Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T13:52:53.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Biofuels subsidies and the green box

from PART IV - Green box subsidies and the environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2010

Ricardo Meléndez-Ortiz
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Christophe Bellmann
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Jonathan Hepburn
Affiliation:
ICTSD, Geneva, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

The dramatic rise in the production of biofuels, chiefly ethanol and bio-diesel, in the last few years has created a number of opportunities and an equal number of challenges for agriculture and the trade system. The prospect of being able to turn agricultural crops, and eventually agricultural waste products, into fuel is revitalizing many parts of the farming community. The lure of renewable fuels has considerable resonance across the political spectrum, from those concerned about the present reliance on fossil fuels and its global environmental consequences to those who see the strategic value of reduced dependence on imported oil. The reaction of a number of countries has been to encourage the development of renewable energy sources and to promote the use of biofuels. Developing countries see a possible new outlet for their agricultural raw materials, such as sugar and palm oil, which could benefit from a growing market and provide employment in processing activities. However, challenges are beginning to emerge, as the use of corn for ethanol appears to add to upward pressure on food prices and the total emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the production of ethanol may be as high as those from conventional fuels. If biofuels are to make a constructive contribution to sustainable development, it is clear that public policy needs to evolve on the basis of careful assessment of their contribution and appropriately targeted policies.

This chapter is intended as a contribution to the ongoing discussion on public policy and biofuels.

Type
Chapter
Information
Agricultural Subsidies in the WTO Green Box
Ensuring Coherence with Sustainable Development Goals
, pp. 530 - 568
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blandford, David and Josling, Tim (2007), “Should the Green Box be Modified?”, IPC Discussion Paper, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Blandford, David and Orden, David (2008), “Shadow Domestic Farm Support Notifications for the United States”, IFPRI project paper.Google Scholar
Gorter, H. and Just, D. R. (2007), “The Law of Unintended Consequences: How the U.S. Biofuel Tax Credit with a Mandate Subsidizes Oil Consumption and Has No Impact on Ethanol Consumption”, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Working Paper 2007–20, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024525.Google Scholar
,Group of developing countries seeking reform of developed country agriculture (2005), “Review and Clarification of Green Box Criteria”, 6 February, http://www.g-20.mre.gov.br/conteudo/19082005_Breviario.pdf.Google Scholar
Hebebrand, Charlotte and Laney, Kara (2007), “An Examination of U.S. and EU Government Support to Biofuels: Early Lessons”, IPC Issue Brief 26, October.Google Scholar
Howse, R., Bork, , P. and Hebebrand, C. (2006), “WTO Disciplines and Biofuels: Opportunities and Constraints in the Creation of a Global Marketplace”, IPC Discussion Paper, Washington DC, http://www.agritrade.org/Publications/wto_biofuels.html.Google Scholar
Howse, R. P. and Bork, P. (2006), “Options for Liberalizing Trade in Environmental Goods in the Doha Round”, ICTSD, Issue Paper 2, Geneva.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josling, Tim and Swinbank, Alan (2008), “Shadow Domestic Farm Support Notifications for the European Union”, IFPRI project paper.Google Scholar
Nassar, Andre (2008), “Shadow Domestic Farm Support Notifications for Brazil”, IFPRI project paper.Google Scholar
,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2000), “Decoupling: A Conceptual Overview”, OECD Agricultural and Trade Directorates, COM/AGR/APM/TD/WP(2000)14/FINAL.Google Scholar
Steenblik, Ronald (2007), “Biofuels at What Cost? Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in selected OECD countries”, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva.Google Scholar
Swinbank, Alan and Tranter, Richard (2005), “Decoupling EU Farm Support: Does the New Single Payment Scheme Fit within the Green Box?”, Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 6(1): 47–61.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (1999), Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body), WT/DS/103/AB/R.Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2001), Ministerial Declaration, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, Geneva, 20 November (The Doha Declaration).Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2003), Negotiations on Agriculture: First Draft of Modalities for the Further Commitments (Revision), TN/AG/W/1/Rev.1, 18 March.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2004a), Doha Work Programme: Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, WT/L/579, World Trade Organization, Geneva (the July Framework Agreement).Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2004b), United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Report of the Panel, WT/DS267/R (8 September).Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2005a), United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Reports of the Appellate Body, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, and WT/DS267/AB/R (adopted 21 March).Google Scholar
,World Trade Organisation (2005b), European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Reports of the Appellate Body, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R and WT/DS283/AB/R.Google Scholar
Yacobucci, Brent D. (2006), Fuel Ethanol: Background and Public Policy, Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, March.Google Scholar
Yacobucci, Brent and Schnepf, Randy (2007), Ethanol and Biofuels, Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, March.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×