E C O N O M Y

Eco Tax Reform - an option for CEE

  Public policies have a great influence on the economy and the environment as on average 50 percent of total expenditures and income goes through the budget - via taxes and expenditures. In recent years many Western countries are beginning to use this influence in an environmentally rational way. To investigate the environmental impacts of their budgets they are looking at existing taxes and charges, tax allowances and exemptions, relevant regulations and expenditures. Furthermore they have started to implement new environmental taxes and abolish environmentally damaging subsidies. This process is now broadly defined as Ecological Tax Reform (ETR). The introduction and/or increase of energy taxes and the simultaneous reduction of social security contributions is often considered as the core of an ETR. The term "reform" indicates that the overall tax burden should decrease, or at the very least not increase. Hence, the revenue raised should be used to lower other, more distortionary taxes like those on labor, investment and capital.

Advantages of environmental taxes

  Environmental taxes offer several benefits. They can:

  These effects are especially supported when the revenues as part of an ETR are used to reduce other more distortionary taxes which often disturb economic and social welfare. Thus a "double" or "multiple" dividend may occur.

Which countries use environmental taxes?

  So far most examples are from Scandinavia. But an increased use of environmental taxes is also apparent in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. And in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden environmental taxes are part of a more comprehensive ETR.

  However, only limited progress in the introduction of taxes on the EU-level can be noticed. In 1992, a combined CO2/energy tax was proposed by the European Commission, but failed to gain approval by all Member States. Generally, the perceived potential loss of competitiveness (of only a few sectors) appears to be a main obstacle - although these sectors should have been exempted! But critics argued that exemptions would soon be considered as "subsidies" and therefore abolished. In May 1995, a modified proposal for such a tax was presented, leaving more room for national action. But still there is no support for this from all countries. In autumn 1995, Germany refused to accept a CO2/energy tax that would not be mandatory for all Member States. For the turn of the year 1996/97, the EU-Commission is expected to come up with a new proposal.

  In the meantime, the general trend of taxation promotes less employment through increasingly higher taxes on labor and social security contributions, and contributes to increasing environmental pollution through stable, and in real terms often falling, taxes on the use of the environment. Only energy taxes were increased between 1980 and 1993. The share of taxes on labor reached over 50% in the EU in 1993 as against total taxes, which decreased to only 18%. While taxes on energy rose to 5.2%, taxes on the use of the environment were increased by a mere 1.5%.

Environmental effectiveness

  Green taxes seem to be effective in achieving environmental goals. This finding is based on evaluation studies of 16 environmental taxes that have been identified and reviewed in a 1996 report by the European Environment Agency (EEA).Examples of particularly successful green taxes include those on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in Sweden, on toxic waste in a part of Germany, on water pollution in the Netherlands, on the tax differentials on leaded fuel and "cleaner" diesel fuel in Sweden. In general, the differentiation of tax rates according to the toxicity or the environmental impact of a substance has proven to be very effective.

Implementation: Main Barriers and Solutions

  There are four main barriers to implementation: the perceived impacts on competitiveness and on low-income groups as well as legal and political barriers. Particularly the first barrier might imply a cautious design of an ETR in case that a country goes it ahead alone. However, most barriers to implementation can be overcome by:

  The overall competitiveness of countries may be improved by well-designed taxes which can spur innovation and possibly encourage structural change towards sustainable development. But still, these perceived barriers are not always easy to overcome.

Green Budget Reform in CEE

  To explore the potential benefits of "Green Budget Reform" for CEEC, a case study for Slovenia is being carried out by the Wuppertal Institute and a Slovenian researcher. The opportunities for ETR in CEEC seems even greater than in the EU since the process of restructuring the economy and fiscal systems is still ongoing and offers a unique chance to direct the economies towards environmental sustainability. The presentation of the case study and a seminar on "Green Budget Reform" will be held at Lake Bled near Ljubljana on 9-11 April 1997. Fiscal experts from Western European countries will be invited to report on their experiences. The conference aims to influence policymakers in finance, economy and environment ministries of CEEC.


Kai Schlegelmilch is an economist and project leader at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy in Germany and editor of the Wuppertal Bulletin on Ecological Tax Reform.

For more information contact the Wuppertal Institute at
P.O.Box 100 480, D-42004 Wuppertal,
Tel: (49-202) 2492-152,
Fax: (49-202) 2492-108,
or E-mail: Wuppertal_Bulletin@wupperinst.org.

For information on the conference (9-11 April 1997) contact:
Vida Ogorelec Wagner at Umanotera, The Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development,
P.O. Box 4440,
Resljeva 20, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia,
Tel: (386-61) 132-2354,
Fax: (386-61) 132-2354, x7029,
E-mail: in10217@sparc.eunet.si.


REC * PUBLICATIONS * THE BULLETIN * AUTUMN 1996

PREVIOUS NEXT COVER PAGE HOME PAGE