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
 

Definitions and classifications of physical flows

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:17/01/2011
Number of comments:22
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
28/01/2011Libya / censuses and statistics department 1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
20/01/2011U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. It is crucial that flexibility be maintained, since agricultural production varies greatly between countries. In the interests of maintaining international comparability, perhaps some evaluation criteria for choosing between the two approaches could be presented in vol 1.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
19/01/2011Botswana, Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes. Natural resources are factors of production just like capital, labour or other inputs, hence a need for them to be recognised as materials.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes. But, there complexity in identifying materials in various products. However it is relatively easy to identify energy flows in the process of production of a certain product.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No comment
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
No comment
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
No comment
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
19/01/2011Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes. Water was identified separately from materials earlier in the paper. If it is to be included, it should be specified in the text in addition to materials and energy.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. If resources are considered cultivated in the SNA sense, then it is preferable that the associated flows be considered under the ecosystem approach (i.e. the production is an economic activity and the flows to the economy are the non-produced inputs associated with that production.) The harvest approach is appropriate for non-produced (i.e. non-cultivated in the SNA sense) goods.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
These definitions seem appropriate.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes. However, D.3.2 in unused extraction assumes a harvest approach to agricultural production.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
SIEC is the relevant classification for energy balances. The difference between SIEC and the CPC classification of energy is already dealt with in the compilation of energy accounts which should be based on classifications compatible with the national accounts. Thus, it is not expected that this difference in classification is a difficult issue, nor is it required to produce a harmonised classification.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes, since positive value implies products and therefore CPC, while no or negative value implies residuals.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes. Note, however, that evaporation of water from reservoirs and leaks of water from public distribution systems can be considered losses with positive economic value, and should therefore not be included as residuals (with no value). This should be highlighted in the text or the classifcation – the same may be said for heat in some cases although the classification does specify “residual” heat.
  11. Any other comments?
There may be some confusion regarding figure 4. Emissions to air/water are shown as being both econ-econ and econ-env flows. Emissions to air were defined as emissions to the atmosphere, thus there should be no emissions to air in the econ-econ section of the figure – any econ-econ flows of air pollution would have to be considered as waste. The issue of emissions to water suffers from a similar issue. If a pollutant is discharged to water, the water becomes wastewater. If the purpose is to track the flow of that pollutant separately from the water that carries it then there could be an argument to keep emissions to water in the econ-econ section of the table. However, this transfer between economic units would only likely be for the purpose of remediation, hence the pollutant is more likely to be a waste than an emission to water. It appears therefore that all emissions to air and water reside in the econ-env section of the table. If there are specific instances to the contrary, it would be useful to highlight these in the text for clarification.
18/01/2011France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes. The term "energy inputs" is already used for the natural inputs (Q1). We suggest an alternative denomination to mark the difference such as "energy products" or "…material and energy flows within the economy…"
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No. We cannot say that residuals have no monetary value. Some of them can be recycled and therefore have a positive monetary value, and are inputs of the recycling economic activity. For those which reflect a negative externality to the economy or an environmental cost, they also have a (negative) monetary value which should be identified as much as possible.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. See Comment Form on Issue # 1, question 1.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes. As far as the definition of wastewater is completely in line with the one used for waste, it should be clearly stated that it includes illegal discharge to the environment.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
No. We are not convinced of the relevance of using both classifications at the same time. On one hand, CPC is not detailed enough to isolate a given waste from the equivalent product, despite its necessity for valuation. On the other hand, some categories of waste appearing in EWC-Stat like metallic or paper and cardboard wastes treated by recycling may have a positive value. Furthermore, EWC-Stat seems to be convenient for a physical flow accounting approach, since this classification allows to measure all flows of waste (those with positive value, and those with zero or negative value). Consequently, we suggest to use only the EWC-Stat classification for waste. Besides, we agree with the (re)introduction of an item for radioactive waste, as specified in annex 2, even if it is kept outside of the EWC-Stat which is part of the European waste statistic regulation (R2150/2002).
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes. However there is a risk of duplication / double counting when using this classification, especially between the A category “Solid waste” and the I category "Unused extraction". For example A potentially includes "Wood wastes" (in Non metallic wastes) and "Wood harvesting losses" appears in I. We face the same issue with "Animal and vegetable wastes" in A and "Agricultural harvesting losses" in I.
18/01/2011Germany / Destatis1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes. From our point of view use/destination should not be used to define the physical classes. Therefore we are not happy with the term natural inputs. Natural resources seem enough to encompass all kinds of flows from environment to economy. (resources, unused extraction, energy carriers, solar heat, all ecosystem inputs e.g.)
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes. It seems to be very important to define products according the CPC and to stay aligned with the SNA in the field of products which are shown in monetary SNA accounts and physical accounts.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. According to internationally well established guidelines and conventions (e.g. OECD, EU) we propose to use the harvest approach for crops and trees and the ecosystem approach for livestock and fish – both irrespective whether the cultivation processes are dominated by a natural or an economic process. This is not in line with the recommendation of the London Group but it is a more pragmatic approach and it is helpful for comparability between countries. See also our remarks on issue #1.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
No (only waste). The proposed definition is a) too restricted (why only “waste collection” as recipient and not whole waste management?) and b) difficult: The term to be defined – “waste” has been defined by another unclear term – “necessity for treatment”. We propose using the definition for the EU Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD definition is before all a legal definition which wants to specify for all cases if substances are waste or not. We think this definition can be used statistically, because also the EU Waste Statistics Regulation is utilizing this definition. Article 3, Para 1 of the EU WFD says: “‘waste’ means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard;”
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No. It seems not to be the best way forward to have a classification of natural inputs / resources that overlaps with the product classification. Products are output of a production process also of extraction industries. Extraction industries need an input from natural resources. This input is different from the output. Since we would want to compile a physical IOT for a country e.g. we need to have classifications (natural resources, products, residuals) which do not overlap
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No. Looking at seeds, fertilizers and pesticides as “residuals” to our mind is not in line with the definition of residuals given in §71: “…flows of zero or negative value…” Seeds, fertilizers and pesticides to common understanding have a positive value and are products. In addition the way of categorizing these flows depends on the decision taken concerning the system boundary of cultivated biological resources (see also question 4). Seeds, fertilizers and pesticides are products and destination depends on the system boundary.
18/01/2011Slovak Republic/Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No comment
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No comment
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
No comment
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No comment
  11. Any other comments?
No comment
18/01/2011Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
No. The proposed definition does not reveal the essential character of ‘natural inputs’ such that we can readily identify these types of inputs or apply some tests to decide if an item is or isn’t a ‘natural input’. For example, Annex 1. Classification of natural inputs in the outcome paper contains an item ‘A.0.3 Forestry resources’. This annex does not list timber products of any type. On the other hand, para 14 of the outcome paper cites ‘timber’ as an example of a “natural input” – specifically, as “(i) resources, which are incorporated into products in the economy”. Is timber a ‘SEEA natural input’ or not? The proposed definition does not provide real guidance in answering this question. Perhaps it is necessary to cite SNA principles to help distinguish between ‘natural inputs’ and other inputs to production? Returning to the timber example, perhaps we could say the following? - that felled or milled timber is an SNA product; an output of an SNA production process carried out by an economic unit and therefore not a ‘natural input’ – though timber is itself derived from a natural input called ‘A.0.3 Forestry resources’ (from Annex 1: Classification of natural inputs, in the outcome paper). The comments in this paragraph apply to several of the issues in Batch 5 papers in the SEEA Rev global consultation. The concern is one of using of the terms ''economy'' and ''environment'' as a shorthand way of describing various flows. We suggest these terms need to be reasonably tightly defined if they''re going to be used in the SEEA Rev. These terms may mean different things to different people and it seems reasonably clear (but not 100% clear) that the ''economy'' is being defined according to SNA concepts and principles. We would not want to give the lay reader an impression that we consider the economy and environment to be completely separate entities. Perhaps all that''s needed is a couple of paragraphs early in the SEEA to acknowledge these points and to describe what is meant by ''economy'' and ''environment'' and why we adopt this shorthand notation. Finally, it is not clear to us how ‘unused extraction’ is a ‘natural input’ to any kind of process, much less the SNA production process. Items such as mining overburden are a consequence of production, rather than an input (much like atmospheric emissions are a consequence arising from certain types of SNA production) and are described as production externalities. In this regard, mining overburden is quite different to items such as ‘wood harvesting losses’ and ‘unused biomass from harvest’ both of which subsequently provide direct input to various ecosystem processes (within soil, aquatic etc. ecosystems).
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Agree, though presumably products can be outputs as well as inputs? See also comments against question 1 regarding use of terms ‘economy’ and ‘environment’.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes. See comments against question 1 regarding use of terms ‘economy’ and ‘environment’.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. We agree with the point made in para 34. of the outcome paper: “It is noted that since the harvest approach must be used when the resources are non-cultivated and since it is likely that some forms of cultivation are so intensive that the ecosystem approach is the only meaningful choice (e.g. greenhouse cultivation)…” i.e. SNA guidelines are used to define the ‘economy’ – therefore, for example, the ‘harvest’ approach would apply to exploitation of natural forests (where forest growth lies outside of the SNA production boundary); and the ecosystem approach to cultivated (plantation) forests. (‘Cultivated plantation forests’ being understood and treated according to SNA principles.)
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
18/01/2011New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
No comment
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No comment
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
No comment
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No comment
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
No comment
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
No comment
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No comment
  11. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised in issue 2: Classification of physical flows. Relevant agencies were contacted but were not in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
17/01/2011UNSD1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes. This seems to be the least controversial option upon consideration of many different options. We should anyway keep the options open and revisit the terminology during the drafting of the chapters to ensure consistency throughout the document.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes. Although CPC does not make a distinction between products with positive and negative value, the system boundary of the SNA cover only product with positive value (in monetary terms). This should be made clear in the text that we use the boundary consistent with the SNA that is why by convention we call products materials with positive value.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. The harvest approach should be limited to the MFA and not to the core SUT of the SEEA.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
In principle we agree. It still needs to be clarified what it is intended with “needing treatment”. The definitions should be consistent with the Waste Framework Directive with the EU but at the same time provide clear delineation of what they intend. Some finetuning/clarifications may be needed during drafting of text.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes. The classification should be reviewed and finalized before submission to the Expert Group Meeting on Classifications.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
We would suggest that a process be put in place under the auspices of the Expert Group on Classification by which SIEC and CPC need to be aligned. There is a need to identify those classes for which it is not possible to have a correspondence between SIEC and CPC, evaluate the seriousness of the problem and develop a recommendation in the short term and in the longer terms (e.g. future revision of CPC)
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes. This is again an interim solution. CPC includes waste only to maintain consistency with HS, however its inclusion does not meet the basic principles of CPC. The implications of having a class called “waste” in CPC need to be further evaluated by the Expert Group Classifications.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
17/01/2011Norway/Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes. We would recommend using the terminology “natural resources and cultivated resources” instead of only using “resources” when defining what kind of natural inputs that flow from the environment to the economy. We would also recommend using the terminology “materials, water and energy resources” instead of only “materials and energy” (this comment is also relevant for question 2 and 3). Statistics Norway agrees to this recommendation, but the actual inclusion of the ecosystem input is seen as a challenging task.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
We agree, but do have a question related to the treatment of ecosystem inputs in relation to flows within the econpmy. The ecosystem inputs are defined as parts of the natural inputs that flow from the environment to the economy. Are ecosystem inputs also here seen as part of “materials, water and energy” as in question 1?
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. This is an difficult issue. We think that this discussion has to be seen in relation to the general presentation of ground rent calculations for natural resources in SEEA.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes. We would recommend to use exact same wording when describing conditions of same art in the definition of waste and wastewater.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes. Statistics Norway would recommend moving “water resources” one level up in the classification from A.1.8 to A.2. As a result of this, excluding water from the A.1 category. We are questioning the inclusion of the word “ores” in the name of category A.1 and categories of A.1.4 although explanation to the meaning of “ores” is given in the outcome paper §60. We would recommend to change the terminology of A.1 to Energy and mineral resources (Natural inputs are in the text of the outcome paper referred to as natural resources, cultivated resources, unused extraction, ecosystem inputs and energy inputs (non-fuel and fuel), i.e. the terminology of “ores and minerals” are not used). We are questioning the categories of the ecosystem inputs and are suggesting that the details have to be further examined.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
Statistics Norway has no suggestion to this issue at the moment.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
17/01/2011Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes, because human action does not determine the level of production of this kind of inputs. Furthermore, there must be a correspondence between natural physical and monetary inputs, as well as materials and energy, which are used as part of the own account production that are not recognized by the monetary transactions in the context of national accounts.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
We agree, since the products refer to all materials of positive economic value that flow into the economy. The scope of products into the economy is limited to those with positive monetary values in order to keep a correspondence with national accounts. However, some material flows are recognized that are used as part of the own account production.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes, because residuals are materials with null or negative value that flow into the economy and the environment, however, the residuals could have a positive economic value, as long as this value is economically related with some other activity that was not the generator of such residuals.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. It is suggested to apply the treatment based on the cultivation or harvesting process, as it is recognized as a production process that takes place simultaneously in the economy and the environment, furthermore it is a direct method of measurement.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
We agree, in fact, the proposed definition for this set of waste has been harmonized, since it meets with certain requirements, for example, this wastes flow from the economy to the environment through the processes of production and consumption, like wise it can be reused by treatment. Moreover, these concepts are consistent with those described in the SEEA 2003.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes, because it allows covering all materials and inputs different than energy fuels that are found among the environmental and economy’s boundary.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes. It is noted that details of the products in the CPC allows making an explicit distinction in the classification regarding the degree of transformation that occurs at the time of the collection of biological resources.
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
Yes. Since there is no correspondence enough with the CPC ant the SIEC, certain CPC categories from SIEC modules has to be redefined, the ones where a correspondence exists. Moreover, where there is no such correspondence, it shall be generated an hybrid classifier based on the SIEC as it is proposed in the document.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes. It is important to note that this leads to a different treatment in the classification of waste, depending, whether it is a positive value or not. The classification of waste (used for residuals with a negative value) categorizes solid waste based on EWC-Stat.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes, because it includes residuals resultant from the dissipative use such as a complement of the products.
  11. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
17/01/2011European Commission/Eurostat1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
In principle we might agree with this definition however it is unclear exactly what is included and meant by "ecosystem inputs". Whether this definition is acceptable will need to be reconsidered during the process of the draft chapters and exactly what is included in the chapter texts at that time. Currently we are not prepared to give an unconditional ''yes'' to this question.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No. In our view, the problem with this definition arises with the final phrase "with no monetary value." For this reason we are more partial to the SEEA-2003 definition where there is a clearer identification of regarding the valuation: "residuals may have a positive value for a unit other than the generator." (SEEA-2003, §3.38) However, we recognise that if something obtains a positive value it is then considered a product. The problem we wish to solve has to do with landfills and the residuals stored in the landfills. We want to be certain that residuals can become products (also known as "secondary raw materials" in the material flow literature). This occurs for example when residuals in a landfill are removed from the landfill and are sold or processed further. These materials then obtain a positive monetary value and are considered products rather than residuals. We think that this is possible under the current proposal but it is not clear.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
As we stated in our comments to the Global Consultation paper for issue 1-Question 1, in order to be consistent with the monetary accounts and the SNA2008 production boundary, full-fledged physical flow accounts should treat the biomass growth of cultivated products as originating within the economy – this is the theoretically consistent approach – called in this paper the "ecosystem approach". Again, as we mentioned in our comments to issue 1, there is one specific exception where the growth of used biomass is treated as coming from the environment rather than the economy. This exception is when a sub-set of physical flow accounts, known as economy-wide material flow accounts (ew-MFA) and the derived indicators, are compiled. By convention, in ew-MFA, the vegetal biomass growth (i.e. plants from agriculture) is treated as if it was a natural resource and is considered as originating from the environment and not from the economy. In addition, we question whether the terminology "ecosystem approach" is more confusing than helpful due to the ease of confusion with other terminology using the term "ecosystem." Another term should perhaps be found for the SEEA text.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
No. These topics are still not well enough defined or distinguished to be included at such a detailed level in the revised SEEA. In a number of cases the boundary between these items (for example when is water from a waste water treatment plant considered a "return flow" and when is it considered "waste water") depends on the legal definitions and social norms which vary from one country to another. The broad, aggregated groups in the classifications could be used,; however, the detailed classification per se should not be proposed as a standard until it has been tested to see if it is possible to implement. Currently there are three types of flows: (a) natural inputs, (b) products and (c) residuals. It is premature to propose sub-classes for residuals (some of which are called: waste, waste water, emissions, return flows, losses, dissipative use of products, residual heat, unused extraction). Sorting out all of these different types of residuals and their relationships has not been done in a satisfactory way. We will not endorse this type of classification or agree to definitions until this work has been done in an adequate, well reflected way that can be used to guide compilation. In our opinion, this work has not yet been done. Given the proposed time line for the drafting of the chapters of the SEEA, it does not appear that definitions for all of these different types of residuals and their relationships can be proposed. In this case we would recommend that the revised SEEA provides a list that clarifies the content/different types of residuals but clearly states that the list is not meant to be a classification.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No. Annex 1 is not mature enough to be considered acceptable. It seems to be combining both processes with natural resources/materials/inputs. There are duplications and a number of items that do not make much sense from a physical science perspective. Some examples (but not an exhaustive list) include: - The potential double inclusion of Bitumen in A.1.2.3 and A.1.5.3 as well as water from glaciers, snow and ice which will automatically be found in streams and rivers. Perhaps it is the ice or water molecules that are the focus in the glaciers, snow and ice but this is not clear from the labels. - B.4 there is no "respiration" present in cultivated crops, plants or trees – the process we think is referred to here is known as "photosynthesis." - B.6 Unused biomass from parks and gardening for waste collection could potentially also be found in D.3.3 Other unused biomass from harvest – depending on the definition of "harvest" from home gardens and parks - C.1 Solar energy is one source of energy – whereas C1.1 Photovoltaic solar energy and C1.2 Thermal solar energy are methods of capturing solar energy. In this case the type of energy and the process for capturing this energy are mixed together in the classification. - In section 3 the terminology is "unused extraction" until D.3.1 and D.3.2 where the concept of "losses" is introduced. This use of the term "losses" is not the same as the sense of "losses" discussed in the global consultation paper and it is unclear why the concepts and terminology change in the middle of the list. - Section D.4 describes activities and not inputs – this is problematic since this change in concepts in the middle of the system does not seem appropriate. - D.1 uses the term "fossil fuels" which is not found elsewhere in the classification. - Note also that precipitation and wind are missing – when solar is included. Due to these problems and inconsistencies we do not think we can consider this work is yet of sufficient quality to be able to approve this as a basis for further development.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes. We support the use of already established classification systems when appropriate and as a product classification the CPC would be a reasonable choice.
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
If physical energy accounts are developed then SIEC would be the preferred choice of classification to be used. If monetary energy accounts are developed then CPC would be the natural choice. If hybrid accounts are the goal, then CPC will be needed at some point so a common aggregation will be needed to be established using a conversion key between the SIEC and CPC systems. Please note that this is consistent with our answer to question 1 for issue 3a bridging energy accounts and energy balances.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
In principle we agree with this proposal given our reservations related to the positive value as mentioned under Question 1. We also note that there is not full correspondence between the classification of inputs and the waste description – see specifically B.6 Unused biomass from parks and gardening for waste collection. Here the category specifically mentions that it is for waste collection but it is not clear where this should enter the waste categories being proposed – perhaps A9 is the correct placement. However, we again question whether this type of detail is advisable in the SEEA. Giving broad-based direction rather than precise (but not well developed) lists would be preferable. These implementation issues can then we further developed in compilation guides rather than in the SEEA.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
We do not support having a detailed classification of residuals in the revised SEEA. This classification has not been evaluated to any extent nor have attempts been made to compile data according to this breakdown. Since this classification has not been adequately tested we cannot suggest that it be included in the revised SEEA. Again, as we stated in our answer to question 5 above, discussing residuals in a general manner is appropriate; having a detailed classification and definitions is premature with regards to the quality needed in a statistical standard. If this classification is going to be worked on in the future, here are a few thoughts for improvement: An item called "C.15 Other" needs to be added since the list provided is not exhaustive – for example where would POPs and radioactive gases be placed in this system? It is not clear what is meant by G.1.1 Evaporation of water from fuel combustion. Does this refer to the water from biomass that is used as fuel or is this the resultant water that occurs when carbon based fuels are burned – for example the chemical reaction that occurs when methane gas is burned under conditions considered complete combustion: CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + H2O This release of water which is the result of a chemical reaction has nothing to do with evaporation – the water is simply the result of a chemical reaction. - In section "I" the higher level terminology is "unused extraction" until I.3.1 and I.3.2 where the concept/terminology of "losses" is introduced. This use of the term "losses" is not the same as the sense of "losses" discussed in the global consultation paper and it is unclear why the concepts and terminology change in the middle of the list. If the harvest residuals is what is meant then a better term than ''losses'' is needed for these. - precipitation and wind are missing from this classification.
  11. Any other comments?
Although this paper makes a noble attempt to present a classification of physical flows, there are sufficient inconsistencies that make it difficult to approve the proposals exactly as presented. Given these difficulties, it would appear fairly substantial work is needed before this can be used as a basis for revising the physical flows SEEA chapters. If this process is going to continue as currently planned, it is recommended that additional time be allotted for the drafting and global consultation commenting process due to these unsolved problems evident in the current document. We also wish to mention that it is not necessary to have such detailed definitions and classifications of residuals – and since these are not very well established and have not been adequately evaluated through data compilation, it is advised to keep the discussions and descriptions in the revised SEEA at a more overall, less detailed level.
17/01/2011Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
The EW-MFA approach seems the more practicable solution. See our comments on this subject in issue #1. This issue should be further analysed in Volume 2, taking into account the literature on ecosystem goods and services.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes. Definition of wastewater (41): “It has been discharged into drains or sewers, regardless of quality“ should also include water discharged directly to the environment (i.e. not via sewers/drains).
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No. We are agree with most of the propositions, but we have some remarks and suggestions: - There are a lot of typo mistakes and a presentation like those of Annex 3 will made clearer the different levels. - Some levels seem missing (for example under A.0.1 there is only A.0.1.10. The harvesting approach needs positions like cereals or fibres ??) - The numbering is not systematic (for example under A.1.1) - A.0.1: it seems not necessary to indicate that the resources are “from agriculture, forestry and fishery” - A.0.1: The vegetal origin should be indicated because “live animals” under A.0.2 are also resources from agriculture. - We suggest that Water could be at a higher level. So as: A.2 - B.1.2.1: Bacterial respiration (for ex. from fermentation) should also be incorporated here (may be it is suggested by the “aquatic resources” ??) - B.5 Soil minerals: adding subcategories like P or K should be of great interest to follow nutrient cycles. The position of B.6 and of B.7 seems not very optimal. May be they should be classed respectively under A.0.1 and A.1.5.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No. We are again agree with most of the propositions, but we have some remarks and suggestions: - There are a lot of typo mistakes and a presentation like those of Annex 3 will made clearer the different levels. - It will be interesting if the distinction of “Emissions from combustion of biomass” will be extended to other gas than CO2. - C.1.4: respiration of bacteria (for ex. fermentation, composting) should be also include here. This respiration is not negligible especially if the waste in controlled landfills are included within the socio-economic system (see issue #1) E.6.1: why suddenly such details? Are seeds of cereals of particular interest comparing to other (like “seeds” of potatoes which are a lot heavier). Moreover, plants which are planted in the field not a the seed stage but at later stage (seedlings or young trees) should have also a subcategory here (this is for example necessary for seedlings which are imported from abroad and which are therefore not part of the seeds planted within the country).
  11. Any other comments?
No
17/01/2011STATISTICS AUSTRIA1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
17/01/2011Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
No. It is unclear what unused extraction and ecosystem input entails. These categories need to be more defined. The problems of finding data with a quality good enough for statistical purposes is so large that it is unwise to include it at this stage.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes, the products comprise such flows, but we do not see that the own account production should be separately recorded.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No. We prefer the SEEA-2003 definition.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. As noted in the outcome paper the harvest approach is likely to work well for EW-MFA purposes. However, for other purposes of physical accounting such as emission accounting the harvest approach is not to prefer. We do think that the way to go forward in EW-MFA is to apply different approaches to different types of cultivation.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
No. Even though the definitions look fine, we are questioning why they are introduced here.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No. It is not clear how the classification is recommended to be used. There are many different types of physical flows and processes mentioned. The standard would be better off if we can avoid suggesting new classifications. The classifications are needed when we are sending data between organizations. It must be possible to collect the data and the data should be important for the issue of describe the interaction between the economy and environment. Classifications are better to develop in a separate process, in close connection to testing in countries.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
The issues of production and use of energy are very different and developing a correspondence may not be that valuable at this stage. The CPC works well for the use of energy.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
No. This is a complicated issue. For one actor the value is negative, but not for the receiving unit. We are unsure how this will work for statistical purposes. In many cases these sums are recorded as zero in the statistics. Better use one classification, CPC is preferred.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No. The MFA code is not explained and we are unsure of its aim and use. These items below are examples of what we do not want to include in annex 2. The standard should concentrate on the main items and not spread itself thin over areas with detailed recommendations on new classifications. In Section E, the following is listed under I: Unused extraction I.1 Unused extraction from mining and quarrying of fossil fuels I.2 Unused extraction from mining and quarrying of minerals I.3 Unused biomass from harvest I.3.1 Wood harvesting losses I.3.2 Agricultural harvesting losses I.3.3 Other unused biomass from harvest (including by-catch, etc.) I.4 Soil excavation and dredging I.4.1 Excavation for construction activities I.4.2 Dredging materials 17
17/01/2011Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
We agree. However, it should be clarified that positive economic value means that these products could in principle be the subject of an economic transaction at a positive price, but that there is no observable price/value attached to the flow of the products. We recognise that the inclusion of flows of own account production introduces an “inconsistency” in relation to the economic flows in the sense that a flow without any economic transaction/positive price is included in the physical accounts but not in the monetary accounts. We suggest that in addition losses of products due to thefts should be included in the same way. Also output of products (which have a positive economic value at the production point) but that are lost at a later point, i.e. turned into residuals, should be included in order to introduce a full logic into the definitions.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes. As before, the reference to “no monetary value” needs to be clarified/reformulated. Losses of e.g. energy or spreading of dissipative “products” such as fertilizers (according to the harvest approach) are examples of residuals that have positive economic value, although they can not be observed because no economic transactions take place.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. We suggest that the SEEA-2003 approach and borderlines are maintained as the conceptual correct approach also in the revised SEEA, but that at the same it is recognised that the “harvest approach” can be used to establish proxies for the ecosystem inputs when it comes to implementation and for use in specific EW-MFA.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
In general, the classification looks fine, however: Uranium and thorium are metals and should be moved into A.1.4. Wind energy is missing form the classification C.5 Other heat should be C.5 Other non-fuel energy inputs When it comes to practical implementation some amendments may however be needed depending on the available statistics. For instance it may be needed to record shale oil (instead of oil shale) since this is what is normally measured. Similarly with concentrates and ores.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
Yes. For energy accounts (physical and monetary) SIEC could be used as the starting point, probably with a subdivision of electricity and heat to reflect and link with the asset accounts (solar, hydro, etc.). For most energy accounts SIEC has to be used at the section and division level, and seldom at a more detailed level.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes, however as before the meaning of “positive value” has to be clarified as meaning “linked with economic transaction”.
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
The classification is not comprehensive if it is maintained that output of products (e.g. energy) which is subsequently lost due to thefts or other distribution losses, etc. are not outputs of products but residuals. In that case it is necessary to allow for all materials/energy (according to CPC/SIEC) also to be part of the residuals classification.
17/01/2011Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Prefer to say “flow from environment to production”. Yes, all should be included.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes. But to say “materials and energy that flow to the environment, whether they have an economic value or not.”
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
It seems a good solution to use different criteria for different kind of processes (kinds of cultivation for example). The criteria should be outlined in detail in the manual.
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No suggestions, haven’t had time to consider in depth
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
No comment, haven’t had time to consider in depth
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
17/01/2011Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. Harvest approach is better. Since natural resources enter the economy as a product and should be taken as an natural input .
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No comment
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
No comment
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No comment
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No comment
17/01/2011Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
Yes
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
No
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
No comment
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No comment
17/01/2011Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
No. We believe it is important to distinguish between what something is (in an ontological sense) and what it is used for (its destination). In other words, we prefer that definitions are formulated without making reference to use/destination or by enumeration. Use/destination can be seen in the supply use tables. Natural inputs (we would prefer something like “ecosystem goods”) could be defined as “the outputs of ecological and geological processes” similar to the definition of ordinary products as the outputs of production processes. From an ecosystem perspective (SEEA Vol 2), ecosystems can then be seen to deliver both ecosystem goods and services.
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
No. We prefer (as argued in Q1) the same definition as in the SNA: products are the results of production, where production is defined based upon the production boundary. The common understanding is that products have positive value.
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No. We would prefer to define residuals (as argued in Q1) without reference to boundaries, for example as undesired outputs of production and/or consumption processes without market value.
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
Yes. We agree with the convention formulated in outcome paper 1. This allows flexibility to individual countries (especially differences between developed and developing countries). We disagree with the view that this would fall short of providing unique recommendations. Establishing clear criteria (e.g. under natural circumstances) for choosing one treatment over another can also be interpreted as achieving a form of standardisation. This would not be so much different from countries having to choose whether a specific forestry activity is cultivated or non-cultivated based upon active / management or control criteria. In Holland we prefer treating greenhouses according to the harvest approach due to the fact that the main input (in physical terms) consists of natural water (and not fertilizers etc. that have already crossed the system boundary).
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
No. We prefer to use the WFD definition of waste whose essence is that waste consists of discarded materials. Wastewater can then be defined analogously as discarded water. Wastewater can be treated or not, or returned to the environment or not (use / destination). To us return flows therefore are a certain use one can make of (waste)water and would be subsumed under wastewater.
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes. We are fine with the recommendation to use CPC to classify them. Regarding unused extraction we like to make some remarks: that they are unused materials says something about their use, but does not make them a different type of material that would warrant a separate entry in the classification (it does not change what they are, for instance sand or rocks). As pointed out by Karl Schoer in his SEEA-MFA draft paper unused materials are materials that are dislocated from their original site by economic production activities without changing the physical characteristic of that material. Unlike for natural inputs, unused materials are not physically transformed into a part of a product or into a residual by a production process, i.e. they do not do not physically cross the boundary to the economy. Therefore unused materials are not an input into a production process but are considered to circulate only within the environment. Considering unused materials to cross system boudaries would be a major departure for physical flow accounting and indicators such as DMC (and would be at odds with the Eurostat legal base). As unused material flows can be important indicators for environmental pressures it appears appropriate to keep also track of that type material in the MFA. It is therefore recommended as an optional approach to supplement the MFA system by reporting the generated “unused materials” as a memorandum item.
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
Yes. It is important to take a compilers perspective into account, and then the problems do not appear to be insurmountable. The Dutch energy accounts (physical and monetary) use a disaggregation that is close to SIEC main heading level (oil, gas, biogas, heat, etc.). The monetary accounts are also disseminated in the same breakdown. This implies that several CPC categories are split (e.g. gas into natural gas and biogas), assuring however that the total values match the SNA values. The recommendation could therefore be to present the accounts according to SIEC main headings, while assuring that the totals are NR consistent.
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes. Here it is important as well to look at it from a compilers perspective: National accounts are used as source for waste products i.e. CPC based; waste statistics are used for waste in general making no distinction between waste residuals and products (based on EWC stat). When we disseminate data on total waste generation we need to use a common classification, which for policy users needs would be ideally EWC stat (Eural codes). Data on waste products can be matched to EWC categories (but vice versa is more difficult) (after we estimate physical amounts of waste products on the basis of our National accounts, we subtract waste product amounts from total waste to obtain estimates for waste residuals in order to disaggregate waste products and waste residuals that are both classified according to EWC Stat).
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
Yes
  11. Any other comments?
We have a different interpretation regarding the dissipative use of products. Obviously, from an MFA perspective, they indeed cross the boundary as soon as they are spread on land. We think however, that the capacity in which they do so, is better described as product-like, rather than residual-like given the definition of residual provided under Q3, as the spreading is done deliberately. According to this logic, we would not need a separate category “residuals from dissipative use of products” in the classification of residuals. Anyway, this is almost a semantical issue as our main MFA indicators would remain identical. Similar is the treatment of the clean up on oil spill. This flow from the environment to the economy should according to us be recorded as a flow of a residual.
10/01/2011Iran/Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be defined as comprising materials and energy (including non-fuel) inputs that flow from the environment to the economy comprising resources, unused extraction, energy inputs (fuel and non-fuel) and ecosystem inputs?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be defined as comprising materials and energy inputs that flow within the economy, including flows related to own account production, and which have positive economic value?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be defined as comprising materials and energy (primarily in the form of residual heat) that flow either within the economy or from the economy to the environment and are discarded or emitted materials with no monetary value?
No comment
  4. Do you have comments on the choice of either the harvest approach or the ecosystem approach to the recording of flows associated with cultivated resources for the general purposes of physical flow accounting in the SEEA?
No comment
  5. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should apply the definitions of waste, wastewater, emissions and return flows as presented in the outcome paper in paragraphs 36 – 44?
No comment
  6. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA natural inputs should be classified following the classification described in Section C of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 1?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA products should be classified according to CPC for material flow accounts?
Yes
  8. Do you have views and suggestions on the classification to use for energy modules in energy accounts considering that it is not possible to develop a correspondence between SIEC and CPC?
No
  9. Do you agree that CPC is used to classify waste that has a positive value and EWC-Stat is used to classify waste that has a negative value?
Yes
  10. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA residuals should be classified following the classification described in Section E of the outcome paper and presented in Annex 2?
No comment
 

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