Reports

Over the past ten years economic growth in Asia has contributed to a reduction of poverty as well as fertility rates, and greater prosperity has contributed to gains in life expectancy. However, at present many workers still work in informal employment, frequently for long hours at little pay and without social protection coverage. A growing demand for social support, extending the coverage of social protection benefits and improving the job quality of workers will be among Asia’s major challenges in future. This report considers these challenges, providing policy examples from countries to illustrate good practice, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Viet Nam.

This publication compiles comparable tax revenue statistics for Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. The model is the OECD Revenue Statistics database – a fundamental reference, backed by a well-established methodology, for OECD member countries. Extending the OECD methodology to Asian countries enables comparisons about tax levels and tax structures on a consistent basis, both among Asian economies and between OECD and Asian economies. This work has been is jointly undertaken by the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration and the OECD Development Centre.

One of the largest economies in the world, Japan has long been a major consumer and importer of energy and a recognised leader in energy technology development. Japan’s energy policy has been dominated in recent years by its efforts to overcome the fallout from the 2011 earthquake and the subsequent Fukushima nuclear accident. One consequence of the accident was a gradual shutdown of all nuclear power plants, which has led to a significant rise in fossil fuels use, increased fuel imports and rising carbon dioxide emissions. It has also brought electricity prices to unsustainable levels. Faced with these challenges, the government of Japan has revised its energy policy in recent years to focus on further diversifying its energy mix (less use of fossil fuels, more reliance on renewable energy, restarting nuclear plants when declared safe) and curbing carbon emissions. Building on these plans, Japan has outlined ambitious goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26% between 2013 and 2030. This emissions reduction commitment requires a balancing act between energy security, economic efficiency, environmental protection and safety. This International Energy Agency (IEA) review of Japan’s policies highlights three areas that are critical to its success: energy efficiency, increasing renewable energy supply and restarting nuclear power generation. The IEA encourages Japan to increase low-carbon sources of power supply. It also recognises that nuclear power can only be restored provided that the highest safety standards are met and the critical issues following the Fukushima accident are addressed, including decontaminating areas affected by the radioactive release and regaining public trust. This review analyses the energy policy challenges facing Japan and provides recommendations for further policy improvements. It is intended to help guide the country towards a more secure, sustainable and affordable energy future.

The Nuclear Energy Agency carried out an independent peer review of Japan’s siting process and criteria for the geological disposal of high-level radioactive waste in May 2016. The review concluded that Japan’s site screening process is generally in accordance with international practices. As the goal of the siting process is to locate a site – that is both appropriate and accepted by the community – to host a geological disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste, the international review team emphasises in this report the importance of maintaining an open dialogue and interaction between the regulator, the implementer and the public. Dialogue should begin in the early phases and continue throughout the siting process. The international review team also underlines the importance of taking into account feasibility aspects when selecting a site for preliminary investigations, but suggests that it would be inappropriate to set detailed scientific criteria for nationwide screening at this stage. The team has provided extensive advisory remarks in the report as opportunities for improvement, including the recommendation to use clear and consistent terminology in defining the site screening criteria as it is a critical factor in a successful siting process.