COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMVTUNITIES 
C0M(93) 142 final 
Brussels, 24 March 1993 
Norway's application for Membership 
Opinion of the Commission 
- 1 -
Norway's application for Membership 
Opinion of the Commission 
Contents 
Foreword 2 
Introduct ion 4 
General 
Relations between the Community and Norway 5 
The Norwegian Economy and the Community 7 
Impact of accession 
Agriculture and Forestry 14 
Fisheries 17 
Env i ronment 19 
Energy 20 
Transport 22 
Industry 23 
Econom i c and Soc i a I Cohes i on 25 
Taxation and overall tax burden 27 
Competition 29 
Other policies: Consumer protection 30 
Research and Development 30 
Implications for the Budget of the Community 31 
Customs Un ion 32 
Trade and Economic relations with third countries 34 
Development Cooperation 36 
Foreign and Security Policy 37 
Cooperation in the fields of Justice and Home Affairs ..39 
Indigenous populations (The Sami people) 40 
Conclusions 42 
Statistical Appendix 44 
- 2 -
Foreword 
1. The Commission's Opinion on Norway's application for accession 
follows similar requests from a number of other countries. 
Negotiations on enlargement have already started with three 
applicants: Austria, Sweden and Finland. 
2. The European Council addressed the question of enlargement at its 
meetings in Maastricht (9/10 December 1991), Lisbon (26/27 June 
1992) and Edinburgh (11/12 December 1992). 
The conclusions of the Maastricht European Council noted that "a 
number of European countries have submitted applications or 
announced their intention of seeking membership of the Union. The 
European Council invites the Commission to examine those questions 
including the implications for the Union's future development and 
with regard to the European Council in Lisbon". 
Accordingly, the Commission presented a report on enlargement to the 
European Council in Lisbon^). The latter invited the institutions 
to speed up preparatory work needed to ensure rapid progress 
including the preparation before the European Council in Edinburgh 
of the Union's general negotiation framework. 
The European Council in Edinburgh agreed that "given the agreement 
reached on future financing and the prospects for early ratification 
of the Treaty on European Union by all Member States, enlargement 
negotiations will start with Austria, Sweden and Finland at the 
beginning of 1993. These negotiations will be based on the general 
negotiation framework of which the General Affairs Council took note 
on 7 December. They will be transformed into negotiations under 
Article 0 of the Treaty on European Union once it enters into force, 
and can only be concluded once the Treaty on European Union has been 
ratified by all Member States". 
The European Council invited the Council of Ministers to take 
decisions on the opening of negotiations on the same basis with 
Norway, as soon as the Commission's Opinion on its application is 
avai table. 
3. In preparing the present Opinion, the Commission has assumed, in 
line with the conclusions of the European Council, that accession 
will, in accordance with Article 0 of the Maastricht Treaty, be to a 
European Union characterized by the establishment of Economic and 
Monetary Union, ultimately including a single currency; the 
implementation of a Common Foreign and Security Policy, including 
the eventual framing of a Common Defence Policy, which might in time 
lead to a common defence; the introduction of a citizenship of the 
Union and the development of close cooperation in Justice and Home 
Affairs as well as the strengthening of Economic and Social 
Cohesion. 
The Commission would furthermore recall that the President in Office 
of the Council of Ministers said in his statement at the Ministerial 
meeting opening the Conferences on the accession of Austria, Sweden 
and Finland to the European Union, that "The acceptance of the 
rights and obligations by a new member may give rise to technical 
adjustments, and exceptionally to temporary (not permanent) 
derogations and transitional arrangements to be defined during the 
(1) "Europe and the challenge of enlargement", Brussels 24 June 1992 
(Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 3/92) 
- 3 -
accession negotiations, but can in no way involve amendments to 
Community rules. 
The fact that negotiations with the candidate countries will, to the 
extent possible, be conducted in parallel is particularly important 
in the case of EFTA candidates, not only in respect of the 
adjustments to the Treaties provided for in Article 0, but also 
because of the numerous similarities in the questions to be 
addressed in the negotiations. 
- 4 -
ntroduct ion 
1. On 25 November 1992, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of 
Norway submitted to the Council of the European Communities the 
application of the Kingdom of Norway for membership of the European 
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community 
(EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). 
2. At its meeting of 7 December 1992, the Council decided to implement 
the procedures laid down in the Treaties (Article 98 of the ECSC 
Treaty, Article 237 of the EEC Treaty, and Article 205 of the EAEC 
Treaty). 
3. In preparing this Opinion, the Commission has concentrated its 
analysis on those areas where the impact of accession will be the 
greatest and which are likely to constitute the main subjects for 
discussion in the negotiations. 
4. The present Opinion also reflects substantial information on the 
situation of Norway obtained from the Norwegian authorities, with 
which the Commission has remained in close contact, notably through 
the Norwegian Mission to the European Communities and the 
Commission's Delegation in Oslo. 
- 5 -
Genera I 
Relations between the Community and Norway 
1. Norway is geographically and historically a European country. 
Since World War II, Norway has played an active role, politically, 
and economically, both within Europe and on the wider international 
level. In 1948 she became member of GATT; was one of the founding 
members of NATO in 1949; became member of the Council of Europe in 
1950; was one of the founding members of EFTA in 1960. 
2. Norway has made two previous requests to join the European 
Communities (1962 and 1967), together with the United Kingdom, the 
Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Denmark on which the 
Commission expressed its Opinion in 1967 and 1969^1^. This led to 
the opening of enlargement negotiations with those four countries in 
1970. 
These were successfully concluded in 1972^2^. However, in the 
referendum held in Norway on their results, the outcome was a 
majority (53.6%) against accession. Consequently Norway did not 
ratify the Treaty of Accession. 
3. Thereafter, the Norwegian Government negotiated Free Trade 
Agreements with the European Community (together with the remaining 
member States of EFTA). These Free Trade Agreements (FTA) signed in 
1973^3), provided for the progressive abolition, in respect of 
trade between the parties in industrial goods, of customs duties, 
quantitative restrictions and all measures of equivalent effect. The 
FTA include provisions for rules on state aid and industrial 
competition, and a number of mutual concessions in the agriculture 
and fisheries fields. Also a bilateral Joint Committee was set up to 
administer the Agreements. 
4. In April 1984, the Ministers of the Community and of the EFTA 
countries met in Luxembourg and adopted a declaration laying down 
the guidelines for the continuation, deepening and extension of 
cooperation, within the framework of, and beyond, the FTA, with the 
objective of progressively establishing a dynamic European Economic 
Area. This declaration was subsequently reinforced by the speech of 
President Delors to the European Parliament in January 1989, where 
he invited the EFTA States to reflect on the possibility of a more 
structured partnership. 
The Norwegian Prime Minister Mrs. Brundtland played a key rôle in 
the positive response given to this initiative by the EFTA Heads of 
Government during their meeting in March 1989 in Oslo, held under 
the Norwegian Presidency. 
(1) Opinions of the Commission to the Council concerning the membership 
applications of the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway 
according to articles 237 of the EEC Treaty, 205 of the EAEC Treaty, and 
98 of the ECSC Treaty, COM (67) 750 of 29.09.1967 and COM (69) 1000 of 
01.10.1969. 
(2) Documents concerning the accession to the European Communities of 
the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway and the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Special Edition of the 
Official Journal of the European Communities, dated 27.03.1972. 
(3) Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of 
Norway (EC, 0J L 171 of 27.06.1973) and Agreement between the Member 
States of the European Coal and Steel Community of the one part and the 
Kingdom of Norway, of the other part (OJ L 348 of 27.12.1974) 
- 6 -
Negotiations culminated in the signature in Oporto, on 2 May 1992, 
of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area (EEA). 
Norway has thus already established a high level of integration with 
the Community and a significant part of the Community 'acquis' will 
be applied on the entry into force of the EEA, covering the four 
freedoms (free circulation of goods, services, capital and persons), 
as well as such areas as social policy, environment, company law, 
consumer protection and competition law. 
Moves for a further attempt to join the Community had already begun 
in 1987 with the publication of a Government White Paper favouring 
closer contacts with the Community. The negotiations for the EEA 
Agreement led to further consideration of Norway's long term 
interests, leading the Government to the opinion that neither the 
FTA nor the EEA would adequately safeguard Norwegian interests in 
the longer term. The realization that other EFTA countries had 
applied or were preparing applications for membership plus the 
impact of the dramatic changes in the European geopolitical 
landscape led to the renewed Norwegian decision in November 1992 to 
apply for full membership of the Community. 
In her speech to the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) on 16 November 
1992, Prime Minister Brundtland emphasized that the European 
Community had developed into the most important organization for 
cooperation in Europe. She said that "(Norway) is applying for 
membership of a Community that has developed its own rules and 
traditions. We wish to Join the other countries in developing them 
further". 
"It is the countries that participate in the cooperation that will 
determine its further course, not those that remain on the outside. 
Given that decisions taken by the EC will have a profound effect on 
our country, we should also participate in this important new phase 
of European cooperation as we have done in EFTA throughout the 
entire post-war period". 
She also emphasized the importance of the EC's Common Foreign and 
Secur ity Pol icy. 
- 7 -
The Norwegian Economy and the Community 
The Norwegian economy is one of the most prosperous in Europe. Owing 
to a comfortable resource situation, notably in energy, Norway has 
benefited from one of the highest standards of living in Europe, 
with a GDP per capita over or close to the highest in the Community 
during the last 20 years. The strong economic performance has also 
allowed Norway to invest in good infrastructure as well as in a 
highly skilled labour force. Moreover, the exploration of oil off 
the Norwegian coast from 1971 onwards, has contributed to develop 
and to maintain a high level of technology. 
As a member of EFTA, Norway has long participated in European 
cooperation and trade. Norway has for a long time been among the ten 
most important trading partners of the Community. In 1991, Norway 
was the seventh biggest supplier and the eighth biggest market for 
Community exports. Norway supplies approximately 3.5% of Community 
imports and is the destination of more than 2% of Community exports. 
The Community's imports from Norway consist to a very large extent 
of primary products (more than 70%), while Community exports to 
Norway are dominated by manufactured products. The Community is by 
far the main trading partner for Norway. In 1991, it accounted for 
almost 50% of Norwegian imports and 66% of its exports. Among the 
Community Member States, the U.K. and Germany are the most important 
suppliers of the Norwegian market and the most important 
destinations of the Norwegian exports. The Community and EFTA, taken 
together, account for nearly 70% of Norwegian imports and 81% of its 
exports. 
As of 1 July 1990, Norway changed her regime of capital movements to 
an essentially free one. According to the EEA Agreement, the 
remaining barriers, notably in the field of direct investments and 
real estate investment, will have to be abolished by 1 January 1995. 
In the monetary field, Norway demonstrated its strong interest to 
closer cooperation with the Community, when, in October 1990, as the 
first country outside the Community, she unilaterally pegged the 
Norwegian krone to the ECU. The ECU link included bilateral swap 
agreements with the Community's central banks, and lasted until 10 
December 1992 when the Norwegian authorities were forced to let the 
krone float in the aftermath of the turmoil on international 
exchange markets. 
The present economic situation in Norway seems to follow a 
relatively favorable development compared to most Member States of 
the Community. After a severe recession with negative output in the 
ma in landC) economy in 1988 and 1989, economic growth has 
recovered. In 1992, overall GDP grew by 2,6% whereas the mainland 
economy grew at a rate of 1,0%. Inflation is currently running below 
2,5% and the current account shows a surplus of around 2,3% of GDP. 
Despite this economic improvement, some signs of structural 
weaknesses in the Norwegian economy give reason for concern: 
- From 1987 to 1992 unemployment rose from 2,1% to 5,9%, in addition 
2.6% of the labour force in labour market measures. 
(1) By 'mainland' is meant here non-oil sector. 
- 8 -
- Expansionary policies have contributed to deteriorate pub Iic 
f inances. During the last four years, increased labour market 
measures, public investments and transfers to local governments, 
have provided a total demand stimulus equal to 7% of mainland GDP. 
During the same period, public balance shifted from a surplus of 
1,4% of GDP to a deficit of 3,2% of GDP in 1992. 
- The total consequences of the financial crisis which emerged in 
the aftermath of the deregulations of the credit markets and the 
subsequent explosion of credits, are still uncertain. Although the 
financial position of households and firms has improved recently, 
additional credit losses in the ailing banking sector are not 
excluded. 
- Investments in the mainland economy declined by 35 % from 1986 to 
1992. Although to some extent explained by the recession and the 
overexpansion during the 1980s, the sharp decline still gives reason 
for concern. 
3. Structurally, the Norwegian economy is characterized by great 
reliance on natural resources and energy production^2). This is 
reflected both in the size and the importance of the petroleum 
sector and the fact that a large share of the manufacturing industry 
is energy-intensive. 
The heavy reliance on energy-intensive industries is explained by 
the abundance of relatively cheap hydroelectric power given Norway's 
many waterfalls. Norway's production of oil and gas equals about 
half of total Community production. 
After the discovery and subsequent exploitation of oil resources in 
the 1970s, the importance of the petroleum sector has gradually 
increased, although varying depending on the price of oil. In 1991 
it contributed to 16% of GDP, 32% of exports and to 11% of total 
public revenue. At present, its relative importance in terms of 
contribution to GDP is above that of the manufacturing industry. 
Several sectors are benefiting from the expansion in the petroleum 
sector, the most important being the construction of oil rigs, 
shipping and a number of service industries. 
Developments in other industries in the last two decades reflect the 
increasing importance of, and revenues from, the petroleum sector. 
Contrary to most Member States of the Community, manufactured output 
has remained at its mid-seventies level. Employment in manufacture 
has however declined, its share of total employment being reduced 
from 24% in 1974 to 16% in 1991. Resources were shifted to the 
sheltered sectors: Since the mid-seventies only public services and 
the private service sector has incurred any growth in employment. 
(2) According to Norwegian estimations, the current level of oil 
production may be maintained until the year 2000. By the year 2010 gas 
production will dominate and the oil reserves are expected to be 
exausted by the year 2030. The price of oil is currently of 18 $ a 
barrel. According to the Norwegian authorities, a decrease in the oil 
price of 10% will lower export income of 3.2% or 1.4% of GDP. 
- 9 -
About 25% of value added in manufacture is provided by energy-
intensive production, such as metals, chemicals, pulp and paper. 
Historically, these industries have benefited from low electricity 
prices. Electricity prices to Norwegian industries equals 25-50% of 
average Community prices, varying according to use. Exports of 
electricity, other than surplus electricity, are presently limited 
to 3% of national production. Both the ongoing deregulation of the 
domestic electricity market and the removal of the export 
limitations may increase prices for energy-intensive uses, thus 
necessitating improved cost and productivity performance. 
The specialization of the Norwegian economy is also reflected in the 
composition of exports and imports and explains the relatively low 
intra-industry trade with Community Member States. Norway imports a 
wide range of industrial products, in particular consumer and 
investment goods. As for exports, more than half of Norwegian 
exports are dependent upon developments in a handful of relatively 
unstable world market prices, notably the oil price. 
4. The structure of the Norwegian economy does, to some extent, reflect 
the adaptation to comparative advantages. Petroleum revenues have, 
however, been used to maintain production and income in declining 
industries, most notably in agriculture and shipbuilding. 
Furthermore, real wages have been pushed upwards as high public 
spending and rapid expansion of public employment have helped to 
slow the growth of unemployment. This wage development has helped to 
inhibit the expansion of the private sector. In addition, 
productivity in manufacturing has grown at a slower rate than in 
competitor countries. 
The present structure of the Norwegian economy leaves the external 
balance, public finances and total economy very vulnerable to large 
swings in the oil price and the world market price of a handful of 
staple goods. Furthermore, the economy risks being exposed to 
declining terms of trade in the longer run. These structural 
imbalances show the limitations of a development which relies too 
heavily on the economic rents from natural resources. In the medium-
term, a revita Iization of the mainland economy seems necessary to 
stabilize and preserve the high level of welfare in Norway. 
5. In this context, structural policies are essential in order to 
reduce oil dependency and to create a competitive environment to 
stimulate growth and employment. While some institutional changes 
have been undertaken during the last decade, notably deregulation 
of financial and energy markets and changes in the tax system, 
considerable room for improvement remains in the areas of 
competition and subsidization. 
When the EEA Agreement is implemented, domestic competition is 
expected to increase. Particularly in sectors such as transport, 
construction and trade, EEA competition regulations may reduce 
market distortions. In order to comply with EEA rules the Government 
is also currently preparing new national legislation on compet i t ion 
and will replace the Price Act of 1953 with a new Competition Law. 
Determined implementation of this law may help to improve efficiency 
and enhance competition. 
(3) 
10 -
However, the level of subsidies which has tended to protect ailing 
parts of the mainland economy, in both manufacturing and agriculture 
is still relatively high compared with other industrialized 
countries. Direct subsidies including interest subsides to 
households and direct support to agriculture amount to about 6% of 
GDP, which is about four times the OECD-average, while subsidies to 
industries alone equal 3% of GDP. 
Norwegian agr iculture receives one of the highest amounts of support 
among OECD countries. Agriculture and related activities like food-
processing and food-trade are also effectively sheltered from 
foreign competition through tariffs and quotas. While this reflects 
the strong regional policy tradition and the importance of 
agriculture in remote regions, reduced transfers and enhanced 
efficiency may prove necessary in the long run. 
Furthermore, as the pub Iic sector employs about 25% of total 
employment, public sector efficiency is of major importance. 
Independent studies have shown that considerable efficiency gains 
may be realized in the public sector, among others in education, 
transport and regional policy. Such gains may be used to reduce the 
overall tax burden or to increase the supply of other public 
services. 
Another important structural issue of major concern is the severe 
crisis in the financial sector. Following the deregulations of the 
credit markets in the 1980s, inflationary expectations, lax monetary 
policies and income tax systems that greatly favoured borrowing 
contributed to a substantial expansion of credits. 
Due to an overoptimistic risk assessment and exceptionally fast 
credit expansion, extensive credit losses occurred once the economy 
began to dec Iine. 
In order to restore confidence in the financial system, the 
Norwegian Government has intervened with substantial rescue 
measures; between 1988 and 1992 the banks received around 2,000 
million Norwegian krone, equivalent of 3% of GDP in public funds. By 
these measures, the Norwegian state became the far most important 
bank owner in the three major commercial banks. 
A more efficient use of the resources in the financial sector is 
also particularly important in order to adjust to the likely 
increase in foreign competition implied by the EEA Agreement. At 
present, the conditions of sound competition in the banking industry 
risk to be offset by the Government measures as neither foreign 
banks, nor the domestic smaller healthier banks, so far are able to 
compete on the same terms as the commercial banks supported by the 
Government. 
6. Decisions on public expenditure and revenues are highly centralized. 
Although 70% of the public sector activity is undertaken by local 
government, the majority of its activities are regulated by law or 
by tied transfers from the State. Unlike in Finland and in Sweden 
local government has no freedom to set local taxes. The Parliament 
decides the income of local government by deciding the level of 
taxes and transfers. 
- 11 -
Individual rights to social security are obtained through annual 
premiums, where accumulated premiums determine the size of age 
pensions etc. However, the system as such is a "pay as you go"-
system and is thus not self-financed. It is currently running large 
deficits, financed through the Fiscal Budget. The Parliament sets 
the level of individual benefits. Overall, benefits have improved 
during the last two decades. 
A major tax reform was implemented in 1992, broadening the tax base 
and reducing marginal tax rates. As the new system implies less 
variation in effective taxation of returns on various kinds of 
investment, distorting effects of taxation are reduced. However, the 
marginal tax on wages, including employers' and employees' social 
security contributions remains high. It differs from 44.5% on low 
wages to 63.8% on high wages. In north Norway the marginal tax is 
16.3% lower. 
Public expenditure increased from 48% of GDP in 1981, to 59% of GDP 
in 1992, which is about 10% above the Community average. Most of the 
increase is due to a rise in public consumption and transfers to 
households. In particular, social security benefits, such as 
unemployment benefits, rehabilitation benefits and disablement 
pensions, has grown rapidly over the last years. Public sector 
employment rose by 2% per year from 1988 to 1992. 
During the 1980s, the general Government balance showed considerable 
surpluses, but deteriorated gradually from 1989 on, as fiscal policy 
turned expansionary to counter the recent recession. In 1992, tax 
reliefs of nearly 1% of GDP were included in the reform. By 1992, 
public sector deficit and public debt equalled, respectively, 3.2 
and 43.5 % of GDP. 
Baseline medium-term projections recently undertaken by Norwegian 
authorities show that public sector finances may deteriorate further 
in the next five years. Overall tax burden is already among the 
highest in Europe. In addition, 1/10 of public revenues depend on 
the fairly volatile world market price of oil. 
Clearly, the scope for further expansionary policies is certainly 
limited, and altogether actions to strengthen the financial position 
may prove fruitful. 
During the last five years, the main policy response to the surge in 
unemployment has been to increase public spending in order to 
prevent domestic demand from declining as well as to increase 
employment in the public sector. However, as public deficits have 
grown, it has become more and more obvious that there are certain 
limits as to how much further the present strategy can be pursued. 
Hence, a reorientation of fiscal policies towards a revital ization 
of the private sector in the mainland economy, e.g. by lowering 
indirect wage costs and reducing public expenditure, could provide a 
good foundation for employment growth in the longer run. 
- 12 -
7. The objective of the Norwegian monetary policy is to create a 
foundation for sustained growth through low price and wage 
inflation. From 1986 to late 1992, exchange rate stability was the 
operational target for this policy, which proved successful. 
Inflation fell from an average of 9.5% in 1980-86 to 4.2% in 1989, 
and is presently running at 2.3%. 
The ECU link in October 1990, continued the aims of the fixed 
exchange policy with regards to lower inflation, but with a stronger 
European orientation. 
Until August 1992, the Norwegian krone remained very stable towards 
major currencies. However, in the aftermath of the turmoil on 
international exchange markets and the subsequent flotation of the 
Swedish and Finnish currencies, the Norwegian authorities decided to 
let the krone float on 10 December 1992. This decision was linked to 
the fragile state of the banking sector and the high debt of the 
private sector and their capacity to face the very high nominal and 
real interest rates which have been required for some time. Since 
the floating began and until present, the krone has depreciated 
around 3% towards the ecu. 
Nevertheless, the reasons for a returning to a fixed exchange rate 
system strongly remains. Given the relatively high imports of 
consumer goods, domestic consumer prices tend to immediately reflect 
exchange rate movements with subsequent adjustments in nominal 
wages, also reducing real wage flexibility. On the other hand, the 
structure of exports, concentrated on a few goods where world market 
prices are highly volatile, complicate the conduct of such a 
policy, as it implies a higher volatility in terms of trade than in 
the EC countries. This reinforces the need for greater flexibility 
in other fields of economic policies and for diversification and 
reduced dependency on oil. 
8. In summary, the accession to the Community of Norway, one of the 
most prosperous countries in Europe and relative to its population 
the richest on natural resources, will not create insurmountable 
problems from an economic point of view. Currently, inflation is 
lower and the financial position of the public sector is performing 
better than in most EC countries. In the recent years monetary and 
exchange rate policies were successful in achieving inflation 
performances well in line with future EMU requirements. These 
performances will have to be confirmed following the decisions of 
the authorities to abandon temporarily the link to the ecu. However, 
structural weaknesses in the mainland economy give reasons for 
concern as the macro-economic equilibrium is now highly dependent on 
oil resources and therefore oil prices. To some extent, the reduced 
importance of traditional activities relative to the oil sector 
reflect expected market mechanisms. But economic policy, in 
particular insufficient competition and strong expansion of public 
expenditure and employment, has also contributed to this 
development. In order to provide a solid foundation for the economy 
and employment and to preserve the high standard of living of the 
Norwegian population in the longer run, measures oriented towards 
the revita Iization of the mainland economy have appeared more and 
more necessary. The Norwegian authorities have already undertaken 
steps in this direction, by a comprehensive tax reform and the 
deregulation of important markets. The implementation of the EEA 
would be another important step to enhance competition. Fiscal 
- 13 -
policy could also contribute to this goal. As in other Nordic 
countries, high public expenditures and fiscal pressures reflect a 
marked preference of the Norwegian population for social equity and 
consumption of public goods. The effective costs of the consequent 
policy in financial terms and in terms of crowding out private 
initiatives have been partly hidden and partly attenuated by the 
existence of the oil revenues. The revitalization of the economy 
necessitates that these costs should be better taken into account. 
Measures in this direction would also greatly enhance the framework 
in which monetary cooperation can be reestablished with the 
Commun i ty in due t ime. 
14 -
Impact of Accession 
Agriculture and Forestry 
The total agricultural area of Norway is approximately 1 million 
hectares or 3% of the total area. Productive forests cover 7 million 
hectares. The remaining 75% consists of mountains, glaciers, lakes 
and built-up areas. The share of the total active population 
employed in agriculture is 5.4% (103,000 persons working on 96,000 
farms), which is about the same as the Community average. However, 
agriculture only accounted for 1.8% of GDP in 1990 (EC: 3%). 
Geographical location and climatic conditions play a significant 
part in determining basic agricultural patterns. A large part of 
Norway has Arctic and sub-Arctic characteristics. Agricultural 
production is limited by the length of the growing season, which is 
about 190 days in the southern parts and only 100 days in the 
northern parts of the country and in mountainous regions in southern 
Norway. Climatic conditions have a strong influence on yields and 
increase the risks associated with crop production. 
Only 5% of the agricultural area is used for wheat production. The 
most important crops are grass forage (55%) and feed grains (30%). 
Norwegian farm structure is characterized by a large number of small 
farms. The average area of arable land per farm is considerably 
below the Community average (10 ha compared with 16.6 ha for the 
EC). 87% of the farms have less than 20 ha arable land. Mountains, 
fjords, lakes and forests divide the farmland into scattered, 
relatively small plots, some of which are very hilly. This limits 
the potential for structural rationalization. It also results in 
high costs in agricultural production. 
The farm structure is also a result of strong historical and 
cultural traditions associated with farm ownership in Norway. The 
farmland cannot be purchased without a special concession. The 
purchaser must be assessed as suitable and must agree to live and 
work on the property for at least five years after taking it over. 
For meat and dairy products Norway is nearly self-sufficient. 
However, Norway produces no sugar, oilseeds, wine or protein feeds. 
Wheat production is not possible in most parts of the country. A 
considerable proportion of the wheat, fruits and vegetables consumed 
in Norway is imported. 
The overall level of self-sufficiency as regards agricultural 
products, calculated on an energy basis, is about 50%, which is the 
lowest in Europe. 
The policy instruments used by Norway are in some respects similar 
to those used by the Community, although there are also major 
differences. In Norway, the agricultural marketing cooperatives are 
responsible for regulating the market, and the farmers themselves 
incur the costs for surplus production in the form of marketing 
fees. Border controls are largely based on quantitative 
restrictions. Both internal producer prices and the level of direct 
support in Norway considerably exceed corresponding prices and 
support levels in the Community. The Community would have to verify, 
in the course of negotiations, compatibility between the supports 
Norway gives and the Community's relevant policies and legislation, 
including state aid policy. However, the Community shares Norway's 
objective of maintaining agricultural activities in marginal areas. 
- 15 -
The level of support in Norwegian agriculture, as measured by 
Producer Subsidy Equivalents (PSE), is relatively high. In 1990, PSE 
percentages in Norway were higher than in the EC for all major 
products. The average PSE in Norway was 77%, as compared with 49% in 
the Community. 
Current producer prices in Norway are up to twice those in the EC. 
The costs of input factors are also considerably higher in Norway 
than in the Community. 
The reduction in grain prices would result in a shift in livestock 
production from rural areas to central areas which are dominated by 
grain production today. 
Norwegian food processing enterprises are small in international 
terms. A considerable proportion of the industry is located outside 
towns and urban areas and is based on agricultural production in 
areas with natural handicaps. Furthermore, the structure of primary 
production together with natural conditions results in high 
transport, processing and sales costs. 
Given the small volume of Norwegian production compared to that of 
the Community, no general effects on Community markets are to be 
expected. The market for EC producers of sugar, oilseeds, protein 
feed, wheat, fruits and vegetables would be enlarged through 
Norwegian accession. 
For both the Community and Norway, the broad objectives of rural 
development policy have been to sustain agriculture, to create new 
activities and to avoid depopulation. In many areas of Norway, 
agriculture is the main economic activity and thus a key factor in 
providing employment and encouraging settlement in those areas. Two-
thirds of agricultural output, mainly livestock production, takes 
place in areas where there are few alternative means of livelihood. 
The Norwegian policy of promoting grain production in central parts 
of the country and the best agricultural areas and livestock 
production in less favoured areas has been an important instrument 
of regional policy. 
In Norway, structural measures have been closely linked to rural 
measures. Part of the aim of the economic measures has been to 
promote redistribution of income between larger and smaller units 
and between areas of production and regions. Many of the measures 
introduced therefore have a structural profile i.e. payments/support 
to small farms is relatively higher than payments/support to larger 
farms. 
Some of the Norwegian aids can be covered partly by existing schemes 
under regulation 2328/91 on investments, installation aids to young 
farmers, replacement on the farm and compensatory allowances for 
less favoured areas. 
Non-farming measures could be included into rural development 
programmes under Objective 5b, for those of Norway's zones that 
would meet the Community eligibility criteria as they will be 
proposed in the regulations applicable for the 1994-1999 period. Low 
density of population will need to be taken into account (13 
inhabitants per km2) especially for the Northern regions. 
EC financing does not cover direct income aids to production of the 
type found in Norway, nor selective support to agricultural 
transportation, nor regional aids like those existing in Northern 
Norway for some production like potatoes, vegetables and berries. 
- 16 -
There is no equivalent in Norway to EC schemes for early retirement 
and processing and marketing, although some support is given through 
the cooperatives for marketing agricultural products and improving 
the quality of production. 
Like in the Community, in recent years, Norway has attached 
increasing importance to the development of new activities in rural 
areas. For both the aim of rural policies has been to create 
economic alternatives. Many of these measures are similar to those 
approved in the Community. Disadvantages resulting from Arctic and 
sub-Arctic conditions, demographic features and high transport costs 
represent new dimensions which are not covered by present Community 
I eg i s I at ion. 
9. Environmental considerations are an important part of Norwegian 
agricultural policies. Measures have been implemented to prevent 
erosion in vulnerable areas and to reduce pollution from such 
sources as silage, manure and fertilizers. There is also a programme 
designed to reduce the impact of pesticide use in agriculture. Great 
importance is also attached to preservation of the cultural 
landscape and heritage. 
Norway has very favourable plant health and veterinary status. 
Climatic and geographical factors, surveillance and eradication 
programmes are the most important reasons for this. 
10. The varied topography of Norway and the great length of the country 
in a north-south direction result in wide variations in growing 
conditions for forests and operating conditions for forestry in 
Norway. Norway's major coniferous forest areas and the best 
operating conditions are found in the south-east and in central 
Norway. Elsewhere in the country birch is the dominant species, with 
more scattered patches of coniferous forest, and operations are more 
cost I y. 
11. During this century, particularly after World War ll, systematic 
afforestation has been carried out, especially in coastal areas. 23% 
(7 million hectares) of the total area of Norway is classified as 
productive forest. There are 126,000 forest properties in Norway 
with at least 2.5 hectares of productive forest. Most forest 
holdings are in individual private ownership, and the average size 
of all forest holdings is 56 hectares. 
12. In Norway, reindeer herding is legally recognized and protected as 
the exclusive right of the Sami people. 
The industry is small (2,800 persons, 1.2% of national meat 
consumption) and based on extensive land use. All the reindeer meat 
is consumed in Norway, and there is no history of export or import. 
- 17 
Fisher ies 
1. Fisheries have a traditional importance in the Norwegian economy. 
Despite the fact that this sector has been declining over the last 
few years, fisheries and aquaculture exports have a positive impact 
in the Norwegian trade balance, representing 6% of total exports. 
Since the creation, in 1977, of an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 
miles, Norway benefits from extensive fishing waters. Access is 
granted to fleets from parties with which Norway has concluded 
fisheries agreements, such as the Community, Sweden, the Faeroe 
Islands, Iceland, Poland and the Russian Federation. 
In addition to her own resources, Norway has access through 
fisheries agreements, to the waters of various third parties. At 
present, 14 agreements concluded by Norway are in force, of which 
three with the Community. Agreements with third parties concern the 
Russian Federation, the Faeroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, Finland, 
Sweden, Poland and Canada. 
Norwegian accession will increase both the tonnage of the Community 
fishing fleet (by 17%) and the number of fishermen (by 10%). 
Since Norwegian landings reach an annual volume of approximately 2 
million tonnes, the Community will reinforce its position in this 
sector, coming after China and Japan. 
2. Norwegian accession will decrease the Community's present structural 
deficit in fish (more than 6.000 million ECU) by about 17%. 
3. Norway applies in general a very stringent policy of conservation, 
management and control. The question of discards, not allowed by 
Norway, should be examined during the negotiations. In order to 
ensure continuing possibilities for exploitation, the establishment 
of zones where fisheries activities are forbidden or limited is an 
instrument of management frequently used in North Norway. The use of 
this instrument is in conformity with the Community 'acquis', as far 
as conservation of stocks is concerned. 
A number of roundfish stocks in the North Sea and in 
Kattegat/Skagerrak are already managed jointly with the Community. 
Some of these are at present in depleted state. 
4. The Norwegian fishing fleet is characterized by a majority of small 
vessels (less then 12 meters). This is due to the policy of the 
Government to maintain fishing as an economic activity in the rural 
and distant coastal areas, where no other activity is possible, 
therefore preventing exodus. It is likely that the Norwegian fleet 
will increase the existing over-capacity of the Community. 
During accession negotiations, a particular attention should be 
given to the specific problems of those regions which are dependent 
on fisheries and are situated essentially in the north of the 
country. 
5. In view of the importance of her fleet, of salmonidae farming, and 
the level of her processing industry, Norway will certainly become 
one of the major beneficiaries of the structural measures the 
Community has set up in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. 
Furthermore, the necessary restructuring of the Norwegian fleet, and 
the numerous areas dependent on fisheries, will justify the 
application of socio-economic flanking measures once the fisheries 
sector has been fully integrated in the Structural Funds. 
4) 
- 18 -
6. Norwegian accession would increase the volume of Community 
aquacuitural production by more than a third. Her already 
significant impact especially on the salmon market will be 
reinforced by the dismantling of customs barriers. 
7. Within the EEA Agreement, Norway has undertaken the obligation to 
align some of the legislation concerning sales organizations on the 
corresponding EC legislation. The respect of this obligation will 
have to be verified. Other areas where implementation will be 
necessary are the withdrawal price system and the reference price 
system, both not being operated in Norway. The system of price 
subsidies currently in operation in Norway (general price and 
specific price subsidies) is not in line with the Community 
Fisheries Policy (CFP). Particular attention during the negotiations 
should also be given to transport subsidies. 
8. A certain number of problematic areas can be identified in the trade 
and commercial fields: gradual elimination of Community duties on 
fisheries products; harmonization of Norwegian tariff to Community's 
level vis-à-vis third countries-, introduction, for the Norwegian 
sector, of such preferential schemes as GSP and Lome; reintroducing 
tariffs vis-à-vis other EFTA countries which do not become members 
of the Community at the same time as Norway; creation and role of 
producers organizations; and the introduction as a whole of the 
Community price system. Specific attention should be given to the 
sensitive species such as salmon, herring and mackerel as defined in 
the EEA Agreement. 
9. The major involvement of Norwegian professional organizations in the 
development, implementation and enforcement of fisheries management 
legislation, as well as in international fisheries negotiations, 
will have to be examined during the negotiations. 
10. The modalities of reciprocal access to waters and to resources will 
be one of the most problematic areas. The 'acquis' here includes 
regulation of access to the 12 miles coastal area, the Shetland box 
and the principle of relative stability. The level of the reciprocal 
quotas fixed in bilateral and trilateral agreements 
(Community/Norway/Sweden in relation to the Skagerrak/Kattegat area) 
should serve as a basis for the negotiations. 
11. The status of Svalbard (Spitzbergen) archipelago is regulated by the 
Treaty of Paris, 1920. The question whether Svalbard shall be 
covered by the treaties establishing the European Community must be 
addressed. Norway takes the view that the Treaty of Paris applies to 
the territorial waters only, whilst the Community maintains that it 
applies to the fishing protection zone as established by Norway. The 
implications for the CFP will depend on the solutions found to these 
two problems. 
12. Finally, it will be necessary to find a solution to the particular 
problem posed by fisheries for herring directly aimed at the 
production of fish oil and fish meal practiced in Norway but 
prohibited in the Community. 
- 19 -
Environment 
1. Norway has already had a comprehensive environmental policy for a 
number of years, well adapted to the specific conditions of the 
country, and seeks to integrate environmental considerations into 
other sectorial policies with the view to achieving sustainable 
development. The experience Norway has in the field of environment 
policy and her integrated approach would benefit considerably and 
further enhance the deepening of Community policy in this sector. 
2. By virtue of the EEA Agreement Norway will have to implement a large 
part of Community legislation in the field of environment, in some 
cases subject to transitional periods which would have to be 
examined in the event of accession. However, parts of the EC 
legislation in this sector, as well as legislation concerning 
nuclear safety and radiation protection, and nature protection is 
not covered by the EEA. 
3. The underlying principles and objectives of Norway's environmental 
policy correspond to those applied by the EC. Norway is well 
advanced in using market based instruments for environmental 
purposes, and her experience in the sector is of great interest to 
the Commission, which is working on developing a similar approach. 
4. With regard to the control of pollution emissions, Norway is already 
making use of the integrated pollution control approach which is 
being developed at Community level. Given her limited number of 
industrial plants, Norway has chosen to apply to a large extent the 
licensing procedure which deals with polluting emissions largely on 
a case by case basis. Norway furthermore applies the principle of 
critical loads limits for emission of substances which are not 
hazardous. This concept has not yet been introduced into Community 
legislation. However, in the overall Norway should not have much 
problem in integrating EC emission standards and guide values, 
particularly in view of the fact that the individual emission 
permits in Norway are generally among the most stringent in Europe. 
5. Norwegian policy on waste management is already well developed and 
based on the same principles as those of the Community. 
6. Some differences in the field of radiation protection legislation 
will need to be addressed in more detail. More information is needed 
from the Norwegian authorities in this area. 
7. In the area of the protection of natural resources, the issue of 
whaling, in particular, will need to be addressed. On this matter, 
Norway, announced during the 44th annual meeting of the 
International Whaling Commission, which took place in Glasgow on 
30.06.1992, the intention of the Government to resume research 
programmes on whales as of 01.07.1992 and commercial whaling as of 
01.01.1993 in Norwegian territorial waters: in the Community, it is 
Regulation 348/81 and Directive 9243 which are immediately relevant. 
It follows that this issue will require to be given very careful 
consideration during the negotiation. 
20 -
Energy 
1. Norway's status as a major producer and exporter of oil and gas, 
much of it to the Community, would mean that her accession to the 
Community, while not changing existing trading patterns, would 
considerably reduce the Community's dependence on hydrocarbon 
imports from third countries. Norway is likely to become the leading 
non-OPEC oil exporter in the world as production and exports fall in 
the former Soviet Union. This aspect is likely to become of 
increasing importance in the longer-term with the development of 
Norway's substantial offshore gas reserve, which will be in the main 
directed to its natural market, the Community. 
2. Norway, as a major world producer of energy, takes a considerable 
interest in international energy developments and is active in 
supporting increased dialogue between consumers and producers. She 
has a vital interest in the long-term stability of energy supplies 
and in an efficient energy market in Europe. Her accession to the 
Community would reinforce the Community's position in external 
energy relations, such as the consumer/producer dialogue and the 
Energy Charter. 
3. Under the EEA Agreement Norway will adopt most of the Community's 
'acquis' in the energy sector, with the exception of Directives 
concerning emergency response measures. As a major oil producer, 
Norway has a special agreement with the International Energy Agency 
that does not require from her to build up and maintain oil stocks 
for use in an emergency. However, under current Community 
legislation for crisis management(1) Norway would be required to 
constitute oil stocks representing 90 days consumption with, 
however, a reduction of 15% in view of its status as an oil 
producer. Norway has currently no legal basis to require oil 
companies to procure and stockpile oil products to meet a peacetime 
supply crisis. In practice, however, existing commercial stocks at 
the producing end would probably more than meet this requirement. In 
the event of membership, Norway would then need to introduce 
legislation to this effect. It also should be noted that since 
Norway does not have an onshore gas grid the Transit Directive for 
gas^2) is currently not relevant. However, if initiatives to apply 
the provisions of this Directive to offshore pipelines are 
confirmed, then the extensive network of Norwegian natural gas 
pipelines in the North Sea would be covered. 
4. Norway's energy system is already well integrated into the 
Community's energy system. A very high proportion of her oil, 
practically all her gas output, as well as a significant proportion 
of her exportable electricity goes to the Community. In this context 
Norway has a close interest in the development of the Community's 
internal energy market. As regards electricity, the policy measures 
she has recently implemented to deregulate and introduce competition 
go in certain aspects in the direction of the Commission's recent 
proposals for this sector. With respect to the oil and gas markets 
Norway, on the basis of its current legislation, has a more cautious 
approach towards initiatives that would open up this sector. 
(1) Directive 68/414/EEC 
(2) Directive 91/926/EEC 
- 21 -
5. A key imperative for Norway is to ensure that the Norwegian State 
has a majority control in all aspects of petroleum exploration, 
production and transportation. The Community system fully respects 
the sovereignty of Member States over their natural resources while 
requiring that the subsequent rights and responsibilities of Member 
States are exercised in a way compatible with its objectives and 
pr inciples. 
6. Norway is an active supporter of energy/environmental measures and 
is likely to be an important advocate of energy/conservation 
measures at Community and international level, the use of renewables 
and energy research and development. Norway has already introduced a 
C02 tax on offshore use of petroleum products and on transport fuels 
(except international air and sea transport) and would be active in 
pushing for similar measures elsewhere. However, it should be noted 
that Norway's industry depends, in the main, on electricity 
generated from hydro (tax exempt). Consequently, if the Community 
introduced a C02 tax with wide application, Norwegian industry would 
be in a stronger position vis-à-vis its competitors. 
- 22 -
Transport 
1. The Norwegian transport sector accounted for 7.6% of GDP in 1991 and 
it employs 113,000 persons. The greater part of trade is carried by 
water. 
2. The merchant fleet under Norwegian flag consists of 1,376 vessels 
with a dead weight tonnage of 21 million tonnes and is the world's 
largest. Since July 1987, Norway has a dual ship registration 
system: the traditional Norwegian Ship Register (Nor) and the new 
Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS). The main difference is 
that NIS is open not only to ships which satisfy Norwegian 
nationality conditions, but also to ships owned by foreign nationals 
and companies. NIS offers numerous advantages to international 
shipping, including taxation facilities. Norwegian coastal trade is 
open to Nor registered vessels, but not NIS. State aid can be given 
to publicly owned commercial ports and industrial wharfs but not 
fishing ports in order to secure regional development. 
3. Norway has concluded road transport agreements, based on quotas, 
with all EC Member States, which regulate both transport of goods 
and passengers. A general prohibition of cabotage is included in all 
Norwegian's road transport agreements with other countries and in 
the relevant national legislation; individual exemptions have been 
granted in a number of cases. An important point of difference 
compared to legislation in Member States is weights for heavy 
vehicles. 
4. The Norwegian State Railway company (NSB) is owned by the Norwegian 
State and is in legal terms part of the national public 
administration. With regard to access to the network, the Norwegian 
Government has the right to decide whether a private rail company 
should be allowed to run on the national rail network. In Norway, 
there are no special measures in support of combined railroad 
transport which could be parallel to Community measures. In the 
context of State aid, a distinction is made between expenses for 
rail infrastructure and State aid offered to the traffic unit of 
NSB. The aid takes the form of annual allocations over the fiscal 
budget. 
5. In 1992, Norway, together with Sweden, signed an Agreement with the 
Community concerning Civil Aviation. In this Agreement, which 
entered into force in July 1992 and will be valid until it is 
replaced by the EEA Agreement, Norway has accepted the 'acquis' and 
has taken the commitment to adopt future Community legislation. 
Norway has made great progress in the reduction of aircraft noise 
impact during the past few decades, and is currently harmonizing its 
standards with those of the Community. 
6. Under the EEA Agreement, the whole of Community legislation in the 
transport sector will be extended to Norway. No transitional 
periods will apply for Norway in this sector, which shows that 
Community and Norwegian transport policy are evolving in the same 
direct ion. 
- 23 -
Industry 
1. For the majority of the industrial sectors no problems are expected 
in relation to Norwegian membership. Industry has already operated 
under conditions of free trade for many years by virtue of the FTA 
of 1973. Furthermore, most of the relevant Community 'acquis' will 
be adopted by Norway in virtue of the EEA Agreement. Norwegian 
legislation is already adjusted or in the state of being adjusted 
to Community requirements for a large number of specific cases. 
2. As regards maritime construction industry (20% of Norway's exports), 
Norway has participated since 1989 in the multilateral OECD 
negotiations on the removal of State aids and other competition 
restraining practices. 
3. In the steel sector Norway depends on steel imports and the trade 
balance is very much in favour of the Community. In the framework of 
the EEA Agreement, Norway has accepted the Community rules for state 
aid and has accepted to abandon any export restrictions on scrap 
metal. Norway's EC membership would also imply regular payments of 
the production levy provided for in the provisions of the ECSC 
Treaty. 
4. The textiles and clothing industry is rather small but important to 
the country. Norway is a member of the MFA and has signed a number 
of bilateral agreements similar to those concluded by the Community. 
5. Since 1987 the construction sector (representing about 4% of GDP) 
has been suffering seriously from the economic recession. Local 
enterprises are particularly competitive with regard to off-shore 
constructions, hydroelectric power stations and wooden houses. 
6. The determining factor of Norway's non-ferrous metal sector is the 
primary aluminum industry (62% of total value added, 5,9% of GDP, 
56% of employment). The largest aluminum producer is 50% state 
owned, the rest of the firms are privât I y owned. Nearly 80% of 
primary aluminum is exported, of which 90% to the Community. Norway 
ranks at place three in the world with regard to the production of 
manganese and on place four for the nickel production, which are 
mostly exported to the Community. 
7. Other sectors such as chemical industry, mechanical and electrical 
engineering, ceramics and glass, cement, publishing and printing 
industry are all very small and no major problems are expected in 
their integration. 
8. During the EEA negotiations, Norway has agreed to accept the vast 
majority of the Community's 'acquis' in this field, with only a very 
few transitional periods, generally expiring on 01.01.1995 and in 
one case on 01.01.1997, including public procurement. There are, 
however, a number of areas where the situation was left open for 
review in the EEA: Directive 76/116/EEC (fertilizers), Directive 
88/379/EEC (classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous 
preparations), Directive 76/769/EEC (restrictions on the marketing 
and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations), Directive 
78/631/EEC (classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous 
preparations, pesticides), Directive 79/117/EEC (plant protection 
products containing certain active substances). 
- 24 -
9. The foodstuffs sector of the second stage of processing is well 
developed and competitive in Norway. Participation in international 
trade is very high (69% of exports, 27% for the EC), nearly 50% of 
the exports go to the Community, which, on the other hand, is the 
most important Norwegian supplier (55% of imports). The sector's 
structure presents a higher degree of concentration than in the 
Community (beer, sugar, confectionery and chocolate products). The 
Norwegian price compensation system is based on an external system 
of variable import levies and export refunds, completed by an 
internal system of equalization fees in combination with internai 
payments. Apart from this equalization fee which does not seem to be 
compatible with the EC system, differences between the Community and 
Norway concern basic products affected by agricultural policy 
measures and the corresponding reference prices, which are normally 
much higher than those applied by the Community. 
- 25 -
Economie and Social Cohesion 
1. Norway stretches further north then any country in Europe. The 
mainland extends from 58*N to 71"N, a total distance of about 1,750 
km, which is greater then the distance between Oslo and Rome. The 
total land area, excluding the Svalbard archipelago and Jan Mayen 
island, is about 323,000 km2, and the population is approximately 
4.2 million. The population density is 13 persons per km2, as 
compared with an average of 145 per km2 in the Community. 
2. As already mentioned in the chapter 'The Norwegian Economy and the 
Community', Norway has a GDP per head above the EC average and has 
traditionally had a low unemployment. However, there are substantial 
differences among regions (counties), mainly between the capital 
region and the rest of the country. While the city-county of Oslo 
has a GDP/head which is more than twice the national average, the 
other counties remain below the national average, varying from 96% 
in Rogaland in the south-west to 69% in Finnmark, the northernmost 
county of Norway. 
3. Norwegian regional policy aims to provide, in peripheral, sparsely 
populated regions characterized by a difficult climate, the 
conditions of life necessary to ensure that all areas of the country 
remain populated. This is particularly the case for ail the central 
and northern border regions. Aid intensities allowed under the 
Norwegian mechanism are considerably higher than the average rates 
in the Community. The Community will have to ascertain whether those 
levels of support, often designed to compensate for high 
transportation costs inherent in the different economic activities, 
are compatible with the Community 'acquis' regarding competition. 
4. According to the relevant EC Regulation on Structural Funds^), the 
regions concerned by Objective 1 are regions of NUTS^2) II level 
whose per capita GDP, on the basis of the last three years, is less 
than 75% of the Community average. The data provided by the 
Norwegian administration indicate that there are no regions 
comparable to EC NUTS II regions which would qualify for this 
objective. According to the estimates for the period 1988-90 the 
poorest such region (4 most northern counties) had a per capita GDP 
(in PPS) of about 79% of the EC average. 
According to the above regional regulation, Objective 2 areas belong 
to level III regions which fulfill the following basic criteria: an 
unemployment rate and a share of industrial employment above the 
Community average and a fall in industrial employment, or satisfy 
certain other criteria and provisions also contained in the relevant 
regulation. Whether areas meet these criteria is determined on the 
basis of a close examination of detailed and comparable information 
provided by the Member States concerned. It seems likely that some 
areas will qualify for objective 2. 
(1) Regulation (EEC) n* 2052/88 of 24.06.1988, Articles 8 and 9, 0J L 
185, 15.07.1988 
(2) Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales et Statistiques (NUTS) 
(5) 
- 26 -
5. Given Norway's economic situation and labour market, as compared to 
those of the Member States, any aid which might be granted by the 
European Social Fund under horizontal Objectives 3 and 4, which are 
at present aimed respectively at fighting long-term unemployment and 
facilitating the occupational integration of young people, would be 
limited. Proposals for the redefinition of Objectives 3 and 4 are 
under consideration by the Council and Parliament. 
6. Rural areas eligible under objective 5b (see Chapter on Agriculture) 
are at present selected on the basis of the criteria of Regulation 
(EEC) L 253/88 (Article 4). The Commission has proposed to attach in 
the future more importance to the demographic factor (low population 
density, tendency towards important depopulation). The problems 
associated with the remoteness of certain Norwegian areas, their low 
population density and low level of income would suggest their 
eligibility under Objective 5b. 
7. The need of areas depending heavily on fisheries will have to be 
taken into account in the framework of objectives 1, 2 or 5b. 
8. The Council and the Parliament are examining proposals from the 
Commission for amendments to the Structural Funds regulations, the 
adoption of which is due during the course of 1993. The general 
approach already agreed is to confirm and reinforce the basic 
principles of the 1988 reform of the Funds viz. concentration, 
programming, partnership and additionality. It is proposed to 
incorporate the structural components of fisheries policy. 
Assuming that the criteria and procedures for determining the 
eligible regions remain broadly the same, it will be the task of the 
Commission to decide on the basis of the most recent data available, 
those areas eligible for assistance under Objectives 2 and 5b. 
9. National services will be called upon in due course to assure 
regular provision of regional data consistent with Eurostat 
definitions and standards, and the Structural Funds regulations. 
10. A large part of Norway is composed of Arctic and sub-Arctic regions 
whose climatic and demographic features would increase the regional 
and social diversity of the Community and would need to be taken in 
account in EC structural policies. 
- 27 -
Taxation and overall tax burden 
1. The level of the overall tax burden in Norway (burden of taxes and 
social security contributions as a percentage of GDP) is 
significantly higher than the Community average. In 1990, according 
to OECD figures, it was 46,3% as against 39,5 in the Community. 
The burden of direct taxation is higher than the community average 
(Norway 16,1%, EC 12,4%). 
The level of indirect taxes is also higher than in Community (Norway 
16,4%, EC 11,3%). 
On the other hand, the burden of social security contributions is 
slightly lower than the EC average (Norway 12,1%, EC 13,2%). 
2. In indirect taxation, Norway has operated since 1970 a value added 
type of tax, which replaced the former sales tax. The Norwegian VAT 
system in general can be described as an all-stage, non-cumulative 
Value Added Tax of the consumption type. The VAT covers all stages 
in the chain of production and distribution. In common with the 
other Nordic countries, Norway operates a relatively high single 
standard VAT rate of 22%. The rate was previously of 20% but was 
raised on 1 January 1993. In the main the VAT system applied in 
Norway seems to conform to the VAT system of the Community although 
certain adjustments would be needed in the event of Norwegian 
accession. The fundamental point where the Norwegian VAT system 
differs from the one of the Community is in respect of supplies of 
services, which are only subject to VAT if they are specifically 
mentioned in the VAT act. 
3. In addition to VAT, an investment tax was introduced at the same 
time as the VAT system in order to compensate for the loss of 
revenues caused by the abolition of the retail sales tax. That 
investment tax covers a large range of goods and services supplied 
to trade and industry. The conformity of the investment tax to the 
Community legislation, in particular Article 33 of the Sixth 
Directive, will require further examination. 
4. Moreover, Norway applies a large number of excise duties which are 
characterized by their very high rates, in particular in the energy 
sector and for alcohol and tobacco products. Nevertheless from 
January 1st, 1993 the excise duties on spirits were lowered. 
The structure of some of Norway's main excise duties differ 
fundamentally from the harmonized duties now applied throughout the 
Community, and amendments to national legislation will be required. 
5. As regards direct taxation, a comprehensive tax reform took effect 
from 1st January 1992. The overall objective of the tax reform was 
to lower the tax rates and at the same time to broaden the tax base. 
The corporate tax rate was reduced from 50,8% to 28% and most of the 
tax credit arrangements have been repealed. 
For persons, the highest marginal tax rate on wages was reduced from 
57,8% to 48,8% and on personal income from business it was reduced 
from 62,7% to 51,7%. 
The areas of Company Taxation and Direct Taxation were not covered 
by the EEA Agreement and will have to be discussed during the 
accession negotiations. Norway is expected to be able to introduce 
the relevant measures. This concerns both the principle of non­
discrimination according to article 7 of the Treaty and the 
secondary legislation applicable in the field of direct and indirect 
taxes having a bearing on the performance of enterprises. Anyway 
- 28 -
some modification of the Norwegian legislation will be needed. 
Norway will also have to accept the convention of the Member States 
of the Community on the elimination of double taxation in connection 
with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises. 
6. Social security contributions are slightly below the EC average and, 
in particular, the charges on employers are in line with the EC 
average (7,7% of GDP). 
7. Globally, the tax system in Norway is quite similar to the EC 
system. Some changes will be needed to conform the Norwegian 
legislation to the Community's 'acquis', but it should not create 
major difficulties and transitional periods, if necessary, could be 
short. 
- 29 -
Compet it ion 
Under the EEA Agreement, Norway will have to respect rules on 
competition including State aid and State monopolies, analogous to 
those of the Community. 
As regards the rules applicable to enterprises. Norwegian policy on 
control of restrictive business practices is based on the Act of 26 
June 1953 on Control of Prices, Profits and Restraints on 
Competition. A committee was set up in 1990 to study the reform of 
this legislation. As yet no final proposals have been put forward, 
and the result is expected in 1994. The new rules would apply to all 
sectors of the economy. The reform envisaged appears to be 
substantially different from competition rules as applied in the 
Community. However, although a greater conformity of Norwegian 
legislation to that of the Community would be welcome, the rule of 
the Treaties as well as of secondary legislation, would prevail over 
national legislation in this sector. 
In general, Norwegian State aid levels are much higher than those of 
other EFTA countries. Norwegian manufacturing industry obtained up 
to 656 million ecu in 1992. 
Regional State aid represents a significant part of the Norwegian 
State aid system. 
Available data do not permit the identification of zones which could 
benefit from the derogations foreseen by Articles 92.3.a or 92.3.c, 
particularly because the delimitation of the recipient zones has not 
been provided. However, regional aidd) may reach a level which is 
above what the Commission accepts in regions benefiting from the 
derogation foreseen in Article 92.3.c. Among the many questions 
which still have to be answered are those of the cumulation of aid 
and the problem of operating aid (transport aid, reduction of fiscal 
or social charges differentiated on a regional basis). 
In the framework of the accession negotiations, particular attention 
should be paid to the different categories of aid whose 
compatibility with Community rules has not yet been established, 
inter alia aid to R&D (definition of eligible costs, intensity), aid 
to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector, aid in the energy 
sector, aid to SME (definition, intensity) and aid to exports, from 
which exports to the Community should be excluded. 
The measures the Norwegian Government has adopted to support the 
banking sector give rise to concern. According to the Norwegian 
Central Bank (Norges Bank)^2) "the total support from central 
authorities to the banking sector including Government guarantees 
during 1991-1992 will amount to 21.5 billion Norwegian krone, 
corresponding to about 3% of GDP". 
This situation, which characterizes also the banking sector of other 
Nordic candidates for accession, should be examined carefully in 
terms of competition, not only in the banking sector, but also in 
the insurance sector. Possible effects of the above mentioned 
measures on the manufacturing industry should also be examined 
carefully. 
(1) Rana and Sdr-Varanger programmes, investment grants scheme, grants 
for the development of business and industry, regional development 
scheme, scheme for restructuring in regions dependent on a single 
industry, etc. 
(2) Report to the Economic Committee of EFTA, 10.12.1992. 
- 30 -
5. State monopolies. within the meaning of Article 37 of the EEC 
Treaty, exist in Norway. The most obvious one concerns alcohol. The 
monopoly covers not only wine but all alcoholic beverages containing 
ethyl alcohol. The Norwegian Government justifies this monopoly on 
the grounds of public health. In its judgement of 12 March 1987 in 
Case 178/84, the Court ruled that the obligation to protect public 
health could not be allowed to obstruct free trade unless there was 
absolutely no alternative. Reserving retail sale to one 
organization, which moreover holds the national production monopoly, 
is not necessarily the only way to protect health. There exist other 
forms of regulations available (for instance restrictions on 
advertising, prohibitions of sales by unauthorized shops, 
prohibitions to sell to the young, limited business hours of outlets 
and increased fiscal duties) which would be less detrimental to 
trade but pursuing the same goal. In any event, protection of 
public health would not justify the monopoly in relation to alcohol 
for industrial or pharmaceutical purposes. 
The Commission notes in this context that national legislation must 
be adjusted in conformity with the obligations of Article 16 of the 
EEA Agreement, which contains in substance similar provisions to 
Article 37 of the EEC Treaty in respect of State monopolies. 
6. As for enterprises benefiting from special or exclusive rights, it 
will be necessary to examine the current legislative reforms related 
to the telecommunications sector and the postal service. 
7. Once the EEA has entered into force, it will be the task of the EFTA 
Surveillance Authority (ESA) to ascertain that equal conditions for 
competition exist throughout the EEA by applying the whole of the 
Community 'acquis' in this sector. 
The Commission will have to monitor closely the adjustments called 
for by the EEA and the effectiveness of the ESA in applying the 
'acquis' upon entry into force of the EEA Agreement. 
Other policies 
Consumer Protection 
The Norwegian legislation is already largely compatible with the 
Community acquis except for certain areas. This applies to the 
directives on general product safety and cosmetics where Norwegian 
law falls short of Community law. 
In other areas, some differences remain, in particular as regards 
the directives on unfair terms in contracts concluded with 
consumers, doorstep canvassing and the agreement on package travel. 
Norwegian law will therefore have to be adapted to bring it into 
line with the requirements of the acquis communautaire. 
Research and Development 
Given the fruitful cooperation between the EC and Norway, in R&D 
matters through the bilateral Framework Agreement of 1987, and the 
likelihood of full Norwegian participation in* EC R&D sector will 
integrate easily into that of the Community. Moreover, most of the 
present Norwegian objectives in the sector are similar to those of 
the Community. Therefore, Norwegian membership of the Community 
would be mutually beneficial in the R&D sector and would require no 
transitional measures. 
31 -
Implications for the Budget of the Community 
1. The assessment of the effect of Norwegian accession on the Community 
Budget has, as with previous Opinions, been carried out on the basis 
of the approved budget figures for 1992, and on the assumption that 
Community legislation would be applied immediately and in its 
entirety to Norway. It therefore does not allow for any transitional 
periods that may be adopted, nor for the dynamic effect of accession 
(for example changes in trade flows). The simultaneous accession of 
one or more other countries might alter the income figures slightly. 
2. Expenditure 
EAGGF (Guarantee Section) 
Additional EAGGF expenditure for Norway should be relatively modest 
(188 million ECU), focusing mainly on cereals and dairy products. 
Structural Measures 
It is estimated that Structural Funds expenditure would be of 
approximately 90 million ECU. Due to the importance of her fleet 
and her production, Norway should be an important beneficiary of 
expenditure in the fisheries sector. Expenditures in favour of 
Norway could represent about 15-20% of the fisheries budget for the 
Community of Twelve, or approximately 115 million ECU. 
Other expenditure 
An amount of 14 million ECU might be envisaged for expenditure 
having a social character or training, tourism and culture. An 
amount of 52 million ECU could be devoted to expenditures in 
industrial policy, research and development, 40 million ECU for 
external policies and 22 million ECU for administrative expenditure. 
Level and structure of expenditure 
The increase in the Community Budget expenditure due to Norwegian 
accession would represent 521 million ECU, i.e. less than 1% of 
total Community expenditure. 
3. Income 
The income from Norway would be of the order of 261 million ECu for 
traditional own resources. Norway's VAT contribution would be 612 
million ECU and her GNP contribution would be 211 million ECU. 10% 
should be deducted from this amount for the reimbursement of levies 
(26 million ECU) and 89 million ecu for the loss of customs duties 
following accession. The total of supplementary income provided by 
the Norwegian accession would thus be 969 million ECU, representing 
1.5% of total Community expenditure. 
- 32 -
- Customs Union 
Under the Free Trade Agreements (FTA), customs duties and charges 
having equivalent effect and also quantitative restrictions on 
imports and measures having an equivalent effect were abolished a 
long time ago in trade between Norway and the Community in 
industrial products originating in Norway or the Community within 
the meaning of Protocol 3 to the FTAC). A supplementary Protocol 
to the 1972 FTA was concluded between the Community and the EFTA 
countries including Norway^2) with the aim of phasing out 
quantitative restrictions on exports (except on ECSC products) by 
1993. Agriculture is not covered by the FTA although there are 
specific agreements on certain agricultural products. 
The establishment of the Customs Union should start from the 
position created by the application of these Agreements and the 
Conventions between the EEC and Norway on the simplification of 
formalities in trade in goods (single administrative document)^3) 
and on the establishment of a common transit procedure^4), which 
have been in force since 1 January 1988. From an information system 
point of view, Norway is quite advanced in the computerization of 
customs procedures except in the area of "Tariff Quota 
Computerization". At the end of 1992, approximately 50% of all 
import and export declarations were handled via its ADP system. 
Norway, as an EFTA member, has been invited to sign a convention 
regarding the Customs Information System (CIS) for information 
transfer. Norwegian customs authorities have a positive opinion of 
this connection with CIS. 
As a member of the Community, Norway would be bound by the Common 
Customs Tariff and by the Community Common Commercial Policy towards 
third countr ies. 
In case of accession, Norway will have to apply articles 22-26 of 
the Customs Code on non-preferential rules of origin for third 
countr ies(5). 
Adopting the Common Customs Tariff will be made easier by the fact 
that Norwegian tariffs are generally comparable with the 
Community's, particularly for industrial products. However, tariffs 
in certain specific sectors may give rise to some difficulties in 
adjustment. In 1988, the unweighted average of applied tariff rates 
was 5.7% ad valorem. The average tariff rate for industrial products 
was 5.9% ad valorem (6.04% for the Community). 
With regards to the agricultural products, tariff rates are 
predominantly specific. Seasonal rates are applied on several types 
of vegetables and fruit to protect the Norwegian production. There 
are free or low rates for those products during the time of the year 
when Norwegian produce is not available. 
(1) Last amended by Decision N' 2/92 of the EEC/Norway Joint Committee 
of 25.09.1992, 0J N* L 304 of 20.10.1992 
(2) Supplementary Protocol of 18.07.1989, OJ n* L 295 of 13.10.1989 
(3) 0J N* L 134 of 22.05.1987 
(4) OJ N' L 226 of 13.08.1987 
(5) 0J N* L 302 of 19.10.1992 
- 33 
5. The Norwegian Customs Tariff is made up of eight-digit tariff 
numbers which is based on the Harmonized System, which has been 
applied by Norway since 1988. Therefore, adopting the Combined 
Nomenclature should not pose particular difficulties. Technically 
speaking, the adaptation of the Norwegian Tariff to the Combined 
Nomenclature and the integrated tariff of the Community (TARIC) will 
demand a close cooperation between the Norwegian administration and 
the Commission services. 
6. Norway's accession will require a change in the definition of the 
Community's customs territory in customs legislation to include the 
additional words "the territory of the Kingdom of Norway''^6). 
7. Norway has concluded bilateral agreements with Sweden and Finland 
setting up a system of administrative cooperation on common borders. 
On most major routes between those countries there are only joint 
customs offices, which are responsible for applying customs 
legislation for both countries. If accession of those countries did 
not take place at the same time, this could create complications for 
the application of Community customs legislation at the external 
border. 
(6) Council Regulation (EEC) N' 2913/92 Of 12.10.1992, OJ N* L 302 of 
19.10.1992 
(6) 
- 34 
Trade and Economic relations with third countries 
1. The introduction of the Common Commercial Policy would mean the 
application to Norway's external trade of the relevant basic 
provisions of the Treaty of Rome (and notably those of article 113 
EEC) as well as of the Community 'acquis' in this field and in 
particular: 
The common import regime; 
The rules concerning dumping or subsidization by countries not 
members of the Community-, 
The common export regime; 
The so-called new commercial policy instrument; 
The rules concerning the prevention of imports of counterfeit 
goods; and 
The Community's system of Generalized Tariff Preferences towards 
developing countries. 
2. Any instruments or measures currently applied by Norway would have 
to be modified or repealed so as to bring Norwegian law into 
conformity with her obligations under the above 'acquis'. 
Given Norway's current liberal trade policy for industrial products, 
none of these is likely to give rise to major difficulties. Norway 
has an anti-dumping regime based on the GATT anti-dumping Code - the 
Community has the same. Norway introduced in 1973 a Generalized 
Preferences System providing for preferential rates of import duty 
for goods to which the system applies. 
3. Norway would have to take over the existing agreements the Community 
has established with third countries. In the area of preferential 
agreements, the most important are those with the remaining members 
of EFTA, the European Agreements with the countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe, the various Mediterranean Agreements and the Lomé 
Convention. None of these should give rise to any substantial 
difficulty for any of the parties involved. In certain cases, the 
Community itself might need to adapt its existing agreements with 
certain partners to take account of Norway's accession. 
4. The Norwegian trade in textiles would have to be subject to the 
Community own regime on imports of textiles. The Community has 
bilateral agreements with more countries than Norway and restraints 
apply to a larger number of categories. Moreover the coverage of the 
various categories does not correspond. On the other hand, Norwegian 
tariffs in the textile sector are higher than those applied in the 
Community. 
5. Norway would have to repeal her current trade agreements with third 
countries. In most case this should cause no problems, as Norway 
would apply the Community's own agreements with these countries (see 
above). At present Norway has, together with other EFTA countries, 
concluded Free Trade Agreements with Poland, the former 
Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, Turkey and Israel. Free trade 
negotiations with Bulgaria are still taking place. In addition 
Norway has concluded in 1992 Free Trade Agreements with Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania. These Agreements cover trade in industrial goods, 
processed agricultural products and fish, and other marine products. 
Trade in agricultural products has been negotiated bilaterally. The 
- 35 -
Agreements with Central and Eastern European countries have been 
negotiated in parallel with the Community's Association Agreements. 
They are asymmetric in nature. 
A particular case that would require close scrutiny however is that 
of the Baltic States with which Norway is committed to free trade 
for industrial goods while the Community still has relations based 
on MFN treatment. 
6. Norway would have to cease to be a member of EFTA, her relations 
with these countries being henceforth ruled by the Community's own 
Agreements with the EFTA countries. The EEA Agreement would cease to 
be applicable to bilateral relations between Norway and the 
Community. 
7. Regional cooperation with Russia is already a concern of Norway and 
her Nordic neighbours, and Norwegian membership of the Community 
would lead to a reexamination of the Community's rôle in such 
cooperation. 
8. The implications of Norwegian accession to the Union for trade 
relations with third countries would have to be the subject of a 
GATT assessment under Article XXIV of the General Agreement. 
- 36 -
Development Cooperation. 
Norway devoted 1.14% of her 1991 GDP to development cooperation. 
This is the highest percentage among OECD countries. Norwegian 
development aid is almost exclusively made of donations. In 1991, of 
a total of 1,200 million US$, about 55% was devoted to bilateral 
grants and 38% to multilateral grants, the proportion of bilateral 
loans being only 0.6% of the total amount. 
For a long time, Norway has followed a strategy of selective and 
concentrated aid in specific sectors in some developing countries. 
Priority is given to environment, rationalization of natural 
resources, women in development, professional training, measures to 
reduce debt and measures to encourage democracy and human rights. In 
1990, 57% of the total Norwegian bilateral aid went to Africa, 21% 
to Asia and 9.6% to Latin America. Norway thus devotes a high degree 
of resources to her development policy, which has a structure very 
similar to Community aid. 
For this reason Norwegian membership will constitute as asset for 
the Union, particularly in the context of the establishment of a 
Common Development Policy arising from the Treaty on European 
Union^1). Norway would have no difficulty in accepting all the 
'acquis' and joining all the international agreements the Community 
has established in this area. Norway would then participate in new 
areas of development cooperation. 
In its cooperation with developing countries in Latin America, Asia 
and the Mediterranean region, the Community has faced new 
challenges by using, in addition to the classical tools of food 
aid, humanitarian assistance and financial and technical 
cooperation, new economic cooperation instruments. These new 
instruments are intended to encourage contacts between economic 
operators and facilitate technology transfer and training. The 
emphasis lies largely in the areas of science and technology, 
cooperation on technical norms and standards, trade promotion and 
promotion of investments. In 1991, for example, economic 
cooperation accounted for approximately 12% of all funds allocated 
to Asia and Latin America. 
Norway would have to subscribe to these new instruments which will 
enhance its cooperation with developing countries. 
As far as relations with the ACP states are concerned, the 
accession of Norway to the Community would imply her Accession to 
the Lome Convention, and participation in the EDF. 
A Protocol of Accession would have to be concluded in order for 
Norway to become a contracting party to the Lome Convention. 
Indeed, under article 358 of Lome IV, the Community is required to 
inform the ACP States of its decision to enter negotiations in view 
of the accession of a third country. Regular contacts between the 
Community and the ACP States are foreseen to take place during 
accession negotiations. Once these negotiations are concluded, the 
Community and the ACP States will enter negotiations in order to 
establish a Protocol of Accession and adopt any adaptation or 
transitional measures deemed necessary. 
(1) Through the addition to the EEC Treaty of Title XVII, containing 
articles 130u to 130y. 
- 37 -
Foreign and Security Policy 
1. From 1905, when she gained her independence from Sweden, Norway 
pursued a foreign and security policy based primarily on good 
neighbourly relations with its Nordic partners. Norway's reasons for 
Joining NATO in 1949 reflected her historical experience during 
World War II and geographical position (common border with the 
former Soviet Union). 
2. Prior to the present decision to apply for membership, the 
Government established a number of working groups to examine various 
issues in more detail. As regards foreign and security policy the 
main conclusions, endorsed by the Government, were the need for a 
new European orientation for Norway. Security policy had to be 
viewed in a wider framework and the Community, which was 
increasingly seen as the decisive factor in the quest for peace and 
stability in Europe, was playing the key role in areas including 
economic and technical assistance, monetary and financial questions, 
aid policy, environmental policy, and asylum and immigration policy. 
The report concluded that Norwegian security interests would be 
better safeguarded within rather than outside the Community. 
3. Norway is a member of the UN, CSCE, Council of Europe, OECD and many 
other international bodies. She has played a prominent role in the 
support of stricter arms control and disarmament measures, in 
development assistance and in assistance towards the countries of 
Central and Eastern Europe (G 24 exercise). In addition she has 
Joined the Baltic Cooperation Council and has launched the Barents 
Sea Initiative to promote regional cooperation in the Euro-Arctic 
region. Norway has also participated in many UN peacekeeping 
operat ions. 
4. An analysis of Norway's foreign and security policies reveals that 
there is already considerable overlap with European Political 
Cooperation (EPC) positions. Norway has stated that it fully 
subscribes to the Treaty on European Union, including Title V on 
CFSP and the associated declarations. 
Foreign Minister Stoltenberg declared at the Nordic Council meeting 
on 9 November 1992 that "the responsibility for European security 
would increasingly rest with the Europeans themselves - through the 
EC and WEU, though still as part of an Atlantic partnership (...) 
The EC was the driving force to promote peace and stability in 
Europe. The problem was not too much cooperation in Europe but too 
Iittle cooperation." 
5. Norway has accepted that its security can best be protected within a 
defence alliance. As a member of the Atlantic Alliance, Norway has 
participated fully in the political consultations and in the 
integrated military command. It has not, however, accepted the 
permanent stationing of foreign troops on its territory nor the 
storage of nuclear weapons. 
Norway supports the strengthening of the WEU as the European arm of 
the Atlantic Alliance in which it recognizes that the European 
members should shoulder a greater burden and accept increased 
responsibilities. In November 1992 Norway became an associate member 
of the WEU. 
38 -
6, Whilst improving relations with Russia is a priority, Norway 
recognizes the importance of maintaining a credible defence posture. 
A recent White Paper outlined proposals to reorganize the Norwegian 
armed forces to meet the changed security situation. 
Since the 19 th century, Norway has a 200 km land border with Russia. 
There is one outstanding problem with Russia - the long running 
dispute over the delineation of the continental shelf. Negotiations 
between Oslo and Moscow are continuing on this matter* 
r 
7. The conclusion to be drawn from an analysis*of Norwegian foreign and 
security policy and the statements of the Norwegian authorities is 
that Norway could fulfil all its obligations under the union's CFSP. 
indeed Norway may be expected to make a significant contribution to 
that policy. 
- 39 -
Cooperation in the fields of Justice and Home Affairs. 
Declaring its acceptance of all the provisions of the Treaty on 
European Union, Norway has implicitly indicated its acceptance of 
all the provisions concerning the cooperation in the fields of 
Justice and Home Affairs, included under title VI of the Treaty on 
European Union. These include asylum policy, the movement of 
national of third countries across the external borders of the 
Community, the immigration policy including conditions of entry, 
movement and residence of nationals of third countries. Norway is 
particularly well-informed on all these questions, having followed 
them closely because of their implications for the workings of the 
Nordic Passport Union Agreement. 
Norway would equally be ready to join cooperation in the fight 
against drug addiction and fraud on an international scale, Judicial 
cooperation in civil and criminal matters, customs cooperation and 
police cooperation for the purposes of preventing and combating 
terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of 
international crime. Norway has both the means and the will to 
cooperate fully in these areas and is already one of the partners 
regularly consulted in the TREVI framework. 
- 40 -
Indigenous population (the Sami people). 
The Sami are an indigenous people of the Kola peninsula 
traditionally resident in Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia. Most 
of the Sami people are located in Norway, numbering around 50.000 
with the largest concentration in the northernmost county of 
Finnmark: in Sweden and Finland they are located in the region of 
Lapland. 
The Sami people are an ancient population, the earliest mention 
dating back to the Roman historian Tacitus. World War II and its 
aftermath marked a turning point in their situation and in 
Government policy in their regard. In 1980 the Norwegian Government 
set up a Sami Rights Commission and a Sami Cultural Commission. Both 
Commissions operated on the basis of recognizing the Sami as a 
separate people, with their own culture and language. Government and 
Parliament endorsed this, recognizing that international law 
provided for far-reaching legal protection of indigenous culture. 
The Sami Act of 1987 set up the Sami Parliament with advisory 
functions and Article 110 A of the Norwegian Constitution, adopted 
in 1988, recognizes that the State of Norway consists of the 
territory of not one, but two peoples: Norwegians and Sami. 
The Sami language is of fundamental importance as a primary means of 
transmitting the common history and skills of the Sami people from 
generation to generation. Until recently it has been transmitted 
only orally, not in writing. Traditional economic activities 
(farming, reindeer herding, fishing in fjords and inland waters, 
hunting, crafts) are also a fundamental part of the Sami identity. 
The relationship between the State and the Sami people reflects the 
position developed in the United Nations and other intergovernmental 
organizations concerning indigenous people. Norway has also ratified 
the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 
and the ILO Convention n* 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations 
in independent countries (1989). 
Sami economic activities are characterized by stronger 
representation in the primary industries (approximately 30%), low 
degree of capital investments involved, greater number of migrant 
workers. Agricultural activities are largely determined by the fact 
that the Sami settlements are located in Arctic or sub-Arctic areas, 
where production is mostly limited to meat and milk. Sami fisheries, 
often combined with other economic activities, have been 
concentrated in the fjords and coastal waters. As from 1992, the 
Sami Parliament is represented on the Regulatory Board (advisory 
board to the Norwegian Government on the distribution of fishing 
quotas). The Sami reindeer herding industry is the most typical 
aspect of the Sami way of life, and the Norwegian law grants them 
exclusive right to engage in this activity. 
The Norwegian Government has employed many 'instruments in its 
efforts to strengthen Sami culture and the Sami community. 
Certain geographical or functional demarcations have been made for 
the purpose of administering the various special measures 
established. The most extended demarcation relates to Sami reindeer 
herding rights (Reindeer Herding Act) which defines the reindeer 
herding area and draws special attention to their historical use by 
- 41 -
the Sami people. The functional area for the Sami Development Fund 
(laid down by Royal Decree) has been defined as the six 
municipalities in the county of Finnmark (where the Sami constitute 
the majority of the population) one municipality in the county of 
Troms and those parts of the county of Nord I and with a substantial 
number of Sami people. 
The financing of the Sami Parliament and other Sami activities is 
the responsibility of the State. Total State allocations for 
specific Sami activities amount to approximately 320.662 million 
Norwegian krone (approximately 38 million ECU), not including 
general State expenditure on education, health and social welfare, 
general industrial and trade development in the Sami area. 
Cooperation between the Governments of Norway, Sweden and Finland on 
Sami matters has been extended during the past few decades. 
Government officials meet regularly to identify and resolve in Sami 
matters of common interest. At the most recent Nordic Sami 
Conference held in Helsinki in June 1992, the Association of Sami 
People in Russia became a full member of the Nordic Sami Council. 
The Nordic Sami Council is funded by the Nordic Governments through 
the Nordic CounciI. 
- 42 -
Conclusions 
1. The Treaty on European Union^1) requires that a State which applies 
for membership must satisfy the three basic conditions of European 
identity, democratic status and respect for human rights. This is 
the case for Norway. In addition, the candidate country should be 
willing to accept and able to implement the Community rules and 
structure as they would exist subsequent to the entry into force of 
the Treaty on European Union. 
2. In its report "Europe and the Challenge of Enlargement", the 
Commission noted that the accession of those EFTA countries that 
have applied for membership "should not pose insuperable problems of 
an economic nature, and indeed would strengthen the Community in a 
number of ways". The present Opinion illustrates this in more detail 
in the specific case of Norway. 
3. Free trade in industrial products between Norway and the Community 
is already well established by virtue of the Free Trade Agreements 
of 1973. Norwegian ratification of the EEA Agreement showed her 
readiness to adopt a substantial part of the Community 'acquis'. 
4. Problems might nevertheless arise in some areas. In the agricultural 
sector, the taking over of the Community acquis will present a real 
challenge. However, the Norwegian Government is at present 
undertaking reforms which will bring agricultural policy more in 
Iine with the CAP. 
Norwegian rules concerning regional policy would have to be 
compatible with the Community 'acquis'. 
Adaptations would also be necessary in the fisheries sector. Changes 
would also be required in a number of fields such as state aids and 
state monopolies, for example regarding the one for alcoholic 
beverages. 
Competition in general would increase in a number of fields. 
In all the above cases, the Commission considers that it should be 
possible to find satisfactory solutions during accession 
negot iat ions. 
5. Norwegian accession will strengthen the Union in a number of ways. 
For example, in the macro-economic field it can be noticed that in 
the last years Norwegian monetary and exchange rate policy were 
successful in achieving inflation performances well in line with 
future EMU requirements. Furthermore, the experience Norway has in 
the field of environment policy and her comprehensive and integrated 
approach would benefit considerably and further enhance the 
deepening of Community policy in this sector. 
6. In the area of Foreign and Security Policy, the Commission notes 
that Norway is a founding member of NATO and has obtained the 
status of associated member in WEU. As a member of the Union, Norway 
should have no difficulties in accepting this policy as it will 
evolve. Norway may be expected to make a significant contribution in 
this area. 
7. As regards the adjustments to the Treaties referred to in Article 0 
of the Treaty on European Union which would have to be made in the 
case of Norwegian accession, these would obviously have to take into 
(1) Art icles F and 0 
- 43 -
account not only the specific case of Norway but also the fact that 
a number of other EFTA countries would be joining the Union at the 
same time. 
8. On the basis of the above considerations the Commission confirms in 
respect of Norway the general conclusion which it reached in its 
report on enlargement as regards applications from EFTA countries, 
and recommends that negotiations for accession.should be opened with 
Norway as soon as possible. 
LIST OF GRAPHS 
1. GDP In the EC and Norway (total and mainland), 1970-1992 
2. GDP In Norway and the EC, 1970-1993 
3. Domestic demand Norway and EC, 1970-1993 
4. Relative GDP per capita in Norway and the EC, 1970-1992 
5. Investment ratio in Norway and the EC, 1970-1992 
6. Norway and EC trade in goods, 1991 
7. Terms of trade In Norway, 1970-1992 
8. Current account, % of GDP, 1980-1992 
9. Industrial production, Norway and EC, 1970-1991 
10. Productivity, Norway and EC, 1970-1991 
11. Real Unit Labour costs, Norway and EC, 1970-1991 
12. Unemployment, Norway and EC, 1970-1992 
13. Private consumption deflator, Norway and EC, 1980-1992 
14. Breakdown of public revenue, Norway and EC, 1991 
15. Breakdown of public expenditure EC and Norway, 1991 
16. Public revenue, % of GDP in Norway and the EC, 1981-1993 
17. Taxes and social security contributions % of GDP in Norway and EC, 
1981-1993 
18. Public expenditure, % of GDP Norway and EC, 1981-1993 
19. Public sector balance, Norway and EC % of GDP, 1981-1993 
20. Public debt % of GDP Norway and EC, 1981-1992 
21. Exchange rate of EFTA currencies In ECU, 1987-1992 
22. Exchange rate in ECU/NKR, 1989-1993 
23. Interest rates in Norway, 1989-1993 
24. Differential Krona-Ecu 
^ 
10 GDP 
Annual volume growth, pet. 
1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 
Norway total GDP L^l Norway mainland GDP _,_ EC 
Sources: EUROSTAT, EC Commission sévices, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian O 
te 
240 GDP 
Index 1970 = 100 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 
Source: EC Commission services and Norwegian CBS 
t,(, 
Domestic demand. 
200 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 
Constant prices, 3970 = 100 
Source: EC Commission services, and Norwegian CBS. 
hi-
140 GDP per capita 
Norway/EC 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 
Using PPPs. Eur 12 = 100.1989 as base year, otherwise calculated by using volume growth. 
Source: Eurostat, EC Commission services, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian CBS 
47 
INVESTMENT RATIO 
40 
30 
20 -
10 
O 71/81 O 82/86 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 
Norway BH EC 
Investment as % of GDP at current prices, 
source: EC Commission services and Norwegian Ministry of Finance. 
C<9 
Norway's trade in goods, 1991 
EC trade in goods, 1991 
Terms of trade Norway 
(Index 1970 = WO) 
120 
110 
100 
90 
80 
70 traditional goods 
_ \z 
total trade ./' / \ 
\ 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 
on national accounts basis. 
Source: Norwegian CBS 
St 
10 
-5 
-10 
1980 1982 Current account, 
% of GDP 
1988 1984 1986 
S2â Norway Hi EC 
Source: EUROSTAT, EC Commission services and Norwegian CBS. 1990 1992 
O 
120 Total industrial production 
no 
100 
90 
80 / 
•*" 
Norway(manufacture)/* / _/ 
Norway(industries) S* 
1988 1990 1992 1980 1982 1984 1986 
Constant prices index 1985 = 100. 
Source: OECD, EC Commission services, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian CBS. 
O 
10 
240 
220 
200 
180 
160 
140 
120 
100 Productivity 
/ 
Norway(total)/«/ 
_^L_ Mainland Norway 
80 I—J—. L 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 
Total economy. Index 1970 = 100. 
Source: EUROSTAT, EC Commission services, and Norwegian CBS. 
w 
11 
Real unit labour costs 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 
GDP deflator, index 1970 = 100. 
Source: EUROSTAT, EC Commission services and Norwegian CBS. 
çç 
12 
12 
10 Unemployment. 
o 
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 
On survey basis, % of civilian labour force. 
Source: Eurostat and Norwegian CBS. 
c^ 
13 
15 
10 
5 \-Private consumption deflator. 
o 
0 80-86 1987 1988 1989 1990 
E$ Norway WÊEC 
Annual percentage change. 
Source: EC Commission services and Norwegian CBS. 1991 1992 
c? 
14 
Breakdown of public revenue 1991 
EC 
direct I axes (29.1%) indirect taxes (29.7%) 
Source: EC Commission services. 
direct taxes (33.9%) other (7.9%) 
social security contributions (33.3%) 
NORWAY 
indirect taxes (2S.4%) 
other (\>.>r'<>) 
social security contributions (22.2%) 
Source: Norwegian Ministry of Finance. <T* 
15 
Breakdown of public expenditure 1991 
Consumption (37.4%;) 
Transfers (44.3%) Investments (7.8%) 
Interest payment (10.5%) 
Source: EC Commission services. 
NORWAY 
Consumption (3S.3';< ) 
Transfers (49.S%) ^ Investments (5.5%) 
/' Interest payment (0 4f;< ) 
Source: Norwegian Ministry of Finance. 
^1 
16 
70 
60 
so \---m-
40 
30 
20 
10 Public revenue, 
% of GDP 
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 
H EC &Sa Norway 
Sources: EC Commission Services.Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian CBS. 
Co 
17 
Taxes and social security contributions 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 % of GDP 
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 
EC &S2 Norway 
Sources: EC Commission Services, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian CBS. 
6* 
18 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 Public expenditure 
% of GDP. 
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 
EC P2Sâ Norway 
Sources: EC Commission Services, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian CBS. 
Ci 
19 
PUBLIC SECTOR BALANCE. 
-10 
1991 1993 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 
Net lending/borrowing by General Government, % of GDP. 
Source: EC Commission services, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian CBS. 
Cl 
20 
100 
80 
60 
40 
20 PUBLIC DEBT. 
% of GDP. 
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 
W 1992 
EC 6 Norway 
Sources: EC Commission Services, Norwegian Ministry of Finance, and Norwegian CBS. 
Qt, 
21 
EXCHANGE RATES OF EFTA CURRENCIES AGAINST ECU 
(INDEX 87 - 100) 
UOrfTHLY AVERAGES 
22 
EXCHANGE RATE : ECU/NKR 
(INDEX OCT.90 - 100) 
110 -, 110 
105 
100 
00 06 
WEEKLY AVERAGES 
&0 III II III I I I _l_l I I l_l I l__l L_JL I I I I I 
1080 1990 1991 _l l„l I I l I I I I I 1„L_ 
1992 1993 90 
£ç 
GCc 23 
24 
List of tables 
1. Selected statistics, 1984-93 
2. GDP and employment by sector, pet. share of total 
3. Trade in goods 1991, pet. share of total value 
4. General government receipts and expenditure, 1981-91, pet 
of GDP 
5. Production and employment by sector, 1970-91 
6. Subsidies, value added and employment, 1989 
^7 
Table 1 Selected statistics, 
specified) Annual percentage change (unless otherwise 
Norway EC 
1984- 1987- 1984- 1987-
1986 1991 1992 1993 1986 1991 1992 1993 
Private consumption 6,0 -0,8 2,0 1,1 2,6 3,3 1,3 0,7 
Public consumption 2,6 2,3 2,6 2,0 1,8 2,0 1,5 0,8 
Gross fixed capital formation 5,8 -6,7 -3,7 25,3 2,5 5,0 -0,3 -1,0 
Exports 5,5 6,3 5,4 0,8 4,7 5,8 3,8 3,6 
Imports 13,5 -2,0 2,7 2,5 5,3 7,2 3,7 2,5 
GDP 5,1 1,1 2,6 1,0 2,5 2,9 1,1 0,8 
GDP Mainland Norway 4,4-0,3 1,0 1,5 
T~ade balance (1) 
L rent account (1) 4,6 
1/4 3,6 
0,1 6,4 
2,3 5,9 
2,5 •0,3 
0,8 •0,6 
0,0 1,0 -1,0 
0,5 -0,7 
GDP deflator 3,3 4,8 -0,8 2,4 6,1 4,8 4,7 3,8 
Private consumption deflator 6,6 5,4 2,4 2,2 5,7 4,4 4,5 4,4 
Unit labour costs 7,5 3,1 0,0 -0,8 2,8 4,6 4,2 2,9 
Employment (man-hours) 
Unemployment rate (2) 1,7 -1,2 
2,6 4,2 0,6 
5,9 0,1 0,5 
10,7 1,2 
9,2 •0,5 -0,8 
9,5 10,6 
1) Per cent of GDP in current prices. 
2) Per cent of labour force. 
Source: EC Commission services and national forecasts 
Table 2 GDP and employment by sector, share of total value 
GDP 1) 
Norway EC Employment 2) 
Norway EC 
Agriculture, forestry and fishing 
Energy 
Manufacture 
Construction 
Financial services 
Other services 
Transport 
Retail, hotels 
Other 
Government 3,3 
4,6 
17,6 
5,8 
5,5 
63,2 
44,7 
18,5 2,9 
4,6 
23, 1 
5,8 
7,1 
53,6 
39,7 
13,9 5,5 
1,0 
14,7 
6,1 
7,6 
63,5 
7,8 
17,6 
38,1 6,7 
1,5 
23,9 
7,8 
7,9 
52,0 
5,9 
18,9 
27,2 
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 
1) For Norway, share of mainland GDP. 
Source: Eurostat and Norwegian CBS. 
a 
Table 3 Trade in goods 1991, share of total value 
SITC 
Food and animals 
Beverages and tobacco 
Raw materials 
Energy 
Vegetable and animal oil 
Chemical products 
Processed materials 
Machinery and transport 
Various manufactured goods 
Other goods Exports 
Norway extra-EC 
7,3 
0,1 
3,0 
48,8 
0,2 
6,3 
16,4 
14,7 
3,2 
0,0 5,4 
1,9 
1,9 
2,5 
0,3 
12,0 
16,9 
40,8 
13,4 
4,8 Imports 
Norway extra-EC 
5,2 
0,7 
7,5 
4,3 
0,2 
8,9 
17,7 
38, 3 
17,2 
0,1 7,1 
0,6 
6,7 
14,4 
0,3 
6,6 
14,2 
30,0 
14,9 
5,1 
Total 100,0 100,0 
Source: Eurostat and Norwegian CBS 100, 0 100,0 
Table 4 General government receipts and expenditure, per cent of GDP at 
market prices 
Norway 
1981 1986 1991 EUR12 (1) 
1981 1986 1991 
Total receipts 
Petroleum revenues 
Other direct taxes 
Indirect taxes 
Social security premiums 
ther income 51,7 
8,0 
13,7 
15,2 
11,8 
2,9 54,7 
3,6 
13,3 
18,2 
13,1 
6,5 55,0 
6,2 
14,6 
15,6 
12,2 
6,4 41,0 44,3 44,7 
11,3 12,3 12,7 
12,5 13,3 13,4 
13,7 15,0 15,2 
3,5 3,7 3,4 
Total expenditure 
Consumption 
Transfers 
Households 
Enterprises 
Interest payments 
Investment 
Net capital transfers 48,1 
19,1 
21,8 
14,5 
6,5 
3,3 
2,7 
1,2 51,5 
19,8 
22,6 
15,9 
5,8 
4,3 
2,2 
2,6 56,0 
21,4 
27,9 
20,5 
6,3 
3,6 
2,4 
0,6 47,8 
19,2 
20,9 
16,2 
2, 5 
3,7 
3,0 
1,0 48,8 
18,6 
21,6 
17,7 
2,6 
4,9 
2,8 
0,9 
1) Figures for 1981 and 1986 excluding East Germany 
Source: DG II and Norwegian Ministry of Finance. 49,0 
18,7 
21,5 
2,2 
5,0 
3,0 
0,8 
£f 
Table 5 Production (share of value added) and employment by sector 
Value added 
1970 1980 1991 Employment 
1970 1980 1991 
Agriculture and forestry 
Fishing and hunting 
Manufacturing and mining 
Electricity 
Construction 
Wholesale and retail trade 
Transport and communication 
Financial services 
Other private services 
Central government 
Local government 
c rrection items 4 
1 
22 
2 
7 
11 
6 
2 
12 .8 
5.0 
6.8 
9.5 3. 1 
0.8 
16.4 
2.8 
5 
10 
4 
3 
12 
4.6 2.2 
0.6 
13.6 
3.5 
4.0 
9 
6 
4 
15 
4.7 
9.1 11.2 11.5 
1.4 
24.3 
0.8 
8.2 
13 
6 
1 
11 
6.6 7 
1 
20 
0 
7 
14 
7 
2 
13 
6.9 5 
0 
14 
1 
6 
13.8 
7.2 
2.9 
16.6 
7.3 
10.0 16.3 21.3 
7.5 6. 1 
Mainland Norway 
Oil activities 
Ocean transport and drilling 91.4 80.6 81.4 
0.0 15.1 15.8 
8.6 4.3 2.8 96.6 97.6 97.5 
0.0 0.3 0.7 
3.4 2.1 1.8 
î'otal GDP 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 
Source: National accounts. 
Table 6 Subsidies (1), value added at current prices and employment in man-
hours, for industries in Mainland Norway, 1989. Pet. share of total 
Subsidies Value added Employment 
of total % of va. (2) % of total % of total 
Agriculture 18,9 
Forestry 1,3 
F' string/breeding of fish 1,6 
Tx litional mining 1,0 
Production of food 9,4 
Prod, of ships/oil platforms 3,7 
Other manufacture 5,4 
Wholesale and retail trade 11,1 
Transport 8,2 
Dwellings 2,6 
Financial institutions 13,9 
Education/research institutes 10,5 
Professional and labour ass. 3,6 
Recreational/cultural services 5,8 
Other industries 3,0 1,8 
0,1 
0,1 
0,1 
0,9 
0,3 
0, 5 
1,0 
0,8 
0,2 
1,3 
1,0 
0,3 
0,5 
0,3 2,7 
0,9 
0,9 
0,5 
2,5 
1,8 
18,6 
15,9 
5,5 
7,3 
6,6 
0,1 
0,3 
1,3 
35,1 9,8 
0,6 
1,7 
0,4 
3,3 
2,1 
17,3 
18,8 
7,1 
0,1 
3,1 
1,1 
0,9 
1,0 
32,6 
All industries, Mainland Norway 100,0 
Memo: Pet, of total GDI3 ^ 9,3 
5,7 100,0 
63, 1 100,0 
73,7 
1) On national accounts basis, including interest transfers to households. 
2) Subsidies to the sector as a share of value added for all industries in 
Mainland Norway. 
Source: Norwegian national accounts. 
>0 
TABLE 1 
FARM STRUCTURE (1) (PTTMACP/EN/1009/1) 
! Norway 
! Germany 
I France 
I Italy 
I Netherlands 
i Belgium 
j Luxembourg 
j United Kingdom 
! Ireland 
i Denmark 
! Greece 
! Spain 
! Portugal 
! EC-12 AgrIculturaI 
area per farm 
ha 
10,2 (3) 
17,6 
30,7 
7,7 
17,2 
17,3 
32,9 
69,0 
22,7 
32,6 
5,3 
16,0 
8,3 
16,5 Area under 
cerea Is 
per farm 
ha (2) 
11.1 
8,8 
14,3 
4,3 
8,7 
7,7 
11.2 
43,6 
7,6 
18,8 
3,3 
11,2 
3,2 
8,9 Dairy cows 
average 
per farm 
number (2) 
11 ,5 
16,2 
20,0 
9,7 
39,8 
24,3 
31 ,2 
60,8 
21 ,8 
30,4 
3,7 
6,7 
3,4 
15,5 holdings >30 
% of nat ionaI 
herd 
1 ,6 
37,8 
50,8 
42,2 
84,7 
59,4 
73,8 
93,5 
62,4 
72,8 
12,4 
19,4 
14,4 
53,5 Catt le ( IncI. ca Ives) 
average 
per farm 
number (2) 
26,1 
36,4 
41 ,5 
20,3 
69,6 
48,6 
73,0 
78,6 
37,5 
57,7 
8,3 
12,5 
5,7 
31 ,2 holdings > 100 
% of nat ionaI 
herd 
0,7 
23,9 
29,3 
36,8 
51 ,7 
36,9 
56,6 
65,4 
29,7 
50,5 
10,6 
21 ,5 
14,2 
35,8 Pigs 
average 
per farm 
number (2) 
82,1 
65,6 
55,9 
20,9 
405,9 
221 ,8 
78,2 
370,5 
187,2 
245,9 
10,4 
27,3 
7,4 
49,6 holdings > 400 
% of nat ionaI 
herd 
4,0 
37,3 
66,5 
70,6 
76,4 
66,5 
37,7 
85,5 
87,3 
66,4 
41 ,3 
57,5 
36,1 
60,8 
(1) Norway: 1990 
EC : 1987; structural survey 
(2) Farms engaged in this type of production 
(3) Farms with 0,5 ha and over 
^ 
(PTTMACP/EN/1009/2) 
TABLE 2 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF NORWAY (Average 1988-1990) 
PRODUCTS in 
000 in % of 
EC prod Degree of se If 
suff ic iency 
Wheat 
CereaIs (1) 
0 i I seeds 
Sugar 
Potatoes 
Eggs 
Mi Ik 
Butter 
Beef and Veal 
Sheepmeat 
P igmeat 
Pou Itrymeat 165 
1154 
9 
0 
460 
54 
1895 
23 
75 
24 
90 
18 0,2 
0,7 
0,05 
0 
1 ,2 
1 
8 
.3 
0 
2 
,7 1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
0. 
0,3 37 
77 
3 
0 
99 
110 
100 
153 
99 
100 
107 
95 (2) 
(1) R ice excluded 
(2) Self-sufficiency for liquid milk for direct consumption 
7l 
(PTTMACP/EN/1009/3) 
TABLE 3 
PROTECTION LEVEL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF NORWAY 
GROSS UNIT PSE<1) IN NKR/t 
PRODUCTS 1985 1989 1990(2) 1991(3) 
Wheat 
Coarse grains 
Sugar 
Mi Ik 
Beef and Veal 
P igmeat 
Poultrymeat. 
Sheepmeat 
Eggs 
0 iI seeds 1 .538 
2.697 
3.601 
31.078 
13.521 
8.848 
41.094 
6.052 
n .c. 2.296 
2.963 
4.332 
36.401 
13.824 
11.822 
57.768 
9.294 
n. c. 2.774 
3.102 
4.998 
35. 100 
12.589 
9.903 
53.885 
7.441 
n.c. 2.700 
2.986 
5.444 
35.833 
14.850 
11.696 
51.899 
8.076 
n.c. 
PERCENTAGE PSE 
PRODUCTS 1985 1989 1990(2) 1991(3) 
Wheat 
Coarse grains 
Sugar 
Mi Ik 
Beef and Veal 
P igmeat 
Poultrymeat 
Sheepmeat 
Eggs 
Oi I seeds 58 
84 
82 
74 
51 
47 
84 
40 
n .c 73 
83 
76 
71 
48 
55 
94 
58 
n.c 81 
90 
81 
69 
44 
46 
93 
45 
n.c 84 
86 
83 
71 
51 
50 
89 
48 
n.c 
AI I products 75 73 76 77 
(1) Net PSE for animal products 
(2) Estimate 
(3) Provisional 
— no product ion 
n.c. not caIcuIatedMemory Allocation Error 
7 2 
(PTTMACP/EN/1009/4) 
TABLE 4 
EXTERNAL TRADE WITH AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD PRODUCTS OF NORWAY 
IN MILLION ECU(1>(2> 
FROM / TO 
Tota I 
EC 
i n % of tota 
EFTA 
i n % of tota 
Eastern countr i es 
in % of totaI 1985 
1318.0 
479.6 
36.4 
210.0 
15.9 
25.2 
1 .9 MPORTS 
1989 
1442.8 
688.0 
47.7 
200.7 
13.9 
45. 1 
3.1 1990 
1335.8 
647.3 
48.5 
194.0 
14.5 
42.8 
3.2 1985 
1490.5 
24.1 
1 .6 EXPORTS 
1989 1990 
1705.4 1869.3 
618.7 923.5 1081.3 
41 .5 54.2 57.9 
341.2 297.4 314.8 
22.9 17.4 16.8 
38.5 
2.3 33.6 
1 .8 
(1) 
(2) Products in chapters 1 - 24 of the Norwegian customs tariff. 
(Chapter 3) accounts for most of the exports. 
Exchange rates: 1985 
1989 
(Average market rate) 1990 100 ECU = 654,898 NKR 
100 ECU = 749,455 NKR 
100 ECU = 793,072 NKR F ish 
4 
CHART 1 
NORTH SEA OIL PRODUCTION 
FROM 1974 TO THE YEAR 2000 
MIO TOE 
NORTH SEA GAS PRODUCTION 
FROM 1974 TO THE YEAR 2000 
MIO TOE 
2000 
7 5" 
UK-NORWAY-EC PROVEN RESERVES 
OF OIL & NATURAL GAS AT 1.1.1993 
UK - OIL 
NORWAY - OIL 
EC - OIL 
UK - GAS 
NORWAY - GAS 
EC - GAS 
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 
•1 RESERVES (in YEARS [ 
of 1992 production) 800 1600 2400 3200 
RESERVES (MIO TOE) 
Source : Oil & Gas Journal 28.12.1992 In 
1 i> 
r\j 
CONTRIBUTION OF NORTH SEA OIL IN EC 
CRUDE OIL NEEDS FROM 1975 TO 1991 
MIO TONNES 
i i i i i i i r 
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 
EC SUPPLY FR.EC N.S. 
EC CRUDE OIL NEEDS EC IMPORTS FR.NORWAY IS 
3D 
CONTRIBUTION OF NORTH SEA OIL IN EC 
CRUDE OIL NEEDS FROM 1975 TO 1991 
PERCENT 
r> 
x 
! *» 
'30 
NET SUPPLY FROM EC NORTH SEA • EC IMPORTS FROM NORWAY 
• NET SUPPLY FROM EC PART OF NORTH SEA 



ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 142 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 01 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-165-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-54402-3 
Office for Official Publications of tbe European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg