You are here:   SEEA >> SEEA Revision >> Issues - Central Framework
 Home
 SEEA
      SEEA Revision
      Energy
      Water
      Land and Ecosystems
 SEEA Briefing Notes
 Publications
 Meetings
 Technical Cooperation
      Workshops
      Global Assessment
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Environmental subsidies

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:25/11/2010
Number of comments:28
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
23/12/2010Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes, but using another term, perhaps “subsidies and transfers”.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
PEDS could be explained, but also the problems with definition and measurement.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes
17/12/2010Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
No. The scope of these transactions is much broader than subsidies, and cannot only be referred to as environmentally related subsidies. Each of these transfers have to be dealt with as part of environmental related transfers. Suggestion: Include one chapter containing all environmental related transfers/transactions, which further can be divided between environmentally related transfers from the general government (environmentally related subsidies and other transfers) and environmentally related payments to the general government (environmentally related taxes and other payments). One should also consider another main group including environmental related transfers that did not include the general government as an actor (some emission permits, charges etc). How is off-budget items handled in SEEA? I.e preferential tax treatments?
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes, given that an international classification for environmental protection and resource management will be decided upon. Again, this is not in accord with the way environmental related taxes is treated.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes – but this must still be challenging
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes But we do not understand the meaning of “restricted” here. What is excluded?
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes. We recommend that standard economic classifications and classifications of environmental activities have to follow definitions given in the national accounts/SNA.
  6. Any other comments?
The pros and cons of alternative definitions of governmental (environmental related) subsidies and transfers should be discussed – setting the current recommendation into context. Why the current recommendation was chosen have to be better explained. We recommend to use the terminology “environmental related subsidies and transactions” (and defining these transactions in SEEA), rather than using the terminology “SEEA transfers related to the environment””, cf also comments on taxes. Taxes and subsidies should be treated in the same way with respect to terminology.
06/12/2010Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
It would be useful to include PEDS into the SEEA. In some cases PEDS can have stronger effects to economy and environment than environmentally related subsidies.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes
29/11/2010New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Statistics New Zealand does not agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world. Why are other current transfers between non-government economic sectors excluded on the basis of key policy focus? In practice maybe "the key policy focus was on payments by central government", but from a conceptual and maybe future practical perspective environmental related subsidies by private institutions could become significant.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities.
  6. Any other comments?
One question from a New Zealand perspective: The Income Tax Act allows tax deductions for business environmental expenditure to avoid, remedy or mitigate the discharge of contaminants. Assuming it relates to operating expenditure and not to capital expenditure, should this conceptually be treated as a subsidy (or equivalently a negative tax) in the revised SEEA?
29/11/2010India/TERI University1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes, also the tax rebates for environmentally protective purposes should in included separately in this section.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes, it should not be restricted to environmentally protection in the sense of correcting the damages that have occurred but also for the activities that avoid the damages for being happening.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Relationship between both should be explained and defined separately to avoid any confusion.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
To all domestic sectors
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes but it should also include the taxes foregone (i.e., tax rebates)
29/11/2010Botswana Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
No comment
  6. Any other comments?
No comment
29/11/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Agree. In recognition of this wider scope, the ABS prefers the title ‘Environmentally related subsidies and other transfers’.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
ABS has reservations about the inclusion of ‘subsidiary purpose’ in the definition. It is inconsistent with the ‘main purpose’ criterion used for Environmental Protection Expenditure. This apparent inconsistency needs to be justified or deleted.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
ABS agrees to this proposal but SEEA should contain an option to include PEDS where they can be readily identified and are significant. Implicit subsidies are not an SNA transaction but where significant they could be considered for inclusion in the context of SEEA. The Australian Government is intending to implement preferential tax rates on alternative fuels (including ethanol) and to phase out existing grants for domestically produced ethanol. SNA recording would result in a decrease in both environmental taxes and subsidies which is an anomalous result when one of the objectives of the reform is environmental benefit. Where preferential tax rates apply, SEEA should retain the option to impute an environmental subsidy, but this should be made explicit in the data.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Agree
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Agree
26/11/2010Jordan/ Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
We agree about this scope continents and it should includes also environmental fines which in some way consider as a subsidy to another economic unit.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
We agree to be included but we should pay attention to have possibility to separate environmental protection and resource management upon needed because subsidies for each type of activities should attributed to its purpose whether its environmental protection or resource management activities.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
We agree for (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but we disagree for not including definition of PEDS because this type of assignment is very important for most of the countries and to compile the clear picture about environmental degradation.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
We disagree because that will be contradictory with the polluter''s pays principle. For example in Jordan there is a special fund for protection the environment that provide subsidies to different sectors and one of it''s main financing resources is polluter''s pays principle revenue.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
We agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications to avoid underestimation and double counting of the transfer between different economical units and to be consistently with SNA. Also, we agree for using classifications of environmental activities where possible particularly when we need to capture the expenditures on the activity level.
26/11/2010Peru/ INEI1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Agree. In order to have a consistency with the SNA.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No.
  6. Any other comments?
I do not agree with the environment related subsidies.
26/11/2010Mexico/ INEGI1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes, into the idea that this breakdown lets to identify the subsidies granted for the environment. It would also be possible to classify these benefits by institutional units, similarly to the way how it is carried out in the 2008 SNA. In addition to subsidies, it would be possible to record all transactions that on intention of the environment are performed within the different analytical structures in the 2008 SNA.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes. Parallel to the previous question, should be track the final destination of the subsidies.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes at the moment, however, we consider that it is important to track the delimitation of the concept.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
We agree that the definition of subsidies related to the environment is exclusive of government outlays for the environment.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes. Considering that additional classifications may strengthen the record of subsidies.
  6. Any other comments?
The implication of these sorts of standard definitions is that it allows international comparisons of the obtained results by countries.
26/11/2010Germany/ Federal Statistical Office 1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
We agree that it would be useful and informative to collect data on these types of transfers. However, in this case the general term “environmentally related subsidies” differs from the SNA definition of subsidies. Therefore we suggest using the term “environmentally related subsidies and other transfers”. This terminology was agreed at the last meeting of the Task Force on environmentally related transfers. We agree that the definition of each of the mentioned transfers should follow the 2008 SNA definitions.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes. The revised SEEA might be more precise about how to identify the main purpose
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No. Since subsidies from supra-national institutions can be of significant importance for an economy (e.g. development aid, EU-subsidies for the agriculture industries of the EU member states) we would suggest extending the definition in a way that these institutions could be included.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
We agree that, where possible, the activities should be classified according to CEPA and CReMA.
26/11/2010Hungary/ Central Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
YES
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
YES
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
NO COMMENTS
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
YES
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
YES
  6. Any other comments?
NO
26/11/2010European Commission - Eurostat1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
YES, concerning the scope. One could even add the SNA transaction codes to further clarify. Please note that we do not advocate that all of these types of transfers should be labelled "environmentally related subsidies." since Subsidies in the SNA sense is only one component. The label should be "environmentally related subsidies and other transfers" or more simply "environmentally related transfers.".
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
YES – main purpose or subsidiary purpose is a criterion that works for collecting data.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
YES, it is important that both types of subsidies are mentioned in the revised SEEA but at the current time there is not a good enough definition of harmful/potentially environmentally damaging subsidies that allows for their unambiguous identification.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No. 1. As described under question 1 we consider this group should be called something like environmentally related transfers because the group is broader than Subsidies as defined in SNA 2. We feel, "environmentally related transfers" should not be restricted to payments from the general government sector. There are a number of different mechanisms developing (such as CDM (clean development mechanism, emissions permits and perhaps others in the future) where this one directional payment could limit the inclusion of the transaction.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
In theory, environmentally related subsidies and other transfers (like environmentally related taxes) can be classified according to CEPA and CRUMA. The issue of classifying them according to CEPA/CRUMA (or CEA) is relevant only with respect to data collection. It can also be useful to collect this type of data according to standard industry classifications (ISIC) depending on the types of questions you are trying to answer.
  6. Any other comments?
Terminology is very important and it needs to be used correctly. This paper should refer to "environmentally related transfers" and not simply to "environmentally related subsidies". This should be clearly visible in the title of the chapter within the revised SEEA and in the terminology use throughout the manual.
26/11/2010Latvia/ Central Statistical Bureau1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes we agree all those types of transfers should be included.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Agree, but it may be very difficult in practice to determine main purpose. It should be explained how to deal in situations with subsidies with multiple aims.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes, we think relationship should be explained as detailed possible. At the moment concept of PEDS is very abstract and not clear. For the future clear definitions, and criteria for determination PEDS is needed.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No, we think all subsidies from government sector and rest of world should be taken into account. Probably it should be accounted separately, but excluding totally subsidies/transfers from Rest of world, for example EU institutions and funds, won’t be possible to see correct “picture” on how much environment protection and resource management is subsidised.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Agree
  6. Any other comments?
No
26/11/2010Switzerland/ Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes, we agree on extending the scope. However, the proposed term “Environmentally related subsidies” as well as the term “Environmentally related transfers” are not consistent with the terminology used in the SNA 2008. A third term that does not cause confusion has to be found. If such a solution can not be found we recommend using the term “Environmentally related transfers” instead of “Environmentally related subsidies”.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Rather yes, seeing no better solution and being aware that this may create problems in comparing data across time and across countries.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes, we agree but we propose to include the definition of PEDS which will result from the Eurostat task force that is actually working on such a definition.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No, we don’t agree and propose to include subsidies from the rest of the world but to identify them separately.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
No
26/11/2010France/ Ministry of Ecology1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Agree
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Agree The lack of a definition for PEDs implies there can not be any measure of them on a harmonized base for the time being. However, it should still be considered on a long term perspective. Maybe a reference could be included to vol. 2 (or vol. 3?) where examples and more elements could be presented (excluding a definition).
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Agree
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Agree Both classifications when possible.
24/11/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Although we agree with the principle of combining all transfer payments by government we are not comfortable with the label “environmentally related subsidies. Subsidies have a particular meaning in the SNA and to avoid confusion we hope that a better term can be moderated through the discussions. Further, to fully articulate in the SEEA the role of government in the environment it is necessary to present an analysis where other environmentally related expenditures by government are also taken into account.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes. However there is a need to explain how to classify purpose, particularly when there may be more than one purpose.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes
24/11/2010Republic of Mauritius/ CSO1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
None
24/11/2010United Kingdom/ Office for National Statistics 1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes. However, whilst understanding the point raised in para.19 that “environmentally related transfers” is not appropriate as it may be interpreted to include taxes, a better alternative consistent with the SNA should be considered. “Subsidies” will be interpreted to have the narrower SNA definition.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes, though noting the intention should be clearly stated. It is not for the National Statistics Institute to interpret the intention.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
A definition of PEDS should not be included.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No. Preference would be to allow for inclusion of subsidies from the rest of the world (e.g. EU) but to identify them separately.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes.
24/11/2010Austria/ Statistics Austria1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
We don’t agree to social benefits to households.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes, we agree.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes, in general we agree but propose to include a definition of PEDS as far as possible. A task force of Eurostat is already working on such a definition. After agreement in the task force this definition should be presented in a global consultation like the present and then included into the revised SEEA.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
We don’t agree. There are many countries for which payments from the rest of the world are important, e.g. the member states of the European Union.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes, we agree.
23/11/2010Ecuador/INEC1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes we do, that the subsidies should have a scope in the environment. The definitions are to define subsidies, social benefits to households, other current transfers, investment grants and other transfers of capital are clear and correct.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Ye, we do that subsidies should cover environmental objective even though this is not a priority and should not be ignored by any kind of subsidy even if is objective is the environmental subsidies that can be environmentally harmful.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes we do that subsidies and environmentally harmful subsidies (PEDS) must be explained in the SEEA to so there is a clear definition and outlining the range effects that result from operating activities for the use of resources.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes, we do agree that the subsidies related to the environment should be registered at the government payments but, there must be a limit between the public administrations with the world.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes, we agree that in some cases can be use of ratings as the ECA and CREAM because they have been working on this classifications.
  6. Any other comments?
None
23/11/2010Netherlands/ Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes. Social benefits, like the others mentioned here, should sufficiently be tested and classified either as environmentally motivated or not.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes, but in practice most probably it wouldn’t be sufficient for implementation of all subsidies / subsidy schemes. In practice we faced subsidies that carry two or even few main ‘purposes’. One not prime over the other(s). How to deal in such situations? How to treat multiple purpose schemes, like for example the ones that carry sustainability purpose? Thus those with three or even more dimensions with regard to the ‘purpose’ of the subsidies, not placing one prior to the other(s).
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes. However, we could well imagine that in the end any payment from government body (either international (ROW), general, regional, or local) to industry and/or households / consumers, aiming for environmental protection or RM would be of clear interest in this context.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes, using standard economic classifications would be fine. Using or applying classifications of environmental activities, according to CEPA / CRUMA is very important in our view. Otherwise useability could be hampered, for example for doing cost-effectiveness analysis.
19/11/2010Canada/ Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes, the relationship should be explained. There is a need for further consultation on PEDS.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes.
  6. Any other comments?
No comment.
18/11/2010USA/ Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Yes, with the following caveat. Nothing is said in the outline paper regarding how the “main purpose” should be determined by the statistical agency. This leaves the phrase open to interpretation, and thus international comparisons will be difficult..
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
No. In our view the concept of PEDS is too ambiguous to be included in the SEEA; any reference to it should be omitted.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes.
18/11/2010Denmark/ Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
We suggest that the term subsidies is defined in the same (restricted) way as in SNA 2008. The broader scope including other types of transfers could instead be termed Environmentally related subisidies, etc. or Environmentally related subsidies, social benefits, etc. It is important to maintain a correspondence with the terms used in the SNA. At the same time taxes and subsidies (in the SNA sense) should be seen together, as subsidies are negative taxes .
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
We suggest to use a more consistent categorisation, and naming of the environmentally related subsidies, etc., for instance, as follows: The term Environmentally related subsides, etc. are reserved to define a broad class of subisidies and other tranfers from the government, etc. which includes both 1) (potentially) environmentally benefical and 2) (potentially) environmental damaging subsidies, etc.. Within the first group (1) a distinction can then be made between 1.a) Environmentally motivated subsidies, etc. and 1.b) Others (potentially) environmentally beneficial subsidies, etc. Using this categorisation SEEA volume 1 should then include 1.a) Environmentally motivated subsidies, etc. as part of the standard, but the braoder categorisation could be included as well together with some descriptions of the problems of defining these in practise, and a statement that this is an issue for future research.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Yes, but the categorisation should be extended even further, see suggestion above.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
No, we do not see the need for excluding other sectors. However, transfers from other sectors should be identified seperately. It is especially important to include the subsidies, etc. coming from the Rest of the World (e.g. subsidies from EU-institutions to EU member countries.)
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Yes
18/11/2010Azerbaijan/ State Statistical Committee1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Agree
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
No comments
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
Agree
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Agree
  6. Any other comments?
No comments
18/11/2010Malaysia/ Department of Statistics6. Any other comments?
1. The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) has no experience in developing any environmental account using the SEEA framework. However, DOSM is currently trying to develop one of the SEEA account (eg Water account) with the experience and knowledge gain while visiting Australia Bureau Statistics (ABS), and also with the guide of the SEEA 2003. However DOSM, experience constrains in developing this account with lack of expertise in this field, human resources and budget. 2. DOSM also wants to learn in detail how to develop the SEEA account. Please inform and include us if there is any training/workshop to be conducted in future. 3. Therefore DOSM is unable to contribute fruitful comments for the revision of the SEEA. However, DOSM would like to be involved in further development of this matter.
18/11/2010Philippines/ National Statistical Coordination Board1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA environmentally related subsidies should have a scope that includes the following types of transfers as defined in the 2008 SNA: Subsidies, Social benefits to households, Other current transfers, Investment grants, and Other capital transfers?
Agree, for consistency purposes
  2. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be included where the main purpose or subsidiary purpose of the payment is for environmental protection or resource management?
Agree, it should be specific to environmental protection or resource management and related activities.
  3. Do you agree that the relationship between environmentally related subsidies and potentially environmentally damaging subsidies (PEDS) should be explained in the revised SEEA but that a definition of PEDS should not be included?
Not only a definition is needed but also some discussion on what it is and some examples would be very helpful to compliers and users of the accounts.
  4. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be restricted to payments from the general government sector to all domestic sectors and the rest of the world?
For completeness and usefulness of the accounts, subsidies should not be limited only to those coming from the general government. There should be discussion on what/ who are the sources of subsidies.
  5. Do you agree that environmentally related subsidies should be classified according to standard economic classifications and, where possible, using classifications of environmental activities?
Agree, this is for clarity.
  6. Any other comments?
None
 

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2014