Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Services ...

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SDD/CSSP/WPTGS(2019)3

Unclassified English - Or. English

6 March 2019

STATISTICS AND DATA DIRECTORATE

COMMITTEE ON STATISTICS AND STATISTICAL POLICY

Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Services Statistics

Results of the 2019 WPTGS Stocktaking Questionnaire

27-29 March, OECD Headquarters, Paris, CC9

This note provides a summary of the country responses from the WPTGS 2019 Stocktaking

Questionnaire sent out in preparation for the 2019 WPTGS meeting. The questionnaire collected

information from WPTGS delegates on three topics: Measuring digital trade; Balance of

payments indicators relevant for the analysis of global value chains; and, Use of invoice values

in the balance of payments. Responses were received from 34 WPTGS countries (30 OECD

member and 4 non-member) covering 48 statistical institutions.

Contact person: David BRACKFIELD, Email: [email protected]

JT03444165

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the

delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

mailto:[email protected]

2 │ SDD/CSSP/WPTGS(2019)3

RESULTS OF THE 2019 WPTGS STOCKTAKING QUESTIONNAIRE Unclassified

1. 2019 WPTGS Stocktaking Questionnaire – Summary

1.1. Introduction

1. In 2018 the WPTGS agreed that a Stocktaking Questionnaire was needed to assess

activities, already ongoing, or being planned, in order to support the 2019 WPTGS meeting

and further the agenda of the Working Party’s programme on global initiatives. The 2019

questionnaire focused on three key areas:

1. Measuring digital trade;

2. Balance of payments measures for global value chain analysis; and

3. Invoice values in the balance of payments.

2. Additionally, given the ongoing success of the bilateral (and in some cases,

trilateral) trade asymmetry meetings organised before the official WPTGS meeting,

countries were invited (in the questionnaire) to indicate their interest in taking part in the

2019 round of bilateral meetings.

3. The WPTGS stocktaking questionnaire was sent to delegates on 11 January 2019

containing 21 questions (see Annex A), and countries were asked to reply by 11 February

2019. As of 01 March 2019 responses had been received from 341 WPTGS countries (30

OECD members) representing 48 statistical institutions.

4. This document gives an overview of the responses. The first section provides a

summary of the main findings and conclusions, by key area. The second section describes

the detailed answers, question-by-question, and includes links to relevant works and in

some cases direct references to answers given by country. It should be noted here, that for

some questions (e.g. question 15 on invoice values in the balance of payments) extensive

comments were received indicating high interest from countries.

1.2. Measuring Digital Trade

5. During the 2018 WPTGS meeting it was agreed, especially given the rapid pace of

developments in measuring digital trade, that regular stocktaking exercises would be

needed, at least in the short term, to provide a mechanism to share national experiences and

that can feed into the ‘living document’ – Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade – being

developed under the auspices of the inter-agency Task Force on International Trade

Statistics (TFITS).

6. Overall, the view is that the current conceptual framework, and working definition

of digital trade (all cross-border resident-non-resident transactions that are either digitally

ordered, online platform enabled, and/or digitally delivered) provided solid foundations on

which to build further. Important measurement challenges remain however. This section of

the questionnaire asked six questions, and as stated above, because of the rapidly changing

developments in measuring digital trade, several of the questions were repeated from the

2018 questionnaire.

1 Unfortunately, the German response was received on 06 March 2019 and so could not be included

in this synthesis.

SDD/CSSP/WPTGS(2019)3 │ 3


1.2.1. Digitally ordered transactions

7. The questionnaire posed two questions in this subsection. The first question wanted

to know if statistical institutions had recently (1-2 years) (or plan to) undertaken any special

studies to estimate cross-border ecommerce trade transactions. Countries were provided

with examples of the types of studies being referred to, namely linking international

merchandise trade statistics to surveys on ICT and ecommerce use by enterprises, or by

exploring new data-sources such as MOSS2 (in Europe) or credit cards.

8. Much like the 2018 questionnaire, most countries indicated that they hadn’t

undertaken any special studies, or that they planned to in the short-term. However, Finland,

Hungary, the Netherlands and Norway stated that they had been involved in surveys and

provided, in most cases, links to their studies (these can be found in the second part of this

note).

9. While countries are not in general undertaking special studies, many noted that they

are investigating the types of data highlighted. For example, numerous, mostly European

countries, outlined that they are using, or plan to use, MOSS data and or credit card data in

the compilation of their international trade in services estimates.

10. Another group of countries stated that they have specific ongoing work in general

to improve the quality of their international trade in services statistics, and they see this

work as having a positive impact on their long-term ability to estimate cross-border

ecommerce. This type of work included: national statistics offices working with Customs

authorities to better measure/estimate postal trade; legislation changes that will impact on

the statistical system and increase the sources available to estimate cross-border

ecommerce, for example the upcoming revision to the ECB balance of payments

regulation; and, statistical institutes working internally and or across the national statistical

system (NSS) to discuss/investigate digital trade.

11. The second question in this subsection asked countries about electronic customs

declarations in their countries and whether they have investigated (use) this source. In most

countries Customs authorities specify a minimum value below which taxes will not be

collected and there is evidence that cross-border digital trade has led to an increase in the

share of this below-the-threshold trade. In a bid for efficiency, many countries now have

(simplified) electronic customs declarations that enterprises engaged in ecommerce may

use to facilitate customs clearance and trace packages across borders. This presents a new

data source for countries in estimating cross-border ecommerce.

12. Almost 80% of countries responded that they have not explored this data source for

statistical purposes. Some reasons for this included that the country’s Customs authority

hasn’t introduced this system, lack of access to this data and lack of resources in the

statistical institute. In this regard, European countries pointed out that from 01 January

2021 the VAT ecommerce package adopted by the EU Council in December 2017 will

remove the current exemption from VAT for imports of small consignments from outside

the EU.

13. At least three countries indicated that there are changes happening in their country’s

Customs authorities in regards to electronic declarations with small consignments and they

2 VAT mini One Stop Shop (MOSS). MOSS allows taxable persons supplying telecommunication

services, television and radio broadcasting services and electronically supplied services to non-

taxable persons in EU Member States in which they do not have an establishment to account for the

VAT due on those supplies via a web-portal in the EU Member State in which they are identified.



expect to investigate this data when it becomes available. Statistics Netherlands outlined

that in addition to using Customs simplified electronic declarations, they are exploring the

tax returns from large intermediary platforms e.g. Amazon, which include sales data.

1.2.2. Digitally delivered transactions

14. Digitally delivered transactions are consistent with ICT-enabled services, i.e.

services products delivered remotely over ICT networks, involving downloadable products.

Examples, such as software, e-books, data and database services, are often also digitally

ordered, but also include services that are ordered ‘analogously’, but delivered online, such

as certain intra-firm cross-border transactions, including those involving data.

15. The WPTGS agreed last year that fully digital products (both digitally ordered and

downloadable) in particular may not always be well-captured in international trade in

services statistics. Some countries indicated that new data sources were being explored to

better measure such flows.

16. Again, there were two questions in this subsection. The questions asked if countries

had made any improvements in better measuring transactions in cross-border digitally

downloadable products, for example in attempts to develop breakdowns in EBOPS or

estimate mode 1 for modes of supply.

17. Much like the previous two questions, the majority of countries stated that they

have not undertaken any new work in this field since the 2018 WPTGS meeting.

18. Previous sources were mentioned, such as MOSS, VAT and credit card data, in

addition ICT and household surveys were suggested as sources and some countries had

improved their standard international trade in services surveys to better try and capture this

data.

19. Statistics Netherlands are attempting to use text mining with big data (company

websites) and their business register to identify the population of enterprises undertaking

this work and then SBS records to make estimates.

20. Argentina, Canada, and Israel answered that they are currently undertaking work

on modes of supply and all three expect to have results available in 2019. The United States

has added questions to its international trade in services survey asking about transactions

in mode 1, and like the three other countries expect data to be available in 2019.

1.2.3. Digital intermediaries

21. An important characteristic of digitalisation is the advent of digital intermediaries,

e.g. eBay, that facilitate cross-border digital trade in goods and services. In order to provide

better input for policy a better understanding of their role in international trade is needed.

This requires statistics on these platforms to track their share of transactions in international

trade.

22. When transactions are facilitated by a non-resident digital intermediary that does

not take any ownership of the underlying good (or service), a breakdown should be made

between the payments for the intermediation services (trade in services) and the value of

the good or service that is provided (when that good or service is exchanged between

residents). It’s known by compilers that imports facilitated by non-resident digital

intermediaries are difficult to (separately) identify, but that new data sources, such as credit

card data, could be explored.



23. This subsection asked if countries had made any progress in better measuring

payments made to non-resident digital intermediaries, what are seen as major obstacles,

and do they have any future plans either in measuring non-resident digital intermediaries

or in general in measuring the impact of digitalisation.

24. While in general, like the previous questions, most countries stated that they are not

presently working in this field, there is some investigation taking place in some countries.

Countries mentioned previous sources such as MOSS, VAT and credit card data, and

Canada stated that a new household survey they had recently launched – Canadian Internet

Use – is expected to provide data on payments to intermediaries.

25. It should be noted, that while countries understand that these new sources may

provide new insights, many countries also outlined known issues with these sources. For

example, MOSS only captures a subset of the required transactions, and credit card data

can’t, at present, separately identify digital intermediaries.

26. Again countries talked about focus groups, both internally or across the NSS,

looking into the issue of digital trade. New Zealand and Norway outlined upcoming

possible changes to their legislation, which might provide new data sources in estimating

cross-border ecommerce. On the point of legal powers, some countries mentioned the fact

national statistical institutes have no right in forcing non-resident digital intermediaries to

report to them, making the collection of this data impossible.

27. Of the studies mentioned by countries (for example, Statistics Canada, INEGI), it

was outlined that these were not specifically undertaken to measure digital intermediaries

but could provide some general broad-brush statistics on their activities.

1.3. Balance of Payments Indicators Relevant for the Analysis of Global Value

Chains

28. The IMF BOPCOM 2017 meeting endorsed the creation of a Working Group, led

by OECD and IMF, on Balance of Payments Statistics Relevant for Global Value Chain

(GVC) Analysis. The primary objective of the group being to identify components and

statistics in BPM6 that are of particular relevance for the development of GVC indicators.

29. It’s clear that balance of payments statistics provide a very useful framework for

helping to provide information on bridging detailed (merchandise and services) trade

statistics with accounting frameworks that underpin the analysis of GVCs. Such

components already exist in the actual framework. However, they typically involve

auxiliary tables or supplementary items (e.g. BPM6 1.15(c)), or more detailed

(geographical) breakdowns that are recommended in BPM6 but not included in the

‘Standard Components’, and therefore their relevance and importance may not be

immediately clear to all compilers.

30. For balance of payments Goods, the IMF/OECD BOPCOM Working Group

identified three recommended sets of information, to allow for a better alignment by

International Organisations of the detailed merchandise trade statistics with National

Accounts total values (please refer to Section A (pages 16-18) of the BOPCOM-18/04

paper for further explanations).

1. Transactions involving re-exports and the goods acquired/sold under merchanting,

should be shown separately, including further breakdowns by product and/or

partner.



2. The reconciliation table between merchandise trade statistics and balance of

payments trade in goods statistics, along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2 should be

provided focusing in particular on the changes with the largest effects, and

including, where possible, the main products and/or partner countries involved.

3. As an alternative to the above, a breakdown of the balance of payments Goods

component by (the most important) products and/or trading partners would also be

helpful to improve the alignment of merchandise trade statistics to national

accounts in the creation of international accounting frameworks.

1.3.1. Encouraged balance of payments statistics on Goods

Re-exports

31. In general the small number of countries that outlined that re-exports are available,

with some of the required geographical and product breakdowns, stated that this can be

obtained only from their international merchandise trade statistics.

32. Overwhelmingly there was a negative response to the question of re-exports data

being available in balance of payments statistics by geographical and product breakdown,

and this situation is not expected to change in the near future.

Merchanting

33. The majority of countries that responded to the stocktaking questionnaire stated

that they are already compiling and disseminating balance of payments merchanting

statistics, including the gross flows (Goods acquired under merchanting), or will in the near

future. For example Statistics Canada and the US BEA have new surveys in the field

capturing this information, and they are currently analysing the data in preparation for

dissemination.

34. However the situation was reversed in regards to compiling and disseminating

merchanting statistics by geographical breakdown and/or product breakdown. For example,

more than 40% stated that this isn’t feasible. The issue here being the product breakdown,

countries just don’t see this as doable (even in the future). Countries are more positive in

regards to the geographical breakdown, given that in a number of countries merchanting

statistics are collected in international trade in services surveys. However, in general, while

most countries compile and disseminate merchanting statistics, it is unlikely that

breakdowns (geographical/product) will appear in their balance of payments statistics.

Reconciliation table – IMTS/BOP

35. This question wanted to know if countries have, or could produce, a table allowing

users to understand how IMTS have been converted into the balance of payments Goods

component. The table should additionally provide details on geographical and product

breakdowns of the reconciliation items (e.g. goods for processing).

36. Much like the merchanting question, countries didn’t see an issue in compiling such

a table at the aggregate level (by reconciliation item), but didn’t think it was feasible by

geographical and/or product breakdown. Some countries had already produced such an

aggregate table for users when balance of payments statistics moved from BPM5 to BPM6,

and some countries provide reconciliation details in the metadata of their regular releases.



Issues outlined, included: data confidentiality; some countries have imports in FOB so

don’t need to provide the CIF-FOB reconciliation item; lack of product data; increased

response burden; and that some reconciliation items, e.g. illegal activities, don’t have a

geographical or product dimension at present.

Balance of payments Goods by geographical and product breakdown

37. The final question in this subsection asked countries if it was or would be possible

to break down their balance of payments Goods component by geographical and or product.

38. European countries outlined that as part of the EC regulation on balance of

payments they already provide a geographical breakdown for Goods. Additionally, the US

BEA is already advanced in this field, compiling and disseminating the Goods component

by 42 trading partners and for approximately 150 products (with plans to extend these

breakdowns).

39. However, as was the case in previous questions, the inability to compile a product

breakdown was raised by the majority countries for Goods. This appears to be very much

a sticking point for the balance of payments GVC indicators required. As a whole, countries

are unable to provide a product breakdown for re-exports, merchanting, goods for

processing and balance of payments Goods. These additional indicators required might

need to be rethought by the IMF/OECD BOPCOM Working Group.

1.3.2. Encouraged balance of payments statistics on trade in services

40. For international trade in services statistics, the IMF/OECD BOPCOM Working

Group recommended two sets of information required for a better alignment of detailed

international trade in services statistics with national accounts values (please refer to

Section A (pages 19-21) of the BOPCOM-18/04 paper for further explanations).

41. The first involves a geographical breakdown of international trade in services

statistics, starting with the 12 main EBOPS categories, and including total services, and

prioritising breakdowns for more detailed services categories as per their relevance and

importance in a country’s international trade.

42. The second involves the supplementary breakdown for travel, which includes

goods, in order to allow for an improved alignment (and rerouting) of the trade flows

involved to match national accounts classifications.

International trade in services by product breakdown

43. While a number of countries slightly misinterpreted this question, the overall

response was that countries couldn’t provide international trade in services data by a

geographical product breakdown. Countries understood that international trade in services

data, must, at some stage, in order to be integrated into their national accounts (normally

via the SUTs) be converted into a product breakdown. However, they couldn’t provide this

data and the additional spilt by trading partner would raise a large number of new

challenges.

Supplementary travel breakdown

44. Close to 40% of countries stated that they couldn’t provide a supplementary travel

breakdown either now or in the future, while the same number stated that while they can’t

now, they could in the future. A few countries do currently provide (some limited)



information on the travel components, and a few more countries are currently working on

this issue (for example Switzerland has a project starting in 2020 to look into ‘shopping

tourism’).

1.4. Use of Invoice Values for the Recording of Trade in Goods Transactions and

Related Freight Transactions in the Balance of Payments

45. In 2018, the WPTGS noted the general support among its members to thoroughly

review and consider a proposal by the Bundesbank (and Statistics Netherlands) to use

invoice values as a principle of recording trade transactions in the balance of payments,

including its potential contribution to reducing asymmetries, particularly for goods and

transport services (SDD/CSSP/WPTGS(2018)8).

46. Some of the potential advantages of this proposal are: (i) a reduced need for

estimations (and hence fewer or smaller asymmetries), notably where good quality source

data (company records) are available; (ii) improved coherence between the valuation of

‘regular’ international trade in goods transactions and those associated with processing or

merchanting; and (iii) an improved alignment with the valuation used for the domestic

transport of goods and the related transport flows (as described in the 2008 SNA).

47. At the same time, there are methodological implications to consider, including in

relation to: (i) a mixed composition of goods (merchandise) and services (freight,

insurance) in the values of imports/exports due to the lack of a uniform price valuation of

exports/imports, thus redefining the borders between goods and services; and, (ii)

impracticability due to potential unavailability of invoice values, hence asymmetric

recordings of imports/exports (company versus customs records).

48. Considering the potential implications, the questionnaire asked for views on the

merits of the proposal, whether it is feasible for the statistical institution and if countries

would be interested in being part of a pilot study to test the implications of the proposal.

Country views on the proposal

49. There was a very large response from countries to this question and all country

comments have been included in full in the second part of this document.

50. As to be expected, and following on from the discussion in the WPTGS 2018

meeting, countries took one of three positions: not for the proposal; for the proposal; and,

unsure but think more investigation is needed.

51. Those (mostly EU) countries in favour of the proposal noted a number of goods

points. For example, the proposal better follows the ownership principle as well as

providing (in most cases) true ‘market values’. Countries noted that the proposal reduces

the need to make the CIF/FOB adjustment, the data received from exporters and importers

should better align and depending how it is collected the data could almost be in real-time.

Finally, and importantly, the proposal should allow for the separation of transport costs.

52. In many cases these countries noted that they already have the data (e.g. Belgium).

However, these supporting countries also pointed out some issues/questions around the

proposal. For example, the classification of goods may be missing, there could be issues

around the residence of the companies and the possibility of a mixed composition of goods

and services. A constant point made here was the need to ensure that the same statistic isn’t

collected twice, as having international trade statistics collected by Customs authorities and



national statistical institutes on differing methodological concepts wouldn’t solve the

problem at the heart of this proposal.

53. The ‘not for the proposal’ group also made a number of good points. In general

they questioned why another collection is needed when in their countries they have strong

Customs authorities that provide high quality international trade data (it may be better to

look into getting Customs to collect invoice values). A second point raised by many

countries questioned the assumption that the CIF-FOB issue really causes large

asymmetries (for example, is there proof of this). And following on from this, would the

new proposal actually reduce asymmetries, given known issues around enterprise surveys

and the fact that even in the long term most countries would not be using invoice values as

their main source for international trade data (but keep using IMTS).

54. Questions were raised about the possible increase in respondent burden, resource

implications for national statistical institutes, new legal requirements, and creating breaks

in series.

55. However, on balance, the majority of countries agreed that the proposal should be

taken forward and discussed further.

Feasibility and pilot study

56. Given the large number of countries not in favour of the proposal it was

unsurprising that a large number stated that it would not be feasible to implement using

invoice values for the compilation of balance of payments statistics in their country. A

number of the same concerns were raised.

57. Five countries – China, Finland, Ireland, Italy and Turkey – expressed an interest

in being part of a pilot study on invoice values.

1.5. Reducing Bilateral Trade Asymmetries

58. In recent years the WPTGS facilitated bilateral trade asymmetry meetings have

become an important feature of the week hosting WPTGS. This year 13 countries have

asked to be involved in the bilateral meetings. As in 2018, the OECD will provide countries

with input for the meetings and where necessary facilitate the interaction between

countries.



2. Detailed Responses by Question

2.1. Measuring Digital Trade

2.1.1. Digitally ordered transactions

In light of the growing importance of digitally ordered or delivered transactions, policy

demand for statistics on digital trade is increasing. To develop internationally comparable

statistics on Digital Trade, the OECD has developed a conceptual measurement framework

and conducted two stocktaking surveys, jointly with the IMF, with replies from more than

70 countries, and is currently finalising, a Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade.

Feedback concluded that the current conceptual framework, and working definition of

digital trade (all cross-border resident-non-resident transactions that are either digitally

ordered, online platform enabled, and/or digitally delivered) provides solid foundations on

which to build further. Important measurement challenges remain however. This section

of the questionnaire asks more in-depth questions in these areas. In addition, in light of the

conclusion from last year’s WPTGS, that a regular stocktaking should be conducted to

keep abreast of rapidly changing developments in measuring digital trade, several of the

questions have been repeated.

Q1. Have you in the past 1-2 years undertaken any special studies to estimate cross-border

ecommerce trade transactions, or are you planning to do so in the near future, for example

by linking Customs statistics to surveys on ICT and Ecommerce use by Enterprises, or by

exploring new data-sources such as MOSS (in Europe) or credit cards?

Responses: 34 countries

Comments: In general most countries, much like in 2018, haven’t undertaken any special

studies to estimate cross-border ecommerce transactions and are not planning to in the near

future. However, numerous (mostly European) countries, including – Austria, Belgium, the

Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania,

Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom – are already using MOSS and

or credit card data (often leveraging the Merchant Category Code [MCC] classification to

help with estimates) or plan to start using these data sources in the near future. However,

in most cases this is linked to improving estimates of international trade in services statistics

rather than aimed at capturing cross-border ecommerce transactions.

Countries that indicted where studies have been undertaken were:

Statistics Finland – Publication concentrating on GDP and digitalisation3

(unfortunately available only in Finnish);

Hungary – Forwarded a summary paper on MOSS to the OECD as a contribution

to the handbook on measuring digital trade;

3 https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/static/media/uploads/tup/kantilinpito/digitalisaatio_bkt.pdf

https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/static/media/uploads/tup/kantilinpito/digitalisaatio_bkt.pdf



Statistics Netherlands – A Data-Driven Supply-Side Approach for Measuring

Cross-Border Internet Purchases4; and

Statistics Norway – Households’ consumption via foreign internet outlets, using

credit and debit card data5 (unfortunately available only in Norwegian).

While the majority of countries indicated that studies are not planned or will not happen, it

didn’t mean that nothing is happening in this field of enquiry. In numerous cases, countries

outlined current developments that will impact directly on their ability to measure cross-

border ecommerce in the future, these included:

Argentina (INDEC) and Canada (Statistics Canada) who are in discussions with

their Customs authorities to analyse trade by postal and courier services.

Switzerland, where VAT legislation is being modified to align with the MOSS

principle (that VAT should be paid where the consumption takes place e.g. B2C

cross-border transactions), presenting new opportunities for compiling statistics on

cross-border ecommerce. And New Zealand where the national Tax Department

introduced a “Remote Services6” tax in 2016 which will be investigated as a

potential data source to estimate cross-border ecommerce transactions.

Chile, Ireland, Turkey and the United States where internal discussions (either

within or amongst national statistical institutions) are taking place on how best to

capture and undertake measurement of digital trade. For example, in the United

States, the Census Bureau and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have held

exploratory talks to discuss the conceptual issues involved in measuring cross-

border ecommerce sales. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) additionally has

explored the types of ecommerce that would be captured in its accounts and

identified companies that engage in ecommerce to gauge how well international

trade in services related to cross-border ecommerce is covered by its international

trade in services surveys. From this, the BEA is evaluating the feasibility of

modifying existing surveys to better identify the value of digitally-ordered sales by

foreign affiliates of US companies.

France and Latvia mentioned the upcoming revision of the ECB regulation on

balance of payments statistics that may bring more information on credit card

payments including on-line payments.

4 https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06930

5 https://www.ssb.no/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/artikler-og-

publikasjoner/husholdningenes-netthandel

6 https://www.ird.govt.nz/news-updates/like-to-know-supplying-remote-services.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06930

https://www.ssb.no/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/artikler-og-publikasjoner/husholdningenes-netthandel

https://www.ssb.no/nasjonalregnskap-og-konjunkturer/artikler-og-publikasjoner/husholdningenes-netthandel

https://www.ird.govt.nz/news-updates/like-to-know-supplying-remote-services.html



Customs authorities often specify a minimum value and/or a minimum amount of duties

and taxes below which no duties and/or taxes will be collected. The recent and ongoing

increase in cross-border digital trade may have led to an increase in the share of below-

the-threshold trade, and countries are reviewing their estimation methodologies. An

important new data source has emerged in many countries that may allow for estimates to

be improved: (simplified) electronic customs declarations that enterprises engaged in

ecommerce may use to facilitate customs clearance and trace packages across borders.

Q2. Have you already explored this data source for statistical purposes?

No: 25 countries

Yes: 7 countries

Comments: The overwhelming response to this question7 was that countries haven’t

explored this new source, for a number of reasons e.g. it hasn’t actually been introduced

into their country (but in some cases will in the near future, e.g. Russia), lack of resources

or lack of access, etc. However, both France and Hungary, who responded ‘No’, pointed

out that from the 1st of January 2021 the VAT ecommerce package adopted by the EU

Council in December 2017 will remove the current exemption from VAT for imports of

small consignments from outside the EU. It is expected that this will provide a new (if

somewhat limited) set of data that could be used for statistical purposes.

Argentina is in the process of implementing a Trade Single Window (ventanilla única de

comercio exterior, VUCE, by its Spanish initials), a simplified customs clearance procedure

for transactions on exports with a limited value and a limited weight. INDEC (the national

statistics office in Argentina) has started to investigate this new data source. Switzerland

noted that while they have such a system in their country, due to incompleteness the

statistics produced can’t be used in their international trade statistics. However, from 2019,

new VAT rules have been applied to foreign firms selling digitally ordered products in

Switzerland and they plan to analyse the consequence of these changes for the availability

of new data sources and the coverage for their international trade statistics.

Israel also noted changes, with their Customs authorities introducing a new system of

reporting for imports in 2018, allowing the location of some of the goods ordered via

Internet to be identified. It is expected that in the future the system will be able to locate

them all, and at this stage the Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel will be able to use this

information.

Greece (ELSTAT) is in collaboration with customs authorities to retrieve small value

transactions.

Statistics Netherlands appears most advanced, having undertaken two steps in this

exploration:

1. Many small sellers use large platforms (e.g. Amazon) as an intermediary. Some of

these large platforms (e.g., if situated within the EU) register such sales collectively

7 The Netherlands noted that the scientific literature nowadays refers to this as “the long tail of

electronic commerce”.



in their tax returns. For example, Statistics Netherlands has observed the sales

through Amazon to Dutch consumers.

2. Statistics Netherlands have recently acquired the simplified electronic customs

declarations on ecommerce shipments. The data contain both B2B and B2C

transactions, allowing a methodology to be developed that is able to split these two

streams from the data, with an accuracy of over 97%.

2.1.2. Digitally delivered transactions

Q3. Have you made any improvements in the last 1-2 years towards better measuring

cross-border transactions in digitally downloadable products?

Yes: 7 countries

No: 27 countries

Comments: Again, like question 2, the overwhelming response to this question was ‘No’.

Five countries (Austria, Estonia, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands) mentioned MOSS,

and their use of this source in answering this question, and in particular its ability to identify

services regarding telecommunication, radio and television and services (which are

provided digitally). Other sources mentioned were ICT and household surveys (Canada,

Finland, Switzerland), cross-border credit card payments (Czech Republic, Iceland,

Mexico, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden), improved sampling and methodology in international

trade in services surveys (Australia, Israel, New Zealand) and in the case of the BEA, the

instructions for the Survey of Transactions in Selected Services and Intellectual Property

have been modified to better clarify that transactions in digitally downloadable products

should be reported in the survey.

Countries like Chile, Ireland and the United Kingdom have cross-cutting groups looking

into the general issue of measuring cross-border digital trade which encompasses digitally

downloadable products.

Statistics Netherlands is firstly attempting to identify the population of companies engaged

in activities like cloud computing, online streaming, etc. using NACE classes which

probably contain a large share of the relevant companies. As a second step big data

techniques to select the relevant companies carrying out such activities are being tested,

using url8 data for companies in the business register text mining techniques are being

undertaken in order to identify companies engaged in the relevant activities. As an example,

using key words such as ‘online streaming’ and ‘cloud computing’. Finally, SBS survey

data is used to adjust the figures of large companies (which potentially have a lot of

‘secondary’ production).

In Argentina, in late 2018 a new tax was levied on digital services provided by non-

residents. This has resulted in estimates being incorporated into the balance of payments

(debits) for digital services provided by non-residents for the first time (these services refer

mainly to the household sector which is not captured in enterprise surveys). More work is

proceeding on improving the estimates (with ongoing work with credit cards data) to better

8 Uniform resource locater.



classify which foreign digital services enterprises are involved and therefore improve the

classification of the service itself.

Statistics Canada released the results of a digital economy survey in August 2018 (“Digital

economy”, July 2017 to June 2018, Statistics Canada Daily9). The study provided statistics

on digital products downloaded by Canadian residents but did not specifically isolate

expenses made on foreign products mainly because of the difficulty for consumers to

identify the origin of the products.

Q4. Have you made any attempts to develop such breakdowns in your international trade

in services statistics (e.g. for different EBOPS categories), potentially in work related to

estimating Mode 1 International Trade in Services which will be a good approximation of

such flows?

Yes: 8 countries

No: 25 countries

Comments: Again, like the previous two questions, only a few countries have been actively

involved in this type of work. Of those countries replying ‘Yes’:

Argentina has added a question on modes of supply to its enterprise survey;

Statistics Canada has added a model on ‘services remotely provided’ to its

international services questionnaire;

Israel has surveyed around 100 enterprises on modes of supply (1, 2, 4) and is

currently analysing the results;

Luxembourg is undertaking exploratory estimates using international trade in

services data; and

The United States (BEA) has added questions to its Survey of Transactions in

Selected Services and Intellectual Property to collect information on the share of

transactions provided via mode 1 for eleven separate services types. The services

types that were chosen are those for which they reasonably expect services to be

provided over a mix of modes. For each service type, respondents are asked to

check a box corresponding to the range within which the share of sales provided

remotely via email, telephone, etc. The survey was fielded in 2018 to collect data

for 2017 and BEA is still tabulating responses. BEA plans to use the information

to refine the mode shares to be used in the simplified approach and will publish the

results.

Of those countries that responded ‘No”, Lithuania and Russia are planning some work on

this in the future while a number of other countries noted its importance, but given current

resource levels, IT infrastructure requirements and other priorities it isn’t possible to

currently undertake any work.

9 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180829/dq180829b-eng.htm

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180829/dq180829b-eng.htm



2.1.3. Digital intermediaries

Last year’s stocktaking questionnaire indicated that imports facilitated by non-resident

digital intermediaries were difficult to (separately) identify, but that new data sources, such

as credit card data, were being explored.


payments made to non-resident digital intermediaries?

Yes: 4 countries

No: 30 countries

Comments: Of the four countries that answered ‘Yes’, all acknowledged that the

information is limited and it is still hard to distinguish these transactions by individual

ecommerce categories. Canada, one of the more advanced in this area, has undertaken some

work, and in 2018 launched a household survey on ‘Canadian Internet Use’. It is expected

that payments to intermediaries could be derived from the survey questions. Estonia and

Slovakia mentioned new sources (for example, additional questions in surveys, MOSS,

credit card data) but underlined gaps. The Netherlands mentioned their use of tax data, and

that a new project, starting in 2019/2020, will explore better measuring imports of services.

There were a lot of comments from the remaining 29 countries, and these can be grouped

as follows:

Possible data sources, e.g. credit cards, MOSS, tax, international trade in services

surveys, travel surveys, but not yet integrated into the statistical system –

Argentina, Austria, Australia, Finland, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Spain

and Turkey.

New sources coming available, for example adding questions/modules to existing

questionnaires. Switzerland is adding a gig economy module to their labour force

survey which will provide additional data.

Cross-sectional work happening either within the national statistics office or across

the national statistical system (NSS) – Chile, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

Changing statistics/tax laws. Norwegian authorities are currently looking into

drafting legislation requiring third-party tax reporting from non-resident digital

intermediaries. This data could serve as a starting point for analysing the size and

components of trade via digital intermediaries10. In New Zealand there is a proposal

to introduce a tax on payments made to non-resident digital intermediaries11. If

introduced, this could provide a potential data source to estimate these types of

payments.

Q6. Are you currently able to identify transactions involving non-resident digital

intermediary platforms, or do you have plans for pilot studies on this subject? Please

10 The drafting committee also specifically mentions Statistics Norway’s need for travel data from

intermediaries and suggests that the Statistics Act should be amended accordingly.

11 http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/news/2018-10-18-proposed-new-rules-gst-low-value-imported-

goods-announced

http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/news/2018-10-18-proposed-new-rules-gst-low-value-imported-goods-announced

http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/news/2018-10-18-proposed-new-rules-gst-low-value-imported-goods-announced



discuss exports, imports, as well as domestic transactions facilitated by non-resident

digital intermediary platforms, including major constraints in measuring these

transactions (e.g., unsupportive legislation, inadequate source data, inadequate

classifications, etc.)?

33 responses

Comments: While there were a lot of responses to this question, and building on previous

answers, most countries outlined that it isn’t currently possible to identify these transactions

and that this situation isn’t going to change in the near future. However, a few countries

raised new questions and provided new insights.

For those that have investigated credit card data (e.g. Argentina), it is noticeable that while

it allows for the possible identification of non-resident digital intermediary platforms, there

are difficulties in assigning the transactions to the correct international service category as

well as differentiating fees from goods or services purchased. Norway suggested that if

digital intermediaries were a separate merchant classification code (MCC), then their

transactions could be identified in credit card data. These data would, however, include

both domestic transactions and imports, and both the intermediation fee and the charge for

the service itself.

Australia pointed out that questions remain around where these transactions should be

captured i.e. through household spending surveys or through international trade collections.

In addition business structures have been set-up in such a way that does not easily facilitate

the capture of the international trade transactions i.e. a business sets-up an Australian

branch and thus transactions between that Australian branch and Australian residents are

not international transactions (mode 3).

Austria (and Spain) raised the issue that a major obstacle in integrating these figures

(services from non-resident digital intermediary platforms) into the balance of payments is

the fact that the operators cannot legally be made to report (as they are not resident in the

economy). They suggested that an international approach is needed (which for example

could involve the sharing of data), this will need input from international bodies such as

the OECD.

The Netherlands pointed out that for B2C trade of goods, if both the business and consumer

are in the EU, and if the platform (e.g. Amazon) has a total turnover of EUR 100,000 (EUR

35,000 in some member states) from all the customers in one member state, then that

member state will be able to identify the total value of transactions involving this digital

intermediary platform. Statistics Netherlands, for Airbnb-related transactions applies a

model in order to estimate exports, using information on supply, occupancy rate, price

information and residence of tourists.

Norway put forward a third possible source for data on digital intermediaries – settlements

data. However, a problem could be that the foreign counterpart in each transaction may be

registered as the intermediary but also some other enterprise which handles the payments

on its behalf.

Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States

all have some work ongoing in identifying transactions involving non-resident digital

intermediary platforms. For example, the United States is beginning to explore the

feasibility of collecting information on the value of platform-enabled sales by foreign

affiliates of US companies, Statistics New Zealand can identify some transactions



involving non-resident digital intermediary platforms if they have a resident branch, and

Hungary is looking into web-shops.

2.1.4. General Questions

Q7. Have you recently conducted any (other) studies quantifying the impact of

digitalisation on international trade, or in related aspects such as the (cross-border)

sharing economy? If yes, please briefly describe and provide links to the studies if

available.

29 responses

Comments: Most countries that had undertaken studies on digitalisation had already

mentioned these in previous questions, and therefore they referred to their earlier response

Statistics Canada undertook a study on the sharing economy – ‘The sharing economy in

Canada12’ – in 2017, but it was not specifically trying to estimate cross-border activities.

Bank of Italy stated that they are able to identify, within their tourism expenditures survey,

if the various travel services have been digitally ordered. In addition, ISTAT enlarged the

section on digitalisation in the 2018 questionnaire of the new multipurpose survey on

enterprises, with some questions on the use of digital platforms by Italian firms.

In Mexico, INEGI has just published a first approach estimate of the Gross Value Added

of Electronic Commerce and its share on Gross Domestic Product. However, this is for the

whole economy and cannot be separated for the external or domestic sectors.

Statistics Netherlands has two projects in progress, one on exports (2018/2019) and one on

imports (2019/2020). The scope of these projects includes a number of ‘digitised’ products,

including: digital intermediation in dwelling and hotel services (e.g. Airbnb,

Booking.com); digital intermediation in travel (both taxi and not taxi services); and exports

of database services and goods via ecommerce as a sales channel.

12 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170228/dq170228b-eng.htm

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170228/dq170228b-eng.htm



2.2. Balance of Payments Indicators Relevant for the Analysis of Global Value

Chains

2.2.1. Encouraged balance of payments statistics on trade in goods

For Trade in Goods, the IMF/OECD BOPCOM Working Group identified three

recommended sets of information, to allow for a better alignment by International

Organisations of the detailed merchandise trade statistics with National Accounts total

values (please refer to Section A (pages 16-18) of the BOPCOM-18/04 paper for further

explanations).

First, transactions involving re-exports and the goods acquired/sold under merchanting,

for their total values but, especially, further breakdowns by product and/or partner.

Second, the reconciliation table between merchandise trade statistics and balance of

payments trade in goods statistics, along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2 would be very useful

information to make publicly available, focusing in particular on the changes with the

largest effects, and including, where possible, the main products and/or partner countries

involved.

Third, and as an alternative to the above, a breakdown of the total trade in goods account

by (the most important) products and/or trading partners would also be helpful to improve

the alignment of merchandise trade statistics to national accounts in the creation of

international accounting frameworks.

Q9a. Re-exports. Do you already have, or would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year

timeframe, information on the total value of re-exports in your balance of payments

statistics?

Yes, it is already available and published: 2 countries

Yes, but it is not published: 7 countries

No, but it would be feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe: 12 countries

No, and it is not feasible: 13 countries

Comments: Overwhelmingly the answer to this question (and question 9b) was ‘No’.

Of those countries 9 responding ‘Yes’, most stated that there would still be issues in

supplying re-exports in their balance of payments statistics. Australia, Canada, Hungary,

New Zealand Russia and the United States for example stated that re-exports are available

for international merchandise trade statistics but not for balance of payments and this isn’t

going to change.

Of the remaining 24 countries that responded ‘No’, half considered it feasible. Argentina,

Finland and Israel are working with their Custom authorities to further this work. France

considered that the nature of transaction codes (codes used by EU Custom authorities)

could help here. And the United Kingdom is collaborating with a number of government

departments to measure the ‘Rotterdam Effect’, which has direct application to this

question.



Q9b. Re-exports. Do you already have, or would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year

timeframe, information on the value of re-exports identifying at least the 5 main products

and/or trading partners involved in your balance of payments statistics?





Comments: A number of countries repeated their response to question 9a here.

Hungary and Spain pointed out that these types of estimates are undertaken in the input-

output framework of their national accounts and as such they already have some

information. However, the information is limited, not balance of payments focused, and

will not be published or made available.

Canada noted that some of this data is available given the special trading arrangement they

have with the United States (exports=imports), however it is limited both in product

coverage and in terms of total re-exports.

Spain suggested that breaking down the data as requested here, could lead, very quickly in

some cases, to confidentiality issues.

Q10a. Goods acquired/sold under merchanting. If applicable (i.e., if your country hosts

merchants involved in international transactions), do you already have, or would it be

feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, information on the total gross values of

goods acquired/sold under merchanting in your balance of payments statistics?





Comments: There was a more positive response to this question compared with questions

9a&b regarding re-exports. It should be noted that the OECD Quarterly Balance of

Payments online dataset13 contains this data for 21 OECD countries and 4 non-member

countries.

In total, 18 countries stated that these data are already published in their balance of

payments, and Israel and Switzerland for example provided links to the tables where the

data can be found, with a further 8 countries stating they have this data but don’t publish it

as yet.

Spain (who have the data but don’t publish it) again raised the issue of confidentiality given

the high concentration in some businesses and Israel stated that they will start publishing

this data in the near future.

13 https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MEI_BOP6

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MEI_BOP6



Canada has a project underway (a new survey on globalisation) which explicitly aims to

collect this data, however they are unsure as to when they will be able to start disseminating

merchanting data (as the evaluation stage hasn’t started as yet). The BEA is in a similar

situation with these gross values being collected in their international trade in services

surveys but further evaluation is needed before they could consider dissemination.

Q10b. Goods acquired/sold under merchanting. If applicable, do you already have, or

would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, information on the value of

Goods acquired/sold under merchanting, identifying at least the 5 main products and/or

trading partners involved in your balance of payments statistics?

Yes, it is already available and published: 1 country




Comments: The response to this question (10b) was not positive compared with 9a, with

over 40% of countries stating that they don’t have these statistics and it isn’t feasible. And

of the remaining, most stated they couldn’t provide a product breakdown.

Of the countries that answered ‘Yes’, the majority stated that they don’t compile (or even

collect in some cases) a product breakdown, and that this is unlikely to change (this

situation with a product breakdown was also reinforced by a large number of countries that

answered ‘No’ to the question). Of other concerns, Israel thought that this would increase

respondent burden while Spain again mentioned confidentiality consequences (Ireland,

Russia and the United States also highlighted this problem).

Switzerland is working on compiling this breakdown and hope to publish quarterly data in

2019, and Statistics Canada again mentioned their new survey on globalisation, which

could result in their ability to disseminate such statistics.

As stated above, the majority of countries that answered “No, and it is not feasible” did so

because of their inability to compile a product breakdown.

Q11a. Reconciliation table along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2. Do you already have, or

would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, a reconciliation table along the

lines of BPM6 table 10.2 (containing adjustments from international merchandise trade

statistics to the balance of payments concept for Goods), in particular involving

information on a) the goods involved in processing transactions; and b) the CIF-FOB

adjustment?







Comments: Switzerland have such a table,14 which was published in the context of the

implementation of ESA 2010 and BPM6 and is available on the websites of both the Swiss

customs administration and the Swiss NSI. It was intended to explain the conceptual

differences between international merchandise trade statistics (IMTS) and balance of

payments data using a numerical example with data from 2012 but has not been updated.

The Central Statistics Office of Ireland has also published an information note that includes

such a table15, explaining the adjustments made to IMTS data to get to balance of payments

data. On a quarterly basis this information is made available in the notes to the balance of

payments release. Israel makes this information available in their quarterly balance of

payments release.

France, Hungary and Spain mentioned that a reconciliation table, designed for the balance

of payments Eurostat quality report programme, includes these adjustments (but this is not

publically available).

The BEA publishes a quarterly reconciliation table16 similar to table 10.2, as part of its

balance of payments metadata (table 2.4). Due to source data limitations, goods involved

in processing transactions cannot currently be identified and therefore BEA does not

currently make adjustments for them. Also, a CIF-FOB adjustment is not included because

the US merchandise imports are valued on a customs basis, not a CIF basis (though CIF

values are also available). The adjustments that are delineated in table 2.4 include

adjustments for goods procured in US ports by foreign carriers, net exports of goods under

merchanting, repair of equipment, etc.

Other issues raised were: confidentiality (New Zealand); that many of these elements

already exist in the data (Australia, Finland); and import data is available in FOB (Canada,

Iceland).

Q11b. Reconciliation table along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2. Do you already have, or


lines of BPM6 table 10.2, including a breakdown by the most important products and/or

trading partners involved for the largest adjustments, particularly involving: a)

transactions of goods involved in manufacturing services transactions; and on b) the CIF-

FOB adjustment?





Comments: It was clear from the answers to this question that such a table is beyond the

reach of most countries.

14 https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/economie-

nationale/enquetes/vgr.assetdetail.1283511.html

15 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/in/geid/explaininggoodsexportsandimports2012-

2016/

16 https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&tablelist=48&product=1

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/economie-nationale/enquetes/vgr.assetdetail.1283511.html

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/statistiques/economie-nationale/enquetes/vgr.assetdetail.1283511.html

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/in/geid/explaininggoodsexportsandimports2012-2016/

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/in/geid/explaininggoodsexportsandimports2012-2016/

https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=62&step=6&isuri=1&tablelist=48&product=1



While Ireland and the Netherlands were the only countries to answer ‘Yes’, both outlined

that they don’t provide all the requirements (Ireland only provides an intra and extra EU

split for the transactions, and the CIF-FOB adjustment isn’t available in the case of the

Netherlands).

A number of the same problems outlined in previous questions were also raised here,

namely: confidentiality (especially given the small number of enterprises involved in these

activities in some countries); impossibility of compiling product data; need for changes to

surveys, collection process and IT infrastructure; development priorities; and increased

response burden.

Spain raised a new issue, namely that illegal activities are not currently defined with a

detailed product or country breakdown which would hinder compilation.

Q12. Total Trade in Goods (debit and credit). Do you already have, or would it be feasible

to develop within a 2-year timeframe, Balance of Payments Trade in Goods statistics with

a meaningful (i.e. non-proportional) breakdown by main products and/or trading partner?





Comments: Many countries stated that they already provide a geographical breakdown for

the balance of payments Goods component (but not a product breakdown).

The BEA publishes this data for 42 trading partners and for approximately 150 detailed

product categories on both exports and imports and they are exploring options for

publishing more detail by trading partner. Canada expects to start publishing this data in

the next two years.

The same issues raised in questions 10 and 11 surfaced here regarding the inability of

countries to break the balance of payments Goods component down by product.

2.2.2. Encouraged balance of payments statistics on International trade in

services

For International Trade in Services, the IMF/OECD BOPCOM Working Group identified

two recommended sets of information, to allow for a better alignment by International

Organisations of the detailed international trade in services statistics with National

Accounts total values (please refer to Section A (pages 19-21) of the BOPCOM-18/04

paper for further explanations).

The first involves a geographical breakdown of trade in services statistics, starting with

the 12 main EBOPS categories (and total services trade) and prioritising breakdowns for

more detailed services category as per their relevance and importance in a country’s

international trade.

The second involves the supplementary breakdown of those services items that also include

goods (notably travel), in order to allow for an improved alignment (and rerouting) of the



trade flows involved to match National Accounts classifications. This questionnaire covers

travel only, as a starting point.

Q13. Geographical breakdown of EBOPS categories: Do you already have, or would it be

feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, the values of trade in services by the 12

EBOPS categories (as applicable), including a regional breakdown for the most relevant

products?





Comments: Unfortunately there was some confusion in regards to this question and the use

of the word ‘regional’, leading some countries to answer in regards to their publishing of

international trade in services data broken down by national regions. This, combined with

the reference to EBOPS, meant most countries didn’t understand that the question was in

fact asking if countries could break their international trade in services data down by

product classification (e.g. CPA or CPC).

Of the countries that referenced a product breakdown, the Netherlands stated that national

accounts publishes ‘some’ of this data, as did Spain who said that this data is estimated in

the national accounts input-output framework. In addition, Slovakia stated that

international trade in services data isn’t available by product.

Q14. Supplementary breakdown of the Travel item. Do you already have, or would it be

feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, Balance of Payments Travel item broken

down according to the supplementary classification proposed in BPM6, which identifies

the goods and services (local transport services, accommodation, etc.) purchased/sold?





Comments: Overwhelmingly the response to the question was negative.

Only the Netherlands and Norway17 stated that they publish this data, and for the

Netherlands it is only for debits (imports of Travel) and with a limited breakdown.

Argentina are currently working on compiling a supplementary Travel breakdown,

Statistics Canada suggest that they could provide the breakdown but not at the geographical

level and Switzerland will investigate if such a breakdown is possible in a project due to

start in 2020 (there is some policy debate in the country about ‘shopping tourism’ which

such a breakdown could answer).

17 https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/10638/

https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/10638/



Australia are concerned that given the level of detail, the quality of the data may not be

robust, and a number of countries flag data issues including not owning some of the travel

data sources and asymmetrical data collections.



2.3. Use of Invoice Values for the Recording of Trade in Goods Transactions and

Related Freight Transactions in the Balance of Payments

In 2018, the WPTGS noted the general support among its members to thoroughly review

and consider a proposal by Germany (and the Netherlands) to use invoice values as a

principle of recording trade transactions in the balance of payments, including its potential

contribution to reducing asymmetries, particularly for goods and transport services (see

SDD/CSSP/WPTGS(2018)8). Some of the potential advantages of this proposal are: (i) a

reduced need for estimations (and hence asymmetries), notably where good quality source

data (company records) are available; (ii) improved coherence between the valuation of

‘regular’ international trade in goods transactions and those associated with processing

or merchanting; and (iii) an improved alignment with the valuation used for the domestic

transport of goods and the related transport flows (as described in the 2008 SNA). At the

same time, there are methodological implications to consider, including in relation to: (i)

a mixed composition of goods (merchandise) and services (freight, insurance) in the values

of imports/exports due to the lack of a uniform price valuation of exports/imports, thus

redefining the borders between goods and services; and, (ii) impracticability due to

potential unavailability of invoice values, hence asymmetric recordings of imports/exports

(company vs. customs records).

Considering the potential implications, we would like to gauge your views on the merits of

this proposal.

Q15. What are your initial views about this proposal? Please state your pro-/con-

arguments to this proposal, considering potential practical advantages, but also

conceptual, source data and compilation implications.

33 responses

Comments: There were extensive country comments provided to this question, and for the

sake of fullness, these are provided, by country, verbatim below (with in some cases minor

formatting changes).

Overall, there are three camps in regards to views/responses to this question, which, as

many countries stated, would reflect a major shift in the compilation methodology for

balance of payments. The first group are against, providing a long list of reasons why this

wouldn’t or couldn’t work in their country; the second group (mostly European countries)

are for the proposal but acknowledge there is a lot of work needed to take it forward; and

the third group are a little uneasy at the proposal but think that investigations should be

undertaken.

Not for the proposal:

There are questions as to how bilateral trade asymmetries will be reduced if countries start

collecting data via business surveys, with the usual issues around sample sizes and

stratification, enterprise coverage and survey methodology being different in each country.

International trade in services surveys are a good example here of the possible issues to be

faced. Doing so could lead to a reduction in “the coherence of the infrastructure of statistical

information” with merchandise trade and freight macroeconomic figures measuring

different concepts. In other words, the proposal could end up just swapping one type of

bilateral trade asymmetry with another.



In relation to asymmetries, a number of countries queried whether the proposal would

actually reduce asymmetries and how much does the CIF-FOB adjustment contribute to

current asymmetries (for example, is there any evidence that this is a major reason why

there are asymmetries?). Additionally, there was a feeling that the document didn’t prove

that asymmetries would be reduced.

Some countries raised the issue that there would be a major differences between IMTS and

balance of payments data creating difficulties in explaining these to users, who already

have difficulties understanding the current differences between these statistics. Differences

would also arise at the micro-level, where invoice and customs values may diverge

dramatically, as when a firm receives a replacement part still under warranty from a

supplier at a zero invoice cost but the part still has a very high customs value.

There was a view that this seems to be more of an EU problem created by the free

movement of goods. Many non EU countries didn’t see this as issue, and in many cases

have strong Customs authorities that provide high quality international trade data.

There would be serious resource implications for statistical institutes in moving to

collecting invoice values, both in regards to international trade in services surveys and

obtaining trade invoice data either via customs or business surveys. In addition, this could

lead to a major break in series for balance of payments data, with a lack of consistency

between new and old data.

Spain highlighted that on practical grounds, invoice values for Extrastat exports are not

available. Italy added to this, stating that as far as goods are concerned invoice values are

available only for export flows in Intrastat data (where statistical data collection is currently

jointly performed with VIES data) but not for imports. For Extrastat, in Italy, Customs

provides invoice values only at aggregate product level, i.e. not at commodity breakdown.

Many countries stated that they wouldn’t be able to have good access to company records,

there could be additional legal constraints, and the cost to survey, for example, all transport

companies, would outweigh the possible benefit. Statistics Canada outlined it as: For both

goods and services, the invoice values will be in theory a better way to estimate these

transactions. However, due to the large amounts of transactions involved and the

availability of a replacement source providing a good proxy for such transactions, it does

not seem a good alternative to modify the way we compile trade.

Respondent burden was additionally raised as part of this concern, as was the issue that

enterprises don’t have a standard invoice format.

Italy outlined this issue as follows: In detail, one would need to know sales of domestic

carriers to foreign counterparts, with a breakdown by their country of residence. This could

be attained by a sample survey, as it is already done by several countries, which however

would not solve the problem of large bilateral asymmetries. Instead, as for manufacturers,

one would need to know how much they paid to foreign carriers for transporting goods

to/from abroad, with a breakdown by country of residence (of the carrier). Again, this could

be attained by a sample survey, probably much more expensive than the survey on carriers,

due to the large size of manufacturers, and again with potentially large bilateral

asymmetries.

Spain stated that the proposal doesn’t cover the associated insurance (services and

transfers) and therefore which would be the method to ensure internal consistency?



For the proposal:

Austria noted that the proposal follows the change in ownership principle as well as the use

of market values; will result in harmonised information with exporters and importers; will

provide data in almost real-time; and will allow the separation of transport costs. However,

they also noted that the residence of company receiving the invoice may not be the

residence of the company receiving goods; and that the classification of the goods is

missing.

Belgium stated that they already collect the data and are favourable to the proposal.

Estonia supported the proposal given that they already have the invoice values available in

both their customs and Intrastat/Extrastat statistics. They noted (as did Finland) that the

approach eliminates the need to model CIF/FOB adjustments (which as country models are

different across countries may cause asymmetries). They also noted that a disadvantage is

a possible mixed composition of goods and services.

While Ireland supported this proposal, it noted that its support rested on the need that the

transition to invoice values be applied to international merchandise trade statistics as well.

Netherlands also stated that it shouldn’t lead to the same statistic being captured twice. For

example, measuring balance of payments Goods and IMTS on different concepts would

just lead to replacing one asymmetry with another. Having enterprises report just one value

could in fact reduce respondent burden, and it is clear that invoice values more closely

reflect economic reality (in most cases).

Investigate further:

Spain thought that this proposal should be discussed in the National Accounts groups (for

example the NAWG), since it affects the whole system of accounts. They have concerns in

particular, about the impact on the compilation of SUTs, since they reflect products

supplied at purchasers’ prices and imports need to be valued at CIF prices. Another EU

issue which was highlighted was FRIBS18, which looks to differentiate the business and

macroeconomic dimension of trade and which could be capitalised on. For example, some

items e.g. goods acquired and sold under merchanting, could be considered a business item

and directly obtained from them. Switzerland stated that given the contribution of

merchanting to exports, they are already have significant “market price” values in total

exports, and they are now investigating goods for processing.

Hungary outlined that the proposal highlights that there is some tension between the

concepts of the valuation at market prices, recording change of ownership and the

separation between goods and services in the current manuals. A question may be whether

users are interested in separate goods and services data for balance of payments (Italy raised

this question as well) and whether the update to BPM6 needs to look into this. Ultimately

there may be a trade-off between lower asymmetries and methodologically more

homogeneous goods and services data. A question asked by Norway relates to serving trade

negotiators in regards to international trade in services data, which requires not mixing

goods and services.

18 Referring to the EC regulation “Framework regulation integrating business statistics”.



Japan pointed out that there are issues with the current system, and while moving to an

invoice system would not solve all the issues, it would provide compilers with an additional

choice.

Luxembourg would need to consult with users to have a clearer understanding of the topic,

but noted that it already uses invoice values to help with estimates for some services (e.g.

manufacturing services).

Full country comments:

Argentina: We are against the proposal. Goods and services should appear separately in the

balance of payments because of their different nature. Furthermore, the use of invoice

values will generate great bilateral discrepancies because countries won’t have the same

data sources. This proposal must have arisen from the lack of intra-EU customs

information, but most of the rest of the world doesn’t have this problem. For Argentina the

use of invoice values is not feasible because of the unavailability of data (our foreign trade

source is the customs data).

Australia: From a services data perspective, invoice information isn’t readily available in

Australia and would likely require the design of surveys in order to capture this data, which

would be very similar to the information currently captured in the Survey of International

Trade in Services regarding international receipts and payments of different service types.

From a Goods data perspective, invoice information would be of a poorer quality than

current import and export transaction level data. Australia Customs data requirements are

quite strict and under current legal arrangements allow the ABS to provide a ‘census’ of

goods imports and exports flows.

Austria:

Pro – Follows the change in ownership principle as well as the use of market values;

harmonised information with exporters and importers; almost real-time available;

transport-fee may be stated separately, other services delivered together with the

good may be stated.

Con – Residence of company receiving invoice may not be residence of company

receiving goods; classification of goods missing.

Belgium: Favourable. Data is already collected.

Canada: For merchandise trade, from the Canadian experiences, recording or publishing

imports by country of consignment rather than by country of origin will probably have a

larger impact on the reduction of trade asymmetry than the problem related to the difference

in the evaluation of the trade. It is true that invoices will be essential to properly estimate

merchanting and processing activities but, from the Canadian point of view, it does not

look possible to use company records instead of Customs records to estimate the majority

of the trade in goods.

Regarding transport, the use of invoices would certainly reduce asymmetry since compilers

have often to make estimates for this components. But, again, the extra work needed by

exporting and importing entities will be too large for the advantage it could provide. In

Canada, transport services are compiled by surveying a small number of Canadian and

foreign transport enterprises completed with models and other forms of estimates. The fact

that importers are responsible for all transport cost beyond the borders of the exporting

country simplifies part of the data collection regardless of whom is really paying for the

transport. For both goods and services, the invoice values will be in theory a better way to



estimate these transactions. However, due to the large amounts of transactions involved

and the availability of a replacement source providing a good proxy for such transactions,

it does not seem a good alternative to modify the way we compile trade.

China: It is worth trying to work on statistics of trade by invoice values, since it can reflect

the value of the goods or services themselves, and they are basis of Customs evaluation.

The problem is the feasibility since it is not practical to collect all the invoices of each batch

of goods cross the border, not to mention the invoices are not digitalised.

Czech Republic: We are not sure, how much the goods statistics based on invoice values

fits with the accrual principle. We think the problem with appropriate split of invoice

components between goods and services will persist. In case of reducing asymmetries the

invoice approach might be more transparent.

Estonia: We support this proposal. For trade transactions, invoice value is available both in

custom statistics (Extrastat) as well as in Intrastat reports. This approach eliminates the

need to model CIF-FOB adjustments. Models are different in all countries and cause lots

of asymmetries in transport services’ account. The main disadvantage is a possible mixed

composition of goods and services but in our estimation the share of services in the total of

invoice value is insignificant.

Finland: Our initial view is that it would be a positive change. Measuring CIF and FOB

values is challenging and this change would make measuring more straightforward.

France: There is no clear advantage for using invoice values instead of the statistical data.

In practical terms, collection of invoice values may be burdensome for both statisticians

and reporters.

Greece: There are great difficulties, by balance of payments compilers, to access invoice

data of companies. Legal constrains and additional burden to the reporting companies

should be considered.

Hungary: This proposal highlights that there is some tension between the concepts of the

valuation at market prices, recording change of ownerships and the separation between

goods and services in these manuals. Firstly, the valuation at market prices allows the

partitioning or, in other words, the separation a single transaction into different parts if it is

justified. Secondly, the concept of the change of (economic) ownership, however, may be

in line with the recording based on invoice values which allows the inclusion of goods and

services in a single transaction. Lastly, as regards the border between goods and services,

there is no exact conceptual definition of the content of “goods” (i.e. what is included in

“goods”: just the physical products or some, and if yes, how much, services which are

needed to bring these physical products to “life”). This means that recent frameworks of

balance of payments and national accounts bear these uncertainties in themselves and

possibly they will also bear them in the future since these tensions seem to arise by

definition. Conceptually it cannot be decided whether which valuation is in better

accordance with recent manuals. It may depend upon other considerations.

One of them may be whether users are interested in separate goods and services data of

balance of payments, i.e. whether it is worth making efforts to separate more clearly goods

from services in BPM7 (the SNA may be irrelevant from this perspective, it has no

important role in this field). If yes, then it should be taken in account that the invoice based

valuation of goods means changing valuation point instead of the recent fix one. It may

result that time series of goods will include a component which is mainly independent of

the underlying real processes: changes in delivery terms. It may be a question whether it



matters for a specific country or not. Nevertheless, we should face the trade-off between

lower asymmetries and methodologically more homogeneous goods and services data. It

raises again the question of data sources and quality which can help reduce this trade-off -

methodology, it seems, cannot help it in itself.

Iceland: We have not formed an opinion yet, as we have the luxury of having FOB values

from the customs data.

Ireland:

Pros:

1. We support this proposal but think that it will be worthwhile only if the transition

to invoice value applies also to International Trade, which is the source for BOP

Trade. Our reason for this position is that if BOP moves to invoice value and Trade

stays with CIF and FOB then there remain the same problems that we have always

had. In particular the CIF to FOB adjustment will be replaced by another

adjustment.

2. There is currently a structural asymmetry in recording in the International Trade

data where the exporter values the data FOB and the importer at CIF.

3. The invoice value is closest to the economic reality, with freight and insurance

recorded in the accounts of the purchaser of these services (whether it be the

exporter or the importer).

4. Instructions to reporting companies are clear and burden is reduced if we ask them

to report invoice value.

Cons:

5. For this change in to be successful we think that it needs to be applied to

International Trade also (this is the same as point 1).

6. Currently the data at invoice value is not compiled in the CSO. There may need to

be a number of changes to how data are collected and processed. Reporting entities

may need to include further detail; the customs authorities and the CSO will need

to process further detail. All these changes may take time to implement into the IT

systems in place in a very demanding business area.

Israel: At the conceptual level we partially agree with your assumption. We also think that

using invoice values as a principle of recording trade transactions in the balance of

payments, may possibly reduce asymmetries and also may improve coherence between the

valuation of ‘regular’ international trade in goods transactions and those associated with

processing or merchanting,

Others considerations:

1. Practical issues- sources data is a real challenge and might cause even more serious

coherence problems that the actual situation.

2. Understanding the data for users- it is already "complicated" for users to distinguish

and understand the differences between values of goods from Trade Statistics and

from BOP but at least the values are identical, with some adjustments. Using

invoice values inside Trade Statistics as a basis to goods trade may create even

greater gaps.



3. Coherence problems by measuring goods and measuring transport services for

CIF/FOB adjustment.

4. In practice, in our mind, this sort of recording is partially possible, only in areas

where there are only few companies. Possible problems- delay in reporting, burden

of restitution, compilation difficulties because of missing data or errors data.

Italy: In Italy, Istat is responsible for the production of data on trade in goods while Bank

of Italy provides data on trade in transport services. As far as goods are concerned: we

agree that using invoice value can reduce asymmetries, but at present, this information is

available only for export flows in Intrastat data (where statistical data collection is currently

jointly performed with VIES data) but not for imports. For Extrastat, Customs provides

invoice value only at aggregate SAD level, i.e. not at commodity breakdown.

The recording of transport services would require, from the viewpoint of the statistician

that additional information collected both from domestic transport-providers (carriers) and

from domestic manufacturers. In detail, one would need to know sales of domestic carriers

to foreign counterparts, with a breakdown by their country of residence. This could be

attained by a sample survey, as it is already done by several countries, which however

would not solve the problem of large bilateral asymmetries. Instead, as for manufacturers,

one would need to know how much they paid to foreign carriers for transporting goods

to/from abroad, with a breakdown by country of residence (of the carrier). Again, this could

be attained by a sample survey, probably much more expensive than the survey on carriers,

due to the large size of manufacturers, and again with potentially large bilateral

asymmetries. Alternatively, Intrastat and Extrastat questionnaires should be enlarged to

include the information about transport cost and the carrier’s country of residence. This is

not however in line with the aim of reducing the statistical burden on respondents.

From the point of view of users, both the time series for goods and for merchandise

transport would witness a structural breakdown. Furthermore, the time series for

merchandise transport would fluctuate from one period to the other with the distribution of

delivery terms. For instance, an import CIF in year t that becomes an import FOB of the

same amount in year t+1 induces a change in the time series for merchandise transport

between t and t+1, all else equal. The risk is that the time series for merchandise transport

is left with little informative content. This being the case, the question arises whether it

would be better, at this point, to discard the distinction between goods and merchandise

transport, collapsing them into a single aggregate.

Japan: In the present situation, each country adjusts the IMTS from CIF to FOB based on

limited information. So, it is indicated that limited data source and different estimation

methods among the countries may be one of the backgrounds of the bilateral asymmetries.

So we understand that proposed method using invoice values for the recording of trade in

goods transactions and related freight transactions is one of the choices. However, from the

perspective of reporting burden, some countries may have difficulty in obtaining invoice

value data for Merchandise Trade Statistics and Balance of Payments Statistics.

Also, when we use the recording method using invoice values, composition of trade in

goods transactions and related freight transactions mixes depending on contracts for

transactions. Thus, we think we should admit current recording methods continuously and

consider adding the method of using invoice values as a new choice.

Latvia: The proposal is not feasible because it will increase burden of respondents.



Lithuania: We think that such proposal might decrease asymmetries between countries, but

this document does not prove that. Therefore, a coherent approach and methodology to

establish the value of such flows must be developed first. Further discussion about this

proposal is needed.

Luxembourg: In order to have a clear view on the topic, we would need to consult all

compilers at the national level which use IMTS data. For the moment, statistical value

deviates from invoice value, and the latter is already used in the estimation of repair,

maintenance and manufacturing services (for companies which are not in the services

survey).

Mexico: Mexico’s merchandise trade data, in general, use the value stated in the invoice.

This has the advantage of reducing the need for estimations.

Netherlands: We are very much in favour of this proposal. A caveat is that one should not

engage in measuring the same phenomenon twice, in particular separately for NA and the

source statistics for international statistics, especially if this entails increasing the

administrative burden, which in addition would lead to (hard to explain) differences.

New Zealand: Given New Zealand can only be accessed by sea and air, we don’t have the

coverage issues that would be present having road and rail connections. That being said,

we are keen to understand how company accounts data could complement customs records.

Norway: We accept the potential advantages mentioned if the main objective is consistency

within BOP/NA. However, if the main objective is to serve the needs of the trade

negotiators for data on the international trade in services data, i.e. not mixing goods and

services, the current treatment is preferred. This seems to be the main question to be

answered.

Russia: The proposed approach will lead to numerous inconsistencies between data

produced in different countries, thus moving away from existing uniformity of

methodologies. This will make statistics from different countries incomparable thus

depreciating existing efforts to heighten the quality of “mirror statistics”.

Slovakia: We use INTRASTAT and EXTRASTAT systems for compiling the BOP goods

items. This data is available from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic on FOB

basis, so there is no need to make any adjustments for BOP purposes. But CIF value is also

available. For invoice value, we agree with above mentioned proposal, to reduce

asymmetries and to get a new perspective to the whole area of the foreign trade (both goods

and services).

Spain: We agree that CIF-FOB adjustments are an important reason for asymmetries and

that on practical grounds the proposal seems to simplify to a large extent compilation.

Some balance of payments specific comments:

1. We have serious concerns regarding the coherence of the infrastructure of statistical

information.

a. Merchandise and freight macroeconomic figures would be measuring different

risks and costs depending on the terms of delivery.

b. The proposal does not cover the associated insurance (services and transfers),

which would be the method to ensure internal consistency?



c. The differences between BOP/NA accounting framework and the related

primary statistics should be clear for users: the first should reflect the

macroeconomic dimension of trade, the second the business dimension.

2. Regarding the coherence between BOP/NA accounting framework and the related

primary statistics, in our view, we should take advantage of the opportunity that

FRIBS brings for:

a. Differentiating business and macroeconomic dimensions of trade -

i. Invoice values for transportation could be covered by FRIBS. According to

the current FRIBS proposal, ITSS business statistics definitions for certain

categories differ from the ones under ITSS BOP/NA macroeconomic

statistics. This is the case for freights transportation, valuated according to

invoice values and not including any adjustment. Once this is implemented

we will have directly comparable data at the business statistics level.

Definitions also differ for insurance, financial and personal services

(excluding any macroeconomic estimation).

ii. In Spain, international trade in services business statistics (run by the NSO

and main information source for the estimation of international trade in

services in BOP/NA framework) measure freight according to invoice

values (in accordance with the nature of the statistic).

iii. Also in accordance with the nature of the statistic, in ITSS business in

Spain:

iv. Travel is not included; Financial services do not include FISIM; Insurance

and pension cover premiums and claims, do not include estimations;

Personal, cultural and recreational services do not include illegal activities

estimates; Government goods and services n.i.e. do not include tax

collection revenues.

v. Concerning goods, the proposal of valuing BOP/NA goods according to

invoice values whereas IMTS statistics are valued according to CIF for the

imports and FOB for the exports (including therefore adjustments and not

directly obtained from business) seems not to be consistent with the nature

of the statistics. Maybe the convenience of changing valuation in IMTS

should be considered by experts in IMTS statistics.

b. Including BOP/NA information needs not currently covered and that can be

directly obtained from business include:

i. goods acquired and sold under merchanting

ii. other merchandise not crossing the borders

3. Even though the CIF FOB adjustment is an important reason for asymmetries, it is

not the only one and it is not clear whether it is the most important. In this sense,

any other adjustment, estimation or imputation applied to goods and services

primary data may be also questionable (merchandise not crossing the borders,

FISIM, insurance services or illegal activities for instance).

4. From the studies carried out until now, it cannot be concluded that the CIF FOB

adjustment consists of the main reason for IMTS primary data asymmetries.



5. Even if we give up the CIF FOB adjustment, insurance and transport should be

adjusted because of transactions between residents depending on the change of

ownership?

6. Finally, regarding the reason behind the proposal, this is asymmetries, we would

propose to tackle this issue from a bottom-up perspective; first at the primary

statistics level and then on the BOP/NA level (especially for those items where

BOP/NA depart from business statistics).

7. National Accounts specific comments:

8. We think that this proposal should be discussed in other National Accounts groups

(at least NAWG and Consolidated European Supply-Use and Input-Output Tables

Technical Group Meeting), since it affects the whole system of accounts. In

particular, we are concerned about the supply and use tables: since supply table

reflects by products supply at purchasers’ prices, imports need to be valued at CIF

prices.

9. On practical grounds, invoice values for Extra UE exports are not available.

Sweden: We welcome this proposal as the need for the complex CIF-FOB-conversion and

rerouting would disappear. The proposed principle should work better with other statistical

areas at least on an aggregate level. However, at a certain level of detail some statistics

might be more difficult to interpret and compare. In terms of quality, there are room for

improvement regarding the Extra-EU invoice data.

Switzerland: Since merchanting currently amounts to nearly 10% of total Swiss exports of

goods in nominal terms, it must be mentioned that a non-negligible share of Swiss foreign

trade figures already follows the "market price" valuation. With current work aiming at

including the international trade in goods transactions associated with processing into the

Swiss balance of payments, advantage from the proposal will certainly gain in importance

for Switzerland in the future.

However, implementing the proposal would require Swiss customs declarations to record

invoice values instead of FOB (exports) and CIF (imports) values. Although there is a

possibility to indicate the terms of delivery (Incoterms) on a voluntary basis in the Swiss

customs declarations (no quality control is performed for this variable), invoice values are

not currently collected. This also means that foreign trade figures based on invoice values

cannot be calculated retroactively. Therefore, we see the changes in time series as a serious

challenge. With respect to the current account surveys, no change would a priori be needed

with the switch to invoice values.

Turkey: Positive and supportive to test and work on this proposal.

United Kingdom: In terms of what we collect from a Customs perspective. The business

has to declare statistical value and state the delivery term of the movement. Talking to the

policy team it would seem that the item price (potential invoice value) is declared on the

customs form. For EU Trade in Goods this would likely reduce our asymmetries with other

member states since we’d not need to convert to CIF/FOB from the invoice value collected

on Intrastat. The application of the CIF/FOB adjustment to Trade in Goods is challenging

for the UK and is currently under review. Removing the need for this adjustment would

likely reduce our Trade in Goods asymmetries. However, moving Trade in Goods to a

different basis doesn’t alleviate this problem, since these costs are still needed to estimate

Trade in services (freight, insurance). Whilst you’d remove some asymmetries due to

misaligned measures of freight and insurance between the UK and other countries the UK



would still estimate these values and thus it may be more beneficial to provide uniform

guidance on freight / insurance rates to all countries centrally to reduce these asymmetries.

United States: This is an interesting but technically and legally difficult proposal for Census

to pursue. We only collect invoice data on a case-by-case basis for a very limited number

of trades in special circumstances. Census does not have the legal authority to compel firms

to provide these data and concerns about respondent burden would likely outweigh the

potential benefits. For example, there is no standard invoice format across firms and one

would have to be imposed to allow for collection of these data. Also, invoice and customs

values may diverge dramatically, as when a firm receives a replacement part still under

warranty from a supplier at a zero invoice cost but the part still has a very high customs

value. In Census’ experience, customs, invoice, and shipping manifest data values often

diverge.

Q16. Would it be practically feasible (particularly in terms of data sources) for your

country to develop balance of payments statistics for trade in goods and for freight

transactions using invoice values (implying access to import/export companies’ accounts)

in the medium to long term? And if so, for what time period could data be made available?

34 responses

Comments: A number of countries stated flatly that this would not be feasible in their

country. Reasons included:

Don’t have the data;

Don’t have (and couldn’t obtain) the resources to implement such a change, IT

changes would probably be substantial and costly;

Concerned about quality implications, including breaks in series and lack of

detailed breakdowns (e.g. by product classification);

Concerned about the respondent burden implications;

Legal concerns and need for changes in legislation; and

Concerned about have parallel statistics ‘measuring’ the same phenomenon.

However, other countries stated that they already have this data, and therefore it would be

feasible to move forward (some stated that for example their national accounts compilers

already use this data). Others stated that they have already started to look into (in

coordination with their Customs authorities) collecting invoice values instead of CIF-FOB

values for goods and additionally use invoice values for some services.

Q17. Are you interested in developing a pilot study to test the implications of this recording

for your statistics (or are you already planning to do such a study)?

Yes: 5 countries

No: 28 countries

China, Finland, Ireland, Italy and Turkey responded that they would be interested in being

part of a pilot study.



2.4. Reducing Trade Asymmetries

Q18. Do you want us to facilitate bilateral meeting(s) with colleagues in the margins of the

next WPTGS? (Note: we will contact you and your preferred counterpart(s) to discuss

details.)

Yes: 13 countries

No: 16 countries

A record number of countries indicated that they would be interested in having bilateral

trade asymmetry meetings in March 2019, with one country stating that it would come to

the meetings if there were requests from other countries.

The main topic of discussion, like previous years, will be international trade in services,

with components such as travel, transport and telecommunications being singled out. The

United Kingdom was keen to discuss the use of VAT/VIES data in the compilation of

international trade in services, while the United States is working on a new travel

methodology and would like to meet with some major travel partners.

2.5. Other Remarks

Q19. Do you have any other comments, suggestions or remarks that you would like to make

regarding upcoming WPTGS meetings?

4 responses

Comments: Two countries used this section as an opportunity to clarify the roles of those

who completed the questionnaire, e.g. balance of payments compilers.

The Czech Republic was interested in the experiences of other countries already collecting

data on digital trade.

Mexico asked if consideration of the relation between international trade and the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as the generation of statistics that

contribute to the measurement of the progress in the SDGs could be included in future

agendas. They also thought that it would be good to consider something on improving TEC

and STEC statistics in order to offer further characteristics of the enterprises involved in

globalisation and digitalisation.

Turkey wondered if WPTGS could discuss the “flag of convenience (FOC)” topic in order

to have better approach for solving trade asymmetries. For instance, in Turkey international

trade in goods and freight transactions use customs data according to “flag of the ship”

breakdown. On the other hand, their international trade in services survey collects freight

data from the enterprises/respondents in line with the residency principle. There is a need

to handle this issue and ensure the coherence.



Annex A. 2019 WPTGS Stocktaking Questionnaire

Introduction

This questionnaire intends to take stock of activities that are already ongoing or planned by

your countries, in order to support discussions at the next OECD Working Party of Trade

in Goods and Services (WPTGS) meeting, as well as other global initiatives. It covers 3

key areas:

(i) Measuring Digital Trade. The previous WPTGS meeting concluded that in light

of the many developments in the area on measuring digital trade, a regular

stocktaking should be conducted to share national experiences quickly and to

develop conceptual and methodological guidance.

(ii) Balance of payments (BOP) measures for global value chain analysis.

Following the discussions at the 2018 IMF BOPCOM meeting, the OECD and the

IMF have set up a BOPCOM Working Group that has identified BOP items within

the current BPM6 framework that are particularly useful for the analysis of Global

Value Chains (see the PDF file linked below). This part of the stocktaking survey

has been developed by this Working Group and aims to take stock of the current

data availability for these indicators and the potential feasibility to develop these

going forward. [Preliminary Report of the Working Group on Balance of Payments

Statistics Relevant to Global value Chain Analysis]

(iii) The use of invoice values for trade in goods transactions and related freight

transactions of the Balance of Payments. The discussions at the 2018 WPTGS

concluded, after the positive feedback to the proposal by Germany to move towards

recording trade in goods transactions and related freight transactions on the basis

of invoice values, that a wider stocktaking of views should be conducted.

In addition, given the continued success of bilateral trade asymmetry meetings, organised

alongside the WPTGS meetings, this questionnaire also includes an invitation to countries

to participate in the 2019 meetings.

Instructions

The questionnaire consists of 19 questions divided into 5 main sections, each of which

starts with a small introduction regarding the context and relevance of the questions. For

each question, please provide the answer by clicking the relevant check box or by typing

in the framed textboxes, which will automatically expand to fit the text you write.

We would very much appreciate it if you could complete this questionnaire and return it to

the OECD secretariat at [email protected], BEFORE 11 February 2018.

For any questions, please contact Diana Doyle ([email protected]).

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ON-GOING COLLABORATION!



I. MEASURING DIGITAL TRADE

In light of the growing importance of digitally ordered or delivered transactions, policy

demand for statistics on digital trade is increasing. To develop internationally comparable

statistics on Digital Trade, the OECD has developed a conceptual measurement framework

and conducted two stocktaking surveys jointly with the IMF, with replies from more than

70 countries, and is currently finalising, with other international organisations and

countries in the context of the inter-agency Task Force on International Trade Statistics

(TFITS), a Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade. The handbook and its conceptual

framework have been discussed in the past few years at WPTGS, IMF BOPCOM,

Eurostat’s BOP Working Group, UNCTAD’s ecommerce week and the dedicated TFITS

Expert Group on Measuring Digital Trade, which met most recently in October 2018 to

discuss a first draft of the Handbook.

Feedback from all these meetings concluded that the current conceptual framework and

working definition of digital trade (all cross-border resident-non-resident transactions that

are either digitally ordered, online platform enabled, and/or digitally delivered) provided

solid foundations on which to build further. Important measurement challenges remain

however. This section of the Stocktaking Questionnaire asks more in-depth questions in

these areas. In addition, in light of the conclusion from last year’s WPTGS, that a regular

stocktaking should be conducted to keep abreast of rapidly changing developments in

measuring digital trade, several of the questions have been repeated.

I.1 Digitally ordered transactions

Q1. Have you in the past 1-2 years undertaken any special studies to estimate cross-border

e-commerce trade transactions, or are you planning to do so in the near future, for example

by linking Customs Statistics to surveys on ICT and Ecommerce use by Enterprises, or by

exploring new data-sources such as MOSS (in Europe) or credit cards?

Customs authorities often specify a minimum value and/or a minimum amount of duties

and taxes below which no duties and/or taxes will be collected. The recent and ongoing

increase in cross-border digital trade may have led to an increase in the share of below-

the-threshold trade, and countries are reviewing their estimation methodologies. An

important new data source has emerged in many countries that may allow for estimates to

be improved: (simplified) electronic customs declarations that enterprises engaged in

ecommerce may use to facilitate customs clearance and trace packages across borders.

Q2. Have you already explored this data source for statistical purposes?

No

Yes (Please provide details on the type of statistics developed, and you approach.)

Do not know

I.2 Digitally delivered transactions

Digitally delivered transactions are consistent with what is described by the TGServ Task

Group as ICT-enabled services, i.e. services products delivered remotely over ICT

networks. They involve downloadable products, such as software, e-books, data and

database services, which are often also digitally ordered, but also include services that are

ordered ‘analogously’, but delivered online, such as consultancy of BPO services, or

certain intra-firm cross-border transactions, including those involving data.



Last year’s stocktaking questionnaire indicated that fully digital products (both digitally

ordered and downloadable) in particular may not always be well-captured in trade in

services statistics. At the same time, new data sources were being actively explored to better

measure such flows.

Q3. Have you made any improvements in the last 1-2 years towards better measuring cross-

border transactions in digitally downloadable products?

Yes (Please explain the approach, including sources, you use to measure these.)

No (Do you have any plans/ideas on how this could be developed in your country

in the future?)

Ideally, the Handbook recommends, that all international trade in services transactions,

should be divided into those that are ‘digitally delivered’ and those that are ‘not digitally

delivered’.

Q4. Have you made any attempts to develop such breakdowns in your trade in services

statistics (e.g. for different EBOPS categories), potentially in work related to estimating

Mode 1 Trade in Services which will be a good approximation of such flows?

Yes (Please explain the approach, including sources, you use to measure these.)


in the future?)

I.3 Digital intermediaries

An important characteristic of digitalization is the advent of digital intermediaries such as

Airbnb, Uber, Amazon, eBay or Alibaba, that facilitate (cross-border) digital trade in

goods and services. Better understanding their role in international trade is an important

policy objective. This requires statistics on the share of international trade (in goods and

in services) that is ordered via platforms.

In addition, particularly when transactions are facilitated by a non-resident digital

intermediary that does not take any ownership of the underlying good (or service), a

breakdown should be made between the payments for the intermediation services (trade in

services) and the value of the good or service that is provided.

I.3.1 Identifying transactions with non-resident digital intermediaries

Last year’s stocktaking questionnaire indicated that imports facilitated by non-resident

digital intermediaries were difficult to (separately) identify, but that new data sources, such

as credit card data, were being explored.


payments made to non-resident digital intermediaries?

Yes (Please describe how you differentiate between the intermediation fee and the

underlying good or service that is being purchased. If you do not differentiate

between the intermediation fee and the good or service being purchased how do

you ensure no double counting with other trade data? Please specify if the approach

differs by type of good and service that is intermediated.)


in the future?)



Q6. Are you currently able to identify transactions involving non-resident digital

intermediary platforms, or do you have plans for pilot studies on this subject? Please

discuss exports, imports, as well as domestic transactions facilitated by non-resident digital

intermediary platforms, including major constraints in measuring these transactions (e.g.,

unsupportive legislation, inadequate source data, inadequate classifications, etc.)?

I.4 General Questions

Q7. Have you recently conducted any (other) studies quantifying the impact of

digitalisation on international trade, or in related aspects such as the (cross-border) sharing

economy? If yes, please briefly describe and provide links to the studies if available.

Q8. Conceptual framework. Chapter 2 of the Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade

describing the conceptual framework with recommendations on the treatment of flows

concerning digital intermediaries in particular is included with this questionnaire.

Comments on the proposed conceptual framework (definitions, underlying concepts,

typology models, etc.) included in the chapter are welcome in the space below.



II. BALANCE OF PAYMENTS INDICATORS RELEVANT FOR THE

ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL VALUE CHAINS

At its 2017 meeting, the IMF Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics (Committee)

endorsed the creation of a Working Group, led by OECD and IMF, on Balance of Payments

(BOP) Statistics Relevant for Global Value Chain (GVC) Analysis with the primary

objective of identifying components and statistics in the current balance of payments

framework (BPM6) that are of particular relevance for the development of indicators on

GVCs19.

The motivation for this effort is that BOP statistics provide a very useful framework for

additional information that would be very helpful in particular for bridging detailed

(merchandise and services) trade statistics with accounting frameworks that underpin the

analysis of GVCs, in particular to enhance the quality of the estimates. Such components

already exist in the actual BOP framework. However, they typically involve auxiliary tables

or supplementary items (BPM6 1.15(c)), or more detailed (geographical or product)

breakdowns that are recommended in BPM6 but not included in the ‘Standard

Components’, and therefore their relevance and importance may not be immediately clear

to all compilers.

The OECD-IMF Working Group has developed this list (see the paper included on the front

page of this questionnaire), and has developed this part of the survey to take stock of the

current data availability for these indicators and the potential feasibility to develop them

going forward.

II.1 Encouraged Balance of Payments Statistics on Trade in Goods

For Trade in Goods, the Working Group identified three recommended sets of information,

to allow for a better alignment by International Organisations of the detailed merchandise

trade statistics with National Accounts total values (please refer to Section A (pages 16-

18) of the paper included on the front page of this Questionnaire for further explanations).

First, transactions involving re-exports and the goods acquired/sold under merchanting,

for their total values but, especially, further breakdowns by product or partner.

Second, the reconciliation table between merchandise trade statistics and balance of

payments trade in goods statistics, along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2 would be very useful

information to make publicly available, focusing in particular on the changes with the

largest effects, and including, where possible, the main products and/or partner countries

involved.

Third, and as an alternative to the above, a breakdown of the total trade in goods account

by (the most important) products (CPA/CPC 2 digit) and/or trading partners would also

be helpful to improve the alignment of merchandise trade statistics to national accounts in

the creation of international accounting frameworks.

19 The second objective of the WG is to examine, building on initial experiences and ideas of country

practices, how to better identify the role of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in current account

transactions. It will report back to BOPCOM on this topic in 2019.



Q9a. Re-exports. Do you already have, or would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year

timeframe, information on the total value of re-exports in your BOP statistics?

Yes, it is already available and published

Yes, but it is not published

No, but it would be feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe

No, and it is not feasible

Q9b. Re-exports. Do you already have, or would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year

timeframe, information on the value of re-exports IDENTIFYING AT LEAST THE 5

MAIN PRODUCTS and/or TRADING PARTNERS INVOLVED in your BOP statistics?





Q10a. Goods acquired/sold under merchanting. If applicable (i.e., if your country hosts

merchants involved in international transactions), do you already have, or would it be

feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, information on the total gross values of

goods acquired/sold under merchanting in your BOP statistics?





Q10b. Goods acquired/sold under merchanting. If applicable, do you already have, or

would it be feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, information on the value of

Goods acquired/sold under merchanting, IDENTIFYING AT LEAST THE 5 MAIN

PRODUCTS and/or TRADING PARTNERS INVOLVED in your BOP statistics?





Q11a. Reconciliation table along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2. Do you already have, or


lines of BPM6 table 10.2 (containing adjustments from merchandise trade to BOP concept

of Goods), in particular involving information on a) the goods involved in processing

transactions and b) the CIF-FOB adjustment?







Q11b. Reconciliation table along the lines of BPM6 table 10.2. Do you already have, or


lines of BPM6 table 10.2, including a breakdown by the most important products and/or

trading partners involved for the largest adjustments, particularly involving a) transactions

of goods involved in manufacturing services transactions and on b) the CIF-FOB

adjustment?





Q12. Total Trade in Goods (debit and credit). Do you already have, or would it be feasible

to develop within a 2-year timeframe, Balance of Payments Trade in Goods statistics with

a meaningful (i.e. non-proportional) breakdown by main products and/or trading partner?





II.2 Encouraged Balance of Payments Statistics on Trade in Services

For Trade in Services, the Working Group identified two recommended sets of information,

to allow for a better alignment by International Organisations of the detailed merchandise

trade statistics with National Accounts total values (please refer to Section B (pages 19-

21) of the paper included on the front page of this Questionnaire for further explanations).

The first involves a geographical breakdown of trade in services statistics, starting with

the 12 main EBOPS categories (and total services trade) and prioritising breakdowns for

more detailed services category as per their relevance and importance in a country’s

international trade20.

The second involves the supplementary breakdown of those services items that also include

goods (notably travel21), in order to allow for an improved alignment (and rerouting) of

the trade flows involved to match National Accounts classifications. This questionnaire

covers travel only, as a starting point.

20 Since such data are typically already widely available among OECD countries, and collected by

OECD, no questions on the availability of these flows is included in this questionnaire for OECD

countries.

21 But also, construction services and government services n.i.e.



Q13. Geographical breakdown of EBOPS categories: Do you already have, or would it be

feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, the values of trade in services by the 12

EBOPS categories (as applicable), including a regional breakdown for the most relevant

products?





Q14. Supplementary breakdown of the Travel item. Do you already have, or would it be

feasible to develop within a 2-year timeframe, Balance of Payments Travel item broken

down according to the supplementary classification proposed in BPM6, which identifies

the goods and services (local transport services, accommodation, etc.) purchased/sold?







III. USE OF INVOICE VALUES FOR THE RECORDING OF TRADE IN

GOODS TRANSACTIONS AND RELATED FREIGHT TRANSACTIONS IN

THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

In 2018, the WPTGS noted the general support among its members to thoroughly review

and consider a proposal by Germany (and the Netherlands) to use invoice values as a

principle of recording trade transactions in the balance of payments, including its potential

contribution to reducing asymmetries, particularly for goods and transport services (see

SDD/CSSP/WPTGS(2018)8). Some of the potential advantages of this proposal are: (i) a

reduced need for estimations (and hence asymmetries), notably where good quality source

data (company records) are available, (ii) improved coherence between the valuation of

‘regular’ international trade in goods transactions and those associated with processing

or merchanting, and (iii) an improved alignment with the valuation used for the domestic

transport of goods and the related transport flows (as described in the 2008 SNA). At the

same time, there are methodological implications to consider, including in relation to: (i)

a mixed composition of goods (merchandise) and services (freight, insurance) in the values

of imports/exports due to the lack of a uniform price valuation of exports/imports, thus

redefining the borders between goods and services; and, (ii) impracticability due to

potential unavailability of invoice values, hence asymmetric recordings of imports/exports

(company vs. customs records).

Considering the potential implications (on BOP, trade statistics and national accounts),

we would like to gauge your views on the merits of this proposal.

Q15. What are your initial views about this proposal? Please state your pro-/con- arguments

to this proposal, considering potential practical advantages, but also conceptual, source data

and compilation implications.

Q16. Would it be practically feasible (particularly in terms of data sources) for your country

to develop BOP statistics for trade in goods and for freight transactions using invoice values

(implying access to import/export companies’ accounts) in the medium to long term? And

if so, for what time period could data be made available?

Q17. Are you interested in developing a pilot study to test the implications of this recording

for your statistics (or are you already planning to do such a study?)?

Yes

No



IV. REDUCING TRADE ASYMMETRIES

The previous WPTGS meetings (from 2015 onwards) were accompanied by a series of

bilateral trade asymmetry meetings. Feedback from participants has consistently been very

positive and given the importance of solving trade asymmetries for improving TiVA

estimates and the construction of new balanced internationally recognised datasets of

coherent bilateral trade statistics, we will continue to facilitate such meetings.

For the 2018 WPTGS meeting, we will facilitate these bilateral asymmetry meetings on

both 19 and 20 March. The meetings are scheduled for 1.5 hours each. We will help with

the planning, make a meeting room (and coffee!) available, but will not be present at the

discussions themselves. We invite you to participate! Multi-country meetings for particular

asymmetries can also be facilitated.

Q18. Do you want us to facilitate bilateral meeting(s) with colleagues in the margins of the

next WPTGS? (Note: we will contact you and your preferred counterpart(s) to discuss

details.)

Yes (Please fill out the name(s) of countries you would be interested to meet, and,

if applicable, the exact topic or area you would like to discuss in particular with

these countries (merchandise trade, trade in services, particular products or services

categories).)

No

Other (Please briefly explain.)



V. OTHER REMARKS

Q19. Do you have any other comments or remarks that you would like to make regarding

the upcoming WPTGS or suggestions for topics for future meetings?

Yes

No

Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Services ...

Documents

Transcript of Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Services ...