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

Linking emission inventories to emission accounts

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:24/12/2010
Number of comments:25
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
11/01/2011Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No comment.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No comment.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
No comment.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
No comment.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
No comment.
  9. Any other comments?
Statistics New Zealand does not currently have sufficient subject matter expertise to comment on the questions raised in issue 3b: Boundary issues in air emission accounts. Relevant agencies were contacted but were not in a position to comment on the specific questions raised.
04/01/2011Statistics Finland1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes
28/12/2010Turkey / Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No. Basically, “burning of biomass” and “unintended forest and grassland fires” are two different categories and second one is a non-anthropogenic emission source. Due to IPCC, the emission from “unintended forest and grassland fires” is not necessary to calculate. This category has to be omitted.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No comment.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes, because controlled landfill is a high CH4 emission source and have a big affect on climate change.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Exactly yes except for emission due to enteric fermentation of livestock. However, for humans , mentioning enteric fermentation is not logical.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
  9. Any other comments?
The Revised SEEA- Air Emission should contain IPCC Classification.
28/12/2010Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
No comment.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
No comment.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No comment.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No comment.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
No comment.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
No comment.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
No comment.
28/12/2010Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. This seems reasonable, provided there is agreement on the methods and treatment in the forest accounts.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
This seems like a reasonable treatment.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
This is at odds with recommendation 7. Given that these emissions are not part of a production function, it seems inappropriate to attribute them to an industry if they are unintentional. Would this also require attribution of emissions from accidental building fires etc.?
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No. From a conceptual standpoint this seems reasonable, however it is not clear that this could be done on a practical level with any accuracy. It also seems at odds with recommendation 6 in those cases where the decay of consumer durables is creating emissions from landfills.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
It is not clear how this is relevant to bridge tables for emissions.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
This is not the current practice in the Canadian context, but we do not object to the idea in principle. For certain analytical purposes however, it is necessary to consider the lack of a direct link between current production (landfill services) and emissions from discards in previous accounting periods.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Inclusion of livestock seems reasonable, however it is not clear that emissions from human metabolic functions should be included.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Partial yes. Emissions to the environment is the relevant issue. Transfers within the economy could be relevant from a supply and use perspective, but it is not clear if this is needed for the production of bridge tables.
  9. Any other comments?
This paper seems to have gone beyond the discussion of bridge tables to a set of recommendations related to the compilation of air emissions inventories. It is not clear if the London Group has done enough consultation on the issues related to emissions inventories to endorse all of those recommendations in the paper. It would be useful to broaden this discussion so that it pertains to emissions in general. The issue could be combined in the SEEA with issue 3a, leading to a discussion of bridge tables in general and the general differences faced (e.g. boundary issues, classification issues, and other accounting issues).
28/12/2010Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. Carbon sequestration is an important ecosystem service of soils. As noted in the outcome paper, and supported by Switzerland, a full description and accounting for the carbon cycle should be included in the revised SEEA Volume 2 as part of the more general discussion in the volume on ecosystem accounting. However, due to the unreliability of data for some types of flows of accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils, we agree that these types of flows should not be recorded in SEEA Volume 1 except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables. In the meantime it is important to improve data reliability for other types of carbon accumulation in living biomass and soils.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. The degree of control over the storage facility should be defined in order to facilitate the compilation work and to improve the data comparability.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
In principle, we agree with this recommendation but a clear distinction should be made between emissions caused by economic activities and natural emissions, e.g. linked to forest fires due to lightning strike. In the case of CO2 emissions, biogenic emissions should be distinguishable from fossil emissions.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Basically and from the point of view of the environmental accounts, this recommendation makes sense: the emissions should be recorded at the time they take place. However, this recommendation implies to account for consumer durables over their operating life, which is not currently the case in Swiss NA. The feasibility, costs and implications of such a method should be further evaluated.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Basically and from the point of view of the SEEA, this recommendation makes sense: the emissions should be recorded at the time they take place. However, accounting for consumer durables over their operating life is not what we currently do in the Swiss NA. The feasibility, costs and implications of such a method should be further evaluated.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
  9. Any other comments?
We see this revision element as a step in the right direction. We particularly welcome that definitions come closer to those of the IPCC. This is especially important for carbon emissions by biofuels.
28/12/2010Jordan\Department of Statistics1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
No. We think that its important to account for all carbon either accumulated in timber or in the soil or living biomass.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
We disagree, the most important thing here is to record the final amount of pollutants from any facility
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
We agree that all air emissions from burning of biomass and grassland should be recorded
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
yes
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
We agree, that it should be recorded
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
We agree that emissions should be recorded as primary emissions and ignoring the secondary emissions in air account.
23/12/2010UNSD1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
We agree with recording carbon accumulation in timber resources in Volume 1. We also believe that the description of the carbon cycle is very important and Volume 2 should pay special attention to the topic.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. We believe that increasingly we should try to record air emissions both within the economy and from the economy to the environment as technology improves and allows the capture and storage. The recording should be the same and water emissions.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No. The SEEA in the supply and use tables only records flows from the environment to the economy, within the economy and from the economy to the environment. It does not record flows within the environment. If we want to record air emissions from burning biomass from unintended forest and grass-land fires we are de facto changing the conventions. We should only record those emissions that are caused by fires that result from human intervention and not the natural fires, which can occur as part of the natural processes. Although we recognized that these emissions may be large and may need to be recorded in a bridge table with IPCC, they should not appear in the emission accounts as they would violate the principles underlying those accounts.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
In principle yes, but it may be difficult to operationalize it.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes. They are emissions from the economy to the environment and as such they are within the scope of emission accounts.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. As discussed before, air emissions that occur within the environment are outside the scope of emission accounts and therefore should not be recorded as part of the standard emission accounts. Air emissions from humans and livestock could in principle be included.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes. Emissions within the economy and from the economy to the environment should be included in the emission accounts. Emissions within the environment should not but may be recorded as a memorandum item if needed to build bridge tables with IPCC guidelines.
23/12/2010France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology – Statistical department1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. Emissions and absorption by cultivated plants are indeed already excluded from the air emission accounts reported to Eurostat: an additional reason to choose this treatment.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes. Agree on burning of biomass as a general rule. In the special case of emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires we suggest to include them in the air emissions accounts, but also to record them separately, allowing for specific treatments of the series. Indeed, since these unintended fires are not clearly linked to an economic or human activity, a specific treatment consisting in isolating them could be preferred when conducting typically an economic analysis that draws a parallelism between such environmental aggregates and economic activity aggregates.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. It would be consistent with the air emission accounts reported to Eurostat where emissions from human metabolism are also excluded: another argument in favour of such choice.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
23/12/2010US/Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. It should be made clear in the SEEA that such emissions are to be treated as a net reduction in emissions. We do not want users to be double counting emissions.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No.It is well understood that the SEEA should measure the link between the economy and the environment. By including emissions that do not directly result from economic activity - such as grassland fires from lightning strikes - the link between the economy and the environment is weakened. That said, such unintended emissions may be of interest to researchers who are not interested in the direct link between the economy and the environment. Hence we suggest that emissions from natural occurrences should be recorded in a separate emissions account, so that the user may distinguish between the two sources of emissions.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
No. We agree that air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA. However, we have two concerns: First, enteric fermentation results in methane emissions. How do we then aggregate across different types of GHG emissions in the accounts? Chemists agree that atmospheric methane is more effective at trapping heat than CO2. But how much more effective? Will SEEA volume 1 have a “CO2 equivalent” conversion factor for methane? (For example, 25 molecules CH4 = one molecule CO2.) Second, air emissions that result from natural processes as the result of economic activity – such as enteric fermentation of livestock – should only be included if there is an offsetting account for the carbon binding that also results from those same cultivated natural processes. Consider the livestock example. Livestock eat vegetation of some sort, and this vegetation grows by taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If we only include those CH4 emissions that result from enteric fermentation in the livestock, the recorded amount of carbon in the atmosphere resulting from the economic activity will be biased upwards. Recording the carbon binding that results from growing feed for livestock would appear to be feasible given that carbon binding for forestry will be included in volume 1. If measurement of this form of carbon binding is infeasible, the SEEA volume 1 must make it perfectly clear that the proposed recording of emissions will overstate net GHG emissions due to economic activity.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes. It would be useful for the SEEA to have some discussion on the distinction between “treatment” of emissions, as discussed here, and “storage” of emissions, as discussed under #2. For example, if CO2 emissions are pumped into greenhouses for horticultural production (as is done in the Netherlands), is this considered treatment of CO2? Is it considered storage? Or is it simply considered an emission?
23/12/2010Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes, and “A reasonable degree of control” should be clearly defined.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes, if possible to estimate. But if other emissions from natural processes could be estimated by well-defined measurements, why not include?
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes
23/12/2010Statistics Austria1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
No. As we understand it, these captured emissions should not be considered as a net reduction because they are captured in the framework of production processes and therefore do not enter the atmosphere before being captured. They remain within the boundaries of the economic system and ‘just’ the emissions into the atmosphere decrease. This is the same as for landfill gas used in combined heat and power plants. The methane emitted by landfill sites is not considered in air emissions accounts because it remains in the economic system but CO2 emitted from combined heat and power plants because these emissions cross the boundary to the environment.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No comment.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No comment.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
We agree that air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. But we think that recording of emissions transferred within the economy should not be recorded because these transfers relates to production processes. Only the emissions of the receiving industry should be recorded (net recording).
23/12/2010Statistics Lithuania1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No comment.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. If emissions are part of the economic system, they should be recorded following the general rules of National Accounts.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
No comment.
23/12/2010Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. Though we don’t think humans should be included also.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes. We agree that emissions should be recorded only when they enter the environment.
23/12/2010Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. Carbon emissions in living biomass and soils are vitally important, but in practice are difficult to measure and there is a corresponding lack of experience in their measurement. We therefore agree measurement of these emissions is presently best dealt with in Volume 2 of the SEEA Rev.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. The outcome paper (para 7) refers to storage facilities that are ‘within the economy’. We are unclear what precisely London Group means by this term and what statistical standard it arises from—could it be driven by principles governing the SNA asset boundary? Is ‘economy’ based on residency or territory principles and will we reconcile between these bases (the necessity of a reconciliation being dependent on what basis the physical measures utilise). Para 7 of the outcome paper states that “captured emissions should be considered a flow within the economy”. But “captured emissions” are a stock of emissions and therefore cannot be “a flow within the economy”. We suggest the text is intending to say that emissions flowing into (and out of) the relevant storage facility should be recorded in the emission flow accounts of SEEA Vol 1.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes. There appears to be an asymmetry in adopting this treatment i.e. we are proposing to include emissions from unintended grass / forest fires (which essentially are not due to human impact) but on the other hand we are applying strict tests of ownership and control over the storage medium before we record the movement of emissions into that storage facility / medium.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Agree.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes. The SNA 2008 requires that supplementary tables contain (among other things) estimates of depreciated value of household durables. Therefore it is reasonable to require, for the purpose of hybrid accounting for air emissions, that consumer durables be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase. Paragraph 16 of the outcome paper states that it “may be useful to record the emissions as coming from capital/inventories rather than from current production”. We agree that this is an important question to be resolved.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes. We agree that leakages from carbon storage facilities should be attributed to the owner of the facility. (As we similarly suggest that leakage /evaporation from water storage facilities should be attributed to the owner of the water storage facility—irrespective of where the SNA asset boundary is considered to lie.)
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. Again we see an asymmetry in treatment of emissions—that is, some additions to emissions from natural processes are excluded but emissions arising from unintended forest and grass fires are included. There is a need to be very clear about why some emissions are included and some excluded. We agree that, for practical reasons, air emissions from natural processes (except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans) should at present be excluded from Vol. 1 SEEA air emission accounts.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Agree, subject to concerns expressed earlier in this Comment Form regarding use (and definition) of terms ‘economy’ and ‘environment’ in this type of context.
  9. Any other comments?
We urge that accounting for physical supply and use of emissions needs to fully consider accounting for stock of emissions. The proposed accounting of supply and use of emissions will not provide a picture of all flows of emissions—the use of stock accounts for emissions completes the picture of carbon stocks and flows.
23/12/2010Norway/Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No. Statistics Norway agrees, in the revised SEEA, to include air emissions from burning of biomass in the air emission accounts, if they are related to economic activity. Statistics Norway therefore, does not agree in the inclusion of air emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes, although this will deviate from the accurate accounting of how the consumption of the capital equipment and consumer durables in the national accounts. We would recommend in the SEEA-text to mention that the air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables that we here recommend to record on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment only covers a small part of total air emissions. However, for some specific gases and components, the difference between actual emissions (TIER2-method) and potential emissions (TIER1-methods, i.e. similar to SNA accounting) are substantial. This is particular the situation for the emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF6 from consumer durables. For the carbon emission from harvested wood products, there will also be a difference using the TIER1- and the TIER2-method. Except from the cases mentioned here, we do have problems in identifying other types of air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables where actual emissions will deviate substantial from the actual emissions recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes. This means that the monetary part of the hybrid air emission accounts, the economic figures related to the consumption of some few capital equipment and consumer durables (se question 4) will deviate from the recording in the national accounts. Does this implicate that a bridge table to the national accounts is needed?
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. Excluding air emissions from natural processes is, as we interpret the question, also in line with our recommendations in question 3 with regard to excluding air emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires. We agree in including air emissions from livestock as this is seen related to the economic activity. In principle, we also agree in including air emissions from the enteric fermentation of humans. Air emissions from all human induced/anthropogenic sources should be included.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes. Just for clarification: The secondary emissions are recorded as part of the emission inventories. Excluding these emissions in the recording of air emissions in the emission accounts means that only the direct emissions from economic activity (when the air emissions first enter the environment) are to be included in the air emission accounts.
23/12/2010Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. As long as there is an economic entity that is identified as the owner it seems reasonable. The SEEA has to be very clear though to explain how to avoid double counting. The burning of the fuel will have been recorded once in the accounts at the time of production.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes. In some countries air emissions from forest and grassland fires might be substantial. However, the SEEA needs to add a specific category to where these emissions can be allocated, as also Statistics Denmark is proposing.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No. We agree with Statistics Denmark, that the emissions should be recorded at the time of occurrence. As far as we are aware, there is no convention on how to allocate potential leakages of emissions over time for these types of items and this has not been discussed in the London Group either. Another point is that it will be difficult to compare any economic data to this type of information or relate to production based emissions.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No. See comment above about relating to other types of statistics.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
In principle yes. However, we have not been convinced about the relation between human emissions and economic accounts and find it difficult to see the usefulness of this proposal.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
23/12/2010Germany/Destatis1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. But the carbon accumulation in forests should be recorded only as memo item
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
No. Up to now there exist not one single installation for CCS in the world. There are only trials or experiments running. But currently there are also a lot of technologies under development with the aim to recover carbon from CO2. These technologies, if they will become economically reasonable, are much more promising than the quite risky CCS technology. IF CCS technology will really be applied – perhaps in 10 years – SEEA group can then reflect on this topic.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes. But: Reporting here should be also as memo item. The question seems to be: Should also emissions be included for whom nobody is responsible? Kyoto Reporting includes e.g. only “intended burning of savannas” but excludes “natural” emissions. I think one should follow this line.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes. Differentiation between potential emissions from consumer durables and actual emissions necessary. For cooling aggregates in households and cars the emissions of HFCs and PFCs are reported according Kyoto in this way.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes. One should also consider that significant quantities of emissions from consumer durables are emitted at the stage of waste management via inadequate handling.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes. But: The term “controlled” landfill should be specified first. If one says a controlled landfill possesses a drainage system for gases then there will be no emissions.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Concerning the question on “air emissions from natural processes” please see the answer to question 3 Concerning the question of registering of “human emissions”: The emissions which are registered in SEEA context are per se seen as negative. The idea of registering human emissions must therefore be seen as anti human and as having the capacity to threaten the basic human law. The same argument, based on animal protection, should be applied or at least considered with regard to animals (livestock).
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
No. What is this? What are “secondary air emissions”? Do you mean e.g. the flue gas having passed the sulphur washer? If you really mean this by secondary air emission than you can stop the whole activity of emission accounting, because then there remains nearly no emissions any longer for accounting.
23/12/2010Romania/National Institute of Statistics1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
No. Only emissions from fires if related to change of land into managed land.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No. Currently is difficult.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes. This can be recorded when they are taken into account in National Gas Inventories.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. Human emissions should not be included due to lack of data.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded, but not in the near future.
21/12/2010Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. In the case of timber accumulation of carbon, it has to be registered because these resources are likely to be economically exploited, which is the reason there is a permanently flow of carbon.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes, because the stores where emissions are captured will be a part of an industry or some kind of economic activity and therefore should be recorded for purposes of environmental-economic accounting.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes, because according to the SNA, the natural disasters should be recorded as a loss of assets.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes, in fact has the same treatment of the capital stocks in the central system.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes, in accordance with the SNA.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes, in fact both of them are a part from the flows between the economy and environment, although finally will increase the carbon volume existences.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes, given that environmental accounting reflects the interaction between economic activities and the actual damage to the environment. This would result as the same treatment given by the IPCC in this kind of emission sources.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes, considering that secondary emissions are formed from mixtures of other kind of emissions.
  9. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
21/12/2010Eurostat1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. In theory when substances move across the environment – economy boundary, the SEEA accounts should include these flows. However, because the data for some types of flows is unreliable, has high levels of uncertainty and could distort the patterns of the dataset, by convention these types of flows are typically excluded from the accounts. It is by convention then that Eurostat''s Air Emissions Accounts exclude emissions from and up-take of gaseous substances by forests and soil due to the difficulties in calculating/estimating these flows (see chapter 5 in Eurostat Manual for Air Emissions Accounts ).
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. In principle, Eurostat agrees that air emission accounts could record both, the flow of emissions within the economy (e.g. emissions which are captured and stored) and emission flows from the economy to the environment (atmosphere) (e.g. leakages from storage). By convention, Eurostat''s Air Emissions Accounts record only the flows from the economy to the environment (see Eurostat Manual for Air Emissions Accounts chapter 5).
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes, Eurostat agrees in principle to record emissions from burning biomass. The emissions from these types of sources could potentially be rather large and the data would have high levels of uncertainties. Therefore, by convention Eurostat''s Air Emissions Accounts only considers emissions from biomass used as a fuel and excludes emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes. Eurostat agrees that these types of emissions be recorded as close as possible to the use of capital equipment and consumer durables and when they occur in reality. In practise, this may involve some assumptions and estimation. The emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be attributed to the industry owning and using capital equipment and to private households (consumer durables).
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes. The same approach should also be used for capital equipment.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes. Yes, Eurostat agrees (see also question 2). Emissions that cross the economy to environment boundary are the main focus for air emissions accounts.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. Eurostat agrees in principle to exclude the recording of flows of emissions within the environment – if this is what was meant by "natural processes." The term "from natural processes" should be better specified. Is it supposed to concern only within-environment-flows? In full-fledged physical flow accounts the oxygen inputs and the carbon dioxide and water outputs should be included from respiration and evapotraspiration of domestic animals/livestock and humans. However, for the more focused air emissions accounts, only the methane emissions from livestock (due to enteric fermentation) and humans (due to the methanogenic bacteria in the large intestine) are included – as long as they are clearly from part of the economy. Please note that enteric fermentation only occurs in ruminant animals. Crutzen et al. 1986: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.1986.tb00193.x/pdf By convention and due to practical estimation issues, emissions from respiration and evapotranspiration from livestock and humans are excluded from Eurostat''s Air Emissions Accounts – see Eurostat Manual for Air Emissions Accounts chapter 5.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
In principle and in full-fledged physical input-output tables, Eurostat agrees that both flows of emissions within the economy and flows of emissions from the economy to the environment are included – but in Eurostat''s Air Emissions Accounts only the flows from the economy to the environment are to be included. In addition, Eurostat also agrees that emission flows within the environment (natural processes) are excluded – see also questions 2 and 6. The transformation from "primary" into "secondary" emissions is to be considered as a flow within the environment which is not covered by air emission accounts (or physical flow accounts).
21/12/2010Slovak Republic/Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes. We are fully supported consistency with the international methodology (IPCC, Corinair) for emission estimation.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes. The methodology for CCS reporting according to the IPCC 2006 GL is not agreed yet, but we support the implementation of it.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes. According to the national law it is prohibited burning of grassland and harvested residues, however the emissions from uncontrolled forest fires are actually estimated.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes. The emissions of F-gases from equipments durables known as potential emissions are estimated since 1995.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes. See the paragraph above.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes. The emissions from landfills are recorded and estimated regarding the utilise (energetic, non-energy use) of landfill gas.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. This is according to the IPCC methodology.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
  9. Any other comments?
We are support to keep consistency across the international reporting obligations.
17/12/2010Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes.
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
Yes.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
17/12/2010Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes.
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
Yes.
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes. We agree, in principle, that natural fires should be included in the accounts. However, it is not clear how, for instance, forest fires due to lightning strike should be recorded. If attributed to the forest owners current activities, it gives a wrong picture of how much emission is caused by the current economic activity. There may be a need to introduce additional recording categories in the emissions accounts (a kind of parallel to other volume changes for fixed assets)
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
No. The air emissions from the equipment should be recorded at the point in time when the emissions actually place. This will often be at the point of time when the equipment is being scrapped (e.g. refrigerators).
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No. There is no need to do this for the purposes of air emissions accounts if emissions are recorded when they actually take place. It may be useful for other reasons. More important would it be (also for the material flow accounts) to record the physical accumulation and stocks of consumer durables.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes.
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes. We are sceptical to the usefulness and appropriateness of including air emissions from humans.
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes.
06/12/2010Bulgaria, National Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA Volume 1, the accumulation of carbon emissions in living biomass and soils should not be recorded except for the accumulation of carbon in timber resources and when necessary for the compilation of bridge tables?
Yes
  2. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, the air emission accounts should record emissions that are captured and stored where there is a reasonable degree of control over the storage facility?
No comment
  3. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, all air emissions from the burning of biomass should be recorded in the air emission accounts including emissions from unintended forest and grassland fires?
Yes
  4. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA air emissions from capital equipment and consumer durables should be recorded on an ongoing basis over the life of the equipment?
Yes, It needs regular data collection which depends of availability of serious financial and human resources in the separate country.
  5. Do you agree that for the purposes of hybrid accounting for air emissions, consumer durables should be accounted for as being consumed over their operating life rather than at the time of purchase?
No, Such kind of assessment seems subjective.
  6. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions from controlled landfills and carbon storage facilities should be recorded in the air emission accounts?
Yes
  7. Do you agree that, in the revised SEEA, air emissions from natural processes should be excluded from the SEEA air emission accounts except for emissions due to enteric fermentation of livestock and humans?
Yes
  8. Do you agree that in the revised SEEA, air emissions should be recorded when they enter the environment and the production of secondary emissions should not be recorded. Air emissions transferred within the economy should be recorded?
Yes, We agree that to record air emissions in the revised SEEA when they enter the environment.
 

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