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 soil and its valuation

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:06/12/2010
Number of comments:27
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
23/12/2010Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, if possible in practice.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes, if possible in practice
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes.
15/12/2010Philippines/National Statistical Coordination Board1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes. To be consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA), the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes. For practical reasons, lands associated with roads in residential areas should be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes but further elaboration is needed.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
No. The productive capacity of soil can be reverted back to its original state in a short term (not more than a life time) therefore it should not be treated as non renewable resources
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes. We Agree but it should be specific with reference to forestland, agricultural land, etc. Residential land, commercial or industrial land may not have ecological characteristics
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
No comment
14/12/2010Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, When e.g. forest land is measured by hectares, the forest soil will be measured by cubic metres, not by tonnes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
No comment
08/12/2010Central Statistics Office, Botswana1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes This is ideal, since the government is responsible for and the legal owner of natural resources.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes Depletion will then include sand mining just as for non-renewable recourses
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes Since the value of land is determined by various factors such as soil, accessibility, availability of water e.t.c, separating the two will mean that soil will become one of determinant of the value of land
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes This will allow for resource rent, and account for degradation and depletion of soil as well as the replacement of virgin vegetation by the economic activity.
  7. Any other comments?
Soil should be recognised in various forms, not only in the farming situation, but the value of soil should be recognised also when it comes to construction and other forms of property.
07/12/2010Australia/ Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes. With the exceptions noted below, any land that is available or could become available for economic use should be given a market value. Land that is legislated as reserve such as national parks should not be assigned a market value. It might have considerable existence value as a provider of ecosystem and leisure services, but this is not a market value and is dealt with elsewhere in the system.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes. It is not clear why this approach should not apply to land under all roads and railways. It is unclear how we would interpret a valuation of this land used for transport purposes. Without road transport access, the value of the surrounding land would be substantially devalued. In the (rare?) event that land under roads comes on the market or land is resumed for a road, the transaction should be recorded as the sale or acquisition of a land asset.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
No. The depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly explained, but the ABS does not support the terms suggested. The distinction should not be strictly one of quantity and quality. For the purposes of SEEA, depletion should refer to the reduction in the value of natural resources due to their use in economic activity. For mineral and natural growth assets this would generally result from physical removal of the asset, but in the case of land and soils it is more likely to result from deterioration in quality. What is commonly referred to as soil or land degradation should be recorded as depletion in SEEA. It would not seem sensible to account for a loss of soil due to erosion in depletion adjusted income but leave a decline in the quality of soil due to soil structure compaction or salinisation out. We consider that the term degradation in SEEA should refer to damage done to environmental assets other than natural resources.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes. See comment to Q3 above.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
No. While it would be analytically useful to partition land value into a number of characteristics including soil, the possibility of being able to do this seems unlikely. All else being equal, land with better soil is worth more for agriculture and forestry and degraded soil is worth less. However, the economic value of land is also affected by a number of other characteristics including location, climate, improvements, vegetation cover, aspect, topography. Location can be a major factor in the value of agricultural land, especially if there is a chance of future rezoning as urban land or it is in commuting distance to urban jobs. Given that the value is unlikely to be partitioned, soil should be included in the land asset, as in SNA 2008. Soil types and condition remain an area of interest for land accounts.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
No. The recording for depletion in SEEA should be consistent with that for depletion of subsoil assets, fish stocks and forests where the extractor is a different economic unit to the legal owner. The capital transfers approach suggested in this paper was not presented as one of the options in the outcome paper for Issue 15b. The treatment of the various types of leases in SNA 2008 is relevant. As for other natural resource assets that are exploited by units other than the legal owner, the nature of the lease arrangement should be examined to determine the economic owner as distinct from the legal owner of the land. Any soil depletion should be recorded by the economic owner of the land, which may or may not be the legal owner. The major difference between the capital transfers approach suggested here and the finance lease approach in the SNA (and suggested for subsoil assets in SEEA (Issue 15b)) is that the asset remains on the books of the legal owner rather than being transferred to the economic owner by way of an imputed financial transaction. In the capital transfers approach the decline in the land owner’s asset as a result of soil depletion is recorded as a capital transfer by the land owner to the land user. The recording of assets and depletion where the extractor is not the legal owner of the asset needs further consideration and a consistent solution adopted across all natural resource assets.
07/12/2010New Zealand/ Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes. In order to prevent further loss of soil quantity, or decline in soil quality, we must value it so that we can track the inventory changes in soil stocks and services, and so that sustainable practices can maintain or restore the value of soil services. Further discussion is given in 7 below as to how this can happen. This must be science-based, and not country or jurisdiction dependent. National Parks, and in NZ Maori land, is not a commodity, effectively sitting outside of the economy. As a consequence it has no “market value” Throughout the document there is crossover between valuing land as a commodity and valuing the ecosystems services mankind has come to depend on from soils, a finite natural resource.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes. We need to account for the impact that built infrastructure has on ecological infrastructure, and this accounting would enable tracking of the asset value of total ecological infrastructure, irrespective of land title. Nature’s laws do not necessarily respect local resource regulations or land ownership. See 7 below as to how this could be done using a science-based approach.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes. A change in either the quantity of soil or quality of soil can be captured by quantifying the changes in the soils natural capital and ecosystems services. Frameworks exist for quantifying these changes. Methods for “valuing” these changes are a little less well developed. By quantifying the natural capital value of soil and all of its ecosystem services, it will be possible to assess quantitatively the changing value of assets and services through soil degradation and depletion
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes. Losses extend beyond provisioning services to include a range of other services, including regulating (e.g flood mitigation, filtering, etc) and cultural services, so inclusion of a measure of the change in natural capital is essential. There appears to be a crossover from land to soils where the loss of services recognised by the market (provisioning services that contribute to production, but not the regulating services) are included, but not the loss of other services. Until these other services are recognised and given a market value the revised SEEA methodology will underestimate depletion for non-renewable resources and as a consequence under value soils. By including the value of the soil’s ecosystem services along with the economic production that comes from it, better decision making will result to protect our finite and non-renewable resources, such as soil.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes. Until all the services we have come to depend on from our soils are “valued” by the market, soils and land will have to be treated separately. Land and soil should collectively be included as separate assets, not just because of their specific ecological characteristics, but also because soils and land are integral parts of the terrestrial environment. Furthermore, many of the ecosystem services we receive are ‘channelled’ through the surface skin of the Earth, namely its soils and lands.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes. Unless there is such an accounting treatment, there will be no proper recording of the value of soil depletion and degradation. New research is providing a science-based approach to valuation of the ecosystem services provided by soils and land.
  7. Any other comments?
The following is a recent example of scientific efforts to better value soil’s natural capital and its ecosystem services. These will enable the issues mentioned above to be addressed and the value of soil and land to be quantified. Based on landmark paper by Costanza et al. (1997) on the valuation of ecosystem services and natural capital, there are developing new schemes to assess the natural capital value of soils and the value of the soils’ ecological infrastructures, and the value of the ecosystem services that soils provide. New Zealand’s Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative (SLURI) has, as one of its three objectives, a research programme on “Soil Natural Capital Valuation”. (viz. Clothier, Deurer, Dominati, Green, Hedley, Hewitt, Mackay and Rosser). From these valuation schemes it will be possible to assess the changing inventory value of soil stocks through changes in soil quantity and quality. The impacts of soil depletion and degradation on the asset value of soil will be able to be calculated as the integral sum of the values from all the soils’ ecosystem services that are affected by such depletions and degradations. Land management practices will be identified to maintain the value of soil of high class lands, and new approaches to restore value in degraded soils will also need to be designed.
06/12/2010United Nations Statistics Division1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes. It should be noted that this issue should take into consideration the discussion on how to treat land and soil in the classification of assets.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
We do not support this recommendation. We feel that the concepts and accounting framework of the revised SEEA Vol.1 should be close to that of the 2008 SNA. Treatment of land and soil as separate assets, would introduce additional issues to be addressed, namely partitioning of resource rents from soil and land. For example, if A leases out agricultural land to B for farming - Is A leasing out only the (i) soil or (ii) both soil and land. We see accounting issues to be resolved in both cases. If only soil is leased out then the economic owner of land is A and what benefit he would be getting from the land as an asset. On the other hand if soil and land both are treated to be leased out then how to split the resource rent accruing from soil and land?
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
  7. Any other comments?
No comments.
06/12/2010Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes, because property rights from a good are a feature that will be included in a market. Even it is important to develop other valuation methodologies that reflect the real value of land in terms of sustainability.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes, since are part of a value which is often awarded to a private property. Any price change in the value of private land should generate a change in land value associated with roads.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes. Note that in these terms are included the internationally used criteria both in the SEEA, as in other technical papers on this environmental issue. This allows to values adequately the soil whether the case of degradation with a different cost than the depletion involved.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes, insomuch as to have a track of the soil productivity when is used unsustainably, the ground may not be regenerated in human time scale, which represents a loss for the owner which has to be recorded in the income account, or in cases of long-term ability of soil loss it should be reflect the economic owner in your account because will be the one who supports the economic loss of soil productivity.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, since it is working with two different concepts; the first one is the service that a land can be provided for the establishment of any economic activity, and depletion would occur due to changes in the land use, for example, such as a forest use to an agricultural or urban use. The second one concept refers to the use of a good such as a land, which is constituted of particles that can be used to develop a crop plant and of which depends a production of a certain magnitude, a feature that can be changed by an improper use of land which could rise a degradation.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes. This is accordance to the way that transactions are recorded in the SNA and for its compatibility with the revised SEEA.
06/12/2010Norway/Statistics Norway7. Any other comments?
No comments to these questions due to rather limited experiences in this area.
06/12/2010France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology – Statistical department1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
No, We are not at all convinced by the argumentation and we don’t see why it is important from the environmental point of view to introduce a mismatch between the SNA and the Environment accounts. Furthermore, it would be very difficult on an operational side.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, Agree even though both phenomena are often combined and their respective impacts are not easy to separate. However, definitions of depletion and degradation are apparently a little restrictive and not enough accurate. Indeed, depletion does not always imply a quantity loss of the soil as such, but soil can be depleted by the change in its structure, caused by a decrease in quantity of some of its component (organic material, phosphorus, nitrogen...). In such case depletion results in a loss of quality of soil rather than in reduction of a quantity of soil. Therefore it would be useful to list the eight threats that concern soil: erosion, loss of organic material, packing, salination, landslide, floods, soil contamination, waterproofing and to define precisely for each of them what is depletion and what is degradation.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes, We agree to be consistent with non-renewable resources (even though we disagree with the treatment proposed in issue 13 – see our comment form). As regards the recommendations 20.3 and 20.4, there seems to be a contradiction. The first one recommends for distinguishing both items while the other suggests the same treatment for them. Consequently one may wonder what is the usefulness of making the distinction.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Agree. In practice, it will be difficult to separate both assets on an international base.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
We agree but the last point c) is not easy to understand. For a clarification purpose, it should be specified that the recording of the capital transfer from the land owner account to the land user account balances the primary recording (created by the depletion). Besides we don''t understand why the location to record depletion is the generation of income account instead of the production account. Indeed, the depletion can be considered as a cost that decreases the value added of the land user. Anyway, this flow needs futher clarification in the paper.
  7. Any other comments?
The production function of soil is really important issue but is not the only one to be considered. The non marketed services provided by soil are also of importance. So a reference in this paper could be added to mention that these services will be treated in the volume 2.
06/12/2010USA/BEA1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, While the concepts of depletion and degradation are distinct and understandable, implementation is unclear. If volume 1 is to set standards for implementation, then there must be some discussion on how a soil valuation (as well as depletion and degradation of the soil) can be separated out of the total land value. A discussion of implementation is given a cursory treatment in the ABS issues paper, and is lacking in the outcome paper. The SEEA should therefore include some discussion on implementation.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
06/12/2010Eurostat1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Probably NO. We are currently unclear about this. Every piece of land (especially in residential areas) has its value increased or decreased by the surrounding plots (a nice park, a smelly factory or a noisy railway line). Why is government-owned land being singled out for special treatment for these kinds of "externalities"?
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
06/12/2010Statistics Denmark 1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes, But it is only appropriate if it is not possible to account for it separately. Whether the existence of public infrastructure affect the value of adjacent private land is irrelevant and should not be the reason for the joint accounting for roads and adjacent land.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
We agree. However, we think that in general depletion should be defined as the total change in quantity, and that it should not be dependent on the causes. Thus, we disagree with the remarks on page 3 of the outcome paper, that the decline in productive capacity due to externalities etc. should be excluded from the depletion (if quantitative, of course). It is important to account for the total changes in quantities. Alternatively, a third term including all quantitative changes should be introduced for the asset accountsm and depletion should be reserved for deletion adjusted accounts. Further, it is so far quite unclear how in practise the distinction between “non-externality related depletion” and “externality related depletion” can be done in practise.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
No, We do not find that sufficient experience with this kind of accounting and interpretation of the results exist.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, We have no objection to a separate classification, but find it unclear what it means for the practical accounting. It seems that further research is needed to develop accounting practices.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
No, We do not find that sufficient experience with this kind of accounting and interpretation of the results exist.
06/12/2010Statistics Sweden7. Any other comments?
Statistics Sweden has not been involved with statistics related to recording of soil and its valuation. Therefore we will not comment on the proposals. However, the LG meeting in Wiesbaden asked for further input from the World Bank in terms of the feasibility of measuring soil depletion and degradation. It would be beneficial for the area if this consultation took place as it would provide some indication to the applicability of the theory.
06/12/2010Latvia/Central Statistical Bureau1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, We agree that depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
  7. Any other comments?
no
06/12/2010Statistics Lithuania1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes, Statistics Lithuania supports the opinion that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
We would like to express our reservation about recommendation 20.2.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, Statistics Lithuania considers that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined whereas use of these terms could seem confusing with a lack of clarity between land and soil and between depletion and degradation.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, We agree that land is an element in the description of all territory in a country and is an integral part of many assets including the land under houses and buildings. Distinction between land and soil is that the soil resource provides the physical base for the growing of plants while the land defines the area of interest.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
06/12/2010Iran/ Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
No
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
06/12/2010Malaysia/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
YES
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
YES
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
No comment
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
No comment
  7. 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.
06/12/2010Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, Ideally this should be done because the living part of the soil is a key element in biosphere functioning. Therefore the revised SEEA should clearly defined it and its degradation and depletion. However, measuring the loss of soil quality is a very difficult topic. The quality of the soil is generally defined by its physical, chemical and biological dimensions each dimensions having numerous feedback effects on the other and those at different spatial and temporal scales. Most of these feedback and particularly those linked to biodiversity are presently only very partly understood by soil scientist. Measuring depletion and degradation are therefore already highly difficult in physical term and then even more in monetary term. Moreover, the definition of the soil quality should be based on last scientific development and not only on a purely agronomic view. Furthermore, especially in agricultural and forest soils subjected to e.g. acidification, depletion processes diminish the soil quality by quantitative loss of e.g. nutrients (the cation concentrations in the humus-clay complex –CEC- are reduced, hereby lowering soil fertility). Thus depletion and degradation are interrelated.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes, It should be noted, that the productive capacity in terms of marketable products is not the only source of value of soil. Other services such as carbon sequestration, decomposition, water purification or storage of residual materials, or flood mitigation are also related to soils. See e.g. Dominati et al. (2010), "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils", in: Ecological Economics 69 1858–1868 or Robinson et al. (2010) On the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils, in: Ecological Economics 70 (2010) 137–138.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, Soil as the base of the terrestrial biomass primary production and as a key component in biogeochemical cycles (Water, C, N, …) should be separately classified even if it raised methodological problems.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
  7. Any other comments?
While we warmly welcome the current steps, it should be noted that further steps should tackle the more complex issues of soil-related ecosystem goods and services and their implications for capital accounting. Furthermore it should be noted that due to market imperfections the market values are sometimes distorted and do not always reflect long-term aspects of ecological and functional quality.
06/12/2010DoS Jordan1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
No, We disagree, because when we want to account for the depletion and degradation we consider the productivity capacity loss of the soil as an indication of both of depletion and degradation.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
yes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
yes
06/12/2010Pakistan/Federal Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Same “Reply” as given under Issue #4
06/12/2010United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
No, As noted in the outcome paper, the proposal is linked to limited scenarios and the assumptions have not been widely tested. Conceptually, this would support apply the SNA recommendations on separability of assets until a stronger evidence base can be established.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes, No additional comments.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes, No additional comments.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, Clear definitions and illustrative examples concerning the two types of asset will be needed. Measurement is likely to prove difficult.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes, No additional comments.
  7. Any other comments?
No.
06/12/2010Netherlands/CBS1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
The value of land is always dependent on institutional and legal context. In general it is difficult to isolate the effect of an additional road; it could increase the value of adjacent land due to its increased accessibility or decrease it due to for instance noise and pollution. Given that a certain land area has become a road, it is fair to say that its value is 0, which is different from saying that the road would have no societal value! Of course the government could sell the road to a private party to make it a toll road, however, then the road obtains a value due to the possibility to extract tolls. This is different from the value of the land itself.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
We should be careful here in distinguishing between the productive loss that is already reflected in the reduced output of the current period, and productive loss that may be experienced in the future. The former ‘costs’ are already included as reduced output and should not be deducted again; only the latter costs should be deducted (if we would know how).
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
In case we are able to islolate them yes.
06/12/2010Azerbaijan/NSO1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes, regardless of the fact that who owned (public or private sector) all lands within a territory, we consider that their inclusion in the balance sheets is true and expedient. It can help to create opportunities for increasing of attention to use of lands.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
No, in certain cases, the value of government owned land in residential areas can be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land taking into account some factors (direction of use, location of lands in a certain geographic territory, compatibility of lands for agriculture and etc.).
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
No, we suggest to relate plot to the quantity of soil and fertility - to the quality of soil.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes, we agree with such approach to the issue. During economic production process, indicators of land quality (its fertility) decrease year by year. Calculation of amount of these losses, their deduction from income and attribution to non-renewable resources is the approving approach to the issue.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes, we think that even though land and soil are similar in general, but they differ with regard to different approaches. At the same time, also geographical climate and economic features should be taken into account along with specific ecological features. Therefore, they should be classified as separate assets.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes, we agree that the issues commented in questions 1-5 finally should be reflected in accounting treatment. Therefore, it is acceptable to admit the accounting treatment in this question.
  7. Any other comments?
No comment
01/12/2010Republic of Mauritius/CSO1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
YES
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
YES
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
YES
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
YES
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
YES
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
YES
11/11/2010Egypt/ CAPMAS1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
Yes
  7. Any other comments?
1- some expressions must be will defined 2- values of depletion and degradation of soil are so difficult to calculate 3- values of underground resources is so difficult to calculate 4- values of depletion and degradation of soil must be in Egyptian pounds
10/11/2010Tonga/ Statistics Department1. Do you agree that the market value of all land within a territory should be included in the balance sheets of the revised SEEA whether explicitly owned or owned by the government by default?
No. Land valuation is differed from country to country, thus make comparison difficult.
  2. Do you agree that, in certain cases such as the area of land associated with roads in residential areas, it may be appropriate for the value of government owned land to be accounted for in the value of adjacent private land?
This is why I say no in question 1 above.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA the depletion and degradation of soil should be clearly defined where, in general terms, depletion relates to changes in the quantity of soil and degradation relates to changes in the quality of soil?
No. Because, depletion and degradation are reflected on yield, production.
  4. Do you agree that, since both soil depletion and soil degradation causing a loss in productive capacity of the soil can occur as a direct result of economic production, the revised SEEA should deduct the value of this loss in productive capacity in the generation of income account similar to the recording of depletion for non-renewable resources?
No. The use of fertilizers and new technology can offset the effects of coil depletion and degradation.
  5. Do you agree that, due to their specific ecological characteristics, land and soil should be classified as separate assets in the revised SEEA?
Yes. As my previous answer (no) to soil valuation, good to have its separate classification.
  6. Do you agree that where land use agreements are in place and soil depletion and degradation is recorded, then the accounting treatment in the revised SEEA should show the deduction of soil depletion in the generation of income account, the payment of rent from the land user in the allocation of primary income account and a capital transfer from the land owner equal to the value of soil depletion in the capital account?
No. Valuation of soil degradation and depletion are unreliable.
  7. Any other comments?
No.
 

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