Trade war on biofuels again

I have earlier blogged about biofuels and WTO disputes here, here and here. Argentina formally filed a WTO dispute against the EU in DS 459 requesting for consultation against the EU. For those following the dispute across the Atlantic here is an update.

"Argentina notified the WTO Secretariat, on 15 May 2013, of a request for consultations with the European Union on measures imposed by the EU and/or its member states that affect the importation and marketing of biodiesel as well as measures supporting the biodiesel industry. 

Argentina refers to measures applied by the EU for the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and the introduction of a mechanism to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as measures for their implementation at the level of the member states of the EU. It also refers to the establishment of support schemes for the biodiesel sector in the EU. 

According to Argentina, the measures violate, among other things, several provisions of GATT 1994 regarding non-discrimination, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the Trade Related Investment Measures Agreement, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade."

More biofuel disputes on the cards. 

Who are the stakeholders in a trade negotiation?

We often debate about the need for stakeholder consultation. Found this interesting (but rather critical) take on what it could mean in the context of trade policy consultation.

"But at least the administration granted public interest groups like us some time to offer input.  As in, a half hour.  Total.  For all consumer groups.  In a 1.5-day-long forum otherwise filled almost exclusively by industry representatives.  If relative allotment of time is indicative of the relative importance the administration attributes to industry views on TAFTA vs. the views of everyone else, big business "stakeholders" hold 76% of the administration's attention, technical standards organizations hold 11%, and the opinions of the rest of us are worth 13%."

Varied stakeholders - industry, business interests, sectoral experts, civil society organisations and of course the consumers. How one hears their views, balances them and articulates them in policy making is the real challenge. Finally the articulation of national interest may be an amalgam of these views. How one arrives at this amalgam becomes crucial.

 It is easier said than done - stakeholder consultation is one of the most complex aspects of policy making.

US Cloves Cigarettes case and its implications

For those interested in the implications of the US Cloves Cigarettes case (DS406) on domestic regulatory policy space, tobacco control and control of non-communicable diseases, Benn McGrady has co-authored a piece titled "Tobacco Control and Beyond: The Broader Implications of United States-Clove Cigarettes for Non-Communicable Diseases". It is found on SSRN here. I had earlier blogged about the Cloves Cigarette case here, here and here.

The article has brought out the complex relationship between domestic regulatory space and the standard of proof required to justify its applicability in the context of the TBT and GATT provisions. 

An Open Letter

For those who want a basic lesson in international trade concerning whether exports are better than imports, this blogpost by Cafe Hayek is a must read. 

Hardhitting and nuanced.

"Made in California" labelling - Protectionism?

We are familiar with the Buy American provisions. Now a proposed Bill in California that encourages "Made in California" labelling is making the news. News about it is found here. The Bill is found here.

The purpose of the Bill is stated here:

"The Made in California Program, a public and private collaboration, is hereby created within the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. The purposes of the program are to encourage consumer product awareness and to foster purchases of high-quality products manufactured in this state."

Private businesses can participate in the program on a voluntary basis. I am not sure if there is a GATT violation here but the Canada-US Blog termed it as State Protectionism.

"Canadian manufacturers and exporters should be concerned about the proliferation of State Buy America initiatives. This is just one example of a developing problem for cross-border trade."

It may just be a labelling program without any international trade law implications. Or who knows - a Canada-Us dispute at the WTO?

Oil tar sands gets sticky

I had blogged about the issue of oil tar sands more than a year ago here, here and here. It is essentialy related to a potential dispute between Canada and the EU over labelling of oil extracted from the tar sands of Canada as more polluting than other conventional fuels.

I thought the controversy had died down but it seems to have erupted once again with this recent report that Canada is considering taking EU to the dispute settlement mechanism as the measure is allegedly discriminatory.

An interesting comparison with beer consumption in the EU is brought out here by Friends of Science who argue that the labelling is discriminatory:

“In Canada we create useful fuel products from the Alberta oil sands that drive world industry,” says Maier. “We also don’t come to the EU with a “Stop the Beer-maggedon” campaign trying to destabilize your economy.” 

According to calculations by Friends of Science, EU beer production accounts for 0.4% of EU carbon emissions. That means carbon dioxide emissions attributed to total EU beer production is more than half of the emissions from the oil sands – all just for entertainment and getting drunk, while oil sands provides the energy for value-added industrial development and jobs."

So, less of beer and oil from tar sands in the coming years? 

Will watch this space for a potential WTO challenge...

A lac and more

A big thank you to everyone for the 1 lakh mark. No more celebration of numbers, I promise!