Registry Detail

1558

Information

28 May 2002

ISIC 4 questionnaire - Summary of responses C3

For each of these issues, please provide your views concerning the importance and relevance of the issue, as well as any reasons for the preferred solution. Please add any other cross-cutting issues you would like to see addressed in the revision. C. Content and boundary issues 3. Should new detailed categories be introduced to facilitate the compilation of: · Environmental activities? · Tourism characteristic activities? · Others?

Brief summary of responses: Yes, include categories for this detail - 3 Use alternate aggregations - 10 Need to introduce more detail (positive) - 7 Need to introduce more detail (negative) - 2 Do not introduce those categories - 8 Other / No opinion - 6 Proposals for other areas - 4 General consensus seems to be to support alternate aggregations. Several countries noted the different concepts behind those "industries", making them difficult or impossible to address in an activity context. They usually emphasized the use of alternate aggregations or even alternate classifications. Most countries support creation of detail, some based on external classifications. It was also cautioned not to overburden the classification with these details. Since alternate aggregations may imply/require changes to classes, it is NECESSARY that proposals for such aggregations be brought forward in the process, and find an appropriate international "sponsor". We should only consider those aggregations that fit into an activity concept. Some countries gave examples for additional detail, such as development of forests, development of wet lands, mangroves and coral reefs, development of biosphere reserves, improvement of botanical gardens, development of fauna, monitoring of water resources in the country and monitoring of air pollution, transport engaged mainly for tourism purposes, hotels & restaurants mainly for tourist uses, activities of guides engaged in the tourism complexes, retail trade of toys, decorative items and other goods etc. in the tourist spots, new detailed categories to facilitate the compilation of activities like security agencies, placement agencies, etc. Similar examples can certainly overburden the classification. Countries suggesting not to use additional detail usually noted that some of these questions cannot be addressed in an activity context. The CPC may be a more suitable way to address these issues. One country noted that the introduction of categories for "green accounting" (environmental management, environmental protection, recycling etc.) requires that the supporting framework be sufficiently developed first, to allow for correct definitions of these activities. One country suggested to use SICTA as a guideline for introducing detail in ISIC for Tourism purposes, another to use CEPA as the basis for environmental activities. One country requested that changed modalities of tourism (ecotourism, speleology etc.) be reflected in ISIC. Additional areas mentioned that may require detailed classes are: - biotechnology activities - food industry (agri-food) - alternate presentations of statistics on culture, sport and recreation - logistics activities (supply chain management, integration of transport, cargo handling, storage, cargo packing etc.) - move "services of owner occupied dwellings" from ISIC 70 to ISIC 95/96/97.