Browse by: "H"

All societies depend on biodiversity and biological resources, and policy-makers are increasingly aware that development pressures are today generating unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss. The fact that biodiversity issues often receive low priority in policy decisions is at least in part due to problems involved in assessing its contribution to society -- these values defy easy description and quantification. What cannot be quantified, or is difficult to monitor and evaluate, is easy to disregard. The result is that biodiversity fails to compete on a level playing field in policy decisions with the forces driving their decline.

This Handbook describes the types of values usually associated with biodiversity. While there are exceptions to the need to prioritise economic values over other cultural, traditional and spiritual values, economic valuation has a sound theoretical foundation that can help clarify the tradeoffs implicit in public policy decisions. On the other hand, the Handbook recognises the limitations of the economic approach, and considers how economic and non-economic values can eventually be reconciled.

The Handbook also reviews the various methodological approaches often used to quantify these values. Data requirements and limitations are discussed. These methodologies are then applied to a series of concrete policy contexts, ranging from land use planning to the determination of legal damages for environmental degradation.

Governments need to implement appropriate policies to ensure both the private and the public goods values of biological diversity are realised. Unless the users of biological resources are given incentives to sustainably use these resources, valuable biodiversity will continue to be lost. Because of the inherent complexity of biological systems, and the range of pressures that act on them, a "bundle" of carefully-designed and complementary incentive measures are often necessary to provide the appropriate signals to prevent biodiversity loss.

This unique Handbook draws on the experiences described in 22 case studies to develop a comprehensive step-by-step process for identifying and implementing appropriate incentive measures for biodiversity conservation, and the sustainable use of its components. It identifies the incentive measures that are most suitable for particular ecosystems, and for addressing the specific sectoral pressures in effect, describing both the advantages and the disadvantages of each incentive measure. A wide range of incentive measures are described, including both the more common economic and regulatory incentives, and also the necessary framework conditions, such as scientific and technical capacity building, education and awareness raising, and the involvement of local populations and other stakeholders.

Striking the right balance between the conservation/sustainable use and the loss of biodiversity requires accounting for all the impacts of its destruction. Weighing the loss against any potential benefits will ensure that the social, as well as economic, well-being of everyone are at the best levels possible. Market-based economic systems have the potential to ensure that such a balancing occurs, but require that all the impacts of its loss, or use, have been fully internalised into market transactions.

This book shows how public policy in the form of market creation can be used to internalise the loss of biodiversity. It promotes the use of markets to ensure that our collective preferences for conservation and sustainable use are reflected in economic outcomes.

The contracting out of government functions and services to external providers is an established practice in many developed and developing countries. On the one hand, it can offer essential support to states that have to deliver basic services urgently; on the other, it risks bypassing governments and undermining their long-term recovery. The OECD’s Partnership for Democratic Governance was formed in 2007 to gather evidence on this issue.

This handbook does not take a view for or against contracting out; nor is it a technical manual. The handbook is for field practitioners and government policy makers in countries that are either emerging from conflict or are otherwise considered to be fragile. Its aim is to help them make more informed choices about the types of contracting that are best suited to their country. It is a tool to assess whether contracting out might be a possible way forward – either temporarily or over a longer period of time – for delivering a core service (such as basic education, healthcare, water and sanitation) or a government function (such as managing public finances and human resources). The handbook illustrates these points with the aid of case studies ranging from Afghanistan to Haiti and Liberia.

Heavy liquid metals such as lead or lead-bismuth have been proposed and investigated as coolants for fast reactors since the 1950s. More recently, there has been renewed interest worldwide in the use of these materials to support the development of systems for the transmutation of radioactive waste. Heavy liquid metals are also under evaluation as a reactor core coolant and accelerator-driven system neutron spallation source. Several national and international R&D programmes are ongoing for the development of liquid lead-alloy technology and the design of liquid lead-alloy-cooled reactor systems.

In 2007, a first edition of the handbook was published to provide deeper insight into the properties and experimental results in relation to lead and lead-bismuth eutectic technology and to establish a common database. This handbook remains a reference in the field and is a valuable tool for designers and researchers with an interest in heavy liquid metals.

The 2015 edition includes updated data resulting from various national and international R&D programmes and contains new experimental data to help understand some important phenomena such as liquid metal embrittlement and turbulent heat transfer in a fuel bundle. The handbook provides an overview of liquid lead and lead-bismuth eutectic properties, materials compatibility and testing issues, key aspects of thermal-hydraulics and existing facilities, as well as perspectives for future R&D.

For most citizens, buying a residential property (dwelling) is the most important transaction during their lifetime. Residential properties represent the most significant component of households’ expenses and, at the same time, their most valuable assets. The Residential Property Prices Indices (RPPIs) are index numbers measuring the rate at which the prices of residential properties are changing over time. RPPIs are key statistics not only for citizens and households across the world, but also for economic and monetary policy makers. Among their professional uses, they serve, for example, to monitor macroeconomic imbalances and risk exposure of the financial sector.

This Handbook provides, for the first time, comprehensive guidelines for the compilation of Residential Property Price Indexes and explains in depth the methods and best practices used to calculate an RPPI. It also examines the underlying economic and statistical concepts and defines the principles guiding the methodological and practical choices for the compilation of the indices. The Handbook primarily addresses official statisticians in charge of producing residential property price indices; at the same time, it addresses the overall requirement on RPPIs by providing a harmonised methodological and practical framework to all parties interested in the compilation of such indices.

The RPPIs Handbook has been written by leading academics in index number theory and by recognised experts in RPPIs compilation. Its development has been co-ordinated by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, with the collaboration of the International Labour Organization (ILO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the World Bank.

Globalisation has had positive effects on the development of tax systems and has encouraged countries to engage in base broadening and rate reducing tax reforms. However, it has also created an environment in which tax havens thrive and in which governments may be induced to adopt harmful preferential tax regimes to attract mobile activities. Tax competition in the form of harmful tax practices can distort trade and investment patterns, erode national tax bases and shift part of the tax burden onto less mobile tax bases, such as labor and consumption, thus adversely affecting employment and undermining the fairness of tax structures.

The Report emphasises that governments must intensify their cooperative actions to curb harmful tax practices. To achieve this, OECD Member governments have developed "Guidelines on Harmful Preferential Tax Regimes". These Guidelines will discourage the spread of harmful preferential tax regimes and encourage countries with such regimes to eliminate them. To counteract both tax havens and harmful preferential tax regimes, Member governments have also agreed to pursue vigorously the implementation of the other Recommendations in the Report, including entering into a dialogue with non-member countries.

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards that all Inclusive Framework members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard relates to preferential tax regimes where a peer review is undertaken to identify features of such regimes that can facilitate base erosion and profit shifting, and therefore have the potential to unfairly impact the tax base of other jurisdictions.

This progress report is an update to the 2015 BEPS Action 5 report and contains the results of the review of all Inclusive Framework members' preferential tax regimes that have been identified. The results are reported as at October 2017.

The report also contains guidance on preferential tax regimes, including timelines for amending regimes, how certain features of preferential regimes will be monitored, and guidance on the requirement that jurisdictions offering preferential regimes must require substantial activities to be undertaken in the regime.

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards which all Inclusive Framework members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange on certain rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 100 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and will take part in a peer review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework.

Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses countries against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i) information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges of rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspect of intellectual property regimes.

This report reflects the outcome of the first peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard. It covers the jurisdictions which participated in the BEPS Project prior to the creation of the Inclusive Framework, and it assesses implementation for the 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 period.

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards which all Inclusive Framework members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain tax rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 120 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and take part in the peer review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework.

Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i) information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges on rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. Recommendations are issued where improvements are needed to meet the minimum standard.

This report reflects the outcome of the second annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 92 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2017 period.

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four BEPS minimum standards which all Inclusive Framework members have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain tax rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 135 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and take part in the peer review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework.

Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i) information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges on rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. Recommendations are issued where improvements are needed to meet the minimum standard.

This report reflects the outcome of the annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 112 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2018 period.

BEPS Action 5 is one of the four minimum standards which all members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS have committed to implement. One part of the Action 5 minimum standard is the transparency framework for compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on certain tax rulings which, in the absence of transparency, could give rise to BEPS concerns. Over 130 jurisdictions have joined the Inclusive Framework and take part in the peer review to assess their compliance with the transparency framework.

Specific terms of reference and a methodology have been agreed for the peer reviews to assess a jurisdiction’s implementation of the minimum standard. The review of the transparency framework assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference which focus on five key elements: i) information gathering process, ii) exchange of information, iii) confidentiality of the information received; iv) statistics on the exchanges on rulings; and v) transparency on certain aspects of intellectual property regimes. The reviews of confidentiality of the information received defer to the work of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes and the outcomes of that work are not published. Recommendations are issued where improvements are needed to meet the minimum standard.

This report reflects the outcome of the annual peer review of the implementation of the Action 5 minimum standard and covers 124 jurisdictions. It assesses implementation for the 1 January - 31 December 2019 period.