IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/envaac/29-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lessons learnt and good practice from APEC-economy fossil-fuel subsidy peer reviews

Author

Listed:
  • OECD

Abstract

According to latest data from the OECD and the IEA, government support for the production and use of fossil fuels across 81 major economies totalled USD 351 billion in 2020, amounting to USD 183 billion across 50 OECD, G20, and Eastern Partnership economies. While the difficulty of reform is evident from the range and complexity of challenges confronting governments in the phasing-out of fossil-fuel subsidies, APEC economy-led fossil-fuel subsidy peer reviews play a key role in pointing out commonly faced challenges, and present options to tackle them more effectively. This report is the first comprehensive attempt to document “scalable” lessons and examples of good practice emerging from fossil-fuel subsidy peer reviews: taking stock of progress in their phase-out as reflected in the peer review reports, considering the role of the peer review process in promoting reform, and proposing potential ways to enhance the process. Eleven peer reviews are documented, seven of which were chaired by the OECD and four in which the IEA was a member of the review panel. Six of these peer reviews were conducted under the auspices of the G20, and four under APEC auspices, with the addition of the OECD-IEA review of the Netherlands, modelled on the G20 review process. The economies reviewed inventoried between three to thirty-nine measures, of an average self-declared value of USD 13 billion, for those reviews which quantified fossil fuel support measures. The “scalable” lessons drawn from the peer reviews can be used to further spur progress towards rationalising and phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies, thanks to the insights on the approaches and good practices for designing the reform process. These insights include the need to accommodate for differing contexts, objectives and definitions; to prioritise inter-ministerial co-ordination; to promote active government and stakeholder participation; and to engage a cross-sectional peer review panel.

Suggested Citation

  • Oecd, 2022. "Lessons learnt and good practice from APEC-economy fossil-fuel subsidy peer reviews," OECD Environment Policy Papers 29, OECD Publishing.
    • Handle: RePEc:oec:envaac:29-en
    DOI: 10.1787/63ba96a5-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/63ba96a5-en
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/63ba96a5-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    APEC; challenges; designing reform process; Environment; fossil fuel; good practice; peer review; phase-out; reform; subsidy reform; Trade;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:envaac:29-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/enoecfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.