Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Session 2 - Vincent Marcus

3 254 vues

Publié le

Green Budgeting in France

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

Session 2 - Vincent Marcus

  1. 1. Green Budgeting in France Vincent MARCUS Deputy Director of Department of Economics and Policy Evaluation Ministry of Ecological and Inclusive Transition OECD workshop March 17th 2020
  2. 2. 2 Green Budgeting in France 1. Foreword 2. Methodological insights 3. Main results 4. Challenges
  3. 3. 3 1. Foreword  In december 2017, France committed to the Paris Collaborative on Green Budgeting, launched by OECD, to assess the compatibility of its public finance trajectories with the Paris Agreement, and other environmental goals  In 2018, in the aftermath of the « yellow jacket crisis », also a strong demand for transparency and accountability, especially regarding environmental taxation and « harmful » subsidies.  First experiment during 2019 and a methodological report launched in september 2019  The 2020 Budget Bill asked for a full report on the environmental impact of the budget, to be completed in autumn 2020 to feed the parliamentary debate for the 2021 budget bill => this is what we are currently doing...
  4. 4. 4 2. Methodology (1/3) • Overall objective : classify budgetary and fiscal expenditures according to their environmental impacts 3 / Very favourable : environmentally targeted expenses 2 / Favourable : no explicit environmental target, but indirect positive impact 1 / Favourable but controversial (e.g short term favourable effects but presence of a long term technology lock-in risk ) 0 / Neutral : no significant impact or no information -1 / Unfavourable : environmentally harmful expenditure
  5. 5. 5 2. Methodology (2/3) Environmental impacts assessed along the six objectives of the European taxonomy regulation Climate Change mitigation Climate Change Adaptation Water resources management Circular economy and risk prevention Pollution abatement Biodiversity and sustainable land use
  6. 6. 6 2. Methodology (3/3) • To assess the impact, a counterfactual must be chosen : what if… ? • Not a full-fledged quantitative ex-post impact assessment • Rather a qualitative assessment on expected impacts, based on existing studies and scientific references • Examples • Transport : the counterfactual is the current infrastructure and traffic (mainly road) : mitigation impacts of others modes are assessed in comparison with average emission of road traffic • Energy : the counterfactual is the current energy mix. • Housing : Differentiated impacts among housing, along their impacts in terms of land consumption. Counterfactual scenario for new housing is debatable in terms of mitigation effects. • General transfers (towards households or firms) are considered as neutral
  7. 7. 7 3. Results : a multi-dimensional score
  8. 8. 8 3. Out of 337 bn€, most are neutral and… 33 - 36 30 25 19 - 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Dépenses – Mds € PLF 2019EUR bn  At least once favourable  Once favourable without harming other objectives  At least once unfavourable expenses  Unfavourable without being favourable to other objectives Perimeter : Agriculture, Ecology, Research, Housing and Regional Development, 2019
  9. 9. 9 3. €35bn of favourable expenditures • €9.7bn of energy expenditures, among which • € 7.3bn for renewable energy development • €9.5bn of transport expenditures, among which • € 4.3bn for new rail infrastructures • € 1.0bn for collective transport systems • € 0.6bn for low emission vehicles aids • €6.2bn of research expenditures • €5.4bn of environment expenditures (among which € 2.0bn for water management) Perimeter : Agriculture, Ecology, Research, Housing and Regional Development, 2019 Agriculture EUR 2.1bn Housing EUR 2.7 to 3bn Energy and industry EUR 9.6 to 9.7bn Research EUR 6.2bn Transport EUR 7.3 to 9.5bn Environment EUR 5,4bn Others EUR 0.1bn
  10. 10. 10 3. € 25 bn of unfavourable expenditures • €15.2bn of fiscal expenditures: • € 12.2bn for exemptions or reduced rates on fuel tax (air transport, sea transport, road transport, taxis, LPG), • € 1.3bn for reduced rate of electricity tax on electricity for electro- intensive sites, • € 1.3bn of tax expenses relating to new housing • €5.9bn of transport expenditures: • € 0.7 bn of new road and airport infrastructures • € 5.2bn of new rail infrastructures that cause land consumption and impact biodiversity Perimeter : Agriculture, Ecology, Research, Housing and Regional Development, 2019 Transport infrastructures EUR 5.9bn Operation expenditures (fuel, etc.) EUR 1.2bn Research EUR 0.4 bn Others EUR 0.1bn Fiscal Expenditures EUR 15.2bn Overseas energy compensations EUR 1.6bn
  11. 11. 11 4. Challenges ahead • Governance and stakeholders involvement • The sole analysis of the budget bill is not sufficient to evaluate the compliance of national policy with international climate and environment commitments • Environmental regulations are not included in the scope of the budget bill • To fulfill the ecological transition, not only government expenses, but also private sector and local authorities expenses must be made compatible with environmental and climate commitments • Impacts assessment : • Scoring must be regularly updated with better impact evaluation=> work in progress • The green budget does not evaluate the efficiency of environmental expenses => long-term additional work needed • International comparisons are a challenge and may not be feasible • Counterfactual scenarios are very technology-dependant or nationally-driven • Fiscal expenditures, as defined in budgetary documents (“standard” tax level), can be very misleading in terms of international comparisons
  12. 12. Thank you !

×