Publications

En tant qu’institutions financières dont l’activité consiste à accepter et à gérer des risques, les assureurs sont tenus d’observer des pratiques de bonne gouvernance et de se doter de systèmes efficaces de gestion des risques. La nature de leurs activités les oblige à se soumettre à des principes de conduite spécifiques concernant leurs risques et responsabilités.
 
Les Lignes directrices de l’OCDE sur la gouvernance des assureurs ont pour but de définir des lignes de conduite et de servir de référentiel aux assureurs, aux autorités publiques et aux autres parties prenantes concernées dans les pays membres et non membres de l’OCDE. Elles ont été révisées et augmentées pour la deuxième fois depuis leur adoption en 2005 afin de refléter l’évolution des pratiques et la mise à jour des recommandations internationales dans le domaine après la crise financière.

In 2014 the OECD carried out work to take stock of OECD countries' achievements in building resilience to major natural and man-made disasters. The report suggested that albeit significant achievements were made through effective risk prevention and mitigation management, past disasters have revealed persistent vulnerabilities and gaps in risk prevention management across OECD. Based on the findings of this OECD-wide report a cross-country comparative study was undertaken in Austria, France and Switzerland to test the recommendations put forward in specific country contexts. This report summarises the individual and comparative country case study findings. It highlights that the risk prevention policy mix has shifted in favor of organisational measures such as hazard informed land use planning or strengthening the enforcement of risk sensitive regulations. In the meantime, the great need for maintaining the large stock of structural protection measures has been overlooked and vulnerability might increase because of that. The report highlights the need for better policy evaluation to increase the effectiveness of risk prevention measures in the future. The report highlights practices where countries succeeded to make risk prevention a responsibility of the whole of government and the whole of society, by analysing supporting governance and financing arrangements.

The future of coal – the world’s dominant fuel for more than a century – continues to be one of the most pressing questions in the energy scene. Coal is under pressure in many regions of the world for its contribution to greenhouse gases. It is being squeezed out in power generation by cheap and abundant natural gas and fast-growing renewables, whose costs are also plummeting.At the same time, however, recent declines in coal usage have also been reversed this year by stronger consumption in coal’s three largest markets – China, India, and the United States. But, whereas this growth is expected to be temporary in China and United States, that is not the case for India. Despite progress in energy efficiency improvements and the deployment of renewables, increasing energy needs for its economic growth and development will push India to expand coal use.The IEA Coal 2017 market and analysis report provides a comprehensive analysis of recent trends and forecasts through 2022 of coal demand, supply and trade at both the global and regional levels. The insights provided in this report help to explain the current developments in coal markets and provide a window into the fuel’s future over the next five years.

Pour diverses raisons, la consommation d'énergie dans le secteur agroalimentaire continue d'augmenter et, dans de nombreux pays, dépend fortement des combustibles fossiles, contribuant ainsi de manière significative aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Il devient donc urgent d'examiner comment la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire peut améliorer son efficacité énergétique. Ce rapport analyse les moyens d'améliorer l’efficacité d’utilisation de l’énergie dans le secteur agro-alimentaire, aussi bien pour les producteurs que pour les consommateurs, et propose un ensemble de recommandations d’action que les pouvoirs publics peuvent mettre en œuvre pour atteindre les objectifs de croissance verte et parvenir au développement durable.

This report identifies effective strategies to tackle skills imbalances in Italy. It provides an assessment of practices and policies in the following areas: the collection and use of information on skill needs to foster a better alignment of skills acquisitions with labour market needs; the design of education and training systems and their responsiveness to changing skill needs; the re-training of unemployed individuals; and the improvement of skills use and skills matching in the labour market. The assessment is based on country visits, desk research and data analysis conducted by the OECD Secretariat.

Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Liechtenstein, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

Aux termes de l'Action 14, les juridictions se sont engagées à mettre en œuvre un standard minimum afin d’améliorer l'efficacité et l’efficience de la procédure amiable (PA). La PA est prévue à l'article 25 du modèle de convention fiscale de l'OCDE et engage les pays à s'efforcer de résoudre les différends relatifs à l'interprétation et à l'application des conventions fiscales. Le Standard Minimum de l’Action 14 a été traduit en termes de référence précis, et une méthodologie a été établie pour le processus d’examen par les pairs et de suivi de cet examen. Le standard minimum est complétée par un ensemble de bonnes pratiques.Le processus d'examen par les pairs se déroule en deux phrases. La première phase consiste à évaluer les juridictions par rapport aux termes de référence du standard minimum, selon un calendrier d'examen convenu. La seconde phase procède au suivi des recommandations formulées dans le rapport d'examen par les pairs de phase 1 des juridictions. Le présent rapport reflète les résultats de l'évaluation par les pairs de phase 1 de la mise en œuvre du Standard Minimum de l'Action 14 par le Luxembourg. Il est accompagné d'un document sur la mise en oeuvre des bonnes pratiques, accessible sur le site de l'OCDE.

Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process.The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Italy.

Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The minimum standard is complemented by a set of best practices.The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Austria, which is accompanied by a document addressing the implementation of best practices which can be accessed on the OECD website.

Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process.The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by Germany.