Registry Detail

1886

Information

24 November 2003

2003 quest.-Summary of question 27 and ISIC section 16 responses

Question 27 in the "questions" document: Do you support the move of section 16 (in the current draft) to support a larger grouping of goods processing activities? The proposed two-digit level structure of section 16 "Water supply; sewage, waste management and remediation": 16.1 - Water collection and supply; sewage 16.2 - Waste treatment and disposal 16.3 - Remediation activities

Summary of responses to question 27 and section 16: This is a new section proposed for ISIC. As such, the comments regarding the advisability of creating the section are more varied than those commenting on changes to existing sections. The questionnaire did not specifically ask in question 27 about the acceptability of the grouping overall. The question stated: Do you support the move of section 16 (in the current draft) to support a larger grouping of goods processing activities? For this reason, support for the grouping was not specifically stated in a number of responses. Some latitude in interpretation of the responses was used in the summary. Unless a response specifically stated opposition to the grouping or the contents of the grouping, it was considered a supporting comments in the summary (see detailed summary of question 27, below). A majority of responses supported the creation of section 16. Over half specifically noted that the grouping should be located closer to manufacturing. There was also strong support noted for a grouping or class that would be equivalent to ISIC 37. A diverse minority (Australia, Germany, United Kingdom, and Vietnam) expressed opposition to moving water treatment and supply out of the utilities section. Japan does not support the concept of the grouping. A minority also noted that the combination of sections 5 and 16 might be desirable. Detailed Summaries by Question Q-27, Waste management and remediation (Mechanical translations of Spanish responses) Columbia If, as a result of which such sequence of subsequent organization of categories serious with the general criterion of organization of the CIIU that tends to order the first industrial activities that the activities of commerce and service. Cuba The structure is considered suitable that sets out Honduras Yes. Mexico No, we preferred is located like section 16 since we considered more like a section of services. Nicaragua We do not know the proposed document. Summary: There were 47 separate responses to the question of Section 16 and the placement of the section within the structure of a revised ISIC. The answers to the questions were vague in many cases. For summary purposes, unless opposition to the contents of the group were stated, the summary assumes that the grouping is supported. The question did not specifically ask if the grouping itself was supported. With that as background, 38 responses appeared to support the creation of a new grouping for water, sewage, waste management and remediation. Seven countries expressed concern about the content of the grouping (Australia, Germany, India, Japan, Portugal, UK, and Viet Nam) with most expressing concern about moving water out of the ISIC Rev. 3.1 grouping for utilities. There were two indeterminate answers (Columbia and Nicaragua). Of the 38 responses that supported the creation of a grouping, twenty-five clearly supported moving the new grouping closer to manufacturing. The same respondents noted the need to retain a separate identity for ISIC 37 in the new grouping. Nine responses did not address the possible movement within the structure and three supported the classification of the grouping with services. One yes response also noted that there was disagreement within the regional organization (Aftistat) regarding the content and location although the grouping was supported by the majority. Of those that did not support the grouping, as noted previously, most were concerned with moving water treatment out of utilities. In addition, several respondents (Germany, Japan, Portugal, and Afristat) noted that a combination of utilities and the grouping for 16, or portions thereof, may be an interesting resolution. Total Responses: 47 Support 16: 38 Oppose 16: 7 Indeterminate: 2 Related Boundary question responses S-16 There were nine comments provided for this section of the concepts paper structure. Of the nine comments, the United States and Canada expressed support for the grouping while Australia, Japan, Finland, Portugal, and the UK expressed concerns that would seriously impact a grouping as defined. Two responses, India and Belgium had specific comments for lower levels (India - collection of waste and scrap from streets and waste bands, Belgium requested further definition of long distance trash hauling). Japan notes that not all environmental activities are included in the section and is small as defined. Australia and Finland express concerns about the treatment of water. In responses to other questions, Australia noted that water will stay with utilities and Finland noted that the collection of pure water should be in a different division than waste water treatment. The UK expressed concerns about the grouping overall and Portugal suggested that the grouping should be combined with Section 5, Utilities. Two of the responses also noted the importance of keeping a class or group that is equal to 37 in ISIC Rev. 3.1. S-16.1 There were four responses to this question. Australia, Spain, and Thailand noted questions or disagreement with the inclusion of irrigation systems in section 16 (Australia's response was not clear in their answer to 1.1 - it appears that they are questioning whether or not it is an activity? "Propose that irrigation is not a service provided from one unit to another. Farms may need to buy access to water for stock use and pasture and crop irrigation but this does not put the provider into a different industry, and more than it does for the unit supplying the electricity") Thailand specifically noted that they treat agricultural irrigation systems in agriculture and Spain noted that the definition of irrigation system need to be clarified. S-16.2 (Mechanical translation of Spanish response) Mexico We would prefer not to mix here the activities of wholesale trade since those establishments only buy the remainders and they select them industries to be resold like insumos to other, unlike the establishments that are in charge of the disposition of the dangerous and nondangerous remainders. There were six responses to this question. Austria and Finland noted support for 16.2 but noted that there must be a further separation to clearly retain something equivalent to ISIC 37. The United Kingdom does not support moving "recycling" into 16.2 and will provide a separate note on recycling. India noted the need for a separate class at the four digit level for picking waste and scrap from streets and waste bands. Spain requested clarification on the classification of car breaking and Mexico noted that they do not support the inclusion of wholesalers of scrap and waste. S-16.3 There was one response from Finland that expressed understanding of the need for 16.3 but expressing concern regarding the size and prevalence of remediation activities as primary activities.