The network of international, EU, and French classifications of activities and products: a coordinated revision in 2008

Thierry Lacroix

Description

Modernization and international comparability were the two main goals of France’s in-depth revision of its classifications of activities and products, whose tangible result was the introduction of NAF Rev. 2 and CPF Rev. 2 on January 1, 2008.2 The operation formed part of a process coordinated at the international, European Union, and French levels. The 2008 revision of classifications is a complex task involving a large cast of players. Its success owes much to the implementation of an approach that combines consultative dialogue and efficiency. France played a major role in developing the new international network of classifications of activities and products. The new French classification of activities is slightly more detailed than its predecessor, and is now very effectively interlinked with the EU system.

Sujets

• INSEE
• Économie

Informations

• Publié par: insee
• Nombre de lectures: 46
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

The network of international, EU, and
French classifications of activities and
1products: a coordinated revision in 2008
! Thierry Lacroix*
Modernization and international comparability were the two main goals of France’s in-depth revision of its classifications
of activities and products, whose tangible result was the introduction of “NAF Rev. 2” and “CPF Rev. 2” on January 1,
22008. The operation formed part of a process coordinated at the international, European Union, and French levels.
The “2008 revision” of classifications is a complex task involving a large cast of players. Its success owes much to
the implementation of an approach that combines consultative dialogue and efficiency. France played a major role in
developing the new international network of classifications of activities and products. The new French classification of
activities is slightly more detailed than its predecessor, and is now very effectively interlinked with the EU system.
he revised French classifications of remained untouched: only around Tactivities and products—n AF and forty nAF classes were concerned.
c PF—were introduced on January 1, The operation planned for 2007 was
2008. n AF Rev. 2 and c PF Rev. 2 have of an altogether different nature (it
thus replaced n AF Rev. 1 and c PF was eventually delayed one year to
Rev. 1, which had been in effect since January 1, 2008, at european and
January 1, 2003. The project took French levels).
about seven years to complete, which,
Despite the 2003 “facelift,” the network on the face of it, may seem a long
of classifications of activities and time. Yet the operation was conducted
products had largely been designed without pause. Indeed, the prevailing
in the 1980s and implemented in the impression was a lack of time to
early 1990s. It had aged owing to explore various options more deeply
technological progress and changes in or check the consistency of certain
the economic and social organization choices. The main reason why it took a
of firms. In addition, some countries full seven years to carry out the “2008
had developed specific classifications revision” was the sheer scale of the
that were more modern but project, given the implications of the
incompatible with those in european changes introduced and the size and
French classifications of activities and products
number of economic classifications
concerned. But the time required
was also due to the complexity * Thierry Lacroix is Head of the classifications
Division and Deputy Head of the Standards and of the revision, a consequence
Information Systems Unit in InSee’s Statistical
decided on a five-yearly revision of of the networked structure of the c oordination and International Relations
the international classifications of Directorate.classifications: classifications of
1. o riginally published as “Le réseau des activities and products, ISIc and activities, classifications of products, nomenclatures internationales, européennes et
cPc. These revisions are, alternately, françaises d’activités et produits: une révision and customs classifications—all three
coordonnée en 2008,” Courrier des statistiques light and heavy. The five-year cycle implemented at three geographic
(French series), no. 125, nov.-Dec. 2008,
matches the frequency of the updating levels: international, european, and pp. 37-44, http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/
cs125%20g.pdf.of the Harmonized System (HS), the national.
2. In keeping with standard usage, and for the international customs classification.
sake of concision, we shall refer to the first
A light revision was carried out in revision of the French classification of activities
as “nAF Rev. 1” and to the second as “nAF the early 2000s. In consequence, Context and objectives
Rev. 2” or simply nAF where there is no risk
France implemented nAF Rev. 1 and of the revision of ambiguity. The same applies to nAce, cPA,
and cPc. For a key to abbreviations and a brief cPF Rev. 1 on January 1, 2003.
presentation of the classifications and their
The 30th session of the U.n. The changes were merely cosmetic.
terminology, see Box 1 and the explanatory
Statistical commission in March 1999 The concepts and overall structure sheet inserted in this issue.
courrier des statistiques, english series no. 15, 2009 37
Source: InSeeThierry Lacroix
use. Two examples are the totally new ISIc and cPc are crucial, for they This harmonization required sufficient
north American Industry classification apply—by construction—to the discussion time among europeans.
System (nAIcS) introduced in north european and French classifications, In the event of divergence between
which are nested in the international the MSs—a fairly common American Free Trade Agreement
occurrence—the MSs could defend (nAFTA) countries in 1997 and the classifications.
their individual positions at the U.n., contemporary Standard Industrial
In this context, the U.n. technical but with less chance of success. classification for Japan (JSIc).
subgroup (Un-TSG) acts in an essential The eU organization thus made it
Because the system of classifications capacity as proposal originator. The hard to provide a timely, coordinated
was obsolete (at world level and Un-TSG is an international gathering response to U.n. proposals and, even
european level) and inconsistent, a of approximately fifteen members more so, to initiate proposals.
including national statisticians and more drastic overhaul was required.
international organizations such The eU relied on the nAce-cPA Preparations therefore began for a far
as oec D, FAo , World Tourism Working Group, acting as steering deeper revision involving a reappraisal
o rganization, and eurostat. France and validation body, while ad hoc of the concepts, aggregated
Task Forces developed proposals. structures, and detailed categories of is privileged to be one of the three
All MSs were consulted in writing in all classifications in the network. european countries represented in the
order to define common eU positions subgroup. In fact, it is currently one of
The two main objectives of the “2008 based on Task Force proposals. For the very few eU countries to belong to
each classification, the first step revision” of classifications of activities all international and european bodies
was to collect MS proposals, taking and products were accordingly as in charge of classifications.
the initial U.n. or eurostat drafts as follows:
The Un-TSG began its work in 2001, starting points.
– modernization, to better reflect meeting approximately twice a year. It
Some French proposals were intended economic developments of the past completed key steps in the process,
for use in developing the national twenty years conducting international consultations
strategy in international and eU often based on questionnaires. These
negotiations; others concerned the – improving comparability of the main successive rounds allowed the
construction of French classifications. classification systems used in the world, subgroup:
Both types were prepared by InSee’s to facilitate international comparisons
classifications Division in cooperation of economic data (Box 2). – first, to collect the main desiderata
with the network of “sector-specific of countries and international
statistical offices,” i.e., ministerial organizations
Organization of revision statistical offices (Services Statistiques
arrangements Ministériels: SSMs) and In See – second, to validate the conceptual
Departments in charge of individual choices and aggregate structure of
Given the network organization of economic sectors.the future international classifications
the classifications of activities and
products and the number of their – lastly, in 2004, to finalize the draft The broad outlines and draft national
users, the “2008 revision” process of the detailed structure of ISIc Rev. 4 classifications were submitted to
concerned a multitude of actors. It as well as its explanatory notes. the French national commission on
therefore required strong coordination economic and Social classifications
in order to develop a robust, consistent on the european Union (eU) side, (c ommission n ationale des
project that would meet the main eurostat provided dual coordination. n omenclatures Économiques
expectations. First, it participated in negotiations et Sociales: cnneS) for review.
at the U.n. on ISIc and cPc, after cnne S is a unit of the n ational
The key participants in the process seeking coordinated positions among c ouncil for Statistical Information
were governments, international eU Member States (MSs) in order to (c onseil n ational de l’Information
organizations, statisticians, and trade give more weight to eU positions. Statistique: cn IS). Its membership
organizations such as european Second, it oversaw the development consists primarily of InSee and SSM
industry federations (FeBIs and of nAce and cPA in consultation with statisticians, and representatives of
FeBSs) in the manufacturing and MSs. chambers of commerce and employer
service sectors. and employee organizations. cnneS
The eU