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
 

Forest accounts

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:06/12/2010
Number of comments:23
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
14/12/2010Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
08/12/2010Central Statistics Office, Botswana1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes This will allow for distinction between the values of various classified forests.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes There is no need to leave them out since their classification is clearer.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes Since the amount of carbon sequestrated by timber resources is significant, and has a potential to earn carbon credits.
07/12/2010Australia/ Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Agree
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Agree It is unfortunate there is not a direct concordance between ‘cultivated’ in the SNA and FRA, but the ABS accepts the practical need to use the FRA definition.
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes. The ABS is unsure as to why the sub-classes of ‘Cultivated’ and ‘Non-cultivated’ timber resources in tables 5 and 10, are ‘Forest’ and ‘Other wooded land’ rather than as per recommendation 21.2 (where cultivated forests are comprised of ‘timber in planted forests’ and ‘timber in other naturally regenerated forests’; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to ‘timber in primary forests’).
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Agree
07/12/2010New Zealand/ Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
No comment
  6. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised for issue 21: Forest Accounts. Relevant agencies were contacted but did not feel in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
06/12/2010United Nations Statistics Division1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No. There are a few issues with regard to the suggested Tables to be taken into consideration in light also of consistency with other issues (e.g. #10 and #2): 1a. It is not clear whether timber in other naturally regenerated forest belongs to cultivated timber resources. There is no definition in the paper from FRA 2010 which makes it difficult to decide whether the whole class belongs to cultivated. It appears that timber in other naturally regenerated forest may belong partly in cultivated and partly in non-cultivated depending on the degree of management. There also seems to be an issue with regard to cover. It appears as if Table 1a only covers timber that provides economic benefits. This is not in line with the definition of assets in the SEEA-2003 and also in the revised SEEA, which implies that all timber in the territory is within the scope of the SEEA notwithstanding the usefulness of separately identifying timber producing economic benefits for maintaining the links with the SNA. 1c. This classification seems to be the classification of land underlying timber resources. As such it is not a classification of ecosystems but more a classification of land cover. It should be considered in the context of the classification of land cover.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Cannot say (see comment above)
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Not in the form presented. Table 5: Presentation of the table is confusing. Broadleaves and coniferous should be presented in the columns and not in the row to allow to do a row total of the additions to and deductions from the stock. Notes to table 5: there is an issue of consistency with issue #2. The timber left in the forest is a residual – a flow from the economy to the environment and not within the environment. Felling of timber is a flow from the environment to the economy and removals are flows within the economy. Table 6: Some of the items in the table are zero by construction and should be noted and some other do not belong in the tables in Volume 1 (e.g. environmental degradation of non-produced assets).
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
No. Table 9 is not a table of assets. It belongs in the classification of flows. The table should also be integrated in the physical supply and use tables.
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes.
06/12/2010Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes. Since it is a classification adopted by the FAO in the FRA. It is also a way to give continuity to the works which has been developed around of this natural resource.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes. This classification is used in order to identify the forest area able to be exploited and those which for various reasons it is not.
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes, agree. It is noteworthy that these charts can describe how the resource is used and the status for it’s possible use, in addition, these tables are proposed for the accounts of the forests in the SEEA FOREST.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes. This table will strengthen the accounting of forest since it is important to include non-timber products.
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes. Forests are seen as a major component of the carbon cycle, where can be stored in large quantities, because of this it has become an increasingly importance in the context of global warming. This could have better results on the amount of carbon stored in them and the one which is released by forestry, getting more tools for environmental-economic analysis.
  6. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
06/12/2010Norway/Statistics Norway5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Statistics Norway recommends that carbon accounting in timber resources should be discussed and included in SEEA Volume 2.
  6. Any other comments?
Statistics Norway supports the work done in order to develop a classification system in SEEA for forest resources and products that are harmonised or easily compared to the classifications used in FAO and UNFCCCC and work done in order to link forest assets accounts with forest SUT in a consistent way. There should be a clear link between forest accounts in SEEA and the general asset accounts and SUT accounts presented in SEEA.
06/12/2010France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology – Statistical department1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
No comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes, All the more, forest accounts provide physical data on carbon storage. However a connection needs to be established between IEEAF and UNFCC tables.
06/12/2010USA/BEA1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No. 1b and 1a should be adopted. The assets “timber resources” and “forests and other wooded land” are clearly defined and readers can understand the relationship between the two. It is also clear how the table will be populated. It is less clear to what table 1c corresponds. The outcome paper states that 22. As noted, the group of asset classes for forests and other wooded land is based largely on observed land use. The same area of forest can also be considered from the perspective of ecosystems that, in effect, requires an assessment of land cover. There is a broader body of work underway connected with the SEEA revision that is investigating both land cover classifications and accounting for ecosystems. The proposals in this paper for forests are one part of the picture and will need to be considered further once this broader picture emerges. From this it is unclear whether the ecosystems approach is just a land classification or whether something deeper is going on. In any case, the outcome paper states that the ecosystem perspective is under development, and because it is under development, we cannot be sure of what exactly we would be sanctioning by endorsing tables 1c and 8. In general, given the vagueness of what “ecosystem accounting” actually entails at this stage, ecosystem accounting should not be a part any chapter in volume 1.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
No. Tables 5, 6 and 7 should be incorporated. See our comments to 21.1.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes. However, as it is unclear at this stage what volume 2 will look like, the text of volume 1 should not make reference to a “complete discussion of carbon accounting” in volume 2.
06/12/2010Eurostat1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes - with a reservation. Table 1a covers all timber resources; it should therefore not only cover forests, but also other wooded land (forests + other wooded land = total wooded land) and other land with tree cover. For example, Germany reports forest area, zero area of other wooded land and some area of other land with tree cover in FRA. All three can provide timber. Proposed re-phrasing: Cultivated ? Trees planted on any kind of wooded land; ? Trees that regenerate naturally on any kind of wooded land; Non-cultivated ? Trees in primary forests Table 1b is OK, but I would propose to delete any mention of surface water. Table 1c covers the same information as Table 1a, just in a different breakdown. It should therefore also cover all kinds of wooded land. With the proposed breakdown, it is difficult to understand the need for this table. If it is intended to cover forest ecosystems, then using the 14 MCPFE forest types could be an option, although that would complicate things rather a lot.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes - with a reservation. The same remarks as for 1) apply. It will be impossible to estimate removals from FRA. Please see annexed Excel tables that we filled in for Germany. Removals were extracted from our own Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire (Eurostat data). Lots of interpolations were necessary (marked in colour) for natural growth, since FRA2010 doesn''t cover this and there are no yearly data in FRA. See the annexed tables for other notes.
Eurostat21.xls
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes, For the sake of completeness.
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes, Although this seems to be a bit over-ambitious, it would be useful because it could show how the data can be used in practice. It could also provide guidance to countries.
  6. Any other comments?
FRA was not really designed for accounting purposes. The data are often repeated over 3 reference periods, e.g. Germany. It would be preferable to get the forested countries to produce yearly running estimates of timber resources, as is done in Germany and France, please see the link. Four other countries have started to provide these kinds of data for our IEEAF exercise. Unfortunately, the German estimates are not considered to be ''official'' data by the person reporting to FRA. FRA 2010 does not cover removals, so these data would have to come from the Eurostat, UNECE, FAO ITTO Joint Forest Sector Questionnaire, with the numbers re-calculated to cubic metres over bark.
06/12/2010Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes, We agree, but wonder whether the names/lables of the categories needs to be reconsidered for use in SEEA. They should be logical when seen in isolation in relation to SEEA. For instance, the division of cultivated timber resources in Table 1a between “Timber in planted forests” and “Timber in Other naturally regenerated forests” is not very straightforward to understand. Does it mean that that planted forests is naturally regenerated forests? Or should “Other” be deleted?
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
We agree, but find the table 5 for timber resources is confusing since it is in fact based on a cross-classification of the classes in Table 1a (measured in cubic metres) and 1b (measured in area of forests) . It would be more natural first to include a table for timber resources which is based solely on the classes in table 1 a. This does of course not exclude that a cross tabulation with the forest area can be done as well if data are available.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes, We have no objection to that kind of supplentary tables as long as it it clarified that these flows are also included in the supply and use tables presented elsewhere in SEEA.
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
06/12/2010Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
06/12/2010STATISTICS AUSTRIA1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes, An alternative (and may be more valid) indicator for the ecological condition (1c) could be the level of human intervention as depicted by the actual composition of tree species compared to (potential) natural conditions. A respective classification could be derived by referring to the sub-categories addressed in Table 4 of the FRA. This would lead to the following categories: Primary forest / other forests, mainly composed of indigenous species / other forests predominantly composed of introduced species Concerning the data availability it should be recognized that in Austria a distinction between ‘planted forest’ and ‘other naturally regenerated forest’ is often not possible for older stocks. Therefore such data are not surveyed in the framework of the National Forest Inventory. ‘Primary forests’ are of minor importance in Austria. So it seems to be difficult or even impossible to get data from the National Forest Inventory.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes, Concerning the data availability it should be recognized that in Austria a distinction between ‘planted forest’ and ‘other naturally regenerated forest’ is often not possible for older stocks. Therefore such data are not surveyed in the framework of the National Forest Inventory. ‘Primary forests’ are of minor importance in Austria. So it seems to be difficult or even impossible to get data from the National Forest Inventory.
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
No, Apart from one additional revaluation item, the monetary table 6 should correspond to the physical one (5). Revaluation affects the stock but not the flow items (consistency with National Accounts!) The role of transactions and environmental degradation in this context is not clear. The IEEAF-concept is recommended as a reference. As to the categories of table 8 see the comment on Table 1c.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
No, It cannot be expected, that respective data of some quality are available. As an alternative directly addressing the respective policy issues it is proposed to account for the following items: 1. Share of in-house consumption on the timber extracted (a breakdown into industrial roundwood and fuelwood may be considered) 2. Value of NWFP extracted 3. Share of in-house consumption on the value of NWFP extracted
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
Consistency with SNA / ESA, IEEAF, the criteria and indicators according to MCPFE as well as reporting schemes according to the Kyoto protocol should be investigated and aimed at.
06/12/2010Iran/ Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
06/12/2010Malaysia/Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
No Comment
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
No Comment
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
No Comment
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
No Comment
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
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.
06/12/2010Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes, In table 1b, the protection function should include not only protection of soil and water, but also protection of produced assets (buildings, infrastructure) and human beings from avalanches, landslides, floods, etc.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes, We agree with this distinction as long as it is congruent with the distinction between assets in the balance sheet according to SNA and other assets which are not valued in the central framework of National Accounts. Clear classification and links with National Accounts are essential. Bridge with IEEAF (Eurostat) Tables 1a to 2b would be helpful, especially the distinction between “available for wood supply yes/no”.
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes, We would appreciate if all the flows and stocks would be identified with a classification (codes, description), with bridges (where needed or recommended) to the accounts of the central framework of National Accounts. Bridge with IEEAF (Eurostat) Tables 1a to 2b would be helpful, especially the distinction of forest use between “available for wood supply yes/no”.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
No, Basically we agree that in the revised SEEA a table should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products, but not the table 9 of the Outcome paper in its actual form (please see IEEAF (Eurostat), e.g. table 3a). Clear distinction has to be added in order to avoid double accounting with agricultural accounts (agro-forestry, e.g. animal husbandry in forest areas). Furthermore, services can also be gathered through forests: recreational services, protection and CO2-sink market services. The production of charcoal and extraction of peat could also be recorded. The boundary with extraction of subsoil and minerals underneath the forest cover could be underlined.
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes, The carbon contained in the roots, felling residues, dead wood and leaves, the forest soil and the living organisms other than trees and shrub should also be considered, in order to have a complete image of the forest ecosystem. Furthermore, it has to be kept in mind that UNFCCC uses the terms “managed” and “unmanaged” and the KP “forest management”. These are not necessarily identical with “cultivated” and “non-cultivated”. According to the IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF a Party to the KP has the possibility to apply “forest management” in a broad or narrow sense. Hence, they may be different from country to country. Even forest reserves can be accounted for as forest management insofar they are the result of a management decision. The differentiation between cultivated and non-cultivated might nevertheless be useful.
  6. Any other comments?
Links with the IEEAF handbook and its actual state of tables would be helpful. Furthermore, while we warmly welcome the current steps it will be important that further steps will consider a broader range of ecosystem services than just carbon sequestration and non-wood forest products (see e.g. MEA 2005, TEEbweb.org or de Groot (2009) in: Ecological Complexity).
06/12/2010DoS Jordan1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
yes
06/12/2010Pakistan/Federal Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Same “Reply” as given under Issue #4
06/12/2010United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
The use of existing international classification systems is very much welcomed, ensuring as it does consistency with other reporting requirements. Beyond the breakdown of cultivated and non-cultivated, the classes in tables 1a-1c would require some degree of estimation for the UK. UK reporting for FRA is based on total areas rather than identifying specific forests.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes, This would be consistent with current UK reporting. The UK has no primary/non-cultivated forests.
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
For the UK, it is not currently possible to split forest and other wooded land and all would be cultivated. As stated above there would have to be a degree of estimation in providing some of the splits for tables 7 and 8.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes, conceptually. As with the other elements, we have some practical concerns about implementation and will need to review available data sources.
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes, The scope of timber resources should be clearly defined so there is no confusion in interpreting the statistics, particularly within the context of LULUCF.
  6. Any other comments?
No.
06/12/2010Netherlands/ Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
06/12/2010Azerbaijan/NSO1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
Yes
  6. Any other comments?
No comment
01/12/2010Republic of Mauritius/CSO1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
YES
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
YES
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
YES
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
YES
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
YES
11/11/2010Egypt/ CAPMAS1. Do you agree that, subject to decisions made on the broader classification of assets in the revised SEEA, the asset classes for forests presented in Tables 1a, 1b and 1c of the outcome paper should be adopted in the revised SEEA?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the distinction between cultivated and non-cultivated forests should be based on the definitions in the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) where cultivated forests are comprised of timber in planted forests and timber in other naturally regenerated forests; and non-cultivated forests are equivalent to timber in primary forests?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that the asset accounts for forests presented in the outcome paper (Tables 5, 6, 7 & 8) should be incorporated into the revised SEEA?
Yes. Egypt uses metric system
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA a table (Outcome paper: Table 9) should be incorporated that presents information on the supply and use of non-wood forest products?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that Volume 1 of the revised SEEA should discuss carbon accounting in timber resources and that a complete discussion of carbon accounting should be included in SEEA Volume 2?
No
  6. Any other comments?
1- Egypt has a small areas of forests and most of them are cultivated to protect environment and not for economic activities 2- Egypt hasn''t any larg natural forests
 

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