EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEUROSTAT

Directorate E: Sectoral and Regional StatisticsUnit E-2: Environmental statistics and accounts; sustainable development

Doc. ENV_MESA_WG_2018_02

WORKING GROUP MONETARY ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS AND ACCOUNTS

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE 4-5 MAY 2017 MEETING

1

JOINT MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUPS ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTS AND MONETARY ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS AND

ACCOUNTS

Luxembourg, 4 May 2017

1. Approval of the agenda and of the minutes of previous meetingThe working group adopted the agenda and the minutes of the previous meeting.

2. Nature of the meetingThe meeting was not open to the public. However, the minutes of the meeting will be publicly available.

3. List of points discussed

Item 3: Strategic orientations

Item 3.1 Eurostat priorities and planned activities for 2017 and 2018

Presentation

Eurostat presented its main priorities for 2017 and 2018, which are in line with the ESEA 2014-2018. The top priority is successfully undertaking the first mandatory collections of the new modules on PEFA, EGSS and EPEA. Other priority areas are: consolidate production of the 1st set of modules, improve quality (in particular timeliness), contribute to monitoring the EU policies, develop methodology and new areas of work and contribute to the following: CES work on climate change statistics, KIP INCA and international work on SEEA standards.

Discussion

Some delegates asked about the preparation of the next ESEA, and in particular about water accounts. One delegate reminded that resource shortages in countries undermine an ambitious plan. Eurostat explained that a first draft of the next ESEA will be discussed in the 2018 meeting of the working group, before seeking endorsement by DIMESA in October 2018 and adoption by the ESSC in late 2018 or early 2019. The next ESEA will ensure continuity and be ambitious in a few areas while keeping in mind resource concerns in Member States.

Conclusions

The working group took note of the priorities and planned activities by Eurostat for 2017 and 2018, and of the plans for drafting the next ESEA.

Item 3.2 SEEA CF research agenda work

Presentation

2

Eurostat briefly outlined the SEEA CF research agenda, the list of topics and the process to advance in those topics. Eurostat sketched the way forward for the topics for which Eurostat is in the lead. Those plans are further developed under other agenda items. This includes in particular a group of issues touching aspects about the CReMA classification, revision of CEPA and ReMEA; integrated framework for monetary environmental accounts, IO techniques and developing DSDs for global SEEA databases.

Discussion

Participants asked to take into consideration also the valuation of adapted goods and climate change adaptation.

Conclusions

The working group thanked Eurostat for the good lead in Europe about those methodological issues.

Item 3.3 Policy developments

Presentation by DG ENV

DG Environment (DG ENV) presented the key policy developments in EU environment policy since the last WG meeting, with a specific focus on the ones related to monitoring activities. The 2050 vision and the nine priority objectives of the 7 th Environment Action Programme are valid until 2020: these objectives are mutually supportive each other. On Circular Economy the Commission adopted (in January 2017) an implementation report, presenting the initiatives launched in 2016; among the initiatives foreseen in 2017 is a monitoring framework on circular economy, which proposal has been presented to MSs for comments. Following to the positive results of the 2016 Fitness check on nature legislation, in April 2017 the Commission adopted an Action plan for nature, people and the economy; work is ongoing on Natural Capital Accounting. In November 2016 the Commission adopted a package on SDG implementation in the EU, which also addresses the need of monitoring EU progress on the SDGs:  the Commission has been working on developing a EU set of SDG indicators (in consultation with MS and stakeholders), which will be the basis for the first EU SDG monitoring report to be published by end 2017. In February 2017 the Commission has adopted the Communication on the Environment Implementation Review, which is accompanied by a set of 28 Country Reviews (also including key indicators and data); a series of dialogues with MS have started, in view of discussing MS specificities in Environmental law implementation. The Fitness check of monitoring and reporting obligations in environmental policy is ongoing and will be adopted in the coming months.

Presentation by DG CLIMA

DG Climate Action (DG CLIMA) presented current policy developments, focusing on three legislative proposals of relevance to achievement of the 2030 climate and energy targets. The proposal for an Effort Sharing Regulation translates the agreed non-ETS emissions reductions of 30 per cent in 2030 relative to 2005, into individual binding targets for Member States. The legislative proposal to integrate greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use-change and forestry (LULUCF) into the 2030 climate and energy framework establishes an accounting system for emissions and

3

absorption of CO2 from the LULUCF sector and sets a binding commitment for each Member State to ensure that accounted emissions from land use are entirely compensated by an equivalent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through action in the sector, what is known as the "no debit rule." The proposal for a reliable and transparent Governance of the Energy Union aims to ensure policy coherence, investment certainty, improved coordination between Member States and reduced administrative burden. It sets out the requirements for integrated national energy and climate plans and a streamlined and inclusive process to establish them, as well as reporting and monitoring obligations for Member States and the Commission.

Item 4 Circular economy

Item 4.1 Monitoring framework for the circular economy

Presentation

The Secretariat-General of the Commission presented the draft monitoring framework for the circular economy. A set of 10 indicators is proposed. The ambition is to cover the different aspects of the circular economy and using as much as possible already existing data as to avoid increasing the reporting obligations of the Member States. One fiche for each indicator was developed (Annexed to doc ENV/ACC-MESA/WG/04.1(2017)) stating definitions, data sources, quality considerations, etc. The Commission is consulting Member States in some expert groups, among them the WG environmental accounts.

Discussion

The participants welcomed the initiative and having a limited set of indicators. It was noted that there may be too many indicators about recycling and not enough about other aspects of circular economy. The Commission acknowledged but noted that this is a consequence of the principle of using existing data sources. It was proposed to have more emphasis on resource efficiency or resource use. There were some concerns about the advancement of the statistical work on green public procurements and food waste. France noted it has a recent national publication on circular economy.1

There were several comments specific to indicators 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, among them: to consider for indicator 3a total waste excluding major mineral waste based on the waste statistics Regulation instead of municipal waste; prioritise for indicator 3b either comparability across countries or each country's trend; for indicator 3c reconsider the interpretation of the indicator and the exclusion of major mineral waste; for indicator 5 better define 'recycled' and explain it in the metadata; for indicator 6 explain in the metadata that it does not measure exactly packaging and consider why paper packaging is not included; for indicator 7 reconsider the focus on end-of-life supplementing it with another indicator, e.g. the indicator discussed in agenda item 4.2.

Conclusions

The Commission thanked the working group for the constructive and useful feedback provided in the meeting. It will be used to improve the indicator set. Members are invited

1 http://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/publications/p/2669/1539/10-indicateurs-cles-suivi-leconomie-circulaire-edition-2017.html

4

to send additional written comments to Eurostat by Friday 2 June. The national representatives in the working group on Integrated Product Policy / Sustainable Consumption and Production and in the working group on Resource Efficiency have been asked to liaise with the members of the WG environmental accounts to provide co-ordinated feedback.

Item 4.2 Proposal of indicator on cyclical material use rate

Presentation

Eurostat presented a proposal for production/dissemination of an indicator on cyclical material use rate, based on existing European statistics. Eurostat asked comments on the proposed methodology and in particular express preferences with regards to the following methodological choices:

scope of waste recovery operations to be taken into account;

deducting amounts of imported waste from DMI;

adjustments for imports/exports of secondary raw materials.

Discussion

Quality of COMEXT trade statistics (used for adjustments) is not always satisfactory. In addition COMEXT might be incomplete to quantify the entire amount of waste and secondary material crossing borders.

A number of countries proposed to exclude from the indicator (or show separately) those waste amounts that are used for backfilling as well as those waste amounts recovered with energy recovery. It was questioned whether to include hazardous waste or not.

The adjustment by imports/exports of secondary materials (i.e. supply perspective versus use perspective) is up to be decided by users of this indicator (and not by statisticians) as it depends on whether a supply side or demand side is intended.

A breakdown of the indicator by four main material categories was considered to be problematic due to weak correspondence between waste stream classes and material flow categories.

Due to cross-country variance of the indicator, it may be considered to use it only for overtime performance of single countries (i.e. no cross-country-comparison).

DG GROW announced a consultation of this indicator in its working group on raw materials (meeting on 18 May 2017).

Conclusions

The working group welcomed in general the proposed methodology for an indicator on cyclical material use rate and encouraged Eurostat to continue with this work with the aim to produce and disseminate this statistical product. The working group does not recommend any breakdown by main material categories.

Item 5 Implementation of a standard for environmental accounts data transmissions

Presentation

5

Eurostat reviewed some key concepts of SDMX, including the data structure definitions (DSDs) and reminded countries of the 3 possible technical approaches to create SDMX files. Eurostat explained the 2 SDMX validation services at Eurostat (STRUVAL and CONVAL) and corresponding validation reports being tested. Eurostat reported progress of the tests for EW-MFA, AEA and environmental taxes with eight volunteer countries and explained the next steps for those tests in 2017 and 2018. The first SDMX transmission on voluntary basis will be possible in 2018. Completing this migration will take a few years.

Eurostat also reported international activities to set up DSDs for global SEEA databases. Some of the priority modules are PEFA, EW-MFA and AEA. Eventually, those global DSDs may also be used for transmissions in the ESS.

Discussion

Countries participating in the tests were positive. Some of these countries requested that transmitting partial totals is not mandatory. Those partial totals require extra work in the countries and are burdensome. Eurostat explained that the partial totals are used as an additional layer of checks but they can be dropped if countries want so.

Conclusions

The working group took note of the activities to prepare the changeover to SDMX transmissions. Eurostat thanked countries participating in the tests. The intermediate aggregates will be dropped.We are seeking a smooth and efficient changeover Work will continue as scheduled. The plan is to be ready for the 2018 data collection (an early transmission will be possible)

Item 6 Quality reports for EPEA, EGSS and PEFA

Presentation

Eurostat reminded that quality reports are necessary for the first mandatory collections of EPEA, EGSS and PEFA in 2017. The voluntary exercises in previous years did not have any quality report. Eurostat has prepared template quality reports for EPEA, EGSS and PEFA, based on the ESS standards for quality reporting ESQRS v2.0. The templates focus on compilation methods, source data and validation at NSIs, as well as covering other quality aspects, and they seek to limit the burden on reporting countries. Eurostat proposed that the 2017 quality reports are compiled in Excel and transmitted via EDAMIS, with a deadline 3 months after the deadline for data transmission. Earlier transmission is welcome to avoid unnecessary questions to countries during Eurostat data validation. Eurostat announced a gradual, orderly transition to transmissions using the ESS metadata handler for EPEA, EGSS and PEFA in the next years. The changeover of quality reports for AEA, EW-MFA and environmental taxes to the ESS metadata handler will take place afterwards.

Discussion

The working group agreed with the templates proposed by Eurostat for quality reports for EPEA, EGSS and PEFA. The structure is logical and the contents comprehensive. A few small errors were identified and will be corrected. A few countries asked about open source alternatives to Excel or alternatives more adequate for reporting long texts (such

6

as MS Word); Eurostat explained that Excel is a temporary solution and it is suitable to migrate the information to the ESS metadata handler.

There were questions about possible future dissemination of the quality reports to users and how countries should describe information with the double purpose of Eurostat validation and to inform users. Eurostat explained that after the migration to the ESS metadata handler it will be technically possible to publish all or parts of the quality reports. For the moment the quality reports will not be published beyond CIRCABC.

Finally, there were questions about how to report the scope of EGSS in the quality reports (i.e. which products and activities are above thresholds of national relevance). Eurostat explained that this matter has not been further developed since the last discussion in the working group; it is a pending issue.

Conclusions

EPEA, EGSS and PEFA need quality reports. The working group agreed the templates proposed, which can be fine-tuned in the next years the light of the experience learnt. In 2017 the reports will be filled in Excel and transmitted via EDAMIS with a deadline of 3 months after the transmission of the data. This will be a flexible start to prepare the changeover to the ESS metadata handler. For the moment the quality reports will not be published beyond CIRCABC. This matter will be discussed by the working group in the future.

Item 7 Improving the use of the environmental accounts

Presentation

This was a special session devoted to debate the use of the environmental accounts, in particular among institutional users, and how to improve. This was a follow-up of the discussion in the 2016 meeting of the working group. Whereas compilers of the accounts focus their efforts to set up environmental accounts datasets and much progress has been achieved, there has been relatively less progress in the communication and dissemination of environmental accounts.

The session consisted of six short presentations followed by a debate:

Sweden and the Netherlands explained who are the users of environmental accounts and some policy applications of SEEA with a focus on energy transition and circular economy policy topics.

Austria, Denmark and Estonia presented three national projects relevant for this discussion. Austria presented the 2011 and 2015 reports 'Resource use in Austria' as examples of a successful cooperation between policymakers, academia and the NSI; Denmark presented waste accounts and IO modelling as an example of the potential of environmental accounts for analysis; Estonia presented an analysis of the effectiveness of the implementation of ecological tax reform (competitiveness, equity across sectors, tax burden) as an example of analysis for policymakers and visualisation techniques.

The European Environmental Agency presented plans for the report 2020 European environment state and outlook (SOER), in preparation. It will

7

complement a classical thematic analysis with a cross-cutting perspective (focused on NCA, human wellbeing, health). The presentation addressed how environmental accounts can contribute as sources for this report.

The subsequent debate addressed a number of issues, among others:

Importance of reliable, high quality data: develop data targeted to policy issues; IO techniques can provide new insights (albeit IO analysis is hard to communicate); sector analysis and other analytical approaches; learn from pilots and adjust data offer;

Involve the users: cooperate with other institutions, in particular in joint publications; talk to your users and listen to them; participate in seminars and conferences; establish a user advisory board; liaise with the research community;

Invest in communication: show the users how useful the accounts can be; update your website frequently, e.g. with news, bulletins and articles; complement regular dissemination products with non-regular ones; reuse existing data in new dissemination products; deliver messages with graphs and visualisation techniques; make data tools (e.g. Excel sheets) available to let users play with the data; present the environment issues not as a cost for the economy but as an opportunity for benefits;

Other measures, e.g. university courses on environmental accounting build in the long term a community of practicing.

Item 8 2017 Eurostat grants on environmental accounts

Presentation

Eurostat reminded of the 2017 call for environmental accounts grants, which was launched in April. The deadline for applications is 9 June.

Conclusions

The working group took note of the 2017 grants call.

Item 9 Any Other Business

There were no points under this item.

8

WORKING GROUP MONETARY ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS AND ACCOUNTS

Luxembourg, 5 May 2017

3. List of points discussed (cont.)

Item 1: Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts (EPEA)

Items 1.1 Progress report on data collection and 1.2 Country presentations by Italy and Spain

Presentation

Eurostat presented progress on EPEA since the 2016 working group meeting, including the results of the 2016 data collection (including data validation and Eurostat dissemination), the publication of the new EPEA handbook and plans for the 2017 data collection.

Italy presented the methodology developed for compiling EPEA accounts. First, changes from the Joint Questionnaire. It was raised the importance of interaction with core national accounts, in the perspective of developing an integrated approach. National accounts are a major data source (mostly COFOG) but also EPEA provides feedback to national accounts. For table 1 (general government), since COFOG data are the main source, timing is an issue insofar updated data are made available after the deadline for data reporting. Checks are undertaken on COFOG codes along with the corresponding budget items. The findings of this work are then transmitted to regional administrations and ministries. For table 2 investments related to the production of EP services are derived using the share of output of EP services in total output. As regards the split of intermediate consumption of EP services between general government and corporations the compilation leads to an underestimation for government and an overestimation for corporations. Work is ongoing to develop estimates on intermediate consumption of EP services by corporation, ancillary output, transfers (in particular paid by EU). It is planned to publish soon EPEA results in the data warehouse.

Spain presented its experience for developing EPEA. A major role is played by the survey on industry expenditure on environmental protection expenditure providing results since 2000. For table 1, COFOG data are only data source mobilised. For corporations (tables 2 and 3) supply and use table is used for NACE 37-39. Split between government and corporations is realised with COFOG data. For transfers, Spain uses three types of sources: COFOG, EU Funds and LIFE program. This raises a problem of consolidation between sources. It is planned to publish the results are published in the public database (INEbase) and to develop further estimates.

Discussion

Some questions were raised about the estimation of investments, the identification of waste as a product (possibility for distinguishing the service part?) and the organisation of the production system. As regards the latter, Italy and Spain mentioned it was a goal to develop an automated and standardised process. Italy was asked to what extent it is

9

possible to make automatic the estimation procedures; a fully automatic procedure is a challenge but it is possible to limit human intervention. Spain had specific questions for Eurostat that will be considered after the meeting.

Conclusions

The working group welcomed the progress made on the data collection and the release of the handbook. The working group thanked Italy and Spain for their presentations. We are generally well prepared for the first mandatory collection. Countries are also strongly encouraged to complete voluntary information. It is possible to apply for grants for the voluntary parts. A presentation on production systems may be considered for the meeting next year.

Item 2 Environmental goods and services sector (EGSS) Accounts

Item 2.1 Progress report on data collection and 2.2 Country presentation by Austria

Presentation

Eurostat provided an overview of the EGSS data availability following the 2016 data collection and informed the Working Group about progress in the validation of countries' EGSS returns. Eurostat also recalled that the use of confidentiality flags should be strictly limited to the instances defined under the statistical confidentiality principle and the relevant observations should be disclosed in the country data returns. Eurostat also reported on main developments relating to EGSS data dissemination, including the recent release of the EU EGSS estimates for 2000-2014, and the new unit of measure for the country EGSS data available on Eurobase: EUR chain-linked volumes. Eurostat mentioned the publication of the EGSS Handbook and the EGSS Practical Guide.

As regards the 2017 EGSS data collection, Eurostat recalled the deadline for and the scope of the mandatory data reporting and requested further work on the quality of estimates for the mandatory variables. Eurostat invited the data compilers to transmit the EGSS data ahead of the legal deadline and to send the completed quality report alongside the data transmission. Moreover, it strongly encouraged the countries to: (i) extend the coverage of the data transmissions to optional variables and breakdowns, and (ii) send longer time series with early estimates of the (n-1) data where available. In order to speed up the EGSS data publication, Eurostat also intends to reflect on possible modifications to the EGSS questionnaire to facilitate its completion and to streamline the data validation procedure.

Statistics Austria reviewed the development of the national EGSS data collection, resources devoted to this end and availability of the EGSS data for national purposes and for reporting to Eurostat. It also presented the most recent results for a number of indicators. Subsequently, it described sources and methods used for the data compilation, explaining in detail the approach followed to produce the data on non-market and ancillary output of the EGSS products. Statistics Austria presented also the checks undertaken to validate the data outputs and test their plausibility, and informed of the steps taken to improve coherence between EGSS and EPEA datasets. Moreover, it indicated the few matters necessitating further improvements and pointed to the issues that needed to be further discussed with Eurostat and other EGSS data compilers. It

10

closed its presentation by outlining the work plan for the 2017/2018 data compilation cycle and it informed the Working Group of the key users of the EGSS data in Austria.

Discussion

Overall, Eurostat's validation feedback was considered very relevant; countries acknowledged, however, the necessity to speed up the validation process and release the EGSS data as early as possible after the transmission deadline. One Member State mentioned problems with completion of the questionnaire with 'not applicable' and 'not available' codes and enquired whether mandatory and optional reporting items could not be separated for the submission of data in SDMX format. Eurostat clarified that mandatory and voluntary variables will be transmitted together in SDMX format but the processing rules will differ.

At request of one of the countries, Eurostat clarified that chain-linked volumes were calculated and published at individual country level on Eurobase and outlined briefly the method employed for the calculations. Eurostat also offered to provide further information on a bilateral basis.

Austria was asked a number of questions about the sources and EGSS data use. Statistics Austria confirmed the STS data is processed at an individual enterprise level for EGSS data compilation. It also offered a reference to a survey from which EGSS data on services sector are sourced. Finally, it shared the remark of Statistics Sweden that the changeover to the national accounts concepts from business statistics perspective might be demanding for the users. In Austria, no solution for merging the two approaches was, however, devised. The users have adopted their needs and all relevant questions were answered by Statistics Austria on a bilateral basis.

Conclusions

The working group acknowledged the progress in availability of the EGSS data following the 2016 data collection, in terms of the number of countries reporting the EGSS data and the length of time series. The working group welcomed the new manuals. The working group also took note of Eurostat plans for the 2017 EGSS data collection. Early availability of data for reference year (n-1) for some countries was noted, and their reporting to Eurostat within the regular data transmissions was encouraged. Efforts must be sustained to enhance the data quality before their first mandatory reporting to Eurostat. Flagging of confidential data is an issue; it should be properly used to protect the confidentiality of reporting units. Moreover, the working group encouraged the countries to send the EGSS data as early as possible and to compile longer time series; Eurostat grants are available.

Item 2.3 EGSS operational lists – results of the February 2017 consultation and proposed way-forward

Presentation

Eurostat summarised the February 2017 consultation on the EGSS operational list. It also proposed the way-forward for an update and further development of the list for the purpose of the EGSS data compilation, and to facilitate the country experience sharing, notably with regard to the estimation of ‘EGSS shares’.

11

Eurostat thanked the working group for the feedback provided in the consultation. Based on the survey’s results, A majority agrees to discuss the need for an update of the EGSS operational list on a regular basis. Once the update has been agreed by the Working Group, Eurostat intends to implement the necessary adjustments to the list and provide the updated version to the EGSS data compilers.

Eurostat also invited the national compilers to share the information on the weights applied to the specific items and groupings of classifications of activities and products contained in the EGSS operational list, where possible. Finally, Eurostat indicated its intention to further investigate how the EGSS operational list could be used for determining the scope of EPEA, and eventually ReMEA and to report to the Working Group on its findings once available.

Conclusions

The Working Group took note of the results of the consultation on the EGSS operational list and supported the way forward for an update of the EGSS operational lists.

Item 3 Integrated framework for monetary environmental accounts

Presentation

After having used the improved terminology agreed by the working group in the new handbooks on EGSS and EPEA, Eurostat proposed scenarios for streamlining the modules. This is a long term process. It is proposed to proceed as follows: countries can adjust and align their estimation methods (Eurostat offers grants), experience can be built about benefits and costs, and an improved methodology can be proposed. It may be used in future revisions of SEEA CF. Adjusting the Eurostat questionnaire and/or the legal basis would come later.

Eurostat presented two not self-excluding scenarios for streamlining the modules. In particular scenario A should have negative net costs (i.e. the benefits immediately overcome the adjustment costs). The level of ambition of each scenario can be set higher or lower. A debate was sought about the level of ambition preferred.

Discussion

Some countries explained they are de facto applying some of the Eurostat proposals with good results i.e., creating economies, efficient production procedures, better data quality, etc.

Some participants stated that their scarce resources limit their choices.

Some participants were interested about possible future changes in the questionnaires or in the Regulation. Some countries prefer to focus on implementation of the data collections before considering changes.

Conclusions

The working group welcomed the discussion. It is moving in a promising direction. The approach proposed builds around improvements in the production systems, practical efficiencies and reduce costs. Eurostat emphasised the importance that countries undertake tests. There are no changes in the questionnaires nor in the Regulation yet.

12

Item 4 Task Force on the classification of environmental activities

Presentation

Eurostat explained background to the envisaged review of the functional classifications of environmental activities. It pointed to an opportunity to draw upon practical experience of the recent EGSS and EPEA data collections in the short-term and address outstanding conceptual and practical matters at an early stage. It also recalled a need for a standard comprehensive integrated functional classification for monetary environmental accounts, which would support the production of policy-relevant, comparable and coherent monetary environmental accounts across the EU and advance the work on relevant items of the SEEA CF Research Agenda. Eurostat acknowledged that the latter would be feasible only in the long-term perspective.

Eurostat proposed to establish a task force on the review of functional classifications of environmental activities, and presented the primary purpose of the task force, the priorities for its work in the short-term and its long-term objectives and possible implications. It also briefly mentioned the procedure envisaged for engaging the global statistical community and other stakeholders as regards this topic in the SEEA CF Research Agenda.

Eurostat requested feedback on the draft mandate and its endorsement. It also invited the delegates volunteer to the task force. Eurostat also asked to share national experiences about the use of the classifications in practice and on how classifications can improve the relevance of the monetary environmental accounts for policy making purposes.

Discussion

The delegates expressed their support for the task force and its mandate. It was pointed out that the review of the classifications would be a proper starting point for the changeover towards an integrated system of the monetary environmental accounts. The need for a common approach for the use of classification for policy purposes was highlighted and the possibility to improve the international comparability was welcomed.

Two participants considered that the task force could build upon or bring forward their national on-going or recently completed projects on the development of the resource management expenditure accounts. One country offered its experience with the review of the national accounts classifications, and another one pointed to their work on classifications of environmental activities to determine the scope of circular economy.

Some participants volunteered to participate in the work of the task force, albeit some indicated possible problems to attend the meetings. Alternative options, including the use of videoconference, contributions in writing, participation in only some meetings or hosting some of the meetings in countries different from Luxembourg were suggested.

Eurostat welcomed the contributions and underlined, that, in order to deliver the expected outputs in a timely manner, the task force would need to be composed of a stable group of experts with a high level of commitment.

Conclusions

13

The working group agreed the formation of the Task Force, acknowledged the need to distinguish between its short-term and long-term objectives and appreciated the opportunity to review and improve the policy relevance of the functional classifications of environmental activities.

The working group noted the interest expressed at the meeting by several countries to participate in the Task Force. A core group of task members should be established, supported by other countries willing to contribute.

Item 5 Environmental taxes

Item 5.1 Progress report on data collection

Presentation

Eurostat presented the main results of the 2016 data collection on environmental taxes by economic activities (the fourth under Regulation N° 691/2011). 35 countries participated, identical number as the previous year. All Member States provided figures allocated by economic activities. More countries (23 compared to 15 in the previous collection) reported data on CO2 taxes. Eurostat published the results in March 2017.

More efforts are necessary to extend the scope of reporting (i.e. early reporting of 2016 data), estimate revenue coming from non-residents and to ensure a full consistency with the national tax list (NTL). The WG was encouraged to send filled questionnaires ahead of transmission deadline.

Discussion

Two points were raised: Firstly, the problem of reporting taxes which are legally environmental taxes but classified by national accountants for internal purposes as normal commercial transactions (especially in the area of resource abstraction). These taxes are not included in the NTL and environmental accounts cannot convince national accounts to include it. How should cases like this be treated in the future and how should taxes be treated which are clearly identified by civil society as taxes but are intended by government for specific purposes and revenues are collected by other institutions? The second point was the difficulty to identify CO2 taxes by name, especially when several taxes are merged into one category.

Conclusions

The working group noted this is a well-developed area of environmental accounts. On the issue of interpretation of results, we have to align to the ESA 2010 definition of a tax but there is still need for further development. Eurostat National Accounts is currently examining treatment of resource related payments. If a specific treatment of these payments is agreed, countries have to follow the same definition in order to ensure data comparability. Eurostat will further follow this process and possibly further discuss bilaterally.

Item 5.2 Recording of taxes paid by non-residents: country practices

Presentation

Eurostat reminded that the estimation of taxes paid by non-residents is one methodological challenge of the module environmental taxes. Still numerous countries

14

cannot provide an estimate for this item: 16 out of 35 respondent countries in the 2016 data collection. However taxes paid by non-residents are specified by the Regulation 691/2011 as an item to be reported for each category of tax. The Eurostat statistical guide on environmental taxes specifies non-residents tax payments include taxes paid as by households as by corporations and foreign governments (e.g. military bases or embassies). Most of data sources mentioned in the countries quality reports are: supply and use tables, energy balances and air emission accounts. Most countries focus on the estimation of non-resident tax revenue for energy taxes, in particular through the payment of mineral fuel duties. Other sources in a few countries were tourism data or the international passenger survey.

Eurostat proposed priorities to study the potential of tourism data and PEFA as data sources. It was also suggested that countries which already provide estimates re-examine if a better data source could be used.

Luxembourg made a presentation of its national practices to estimate environmental taxes paid by non-residents. This is part of an integrated approach for the whole implementation of environmental taxes by economic activities. The first step is to determine the list of taxes and excises according the different categories of environmental taxes. The total tax revenue from those different taxes is valued through two datasets, national tax list and national accounts, and consistency should be attained.

Energy balances are the main data source for determining the share of non-residents in total energy tax revenue. Those physical data are the valued with the oil price for petrol stations, which allows getting energy monetary aggregates consistent with national accounts: intermediate consumption, household consumption, exports. A distribution key is set based on those expenditures by type of transaction which is applied to the total amount of energy taxes. The share of non-resident is estimated at 63 % for energy taxes in 2014, which is very important. The high share (2/3) taken by commuters and transit trucks in the sales of road diesel explain this specificity. The tax payments estimated for resident enterprises is distributed by NACE according to the distribution expenditures on specific energy products and taking into account exemptions (agriculture).

This method takes advantage of the consistency between physical and monetary energy accounts which supposes regular cooperation between data holders.

Conclusions

The working group noted that estimating taxes paid by non-residents, which might represent an important share in some countries, remains a challenge. The working group thanked Luxembourg for its presentation. Well-developed energy accounts facilitate estimating energy taxes by non-residents. Eurostat presented other sources that may be used for this purpose.

Item 6 Environmental subsidies: report on data collection

Presentation

In September 2016, Eurostat launched a second voluntary data collection on environmental subsidies and similar transfers (ESST), using a simplified questionnaire as

15

agreed in the 2016 MESA working group. Eight countries reported data. Eurostat did not publish the data received as a critical mass of countries was not reached yet.

The data compilation is satisfactory as regards the allocation of transfers' amounts to institutional sectors and environmental domains. However, the breakdown of transfer recipients by NACE is still challenging even after the simplification of the list. Otherwise, discrepancies were noted between the CEPA totals in the questionnaire and in EPEA. A better harmonisation should be sought between both data collections.

The next ESST data collection is planned to be launched early September 2017 with a reporting deadline on 31 October 2017. No changes in the questionnaire are planned. In the second Semester of 2017 the feasibility of disseminating the main results from the two voluntary collections will be studied.

Discussion

One participant mentioned on-going work to produce longer time series starting from 2004. It was also suggested to disseminate the data available even in presence of few country reporting.

Conclusions

The working group welcomed the results. Some improvements in the completeness the data transmitted were noted. Eurostat intends to continue works on this topic. The working group encouraged Eurostat to publish the data.

Item 7 Any Other Business

There were no points under this item.

4. Conclusions/recommendations/opinions

The working group expressed satisfaction for the development of the meetings. Eurostat and the countries will continue working together in the existing data collections and for the improvement of quality.

5. Next steps

Written contributions are possible for the topics listed above. The 2017 data collections will be launched as announced.

6. Next meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for 14-15 May 2018.

16

7. List of participantsCOUNTRY PERSON INSTITUTION

BELGIUM Anne-Louise DHONDT Federal Planning BureauBELGIUM Vincent VANDERNOOT Federal Planning BureauBULGARIA Rumyana IVANOVA BNSICZECH REPUBLIC Alena KREJČOVÁ Ministry of the Environment of the Czech RepublicCZECH REPUBLIC Eva KOŽOUŠKOVÁ Czech Statistical OfficeDENMARK Ole OLSEN Statistics DenmarkGERMANY Gesine PETZOLD DESTATIS - Statistischen BundesamtGERMANY Helmut MAYER DESTATIS - Statistischen BundesamtESTONIA Kaia AHER Statistics Estonia

IRELAND Gerry BRADY Central Statistics Office - Environment Statistics and Accounts Division

GREECE Panagiotis VLACHOSHELLENIC STATISTICAL AUTHORITY (ELSTAT)

SPAIN M. Luisa EGIDO MARTIN INE

FRANCE Benoit BOURGES Ministère de l'environnement, de l'Energie et de la Mer

CROATIA Darco VRANČIĆ Croatian Bureau of StatisticsITALY Angelica TUDINI IstatCYPRUS Giorgos IOANNOU Statistical Service of CyprusLITHUANIA Jurgita DAMSKINÉ Statistics LithuaniaLATVIA Andra LAZDIŅA Central Statistical Bureau of LatviaLUXEMBOURG Audrey EYERMANN STATECLUXEMBOURG Olivier THUNUS STATECMALTA Dorota ZAMMIT National Statistics Office - MaltaHUNGARY József GERSE Hungarian Central Statistical OfficeNETHERLANDS Marcel van VELZEN Statistics NetherlandsAUSTRIA Eva MILOTA Statistics AustriaPOLAND Anna GÓRSKA Central Statistical Office of PolandPORTUGAL Angela LOBO Statistics PortugalROMANIA Florentina ION National Institute of Statistics – RomaniaSLOVENIA Metka POGRAJC Statistical Office of the Republic of SloveniaSLOVAKIA Eva ŠMELKOVÁ Statistical Office of the Slovak RepublicFINLAND Juuso PELTOLA Statistics FinlandFINLAND Sami HAUTAKANGAS Statistics FinlandSWEDEN Nancy STEINBACH Statistics SwedenUNITED KINGDOM Gemma THOMAS Office for National StatisticsSWITZERLAND Florian KOHLER Swiss Federal Statistical Office (FSO)SWITZERLAND Jacques RODUIT Swiss Federal Statistical Office (FSO)ICELAND Böðvar ÞÓRISSON Statistics IcelandALBANIA Alban ÇELA INSTATBOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Tamara ŠUPIĆ Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and HerzegovinaSERBIA Mirjana BACILOVIC Statistical Office of the Republic of SerbiaTURKEY Levent ALPAR Türkish Statistical InstituteKOSOVO* UNSCR 1244/99 Haki KURTI Kosovo Agency of Statistics.CANADA Michele McMILLAN Statistics CanadaEEA Cathy MAGUIRE European Environment AgencyEEA Stefen SPECK European Environment AgencyDG CLIMA Ragnhild BORKE DG CLIMADG ENV Barbara BACIGALUPI DG ENVDG GROW Lie HEYMANS DG GROWDG SG Henrik LAURSEN DG SG

17

ESTAT Anton STEURER ESTATESTAT Arturo DE LA FUENTE ESTATESTAT César DE DIEGO DIEZ ESTATESTAT Dorothea JUNG ESTATESTAT Fréderic NAUROY ESTAT

18