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

Recording of losses (storage, distribution, transformation, theft)

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:24/12/2010
Number of comments:22
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
11/01/2011Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Statistics New Zealand agrees that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment
  6. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on most of the questions raised in issue 17: Recording of losses. Relevant agencies were contacted but did not feel in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
04/01/2011Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment on that
  6. Any other comments?
It should be made clear, whether felling residues from timber extraction are recorded as losses or not in the SEEA.
28/12/2010Turkey / Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes.
28/12/2010Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes.
28/12/2010Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Agree that the losses should be recognized, but measuring them separately would require a substantial amount of data and efforts—for instance, would be hard to find good data on losses due to theft. Perhaps combining all of them into one loss (system loss) would be a feasible option.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes. The treatment of losses should be consistent—especially given that the monetary estimates should be a part of the national balance sheet accounts, according to the SNA 2008 recommendations (Ch. 10, Ch.12, Ch. 13, Ch. 17 and A3.73).
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Partially agree. It is not clear what is implied by "and related variables." The related variables should not include inputs. If this includes inputs, then I would disagree with this treatment. As an example, consider water use in a municipal treatment plant. Water intake represents the use of water for this industry, and the gross intake reflects withdrawals from the environment to the economy. Subsequent losses of this water will lower the eventual output of water from the industry, but the gross intake should be retained. Thus, some greater clarity around "related variables" is needed.
28/12/2010Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
No. From national accounts perspective theft should not be classified as a loss because theft is strictly speaking only a (although not legally) form of use. It would be better to limit the types of losses to losses during extraction/abstraction, distribution/transport, storage and conversion/transformation.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No. All types of losses should be separately identified not only in the physical supply table but also in the physical use table.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment.
  6. Any other comments?
No
28/12/2010Jordan\Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
We agree when it is aplicable
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
We agree to measure output after accounting the losses
23/12/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes. However theft should be recorded as a memorandum item. It is actually a flow within the economy and as such it should be identified separately from the other flows.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Yes.
23/12/2010France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology – Statistical department1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes. 1- Losses during conversion/transformation: the outcome paper should clearly say that the scope concerns losses during a conversion/transformation only from primary energy to final energy by an energy producer. 2- Losses due to theft: agreement insofar as the outcome paper specifies that this is of another nature and has to be treated separately.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes. Indeed, it appears necessary insofar as the various types of losses require different types of analyses.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Agree on production side. But if the final aim consists in measuring every flow from table 1, there will be a difficulty with water consumption. In table 1, consumption of the user is 18 (after deduction of losses) while in the SNA context, consumption would be 91 (water purchased). There is a typo error in the table 1 (water consumption instead of waster).
23/12/2010US/Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Yes.
23/12/2010Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Would not use a description of flows from environment to economy and vice versa, it makes things unclear. Would suggest a definition such as: “losses as natural resources that were available for economic use, but become unavailable without being used.”
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes, but could there be other losses?
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Yes, if possible
23/12/2010Statistics Lithuania1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No. Losses should be recorded both on the supply side and on the use side of the PSUT. Only, then can comprehensive supply and use tables be established.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comments.
23/12/2010Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment.
23/12/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
No. The ABS questions why the distinction between the ‘economy’ and the ‘environment’ is deemed necessary or necessarily desirable. This is a fundamental question that has not yet been addressed and the strictly defined use of this ‘economy’ – ‘environment’ distinction within the SEEA Rev needs to be justified. If the distinction is considered necessary and/or useful, a second step is to clarify precisely how the SNA production boundary ‘defines’ the boundary between the ‘economy’ and the ‘environment’. Is the SNA production boundary the sole determinant of these states? Could the SNA asset boundary be relevant to this dichotomy? Is the ‘economy’ based on SNA residence or, is it based on a notion of geographic territory? Do we need to reconcile between these bases? (Especially when bringing monetary and physical measures together.) If so, how best to perform this reconciliation? We are somewhat sympathetic to the terms and notions being espoused but anticipate problems unless a full elaboration (including examples) is provided in the SEEA Rev. E.g. as water flows down a heavily modified water system, how (and why) do we determine which parts of the river system constitute the ‘economy’ and which parts the ‘environment’? This clarification and elaboration is also important in the context of: Issue #2 classification of physical flows; and Issue #16 Water as a produced asset.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
No. We note the outcome paper deals primarily with energy and water. How does treatment of losses apply in cases of other natural resource such as timber, fish, soil and so on? We are unclear on where or how “apparent losses” would be recorded. These types of losses could be caused by meter errors, for the cases of both water and energy. For these types of losses there is a monetary loss but not a physical loss. That is, the water or energy is delivered but because of malfunctions in the meter (e.g. bad calibration, jamming) the physical use is not measured and hence is not charged. We suggest adding “apparent losses” to the typology. Also we do not agree that ‘losses in conversion/transformation’ cannot apply to water. E.g. when wastewater is treated and transformed into re-use water, there is an attendant transformation loss of water. This process occurs as an SNA production process, involving an SNA asset—and it is process of growing concern and importance. Within the discussion of issue #16 – treatment of artificial reservoirs – the losses from water behind dam walls could potentially be considered losses in abstraction. Adopting this approach, the water is not abstracted, but is lost during the process of being abstracted and hence should be treated in a similar way to flaring.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes. As far as possible and practicable, monetary flows should be consistent between the two systems. Having said that, we suggest the more important priority is ensuring a meaningful treatment for physical flows of losses. For the purpose of hybrid accounts, we need the capability of making monetary and physical measures reconcilable.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No. Using the terminology used in the outcome paper, losses such as theft of water (or energy) are not a flow from the ‘economy’ to the ‘environment’. They are losses that remain ‘in the economy’. The ‘apparent losses’ due to meter errors also remain within the economy.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Monetary and physical flows should be reconcilable – clearly, this means putting in place detail appropriate to support reconciliation. Recording both monetary and physical flows net of losses supports a ready consistency with SNA basis of reporting. But SNA principles need not be the basis to define losses in the physical sphere. Our priority is to present a physical treatment of losses that is meaningful to users. This may not always accord precisely with SNA principles. Part of the challenge of SEEA hybrid accounting is then to support physical estimates that are reconcilable with monetary estimates.
  6. Any other comments?
General comments: There is a need to first achieve a meaningful accounting for physical losses. Then we set about ensuring integration with monetary measures. SNA principles need not be 100% embodied in the accounting for physical flows – many physical flows have no corresponding monetary transaction. In the hybrid accounts, we then bring the physical and monetary measures together in a way that supports integrated environmental-economic analyses. Losses need to be recorded in supply and use tables, and these are quite well covered in the outcome paper (though we believe we’ve suggested some refinements above). Asset (stock) accounts must be addressed for a full accounting for losses. Specific comments: Table 1 in the outcome paper should include ‘losses in storage’ as a supply. We agree with Table 2 in the outcome paper and suggest that this table can be readily applied to water. We would also suggest testing it with other natural resources.
23/12/2010Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
No comment.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment.
  6. Any other comments?
Statistics Sweden does not calculate losses as described in the outcome paper. However, the SEEA should follow the conventions of SNA and if SUTs are used also follow those conventions. Also, the SEEA needs to clearly describe the reason for calculating these items and the added value of knowing this. As with our general approach we are more interested in transparent and accessible information rather than complicated and large tables.
23/12/2010United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment.
  6. Any other comments?
None.
21/12/2010Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes. The losses in the 2008 SNA should be recorded if they are associated with production processes. For purposes of the SEEA revision, the SNA production marks the border between the environment and the economy.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes. These are amounts of natural resources that temporarily enter at the economy as a result of the activity (extraction, transport and distribution, processing and storage) within the SNA production boundary but not necessarily remains in the economy for a significant period of time, for this reason we believe they are including all cases where there could be losses.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes. This will allow the compatibility between the SEEA and the SNA. In addition, efforts should be made to define the parameter of "significant losses" to identify more clearly whether the loss should be recorded as a reduction in inventory or account for other changes in volume of assets.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes, this will allow to make more detailed analysis by economic sector of the efficiency of production processes, and the damage to the environment.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Yes. The before idea because of the difficulty of maintaining the physical stock of the variables, according to the levels of output that is recorded in the economy from the point of view of supply.
  6. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
21/12/2010Eurostat1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No, all types of losses should appear twice: first in the supply table (origin, e.g. an industry); secondly in the use table (destination, in most cases the natural environment). The examples shown in the tables do not follow SUT conventions. Please also note that it may not be possible to find data in all cases and that these "losses" will be calculated as a remainder or balancing item in the SUT system.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No. Since Section C clearly states that sometimes the monetary accounts do include losses (see explanation §22.b-c) we do not agree that the physical measures per se should be recorded net of all losses. We do agree, however, that the physical and monetary SEEA accounts should be consistent – but this means that the losses must be treated on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the numerical examples do NOT illustrate the revised text in Section C since they do not illustrate what is included in the monetary accounts (including or excluding losses as described in §22) and what is included in the physical accounts.
  6. Any other comments?
The physical supply and use tables as presented are not following the accounting concepts and methods for Supply and Use Tables (see UN 1999, UN 2009, Eurostat 2008). Supply and Use Tables (SUTs) are a pair of matrices: product (flows) by industries (activity). The products (flows) are shown in the rows. The activities (industries, final uses, rest of world) are shown column-wise. In principle the pair is symmetric in terms of column and row headings. I.e. the Use table has the very same columns and rows as the Supply table. This is an important feature to balance the supply and use product-wise and industry-wise. Another important rule inherent to the SUT-framework is the "double-entry" bookkeeping principle". This principle requires that each flow is recorded twice in the SUT framework, first in the column of its origin and secondly in the column of its destination. E.g. a product flow from industry A to B is recorded at first in column A of the Supply table and secondly in column B of the Use table. Eurostat strongly recommends aligning to the above principles and suggests that all Physical Supply and Use Tables (PSUTs) in the revised SEEA should be in line with these accounting principles. §19 3rd sentence should read: "In general, output is defined in the 2008 SNA as sales PLUS change in inventories (where the change in inventories is equal to additions less withdrawals of inventories)." Otherwise, the sentence following that one is not true – there is a logical error in the description here. §§23-25, figure 1 and table 1 are not very clear. For example, what is the output (according to SNA) of ISIC 36? Is it 148 or 91 or something in between? This should be clearly described. We do not agree with the recording in table 1; Eurostat has sent an alternative proposal for recording these data in tables that are compliant with SUT conventions earlier during the London Group issue paper consultations. §§26-28, figure 2 and table 2: Again, these are not very clear – see our comments above for the 3 preceding paragraphs. Further, Eurostat does not agree with the arbitrary set up of the tables 1, 2, A.1.1, A.1.2, and A.1.3. They do not comply with the concept of Supply and Use Tables and double-entry bookkeeping principle.
17/12/2010Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
Yes
17/12/2010Malaysia/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No comment
  6. Any other comments?
1. The Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) has no experience in developing any environmental account using the SEEA framework. However, DOSM is currently trying to develop one of the SEEA account (eg Water account) with the experience and knowledge gain while visiting Australia Bureau Statistics (ABS), and also with the guide of the SEEA 2003. However DOSM, experience constrains in developing this account with lack of expertise in this field, human resources and budget. 2. DOSM also wants to learn in detail how to develop the SEEA account. Please inform and include us if there is any training/workshop to be conducted in future. 3. Therefore DOSM is unable to contribute fruitful comments for the revision of the SEEA. However, DOSM would like to be involved in further development of this matter.
17/12/2010Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
We agree, in principle. This “definition” of losses is however not very clear. It includes reference to “natural resources” and “materials”. It seems that part (i) is in fact also covered by (ii) since losses of natural resources can often also be characterised as materials that do not reach their intended destination. Further, there is a need to specify what kind of SEEA “materials” losses consist of. Since it is suggested that output of products should be recorded net of the losses it seems to follow that all losses (also if thefts is involved) are flows of residuals.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes. However, it should be recognised that the character of (iv) conversion/transformation losses is quite different from the other types of losses. The conversion losses cannot meaningfully be attributed to a specific product. Instead it is attributed to the process or industry using inputs to produce other output. It is only meaningful to talk about the transformation losses at Joules, not as natural physical units.
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No. We think that losses should be recorded both on the supply side and on the use side of the PSUT. Only, then can comprehensive supply and use tables be etsablished. This is also what was agreed at the 15th London Goup meeting. We strongly disagree with the the format and content of the supply and use tables as presented in the outcome paper on losses.
  5. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all physical measures of output and related variables should be recorded after accounting for losses so as to maintain consistency with the monetary flows?
No. We disagree. We do not see that the recording of actual physical output and actual monetary transactions imply any inconsistency in the accounts. It should be noted that the monetary output is no more than an expression for the total value of the total amount of the physical output, and that this output includes quantities which often are sold to many different prices depending on who is receiving the product. For parts of the output the price may be high and for other parts the price may be low. For the output which at some stage is lost the implicit price linked to that part of output is simply zero. The logical consequence of arguing for a net of losses recording of the output because of consistency with the monetary accounts is that more generally the output should be recorded as only that part of the actual physical output which is being involved in an economic transaction. The further consequence of this is that output of, for instance, electricity for own use, should also be excluded from product output. Instead it has to be included as a flow of residuals. All in all, the net approach of accounting for output leads to counterintuitive and complicated physical accounts.
06/12/2010Bulgaria, National Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that, within the context of the production boundary of the 2008 SNA, losses in physical terms are comprised of (i) flows of natural resources from the environment to the economy that are not available for further use within the economy because they have been returned to the environment; and (ii) materials that do not reach their intended destination or have disappeared from storage?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the following five types of losses should be recognized – (i) losses during extraction/abstraction; (ii) losses during distribution/transport; (iii) losses during storage; (iv) losses during conversion/transformation; and (v) losses due to theft.)?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the monetary flow accounts of the revised SEEA the treatment of losses should be consistent with the treatment of losses in the 2008 SNA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA all types of losses should be separately identified in the portion of the physical supply table showing the flows from the economy to the environment?
No comment
  6. Any other comments?
Theoretically recommendations made in the output paper are acceptable. But in practice they are hardly applicable.
 

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