Upload
doanque
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT Directorate E: Sectoral and regional statistics Unit E-2: Environmental accounts and climate change
Background doc. ENV/TF (2014)
Point 7 of the agenda
Potentially environmentally damaging subsidies
(PEDs) and environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS)
Eurostat – Unit E2
Task Force on environmental transfers
Meeting of 25 and 26 November 2014
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 183, Paseo de la Castellana - Madrid
1
1. Introduction
The SEEA central framework1 mentions in chapter 4 the issue of potentially environmentally
damaging subsidies (PEDs). A definition of PEDS is not included in the SEEA. A related
concept is that of Environmentally Harmful Subsidies (EHS)
The TF on environmental transfers has discussed the topic of PEDs and EHS for several years
and tried to assess the actual possibilities for developing such statistics. It found several
problems related to their identification, and moreover it was difficult to agree on a definition.
Methodologies for collecting PEDs and EHS data are not easy to standardise because they are
quite specific to individual country situations and make most sense in relation to national
targets. Furthermore, as many PEDs and EHS are in fact tax abatements they often do not
involve direct flows from the government to the beneficiary in cash or in kind and are not to
be recorded in the national accounts as a transfer. Comparability across countries will
therefore be a major issue.
The TF eventually agreed to include text regarding PEDs and EHS in the guidelines on
environmental subsidies and similar transfers, recalling the huge policy demand for data but
also the major doubts on the usability of such statistics. No data collection is however
envisaged in the near future.
There is no established definition of PEDs. Whereas EHS may be defined as those transfers
that have a proven environmentally harmful effect, PEDs may be defined as those transfers
that are paid to activities/industries that are considered to be more harmful than others2). A
PED may not have necessarily a proven negative effect on the environment (therefore
‘potentially damaging’).
In line with the tentative definition provided above, the identification of PEDs and EHS could
be based on two different approaches:
• identification of the environmental effects of the transfers using assessments or
checklists for EHS and
• identification of the beneficiary industries/activities for PEDs.
The first approach (“assessment/checklist”) identifies transfers that according to some
established assessment method or checklist are environmentally harmful. These transfers
could be called EHS as they are assessed as having an environmentally harmful effect. Such
assessments would not be done by statistical offices but the results of such assessments could
be used if available.
The second approach (“based on beneficiary”) identifies transfers to certain activities or
industries which are considered more polluting than the others (e.g. energy subsidies,
transport subsidies, subsidies to agriculture). These transfers may or may not have a negative
effect. For this reason they are called potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDs).
To identify activities/industries that are considered to be more harmful than others is a matter
of the reference point and does not lend itself to an easy operationalization of PEDS
measurement. There are ideas of how to elaborate further on the definition of PEDs using
lists:
A possible way forward is to base the definition of PEDs on a list of potentially
harmful activities. This approach would be beneficiary-based since each subsidy
1 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/Chapters/SEEA_CentralFramework_Ch4.pdf 2 E.g. producing electricity from coal may be considered more damaging to the environment than producing
electricity from gas. Therefore a subsidy for producing electricity from coal might be called a PED.
2
would have to be screened depending on its receiving activity. All environmental
subsidies and similar transfers should be excluded from the scope.
A possible extension of the concept of PEDs could be to also look at reductions and
exemption related to environmental taxes, which is including tax abatements. The list
of environmental tax bases (see annex 2) may provide helpful information to identify
those tax abatements that could be classified as PEDs.
The document on “Potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDs - or
environmentally harmful subsidies - EHS)” (Doc. ENV/EXP/TF/7 (2013) presented in the TF
of June 2013 summed up the discussions in the WG on Environmental expenditure statistics
2013 and the TF on environmental transfers. It also gave an overview on different methods
used for gathering information on PEDs.
The purpose of this document is to present an updated overview of studies in the area of
PEDs.
Questions for the TF:
- Are you aware of any other studies on PEDs/EHS published in 2013/2014 at
international and national level or which are currently undertaken?
- Can you report on own work on PEDs/EHS (e.g. a case study)? In particular,
has any country gained experience in basing the list of potentially harmful
activities on the list of environmental tax bases or explored the use of NACE for
defining such a list of activities?
- Do you have any comments on the text related to PEDs included in the draft
guidelines on environmental subsidies and similar transfers (see annex 2 of this
document)?
2. Work on PEDs in other organisations
This section presents an update of studies in the area of PEDs, both at national and
international level, focusing on definitions, data sources and compilation methods. Annex 1
presents summaries of the studies and methodologies used for the identification of PEDs
(EHS).
The focus of most of the studies produced so far has not been on the compilation of PEDs
statistics. It has rather been on different definitions and presenting case studies of specific
sectors in view of tracing a roadmap for the elimination of PEDs.
Table 1 below summarises the results with the name of the study, country/organisation, year
as well as the definition of a subsidy and harmful subsidy. In this table, the terms ‘on-budget’
and ‘off-budget’ serve to distinguish between studies that include only PEDs which appear in
national accounts as government expenditure, and studies which also cover PEDs that are not
recorded in the national accounts in the form of current or capital transfers (e.g. tax credits).
In Table 1, column 4 “based on activities/receiver” means that the economic activity or the
receiver of the subsidy is of concern for identifying whether a subsidy is harmful. This means
that if the activity of the receiver of the subsidy is included in a list of chosen (potentially)
3
harmful activities or receivers the subsidy will be (potentially) harmful. As an example, if
fossil fuel is listed as a harmful activity then subsidies to producers or consumers of fossil
fuels are classified as harmful. The term “potential” is often added when using this approach
since not all activities are impacting the environment as clearly as this example (the activity
agriculture is less obvious for example). Checklist/assessment refers to the cases where either
an impact assessment has been used to identify harmful subsidies or when a checklist (in the
form of a simplified assessment) has been used.
Most studies on PEDs/EHS are literature and case studies, or they focus on policies for
reforming subsidies. So far there are not many studies that focus on developing methods for
compiling statistics on harmful subsidies. However, a few NSIs have started to attempt to
establish methods for compiling regular and comparable statistics on harmful subsidies.
The studies published during the year 2013-2014 were mainly related to the way EHS can be
removed and their potential benefit. Most of them also address the question of measuring the
progress towards the removal of EHS and other issues such as cooperation between countries.
Table 1: Overview of methods used for compiling, estimating, defining or describing PEDs
(EHS) since the 2013 meeting of the TF
Name of study Country/organisatio
n
(year)
Definition
subsidy
Definition Link
1. Environmental tax reform in
Europe: opportunities for the
future
IEEP, Report to the
Netherlands Ministry
of Infrastructure and
the environment
(2014)
ON-BUDGET
and OFF-
BUDGET
No
definition
http://www.ieep.eu/work-
areas/environmental-
economics/market-based-
instruments/2014/06/environm
ental-tax-reform-in-europe-
opportunities-for-the-future
2. Study of Environmental Fiscal
Reform Potential in 12 EU
Member States
DG ENV (2014) ON-BUDGET
and OFF-
BUDGET
Based on
activities/
receiver
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen
t/integration/green_semester/pd
f/EFR-Final%20Report.pdf
3. Paying the polluter IEEP (2014) ON-BUDGET
and OFF-
BUDGET
http://www.e-
elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.las
so?currency=UK&id=15338
4. Steps toward greening in the
EU, Member States’ achievement
in selected environmental policy
area – EU summary report
IEEP (2013) ON-BUDGET
and OFF-
BUDGET
http://ec.europa.eu/environmen
t/enveco/resource_efficiency/p
df/Greening.pdf
5. The use of economics
instruments in Nordic
Environmental Policy 2010-2013
NORDEN (2014) ON-BUDGET
and OFF-
BUDGET
Check list/
assessmen
t
http://www.copenhageneconom
ics.com/Website/Publications/E
nergy---Climate.aspx
6. Les aides publiques
dommageables à la biodiversité
Conseil d’Analyse
Stratégique (2011)
ON-BUDGET
and OFF-
BUDGET
Check
list/assess
ment
http://www.ladocumentationfra
ncaise.fr/rapports-
publics/124000434/index.shtml
7. Environmental Performance
Review : Mexico and Colombia
OECD (2013)
OECD (2014)
ON BUDGET
and OFF
BUDGET
Check
list/assess
ment
http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/environment/oecd-
environmental-performance-
reviews_19900090
4
Annex 1– Detailed overview of studies and methods used by other organisations to
monitor PEDs
IEEP, Report to the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the environment (2014)
The aim of the study Environmental Tax Reform in Europe: opportunities for the future
was to assess the current state of play with environmental taxes in Europe (among 32
European countries), and explore where further greening taxation in Europe could be
appropriate and what could drive this forward. EHS are included in the study as a part of an
Environmental Tax Reform (ETR), but the main objective of the study was not to define and
measure them.
Definitions used
The study consists of several case studies and some countries' efforts to remove EHS but does
not provide any definition of EHS.
Methods and data sources
The study is based on a review of literature, targeted interviews and discussions at an expert’s
workshop organized in the context of the study.
The first step was an overview inventory of existing experiences of ETR in Europe. The
objective of this overview inventory is not to be fully comprehensive, but rather to focus on
practices that can inform to the way forward. The overview inventory is based on relevant
studies and existing databases: OECD/EEA, DGTAXUD among others (no specific data was
developed). Eleven environmental areas are covered by the overview inventory.
Secondly, twelve case studies were performed in view of evaluating the impact and
effectiveness of environmental taxes, charges and levies. The cases were developed to
highlight interesting insights from experiences to support the narrative on the benefits of
greening taxation, and potential contribution to policy processes.
Then the study examines future plans, visions and perspectives in eight European countries,
providing insights for further ETR in Europe, and helping identify like-minded countries that
may be interested in pushing this agenda in the future.. The main drivers and windows of
opportunity of ETR are identified from the case studies. The study finally identifies potential
scenarios and approaches for the way forward on ETR in Europe.
Conclusions
The study sets out some initial proposals to establish coalitions of like-minded countries in a
number of thematic areas, how to engage action and take this initiative forward in the years
ahead. It identifies main drivers of ETR collaboration across countries: fiscal consolidation,
competitiveness concerns, jobs, equity, social costs and benefits.
5
IEEP, Paying the Polluter: Environmentally Harmful Subsidies and their Reform (2014)
This book, edited by Frans H. Oosterhuis and Patrick ten Brick, gathers a large set of
contributions regarding the main issues about Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: definition
and measurement issues, evaluation of the impact and potential benefits of reforms.
IEEP, Steps towards greening in the EU, Monitoring Member States’ achievement in
selected environmental policy areas – EU summary report (2013)
The objective of this report is to establish an inventory of achievements by Member States in
environmental policies. One specific section is dedicated to EHS.
Definitions used
The study reviews the main achievements regarding reform of EHS provided to fossil fuels,
and then focuses on the energy generation sector, fossil-fuel based energy materials and other
CO2 emitting fuels, and the transport sector. EHS are considered on-budget and off-budget,
but no “clear” (academic) definition is given.
Methods and data sources
The report is dedicated to the presentation of results; no specific section is dedicated to
methodological issues and data sources.
The report makes an inventory of EHS still existing in European countries. This inventory is
based on existing database or studies, whether at national or international level. One of the
most important studies used is the OECD “Inventory of estimated budgetary support and tax
expenditure for fossil fuels”, which contains country reports. Other national surveys or
previous surveys from IEEP are used as data sources.
The subsidies considered in the report include tax exemptions or tax reductions for different
uses of fuels, but also direct support. Subsidies are presented for the sectors mentioned above:
energy, transport, agriculture.
The report also presents progress made towards phasing out EHS among European countries.
Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study regarding EHS are the following: EHS remains an issue in
all Member States; some Member States have made progress in reporting subsidies (which is
the first step towards a reform of EHS) and in phasing out EHS. Plans have been announced
by national governments regarding EHS reform.
6
DG ENV of the European Commission, Study of Environmental Fiscal Reform Potential
in 12 EU Member States (2014)
The study was conducted by Eunomia and Aarhus University for DG ENV. Its objective was
to provide data on the potential economic and social benefits of environmental fiscal reform
(EFR). The study was also an input in the European Semester process on environmental
protection and resources efficiency.
Definitions used
The definition used in the study is the OECD’s one (20053), and more or less restrictive
definition from various bodies (WTO, IEA, Global Subsidies Initiative) are highlighted.
Methods and data sources
The study uses existing databases and reports to estimate EHS: the OECD Report “Inventory
of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for fossil fuels (2013), DG TAXUD
Energy excise duties tables (2013), IEEP Report to DG ENV on Member States’
Achievements in selected environmental policy areas (mentioned above)4, and a report by
Copenhagen Economics on company car taxation5.
The first step of the study is a desk-review of existing situations based on the databases
mentioned above. Then a review of good practices is realised, it was made with a view
principally to the potential for revenue generation through EFR.
For each country considered in the study, suggestions were made for changes to existing/new
taxes and removal of EHS.
The modelling of revenue generated is based on projections of the tax base in the absence of
any change, and changes to those projections as a result of the suggested changes in tax rates.
Conclusions
For each country covered by the study, the revenue generation from phasing out EHS is
estimated for selected years (2016, 2020, and 2025).
NORDEN (Nordic Council of Ministers), The use of economics instruments in Nordic
Environmental Policy 2010-2013 (2014)
The report The Use of Economic Instrument in Nordic environmental policy 2010-2013
contains a part dedicated to EHS.
Definitions used
3 OECD, 2005, Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: challenges for reform. Publication available here :
http://www.oecd.org/tad/fisheries/environmentallyharmfulsubsidieschallengesforreform.htm 4 IEEP, Ecologic Institute, Bio IS and IVM, 2013, Steps towards greening in the EU 5 Copenhagen Economics (2009), Taxation papers: Company Car Taxation, Report for European Commission,
November 2009.
7
EHS are defined following two steps: a review of literature on the definition of subsidies in
general and EHS in particular, and then a comparison of the different definitions and
settlement of a definition adapted to the Nordic perspective of the study.
The definition of a subsidy used is the one from OECD (2010b6) and IEEP (2007
7) regarding
the On-Budget/Off-budget aspect; the definition of EHS used is based on OECD (2005 and
2010b).
Methods and data sources
The method is based first on a review of literature on existing tools to identify EHS. A
methodological framework is then defined to identify which elements of the fiscal budget can
be considered environmentally harmful. The framework is then used to assess political
possibility of reforming three EHS: lower energy tax on diesel, EU direct payment to farmers
and over allocation of allowances in the EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS). The
possibility of reform is determined by two dimensions: fiscal budget impact and
environmental impact.
Three case studies were chosen for deeper analysis: lower energy tax on diesel used in
transport compared to petrol, EU direct payment to farmers and over-allocation of allowances
in the EU ETS. For each case, the study evaluates the impact of a removal of EHS regarding
environmental and fiscal considerations.
Conclusions
The study shows that quantitative measures can be used to classify EHS and that it is possible
to determine the subsidies with the most negative environmental and fiscal impact, which
should be reformed first.
Conseil d’Analyse Stratégique, Les aides publiques dommageables à la biodiversité
(2011)
The French government ordered a study aiming at identifying EHS regarding biodiversity.
Definitions used
Environmentally Harmful Subsidies are defined following the OECD (2005) definition. EHS
are considered on budget and off budget, and implicit subsidies are included.
Methods and data sources
The study uses a DPSIR model (Driving force, pressure state, impact and responses
developed by OECD) to determine the causality between a public aid and the biodiversity,
and then evaluate whether the aid is harmful or not. The main causes of biodiversity erosion
in France are identified following existing studies and standards (five causes).
Conclusions
For each cause of biodiversity erosion, a list of EHS is presented.
OECD
In the context of the Environmental Performance Review (EPR), two reviews were made or
updated recently: Mexico (updated) and Colombia (new Review).
6 OECD, 2010b, Measuring support to Energy, version1.0. Background paper to the joint report by IEA, OPEC,
OECD and World Bank on Analysis of the Scope of Energy Subsidies and suggestions to the G20 Initiative. 7IEEP, 2007, Reforming Environmentally Harmful Subsidies
8
Mexico’s EPR
The last EPR for Mexico was done in 2013. The report highlights the fact that Mexico still
spends a considerable amount on support measures that are potentially environmentally
harmful. The main domains where EHS were pointed out are: the energy sector, agricultural
support, fishery support, and incentive to vehicle ownership and use.
Regarding the energy sector, the subsidy to petrol and diesel is estimated to MXN 169 billion
in 2011. There are also subsidies on electricity uses for households, and electricity subsidies
to water pumping and tax exemptions on fossil fuels in the agricultural sector.
Other distorting support to the agricultural sector includes price support programmes targeting
water-intensive crops. These programmes and the subsidies on electricity encourage
intensification of agriculture, and have a potential negative impact on water use, land fertiliser
and pesticides.
Incentives to vehicle ownership and use include a 50% tax credit on road tolls paid on
national motorways by transport businesses, a fully exemption of taxation for company cars,
or free-parking for employees.
Colombia’s EPR
Colombia has its first EPR report in 2014. The main conclusions of the report regarding EHS
are that despite some progress, EHS are not completely phased out.
Regarding transport, there are still exemptions and tax treatment that continue to narrow the
base of transport fuel taxes, and inhibit the incentive to reduce energy use. There is also a
significant difference in the taxes applied to gasoline and diesel; and taxes to motor vehicles
are not related to their environmental performance.
EHS also exist in the mining sector; there are still exemptions on exploration, despite the
strong negative externalities of this activity.
9
Annex 2 – ‘Section 1.5 Potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDs) and
environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS)’ from the guidelines on environmental
subsidies and similar transfers
The topic of potentially environmentally damaging or harmful subsidies is high on the
political agenda. In the past 10 years it has gone from being at first a topic mainly discussed
in the arena of OECD to being of highest interest at national, European and international
levels (for example in the context of RIO+20 Conference, within the OECDs Green Growth
initiative and in the context of G20 as well as in some Member States such as France in the
context of the Grenelles Acts). The Commission has a dialogue with Member States on issues
such as greening tax systems and phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies. Both of
these have the potential to deliver budgetary savings, to stimulate growth through improved
incentives and to redirect financial resources from unsustainable practices towards
environmental improvement. At the global level, commitments have been adopted in the
context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the G20, while some existing
commitments were reiterated at the Rio+20 Conference. However, despite these numerous
commitments progress has been slow. Further advancements in the reform of subsidies have
been slowed down by the lack of an agreed definition on PEDs, the lack of agreed methods to
keep track and quantify them, the lack of application of assessment methods and a lack of
commitment to keeping a transparent inventory of subsidies.
The SEEA central framework mentions in chapter 4 the issue of PEDs. A definition of PEDS
is not included in the SEEA. PEDs encompass subsidies and similar transfers that support
activities that are considered environmentally damaging. In some definitions this measure also
includes so-called implicit (or indirect) subsidies, such as preferential tax rates.
Methodologies for collecting PEDS data are not easy to standardise because PEDS are quite
specific to individual country situations and make most sense in relation to national targets.
Furthermore, the link to the national accounts is problematic (many PEDS are in fact tax
abatements; the link to COFOG seems difficult). Comparability across countries will
therefore be a major issue.
Two approaches - PEDs and EHS
Two different names for a (potentially) damaging subsidy seem to be used internationally. For
this guide the term potentially environmentally damaging subsidies is used. However, these
subsidies can also go under the name environmental harmful subsidies.
Two main approaches to identifying these transfers are behind the two different uses of
terminology:
• based on assessments or checklist leading to the effect of the transfer, leads to EHS
• based on the beneficiary of the transfer, leads to PEDs
The first approach (“assessment/checklist”) identifies transfers that according to some
established method or checklist are environmentally harmful. These transfers could be called
EHS as they are assessed as having an environmentally harmful effect. Such assessments
would not be done by statistical offices but the results of such assessments could be used if
available.
The second approach (“based on beneficiary”) identifies transfers going to certain activities or
industries which are considered more polluting than the others (e.g. energy subsidies,
transport subsidies, subsidies to agriculture). These transfers may or may not have a negative
effect. For this reason they are called PEDs.
10
There is no established definition of potentially environmentally damaging subsidies but there
are ideas of how such a definition could be elaborated.
One suggestion is to expand the definition of PEDS could be to look at reductions and
exemption related to environmental taxes (using the list of environmental tax bases – see
below), which is including tax abatements.
Another possible way forward is to base the definition of PEDs on a list of potentially harmful
activities. This approach would be beneficiary-based since each subsidy would have to be
screened depending on its receiving activity. All environmental subsidies and similar transfers
should be excluded from the scope.
List of environmental tax bases
Energy (including fuel for transport)
— Energy products for transport purposes
• Unleaded petrol
• Leaded petrol
• Diesel
• Other energy products for transport purposes (e.g. LPG, natural gas, kerosene
or fuel oil)
— Energy products for stationary purposes
• Light fuel oil
• Heavy fuel oil
• Natural gas
• Coal
• Coke
• Biofuels
• Electricity consumption and production
• District heat consumption and production
• Other energy products for stationary use
— Greenhouse gases
• carbon content of fuels
• emissions of greenhouse gases (including proceeds from emission permits
recorded as taxes in the national accounts)
Transport (excluding fuel for transport)
— Motor vehicles import or sale (one off taxes)
— Registration or use of motor vehicles, recurrent (e.g. yearly taxes)
— Road use (e.g. motorway taxes)
— Congestion charges and city tolls (if taxes in national accounts)
— Other means of transport (ships, airplanes, railways, etc.)
— Flights and flight tickets
11
— Vehicle insurance (excludes general insurance taxes)
Pollution
— Measured or estimated emissions to air
• Measured or estimated NOx emissions
• Measured or estimated SOx emissions
• Other measured or estimated emissions to air (excluding CO2)
— Ozone depleting substances (e.g. CFCs or halons)
— Measured or estimated effluents to water
• Measured or estimated effluents of oxydisable matter (BOD, COD)
• Other measured or estimated effluents to water
• Effluent collection and treatment, fixed annual taxes
— Non-point sources of water pollution
• Pesticides (based on e.g. chemical content, price or volume)
• Artificial fertilisers (based on e.g. phosphorus or nitrogen content or price)
• Manure
— Waste management
• Collection, treatment or disposal
• Individual products (e.g. packaging, beverage containers, batteries, tyres,
lubricants)
— Noise (e.g. aircraft take-off and landings)
Resources
— Water abstraction
— Harvesting of biological resources (e.g. timber, hunted and fished species)
— Extraction of raw materials (e.g. minerals, oil and gas)
— Landscape changes and cutting of trees
The focus of most of the studies done so far has not been on the compilation of PEDs
statistics. It has rather been on different definitions and presenting case studies of specific
sectors in view of tracing a roadmap for the elimination of PEDs. Annex 1 summarises the
results with the name of the study, country/organisation, year as well as the definition of a
potentially environmental harmful subsidy.
Most studies on PEDs/EHS are literature and case studies, or they focus on policies for
reforming subsidies. There have not yet been many studies that focus on developing methods
for compiling statistics on harmful subsidies. However, a few NSIs have started to work on
the task of trying to establish methods for compiling regular and comparable statistics on
harmful subsidies.
12
Extract from Annex 1 of the guidelines on environmental subsidies and similar
transfers:
The table below lists studies done so far and includes the results with the name of the study,
country/organisation, year as well as the definition of a potentially environmental harmful
subsidy used in the study.
In the table, the terms ‘on-budget’ and ‘off-budget’ serve to distinguish between studies that
include only PEDs which appear in national accounts as government expenditure, and studies
which also cover PEDs that are not recorded in the national accounts in the form of current or
capital transfers (e.g. tax credits). In column four of the table “based on activities/receiver”
means that the economic activity or the receiver of the subsidy is of concern for identifying
whether a subsidy is harmful. This means that if the activity or the receiver being subsidised
is included in a list of chosen (potentially) harmful activities or receivers the subsidy will be
(potentially) harmful. As an example, if fossil fuel is listed as a harmful activity then
subsidies to producers or consumers of fossil fuels are classified as harmful. The term
“potential” is often added when using this approach since not all activities are impacting the
environment as clearly as this example (the activity agriculture is less obvious for example).
Checklist/assessment refers to the cases where either an impact assessment has been used to
identify harmful subsidies or when a checklist (in the form of a simplified assessment) has
been used.
Overview of methods used for compiling, estimating, defining or describing PEDs and EHS
between years 2002-2014 is presented in the table below:
13
Name of study Country/organisation (year) Definition subsidyDefinition
EHSDownload link
1. Environmental tax reform in Europe :
opportunities for the future
IEEP, Report to the
Netherlands Ministry of
Infrastructure and the
environment (2014)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGETNo definition
http://www.ieep.eu/work-
areas/environmental-
economics/market-based-
instruments/2014/06/environm
ental-tax-reform-in-europe-
opportunities-for-the-future
2. Study of Environmental Fiscal Reform
Potential in 12 EU Member StatesDG ENV (2014)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
http://ec.europa.eu/environme
nt/integration/green_semester
/pdf/EFR-Final%20Report.pdf
3. Paying the polluter IEEP (2014)ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
http://www.e-
elgar.co.uk/bookentry_main.la
sso?currency=UK&id=15338
4. Steps toward greening in the EU,
Member States’ achievement in selected
environmental policy area – Eu summary
report
IEEP (2013)ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
http://ec.europa.eu/environme
nt/enveco/resource_efficienc
y/pdf/Greening.pdf
5. The use of economics instruments in
Nordic Environmental Policy 2010-2013NORDEN (2014)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK LIST/
ASSESSMENT
http://www.copenhagenecon
omics.com/Website/Publicati
ons/Energy---Climate.aspx
6. Les aides publiques dommageables à
la biodiversité
Conseil d’Analyse
Stratégique (2011)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK LIST/
ASSESSMENT
http://www.ladocumentationfr
ancaise.fr/rapports-
publics/124000434/index.shtml
7. Environmental Performance Review :
Mexico and Colombia
OECD (2013)
OECD (2014)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK LIST/
ASSESSMENT
http://www.oecd.org/env/cou
ntry-reviews/mexico2013.htm
http://www.oecd.org/env/cou
ntry-
reviews/colombia2014.htm
8. Analyse of existing harmful subsidies European Parliament (2011) ON BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.europarl.europa.e
u/RegData/etudes/etudes/join
/2011/457359/IPOL-
ENVI_ET%282011%29457359
_EN.pdf
9. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient
Europe
European Commission
(2011)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
http://ec.europa.eu/environme
nt/resource_efficiency/about/
roadmap/index_en.htm
10.1 Study supporting the phasing out
of environmentally harmful subsidiesIEEP (2012)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.ieep.eu/publicatio
ns/2012/12/reforming-
environmentally-harmful-
subsidies-for-a-resource-
efficient-europe
10.2 Other studies by IEEPIEEP (2009)
IEEP (2007)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.ieep.eu/publicatio
ns/?q=&author=&page_id=&
page_56_keyword=&page_63
_keyword=&page_72_keywor
d=&page_37_keyword=&pag
e_33_keyword=&page_20_ke
yword=&page_27_keyword=
&page_183_keyword=&page
_44_keyword=&date=2009-01-
01%2C2009-12-
31&custom_date_start=10%2
F28%2F2014&custom_date_e
nd=10%2F28%2F2014&commi
t.x=24&commit.y=5#
11.1 Inventory of estimated support OECD/IEA (2013)ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
http://www.oecd.org/site/tadf
fss/
11.2 Other studies by OECD
OECD (2006)
OECD (2005)
OECD (2003)
OECD (2002)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
12. Energy subsidies in the European
Union : a brief overviewEEA (2004)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pu
blications/technical_report_2
004_1
13. Reforming environmentally harmful
subsidies
Nordic council of ministries
(2011)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pi
d=diva2:700594
14. Mapping of environmentally
damaging subsidiesSweden, EPA (2013) ON BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
15. Environmentally related taxes,
subsidies and emission permits (in
Swedish)
Sweden, NSI (2010) ON BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
http://www.naturvardsverket.
se/Documents/publikationer6
400/978-91-620-6455-6.pdf
16. Mapping of state subsidies with
harmful consequences (in Norwegian)
Norway,Sweco Gröner
(2008)ON BUDGET
BASED ON
ACTIVITIES/R
ECEIVER
17. Potentially environmentally harmful
subsidies in AustriaAustria, NSI (2008)
ON BUDGET
(mainly) and OFF
BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t
&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=
web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
w.statistik.at%2Fweb_en%2F
static%2Fpotentially_environ
mentally_harmful_subsidies_
2007_053187.pdf&ei=UZdPVP
PdFc_saPObgIgG&usg=AFQj
CNHDGhTBxt9yA27yhIyN7yf
Rn9fGYw&bvm=bv.77880786,
d.d2s
18. Environmentally harmful subsidies
The Netherlands, The
Environmental Assessment
Agency (2011)
OFF BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.pbl.nl/en/publicati
ons/2011/environmentally-
harmful-subsidies
19. Carbon-dioxide reporting in budget Germany, Federal
Environment Agency (2010)
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGET
CHECK
LIST/ASSESS
MENT
http://www.umweltbundesamt
.de/en/publikationen/environ
mentally-harmful-subsidies-in-
germany-0
20. Subsidy estimation - a survey of
current practiceGSI and IISD
ON BUDGET and
OFF BUDGETNo definition
http://www.iisd.org/publicatio
ns/subsidy-estimation-survey-
current-practice