/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUROSTAT
Directorate E: Agriculture and environment statistics; Statistical cooperation
Unit E3: Environment statistics /
Doc. ENV/NAMEA/(2007)
Original in EN
Draft minutes for the meeting of the Task Force on NAMEA
Eurostat – Unit E3
Task force on NAMEA
Meeting of 20–21 September 2007
BECH building – Room B2/464

Meeting Documents can be downloaded from the Environment statistics meetings CIRCA site at

Please note that, for environmental reasons, paper copies of meeting documents will not be available in the meeting room. The only exceptions will be documents that are not posted on CIRCA at least one week before the meeting.

Introduction

The new Head of Unit, Mr. Gilles Decand, welcomed the participants and in his introductory message he stressed the following points:

  • The importance of environmental accounts for Eurostat:
  • Effort associated with grants (€900000 this year to repeat in coming years)
  • DGINS and the importance put on environmental accounts (
  • Conference "Beyond GDP" and increasing importance of EA (
  • ESEA TF in 15-16 March 2007 aiming the review of the European Strategy for Environmental Accounts
  • Revision of SEEA2003
  • The future of environmental accounts (general points):
  • The Data Centres as main vectors of our future action
  • Ex-ante evaluation prepared. It should be adopted soon by Directors' Meeting
  • Call for tender under preparation
  • The need for methodological development:
  • The NAMEA tool
  • Clarify and improve what exists - finalisation of the "Compilation guide"
  • Discuss possibilities of scope widening: NAMEA Energy, Waste, Expenditure, (Water?)
  • Use of Environmental Accounts for "policy making"
  • Promotion of Environmental Accounts

The wish that the work on Environmental Accounts will not be hidden or jeopardised by the data centres(consuming all the existing human resources) has been expressed by the members. Data centres are to be complementary to and fed with data from environmental accounts, they are not competing.

As most of the members of the Task Force have participated in the workshop on NAMEA Air the day before, there was a "tour de table". A general consensus appeared that it was quite a positive and well succeeded action. Special thanks are due and have been addressed to Julie Hass, Angelica Tudini and Stephan Moll for their work in preparing and presenting it.

Point 1 of the Agenda: Adoption of the agenda

Points 3 to 6 of the agenda have been considered overlapping. Some additional points have been proposed. This led to some adjustments to the overall agenda and the following structure has been adopted:

  1. Data quality:
  2. How can Eurostat support countries to provide better coverage?
  3. Correspondence tables. General conversion table NACE – CORINAIR.
  4. The role of energy accounts.
  5. Work Programme for 2008: survey on Air emissions: reporting, frequency
  6. Regulation for Environmental Accounts?
  7. Tables: role of the standard tables (compilation guide) and reporting tables (questionnaire). CO2 from biomass
  8. Compilation guide
  9. Integrated NAMEA – future environmental parameters. This is point 7 of the proposed agenda
  10. Analysis and promotion of NAMEA data – advantage in comparison to other data. Which analysis, who is going to do it?

Point 2 of the agenda: Minutes of previous meeting

It has been raised the attention of the members of the Task Force that, according to the minutes of the previous meeting, it has been decided (in 2003)to do data collection for NAMEA Air on an annual basis. However, in the last meetings of the Working Group (2006, 2007), there was an agreement to do it biennially.

It has also been observed that the issues we are discussing now have already been discussed. This means that little advancement have been made in the last four years. It is time for doing real steps forward and this Task Force meeting should be a milestone.

Point 3 of new agenda: Data quality

The results of the data collection relative to the NAMEA Air 2006 Questionnairewere presented. Two points were considered very important:

  • Improving data coverage: countries, pollutants, years, industry breakdown.
  • Improving data quality – this varies significantly across countries.

Improving data coverage: industry breakdown

The TF decided to develop and apply a NAMEA activity classification with three hierarchical levels. Evidently, this NAMEA activity classification should be a close as possible to the NACE and CPA (and COICOP) classifications as applied in National Accounts (ESA95).

The three levels:

A31: this level is chosen because the ESA collects and publishes National Accounts aggregates (such as output, value added, employment etc.) for this level of industry breakdown

A60:This is the main level on which NAMEA data should be collected and reported (recommendation by the Task Force). This level of disaggregation is applied by the ESA Supply, Use, and Input-Output Tables (SUIOT).

A60+:From an environmental perspective, certain industries are most important. In some cases (e.g. manufacturing of metals and mineral products, electricity production etc.) these industries are only separated on a NACE 3 digit level. Hence, the consultant will propose a list of industries below A60level which should be considered in NAMEA. Towards this end, also the industry breakdown as applied by air emission inventories and energy balances will be considered as well as the NACE hierarchy. Most likely, no economic data will be available for this more disaggregated A60+-level though.

The consultant will send a draft classification to the TF members for consultation (September-October 2007). The TF will decide on the final classification by written procedure (November 2007). The “new” classification is to be considered in the “new” Compilation Guide.

Time table

It has been agreed to launch the next questionnaire beginning of next year. The questionnaire should be made available in CIRCA in January and a delay for filling it should last until 15 July. This should apply for the future data collections too.

Improving data coverage: years

As 1990 is a milestone and a requirement for all inventories concerning air emissions, this year has been adopted as the starting point. It has been decided to go back to 1990. However, it might be difficult to report data for national accounts at this level of detail for certain years, as the breakdown has not been planned for.If SUT is not possible, we should accept to loosening the breakdown, but at least the global figures should be reported.

It has also been decided to cover from 1990 to the latest year available (t-3 or even t-2 if preliminary data for this year is available).

Improving data coverage: pollutants

The existing list of pollutants in the compilation guide and the standard tables is bigger than in the questionnaire. It is worth showing in the compilation guide the possibility to collect data in more pollutants especially heavy metals. It has been decided to keep heavy metals in the guide but exclude them from reporting for the time being.

The three fluorinated greenhouse gases(F- gases) need also to be in the handbook. However, as not all countries have detailed information for each of the F-gases, the Task Force suggested creating one additional sheet comprising the sum of the 3 F-gases. If no information is reported, then EU estimates of totals should be calculated from the UNFCCC data.

CFCs and HCFCs are to be taken out of reporting tables: no reporting is possible. However, they should be kept in the standard tables.

The following list of pollutants has been retained for the standard and reporting tables:

Standard tables / Reporting tables
CO2 (without biomass)
CO2 from biomass
N2O
CH4
HFC
PFC
SF6
Sum of (HFC, PFC, SF6) - new
NOx
SOx
NH3
NMVOC
CO
PM10
CFC
HCFC
As
Hg
Pb
Zn
Cd
Cr
Se
Cu
Ni / CO2 (without biomass)
CO2 from biomass
N2O
CH4
HFC
PFC
SF6
Sum of (HFC, PFC, SF6) - new
NOx
SOx
NH3
NMVOC
CO
PM10

Improving data coverage: countries

A continuous effort to encourage countries in filling in the questionnaire is necessary.Showing data gaps can result in pressure for countries (at least this is the idea of some members) and was decided to be kept.

The need for a regulation on Environmental Accounting has been brought again as an important legal tool to improve data coverage. All members of the Task Force except UK approved the idea.

Improving data quality

Two approaches have for data compilation been identified: energy (NACE-) first approach or inventory first approach. None of these options has been identified as better compared to the other. The choice of one or the other depends on the particularities of each country and the available information.

During the training/workshop it was pointed out that the availability of energy accounts (or NAMEA-energy) is a crucial prerequisite for the compilation of NAMEA-air.

The TF discussed means/options how Eurostat could support the improvement of NAMEA-air data quality and coverage. One option is to explore the possibility of compiling NAMEA-energy (centralised at the Environmental Accounts Unit at Eurostat) based on Eurostat’s energy balances (in close cooperation with Eurostat’s Energy Statistics Unit).A centralised effort to generate energy accounts, including a definition / guidelines “what are energy accounts?”, to identify what it needs to be added, what we can obtain should be made.

The TF welcomes this effort by Eurostat which should be synchronized with two GRANT projects by Statistics Norway and Statistics Sweden on the same issue. These should focus on differences in product classifications between energy balances of IEA (International Energy Agency) and National Accounts.

It has also been agreed to use the discussion forum created by the Oslo Group on Energy Statistics in its web site to encourage the idea of multipurpose statistics and the development of energy statistics compatible with categories of national accounts.

Point 4 of new agenda: role of standard tables and reporting tables

The objective and format of the standard and reporting tables are described in the following table.

Standard tables / Reporting tables
Objective: to be the conceptual framework and the source of theoretical information
Format: one sheet for each year with NACE * pollutant / Objective: the practical tool for reporting data
Format: one sheet for each pollutant with NACE * year

Economic variables need to be reported for households: households’ consumption expenditure, broken down by transport, heating, other. The reporting for households needs to be done according to table in page 102 of the current version of the compilation guide.

The standard tables in the compilation guide need to be revised. The correspondence with the old NACE classification needs should be illustrated in the compilation guide. It has been acknowledged that the future NACE can be problematic for NAMEA.

Point 5 of new agenda: Compilation Guide

The TF decided to re-write Compilation Guide and to give high priority to this document.

The TF considers the option to develop an umbrella document with several parts, of which the practical compilation guidelines for NAMEA-air would be only one part. Such a “NAMEA Handbook” could comprise:

  1. Theory and concepts of NAMEA
  2. Use of NAMEA (for policy support)
  3. Compilation Guide for NAMEA-air
  4. Presentation and analysis of NAMEA

The TF identifies that the NAMEA-air Compilation Guide (e.g. part C) should gain priority hence it is needed for the coming NAMEA-air survey 2008.

The structure of the NAMEA-air Compilation Guide (part C) could be more or less the same as the structure of the training course (19 Sept 2007).

The consultant will develop a table of content for the part C (NAMEA-air Compilation Guide) and will make a proposal which chapters/sections could be written by whom.

It has been decided to give high priority to this document. Stephan Moll will coordinate all effort from now on. He will develop most of the work during the first quarter of 2008. Contributions from other members of the Task Force (e.g. Julie Hass for the energy-first approach and Angelica Tudini for the inventory-first approach) will be required when and if necessary.

Point 6 of new agenda: Integrated NAMEA

The extension of current work on NAMEA Air to other areas of Environmental Accounts was discussed. Priority areas to enlarge activity are: energy, waste, water, expenditure, and MFA. The following points have been considered for each area:

NAMEA Waste:the question of value added in making NAMEAs for Waste has been raised. It has been proposed to do a preliminary internal effort at Eurostat in order to develop a feasibility study for this field. Results will be presented to the Task Force next year.

Sweden used waste in last MFA project. There were problems with aggregation (specific for SE, few data). Attention has been drawn to make sure that units in column headings are the same as categories for waste data collection, e.g. waste for disposal / recycling.

NAMEA Water:Austria expressed its wish to give high attention to water accounts. Eurostat together with EEA will develop a pilot project on compilation of water accounts. The objective is to test the applicability of SEEAW and its standard tables. There will be no data collection expected from the countries; this effort will be done exclusively with compiling data from available sources.

Water will certainly be a very important topic in future NAMEAs. It is already identified as a product in the classification in the national accounts.

NAMEA Energy:There exist statistics on balances. We should workout what we can get from energy statistics to obtain energy accounts.Corrections to the balances related to residence principle should be considered.

The consultant will draft a kind of work programme on this issue (mainly for 2008) on the basis of Eurostat’s energy statistics. He will try to create energy accounts from energy balances. He will also use data from NAMEA 2007 questionnaire results (including footnotes and analysis performed by Germany) and check if harmonised data exist. In parallel, as it has already been mentioned, Norway and Sweden through their project on grants 2007 will develop work on the classification of products.

Expenditure: it seems possible some integration of the expenditure as it is currently reported through the Joint Questionnaire and the NAMEA framework. There may be some countries not able to report in detail but this has been considered a minor weakness, as the important fact is the possibility to integrate the two reporting tools. The back to back meetings of the working groups on environmental accounts and environmental expenditure statistics is considered positive in the sense of some integration.

For reporting purposes, total expenditure should be considered. The existing data are partial (e.g. not for farming). Structural Business Statistics (SBS) are used to prepare data on environmental expenditure. However, SBS data are not CEPA-oriented.

Taxes: the work currently done is good and should continue. The accruals principle on which they are based is considered appropriate and positive. Taxes are considered an excellent tool to check if polluters’ paying principle is applied or not. This is non-negligible advantage of Environmental Accounts.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark did reports on taxes. These reports are available in CIRCA and Eurostat's web page on environmental accounts

(

In next NAMEA meeting (fall next year), a detailed exchange on how people are calculating data on taxes is foreseen. Each member of the TF should discuss with colleagues and report next year.

MFA: the current version of MFA accounts and the standard tables and handbooks developed in cooperation between Eurostat and OECDhave been prepared in conformity with territory principle. As this is not in full conformity with the system boundaries of the system of national accounts (namely residence principle), the identification of differences and the development of bridging tables are foreseen in the near future. This work should be coordinated with the ongoing revision of the SEEA2003.

Norway mentioned that hydroelectric power is not considered in MFA. The consequence is that 99% of Norwegian electricity is excluded from MFA because water is excluded.

Other issues

The current reporting includes environmental together with economic data. This is at the same time the advantage of Environmental Accounts: establish the link between environment and economy. The feasibility of reporting social data has been discussed and it has been agreed that it would be an excellent tool for promotion. It was also mentioned that in old standard tables, employment was in. In addition, employment data is available from National Accounts in A60, which is perfect for our needs.

Other data types and sources can be reported, e.g. living conditions (response by industry), education and other variables. This is of great interest for future development.

Point 7 of new agenda: Analysis of NAMEA data, promotion of NAMEA

A presentation on the preliminary results of their study on the analysis of the results from the 2006 NAMEA Air questionnaire has been done. There was a general appreciation of the preliminary results and a lively discussion. The project is expected to be delivered by the end of 2008, but they expect that final results will be available before that date. Main points of the presentation:

  • Homogeneous branches or not makes a difference.
  • Aggregation level influences the results. The same happens for IO analysis
  • NAMEA energy as the next step is important.
  • The production value is more relevant than value added for decomposition analysis, as energy is more linked to production. If prices in previous years changed there will be an influence in value added, and this wouldn’t be good.
  • Should Eurostat present in the future results like this?

Several actions seem pertinent for analysis and promotion of NAMEA. Analysis and promotion are to a certain extent closely related. It seems wise that a good promotion relies on good technical arguments.

A kind of brainstorming emerged, where various issues were raised, suggestions were made but no final decision was taken. Here is a list of points:

  1. The Austrian delegation expressed its wish how to use the data and environmental accounts tool for policy making. A set of indicators should be developed comparable with SDI’s and EEA’s core set of indicators. The data quality and shortcomings should be enounced. The trade-off between having longer time series of more disaggregated data should be discussed. This issue is being discussed both in the London Group and in the ESEA Task Force.
  2. The advantages of environmental accounts compared to reporting tools should be given relevance. Comparisons of e.g. total emissions (including households) with GDP are not correct. For environmental economic profile, the comparison of one industry is to be made with industry total, not total including household. These points should be included and developed in the compilation guide. A clear presentation is needed and should improve the visibility and acceptance of environmental accounts.
  3. Data are typically old (best realistic reporting: t-2): now casting can provide a technical solution for this gap of data. More up-to-date data will increase the potential of further use of environmental accounts.
  4. NAMEA: basis for analysis (time series) more than data itself. Different uses of NAMEA should be illustrated.
  5. Statistics in Focus – good analytical and dissemination tool. An example could be comparison UNFCCC – NAMEA using EU level data. Explore the advantages of NAMEA in relation with Kyoto figures, e.g. the incorrect link of Kyoto emissions with GDP (households, international shipping and transport, exports, imports)
  6. Develop indicators derived from NAMEA (EU, global, national, regional level). A basket of best indicators is not yet available and it has still to be agreed upon; this is an important part of our work. If possible, indicators should be based on time series, something like 4-5 years minimum. Given some availability of data for 3 areas (air emissions, MFA and expenditure), headline indicators for these areas could be considered in a short term. This work should be done in coordination with the London Group and the revision of the SEEA2003, the work of the ESEA Task Force, and the project on streamlining environmental indicators.
  7. Each country seems to have particularities that make it wise to create tailor made solutions. National specific needsshould be considered and indicators should be developed for this purpose. Some examples of indicators have been presented (e.g. German’s presentation).
  8. Conferences like “Beyond GDP” and DGINS are useful occasions to disseminate environmental accounts. Active participation in roundtables Research institutes, universities. This can be worth for policy.
  9. Web portals (e.g. Sweden, Eurostat’s environmental accounts) as privileged tools for dissemination too.
  10. Make further analysis with data can provide ideas for additional helpful indicators (e.g. energy).
  11. Extend analyses with supply and use and input-output tables.
  12. One aggregated indicator vs. one indicator for each area. There are pros and cons in this option and no agreement has been reached. There is increasing interest in specific topics like water emissions (e.g. nutrients) should be increased.
  13. More attractive names than NAMEA, MFA analysis … should be identified and used.
  14. Develop synergies to avoid double reporting by countries (Kyoto and NAMEA).
  15. Improve comparability with economic data. Integrate more than one variable (e.g. DMC per capita or per DGP) in the same diagram.
  16. The future data centres, in Eurostat and the others. They will certainly use extensively data from environmental accounts and can therefore be an excellent promotion vehicle.

Summary (main points discussed and decisions taken):