Registry Detail

1871

Information

24 November 2003

2003 quest. - Summary of ISIC section 01 responses

The proposed two-digit level structure for section 01 " Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry and Fishing" : 1.1 Agriculture and related service activities 1.2 Forestry, logging and related service activities 1.3 Hunting, trapping and related services 1.4 Fishing and related services 1.5 Acquaculture

Summary for section 01 "Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing" There are 11 replies to this section. The most critical issues for the agriculture and fishing section are addressed in questions 11 (organic farming), 12 (mixed farming) and 13 (Aquaculture). As a result, aquaculture should be moved to fishing, while mixed faring remains as a category. Organic farming is not reflected at this level (division) of the classification. The replies to Section 01 (Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing) focus on few main areas: Services to agriculture, benefiation of agricultural products, hunting and trapping and integrated activities. In addition, there is a proposal for better treatment of forestry (from FAO) and a number of reactions to boundary questions. Two countries also provided a structure proposal (Argentina, Spain). Services to agriculture etc.: - A category for services to agriculture etc. should be created at the division level. In addition one proposal suggests a separate subcategory for beneficiation activities. Services to specific areas could be reflected at lower level, although some argue that support services for crop farming and animal farming are the same and cannot be separated. - Services to fishing and aquaculture should be recognized (latter is not mentioned in draft) Beneficiation: - There is a need to recognize these activities, possibly in a new class (see above). However, for classifying these activities, arguments also call for consideration of when/where/how these activities are carried out. This affects the proposed new agriculture class (if done as a service) and manufacturing (if products are sold and beneficiation takes place somewhere else - typically as first stage of manufacturing process). [While we may be able to separate these activities in the classification, how would this affect data comparability between countries, if e.g. cotton ginning is included in different sections?] - Individual replies also say "always agriculture" or "always manufacturing", depending on above organization in these countries Hunting and trapping: - Finland, Austria: too small, should not be a division - Sweden, Brazil: too small, combine with Forestry [This would break with the old scope of forestry, which does not include animals as products.] Integrated activities: - Canada: should use value added, not default to agriculture - US: use value added - This should also apply to factory ships that fish. Forestry: - Should cover forests, non-wood forest products (which includes Christmas trees), forest plantations, trees outside forests (?) - see FAO reply Boundary questions addressed: Christmas trees - Finland: if originating from nurseries - agriculture, if result of thinning forest - forestry (make clear that activity, not product is important) - Hungary: forestry Landscaping - Austria: against moving landscaping to 13.4, as this is a gardening activity -> clearer definition necessary? Irrigation: - Australia: Irrigation is not a service provided from one unit to another (only buying of water) -> clearer definition necessary? Action suggested: - Considered moving Hunting to agriculture - Create a class for beneficiation at lower level - Precise definitions (irrigation, landscaping)? - Consider additional breakdown for forestry at lower level - Follow-up with FAO