O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Session 2 - Raphael Jachnik and Mauro Migotto

405 visualizações

Publicada em

Towards expressing information need on environmental expenditure and finance
Green Budgeting Virtual Meeting - 17 March 2020.

Publicada em: Governo e ONGs
  • GET RICH WITH BLANK ATM CARD ... Whatsapp: +18033921735 I want to testify about Dark Web blank atm cards which can withdraw money from any atm machines around the world. I was very poor before and have no job. I saw so many testimony about how Dark Web hackers send them the atm blank card and use it to collect money in any atm machine and become rich. I email ( darkwebblankatmcard@gmail.com ) them also and they sent me the blank atm card. I have use it to get 90,000 dollars. withdraw the maximum of 5,000 USD daily. Dark Web is giving out the card just to help the poor. Hack and take money directly from any atm machine vault with the use of atm programmed card which runs in automatic mode. Email: darkwebblankatmcard@gmail.com Text & Call or WhatsApp: +18033921735
    Tem certeza que deseja  Sim  Não
    Insira sua mensagem aqui
  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Session 2 - Raphael Jachnik and Mauro Migotto

  1. 1. Towards addressing information needs on environmental expenditure and finance OECD Green Budgeting Virtual Meeting 17 March 2020, OECD Headquarters, Paris OECD Environment Directorate ● Mauro Migotto & Myriam Linster: Environmental Performance and Information Division ● Raphaël Jachnik & Mireille Martini: Climate, Biodiversity and Water Division
  2. 2. Data Indicators Reporting 2 International data collection and classifications Data provided by countries Eurostat EGSS CEPA CReMA ISIC/NACE CPC HS Economic activities Products Goods NATIONAL ACCOUNTS Possiblemerge National Accounts – economic data SEEA EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities OECD Rio Markers (ODA) OECD ERTR (taxes) OECD Inventory on Fossil Fuels COFOG
  3. 3. Data Indicators Reporting Substantially contribute to at least one of the six environmental objectives Do no significant harm to any of the other five environmental objectives Comply with minimum safeguards Technical Screening Criteria Technical Screening Criteria OECD MNE Guidelines + UN Principles + ILO Six environmental objectives: In order to be taxonomy eligible, an activity must: EU taxonomy regulation: defining environmentally sustainable activities International co-operation and interaction with other jurisdictions
  4. 4. Data Indicators Reporting 4 Policy needs to more broadly assess climate consistency investments and financing Work by the OECD-led • Focus on real economy investments ( GFCF benchmark) • Non-prescriptive pilot studies at level of countries (Norway, Latvia, UK) and sectors (industry, transport, buildings) • Potential to inform UNFCCC Global Stocktake and OECD work on Green Growth indicators Source: Natixis (2019) Reference points for climate consistency? • Taxonomies and classifications • Performance thresholds • Climate-related scenarios • Quantified and time-bound objectives • Technological roadmaps
  6. 6. Data Indicators Reporting 6 International data collection • OECD/Eurostat collect EPEA (Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts) data, which is: – coherent with the SEEA – based on national accounts (NA) principles • Measuring the value added of the EP (Environmental Protection) activites • EPEA covers services only (bulk of EP) and uses the CEPA classification (Classification of Environmental Protection Activities). • EGSS (Environmental Goods and Services Sector) use CReMA (Eurostat)
  7. 7. Data Indicators Reporting 7 Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts (EPEA) ADVANTAGES – Fully coherent with National Accounts (and so GDP) – Internationally standardised; collected for EU and OECD countries – Subject to periodic international revisions DISADVANTAGES – It’s not expenditure but value added (though it can be disaggregated by institutional sectors, e.g. general government) – Data is scarce, at least for the moment, especially for non-EU countries – Using CEPA (and not CReMA) it only covers part of what would be considered relevant (e.g. not renewable energy) and only environmental “goods” and not “bads” (e.g. subsidies to fossil fuels)
  8. 8. Data Indicators Reporting 8 Options to advance the EPEA measurement agenda • Assist countries in compiling and documenting data • e.g. by sharing the experience of countries having provided data (Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, etc.) • Progressively expand data collection beyond Environmental Protection • e.g. starting with resource management activities of relevance for climate mitigation and biodiversity. Pilot-test additional modules. [But this may take time] • Sharing experience and information on good practices • develop guidelines; regular WP meeting and workshops; draw on parallel projects and activities like green budgeting, CBD, climate and biodiversity finance, ODA • Eurostat Task Force on clarifications and eventual merging of CEPA and CReMA classifications • e.g. suggests to include CREMA 12 on management of wild flora and fauna under CEPA 6 on biodiversity
  10. 10. Data Indicators Reporting 10 Green budgeting practices • National methodologies and classification/tagging systems, while suited to national needs, preclude international comparability. • The inevitable result is lack of comparability across countries and an increased level of “subjectivity”: methods and classification systems may vary across space and evolve in time. There are no guarantees that countries are willing, or have the resources to update them. • The advantage of adopting standardised international approaches and classifications is international comparability, stability and adaptation to evolving needs (agreed by countries).
  11. 11. Data Indicators Reporting 11 Implications for green budgeting – We would encourage countries to use existing classifications (notably CEPA and CReMA), i.e. no need to re-invent the wheel each time – This would cover EP “goods”. For EP “bads” countries may use the OECD Inventory on Fossil Fuels, as well as the well-established ERTR (Environmentally related tax revenue) and PINE (Policy Instruments for the Environment) database on tax instruments. – Use Rio Markers (e.g. to expand on CEPA/CReMA for biodiversity and climate change) and EU Taxonomy (e.g. to identify specialised producers) to feed into EPEA – For other expenditure (budget) negatively affecting the environment, there are no international classifications. The question then it’s what do we want to capture? For which objectives? E.g. a realistic approach would be to flag the expenditure (budget) with a direct negative impact on GHG emissions (with respect to set targets), for flagging all expenditures having a negative environmental impact may be too ambitious (and ambiguous), but see France’s example
  12. 12. BACK UP SLIDES 12
  13. 13. Data Indicators Reporting REPORTING CHALLENGES • Many countries face difficulties in compiling data. Replies are often incomplete. The quality of some of the data remains weak. • Environmental Protection (EP) versus Resource Management (RM). Demands for data do not always distinguish the two, and respondents have also difficulties; borderline cases • Reporting on the detailed breakdown by CEPA class is challenging • This begs the question of the focus of the data collection. i.e. go beyond CEPA? For both climate change and biodiversity, CEPA may be too narrow (cf Eurostat TF on merging CEPA and CReMA). 13
  14. 14. Data Indicators Reporting Expenditure on climate change • Data availability remains low (EPEA covers mainly mitigation). Eurostat’s database includes only very few data on climate mitigation, i.e. for Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands. • Activities may be classified as either EP and/or RM, e.g. distinguishing between emission reduction activities and energy saving activities is not always easy; or resource efficient transport (GHG reducing or energy saving?) • Because of its transversal nature, climate change related expenditures tend to be scattered across different CEPA and CReMA domains. • Data on expenditure on climate change adaptation is even more difficult to mobilise and the CEPA classification is not designed to capture it. Also, should we consider adaptation an EP activity? 14
  15. 15. Data Indicators Reporting Expenditure on biodiversity • The coverage of CEPA 6 is partial and insufficient for covering Aichi targets. • CEPA 6 does not consider expenditure on the sustainable use of biodiversity resources (under the CReMA). Countries find it difficult to distinguish between protection of biodiversity from sustainable management of forests and other biological resources. • OECD has looked at COFOG data (insufficient) and CBD reporting (neither consistent nor comparable) • Thus there might be the need to broaden the scope beyond CEPA and include some RM aspects. 15