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
 

Recording of natural resource depletion for renewable resources

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English    Español
Comment template:English    Español
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:28/10/2010
Number of comments:20
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
08/11/2010France/ MEEDDM/CGDD/SOeS1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
No we don''t agree with this proposed treatment. It is indeed very surprising to assimilate natural growth to "other non-market output". This would bring confusion in relation with the present SNA where there is a clear distinction between produced and non produced assets. For the latter, natural growth is possibly recorded as other changes in volume without any impact on current accounts. So it would appear surprising that, in considering this phenomenon as an output of the economy, the SEEA would be less ambitious than the SNA as regards the relations between the Economy and the Natural Environment. In addition when regarding appendix p14, this output (amount of 15) is recorded in non financial corporations resources accounts (here fisheries). It is very difficult to believe that fish natural growth originates in the actions of these corporations. Actually their growing captures can decrease natural growth down below the turning point where natural growth becomes lower than captures. In this case a cost should be considered, similarly to non renewable resources. The proposed treatment, when extraction is suspended during a period, comes back to the SNA treatment (other changes in volume). This alternate way of recording depending on the stop or renewal of economic activity is not readable and can not be easily justified. It is also surprising to consider that regular extraction times could be seen as natural growth propeller. For all these reasons we recommend to keep the SNA treatment except when extractions exceed natural growth. In such case the same treatment as for non renewable resources (with preference given to option A2) should apply.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
It seems to be very difficult, if not impossible to valuate separately natural growth and gross extractions. Statistics and models on fish stocks are not sufficiently developed and require a lot of questionable assumptions. It is preferable to directly aim at a net measure of extraction. Indeed the difference between natural growth and extractions is the variable to be considered for the accounts in fine. If natural growth exceeds flows of extraction there is no need to consider any cost, and the value of depreciation of the renewable resource is null.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
We don''t agree with this labelling for the same reasons as mentioned for issue #13. Since "consumption of natural capital" is seen as a transposition to natural resources of fixed capital consumption we can not assent to this label and to the related treatment. Same remark for "other non-market output”.
  4. Any other comments?
The paper seems to underestimate the issue of valuing the cost of extraction. In the case of renewable resources, resource rent could not be an operational unit price. Indeed there can be some economic distortions (or environmental causes) implying that resource rent does not exist or at least does not reflect the depreciation value of the stock, which then prevents its being used to value depletion. Actually §39 says that extraction flows and natural growth should not be valued at market prices. But then on which other base should it be valued? This section needs to be further elaborated.
04/11/2010Switzerland/Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Yes
02/11/2010New Zealand/Statistics New Zealand4. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised for issue14: Recording of depletion for renewable resources. Relevant agencies were contacted but did not feel in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
29/10/2010Netherlands/CBS1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
In general, we believe that this is getting very close to SEEA Vol 2 issues regarding the treatment of ecosystem services and we should be careful to avoid locking ourselves in. One of the options to be investigated in SEEA Vol2 in dealing with the recording of ecosystem services would be to introduce the environment as an additional sector (on par with households, government etc.) which produces services (sink service, amenity services but perhaps also resource functions as discussed here). Such a treatment would contradict the suggested recording in appendix 1 of the natural growth as other non-market output of the non-financial corporations sector. The recommendations suggested here seem to imply that we no longer make a distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated assets. We believe it is more intuitive to see natural growth as "produced" by the environment as a sector (but this would still be seen as non-cultivated asset thereby upkeeping the distinction). As a result we would end up with the same environmentally adjusted macro-aggregates (but not for the sectors).
  4. Any other comments?
The current discussion treats renewable resource stocks (e.g. fish) as static and not as dynamic. We believe the discussion could be enriched by making reference to the SEEAF (for fisheries) which contains an elaborate discussion about the use of bio-economic models (such as the Shaefer model) which allow to use maximum sustainable yield as a benchmark to assess growth and depletion. To give a simple example: suppose we have a stock of 20, a yearly catch of 10 and natural growth of 10. This would imply that we have a net recording of 0 (gross +10 and -10) . However, suppose that the stock of 20 could easily grow in case of better fisheries management to 100 when we fish less e.g. 5 or so for several years. Suppose that we would be able to sustainably harvest 20 each year under these circumstances. We could then record for instance a growth of 20 and a depletion of 10+10 = 20, which would result in the same net recording. Another option to think about the current "reduced stock" would be I guess as an environmental liability. Arguably, for practical purposes, using such bio-economic models may well be outside the scope of statistical offices and the recommendations could be kept as they are now, but not mentioning them may be seen by some as an omission.
29/10/2010Malaysia/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes
  4. 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.
28/10/2010United Nations Statistics Division1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
No, we do not support the extension of the production boundary to include natural growth. Including natural growth in the production boundary will lead to the double counting of the output for non-produced forest which would be equal to the value of felling + net growth, as the growth is already included in the felling. Also, where would it be recorded in the capital account - under "increase in non-produced non-financial asset" a category that does not exist or under “produced non-financial asset” in that case does it has the characteristic of fixed asset or inventories?
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
No, because consumption of capital is an irreversible decline in the value of the asset, whereas the ‘extraction’ is available for use. Reasons for labelling the ''output'' of the natural growth under the extended production boundary as "other non-market output" is not clear. It seems to us that this has been done on the assumption that this production is currently not available for the market. In our view this is not the SNA criteria to classify any output as "other non-market output". It may be better to use a different term so as to avoid confusion with the SNA concept.
  4. Any other comments?
No
28/10/2010United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes, though measurement of natural growth is potentially complex.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Agree with labelling “consumption of Natural Capital”. The terminology “other non-market output” may be confusing. It is proposed “other non-market non-economic output” would help make the distinction from SNA definitions.
  4. Any other comments?
No.
28/10/2010Canada/Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Agree.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Agree. As noted under this option, “both the consequences of extraction and additions to natural resources are recorded in the extended generation of income account leading to a depletion adjusted operating surplus”. To the extent that an extended generation of income account (which can be compared with similar balances in conventional economic accounts) is undertaken, option C2 seems to be the most reasonable of the 3 options, with fewer presentational difficulties.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Agree
28/10/2010USA/Bureau of Economic Analysis2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
See below
  4. Any other comments?
The net present value formulas (equations 1 and 5) do not consider the possibility that the discount rate can be dependent on the stock. For example, it is well established that the return to a renewable asset such as fish is not constant, but rather a function of the total asset stock. This growth rate will affect the discount rate. Without such considerations, it is difficult to assess the impact of recommendation 2.
28/10/2010Botswana/Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes. This would account for the physical regeneration of such renewable resources and also reflect the environmental impacts embodied in extracting the resource. It would also account for the cost incurred during production and returns from the production
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes. This allows for development of depletion adjusted measures which is the crux of SEEA.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Yes. Provided non-market output is clearly defined, including the scope of the output
28/10/2010Mexico/INEGI1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
In the context of sustainability and the reasons that give rise to the use of the VPN approach, the useful life of natural assets is not infinite. We share this idea, in order to environmental accounting stand out to the costs of resource use, and even when these flows are not significantly reflected in the SNA, the intention of this kind of accounts is to make objectively the complete valuation of the resource, in terms that adjustments to the amounts of production, surpluses and savings as a result of activities related to these resources.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
In terms that extractions and natural growth are indisputable components of the total value of resources, we agree to consider both elements in the measurement of this kind of resources.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Yes. The labelled “other non market output” is consistent with the production boundary embodied in the SNA in terms of non-produced natural assets, even when is not fully fitted to the idea of prices below production costs. On the other hand, “consumption of natural capital” with the record of the gross value of the asset, would allow to make a more objective and consistent distinction between physical and monetary units, in addition to facilitating the registration of elements such as the depletion or natural disasters.
  4. Any other comments?
Not at the moment
28/10/2010Denmark/Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
No, we do not support the introduction of an extended generation of income account in volume. - Generally, the introduction of the depletion adjusted aggregates in SEEA-volume 1 is a step towards so-called “Green domestic products”. It is well-known and well-described that from a statistical/accounting procedure such measures are problematic due to their hypothetical and partial nature. - It seems counterintuitive to regard growth of (SNA) non-produced assets as production, since no productive activity is involved. It is stated that it is necessary to introduce the natural growth in the production accounts in order to reflect the future income streams. However, this results in a mixing up of what is income from current production activities and what is Hicksian income. If one wants to go a step in the direction of reflecting future income streams and Hicksian income, one should in addition include, for instance, the dicoveries of non-renewable resources, and holding gains and losses. The suggestion that the natural growth should not be recorded as output, but instead as other change in volume if there is no extraction in a period seems inconsistent, and it isunclear why it is zero extraction which switches the accounting approach. What if the extracion is neglible, although not zero?
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes. However, as noted in the outcome paper there seems to be a need to describe further how the value of depletion (= resource rent – rV) should be allocated to the value of extractions and the value of natural growth.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Yes.
28/10/2010Latvia/Central Statistical Bureau1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes. We fully agree that both-natural growth and use of natural resources have to be taken in to account.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
We agree with gross basis of recording values of extractions and natural growth in extended production and income accounts.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Yes. We agree with term consumption of natural capital.
28/10/2010Australia/Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Agree
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Rather than calling the value of natural growth “Other non-market output”, perhaps “Growth of biological resources”, or “Growth of Natural Capital" would be more appropriate. This would avoid a debate about the degree to which output reflects ‘production’ (given that the growth would be recorded as a “non-produced” asset on the balance sheet.
  4. Any other comments?
If natural growth is output, then the SNA production boundary has been extended by the SEEA. This extension should only apply to “biological” renewables, such as wild fish / trees. With the current titling of the paper, it would also include water – the focus of a separate issue paper (16). This creates a problem that any recharge to a water body, artificial or not, would be output (if extraction occurred in the same period). While grossing depletion is ideal, it requires knowledge/modelling of natural growth - therefore it must be noted that in practice a net depletion estimate may have to suffice.
28/10/2010China1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
I don’t think it’s easy to record natural growth and cost of using up renewable natural resources.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
yes
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
yes
27/10/2010Pakistan/Federal Bureau of Statistics4. Any other comments?
Same “Reply” as given under Issue # 4
27/10/2010Lebanon/Central Administration of Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
Not convinced
  4. Any other comments?
No comment
25/10/2010Czech Republic/CZSO1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
CZSO agrees with recording natural growth and depletion of renewable resources in extended production account since otherwise the measure of real depletion may be inappropriately exaggerated.
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
CZSO agrees with using a gross basis showing extractions as a deduction from income and resource rent and natural growth as additions.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
CZSO agrees with using term “Consumption of Natural Capital” in order to make a distinction from “Depletion”. However the term “Other Non-Market Output” seems to be quite misleading, since “Non-Market Output” refers exceptionally to Government and NPISHs. E.g. the term “Environmental Output” seems to be more intuitive.
20/10/2010Jordan/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
Ok
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
Ok
  4. Any other comments?
In Jordan case we must valuate the renewable resources even if we didn’t benefit from them yet, to meet the definition of environmental account and to avoid under estimation of our resources (In the balance sheets) "when SNA in Jordan integrates environment accounts in national accounts".
20/09/2010Ecuador/INEC1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA record both the natural growth and costs of using up renewable natural resources in extended production and generation of income accounts?
They are definitely two sides to be taken into account in this analysis, since the natural growth and the cost of natural resources is part of the asset, therefore it is necessary to take into account
  2. Do you agree that a gross basis of recording incorporating a value of extractions and a value of natural growth be used to account for the depletion of renewable natural resources?
The moment we extracted resources we know which resources are renewable, so we know which the resources that are depleted are. So if we agree.
  3. Do you agree that under a gross basis of recording the value of extractions should be labelled “Consumption of Natural Capital” and that the value of natural growth should be labelled “Other non-market output”?
We believe that the natural increase of the extraction should therefore also be called as the value of natural capital consumption
 

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