Meeting Summary

Second Workshop on Energy Statistics in the APEC Region
8, 9 September 2003 in Tokyo


The Second Workshop on Energy Statistics in the APEC Region was held on 8 and 9 September 2003 at Tokyo Prince Hotel in Tokyo organized by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan and sponsored by The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The workshop was chaired by Mr. Kenichi Matsui, Councillor of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan and Chair of the APEC Expert Group on Energy Data and Analysis. Representatives from Brunei Darussalam; Chile; Peoplefs Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; Papua New Guinea; Peru; Philippines; Russia; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and Viet Nam attended the workshop. Two representatives of the International Energy Agency (IEA) attended the workshop as observer Annex 1.
Main discussion items were the quality of APEC Energy Data including Monthly Oil Data, Quarterly Energy Data, Annual Energy Data and CO2 Emission Data and the ways to improve it, assessment on the data quality for the selected member economies, change in the collection format. We invited the IEA to present its activity on the IEA Energy Statistics to get information.

Main discussion items were

  1. Unification of Definition
  2. Quality of Annual Energy Data
  3. Quality of Quarterly Energy Data
  4. Quality of CO2 Emission Data
  5. Monthly Oil Data
  6. Assessment on the Energy Data Quality by selected Member Economies
  7. Experience of International Energy Agency
  8. Discussion on Definition and Change in the Collection Format
  9. Others

1. Unitication of Definition
The Coordination Agency of the EGEDA (here after CA) suggested that the definitions of indigenous production, exports & imports need to be reconsidered and adding definition on stock level to be considered. The CA requested to read the definition documents of the APEC reporting formats carefully to fill the format.

2. Quarterly of Annual Energy Data
The CA reported that quality of annual data for Primary Energy Supply is good in general. The Final Energy Consumption data submitted are also of good quality in general. There is a room for improvement in the data for power generation efficiency. The CA stressed the point that the submission of accurate data in accordance with the definitions is necessary for producing high quality energy statistics. The CA requested continuous cooperation.

3. Quality of Quarterly Energy Data
The CA presented the current situation on the quarterly energy data collection. For the accuracy of the data, the CA stressed that the divergence between annual data and quarterly data should be in the reasonable range.
The CA informed that the 2nd revision of the collection format was adopted in the EGEDA meeting held in Hanoi in this March, and explained the definition of the revised format. The CA was asked to send the revised collection format to the member economies.

4. Quality of CO2 Emission Data
The ‚b‚` presented the current situation on the CO2 emission data and the results of the accuracy check using the graph of CO2 emission per total primary energy supply. The CA asked to consider the consistency between the use of fossil fuel and CO2 emission amount. .

5. Monthly Oil Data
The CA presented the current situation of the Monthly Oil Data Collection and pointed out problems in terms of timeliness, completeness and quality. Although each member economy has its own difficulties in collecting the data, it is indicated that all participants are working to improve the situation. Several economies were asked to make research on large discrepancy on the balance of supply and demand and make effort to reduce the difference. Members that are reporting inconsistent stock data are urged to revise them. It is expected that more economies will be able to submit M-1 data.
Ms. Mieke Reece, IEA, reported the experience and current situation of the Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI) activity of the IEA.

6. Assessment on the Energy Data Quality by selected Member Economies
On this topic, presentations were made by Mr. Xu Jianyi, National Bureau of Statistics, for China, Ms. Marlinda Mohd. Rosli and Ms. Siti Indati Mustapa, Pusat Tenaga Malaysia, for Malaysia, Ms. Sukanya Limpiyapirom and Dr. Mayurapan Sajjakulnukit, Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency, for Thailand, Ms. Farida Zed, Center for Energy Information, for Indonesia, Ms. Natacha Diaz, National Energy Commission, for Chile and Dr. Alexander Goncharov, State Committee of the Russian Federation on Statistics, for Russia.
They reported the situation on energy data collection system, organization, problems to collect data and special conditions in each economy. This Session was very useful to get information of and understand the situation of the individual economy.

7. Experience of International Energy Agency
Mr. Lawrence Metzroth and Ms. Mieke Reece, IEA, reported the IEA questionnaire, process, data quality control, method to produce energy balance table, some references and comparisons with APEC data and other issues. This presentation was extremely useful for the activities of the APEC energy statistics.

8. Discussion on Definition and Change in the Collection Format
The CA suggested change in definition for indigenous production, and import and export, and adding definition for stock.
Many views and comments were expressed on this topic during the discussion. Some of them are as follows;
- On the change of definition for indigenous production and trade, several negative views were expressed.
- Efforts should be made to simplify and reduce the formats required for data collection.
- More efforts should be made to standardise and unify questionnaires among different organizations. Many different questionnaires from different organization can lead to confusion and added complication and can prompt responding economies to distribute the questionnaires among different respondents or groups. This is a major cause of inconsistency in the data submitted. Ideally, there should only be one questionnaires from where all organizations could pick up the information they need.
After discussion, it was understood that the CA would bring these matters to the next EGEDA Meeting for discussion.

9. Others
Participants thanked the IEE, Japan for organizing the Workshop and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan for sponsoring the Workshop. Participants noted the value of the Workshop specifically the importance of face-to-face communication. It was an excellent opportunity to discuss and resolve data issues. All participants supported the idea to hold another Workshop next year.