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