You are here:   SEEA >> SEEA Revision >> Issues - Central Framework
 Home
 SEEA
      SEEA Revision
      Energy
      Water
      Land and Ecosystems
 SEEA Briefing Notes
 Publications
 Meetings
 Technical Cooperation
      Workshops
      Global Assessment
      SEEA EEA
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Environment industry

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:25/11/2010
Number of comments:31
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
23/12/2010Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Such a label may be confusing – first of all one is talking about activities and not products , so that it should be Environmental Goods and Services Producers. Second, the classification of activities is by establishment and not by enterprise, so that the use of sector is misleading, and industry would be a better choice. Would suggest: “Environmental Goods and Services Producers ” if an addition is needed it should be “industries”.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, the scope should be equal.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Information on the producer’s intentions may be difficult to obtain, so the classification of activities by technical nature may be a solution. Since one is talking about activities, the user’s intention should not be in focus.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes, concepts and definitions should be consistent with 2008 SNA, although additional breakdowns may be used.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes, seems useful
17/12/2010Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
No Both “industry” and “sector” is in the national accounts (SNA) used in a slightly different way than when using “sector” to label the group of environmental producers. Since the definitions of SNA to a large extent should form the basis also for SEEA, we recommend that the same terminology should have the same meaning in both the SNA and the SEEA. In order to avoid possible misunderstandings of the definitions of concepts, we would recommend trying to harmonise the terminology in use and avoid possible sources to misconception. We would therefore prefer that another word than “sector” or “industry” to be used, or only to use “environmental goods and services”. Then the focus is on the nature of the product or service itself.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes, primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes, but clarify CReMA vs. CRUMA.
  6. Any other comments?
Reading the outcome-paper, we still find issues where we see that further clarification is needed in order to give clear recommendations to the users of SEEA when compiling EGGS. Examples are identification of goods and services with several purposes, integrated technologies, definition of cleaner technologies and products.
14/12/2010Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, but also features of the goods, e.g. capacity to improve environment should be taken into account.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
01/12/2010Turkey / Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes. The term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group instead of environment industry. Environment Industry sounds like productive sectors except households.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes. EGSS includes also use of both end of pipe technologies and integrated technologies for environmental protection and resource management.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes. Focus should be on the technical nature of the activity or the producer’s intentions for EGSS.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes. Since EGSS includes resource management activities also, both should be used for the classification of environmental protection activities and resource management.
29/11/2010New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Statistics New Zealand agrees the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Statistics New Zealand strongly agrees that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA).
  6. Any other comments?
It is accepted that separate classification systems are required for specific purposes. However, the proliferation of classification systems associated with environmental protection expenditure (CEPA, CRUMA, CEA and CReMA) is at risk of creating confusion over which system to use and when. The revised SEEA will need to be very explicit and unambiguous about their use, alignment and/or differences.
29/11/2010India/TERI University1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
What about environmentally deteriorating activities. The environmentally deteriorating activities though are contributing to the GDP, they reduces the social welfare
  6. Any other comments?
EGSS, though already part of the SNA, but the separate classification will help in identifying the data on these activities. But the question is this EGSS sector though contributing to the GDP is not contributing to the welfare of society directly. It is simply trying to mitigate the reduction in welfare that is happening due to deteriorating environment.
29/11/2010Botswana Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, agreed
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes, agree
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Agree
29/11/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
ABS has a preference for using the word ‘industry’ rather than ‘sector’? It is common for other non-standard ISIC (such as activity) views such as tourism, food, and transport to adopt the term ‘industry’. Where alternative industry views (to ISIC) are taken it is common to label it as a ‘satellite account’. Tourism Satellite Accounts and Transport Industry Satellite Accounts are examples of where alternative industry views have been constructed using the power of the supply and use methodology. It also implies a degree of modelling that is often necessary to derive some of the estimates.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Agree.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Technical nature should be the primary determinant. Both producers intentions and users intentions should be considered as secondary determinants. While the environmental good and services industry is a supply side concept, much of the data are likely to be derived from the use side (environmental protection expenditure and resource management expenditure) where the users intention is paramount. The conceptual and classifications alignment between the environmental goods and services industry, EPE, RME, environmental taxes and subsidies should be as tight as possible in order to utilise the integrating power of the supply and use approach.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Agree
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Agree.
  6. Any other comments?
ABS has reservations about the conceptual disconnect between the environmental goods and services industry on the supply side and environmental protection expenditures and resource management expenditures on the use side. This concerns the different valuation of adapted goods and integrated technologies in the supply and use side (for example the former would include the full value of a hybrid car and the latter only the extra cost over a car of the same utility). If the need for the different valuation is confirmed, SEEA should deal with the issue more specifically in the supply and use context and how it can be resolved in practice (for example a reconciliation column). An associated issue is the treatment of wholesale and retail trade and transport margins on the sale of environmental goods and services. They would have to be included as environmental services in order to align supply and use. A number of issues are likely to arise as countries undertake compilation of these accounts. Experience gained from the production of other satellite accounts such as tourism will be useful input to the work.
26/11/2010Jordan/ Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
We agree to use the term EGSS to label the group of environmental producers, because the definitions and the guidelines for collecting the data is already exist even if there is a difficulties arising from identification of the EGSS products and services, by taking into the account the secondary activities and side products.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
We agree to define SEEA an EGSS with this scope, because that will facilitate compiling the adjusted GDP.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
We agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Also we agree to ignore user’s intentions.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
We disagree, because the nature of EGSS and GSS in GDP is different and the connected accounting processes are different (taxes, … etc.). Concerning the value added of EGSS we agree to be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
We agree that CEPA and CRUMA are the most suitable classification for EGSS for the time being because its compatible with CEPA and CRUMA classifications. Later it could be compatible with Environmentally beneficial activities and Minimisation of natural hazards.
26/11/2010Mexico/ INEGI1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Being the environmental accounting a satellite account according to the 2008 SNA, we agree using the term "Sector" for activities related to environmental goods and services.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, whenever the importance of EGSS strengthens the analysis of economy-environment relationship in the context of the 2008 SNA.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes. We agree that the approach of producer should being predominated, whenever it can be expanding the boundary of the environmentally motivated actions in terms of its measure’s scope. The determination of activity by the user''s approach might be more complicated.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes. It is necessary to harmonize the transactions within the EGSS in the revised version of SEEA, for a conceptual homologation with the 2008 SNA.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes. We agree that from the production approach, the activities within the EGSS, should be use the CEPA and the CReMA like classifications.
26/11/2010Slovak Republic/ Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes, we agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, we agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes, we agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes, we agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
We agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)
  6. Any other comments?
None
26/11/2010Hungary/ Central Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
YES
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
YES
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
YES
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
YES
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
YES
  6. Any other comments?
NO
26/11/2010European Commission - Eurostat1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
On balance NO There are some arguments for calling this group an ''industry'' or a ''sector'' and indeed both terms are found in the literature and in popular and policy documents. However, both terms are misleading since they are not used in the same way as elsewhere in the statistical system and therefore can be easily misunderstood. We would suggest that neither term is used and that we simply refer to "environmental goods and services" since this is what is being identified. If a term is needed then perhaps using the description "producers of environmental goods and services" would be one way to avoid this type of confusing terminology use.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
YES Environmental protection (CEPA) and resource management (part of draft CRUMA) are covered at this point in time by the existing classifications of environmental activities and expenditures. Activities like for example disaster prevention are not yet covered by any classification of environmental activities.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
YES The main purpose criterion is introduced by SERIEE 1994 and has been used for the development of environmental protection expenditure statistics/accounts. Environmental goods and services should also be using the same criterion to maintain consistency.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
YES
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
YES
  6. Any other comments?
In the cover note there is a question on whether concepts and definitions of the environmental industry (EGSS) are mature enough to be included in the revised SEEA which is to be proposed to become a statistical standard. Eurostat strongly supports the inclusion of environmental goods and services in the revised SEEA. The methodology for identifying environmental goods and services was updated and improved in 2009(using the 1999 work as a starting point).The methodology has since been tested in European countries. The results of the test data collection showed that the applicability of the definitions, concepts and classifications, functions very well. Guidance for deciding about difficult cases is provided as examples in the methodological/compilation guidelines. Moreover, all definitions and concepts are based on already existing frameworks (SERIEE). There is also a great deal of policy demand for these types of data from policy makers at national and international levels so statistical guidance for developing these types of figures needs to be provided in the SEEA.
26/11/2010Latvia/ Central Statistical Bureau1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes, we think this label is more precise than “environmental industry”.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes we agree that focus should be on the technical nature of the activity. For borderline cases it''s seems quite impossible to have reliable information on producers intentions! Though for theoretical definition it is right.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
No
26/11/2010Switzerland/ Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Rather yes on question 1, seeing no better solution than to use the producer’s intentions in border line cases. And yes on question 2: the focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes, it is crucial in this domain that the concepts and definitions are consistent with the SNA 2008.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
No
26/11/2010Lithuania/ Statistics Lithuania1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes, we agree.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, we agree.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes, we agree.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes, we agree.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes, we agree.
  6. Any other comments?
No comments.
26/11/2010France/ Ministry of Ecology1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Agree
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Agree
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Agree
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Agree
  6. Any other comments?
The technology concept which is used in the outcome paper could be further clarified. Indeed, according to OECD definition, a technology is not a product but is defined as the state of knowledge concerning ways of converting resources into outputs. The definition of environmental technologies given p. 6 exclusively refers to the technologies included in the new products or through their use in production processes. This vision leaves out technologies identified as immaterial capital, i.e. patents or new organisation methods. Moreover it is difficult to differentiate connected products technologies from adapted goods technologies. For example a catalytic converter is an identifiable equipment whose purpose is reducing pollution and as such it corresponds to an end of pipe technology. However it can also be considered as a connected product since its only purpose is environmental. Hence, a more precise definition of technology would be helpful to distinguish the different types of environmental goods and consequently, ease international comparisons. Lastly, installation of equipment for the production of renewable energy is rather a connected service than a characteristic service. Installing a wind turbine, for instance, requires the joint work of several corporations belonging to different industries, undertaking connected activities.
24/11/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Cannot form an opinion, as the reason why resource use is excluded is not explained.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Although we agree with the principle, it is not clear why resource use is not part of the EGGS. In addition, the overarching classification framework should be CEA. In the SEEA reference should only be made to CEA or particular parts of it. For example, instead of CEPA the reference should be to CEA section 1 to 9 and instead of CReMA refer to the resource management activities of CEA section 10 to 16.
24/11/2010Germany/ Destatis1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes.
  6. Any other comments?
Further explanations needed regarding the connection between the two concepts EPE and EGSS.
24/11/2010Republic of Mauritius/ CSO1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
It is too long as name. Environment sector would be better.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
None
24/11/2010United Kingdom/ Office for National Statistics 1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes. Recognising the divergence from the use of “sector” in the SNA, it is agreed the terminology is preferable to “industry”.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes, agree in principle. UK experience suggests there will be some practical issues in determining the boundaries, for example, in applying the exclusions laid out in para. 22 and distinguishing goods and services relating to climate change adaptation.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes.
  6. Any other comments?
Whilst we support the inclusion of these general principles in volume 1, it should be recognised that even with the work over the past 10 years, the application/testing of this framework is in its infancy. This is a difficult area to measure and it is certain there are still many lessons to be learned. It should be anticipated that there will be scope for some revision in the future. The UK is currently running a feasibility study (with the support of Eurostat funding) to test the application of the Eurostat Handbook and produce pilot results.
24/11/2010Austria/ Statistics Austria1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes, definitely it is too complicated to compile data with focus on the user’s intentions
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes, especially an explicit Classification of Renewable Energy in CReMA 13.a is important for international comparisons
23/11/2010Ecuador/INEC1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes, we do agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) is considering labeling this group of producers from the environment because it is making reference or relying on the System of Integrated Economic Environmental Accounts (SEEA) which identifies four groups of environmental activities that have an environmental objective. We agree that the proposal of EGSS because it looks after at environmental activities from the perspective of producers and it goes directly to consider variables such as production, added value and employment in a traditional source of national accounts, target table and associated production accounts.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
We agree that the SCAEI will make a scope for the term of Goods and Environmental Services Sector (EGSS) because it will deemed products, technologies and services, both preventive and corrective in nature, such as the reduction, prevention or treatment of waste and sewage, prevention, elimination or reduction of air emissions, treatment and disposal of contaminated soil and groundwater, the prevention or reduction of noise and vibration, the preservation of ecological entities and landscapes, monitoring the quality of environmental media, as well as research and development (I+D), general administration and training and educational activities aimed at environmental protection.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
No, we don´t because the main purpose of an activity the primary focus must be of the same technique. We mostly disagree because is excluding activities which are beneficial for the environment (technical, human and economic or health and safety requirements) are not being taken in consideration to the EGSS because its main purpose is not to protect the environment.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes, we agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the SNA because is linking the products that are clearly within the concept of field study, while not typical, either by nature or because they are classified into broader categories of products, because for the EGSS, a product linked directly as an environment has no use except for environmental protection or resource management.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes, we do because is based on CReMA and CEPA have been developed some works to determine the contribution of different environmental sectors.
  6. Any other comments?
None
23/11/2010Netherlands/ Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
First question:Yes Second question:Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
Our main point is that more attention should be devoted to the differences between EPE and EGSS in the revised SEEA. Suggestions: Firstly, there are differences on how the statistics handle imports/exports. EPE statistics include goods and services purchased either from national or international suppliers and cannot distinguish between the two. In other words, the EPE statistics take into account the imports of environmental related goods and services. The EGSS statistic only tries to measure the production of goods and services produced by the national economy of a country. Also the related employment, value added and the exports are measured in the EGSS statistic. Secondly, the EPE statistic only measures the extra cost of environmental goods and services while the EGSS capture the full turnover. The definition of the EPE statistic states that only the incremental costs should be taken into account while the definition of the EGSS states that total turnover should be captured. These two different approaches try to measure two different developments. The EPE statistic tries to measure the extra costs related to more strict environmental regulation and care for the environment. In this statistic, a correction is made for input savings. One can think of potential energy savings related to air emission reduction. The EGSS statistic tries to measure the market for environmental related goods and services that support both the environment and the economy. In other words, the EGSS statistic tries to measure the growth in market for environmental related products that suits both the economy and the environment.
19/11/2010Canada/ Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes. However, the Eurostat Handbook removes resource use from the EGSS classification (CReMA) while the proposed RUMEA does not.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes. However, for dual-use goods and/or services, this could be a difficult challenge. In those cases, it is the user who is best suited to evaluate whether or not a good or service was used for the main purpose of protecting the environment, or for resource management. The producer intentions are best suited to end-of-pipe types of goods or those specifically related to renewable energy, for example. In addition, this could lead to inconsistencies when trying to balance supply and demand, and could lead to difficulty when using the demand side to estimate the supply side.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes. Please note the issue of using CReMA for the supply side and CRUMA on the demand side.
  6. Any other comments?
The outcome papers address the relationship between the EGSS, or supply of environmental goods and services and the use of CEPA/CReMA and the proposed CEA that will combine CEPA and CRUMA classifications on the demand side. However, more explanation should be provided to users of the SEEA to further explain the conceptual differences between the concepts, and what the benefits and differences are in measuring the EGSS and EPE/CRUMA, when the paper admits that there is a connection, but they do not always align. These issues should be addressed and clarified in the SEEA chapter.
18/11/2010USA/ Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
No. Our position is that determining the main purpose of an activity the only focus should be on the technical nature of the activity. The outcome paper has no discussion of how the producer’s intentions can be determined by the national accountant, and we fail to see how any self-reported intentions would meet any standard of objectivity.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
The concept of “integrated technologies” is defined with respect to “equivalent average technology used by national producers” (paragraph 23). Adaptive goods are similarly defined with respect to a norm: “Adapted goods are goods which are less pollutant or more resource efficient than equivalent normal goods which furnish similar utility” (paragraph 23). Moreover, the primary purpose of a good does not have to be an environmental purpose in order for it to be considered an adaptive good (footnote 5). We have three issues that we would like clarified before we can agree: 1. Are adaptive goods similarly defined relative to the national average? Adaptive goods are not classified according to the “primary purpose” rule, and instead according to whether they are more resource efficient than a “normal” good. Then if normal is the average – the average according to some resource efficiency metric let’s say – then approximately half (assuming symmetry) of all goods will be classified as adaptive…Thus some precise meaning of “normal” in the quoted paragraph above is needed. 2. Does the “national average” pertain to some measureable quality (such as energy consumption) of the good or technology? a. If so, how do we treat goods or technologies with environmental impacts that can be measured along two or more separate dimensions? For example, ethanol production – which has an environmental purpose – relies heavily on both electricity and water. How do we weight electrical and water intensity against the benefits of renewable energy creation in order to determine whether ethanol falls within the EGSS of a given country? b. If so, what is the broader set of goods and technologies from which the average is calculated? For example, if wind turbines are the good in question, then is the set all goods electricity production? This definition would rely on the perfect substitutability of outputs.
  6. Any other comments?
Note that by defining components of the EGSS as relative to the national average, it means that cross-country comparisons would be difficult.
18/11/2010Denmark/ Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
18/11/2010Azerbaijan/ State Statistical Committee1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
As you know, the term “sector of economy” is differed from “field of economy”. If the sector consists of big number of enterprises that are classified in accordance with its main type of activity, the field consists of parts of enterprises, engaged only with one type of activity. All of the elements of present field are combined by the field, carried out corresponding type of the activity. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify definition EGSS on grouping of the ecological producers.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Agree, no comments
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
In determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should not be on the producer’s intentions, but on the result of its activity. Result means technical nature of the activity.
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Agree, no comments
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Agree, no comments
  6. Any other comments?
No comments
18/11/2010Malaysia/ Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
YES
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
YES
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
YES
  6. Any other comments?
1. The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) has no experience in developing any environmental account using the SEEA framework. However, DOSM is currently trying to develop one of the SEEA account (eg Water account) with the experience and knowledge gain while visiting Australia Bureau Statistics (ABS), and also with the guide of the SEEA 2003. However DOSM, experience constrains in developing this account with lack of expertise in this field, human resources and budget. 2. DOSM also wants to learn in detail how to develop the SEEA account. Please inform and include us if there is any training/workshop to be conducted in future. 3. Therefore DOSM is unable to contribute fruitful comments for the revision of the SEEA. However, DOSM would like to be involved in further development of this matter.
18/11/2010Philippines/ National Statistical Coordination Board1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
We agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
We agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
We agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Likewise, we agree that the focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
We agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant details of the 2008 SNA
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
We agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
  6. Any other comments?
We do no have any other comments
01/11/2010Republic of Mauritius1. Do you agree that the term Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS) should be used to label the group of environmental producers?
It is too long as name. Environment sector would be better.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an EGSS should be defined with a scope equal to the production of environmental goods, technologies and services for the environmental activities of environmental protection and resource management?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in determining the main purpose of an activity the primary focus should be on the technical nature of the activity and, in border line cases, the producer’s intentions. Focus should not be placed on the user’s intentions?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in accounting for the transactions and units within the EGSS all of the relevant concepts and definitions should be consistent with the relevant detail of the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that activities within scope of the EGSS should be classified by the Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and the Classification of Resource Management Activities (CReMA)?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
None
 

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2014