Résumé
Given the sharp rise in crude oil prices and growing awareness of climate change, the potential of biofuels, particularly of bioethanol, has become an ubiquitous topic of public debate and has induced ambitious policy initiatives. The latter are mostly paired with protectionist measures as the examples of the European Union and the United States show, where domestic producers of energy crops are put at an advantage thanks to subsidisation, direct payments and/or favourable tax schemes. Moreover, the EU is working out a mandatory certification scheme for ethanol imports, imposing social and environmental standards which constitute another hurdle for more efficiently produced ethanol originating in the Southern hemisphere. A similar path is taken by Switzerland's revised mineral oil tax law which imposes social and environmental criteria that result in a ban of biofuels produced from palm oil, soy and grain, but will also set obstacles for sugarcane-based ethanol which is currently said to be the most eco-efficient biofuel. This paper explores where these policy initiatives are at odds with or at least in a grey area of WTO regulations, and where they disrupt markets without necessarily generating environmental benefits. Markets should play a stronger role in expanding the use of biofuels, since many risks affiliated with biofuel production are caused rather than alleviated by interventionist practices.
Voir le contenu complet de ce document
Extrait
Biofuels and Wto Disciplines
1 Introduction
The public debate on biofuels has seen waves of enthusiastic support and strong reservations. First praised as the panacea to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biofuel policy now meets strong scepticism with regard to its environmental effectiveness, namely its GHG life-cycle balance and its impact on biodiversity. It is also reproached of leading to negative social consequences such as the displacement of food crops, raising food prices, insecure employment with low income, and high health risks. This has led to a situation where government strategy papers formulate very ambitious goals of substitution, but policy implementation should respect all sorts of environmental and social conditions which will make it practically impossible to meet the targets1. Much of the public debate also neglects basic economic reasoning - otherwise it would not come as a surprise that the subsidisation of biofuels leads to increased prices for alternative, that is, alimentary uses of crops, and that biofuel crop production competes for alternative land use.Another puzzle: The debate is most often gauged in terms of national markets with policy having full control on production and consumption of biofuels, although the underlying demand and supply conditions speak a different language. Demand will be strongest in the developed OECD countries, whereas comparative advantage is in the Southern hemisphere. Very few studies consider international trade in biofuels and the majority does not even touch the question whether the proposed policies are compatible with WTO law, with the notable exception of a report of the International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council (HOWSE et al. 2006) and a paper by SWITZER (2007).Section 1 gives a brief summary of biofuel markets and policies. Section 2 outlines the relationship between biofuel and agricultural markets. Section 3 discusses relevant WTO disciplines, with section 4 analysing the WTO compatibility of the recent changes in the Swiss Mineral Oil Tax. Section 5 draws some general policy conclusions.2 Biofuel Markets and Policies2.1 Market TrendsEthanol is currently the major biofuel, with Brazil and the United States accounting for over 70% of total world production. Ethanol production in Brazil is mainly based on sugarcane, whereas corn is the dominant feedstock in the United States. Some other countries, such as India and China, are also taking increased interest in ethanol production and have ambitious plans for increasing capacity. Biodiesel, the other major biofuel, is lagging behind because of higher feedstock costs. However, its production is significant in the European Union, particularly in Germany and France, and gaining importance in Asian and Latin American countries.Brazil played a pioneering role in the field of alternative fuels: the "Proálcool" programme launched in 1975 stipulated that most vehicles run on bioethanol or on a compound of petrol and ethanol, and introduced several subsidy programmes (Schmitz 2006). The country retained its leading role in the ethanol market even after substantially reducing direct subsidisation. According to estimates of the International Energy Agency (IEA), the ...Voir le contenu complet de ce document
Liens sponsorisés
