For Official Use STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
For Official Use STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 07-Apr-2003 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English STATISTICS DIRECTORATE For Official Use STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 Cancels & replaces the same document of 03 April 2003 National Accounts and Economic Statistics - International Trade Statistics TOWARDS A CONSISTENT GEO-NOMENCLATURE FOR TRADE -ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION- Paper prepared by Andreas Lindner - OECD 4TH INTERNATINAL TRADE STATISTICS EXPERT MEETING Château de la Muette, Paris 7 April 2003 - 9 April 2003 (morning) Beginning at 10.00 a.m. on the first day Contact: [email protected] English - Or. English JT00142270 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 TOWARDS A CONSISTENT GEO-NOMENCLATURE FOR TRADE -ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION- A. Introduction Users of statistics are sometimes confused by differences in data published for country aggregates by different institutions. These differences may be due to many factors, including a different understanding of geographical groupings. For detailed trade flow data this aspect reveals of a particular importance since merchandise trade is measured by individual country, important trader or not. The Merchandise Trade Task Force has already addressed this issue as well as the Task Force on Statistics of International Trade in Services. To shed more light on different practices, OECD has conducted some investigations and has also had preliminary consultations within the Organisation across Directorates. The results of this preliminary research are summarized in this paper and issues identified requiring further investigation. The aim of this work is to develop an internally consistent approach, harmonised as much as possible with other International Organisations. This preliminary paper on geographical nomenclatures presents main country groupings published by international organisations and highlights some issues on country allocations and zone labelling. The first part presents a list of main economic zones, which have been identified in the various international organisations. The second part focuses on country allocation issues. The third part summarises feedback received from the OECD Trade Directorate and Task Force on Services. Finally, the Annex lists the sources used and the description of contents of Economic Zones1. B. A comparison of Geo-Nomenclatures 1 Synopsis of Economic Zones currently published by International Organisations Different databases and projects, such as Globalisation Indicators, the Trade Indicators Project, the current OECD Geographical Nomenclature used for merchandise trade statistics, more detailed breakdowns available for Trade in Services by partner country, BoP and FDI statistics, but also other specialised datasets like OECDs Tariff & Trade database occasionally use different country groupings and zone labelling. In addition, recent political and economic events have led to the independence of countries hitherto grouped together under a Union or Federation, or to the re-unification (Germany) of two separate states, or to the creation of or a new state or new name for an existing state. This makes comparisons over longer time periods difficult and may result in misleading results by comparing aggregates whose composition has been changed. The following table summarizes the current situation with respect to the treatment of economic zones for six International Organisations and for 4 different databases at OECD. 1 Acknowledgement : This is a revised, updated and extended version of a first draft prepared by Ms. Lydia Deloumeaux with input from Mr. Joscelyn Magdeleine who provided input on services statistics. 2 STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 TABLE 1: ECONOMIC ZONES CURRENTLY PUBLISHED BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS OECD EUROSTAT ECONOMIC ZONES WTO UNSD IMF UNCTAD GOODS SERVICES TARIFFS FDI GOODS BOP ACP X X X ANDEAN X X X X APEC X X X X X X X X ASEAN X X X X X X X X BLEU X X X X CACM X X X CARICOM X X CEEC X X X CEFTA X X CIS X X X X X X X COMESA X X DAS X X Developed economies X X(**) X(°) Developing countries X X(***) X EFTA X X X X European Union X X X X X X X X X Euro area X X X X X X(°°) G7 X X X LAIA X X X Latin countries X X LDC X X X X Mashrek X Maghreb countries X X Mediterranean basin countries X X 3 STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 MERCOSUR X X X X X X X X NAFTA X X X X X X X X X NICS X X X Nics2 Asia X Nics2 Latin America X OECD X X X X X(*) X X OPEC X X X X X X SAARC/SAPTA X X X X Notes: (*): OECD excluding EU Members (**): Industrial countries (less Israel and South Africa) (***): Including Israel and South Africa (°): Developed economies also include Malta. (°°): Published in 2002 zones : Most frequently used 4 STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 Other specialised country groupings (such as the Cairn's group for agricultural products) are not included in this list. The table reveals significant differences in the use of economic zones. Also within zones and groupings, differences exist as to the allocation of countries. These differences requiring clarification are summarized in the section below. 2 COUNTRY ALLOCATION ISSUES Delegates are invited to express their views on the following issues: a) Which consistent treatment should be applied to countries of the former Soviet Union? ¾ Should Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan be part of Asia? ¾ Concerning Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, organisations follow different allocation practice : • EUROSTAT : Near and Middle East • COMTRADE : Former USSR, Asia • WTO: C. /E. Europe/Baltic States/CIS (includes all ex. USSR countries such as Uzbekistan etc.). • OECD services trade: Near and middle East : (OECD follows BOP EUROSTAT classifications together with some adaptations for non European countries) • OECD MERCHANDISE TRADE ITCS : Near and Middle East • UNCTAD: Central Asia: (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) b) Concerning North African countries: ¾ Should Egypt and Libya be part of Africa or Middle East? ¾ Libya and Mauritania should be included in the zone Maghreb (currently : Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) in order to be aligned with the Economic zone Maghreb Arab Union (UMA) c) Other issues ¾ Should OECD create a separate code for metropolitan France FXX ? ¾ Consistent treatment for other countries such as the USA (inclusion or not of Virgin Island, Puerto Rico..), France etc… 5 STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 TABLE 2: Example of a Synopsis of different allocation practices by International Organisations OECD EUROSTAT UNSD ZONES SIMSDI WTO IMF UNCTAD GOODS SERVICES FDI GOODS BOP GOODS M49 Northern Egypt Middle East Africa Africa North Africa Africa Africa Africa North Africa Middle East North Africa Africa Northern North Libya Middle East Africa Africa Africa Africa Africa North Africa Africa Middle East North Africa Africa Georgia, Armenia, Near and Near and Near and Near and Near and CEE/BS/CI Former Western Europe Europe Central Asia Azerbaijan Middle East Middle East Middle East Middle East Middle East S USSR, Asia Asia Ex URSS Asian CEE/BS/CI Former South countries Europe Asia Asia Asia Asia Asia Europe Central Asia S USSR, Asia Central Asia (Turkmenistan etc..) To be further completed… 6 STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 3 FEEDBACK FROM OECDs TRADE DIRECTORATE AND THE SERVICES TASK FORCE The following table summarizes first feedback received from OECDs Trade Directorate (Tariif & Trade Database) and from the Trade in Services task Force. Table 3: General comments on country groupings E. To what B. Can we C. Country D. Should the extent FDI and obtain groupings trade in FATS data convergence need to be goods and should align General A. others with respect consistent G. Economic Organisations trade in geo- comments groupings to the between zones services geo- nomenclature allocation of International nomenclature with trade in the countries Organisation be identical ? goods and ? s ? services Dialogue is MENA : necessary Privilege OECD Tariff Cairn's, Middle East between Yes economic Database ANZCERTA and North international agreements Africa organisations WTO: Yes, but the eco- nomic territory defi- nition could differ Task Force Countries did Yes. Eurostat between BOP services not wish to can agree on and customs Deustche provide eco- eventual definitions of Bundesbank SADC nomic changes to some EUROSTAT SACU groupings, as grouping countries. IMF, OECD, FTAA definitions definitions. UNSD: As WTO/OMC regularly WTO is also trade in UNCTAD change. flexible. services is WTO/OMT quite different from merchandise trade, country groupings may differ C. Questions to Experts: In the light of the above first comparison, the Secretariat would like to clarify with the help from delegates the following questions: Is it felt that other country groupings are needed? For instance, in analytical trade-related work, the following groupings can be found: - Landlocked countries (UNCTAD) and/or Landlocked Developing Countries (M49) - Small Island Economies (identical to “Small Island Devloping States” in M49?) - Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) - Sub Saharia Africa - Middle East and North Africa 7 STD/NAES/TASS/ITS(2003)8 How can we obtain convergence with respect to the allocation of the countries? Should UNSD’s M49 publication "Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use" (ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/49/REV.4) be considered as THE standard? The latest revision, Rev.4, was published in 1999 and is updated regularly in English and French on the Division's website (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm). The publication is multilingual, i.e. all six UN languages are published in the same book. Some corrigenda for M49, Rev.4 have been issued for some of the language versions. The Internet M49 list shows the numerical country or area codes used by UNSD, as well as the 3-character alpha codes assigned by the ISO.