Registry Detail

1879

Information

7 December 2003

2003 quest. - Summary of Q 19, Q 20 and ISIC section 09 responses

Question 19 in the "questions" document: While splits reflecting the mode of supply and the distinction between passenger and freight transport are both important, one has to be given precedence for a higher level split. The current draft considers the split according to mode of transport, which is also consistent with previous versions as more important. Do you support the approach taken in the ISIC structure draft with respect to the division breakdown of transportation services? Question 20 in the "questions" document: Should scenic transportation be recognized separately? While this category may of analytical interest, it is not clear whether available data is representative of its content, as many scenic transport activities are being carried out by other non-scenic transport units as secondary activities. Do you support the approach taken in the ISIC structure draft with respect to scenic transportation? The proposed two-digit level structure for Section 09 "Transportation and storage": 9.1 Land transport; transport via pipelines 9.2 Water transport 9.3 Air transport 9.4 Scenic Transportation 9.5 Supporting and auxiliary transport activities 9.6 Postal and courier activities

Summary of responses to questions 19 and 20 and section 09 "Transportation and storage": Scope: The issue of Travel Agents and Tour Operators has been summarised separately. Mention support of move of Telecommunications to Information [Brazil, Mexico, Poland] Postal and courier activities should be classified under Information and communication. [Philipines] Long range transmission of electricity should remain in Utilities rather than be moved to Transportation [Canada] Structure : Q19, Do you support the approach taken in the ISIC structure draft with respect to the division breakdown of transportation services? All respondents support the UN proposed structure of Transportation and Storage by mode at level 2. [Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Mexico, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Eurostat, OECD, ASIAN, AFRISTAT] Some support for a separate category for Storage and Warehousing Canada recommends further breakdown of proposed Division 9.5 Supporting and Auxiliary activities into 1) Support Activities for Transportation and 2) Warehousing and Storage at level 2 . The United States recommends the creation of an additional grouping, possibly 9.7, to separately identify storage and warehousing. " It is unclear from the concepts paper if warehousing is intended to be included with 9.5 or not. In any case, warehousing should not be considered a supporting or ancillary activity for transportation.." Passenger /Freight split. There is expressed support for this split . Some strongly support the passenger/freight split at the very next level, level 3 [Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Spain , Sweden, Switzerland, Eurostat and WTO] Others express support for the breakdown at "a/the lower level" [Croatia, Estonia,Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway,Romania] "As far as possible., in each mode, it is necessary to separate freight and passenger transports" [Afristat] France:"Whether the mode of transport is the first criterion to split Transport Services, the distinction of activities linked to freight and passengers must be mandatory done at the next level for every mode". Eurostat" Concerning a split at the top level between freight vs passenger transportation...it is therefore recommended that the goods/passenger split be made consistently at the next lower level for all modes of transport. WTO: " WTO would like to express its support for the differentiation between Passenger and Freight Transportation to be made at the highest possible level of the Classification. It is aware, that it might be difficult for some countries to define statistical units and collect and compile revenues and associated costs separately for Passenger and Freight for all modes of Transport and when they are unable to do so, they will have to make estimates. Whether it is feasible to expect them to then present the data aggregated over the different modes, before the separation by mode, is the issue. WTO therefore reserves judgement until the views from countries on the subject of the feasibility of data compilation is analysed." Japan and ANZSIC presently make the passenger/freight split for each mode. at level 3 however in their proposals for the rest of the structure Australia, Canada and the US do not include categories for passenger and freight. Q20, Should scenic transportation be recognized separately? Opinion is divided. Majority do not want it. Attention should be paid to the qualifications and explanations of those that do. In favour [ Australia, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Mexico, Thailand, USA] Against [Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Lavtia, Lituania, Luxemburg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switerland, UK, Eurostat, ASEAN and AFRISTAT] Some comments Thailand: Boundary problems arise with certain recreational activities as dinner, gambling, dancing cruises, where - according to the value-added principle the recreational activity might contribute more than transportation itself. Same concept as 9.2, if the main purpose of operator is scenic transportation. It should be included in transportation, nevertheless the main value-added is made from the recreational activity. Because the recreational activities just are the components (secondary activities). US: The U.S. supports the grouping but recommends several differences below the aggregate level. First, the U.S. recommends creation of scenic transportation grouping. This grouping is not intended to include the product of scenic transportation but rather separate facilities, not part of the normal passenger and freight transportation network that are exclusively providing scenic or entertainment transport services The United States recommends the creation of an additional grouping, possibly 9.7, to separately identify storage and warehousing. It is unclear from the concepts paper if warehousing is intended to be included with 9.5 or not. In any case, warehousing should not be considered a supporting or ancillary activity for transportation. Argentina: In the current national classification we identify the tourism transport service but it seems difficult to apply by the existence of companies that carry out regular services of transport and tourist services. India: In view of the growing importance of tourism activity, the need to have separate data on this is well recognized. However, the nomenclature should clearly indicate the transportation activities performed by units predominantly involved in scenic transportation. The question whether it should be kept separate at division level or at group level (3-digit) needs to be discussed, as it may be performed by land, water or air transport means. Austria: has some sympathy for an item on scenic transportation. However, the content and the borderlines are not clear, and the concept may be contra our classification principles. Thus, the idea should not be pursued further. However, Austria requests that activities such as ski-lifts, aerial cable cars, etc. should be clearly be specified in a revised ISIC. Brazil: No. As already said in B1-6: the problem we see in relation to the proposal of a Division category specific for scenic transportation is due to the fact that it will capture only a part of the Scenic transportation services, as this kind of service is provided by specialized units as well as by regular transportation units. Data collected under the Division for Scenic Transportation would represent only a part (not necessarily its major part) of this kind of transportation. In this case, it is not worthwhile to define this division category. It would be better to catch scenic transportation through products. France: Not at all. Such an activity would create important difficulties to classify units which carry out these activities on a seasonal basis or occasionally. Furthermore, such activities are closer the "Recreation services" than to the transports. Germany: On nice routes e.g. trains or ferry boats often are used by tourists and regular travellers at the same time. In addition a creation of a separate division for scenic transportation will lead to the fact, that passenger transportation probably cannot be aggregated by mode of transport in future. For that reasons we are not in favour of a separate item for scenic transportation. Japan: We do not support the approach taken in the ISIC structure draft with respect to scenic transportation. For the newly proposed Division 9.4-Scenic Transportation, we think that there are some problems in introducing it in the revised ISIC. First, the definition of it is rather obscure. Second, it is difficult to statistically capture it separately from ordinary transport services. Third, coexistence of classification by transportation mode and that of transportation purpose at the same 2 digits revel is conceptually inconsistent. In JSIC, charter boat fishing is classified in 8493-Recreational Fishing Guide Business of the Major Group 84-Services for Amusement and Hobbies of the Division Q-Services, N. E. C. and dinner cruises are classified in the Division M-Eating and Drinking Places, Accommodations. In Japan, data on chartered buses or taxis for recreation and regular buses for sight- seeing places, which are regarded as scenic transportation, is difficult to statistically capture separately from ordinary transportation data since these services are generally provided by ordinary bus or taxi companies. Eurostat: Scenic transportation has been proposed as a new class. This would further convergence, and may have some relevance for tourism statistics. However it would imply some break in time series, go against the production process principle, would mix mode of transport and be difficult to implement since many units have it as a secondary activity in EU. The UNSD is advised not to create such a class, but there might be an interest to further develop the idea for splits at a lower level Other comments re Transportation Furniture removel insudtry includes more than transportation e.g.dismantling and reinstallation of furniture and domestic electric appliances, specilaised packing and re-packing amnd should therefore be classified in division 9.5 Supporting and Auxiliary Transport Activities instead of in 9.1 Land Transport. POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICES Some support for dropping reference to National Postal Authorities and creating a sructure that would include both public and private , domestic and international postal and courier services [Poland , Australia] Poland offers a structure. Proposals for the new structure (in accomodation and transport sectors) Australia: Transport and Warehousing Road Transport Rail Transport Other Transport (p) (Pipeline Transport) Water Transport Air and Space Transport Other Transport (p) (Scenic and Sightseeing Transport) Transport Support Services Postal and Courier Services USA

8	8	Accommodation and food services
8.1	8.1	Accommodation services
8.1	8.11	Hotels
8.1	8.19	Other traveler accommodation
8.2	8.2	Food services
8.2	8.21	Foods serving and special food places
8.2	8.22	Drinking places
9	9	Transportation and storage
9.1	9.1	Land transportation and pipeline transportation
9.1	9.11	Rail transportation
9.1	9.12	Freight transportation, road
9.1	9.13	Scheduled passenger land transportation
9.1	9.14	Other land transportation (except pipeline transportation)
9.1	9.141	Taxi services
9.1	9.142	Other passenger land transportation
9.1	9.15	Pipeline transportation
9.2	9.2	Water transportation
9.2	9.21	Deep sea transportation
9.2	9.22	Inland water transportation
9.3	9.3	Air transportation
9.3	9.31	Scheduled air transportation
9.3	9.32	Non-scheduled air transportation
9.4	9.4	Scenic transportation services
9.5	9.5	Transportation support services
9.5	9.51	Rail and road specific transportation support services
9.5	9.52	Water specific transportation support services
9.5	9.521	Marine cargo handling
9.5	9.522	Other water transportation support services
9.5	9.53	Air specific transportation support services
9.5	9.54	Freight arrangement
9.6	9.6	Postal and courier services
9.6	9.61	Couriers
9.6	9.62	Postal services
9.7	9.7	Storage and warehousing

Canada

8	8	J	Accommodation and food services
8,1	8,1		Accommodation services
8,1	8,11	J1	Hotels
8,1	8,19	J2	Other traveler accommodation
8,2	8,2		Food services
8,2	8,21	J3	Foods serving and special food places
8,2	8,22	J4	Drinking places
9	9	H	Transportation and storage
9,1	9,1	H1	Land transportation and pipeline transportation
9,1	9,11	H1.1	Rail transportation
9,1	9,12	H1.2R	Freight transportation, road
9,1	9,13	H1.3R	Scheduled passenger land transportation
9,1	9,14	H1.4R	Other land transportation (except pipeline transportation)
9,1	9,141	H1.41R	Taxi services
9,1	9,142	H1.42R	Other passenger land transportation
9,1	9,15	H1.5R	Pipeline transportation
9,2	9,2	H2	Water transportation
9,2	9,21	H2.1	Deep sea transportation
9,2	9,22	H2.2	Inland water transportation
9,3	9,3	H3	Air transportation
9,3	9,31	H3.1	Scheduled air transportation
9,3	9,32	H3.2	Non-scheduled air transportation
9,4	9,4	H4	Scenic transportation services
9,5	9,5	H5	Transportation support services
9,5	9,51	H5.1R	Rail and road specific transportation support services
9,5	9,52		Water specific transportation support services
9,5	9,521	H5.5R	Marine cargo handling
9,5	9,522	H5.2	Other water transportation support services
9,5	9,53	H5.3R	Air specific transportation support services
9,5	9,54	H5.4	Freight arrangement
9,6	9,6	H6	Postal and courier services
9,6	9,61	H6.1	Couriers
9,6	9,62	H6.2	Postal services
9,7	9,7	H7	Storage and warehousing

The third column includes the scenario codes.