Annexes., URL: Mentation Guidelines.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STUDY SUPPORTING THE PHASING OUT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL SUBSIDIES Annexes to Final Report October 2012 Project Number: 07.0307/2011/611259/ENV.F.1 The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Institute for Environmental Studies - Vrije Universiteit (IVM) Ecologic Institute Vision on Technology (VITO) ANNEX I: EHS CASES IN EU MEMBER STATES ..................................................................... 4 1 AGRICULTURE ........................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Eligibility criteria for CAP Pillar 1 direct payments in the UK ..................................................... 4 1.2 Reduced fuel excise duty for diesel used in agricultural machinery .......................................... 8 1.3 Subsidies contributing to unsustainable land use and soil sealing in France .......................... 11 2 CLIMATE AN ENERGY ............................................................................................ 19 2.1 Limited liability for nuclear energy producers in Germany ..................................................... 19 2.2 Preferential treatment for the hard coal mining industry in Poland ....................................... 24 2.3 Support for biofuels in Sweden ................................................................................................ 28 2.4 Feed-in tariff for electricity generated by cogeneration in Estonia ......................................... 40 3 FISHERIES ................................................................................................................ 44 3.1 Subsidies for the modernisation of fishing vessels in Denmark .............................................. 44 3.2 Subsidies for vessel scrapping in Spain .................................................................................... 49 4 FOOD ...................................................................................................................... 54 4.1 Reduced VAT rate for food in Luxembourg ....................................................................... 54 5 FORESTRY ............................................................................................................... 58 5.1 Subsidies to improve forestry on peat lands in Finland ........................................................... 58 5.2 Exemption from land tax for reforestation and afforestation on wetlands in France .......... 62 6 MATERIALS ............................................................................................................. 68 6.1 Indirect subsidy to rock extraction in Malta ............................................................................ 68 7 TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................ 74 7.1 Tax deductions for commuters in Austria ................................................................................ 74 7.2 Absence of road pricing for freight and passenger transport in the Netherlands ................... 77 7.3 Company car taxation in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom ........................ 84 7.4 Car fleet renewal schemes in Germany ................................................................................. 112 8 WASTE .................................................................................................................. 115 8.1 Reduced environmental charge rate for waste incineration in Flanders, Belgium ............... 115 8.2 Incomplete producer responsibility for WEEE in Slovenia ..................................................... 118 8.3 Feed-in tariffs for the generation of energy from waste incineration and landfill gas in Czech Republic, Hungary and Portugal ............................................................................................. 123 8.4 Subsidies for the construction of waste incineration plants in Poland.................................. 130 9 WATER .................................................................................................................. 137 9.1 Reduced VAT rate for drinking water in Greece .................................................................... 137 2 9.2 Irrigation subsidies in Cyprus, Spain and Italy........................................................................ 139 9.3 Implicit subsidy to the use of nitrogen-rich fertilisers in agriculture in France ..................... 148 ANNEX II: EHS REFORM CASES IN EU MEMBER STATES .................................................. 155 1 Elimination of reduced excise tax rate for diesel used in agricultural machinery in the Netherlands ................................................................................................................................ 155 2 Reduction of energy tax exemptions for companies in Germany.............................................. 158 3 Reduction of exemptions from energy and CO 2 taxes for certain fossil fuels in Sweden .......... 162 4 Aggregates levy and landfill tax on construction and demolition waste in the UK ................... 170 5 Income tax deductions for commuters in the Netherlands ....................................................... 179 6 Reform of car registration tax system in Flanders (Belgium) ..................................................... 183 7 Road charging in Austria ............................................................................................................ 189 8 Pay-as-you-throw schemes in Italy ............................................................................................ 196 9 Reform of water pricing in the Czech Republic .......................................................................... 202 10 Water abstraction charges in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) ........................................... 208 3 ANNEX I: EHS CASES IN EU MEMBER STATES Key: There are no particular problems relating to the criteria. There are some concerns with this particular criteria and further attention is useful. It is not, however, an over-riding problem suggesting a pressing need for reform. There are significant concerns with respect to the criteria and further attention is needed. The negative impacts suggest a need for attention or reform. Note on the use of colour coding: • The colour tabs highlight areas where concerns relating to a particular aspect of a subsidy have been identified in our analysis. The decision as to whether a subsidy merits reform should build on the complete picture across the different aspects of the subsidy and a careful analysis of the pros and cons of potential reform options. For additional detail on the analysis of each case study see Annex I. • For cases where the subsidy is related to cases of non-action (e.g. lack of resource pricing), the categories of ‘objectives’ and ‘design’ are noted as ‘red’ if there is a major conflict with other objectives and ‘orange’ if it is sub-optimal from a signalling perspective. 1 AGRICULTURE 1.1 Eligibility criteria for CAP Pillar 1 direct payments in the UK EHS De scription Brief description of The interpretation and implementation of eligibility criteria for CAP subsidy Pillar 1 Direct Payments (Single Payment Scheme) leads to the exclusion of the most environmentally interesting agricultural land (which tends to be farmed least intensively) on eligibility grounds (the administration's approach), or the removal of 'unproductive' scrub (the farmer's approach). This is partly a result of the ambiguity about what the subsidy is for (the Single Payment Scheme seeks to meet several objectives) and the ultra-cautious approach of both national CAP administrators (Defra in the UK) and farmers who know that any 'errors' which are uncovered by an audit will result in payment disqualification (for the MS) and repayments/fines for farmers. Economic type Direct transfer of funds – interpretation of eligibility criteria Sector Agriculture Member State UK Other Member A similar issue is found in many parts of the EU due to State(s) where the administrative and regulatory loopholes that complicate the subsidy exists eligibility of semi-natural farmland in Pillar 1 direct payments (e.g. BG, EE, SE, RO, and SL) which leads to active environmental damage to make land eligible for payments or to land abandonment. Nature and unit size In the UK there are issues around the criteria setting out what land of subsidy is eligible for the Single Payment Scheme (SPS). There continue to be grey areas, where the potential ineligibility of certain semi- natural habitats or features has led to farmers erring on the side of 4 caution and removing them in some instances to avoid the risk of payments being withheld or clawed back at a later date. This can be seen as an environmentally harmful interpretation in the implementation of the SPS in the UK. CAP Pillar 1 payments provide per hectare payments to farmers. Values vary between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, due to the different parameters under which the value of Single Farm Payments is established annually. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, per hectare payments are still based on historic receipts; in England, where payments are no longer related to historic production, payments are as follows for 2011 claim year: Non Specially Disadvantaged Areas (SDA): EUR289.94/ha; SDA: EUR 233.95/ha; Moorland SDA: EUR40.82/ha. The Specially Disadvantaged Areas are a sub-category of the EU Less favoured Areas. Legal basis and The SPS is paid on an