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
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Classification of natural resource management expenditures

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:25/11/2010
Number of comments:26
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
17/12/2010Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Generally yes, but we do not see the meaning of “limit to cover only non-produced natural resources” – is not natural resources generally non-produced.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes, it should separate clearly between (1) environmental protection, (2) natural resource management and (3) natural resource use. The categories should not be mingled?
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
What is important is to ensure that these two classifications are held separable from each other, and an overarching classification may help ensuring that?
  5. Any other comments?
None
01/12/2010Turkey / Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes. The scope of RUM should be consistent with SEEA 2003.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes. Since they will be complementary and consistent, application of the classification of RUM activities would be easier depending on same practical experience acquired using CEPA.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes. It would be useful to combine two classifications, but the activities of each item should be well defined to prevent complexity.
29/11/2010New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) should be adopted. This is a very welcomed development.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable.
  5. Any other comments?
In the past one of the greatest challenges in producing Environmental Protection Expenditure Accounts has been identifying whether specific expenditure activities should be assigned to EPA or NRM. Establishment of the CRUMA to complement the CEPA is therefore welcomed as it should ensure clear separation between the classifications and simplify decisions on where to assign expenditure activities.
29/11/2010Botswana Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Recommendation 9.3 regarding borderlines cases between environmental protection and resource use management refers to paragraph 30 in the relevant outcome paper. However, this paragraph only gives a series of examples suggesting how the principle of major purpose should be applied in particular cases. It would be better for the recommendation to read: "That the treatment of borderline classification between environmental protection and resource use and management activities should be determined according to main purpose, taking into account the specific features of the territory where the activities are carried out and, where relevant, consistent with the examples outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper."
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
No comment
  5. Any other comments?
Definitions should be clear cut to avoid unnecessary manipulations
29/11/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
The ABS supports RM and RU being clearly separated. To be more consistent with the EGSS concept (which proposes that EGSS scope should be classified by the CEPA and CReMA) they should probably be separate and unique classifications.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Agree but would prefer these options to be more explicit in the actual classifications, not just in the SEEA text.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
The ABS feels there may be more policy interest in this than CRUMA as a single classification.
26/11/2010Finland / Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes. Separating resource management and resource use activities is important. One possibility for arranging this is to move the subclass ‘Direct management’ to be the first subclass in each CRUMA class and rename this subclass so that it does not contain the word ‘management’.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes
26/11/2010Jordan/ Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
We agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be define consistently with the SEEA-2003. Also, we think as a mitigation measures to the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources, are to circulate continuously as per the scope definitions are updated and available. That because its better to have a reference definitions in such a global frame like revised SEEA in order to capture the expenditures in holistic point of view.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
We agree that the CRUMA should be adopted in the revised SEEA that because not all the countries have environmental protection activities separated from resource management and resource use activities, for example this is the case in Jordan. Whether that resource management and resource use activities are clearly separated or not its complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing CEPA.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
We disagree because this is going to be time and efforts consuming, as well as all the projects have both activities and its too difficult to define the borderline classification cases in most cases, particularly in developing countries. Furthermore, environmental protection agency (EPA) usually care more for protect or management the environment rather than provide information that help define the borderline classification cases.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
We agree that CEA should be established but different dimensions should be considered in other words CEA should be at the same time subject to the separation as per type of activities that occurring in the specific EPA and the total captured expenditures at any dimension should be the same.
26/11/2010Mexico/ INEGI1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
The Chapter V of the SEEA-2003, paragraph 5.26, considers that the coverage of environmental activities is still evolving, however, this manual states four sorts of environmental activities of which include those that are linked with the use and management of natural resources and which coincides with the objectives of the Classification of Natural Resource Use and Management Activities and Expenditures (CRUMA). Therefore, we agree with the consistency of the CRUMA about the natural resource use and management activities and it is appropriate for its consideration in the revised SEEA.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
The identification of environmental activities in the CRUMA is based on the same criteria of primary purpose of the CEPA, the activities envisaged in the classification of use and management of resources like water and energy saving, efforts to decrease use minerals, among others, are not included in the CEPA, therefore, both classifications are complementary, comparable and consistent. However, despite that it is important to separate the use and management activities, in practice, the classification of environmental activities is limited to available information to identify those actions of others that are linked to environmental protection.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Despite the fact that the SEEA-2003 mentions the activities that can be environmental protection or resources natural use and management such as goods used for energy saving or renewable energy generation, it is important to clearly and correctly identify differences for each activity. Therefore, it is important that this issue be addressed in the revised SEEA.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Being CRUMA and CEPA complementary classifications and in despite having cases that can be share the same borderline, we agree to establish both of them in only one classification. It is also important to include in such classification activities related to the SEEA-2003, such as minimisation of natural hazards.
26/11/2010Germany/ Federal Statistical Office 1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes. In order to emphasise the distinction between RU and RM activities the wording of the definition of CRUMA could be changed. In section D. 26 and the Annex 2 RU is referred to as “direct management”. This could cause confusion with RM activities. To avoid this, we would suggest changing the name of the RU category.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No comments
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
No, we strongly recommend keeping these two classifications separate. To our view summing up all elements of a classification should lead to meaningful results. However, the sum of environmentally beneficial activities (environmental protection and resource management activities) and the resource use as a (potentially) environmentally harmful activity could be difficult to interpret.
  5. Any other comments?
No comments
26/11/2010Hungary/ Central Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
NO COMMENTS
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
YES
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
YES
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
NO COMMENTS
  5. Any other comments?
NO
26/11/2010European Commission - Eurostat1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
YES
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
YES
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
YES
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
YES This is in line with SEEA 2003 §5.26 where it states that the statistical coverage of environmental activities is evolving and for the present the following groups of purposes are to be considered: "Environmental protection activities, natural resource management and exploitation activities, environmentally beneficial activities and minimization of natural hazards." Given that a classification for environmental protection activities already exists (CEPA 2000) and that a new draft concerning natural resource management and exploitation activities is being proposed to be adopted by the UN Expert groups on classification, it seems logical that there is one overall classification of environmental activities which has two distinctive sub-components.
26/11/2010Latvia/ Central Statistical Bureau1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
We agree that resource use and management should be consistent with SEEA-2003, but same time we think it’s may be problematic ti stick with limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources. It can be difficult to distinguish between cultivated and non-cultivated forests.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes, we agree
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Overall yes. Concerning renewable energy production and energy saving activities there are almost always more than one main purpose. And it’s very hard to determine which one- reduction of air pollution or reduction of intake from fossil energy resources is main reason for development of renewable energy production. We would prefer if all energy related activities would stay under CRUMA classification.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
No, we don’t seed need for that. That will make things just more complicated, already there are 2 classifications (even more if include CReMA), and why is needed third if CRUMA and CEPA still have to be separable.
  5. Any other comments?
No
26/11/2010Switzerland / Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes, we agree and stress the importance to clearly separate the resource management activities and the resource use activities.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Rather yes, seeing no better solution and being aware that the proposed treatment of borderline classification cases between EP and RUM activities may create problems in comparing data across time and across countries.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes
  5. Any other comments?
No
26/11/2010France/ Ministry of Ecology1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Agree
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Agree
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
There seems to be a contradiction betweeen the principle of adopting a unique classification and the fact that countries still have the opportunity to choose between CRUMA and CEPA classifications separately. In doing so we bear the risk to blur the use of each classification by the different countries, and add risks of overlapping use of the two classifications, of changes through time... Such practices are subject to various interpretations between countries. So we don''t advise to keep separately the two classifications, to ease the international comparisons. Moreover we consider it is really important to state clear recommendations or rules for the different items (activities and expenditures) in order every user adopt the same allocations. Therefore, we recommend to keep the single option of merging the two classifications into one, and to leave out the possibility to come back to the former use of the two separate classifications.
24/11/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes. However, the overarching classification framework should be CEA. In the SEEA reference should only be made to CEA or particular parts of it. For example, reference to the resource use and management activities would then be CEA section 10 to 16. There should therefore be no reference to CEPA/CRUMA/CReMA.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes – See comment under question 2. The SEEA should not use the CRUMA and CEPA as sub classifications but only refer to the relevant parts on CEA
24/11/2010Republic of Mauritius/ CSO1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes but reference could also be made to the Environmental Goods and Services Sector (EGSS).
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes but also with EGSS.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes
  5. Any other comments?
None
24/11/2010United Kingdom/ Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
The only difficulty in interpreting this definition in the UK is that the CRUMA characterises natural forests a “virgin forests and…all activities and actions related to cultivated forests are excluded”. All forests in the UK are considered to be cultivated, as it is believed that there are no forest areas in the UK that have not had human intervention at some time and, even if there are, we are unable to distinguish them in practice. Even woodland that is not used for commercial purposes is owned and managed in some way.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes, but it should be noted that the main purpose of an activity will potentially change over time.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
This would be helpful going forward in ensuring one classification is not reviewed without due respect to the other and the boundary issues which exist.
  5. Any other comments?
Whilst supporting the principles outlined, UK experience has found that data sources are not always immediately available, especially where activities are multi-purpose.
24/11/2010Austria/ Statistics Austria1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes Resource Management and Resource use activities definitely need to be clearly separated
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes Concerning Renewable Energy and Energy Savings: we prefer the exclusive classification in CRUMA 13.1 and 13.2 – otherwise any comparison of data between countries would be very difficult
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes
23/11/2010Ecuador/INEC1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes, we do agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA -2003 for the activities are going to be defined with a consistent definition to the categories and the limitations.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes, we do agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) will be complement, comparable and compatible with (CEPA) who meet the criteria and principles. We agree with Figure 2.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes, we do that in some cases are demanded, extremely care and carefully approach, should be approved by the revised SCAEI.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes we do agree that it exists and describing one general classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) and this order is based on CRUMA and CEPA, this classification allows clearly two types of activity.
  5. Any other comments?
None
23/11/2010Netherlands/ Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes, I agree.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes, I agree. It is important that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly and completely separated.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No, we do not agree with the classification with regard to ‘Production of energy from renewable resources and energy saving’. According to the proposal activities related to energy saving / renewable energy production can either be classified in the CRUMA or CEPA depending on the main purpose of the activity or the specific characteristics of the economy or the main policy concerns. This seems rather arbitrary and also leads to statistics that may not be comparable between countries. These activities often have two purposes, namely both resource use reduction and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In most cases it is not possible to distinguish between these two. The classification scheme would improve significantly if all climate and energy related issues are classified together. Thus, it would be better to either choose CEPA or CRUMA to classify these activities. CEPA activities (like in the area of wastewater reduction, noise reduction et cetera) always bring about direct effects. At the moment the environmental activity (for instance wastewater treatment or remediation of soil) occurs or is used in a certain production process (noiseless tractor engine or catalyst for a car), it brings a direct effect on reducing pollution and improving the environment. This is not the case with both energy saving and renewable energy. By the production of renewable energy, there is no direct effect on improving the environment. Indirectly, these activities of course cause a reduction in the use of natural resources. This difference in effect (direct/indirect) may be a good reason to classify energy-related issues under CRUMA. In this way, energy-related activities in its entirety stay together. Energy will not be split up into its constituent parts (like the other compartments waste, noise et cetera). The international comparability and interpretation will be better (e.g. for policy objectives) and you avoid practical problems (for instance when countries are endowed with fossil energy resources as well as energy is obtained from imports).
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes, I agree.
  5. Any other comments?
No.
19/11/2010Canada/ Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes. Particularly agree that resource management and resource use activities must be separated, in order to be consistent with the classification used in the Environmental Goods and Services Sector handbook, as well as to clearly distinguish between management of resources and exploitation.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes. Canada strongly supports the use of the main purpose principle for boundary cases. The main purpose principle should be applied consistently throughout the both classifications (CEPA/CRUMA). For example, renewable energy should fall under the main purpose principle.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes. Canada supports this initiative. However, the combined classification must be able to separate out resource use and resource management, as well as adopt the main purpose principal for all sub-categories in the classification.
  5. Any other comments?
The revised SEEA must be able to guide users with respect to providing a clear definition of the “main purpose” principle, and how data users or providers should determine whether or not an expenditure was for environmental protection, resource management or resource use. The SEEA must also take into account the use of CRUMA for the classification of resource use and management activities while the classification used in the Environment Goods and Services Sector excludes resource use in its classification. The distinction should be clarified should the CEA be used to measure the demand side, and the EGSS used to measure the supply side. The SEEA should clearly explain how the EGSS aligns with the EPEA (and RU/RM). A clear discussion of boundary issues between the EGSS and EPEA-RU-RM is needed to distinguish where they align and where they differ. Example: supply and demand imbalances.
18/11/2010USA/ Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes
18/11/2010Denmark/ Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
We agree that it should be defined consistently with SEEA-2003, but see no need as such to restrict the classification of activities to non-produced natural resources. In principle the classification seems to be applicable also to some produced assets, cultivated forest, for instance. Whether it is appropriate to use the classification depends on the accounting purposes and the type of account in question, not on the classification as such.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Generally yes. We should however be aware that it is “dangerous” to base treatmnet of borderline cases on policy concerns (as suggested in para 30 of the outcome paper), because the allocation of activities to the classes of CRUMA will vary over time, since the policy concers shifts. In one period energy savings are prompted by energy supply/resource considerations. In the next period the same energy saving activities are prompted by pollution considerations.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
We see no need to combine the classification into one., and prefer to keep them separate.
18/11/2010Azerbaijan/ State Statistical Committee1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
No comments
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
No comments
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No comments
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
Yes, if it will be possible to define: 1) the objects of the classifications 2) classification characteristics
  5. Any other comments?
No comments
18/11/2010Malaysia/ Department of Statistics5. 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 in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with the SEEA-2003 noting the limitation of coverage to only non-produced natural resources?
We agree that in the revised SEEA the scope of resource use and management activities should be defined consistently with SEEA 2003. A classification system should be part and parcel of the SEEA 2003.
  2. Do you agree that the classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA noting that it is to be complementary, comparable and consistent with the existing Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) and that resource management and resource use activities are to be clearly separated?
We agree that a classification of natural resource use and management activities and expenditures (CRUMA) as presented in Table 2 should be adopted in the revised SEEA and that resource management and resource use activities be clearly separated.
  3. Do you agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outlined in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
We agree that the treatment of borderline classification cases between environmental protection activities and resource use and management activities outline in paragraph 30 of the outcome paper be adopted in the revised SEEA.
  4. Do you agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established which combines CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable?
We agree that an overarching Classification of Environmental Activities (CEA) should be established combining CRUMA and CEPA while ensuring that these two classifications are separable.
  5. Any other comments?
No other comments
 

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