacktotheInsurance Fund andtheInsurance Funds 'equity hadbeentransferred
totheInvestment Fundwhich wascurrently theStateholder ofbankshares. TheGovernment 'smajority
ownership ofthethree largest commercial banks wasbeing reduced oreliminated; participation in
thetwolargest banks wastobereduced toonethird; during thecurrent parliamentary period, the
intention wastoretain a50percentstake. State ownership inChristiania Bank, thesecond largest
bank, was51percentatpresent, down from about 69percentinNovember 1995. Sales ofshares
inthelargest bank, DenNorske Bank, wereunder way. Theintention wastoreduce Stateownership
from72percentto52percent. Thethirdlargest commercial bankhadbeenfullyprivatized. Capital
injections insaving banks hadbeeneither repaid orsoldontheprivate market.
Alcoholic Beverages
169. TheNorwegian representative stated thatA/SVinmonopolet 'smonopoly onimports, exports
andwholesale wasabolished asof1January 1996. From thisdate, alicence wasrequired forall
imports, exports andwholesaling ofalcoholic beverages. Anyperson orcompany, irrespective of
nationality, could obtain alicence, provided theyfulfilled certain requirements; thesystem applied
tospirits, wine, andbeer(above 2.5percent). Proof ofnocriminal record, aswellassecurity for
payment oftaxesandsatisfactory security arrangements foralcohol storage warehouses wererequired
ofapplicants. TheDirectorate forAlcohol andDrug Affairs wasresponsible forissuing licences;
theminimum licence feewasNKr7,500.
170. Theretail monopoly would notbeabolished; thiswasconsidered tobeanimportant element
ofNorway 'salcohol policy. Under themainguidelines forsplitting thecompany, passed bytheStroting
on13June1995, A/SVinmonopolet wassplitintotwoseparate companies: aretail monopoly, and
Arcus, aproduction anddistribution company. Arcus wasorganized asaholding company withtwo
wholly-owned subsidiaries; theholding company wasState owned. Theproduction monopoly for
spirits hadbeenmaintained. Distribution wasunder regular commercial terms incompetition with
private companies, withnocross-subsidization between production andthedistribution activities within
theArcus group. Forhealth andsocial reasons advertising foralcoholic beverages wasnotallowed
inNorway. Themarket opportunities forbeerwere good, butcompetition wasfierce asevidenced
bythewidevariety offoreign beeravailable inNorwegian stores.WT/TPR/M/15
Page26
Technical regulations andSPSmeasures
171. TherepresentativeofNorwaystatedthathavingfullyimplementedtheTBTandSPSagreements,
Norway 'slegalobligations hadbeenfulfilled. Certain technical regulations orSPSmeasures remained
achallenge totrading partners interms ofinformation andpossible adaptations; thiswasauniversal
problem anddemonstrated theimportance ofmultilateral co-operation inthisarea.Developing countries
would often bethemostaffected. Norway hadtriedtoremedy some ofthese consequences through
technical assistance bothwithin theframework oftheWTO andselectively onaregional basis.
172. Regarding questions concerning restrictions ongenetically modified organisms andprotection
ofplants, inNorway 'sopinion genetic modification bymeans otherthanbreeding represented anethical
problem. Norway would favour international rulesthatretained apower ofmarket authorization and
required sufficient labelling ofgenetically modified foodstuffs oringredients toenable consumers to
make informed choices. TheNorwegian Parliament hadclearly stated thatallgenetically modified
foodstuffs marketed inNorway belabelled assuch. Norway didnotaccept theuseofhormones in
livestock forother thantherapeutic purposes.
173. Aquestion wasraised whether theprovisions oftheCodex Alimentarius oranEUdirective
would takeprecedence. Incases ofinconsistencies, rulesadapted inanEEAcontext, which hadbeen
made inconsideration ofglobal co-operation, would takeprecedence overnon-binding international
standards inareas covered bytheAgreement. TheEEA, asacommon setofrules, wasconsidered
exhaustive, alternative measures were therefore notforeseen.
174. Certain plants andplant products werebanned from import onthebasis ofanassessment of
risksconnected totheplant. Norwegian phytosanitary measures werelargely based onrecommendations
fromtheEuropean Plant Protection Organization. Norway wasintheprocess ofintroducing theFAO
rules onriskassessment ofbanned plants andplant products.
Anti-dumping measures andcompetition policy
175. Inresponse toquestions regarding competition policy andlegislation, therepresentative of
NorwaysaidthattheCompetitionActinforcesince1January1994,continuedtheprovisionsofprevious
legislation enabling intervention bytheauthorities against harmful restraints oncompetition and
acquisition ofenterprises. TheCompetition Authority, responsible fortheday-to-day operation of
theAct,wasunder theresponsibility oftheMinistry ofGovernment Administration. Norway had
implemented thecompetition ruleslaiddown intheEEAAgreement; anti-dumping measures within
theEEAhadbeenmade redundant bythecompetition rules. Nocases hadarisen ofcompetition rules
being invoked bytheEFTA Surveillance Authority ortheEUCommission inlieuofanti-dumping
measures against Norwegian companies.
176. Withregard totherelationship between anti-dumping andcompetition-policy measures, anti-
dumping measures hadbeen made redundant byEEA competition rules. Nocases hadarisen of
competition rules being invoked bytheEFTA Surveillance Authority ortheEUCommission inlieu
ofanti-dumping measures against Norwegian companies.
177. Inlinewithmost other competition legislation, itwasnotprohibited under theNorwegian
Competition Actforanindividual supplier toagree tomarket sharing withhisdealers ortodetermine
market sharing forthem. Sucharrangements wereconsidered pro-competitive andefficiency enhancing.WT/TPR/M/15
Page27
Government procurement
178. Therepresentative ofNorway replied toanumber ofspecific questions concerning government
procurement. Amendments totheNorwegian Procurement Actwereexpected tobeadopted inJuly
1996 andwould enter intoforce immediately. Themain features oftheAgreement onGovernment
Procurement (GPA) were, however, implemented byamendments oftheActinFebruary 1996. This
nowcovered theimplementation oftheNorwegian obligations according totheGPA, including access
tonational challenge procedures toparties totheGPA. Revision ofnational regulations wasconfined
toafewminor amendments where theGPA imposed stricter ormore exhaustive provisions thanthe
existing regulation. Theaimwastobring theregulations intofullharmony withtheGPA.
179. TheNorwegian regulations onpublic procurement didnotcontain anyrules concerning the
environmental aspects oftheproducts/services tobeprocured orspecial environmental requirements
ofthesuppliers. Eachpurchasing officer could decide whatcriteria touse,aslongasthecriteria were
non-discriminatory. However, environmental aspects oftheproduct orservice could beimportant
criteria intheassessment ofthe"economically most advantageous tender". Forinstance, life-cycle
costs,useofenergy,servicecostsandpossibilitiesforrecyclingwereeconomic,aswellasenvironmental
criteria.
180. Inthisconnection,NorwegianGovernmententitieswerenotpermittedtoaskfor"localpresence"
inorder toassure aftersaleservice. Thetenderer could beasked todocument hiscapability toperform
necessary aftersaleservice within certain timelimits, butthesecould notbeusedtodiscriminate against
foreign suppliers, theirlength hadtobejustified bytheactual andreasonable needs oftheprocuring
entity. Allprocurement above theWTO/EU threshold levels wererequired tobepublished ineither
English, French orSpanish intheOfficial Journal totheEuropean Communities andTED(thedatabase
"Tenders Electronic Daily"). Itwascompulsory forStateentities topublicize notices, inNorwegian,
intheofficial gazette -Norsk Lysningsblad -inaddition tonotices intheOfficial Journal andTED.
181. Regarding procurement ofoilrigsandships regulated inRoyal Decree of16December 1994,
ruleswerelaiddown fortenders comprising products originating inthirdcountries. Athirdcountry
inthiscontext wasdeemed tobeacountry withwhich Norway didnothaveaninternational agreement
covering procurement within theindividual utilities sectors andgiving Norwegian undertakings
comparable andeffective market access. Anytender inthissector could berejected where theproportion
oftheproducts originating inthirdcountries exceeded 50percentofthetotalvalue oftheproducts
constituting thetender.
182. Norwegian legislation didnotallow discriminatory treatment forcontracts onprocurement
ofships outside theoffshore sector, procured byNorwegian entities covered bytheGPA, e.g.for
procurement ofships byportauthorities.
183. IntheGPArules, thequality andavailability ofaftersalesservice wereaccepted award criteria
when deciding which tender was"themost economically advantageous".
Notifications
184. Ithadbeennoted thatNorway hadfulfilled almost allWTO notification obligations. Three
notifications were outstanding. Astatement under Article 15.2 oftheTBTAgreement onthe
implementation andadministration oftheAgreement wasexpect tobeready bythenextmeeting of
theTBTCommittee on28June; afullnotification ofNorway 'sImport Licensing measures under
Article 1.4(a) oftheAgreement onImport Licensing wasexpected tobemade inthenearfuture; andWT/TPR/M/15
Page28
anotification ofdomestic internal support measures under Article 6oftheAgreement onAgriculture
would besubmitted inthenearfuture.
(iii) Agriculture andfisheries
185. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthatNorway hadmade anumber ofsignificant changes
inagriculture including domestic structural reforms andchanges internationally, stemming from
participation intheUruguay Round. Certain elements would havetobetaken intoaccount forfuture
agricultural policy: thehighincome andpricelevels inNorway; geographical andclimatic conditions
under which Norwegian agriculture operated; andhistoric experience andfoodsecurity concerns.
186. Norway hadalready implemented theWTO bound tarifflevelonagricultural products forthe
year2000. There were noplans toincrease tariffs above thecurrently applied rates. Allocation of
tariff quotas byauction hadbeenthoroughly discussed intheWTO, especially intheCommittee on
Agriculture. Norway considered thatauctioning wascompatible withtheWTO provisions; andwas
transparent andefficient. Itallowed newentrants access toquotas, andpromoted quota utilization.
Furthermore, itsecured access tothemarket without affecting theprices oftheexporting countries.
Thebound in-quota tariff rateformeatofdeerandmeatofelkwere equal totheout-of-quota tariff
rate. Norway hadcurrently opened thequotas asnotified totheWTO, withanapplicable tariff rate
lower thanthem.f.n. rate. Quota auctioning hadbeenintroduced toallocate alltheminimum access
quotas aswellastheimport quotas forcanned products andhoney under theGSPscheme. Theallotted
rightwasvalidthroughout thecalendar year, andcould besoldtothirdparties. Thismethod hadbeen
applied in1995 and1996. Tariff quotas opened under FTAs andtheEEAAgreement weregiven in
addition tom.f.n. obligations.
187. TheMinistry ofAgriculture wasauthorized toadjust tariffs onagricultural products; thiswas
managed bytheNorwegian Grain Corporation. Theauthorization allowed bothgeneral adjustments
andreductions applicable totheindividual applicant. Theguidelines established atransparent and
uniform system aimed atcarrying outasfewadjustments aspossible. Information onadjustments
werepublicly announced bytheGrain Corporation andtransmitted totheCustoms Authorities, and
directly toimporters.
188. TheNorwegian Grain Corporation wasanagricultural board inthesense thatitmanaged market
regulations intheagricultural field. Theactivities oftheGrain Corporation included theallocation
ofimport quotas andtheadministration ofthedomestic target price system. Further details onthe
functioning oftheGrain Corporation wereincluded inNorway 'snotification totheCommittee onState
Trading Enterprises in1995.
189. TheImport Council, which wasbeing established, would review market developments for
agricultural goods andadvise theGovernment onmatters related tothefunctioning oftheimport régime.
Council members would include representatives oftheauthorities, importers, producers andconsumers.
190. Aspecific question concerning thepossibility ofintroducing minimum import prices forfish
andfishproducts incaseofsevere market distortion, queried thecompatibility ofaRoyal Decree of
7May1993withArticle 7.2oftheWTO Agreement onCustoms Valuation. ThisDecree constituted
asafeguard measure aimed atprotecting thenational fishing industry against severe market disruption
asaresult oflargequantities offishimports atlowprices. Ithadnoconsequences forthedetermination
ofcustoms values astariffs forallfishproducts hadbeenbound atzero. Themeasure hadnever been
used.WT/TPR/M/15
Page29
191. Inresponse toarequest forclarification ofthemeaning of"abnormally lowprices" inrespect
oftheimposition ofminimum import prices inthesameRoyal Decree, thiswasdefined asprices below
theminimum price determined forthefirsthand saleofsimilar products onthedomestic market.
Theminimum prices weredetermined innegotiations between fishermen 'srepresentatives andthesales
organizations.
192. TheseconddiscussantsharedtheNorwegianviewthatthesystemofauctioningwastransparent,
however, hewasconcerned thattrade flows could bedisrupted duetouncertainty among importers
andretailers ofobtaining adequate quota allocations. Smaller andnewer bidders could beexcluded
bylarger (producer-importers??), inaddition, byleaving partoftheirquota allocation unutilized these
larger firms could drive upprices andincrease theirprofits. Hebelieved that,ingeneral, Norway 's
agricultural policy demonstrated awilltoseeksolutions towards liberalization andtransparency.
(iv) Other sectoral issues
Mining
193. Replying toquestion ontheNorwegian mining law,therepresentative ofNorway saidthat
thisdidnot,initspresent form, restrict exploration rights toEEA residents. However onlyEEA
residents wereallowed toexplore theground forminerals without aconcession. Nationals ofanon-EEA
State orcorporations established outside theEEA, required aconcession.
194. Therevision oftheNorwegian mining lawwasunder study. Itwasenvisaged thatadraft
legislation would bepresented byautumn 1996 andthattheGovernment would present aproposal
fornewlegislation byautumn 1997. Therevision would alsoencompass thecurrent prohibition of
mineral exploration bynon-EEA nationals. Thedelegation would convey theconcerns raised tothe
Norwegian Government.
Services
195. Onewritten question onservices hadalready beenanswered: thattheParliament hadgiven
itsapproval tothesecond andthirdprotocol under theGATS. Consent wasthusgiven, interalia,
toabolish theprohibition onbranches ofbanks andotherfinancial institutions; Parliament wasexpected
toapprove thenecessary legalamendments within aweek.
Financial services
196. SeveraldelegationshadraisedquestionsrelatedtoNorway'sreservationsconcerningmanagement
andactive cross-border supply ofbanking services. Norway didnotintend toabolish theserestrictions,
which were tabled intheannex tothesecond protocol totheGATS. Similar restrictions were not
applied intheEEA context forseveral reasons. IntheEEA, supply offinancial services wasbased
ontheprinciple ofasingle licence andmutual recognition ofprudential standards; according tothe
Lugano Convention, judgements incivilandcommercial cases were tobeenforced inother States
oftheEUandmembers ofEFTA. Similar considerations applied toinsurance services. Therestriction
oninsurance broker activity, specifically referred to,would beabolished.
Maritime transport services
197. References hadbeenmade totheWhite Paper ofMarch 1996 onNorway 'smaritime policy.
Asummary ofthedocument wasavailable inEnglish forinterested delegations. Inresponse totheWT/TPR/M/15
Page30
question regarding thetaxreimbursement scheme forseamen, Norway considered thatthishadapositive
effect andwasparticularly important forcoastal districts. Thescheme alsopromoted therecruitment
ofanewgeneration ofseamen, which wasessential. TheGovernment would therefore continue to
apply, andfurther expand, thetaxreimbursement scheme.
198. Norwayhadtworegistersforships:theNorwegianOrdinaryRegister(NOR)andtheNorwegian
International Ship(NIS); ships owned bynon-Norwegians could beregistered inthelatter. Special
provisions intheActprecluded theadmission ofNorwegian coastal vessels intheNISregister, aswell
asships engaged inregular scheduled passenger traffic between Norwegian andforeign ports.Owners
ofships which satisfied thenationality conditions forregistration intheordinary register could choose
whether toregister theshipinNOR orNIS.
199. NISwasconsidered tobeanational quality register, notaflag-of-convenience register; it
metthehighest international requirements astosafety andenvironment standards, andNorwegian laws
andregulations applied. Inresponse toaquestion onthetwotendencies intheworld ofshipping,
therepresentative ofNorway confirmed thatNorway intended tomaintain strictconditions fortheright
toflytheNorwegian flag,interms oftechnical standards, professional qualifications, frequency and
scope ofinspections etc.Regarding theobservation thattherewerecurrently more oldships soldthan
newships registered, thisdidnotcause concern, asthetechnical standard ofthefleetwould improve.
200. Theminimum participation ofNorwegian nationals forregistration intheNOR wasregulated
intheMaritime Actof1994. ANorwegian representative wasrequired forshipstoberegistered directly
intheNISbyaforeign company. There wasnoother form ofregistration.
201. With reference toarequest forcomments onthenegotiations onmaritime transport services
andthepossibilitiesforanon-achievement,Norwaybelievedthatacredibleoutcomeofthesenegotiations
should beofconcern toallmembers ofanorganization thatwascontinuously working forfurther
liberalization andincreased predictability inworld trade.
Telecom services
202. Concerning aremark onapparent difficulties intheNorwegian market forforeign providers
oftelecom equipment; therepresentatives stated thatthetendering procedures usedbyNorwegian
telecom authorities were open andnon-discriminatory innature, aimed atstriking therightbalance
between price andquality. Foreign equipment hadbeenchosen onseveral occasions inthepast,and
further tenders werewelcome; theprocedure fortypeapproval, which hadpreviously created difficulties
fornewproviders, wasnolonger atime-consuming exercise.
Movement ofnatural persons
203. Norway wascommitted nottoimpose anylimitations ontherighttoestablish acommercial
presence withregard tocertain tourism andtravel services. There were, however, certain horizontal
commitmentsconcerningthepossibilitiesfornaturalpersonsfromothercountriestotakeupemployment
inthese institutions. Thisreflected theresult ofthenegotiations finalized in1995. Norway wasnot
currently considering anychanges tothese commitments.
TRIPS
204. Therepresentative ofNorway saidthattheuseoffalseorotherwise misleading geographical
indications wasconsidered inNorway tobecontrary togood business practice, andwasprohibited
through theMarketing Control Act.Intentional violation waspunishable byfineorimprisonment upWT/TPR/M/15
Page31
tothree months, while negligent violation orcomplicity therein waspunishable byfines. TheMarket
Council andtheConsumer Ombud assisted intheimplementation oftheAct. TheNorwegian
Government wascurrently considering aproposal toaddanewprovision totheMarketing Control
ActandtheTrademark Acttoensure fullcompliance withtherequirements ofArticle 23ofthe
TRIPS Agreement; adecision wasexpected verysoon.
205. RegardingaquestiononthedomesticpolicyconsultationmechanismusedinNorway,formulation
oftrade policy wasbased onestablished structures, andincluded acontinuous process ofconsultation
withbusiness andindustry.
206. TheNorwegian delegation confirmed thatawritten answer would beprovided toarequest
forfurther information ontherelationship between Articles 22,23and24oftheTRIPS Agreement
andtheMarketing Control Act.WT/TPR/M/15
Page32
Conclusions
207. TheTrade Policy Review Body hasnowcompleted thesecond review ofNorway 'strade
policies andpractices. These remarks, made onmyownresponsibility, summarize themain points
ofthediscussion. They arenotintended tosubstitute forthecollective evaluation andappreciation
ofNorway 'strade policies andpractices. Details ofthediscussion willbereflected intheminutes
ofthemeeting.
208. Thediscussion developed under fourmain themes: (i)Norway 'seconomic structure andits
multilateral andregional relations; (ii)trade practices bymeasure; (iii)agriculture andfisheries;
and(iv)other sectoral issues.
(i) Norway 'seconomic structure anditsmultilateral andregional relations
209. Members noted theimproved performance oftheNorwegian economy sincetheprevious Trade
Policy Review in1991, withstrong economic growth andlowinflation. Unemployment wasfalling,
although nottotheleveloftheearly 1980s. Oilwasakeyfeature oftheNorwegian economy and
aquestion wasraised about progress inimplementing thePetroleum Fund. Incommenting onthe
generally opennature oftheNorwegian economy, members alsoasked about theprocess ofdomestic
adjustment inresponse toliberalization.
210. Members welcomed Norway 'sactive participation intheUruguay Round andintheWTO,
andthelevelofitscommitments. They alsonoted thehighandincreasing leveloftradewithregional
preferential trading partners inEurope under theEEA, EFTA andagreements withCentral and
Eastern Europe. Questions were asked about theconsistency ofsucharrangements withtheGATT
andtheGATS, anddiffering views wereexpressed onpossible trade diversion effects. Appreciation
wasexpressed bymany developing country members forthefavourable access afforded byNorway 's
GSPscheme, although some further improvements wereurged inextending thescope ofthescheme,
inparticular totextiles andclothing.
211. While terms ofaccess forforeign direct investment inNorway hadbecome evenmore open
thanattheprevious TPR, partly asaresult ofapplication ofEEArulesonanergaomnes basis, questions
wereasked about further opening, including whether thiswould alsobeonanon-discriminatory basis.
Norway'sviewsweresoughtonthepossibleinclusionofrulesonforeigninvestmentwithinamultilateral
framework.
212. Inresponse, therepresentative ofNorway explained that,while theoilsector contributed
positively totheoverall economic performance, economic policies hadalsobeengeared actively to
achieving increased employment, reduced inflation andcompetitiveness. Unemployment hadnotfallen
asrapidly ashoped, interalia,because ofarapid growth ofthelabour force. Details wereprovided
onthePetroleum Fund asabudgetary measure withaviewtothefuture; allocation forthecurrent
yearwasestimated at2.5percentofGDP.
213. Therepresentative ofNorway explained thatliberalization ofcapital movements under theEEA
wasmade onanergaomnes basisandthatinvestment screening wasnon-discriminatory. OECD rules
onexport credits andguarantees werefollowed; assistance wasprovided forNorwegian investment
indeveloping countries through aspecial credit arrangement.
214. Therepresentative saidthatNorway sawnocontradiction between further regional integration
andefforts toliberalize attheglobal level. Norway hoped tocontribute tothedebate onregionalism
inthenewCommittee onRegional Integration. Theprogressive inclusion ofagriculture intheEEAWT/TPR/M/15
Page33
wastobereviewed every twoyears. Theprovisions under which theEEAAgreement hadbeennotified
didnot,intheNorwegian view, require review inaworking party.
215. Norway appreciated thecomments onitsGSPscheme andtooknoteofthesuggestions made
onhowthismight beimproved, particularly intheareas oftextiles andagriculture andbythepossible
inclusion offootwear. Hementioned thefundthatNorway hadestablished intheWTO tohelpprovide
technical assistance todeveloping countries. Appreciation ofthisfundwasexpressed byanumber
ofdeveloping Members.
(ii) Trade practices bymeasure
216. Members commented onthegenerally lowlevelofNorwegian industrial tariffs, which had
beenfurther reduced asaresult oftheUruguay Round, autonomous tariff cutsoflow,"nuisance"
tariffs andmore substantive reductions. Nevertheless, there weresome areas oftariff escalation. In
theareas offorestry, pulpandpaper, which were major export items, members wondered whether
suchtariff escalation wasnecessary.
Itwasnoted thatquotas fortextiles andclothing continue tobeapplied byimport licensing, which
alsoaffected some products fromnon-WTO members. Aquestion wasraised about theneedforhigh
VAT levels, given thefiscal surplus.
217. Anumber ofmembers commented onthevarious subsidy schemes usedbyNorway, including
forregional development, R&D, environmental improvement, export promotion andinsupport of
agriculture andshipbuilding; itwasfeltthatthesecould havedisruptive tradeeffects. Members asked
about future plans inthisarea. Anumber ofquestions were asked about statetrading operations,
including foralcohol, grains andanimal feedstuffs, aswellas,moregenerally, onplans forprivatization
ofStateenterprises. There wereseveral questions about government procurement policies, inparticular
whether these favoured firms withlocalpresence andwhich usedahigher degree oflocalcontent.
218. Members expressed considerable interest inNorway 'senvironmental policies, including the
WhiteSwanlabellingprogrammeandtheelectricvehicleprogramme.Therewerealsospecificquestions
ontheapplication oftechnical standards andSPSregulations.
219. Inresponse,therepresentativeofNorwaysaidthatGovernmentsupportforstrongenvironmental
policies could bepositive, provided there werenotrade distorting ordiscriminatory effects. Norway
wasaware oftheneedtostrike therightbalance inthisarea. Further details were provided onthe
voluntary eco-labelling scheme, which hadbeendiscussed informally intheWTO; theauthorities,
hesaid,wereconsidering anotification under theTBTCode ofGood Practice. Heemphasized that
support measures fortheforestry sector weredesigned toprevent deforestation andensure regeneration.
Details were provided ontheelectric vehicles project.
220. Therepresentative noted that,intheUruguay Round, higher tariffs hadbeencuttoagreater
extent;fullimplementationoftheresultswouldfurtherreducetariffescalation.Agriculturaltariffication
hadincreased Government revenues, although heemphasized thatthecontribution oftariffs tothebudget
wasminimal. Theelimination offurther "nuisance tariffs" wasbeing considered inrelation tothe
1997 budget.
221. TherepresentativeconfirmedthatNorwayhadnotusedanti-dumping,countervailingorsafeguard
actions fortenyears, norhadtheEEAduring itsexistence. ThenewTrade Actwasdesigned tobring
legislation intolinewithpresent practice. Current VAT rateswould helpmaintain budget surpluses
against thefuture run-down inoilrevenues thatwasanticipated.WT/TPR/M/15
Page34
222. Thedelegate provided details ontheNorwegian Government holdings inindustry, andstressed
thattheauthorities werenotinvolved inday-to-day management. Inbanking, Stateparticipation, which
hadincreased during thebanking crisis, would befurther reduced. Thealcohol monopoly forimports,
exports andwholesale tradehadbeenabolished on1January 1996, buttherewerenoplans toeliminate
theretail monopoly.
223. Therepresentative saidthattechnical regulations andSPSmeasures wereconsistent withWTO
obligations. Heprovided further details onassistance todeveloping countries andthelabelling of
genetically-modified foods oringredients. EEA rules would generally prevail overnon-binding
international standards.
224. Therepresentative provided specific responses toaseries ofquestions onNorway 'scompetition
legislation andexperience withitsapplication. Henoted thattheEEAAgreement oncompetition rules
hadmade anti-dumping measures redundant within theEEA. Heprovided alistofthenotifications
stilltobemade totheWTO intheareas ofTBT, import licensing andagriculture.
225. Therepresentative informed members thatamendments totheregulation onGovernment
procurement wereexpected tobeadopted within onemonth, forimmediate entry intoforce. However,
henoted thatcurrent practice wasnotdiscriminatory. Environmental aspects could beonecriterion
indetermining the"economically mostadvantageous tender". Further details wereprovided inresponse
tospecific questions.
(iii) Agriculture andfisheries
226. While welcoming theopening oftheagricultural sector asaresult oftheUruguay Round and
theintention tobring prices closer intolinewiththose inneighbouring countries, some members noted
thatthese werestillhighandasked whatfurther action theNorwegian Government intended toreduce
thehighlevels ofprotection andassistance. There wasadditional unpredictability stemming fromthe
useofseasonal tariffs which could bevaried atshort notice. Questions were alsoasked about the
auctioning system being considered fortheallocation oftariff quotas, some members expressing the
preference thatquotas beallocated onthebasisofhistorical market share. Itwasnoted thattheEEA
andEFTA agreements effectively excluded agriculture, andNorway wasasked howthissatwiththe
requirement ofArticle XXIV oftheGATT thatsubstantially alltrade becovered under such
arrangements.
227. Inresponse, therepresentative ofNorway saidthatadministrative adjustments totariffs were
within international obligations, andcarried outunder guidelines toensure transparency. TheImport
Council advised theGovernment ontheimport régime. There wasnointention ofincrease applied
rates. InNorway 'sviewauctioning ofquotas wascompatible withtheWTO Agreement onAgriculture,
allowing newentrants andincreasing quota utilization. Auctions hadbeenintroduced forminimum
access quotas andforsome items under theGSP.
228. Details ontheoperation oftheNorwegian Grain Corporation hadbeen notified tothe
WTO Committee onState Trading Enterprises. Information wasprovided ontheimport quota for
deermeat.
229. Thedelegate concluded bygiving anoverview oftheconditions affecting Norwegian agriculture
andtherationale ofitsagricultural policy, including geographic, climatic andfoodsecurity reasons.
230. Anumber ofquestions were asked about fisheries, including several questions about access
totheNorwegian market forfishandtoNorway 'sfishing grounds. Aquestion wasasked about theWT/TPR/M/15
Page35
consistencyofminimumpricesfordeterminingdutiablevalueforimportedfishwiththeWTOAgreement
onCustoms Valuation. Inresponse, therepresentative ofNorway saidthattheRoyal Decree providing
forthepossibility ofminimum prices forfishandfishproducts wasasafeguard measure against market
disruption fromimport surges, notforcustoms valuation purposes. Minimum prices weredetermined
innegotiation between fishermen andsalesorganizations.
(iv) Other sectoral issues
231. MemberswelcomedNorway'sliberalofferinthemaritimeservicesnegotiations,itscommitments
infinancial services andtheopening ofitstelecommunications market. Anumber ofspecific questions
were asked about conditions ofaccess totheNorwegian financial services market. While theState
wasdivesting itself ofitsacquisitions during the1992 banking crisis, itwasnoted thattwotrading
banks would remain under statecontrol. Some questions wereasked about theNorwegian fleetand
explanations were sought ontheshipping registers. Aquestion wasalsoasked about theproposed
revision ofthemining law,inparticular whether access afforded toEEAcountries would beextended
toother WTO members.
232. Inresponse, therepresentative ofNorway saidthatNorwegian mining lawdidnotrestrict
exploration rights toEEA nationals; however, non-EEA nationals required aspecific concession.
Revision ofthelawwould beproposed in1997.
233. Therepresentative saidthatthere wasnointention toreplace thecurrent restrictions onthe
cross-border supply ofbanking services, which hadbeendulytabled under theGATS. EEAconditions
weredifferent because ofthe"single licence" andother provisions intheagreement. Therequirement
thatinsurance broker activity beorganized asajointstock company would beabolished.
234. Therepresentative indicated thathecould make available asummary oftheWhite Paper on
maritime services tointerested delegates. Hegavedetails onthetwoNorwegian shipping registers,
noting thattheNorwegian International Shipping Register (NIS) wasanational quality register, not
aflag-of-convenience register.
235. Tenderingproceduresforthesupplyoftelecommunicationsequipmentwereopen;typeapproval
wasnolonger atime-consuming exercise andforeigners should haveequal opportunities tocompete
withnationals.
236. Overall, Members werefavourably impressed bythestrength andopenness oftheNorwegian
economy. Suchqualifications aswereexpressed related largely toNorway 'sagricultural régime, as
wellastotheheavy concentration oftrade incountries withwhich Norway haspreferential trading
arrangements. There wasencouragement forfurther opening upoftheagricultural sector andfor
increasedgeographicaldiversificationoftrade;thecommitmentoftheNorwegianGovernmenttofurther
liberalization wasnoted andthehopewasexpressed thattherewould beacontinuation ofcurrent positive
trends.