Once the approach to green budgeting has been defined, the next challenge for governments is to think about how it can be successfully implemented. This means ensuring that the tagging approach is sequenced in a manner where it addresses its intended objective with consideration of the roles, responsibilities and capacity of stakeholders and internal systems, processes to ensure the quality of the information, and linkages to existing standards. The following sections cover some of the key considerations, including how green budget tagging fits within a broader approach to green budgeting, the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in implementing the tagging, the sequencing of implementation, how to build up capacity and expertise among civil servants, and ensuring that the internal systems are fit for purpose. Governments will also wish to consider how to develop a quality assurance process to ensure rigorous, consistent and coherent tagging and how they can build a bridge between budget tagging and statistical tagging, which allows international comparisons on finance flows.
Green Budget Tagging
2. Implementing green budget tagging
2.1. Ensuring there is a strong strategic framework to guide tagging
Green budget tagging can be particularly effective where it is part of a wider approach to green budgeting that is guided by a strong strategic framework (see Figure 2). A strategic framework refers to relevant strategies, policies and plans which include clear goals for government policy, as set out in the OECD’s Green Budgeting Framework. For example, in Nepal and Pakistan, the development of a Climate Change Financing Framework has been vital to promote a more integrated approach to facilitate climate finance reforms (Pakistani Controller General of Accounts, 2020[33]; Nepalese Ministry of Agriculture, 2020[34]). Experiences from tagging practices preceding green budget tagging show that the strategic framework needs to be specific enough to guide budget allocations, including realistic cost estimates and an operational framework (World Bank, forthcoming[2]). In this way, green budget tagging can be used to help direct resources towards the strategic priorities of government in the areas of climate and the environment. A well-defined strategic framework can also help guide what budget items are relevant for tagging, particularly in more ambiguous situations. For example, a combined cycle power plant replacing a carbon power plant may be considered to be climate-positive relative to the status quo, but also climate-negative since natural gas still contributes to global warming. Understanding the extent to which the development aligns with longer term climate policy helps in developing guidance for how to define such items.
Figure 2. OECD Green Budgeting Framework
Source: OECD (2020[1]).
2.2. Setting out the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders
Identifying the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders is an important element to implementing green budget tagging. The central budget authority (CBA) and Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change have important leadership roles. As part of the leadership role of these institutions, clear responsibilities for the different actors involved (including line ministries, the national statistical office and citizens) should be set out.
2.2.1. Developing a whole-of-government approach
The CBA has a central leadership role in relation to green budgeting and “the power of the purse” means that it usually has considerable ability to drive its implementation.1 A particularly important partner is the Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change. The CBA often works hand-in-hand with the Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change counterparts in leading the implementation of green budget tagging. In Kenya, for example, close engagement between the Ministry of Finance and the climate change policy body has helped to lead the implementation of climate budget tagging and for it to become embedded in the country’s policy and legal frameworks (UNDP, 2019[8]). In Pakistan, the Controller General of Accounts and the Ministry of Climate Change worked together to configure the internal system to assign weights to mitigation and adaptation-related expenditures as well as including climate change into the medium-term budgetary framework in two line ministries (Pakistani Controller General of Accounts, 2020[33]).
Embedding practices such as green budget tagging often also requires the collective effort of wider government stakeholders. A key consideration is who has primary responsibility for tagging different budget items. Some countries have centralised tagging processes, where tagging is predominantly undertaken by the CBA, or the Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change; others have a more decentralised model where tagging is the responsibility of individual line ministries. Each approach has its own merits.
Centralised tagging processes can allow for more consistent tagging, and also have the benefit of being easier to introduce given it involves fewer stakeholders. In France, for example, tagging is conducted by a limited but dedicated team of people within the Ministry for the Ecological Transition (Ministère de la Transition écologique) and the Ministry for the Economy and Finance who tag relevant budget lines to their six areas of classification. In Bangladesh, a special unit within the Ministry of Finance reviews line ministry budget frameworks and annual development programmes in accordance to their relevance to climate objectives.
Decentralised tagging approaches involve the active participation of line ministries in tagging their budget measures. Where line ministries play a leading role in the tagging process, this may be co-ordinated either by the budget unit or in conjunction with relevant technical staff and co-ordinated at the government level by the CBA and the Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change, who aggregate, reconcile and verify information. This is the more common form of tagging across countries. In Indonesia, for example, specific units (“Echelon II units/directorates”) within line ministries are responsible for tagging budgets for submission to the Ministry of Finance. Through a formal reconciliation period of the budgeting process, line ministries meet with the Ministry of Finance to address questions and make adjustments to the tagged budget of outputs (World Bank, forthcoming[2]).
Although decentralised approaches involve more stakeholders, this whole-of-government approach can help build collective ownership of the tagging exercise, and engenders greater awareness of climate and environmental objectives, which can help integrate green perspectives into the policy development process. Furthermore, giving responsibilities to the line ministries also helps to ensure that the tagging is conducted by those who are the most attuned to the nature of ministry programmes. However, there is a risk that some may “greenwash” budget items as a means to game budget negotiations or minimise negative perceptions of their programmes in relation to green objectives. In other instances, due to a lack of verification procedures and heterogeneous approaches, there can be overestimations, as seen in the use of the Rio markers (Weikmans et al., 2017[35]). Because of these inherent incentives, it is important to include validation checks to minimise instances of gaming by ministries and agencies. In addition, decentralised tagging requires a sufficient level of capacity within the government both in terms of training for ministry staff and support systems (e.g. IT systems), and relies on the compliance of a much larger group of stakeholders. Tagging systems that overstretch human resources are unlikely to be sustained.
2.2.2. Strong collaboration and co-ordination mechanisms
In many instances, strong collaboration between institutions is observed in the development and implementation of green budget tagging. This collaboration may be witnessed in the adoption of a joint approach to leading the reform initiative and setting out guidance for tagging. For example, in the Philippines, after a Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR), the Department for Management and Budget conducted consultations with agencies to gather inputs to inform the development of the typology and guidance within the joint memorandum circular (Crepin, 2013[36]). In another example, in Colombia, the National Planning Department and the Financial Management Committee of the National Climate System worked together to develop the country’s tagging methodology. At times, however, failure to identify institutional partners in the development of the tagging process may impede efforts over time. In the same example in Colombia, the Ministry of Finance and line ministries were not involved in the development of the tagging methodology, leading to an underlying lack of clarity about the division of labour between entities as well as an overall lack of ownership for the results (World Bank, forthcoming[2]).
Additionally, strong co-ordination mechanisms (for example, an inter-agency working group) can potentially be a valuable element of any ongoing approach to green budgeting since it involves different stakeholders from across government (in some cases also including subnational governments). This facilitates a consistent approach, as well as exchange of good practices among different stakeholders. Inter-agency working groups can also help to address resistance to new processes by ensuring that the needs of different stakeholders are communicated across government. These working groups are often seen supporting the implementation of similar practices such as gender budgeting (see Box 10 for the example of Nepal). It is, however, important to note that working groups often require a significant time commitment, largely due to challenges co-ordinating with multiple government stakeholders. As such, it is important to ensure groups are only comprised of essential stakeholders, and that they have a clear mandate and time frame for delivering their objectives.
Box 10. Nepal’s inter-institutional Climate Finance Working Group
In the course of designing the country’s tagging methodology, an inter-institutional Climate Finance Working Group was set up comprised of representatives from the National Planning Commission; the Ministry of Finance; the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology; the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development; and the Ministry of Forestry and Soil Conservation. This helped to facilitate a process that is attuned to institutional contexts as well as promote shared ownership of the tagging exercise through the budgeting and planning process.
Sources: World Bank (forthcoming[2]); UNDP (2015[37]).
2.2.3. Bringing in external viewpoints
Budgeting is a unique “nexus” that brings together the various dimensions of public policy analysis and that determines where the money goes. However, approaches such as green budgeting can require environmental policy expertise that is not inherent in the CBA. It is important that this nexus is open to expert inputs and viewpoints that can bring this expertise. In certain instances, an expert advisory group could help in this regard, providing technical guidance for the tagging exercise or green budgeting more generally as well as playing a challenge function. By incorporating expert representatives from civil society, the group can serve as a channel for insights on the needs of citizens ensuring these voices are heard in the decision-making process. This is something that has also proved useful in the implementation of practices such as gender budgeting and equality budgeting. For example, Ireland benefits from the advice of an expert advisory group in its implementation of equality budgeting (Box 11).
Box 11. Use of an expert advisory group for equality budgeting in Ireland
In 2018, Ireland established an Equality Budget Expert Advisory Group to assist the roll-out of equality budgeting. The objectives of the group were to: provide constructive, critical feedback on the equality budgeting initiative; provide expert guidance and informed insights on the future direction and areas of focus for equality budgeting; promote a coherent, cross-governmental approach to equality budgeting; and identify existing strengths of the Irish policy-making system that can be leveraged in support of equality budgeting, along with potential shortcomings that need to be addressed.
The group drew on a range of independent perspectives to provide expert guidance and momentum to equality budgeting. Chaired by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the panel included government officials from the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Finance, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, the Central Statistics Office, and the National Economic and Social Council as well as representatives from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, civil society and independent experts, including a representative from the Economic and Social Research Institute and the National Women’s Council of Ireland.
Source: OECD (2019[38]).
2.3. Ensuring the quality of green budget tagging
Whether green budget tagging is undertaken by the CBA, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change or line ministries, it is crucial that there is a quality assurance process that ensures the rigour, consistency and coherence of tagging and the data it generates. This has been identified as a key weakness of existing systems of green budget tagging. Many countries lack the appropriate checks to ensure quality assurance of the information generated from tagging exercises. In cases like the Philippines, as in most contexts, the burden is on the line ministries to validate tagging, while in others such as Ghana, no validation process is identified (World Bank, forthcoming[2]; UNDP, 2019[8]).
A strong quality assurance process will ensure that budget measures are appropriately classified and will help limit the risk of “greenwashing” or undertagging of the budget. In centralised approaches where the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change take the lead in tagging, this means setting procedures for line ministries to validate the data by involving reconciliation processes, as previously noted in the case of Indonesia. In decentralised approaches, it means working closely with the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Environment or Climate Change by embedding similar reconciliation procedures to limit instances of “gaming” and ensuring that the data submitted are of sufficient quality. However, these can only make an impact if there is sufficient capacity (in terms of dedication of staff time, technical capability and integrated IT systems) within ministries. Lessons from the Philippines show that just mandating quality assessment procedures does not necessarily mean overall improvements. Upon requiring ministries to submit quality assessment and review forms of tagged expenditures, line ministries decreased the number of expenditures tagged to commensurately cope with the increased workload (World Bank, forthcoming[2]).
2.4. Developing a road map for implementation
Implementing green budget tagging requires the development of a road map, outlining the planned stages of implementation including: design of the green budget tagging framework, development of guidance, training and development, and implementation of tagging, often with an increase of the scope of tagging over time. The speed of implementation is determined by factors such as the strength of political will and administrative leadership, as well as the capacity of government to implement a new reform. Regardless, the introduction of green budget tagging is likely a reform that will take a number of budget cycles to bed in.
2.4.1. The early years of green budget tagging
The early years of green budget tagging – as with any reform – can be particularly challenging. For example, tagging is often more time-consuming, as it needs to be done for all baseline budget measures, whereas in subsequent years only new budget items need to be tagged. It may also be that in the beginning, existing IT systems do not yet have tagging functionality. In addition, it is in these early years that the effectiveness of the approach is still being tested and refined. To help overcome this, some countries have adopted a centralised approach to tagging at the beginning, involving the line ministries more progressively over time. An example of this approach that many countries have taken is provided by Bangladesh (Box 12).
Box 12. Bangladesh’s adaptive approach to implementing climate budget tagging
In Bangladesh, climate tagging was originally done by the Finance Division, using the analysis of line ministries’ planning templates. With the introduction of the new budget classification system, and an integrated budget and accounting system in 2018, a new climate finance module has been embedded in the new system – adding a segment to capture data on budget allocation and expenditure against the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan. Under the evolved tagging system, tagging is done by line ministries with initial support of the Finance Division.
Source: UNDP (2019[8]).
The benefit of this is that the leaders of the reform – the CBA and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change – do a lot of the heavy lifting to get the initiative off the ground. This allows line ministries to become more involved at a time when tagging is less onerous, and provides the opportunity to build a rigorous classification system and the necessary capacity across government and its systems over time. However, it is also important to consider that this approach can demand significant time and commitment from a small number of central staff who, in some instances, may have to tag thousands of budget items. This can further be a challenge when central staff do not hold detailed knowledge about the nature of the budget items enabling them to make accurate determinations of climate and environmental relevance. As such, it is important to ensure that even where there is a centralised approach, staff do still engage with line ministries at some level to verify the accuracy of tagged budget items and ensure the quality of green budget tagging, as outlined in Section 2.3.
2.4.2. Developing tagging guidance
When green budget tagging is being rolled out to line ministries, it is helpful for clear guidance to be provided within budget guidelines or circulars that are issued during the annual budget process. An example is provided by the guidance issued for climate budget tagging in the Philippines (Box 13).
For centralised tagging processes, as engagements with line ministries are more limited, guidance usually comes in the form of requests for verifying tagged expenditures and opportunities for reconciliation. In other instances where the tagging system is more automatic (relying more on the financial management information system), tagging processes may require guidance on modifications made to the financial management information system as it pertains to classification and weighting, as well as information for Ministry of Finance staff on the updated changes to the system (UNDP, 2019[8]).
Box 13. Climate budget tagging guidance issued to line ministries in the Philippines
In the Philippines, a Joint Memorandum Circular issued by the Department of Budget and Management and the Climate Change Commission provides the following guidance for climate budget tagging:
Step 1: Identify projects/activities/programmes (P/A/Ps) with climate-related adaptation and mitigation expenditures. This requires assigning expenditures as either under adaptation, mitigation, both or neither in accordance with their definitions.
Step 2: Determine the climate change component(s) within the P/A/Ps using climate change typologies. This requires comparing activities in accordance with the typology provided within the circular and identifying the appropriate code accordingly.
Step 3: Specify the amount of tagged climate change component. Disaggregating the amounts by personnel services, maintenance and other operating services, financial expenses, and capital outlays.
Step 4: Identify and tag in the Outline Submission of the Budget Proposal. Encoding the amount and identified codes to the Online Submission of Budget Proposals system.
Source: UNDP (2019[8]).
2.5. Building capacity across government
Many countries implementing green budget tagging have noted that the practice can only be rolled out as capacity is strengthened across government agencies. Thus, plans for implementation may need to be adjusted depending on levels of existing capacity. Taking into account the experiences of countries so far in implementing green budget tagging, several lessons can be learnt in relation to developing capacity across government.
First, training is most effective when it is tailored to the needs of each stakeholder. In each country, institutions have varying roles and responsibilities. The CBA, for instance, may play a more co-ordinating role while Ministries of the Environment and Climate Change may take a more technical leadership role. The CBA’s role is made easier when there is a baseline of policy knowledge in the area of climate and the environment. Ministries of the Environment and Climate Change may also need support in developing more effective budget execution. Identifying the appropriate responsibilities and the skillsets required by staff across all of these ministries is an important consideration when designing training.
An additional complexity is that the capacity of different line ministries to undertake tagging varies, and so capacity development needs are also different. For example, lessons from workshops in Nepal to design climate budget tagging procedures highlighted the potential challenge that not all ministries are able to produce the same level of detail in their proposed programmes (UNDP, 2019[8]). In addition, the extent to which different ministries face competing demands, perhaps from other ongoing reforms, should be taken to account. These considerations have already been taken into account by some countries implementing green budget tagging, for example in Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan, where tagging started with key relevant ministries and expanded gradually to other line ministries over time.
A further issue is that some design choices require greater capacity development. For example, decentralised approaches require significant capacity building in line ministries with centralised approaches involving fewer parties to be trained. Recognising this, in the Philippines, the Climate Change Commission and the Department of Budget and Management temporarily set up a help desk to assist line ministries in the first years of implementation (Box 14) (UNDP, 2019[8]).
Box 14. The Philippines’ climate change expenditures tagging help desk
To build capacity and improve readiness to undertake tagging processes across the Philippine government, the Department for Budget and Management and the Climate Change Commission set up a help desk for line ministry staff. The help desk guides ministries on how to: evaluate agency proposals for their climate change components using existing typology and processes, review and approve new typology proposals of the agencies, and prepare climate budget briefs and reports based on the result of the tagging process. Annual trainings are held for budget and planning units.
Source: Department of Budget and Management (2020[39]).
Maintaining sufficient levels of capacity across the civil service can be challenging in contexts with high staff turnover. Oftentimes, country experiences have shown that trained staff are in their post for a limited time, requiring trainings to be repeated regularly to ensure those in appropriate roles (across technical, financial and administrative cadres) are adequately equipped to manage their respective tagging processes. As such, capacity development efforts are unlikely to be one-off, but instead will require ongoing engagement with continuous learning and adaption. In Ghana, for example, this includes training permanent secretaries and ministerial heads in addition to operational staff. Building sufficient capacity and maintaining it over time helps to ensure the sustainability of green budget tagging.
2.6. Ensuring internal budget management systems are fit for purpose
Efforts to implement green budget tagging have involved close consideration of a country’s internal budget management systems, and whether they have existing tagging functionality that can be adapted for these purposes. Many tagging systems rely on integrated financial management information systems, as these are designed with a view to helping ministries aggregate and associate budget information along existing programmatic structures. This can be important when working to integrate green budget tagging into the larger budget process as the tagging exercise, for example, may be one of multiple components of a ministry’s procedures to develop its annual budget proposals.
Some countries may also wish to use their Chart of Accounts and may adapt it for this purpose by defining or adding a relevant section to enable tagging. For example, in Nicaragua, thematic tags are associated with a code in the Chart of Accounts. In other instances, countries have introduced detailed climate change codes in their financial management systems to track expenditures at the sector, sub-sector and activity level.2 For example, Ecuador has a six-digit thematic code integrated into its electronic Integrated Financial Management System (e-SIGEF) classifying expenditure by activities (World Bank, forthcoming[2]). In Ghana, the use and development of coding systems for budget tagging has helped to ensure greater transparency and accountability across the budget.
The use, development and adaptation of these systems means that budget measures can be analysed and tracked throughout the budget cycle more easily and can help support a more efficient tagging process across ministries. For instance, in Bangladesh, once line ministries identify appropriate budget measures to be tagged, its internal system works to classify and weigh budgets in accordance to the country’s methodology. Well-designed IT systems can also help to ensure compliance with new tagging requirements. For example, Bangladesh uses an integrated budgeting and accounting system (IBAS++) climate change module to tag its expenditures (Box 15). In other contexts, systems can help to more easily monitor and share expenditure data. In Ghana, for example, the climate calculator (CLIMATRONIC) allows users to track climate-related expenditures in real time allowing government information to be shared more easily (Government of Ghana, 2018[40]).
Understanding that reforms to internal IT systems may have significant cost dimensions, it is important for countries to identify whether it is feasible to modify current systems when undergoing tagging efforts. Where the internal budget management systems cannot be modified, or do not yet have the functionality to support tagging, countries can still move forward. For example, in France, the government tags all budget items on an Excel spreadsheet.
Box 15. Bangladesh’s Integrated Budgeting and Accounting System
Bangladesh tracks all climate finance expenditures through the use of its Integrated Budgeting and Accounting System (IBAS++) in line with the country’s Climate Change Strategic Action Plan. Where previously tagging was manually done by the Finance Division, the system has helped to build capacity across the government by allowing dedicated budget officers from line ministries to input relevant project expenditures into the system where it is then automatically weighed and assigned its climate relevance. Information generated by the system is then reviewed by a dedicated unit within the Ministry of Finance to validate and track all expenditures for analysis.
There is also the issue of organising the collection of new data when they are missing (an ecosystem that reaches beyond the governmental organisation per se).
2.7. Building a bridge between green budget tagging and statistical tagging
When designing an approach to green budget tagging, it can be useful to consider its linkages with existing statistical standards. Where tagging aligns with international approaches to categorise spending, for example, this allows opportunities for comparability across countries, facilitating greater transparency and accountability with regard to the actions being taken by a country to achieve green objectives.
Though budget tagging practices are largely country-specific and vary widely across countries, some common international approaches are used to categorise or define budget items and that build on agreed definitions, reporting instructions or even classifications. These include the OECD-DAC Rio markers methodology (OECD, n.d.[41]; 2016[13]), the OECD Policy Instruments for Environment (PINE) database and its environmental domain tagging,3 the European Union’s climate action taxonomy (European Commission, 2020[42]), and the CPEIR methodology (UNDP, 2015[37]) as well as the multilateral development banks’ co‑benefit methodology (World Bank, 2011[43]; AfDB et al., 2015[11]). While these international definitions are not always designed to provide internationally comparable data on expenditures that meet a statistical standard,4 they may still facilitate cross-country comparisons. For instance, the Rio markers, though not fully comparable from a statistical perspective, build on agreed definitions and reporting instructions allowing for opportunities for broader comparisons. In the case of the PINE database, countries report data on taxes, fees and charges, environmentally motivated subsidies, and other policy instruments according to established internationally harmonised definitions (e.g. the System of National Accounts) which are subsequently classified into a dozen environmental domains (e.g. air pollution, climate change, biodiversity) using agreed definitions (OECD, 2017[44]).5
Box 16. Statistical tagging
Statistical tagging refers to the use of commonly agreed upon official statistical frameworks and standards when tagging expenditure flows. This tends to categorise expenditure after it has occurred and plays an important role in enabling cross-country assessments of public expenditure flows.
Statistical tagging practices comply with statistical standards in that there is the provision of a comprehensive set of guidelines for data collection, including: a set of definition(s), associated with clear analytical concepts; a set of statistical units; a classification system, ideally connected with other classification systems; coding processes; and output categories, that should include a structure to organise information and relevant indicators, and which may include an accounting framework, such as the System of National Accounts (European Commission et al., 2008[45]; OECD, 2004[46]).
Currently, there are two functional classification systems relevant for implementing statistical tagging (see Box 16): the Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) and the Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). These are used in international statistical frameworks such as the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, the Financial Statistical Framework (UN et al., 2014[47]).
Although green budget tagging and statistical tagging can serve different primary purposes, there are synergies to exploit. Building bridges between these two types of activities and ensuring a minimum of coherence (for example in terms of definitions and classifications) can help produce better and more comparable international data on climate and environmental expenditure (such as those collected regularly from countries by the OECD and Eurostat in line with the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting and its environmental activity accounts). It would also help improve national data on environmental expenditure. The OECD is currently working with Eurostat and with countries to improve the coverage of climate and biodiversity-related expenditure in its surveys, including by helping countries identify relevant expenditure items in national data sources. The Inter-American Development Bank is currently exploring a methodology for climate budget tagging that can be linked to official statistical frameworks and classifications. This requires exploiting existing classification systems and conceptualising an accounting framework to organise the information (IADB, forthcoming[3]). Using existing statistical classifications and methods does not prevent tailoring green budgeting to national needs and objectives, yet it can ensure common definitions and groupings and thus facilitate the (re)use of data from green budgeting initiatives in reporting on environmental expenditure. In Italy, for example, programmes are assigned a second-level COFOG category to facilitate data usage and international comparison with a screening process, including classification in accordance to CEPA and CReMA classification standards.
Countries can work closely with national statistical offices or central banks to link their budget tagging efforts to these standards and frameworks. This may include identifying a clear definition (and boundaries) for all national climate change actions (which includes other fiscal tools in addition to expenditure) and aligning it to existing standards and methods for mitigation and adaptation. Illustratively, this can mean using existing classifications (CEA) and methods (such as the Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts for environmental protection activities) for mitigation activities and developing a list of activities along COFOG and/or ISIC (International Standard Industrial Classification) for national adaptation and risk management actions. To further distinguish between environmental protection mitigation actions and harmful actions, countries can utilise CEA domains as a basis of whether actions positively or negatively affect the environment. Likewise, the OECD PINE database can inform on tagging by “green” domains, and the OECD Inventory of Fossil Fuel Support Measures on fossil fuel-related direct and indirect subsidies.
Notes
← 1. The Central Budget Authority is a public entity, or several co-ordinated entities, located at the central/national/federal level of government, which is responsible for budget formulation and oversight. In many countries, the CBA is often found within or coincides with the Ministry of Finance/Economy. In many instances, Ministries of Planning also share a leading role with the CBA.
← 2. Codes often reflect a typology of budget items in relation to their green objective (e.g. climate change mitigation), sub-objective, identification of instrument (e.g. research or service delivery) and its corresponding activity. In the Philippines, for example, a Climate Change Expenditure Typology reflects six numbers and letters each reflecting an area of categorisation (e.g. AI24-01, where A identifies the budget as one addressing climate change adaptation, I representing a priority within the country’s action plan, 2 representing a sub-priority, 4 representing the type of instrument used and 01 representing the activity).
← 3. See: http://oe.cd/pine.
← 4. An exception is the EU taxonomy which was made alongside the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE).
← 5. PINE is an OECD database gathering key quantitative and qualitative information on policy instruments relevant to environmental and natural resource management across 80 countries.