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
 

Classification of assets

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:17/01/2011
Number of comments:20
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
28/01/2011Libya / censuses and statistics department1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
20/01/2011U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. We agree that the notion of ownership should be dropped from the definition of an asset. Yet the terms use and non-use benefits need to be defined. In defining the terms “use” and “non-use” benefit, the outcome paper states that: “These environmental functions yield benefits to the economy. Those benefits can be grouped into two categories use and non-use benefits (SEEA-2003 para 7.35).” Later in para 7.38 we begin to see what the meaning of the term is: “In addition to these use benefits, an environmental entity may simply have an existence benefit. That is, without any prospect of the entity being of use to humans now or in the future, it is desirable to maintain the existence of the entity.” If “existence benefit” is what is implied by “non-use” benefit, then we cannot agree with the definition. This leaves the idea of what could feasibly be included in this definition up to whim of the statistician, making cross country comparisons and within country aggregations of the balance sheet infeasible. Furthermore, the valuation principle mentioned in paragraph 16 could not be implemented with such a definition. Yet the term “non-use benefit” is not defined in the SEEA 2003. In fact, the only instance in which the term appears is in para 7.35, where it is stated that “The benefits recognised in the SEEA can be grouped into two broad categories, use benefits and non use benefits.”
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes. Subject to our view that “non-use” benefits be properly defined or dropped from 10.1
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes. Provided that no monetary value is imputed – as would appear to be the implication of Recommendation 10.3
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. With the caveat that “non-use” is deleted from paragraph 37.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. Subject to our caveat on “non-use” benefits from Recommendation 10.1
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. Subject to our caveat on “non-use” benefits from Recommendation 10.1
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
19/01/2011Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
The proposed definition encompasses all aspects of environmental assets. However, inclusion of terms such as “non-use benefits” and “in the future” could pose a challenge in identifying/measuring an asset. These terminologies should be clearly defined in the volume so that users can apply criteria objectively. For example, there could be a dual definition of assets: a) broad definition, as proposed and b) narrower/more usable definition that focuses on the economic (use) benefits, excluding assets that only provide non-use benefits in the future.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Partly disagree; Again, we would reiterate the comment made in reference to question 1. From a measurement perspective in particular, it seems important to acknowledge the distinction between the more narrowly defined (and more easily measured) asset boundary and the broader one proposed. We agree with the notion of moving ecosystem assets to volume 2 for this revision, as ecosystem metrics and methodologies are less well developed and are developed in volume 2.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Strongly agree. This would generate coherent statistics and allow the inclusion of SEEA assets in the SNA—through the national balance sheet accounts.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. This distinction also bodes well with monetary valuation. The value of cultivated resources can be obtained using direct approaches (market price), while non-cultivated resources often require indirect approaches (NPV, Appropriation method).
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Partly agree; As mentioned earlier, this broad definition needs to be supplemented by a narrow definition, which would exclude non-use benefits in the future.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. Like #1 & 6, something akin to a dual definition could be used: a) broader definition--the proposed one, and b) narrower definition--excluding items that would provide non-use benefits in the future.
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes. Treating soil resources as a separate natural resource from the land it sits on will serve (ecosystem-related) accounts that seek to measure the physical extent and quality of soil resources in the SEEA. Therefore, for the sake of these accounts, soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the SEEA asset classification. The 2003 SEEA notes that “the value of soil resources cannot be separated from the value of the land of which they form an integral part.” Clearly this is often the case, given the real measurement difficulties. Thus, it may be impractical to attempt to assign a value to land and soil independently; in many cases (e.g. agriculture) the value of the soil is imbedded the value of the land. Having said this, there are instances where it is possible and advantageous to calculate soil and land values separately. One clear cut example is where soil is physically removed from the land and sold as a commodity.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes. The aligned classification is desirable from a number of perspectives—coherent statistics, less respondent burden, and so on.
  12. Any other comments?
The term “non-use benefit in the future” seems subjective and, in the eyes of some, a bit vague. Although it is a very inclusive definition, there may well be usability issues in practice. Keeping this term would require a second definition (excluding asset that will prov
18/01/2011Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. This definition is a significant improvement on SEEA-2003 wording.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes. There are two questions here. On the first question of whether the SEEA asset boundary should extend beyond the SNA asset boundary, we strongly agree. There is a range of SEEA assets of use to humanity—some of these assets are also (SNA) economic assets. We also agree, at this point in the development of the SEEA, to exclude ecosystems from the definition of ‘assets’ in SEEA Rev Volume 1. We agree that understanding and measuring the synergistic effects of interactions between various components of ecosystems is insufficiently developed at present to support their inclusion in Volume 1 of the SEEA Rev.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Agree. We are pleased to note that the outcome paper discussion on this issue uses terminology of ‘SEEA asset boundary’ and ‘SNA asset boundary’. There is no attempt (and no need) to describe assets in the ‘economy’ and in the ‘environment’.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Agree. The splitting of, for example, ‘forests’ into ‘cultivated’ and ‘non-cultivated’ elements may be somewhat counter-intuitive for some users. However, we agree that this splitting at a high level in the SEEA asset classification structure emphasises and clarifies the relationship between SEEA assets and various SNA aggregates (assets, output etc.).
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. The outcome paper notes that the scope of mineral and energy resources within the SEEA asset boundary is elsewhere proposed to be determined by UNFC – 2009 (i.e. in Issue #11 categorisation of mineral and energy resources). There’s a need to consistently define these resources i.e. between the generic definition (here) and the specific details as described in the outcome paper for Issue #11 categorisation of mineral and energy resources. This should be very straightforward.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. The definition is a little loose – e.g. it could be said that pine trees are always ‘naturally occurring’. Their (SNA) categorisation as cultivated or non-cultivated is dependent on the degree of human involvement or direction. The criterion of ‘degree of human involvement or direction’ seems to be more relevant than ‘naturally occurring’. Cultivated biological resources are defined in the SNA and non-cultivated biological resources are derived as a consequential ‘other’ category—i.e. its extent is wholly dependent upon the SNA definition of cultivated biological resources. Perhaps the better approach is to define ‘SEEA biological resources’ as ‘animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future’—then to define ‘cultivated biological resources’ according to the SNA. ‘SEEA non-cultivated biological resources’ then becomes the residual?
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes. Agreement is ‘in principle’—the ABS has no realistic prospect of separately valuing ‘soil’ from ‘land’ and is most unlikely to produce separate physical accounts for soil in the near future.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes. These items are important to informing and understanding both economic and environmental policy-making.
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes. Again our agreement is for practical expediency. Clearly, the SNA treatment of costs of ownership transfer is inconsistent between land (where it is applied to ‘land improvements’, rather than ‘land’) and all other natural resources (where it is added to the value of the natural resource asset itself.)
18/01/2011New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
No comment
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No comment
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
No comment
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
No comment
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
No comment
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
No comment
  12. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised in issue10: Classification of assets. Relevant agencies were contacted but were not in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
17/01/2011UNSD1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes. We agree that the physical accounts should be broader in scope than those in the SNA.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes. Valuation in Volume 1 should limit its scope to market valuation consistent with the valuation principles of the SNA.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
17/01/2011Norway/Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. Statistics Norway are questioning the use of the terminology “non-use benefits” and recommends to change terminology to non-use production benefits.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes. See comment to question 1.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. Statistics Norway recommends now only to use the terminology natural resources when referring to non-cultivated resources, which is in line with the recommendations in the outcome paper.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. Statistics Norway recommends to use the terminology natural biological resources when referring to naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
No comment.
17/01/2011Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. It should be noted that the definition of assets includes those that even though are not being used at any given time (inventory), will generate an economic benefit when those will be included in the production process. Actually, this treatment is carried out to the asset balances into the environmental accounts in Mexico.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes, since the boundary of assets classification is based on the benefits they bring to the economy. The extension of that boundary will effectively include environmental assets, allowing a broader analysis of the production possibilities of an economic system delimited by national borders and its viability in the future as well. However, it is important to make efforts in order to have an international approved methodology for measuring ecosystem services, for its inclusion in the environmental accounting of the countries.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
We disagree, whenever that might be left outside other benefits such as carbon capture, landscape, etc., that provide assets services such as forests and jungles.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes. The expansion and breakdown of the benefits provided by the land allows a more precisely analysis and assessment of each environmental service that is included in land assets.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. This distinction allows a clear point of view of the potential output of a nation, as well as its accumulation process from the point of view of measuring and recording it in the national accounts framework.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. This distinction gives to the mineral and energy resources a greater economic importance, due the nature of this resources as well as his contribution to the production process, but moreover, their economic value can be in terms of their future income brought into the present as well as its measure of resource scarcity now and in the future.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes. It should be noted that the SEEA classifies water resources as those in which it is not economically viable for their use or because their inaccessibility; others on which, there is economic management (such as rivers and lakes) and; the artificial reservoirs on which exist an economic control over their operation.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. Since cultivated resources are implicit in the national accounts according to 2008 SNA, leaving the non-cultivated as proposed in the document: "Classification of assets".
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes. Given the natural characteristics of land and soil, as well as goods and services that are provided, the proposed extension is relevant for a more detailed treatment and registration.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes. The issue would rely on the time of registration of the economic benefit that the assets provide.
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes. Since environmental accounting is at the end, a satellite account, moreover such account, is part of the SNA, we agree that the principles and terms most be homogenized.
  12. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
17/01/2011United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics 1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
  12. Any other comments?
Regarding paragraph 16 of the outcome paper, it would be helpful if the illustrative example could be used and extended to help provide more clarity on the non-use aspect.
17/01/2011France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. We agree in general with the definition, but for one precision that would make it less universal. Indeed, the risk with such a broad definition is preventing any appropriate exclusion of its wide scope. In practice, we suggest adding the word "environmental" before benefits.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Agree. However it would be probably relevant to state explicitely that the current valuation approach for the volume 1 is not a definitive methodological choice, but rather the best we could do today. It takes into account the considerable difficulties encountered when trying to assess the value of the assets as defined by the SEEA, for the time being. This does not preclude future important enhancements on valuation methods to be considered for the next revision round of SEEA.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. However the issue identified in §35 needs a special attention: “many users would be interested in the total for a single resource”. Users should still have the possibility to make such aggregations with the new classification.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Agree despite some reservations concerning the use of the UNFC classification for mineral resources.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. We could also stop this definition after "plant resources" since any kind of animal and plant resource is susceptible of providing use and non use benefits.
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes. We could add that the distinction between soil and land in monetary terms will not be possible anyhow.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes. The tradable permits which were mentioned in the SEEA 2003 are not retaken. We supposed they figure among the third item "Contracts, leases and licences: permissions to undertake specific activities". This last item is seemingly formulated too vaguely. What kind of activities is it referred to? It could be in particular further specified by identification of the specific category of permissions to emit residuals. Therefore, we suggest instead the following list of where the third item is disaggregated into the 3rd and 4th in the following list: - Mineral exploration and evaluation - Contracts, leases and licences: Permissions to use natural resources - Contracts, leases and licences: Permissions to emit residuals - Other contracts, leases and licences linked to environment
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
17/01/2011European Commission/Eurostat1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. Eurostat supports the idea that the SEEA standard (currently known as "Volume 1") shall be close to the SNA whenever there are appropriate links. The definition in this Question is too broad for application throughout the SEEA Standard (volume 1). Such a broad definition should only be presented as pertaining to an overall framework for environmental accounting. A more restricted definition needs to be used for the SEEA standard. This restricted SEEA asset definition should align with the SNA-2008 as much as possible. This type of progression has been suggested when reading §6, §10 and §14 but this has not been explicitly stated in the paper. We agree with going in this type of direction for the revised SEEA but we cannot agree to the definition as presented above, it is much too all encompassing for a statistical standard. If this definition (or a revised variation) is going to be used in a general, scoping fashion, we would suggest the insertion of "could or can provide" after the word "that" since the current definition assumes that we know what will occur in the future in order to know what should be included in this category. The definition of an asset would then become: "An entity that could or can provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future." Please note that this comment is relevant whenever the phrase "that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future" is used throughout this comment form for issue #10.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
No. Generally we favour sticking close to the SNA asset boundary in Volume 1 as described in para 12, 14 and 16 of the Outcome paper.. The reference to "other entities" is far too open-ended and undefined for this purpose. The asset boundary as defined in the SEEA-2003 version could continue to be used in the SEEA-revision (where eco-systems and their services are excluded). Some type of opening where the atmosphere can act and a source and sink needs to exist in relationship to the treatment of precipitation and solar, heat and wind energy in supply and use tables and input-output tables. These flows need to be shown as coming from/going to the atmosphere – without having the atmosphere become an asset. Including the atmosphere into balance sheets – and quantifying or valuing the atmosphere, much less attributing ownership would pose insurmountable difficulties. What makes sense from a flow perspective (Supply-use/Input-output) makes little sense from a balance sheet perspective.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
We agree to this as long as it is revised with regards to the reference to the future - Please see our comment to question 1 where we comment on modifying the phrase "that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future" to "that could or can provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future."
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes. We need to allow for inputs and outflows to the atmosphere (flows to/from nature) – in the case of water this refers to precipitation and evaporation. This same situation also occurs for solar, wind and heat energy – in the physical flow accounting "flows to/from nature" (specifically the atmosphere) are needed.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. The definition in the SEEA volume 1 needs to be restricted and be closer to the SNA-2008 definition. What is included in "benefits" is unclear. For example, this definition would seem to include all the wild birds that give pleasure to ornithologists (a non-use benefit ?). Please also see our comment to question 1 where we comment on modifying the phrase "that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future" to "that could or can provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future." This question also needs to be considered in view of issue #1 MFA. Here we state that for MFA accounts, non-cultivated biological resources are considered part of the environment.
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
This question is difficult to answer in a definitive manner until the asset classification is presented in its entirety. At this point only the old SEEA-2003 version has been provided in the paper – Annex 1 is missing.
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
  12. Any other comments?
We cannot fully agree to the proposals since it is unclear what the final classification is going to look like. Annex 2 is the 2003 version and no detailed version of the asset classification beyond the higher level structure shown in Table 1 has been provided. Annex 1 appears to be missing.
17/01/2011Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. We support the perspective to include both use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. The distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated biological resources is rarely clear-cut: e.g. forests are often managed in some form, while trees grow naturally and are hardly planted. And between a planted forest and a primary forest there are a continuum of forestry practices some having at first sight few impacts on the “natural aspect” of the forest but having a high impact on tree species composition.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
While we generally agree with the definition, bacteria and fungi should be mentioned along with animal and plant resources (animal, bacteria, plant and fungi resources).
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes. Paragraph 59 of the outcome paper could be complemented as follows: Recognizing soil as a natural resource gives focus to efforts to account for the volume of soil, the loss of soil through erosion, the nutrient balance of soil and the productive capacity of soil as well as the natural functions of soil (such as the habitat function, the storing function, the transformation and the regulating function).
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
  12. Any other comments?
While we agree that ecosystems should be discussed in Volume 2 rather than Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, we suggest keeping ecosystems as a memorandum item in the classification of assets proposed in paragraphs 39-41 of the outcome paper. In fact, exclusion could be misunderstood in the sense that ecosystems do not belong the assets of a country.
17/01/2011United Kingdom/ Cogent Strategies International Ltd1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. This is an excellent and useful generalisation of the SNA definition.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
I completely agree with the extension but not with the exclusion of ecosystems. As I understand it you are planning to include the real entities that comprise ecosystems, but not the explicitly systemic aspects. The reason you give is that we do not understand/cannot value the interactions and synergy. This seems to me like counting the processor, the screen, the keyboards and the disk drives that make up my computer as assets, but not the software that makes them work together. The reason for this would be that (on the basis of my education) I have some kind of understanding how each component works, but no idea how they function as a system. I think that volume 1 really should encourage, rather than discourage, efforts to address ecosystems. I appreciate that in realpolitik there can be credibility issues if the framework advances too far into areas where there is not yet wide agreement on methodologies, but one of the key messages of environmental accounting for me is that we must TRY to be holistic. Too many of the mistakes in past human behaviour have been because we have excluded things – most especially, interactions.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
No. I think environmental economics has done the world a great service by advancing new valuation methods, and I think it is good for social accounting AND good for those evaluation methods the more they are made to confront each other.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Absolutely. And as an example, relevant to your previous question, in a revealed preference study of tourism we were able to demonstrate the role of ‘empty spaces’ (low population density) in attracting tourists.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes. We have interesting borderline cases in our country, Scotland, where at some stage almost the whole landscape has been subject to man-influenced change, but maybe centuries ago. Some rights are held in common (ie not by an institutional unit) and on rough mountain top land ‘direct control’ would be an ambitious misnomer.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
In view of the ‘peak oil’ and similar debates you may like to make explicit what I read as implicit in your definition : ‘yet to be discovered’ resources do NOT count as assets.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
No comment
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes. See my comment on question 5. In Scotland we have herds of deer, goats and sheep, and populations of birds and fisheries that are semi-managed to varying degrees.
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
No comment
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes. My understanding is that under some of the mooted tradable permit schemes credits may be given for, eg, carbon sequestration. This poses difficulties if ‘ecosystem services’ are excluded from the account.
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes. I am most uneasy about the splitting of land improvements from the underlying land, as separate assets. If land improvements are to be separately treated then there should also be consideration of the symmetric phenomenon, land degradation. This would provide interesting and useful connections to issues such as decommissioning, and could eventually lead to insights into some exploitation decisions.
  12. Any other comments?
It may be helpful to explain our point of view: We are a small economic consultancy whose main activity is the application of national accounting principles at a sub-national level, usually for the purpose of economic development strategy. Thus we work in the shadowy worlds of satellite accounting and economic impact assessment. We have recently been commissioned by a statutory National Park Authority to explore the value of its Park, and we are very anxious that this local action should be properly embedded in a context of global thinking. Our comments above are partly motivated by this work, (although they are emphatically our comments, and not our client’s) and partly by the more general background of our work in social accounting.
17/01/2011Jordan/Department of Statistics(DoS)1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes, because non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future is in somehow consider as a basic to another entity that provides use benefits to humanity now or in the future, for example (biodiversity and food chain)
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes we agree but we disagree for excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provided.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
No we disagree for that because the asset accounts in monetary terms should not only reflect the value of economic benefits but the services as well.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
We agree for that because different providing benefits should attributes to their final consumption and different benefits.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
17/01/2011Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. We prefer the SEEA-2003 definition. It is more operational than what is proposed here.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
No. We prefer the SEEA-2003 definition. It is more operational than what is proposed here.
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
No comment. It is difficult to judge what the purpose of this would be for the classification or for analytical purposes.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
No. The issue is not yet investigated properly and we therefore do not agree. There will be cases where forest in particular will be an issue with regards to cultivated or non-cultivated resources.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
No. Difficulties of applying the definition statistically may occur with the current proposal. For example: what happens with species that has been introduced by people but spread through natural causes? The words “naturally” and “benefits” are difficult to assess and needs to be operationalized.
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes. It should be noted that the quality of soil is most likely to be more interesting to follow rather than the quantity of the soil.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
No. It would be more interesting to be able to link the items of the memo list to the specific asset classes rather than having them aggregated as proposed.
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
  12. Any other comments?
As the classification is presented in annex 2 it appears as if it is developed as a reporting tool rather than a statistical classification. It is important that the SEEA clearly describes the aim and purpose of the classification.
17/01/2011Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
We agree in principle, however the definition is in practice without much meaning in the sense that it can not be used for practical testing of whether an entity is an asset or not and therefore it is not possible to exclude anything. At one point in time it is impossible to say whether the entities will bring benefit in the future. Therefore all has to be included.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes. We are not sure that this is necessary since these asset is already part of the SNA 2008 asset classification, and the two sets of classifications should be seen in combination.
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
17/01/2011Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Not sure that the definition adds useful limits. The benefits are not only economic and they are perhaps not measurable, so what are they? An asset according to the SNA definition should give benefits in more than one year – here it may give benefits only now. The approach in SEEA 2003 of listing the assets added to what was included in the SNA definition of assets was probably more helpful to users of the manual.
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Seems reasonable
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Land should be distinguished at the top level
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
17/01/2011Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
No comment
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
No comment
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
No comment
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
No comment
17/01/2011Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
10/01/2011Iran/Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA an asset should be defined as an entity that provides use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA the asset boundary should be extended beyond the asset boundary of the 2008 SNA to include other entities with use and non-use benefits now or in the future but excluding ecosystems in terms of the ecosystem services they provide?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in Volume 1 of the revised SEEA, the asset accounts in monetary terms should only reflect the value of economic benefits consistent with the scope and approaches to valuation recommended in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the characteristic of land as providing benefits to humanity through the provision of space should be recognized by distinguishing land and associated surface water at the top level in the asset classification?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a distinction should be made at the highest level in the asset classification between cultivated and non-cultivated resources and that the definitions of cultivated resources and natural resources should be as presented in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA mineral and energy resources should be defined as known deposits of mineral and energy resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the classification of water resources from the SEEA-Water should be used pending the decision on SEEA revision issue #16 on the treatment of water in artificial reservoirs?
No comment
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA non-cultivated biological resources should be defined as naturally occurring animal and plant resources that provide use and non-use benefits to humanity now or in the future?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA soil resources should be treated as a separate natural resource within the asset classification?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA memorandum items should be added to the asset classification including mineral exploration and evaluation and various contracts, leases and licences?
Yes
  11. Do you agree that the revised SEEA asset classification should align with the changes introduced in the 2008 SNA as described in the outcome paper paragraph 66?
Yes
 

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