Page 1 of 15
ESTAT-UNESCAP seminar/December 2016/Conclusions
EUROSTAT-UNESCAP
Seminar
“Strengthening statistical systems to meet the challenges of SDGs”
Bangkok, Thailand
13-14 December 2017
Conclusions
Page 2 of 15
Conclusions of the Eurostat-UNESCAP Seminar on
'Strengthening statistical systems to meet the challenges of SDGs'
Bangkok, 13-14 December 2016
The seminar on ‘Strengthening statistical systems to meet the challenges of SDGs" was
organized in Bangkok, Thailand, on 13-14 December 2016. The National Statistical Institutes
(NSIs) of Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Fiji, Georgia, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam were represented as well
as international and regional organizations such as Asian-Pacific Resource and Research
Centre for Women (ARROW), the Pacific Community, UNDP, UN Foundation and Global
Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, UNSIAP and an expert form the ESS.
Speakers and chairpersons were chosen from the participating countries (Azerbaijan,
Armenia, Georgia, Cambodia, Lao, Kyrgyzstan) and the present international organizations
Eurostat, UNESCAP, UNDP, ASEAN secretariat, UN Foundation and Global Partnership for
sustainable development.
The main aim of the seminar was be to present and discuss different tools in the process of
strengthening the capacity of statistical systems in support of monitoring the objectives of the
2030 Agenda. The objectives of the seminar were to discuss with the National Statistical
Offices (NSOs) from Asian and Pacific countries key issues of governance of the statistical
systems, contextual quality, statistical legislation and tools to assess the functioning of the
statistical systems (global assessments, peer reviews, sector reviews), to present the Generic
law on official statistics as a tool to strengthen the legal basis and the governance of the
statistical systems and to share experiences about challenges and ways to strengthen statistical
capacity in light of the SDGs.
The sessions covered the following topics:
1. Tools to assess national statistical systems
2. Strategies for meeting the SDG’s
3. Panel discussion
4. Generic law on official statistics
Opening session
Welcome remarks for the seminar were made by UN-ESCAP (Mr Christopher Ryan). They
were followed by introduction speeches from UN-ESCAP (Ms Margarita Guerrero) and
EUROSTAT (Ms Claudia Junker).
Ms Margarita Guerrero’s speech focused on current challenges faced by the region as a result
of the SDGs and the global indicator framework. She mentioned that even before the Agenda
2030 the statistical community started facing increased demand for statistics but once Agenda
Page 3 of 15
2030 was adopted, it brought a strong recognition that in order to transform the world there is
a need to transform statistics. This transformation implies: transforming the NSIs considering
the new training needs for staff, modernising the statistical processes and applying the
principles of official statistics. She mentioned some other issues to address:
- The need for accelerated transformation (with the help of tools) and taking actions
based on proper assessments
- The challenges to produce the Global Indicator Framework.
Ms Claudia Junker presented the challenges for the modernisation of official statistics and the
value of strong coordination focusing on the ESS 2020 vision, describing some of the
modernisation projects that have been implemented or are currently implemented (the
business register and the Euro Group register, use of administrative data sources, data
validation, trade statistics in the context of the single market, the catalogue of statistical
products and the European Master of Official Statistics). Some of the incentives for
modernisation and transformation in the EU Member States were triggered by the
recommendations formulated during the peer reviews such as changes needed in the statistical
law, the need to define clearly other producers of official statistics and hence to define the
borderline of the national statistical system, the need to better coordinate the statistical
systems and to better communicate with users.
Session 1 – Tools to assess national statistical systems
The first session was chaired by Eurostat (Ms Claudia Junker). The objective of this session
was to provide an overview of the existent tools to assess national statistical systems.
Eurostat (Ms Mihaela Bogatu) presented a general overview of Global Assessments, Peer
reviews and Sector Reviews focusing on defining each type of assessment/review, presenting
the reasons for requesting and implementing them, the process of implementation and
concluding on the results generated, some ideas for using the results and the resource impact
the assessments have on a statistical institute.
The State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Mr Tahir Budagov) presented
the experience of the SSC in carrying out Global Assessments of the NSS focusing on the
voluntary participation needed for the GA to be organised, the steps undertaken to implement
the first GA in 2010 and the second one (in 2016-2017), the use of the results as basis for the
Programmes for the development of official statistics in Azerbaijan and on the benefits of
such an exercise.
The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia - NSSRA (Ms Anahit Safyan)
was invited to present the country level experience of a peer review. In the absence of the
representative (who could not participate due to difficulties in obtaining visa), EUROSTAT
(Ms Claudia Junker) presented the slides provided by Ms Safyan. The presentation described
the Light Peer Review (LPR) of the NSSRA undertaken by Eurostat in February 2014,
focusing on its main objectives, the preparation and implementation of a LPR. The concrete
improvement actions formulated and the benefits of a LPR were also mentioned.
The practical implementation of a Sector Review was presented by the National Statistical
Office of Georgia (GEOSTAT). Ms Maia Guntsadze presented the Sector Review of business
Page 4 of 15
statistics conducted in 2015 which focused on Structural Business Statistics (SBS) and Short-
Term Statistics (STS), as well as on the statistical infrastructure of business statistics. The
presentation emphasised the findings and good practices from the Sector Review, the
implementation process as well as future plans and main challenges of GEOSTAT in this
specific sector.
The last presentation covered the UN-ESCAP Capacity Screening for Economic Statistics
(Ms Zeynep Orhun Girard). Capacity Screening is at the core of monitoring the
implementation of the Regional Programme on Economic Statistics (RPES). Its purpose is to
capture summary information on the national capacity of statistical systems in Asia and
Pacific countries for producing and disseminating economic statistics. The tool is based on a
questionnaire that scans institutional and technical capacities for producing economic
statistics, focusing on technical cooperation, institutional setting, IT and human resources,
statistical infrastructure and core set implementation. The first round of capacity screening
took place in 2013 (51 respondents out of 59 member states), and the second round will take
place in 2017 (results will be available at the end of 2017).
The questions and answers section of Session 1 covered some clarifications on the
difference between the National Quality Assurance Framework (NQAF) and the GA, on the
NACE used in Georgia and on the monitoring of the improvement actions following the
assessments performed. As for the difference between the NQAF and a GA, Eurostat (Ms
Claudia Junker) mentioned that the GA is performed by external experts based on the self-
assessments by the reviewed NSI while the NQAF is more of an internal development. Using
external expert provides more value and authority to the recommendations that are
formulated. A GA provides a review of statistical domains and their strengths and
weaknesses. As for Georgia, NACE rev1 was used in the past but recently Geostat changed to
NACE rev2 and also translated it into Georgian. Referring to the monitoring of the
implementation actions following the GA, usually this is done one year after the conclusion of
the GA. For the EECCA countries, the results of the monitoring of these improvement actions
are presented at the High Level Seminar organised yearly for the top management of the NSIs
from these countries.
Conclusions: Participants were informed about the different types of assessments (global
assessments, peer reviews, sector reviews) that differ in their scope and coverage but follow
very similar procedures. They all start with a self-assessment as the basis of an expert
assessment, the include experts visits to the countries, they conclude with an assessment
report containing improvement recommendations that are then followed-up by the country
and by an annual monitoring implemented by Eurostat. The presentation of Azerbaijan
focused on the reasons on why the SSC requested a global assessment, the preparations for
and the process of implementing the recent global assessment and its first results. In the
presentation from Armenia the preparations, the process and the results from the peer review
were described as well as the benefits mentioned. In the presentation from Georgia the
context of the review, its process, the improvement recommendations and how they are taken
up by Geostat were described. UN-ESCAP informed about the screening tool for economic
statistics which provides an assessment of capacity gaps for producing economic statistics.
These assessments answer to different needs of the countries but all follow a very similar
process starting with a request, expert visits and finishing with a report containing
recommendations for improvement that are then followed-up.
Page 5 of 15
All presentations highlighted the benefits of such assessments in that they bring an external
view/perspective to the NSI and the NSS as a whole or to a specific sector, they lead to a
report that can be used in negotiations with the government/national authorities, they
stimulate an in-depth internal reflection process and its results can be used as input for long-
term strategies and the design of technical cooperation programmes
Session 2 - Strategies for meeting the SDGs
The second session was chaired by Mr Sefuiva Reupena Muagututi’a, Government
Statistician of the Samoa Bureau of Statistics. The objective of this session was to provide an
overview of existing strategies and coordination efforts that can guide the countries towards
meeting the SDG targets.
Ms Jenna Slotin from the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data (GPSDD)
presented the Data4SDGs Toolbox to Support Data Roadmaps for Sustainable Development.
The toolbox aims to support countries at national and sub-national levels to develop and
implement inter-governmental and multi-stakeholder data roadmaps for harnessing the data
revolution for sustainable development, with particular emphasis on the SDGs and local
priorities articulated in national plans. Data roadmaps are in fact action plans with short and
long-term goals for addressing specific data needs and priorities in regards to SDG
implementation.
The Philippine Statistics Authority (Ms. Josie B. Perez) presented the Philippine Roadmap for
the Implementation and Monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Philippine
Statistical Development Program (PSDP) was revised in 2015 to include, among others, some
developments for the 2030 Agenda/Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Some Technical
Workshops on the formulation of the post-2015 indicator framework were organised with
funding assistance from the UNDP. The result of the workshops was the development of an
SDG Matrix for the Philippine context. Based on the Matrix, the Philippine Statistics
Authority conducted a series of national consultations/assessment workshops on: WASH and
wastewater Indicators in SDG 6; data Revolution Roadmap for the SDGs; the Development of
Metadata for Tier 1 indicators. Following these consultations, the next steps were defined,
including (among others): developing methodology for producing a multidimensional poverty
index; Exploring the possibility of calculating the maternal mortality rate from other data
sources (e.g. Civil registration); Strengthening the Statistical Survey Review and Clearance
System (SSRCS); Using the PARIS 21 Advanced Data Planning Tool (ADAPT) as defined
by the national development plan; Finalizing metadata for the Tier 1 National SDG indicators
and consulting the relevant agencies; Assessing national SDG indicators at the subnational
level and training/capacity building of PSA regional offices for the monitoring of SDGs at the
local level.
Mr Hallgrimur Snorrason (expert hired by Eurostat) presented Eurostat’s Snapshot tool,
followed by its adaptation and implementation by the ASEANstat secretariat in the context of
the COMPASS Programme. The purpose of the exercise was to test the adapted questionnaire
and to prepare an ASEAN report on the compliance of the member countries' statistical
systems with the ASEAN CoP (module 1 of the snapshot) and on the quality of data in three
domains (external trade in goods, international trade in services, foreign direct investment) at
the ASEAN level. In a first step, the Snapshot was adapted to be in line with the ACSS CoP,
followed by training on the use of the self-assessment tool. Country self-assessments where
then conducted and finally, discussions on the results and on the revision of the tool were
Page 6 of 15
organized at regional level. Some proposals to improve the self-assessment questionnaire
have been formulated:
- Some questions need to be reformulated in order to get useful and appropriate
comments
- The addition of some quantitative indicators would be useful
- The addition of quality indicators such as completeness (information provided by the
ASEAN member countries compared with relevant ASEAN guidelines: calculation of
indicators of completeness); reliability (validation checks at the national and
ASEANstat level), timeliness should be considered;
- Assessments are more objective when they are done through a participative process at
national and/or regional levels (some of the questions need to be answered together by
the ASEAN member countries and by ASEANstats). (NB: this proposal is already part
of the user manual because during the testing of the tool such a participative approach
was also tested – in Ecuador - and found very useful).
-
UNDG (Mr Scott Standley) presented the UNDG “MAPS” approach to localize agenda 2030
and the SDG’s. The MAPS (Mainstreaming, Acceleration, Policy Support) tool aims at
landing SDG’s at national and local levels and to prioritise them as well as making relevant
support available in a coherent, cost-effective and timely manner. In the beginning, a Rapid
Integrated Assessment (RIA) is performed to support the localization of the SDGs. It assesses
the national strategies/plans and related sector plans and strategies against the SDG targets. In
addition, an assessment of the NSS capacity to monitor the SDGs is performed based on (i)
desk review; (ii) information obtained from the NSI and selected line ministries; (iii) websites
of the NSI and line ministries; (iv) mapping with CamInfo indicators; (v) comments from
ministries and national agencies; (vi) meetings during the course of the missions. From the
total number of the SDG indicators, the RIA considers only those that are applicable to the
country’s specific context and eliminates other indicators until they are assessed. The assessed
indicators are then classified and distributed in the following categories: currently available,
easily feasible, feasible with strong efforts, and not feasible even with strong efforts. The
results portray the statistical capacity (percentage of the sum of currently available and easily
feasible indicators among the assessed indicators) and the total current and potential statistical
capacity in the short/medium term (percentage of the sum of currently available, easily
feasible indicators and those feasible with strong efforts among the assessed indicators).
In the case of Cambodia, the conclusion was that the current statistical capacity is 44 (31%),
and the total current and potential statistical capacity in the short/medium term (sum of
currently available, easily feasible indicators and those feasible with strong efforts) is 115
(80%).
After the presentations, there were a couple of questions from the floor directed to the ESS
expert on the SNAPSHOT, and the ASEAN representative on their experience with the
SNAPSHOT. Georgia informed the seminar they are now thinking what tools to use in future
for SDGs, and asked the expert from ESS whether there was any reporting system in
SNAPSHOT, and how a country such as Georgia can make a choice on which tool is most
appropriate for them as different tools will provide different results, so maybe there is a need
to unify them. In response, the ESS expert advised that the choice of tool should be dependent
on the objective of the exercise, and there was a need to have a range of tools to address
differing objectives. With respect to the SNAPSHOT tool, it aims to get a quick assessment of
the institutions overall situation, as well as scrutinize different sectors, so countries may wish
Page 7 of 15
to only adopt some components of SNAPSHOT. Comparing this tool to something like
PARIS21’s ADAPT is difficult as they serve different purposes, so one needs to be careful
about unifying such tools.
Eurostat asked ASEAN to provide some additional details on the conclusions they presented
on their use of the SNAPSHOT tool and what they meant by needing to do more with
quantitative indicators – could they provide some examples? ASEAN reported that for some
sections of SNAPSHOT, such as International Trade and Services, some of the questions are
difficult to understand by countries, and that it would be nice to be able to do more analysis
on what percentage of countries are using BPM6, SITS and various sorts of classifications.
Conclusions: Participants were informed about various initiatives of international
organizations and their application by countries all targeted at harnessing the benefits form
the data revolution. A toolbox for developing data roadmaps to produce SDG indicators was
presented including the framework, the approach and method for developing them. On the
example of the Philippines an approach on how to coordinate SDGs in the country was
presented aiming at involving all stakeholders in the process in the discussions. The snapshot
tool developed by Eurostat was presented with its components and possible outcomes as well
as its application by ASEANstat for the assessment of compliance with the ASEAN CoP
through module 1 of the snapshot and for the assessment of statistical indicators in the areas
of external trade of goods and service and foreign direct investment. Participants took note of
the need to develop more quantitative indicators for the snapshot as well as to include quality
indicators into the assessment framework. The MAPS tool provides a more policy oriented
approach to SDGs in how to integrate the goals into national policies and adapt national
plans and resource needs. For integrating the SDGs into national plans assessments are also
the first steps as the example of Cambodia demonstrated, which mapped the sustainable
development goals and targets into the national development plan and consequently into the
national strategy for the development of Statistics.
Session 3 – Panel discussion
The panel was moderated by UN-ESCAP (Ms Rikke Munk Hansen) and aimed at extracting
recommendations for moving forward by assessing existing practices undertaken by national
statistical systems in reviewing their NSS and implementing SDGs, and how these practices
can be enhanced to assist countries meet the needs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
The key areas focused on included the following:
Assessments/Reviews
1) Advice to countries on how to proceed with an assessment and deciding on what tool
would work best with them.
2) Identification of the characteristics which define an effective assessment and ensuring
these criteria are met
National Ownership
All key stakeholders involved – during review, and follow-up on
recommendations
Solid implementation plan to follow through on recommendations
Page 8 of 15
3) Identification of strategies countries have adopted to follow through on
recommendations from a review, as well as lessons learnt from lack of progress in
some areas.
SDG implementation
1) Identification of what countries, regions and partner organizations are already doing,
in utilizing existing tools to ready themselves for SDG implementation. What advice
they have to other countries wishing to follow suit.
2) What countries are doing to take ownership of the process of implementation of
SDGs, and ensuring they are incorporated in to existing national and regional plans?
Lessons learnt to be passed on to other countries to follow.
3) What reviews and plans of existing/future data sources have been put in place by
countries to ready themselves for SDG implementation? What lessons can be passed
on to other countries wishing to do the same.
The panelists were:
1. Ms Josie Perez (Philippines Statistical Authority)
2. Ms Aishath Shahuda (National Bureau of Statistics Maldives)
3. Ms Claudia Junker (Eurostat)
4. Ms Maia Guntsadze (National Statistical Office of Georgia - GEOSTAT)
5. Ms Jennifer Slotin (UN Foundation and Global Partnership for Sustainable
Development Data)
6. Mr Epeli Tuivunilagi Waqavonovono (Fiji Bureau of Statistics)
The discussion for session 3 is summarised in to three sections. The first addresses a round of
questions directed at the 6 panellists on issues pertaining to improving the way countries
review their NSSs and ready themselves for SDG implementation, followed by questions and
issues raised from the floor, and finishing with a final comment from the panel members to
wrap things up.
Round 1 questions to panellists
Self reviews
Fiji was asked about what motivated them to undertake a recent self-review of their national
statistical system, and what advice they may have for other countries looking to do something
similar. In response, Fiji reported the review was part of their ongoing development of their
NSDS, which was initially held back to ensure government support of the development of
statistics including additional resource allocation. Fiji wanted more certainty associated with
moving forward, to ensure the targets from the NSDS would be met.
Fiji reported a key aspect of the review was to assess and improve administrative data,
especially with respect to quality of this information being held by its custodians. The
information from this aspect of the review had implications for budget allocation, as
producers of this information had to justify its importance to critical statistical information
such as GDP. The review generated a lot of exciting dialogue between the NSO and
custodians of data on why the information was important, with greater cooperation than
previous years taking place during deliberations.
Page 9 of 15
The review collected sound information about human capacity to produce required
information, methodologies being adopted, classifications being used, data coverage, source
of information, frequency of information collected & the IT environment of departments
involved in the process. Along the way an assessment of the reliability of administrative data
sources was achieved, with new data sources being identified, in particular with respect to
updating their business register.
Human resource development
Maldives were asked about what they saw as the priority issues with respect to staff
development, in order to meet the needs of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Maldives reported they operated under a largely decentralized statistical system, with many
agencies part of the statistical system not having a specific statistics unit. It was reported that
the majority of data in the Maldives was collected through administrative data sources, with
very few agencies outside of the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) undertaking surveys.
The Maldives reported that the staff numbers in the NBS were very limited, making the
challenge of SDG production on top of regular activities very demanding. In addition, there
was a strong need for methodological training on the new SDG indicators, something the NBS
reported they were also mandated to provide to other data providing agencies. There was also
a need for basic statistics training which could be sustained and provided continuously, and
this training was required across the entire statistical system. Finally the Maldives added they
needed ongoing training in new technologies such as CAPI and use of tablets, given the large
staff turnover within the NBS.
Administrative data
The question directed at the Philippines focused on the importance of improving
administrative data, to ensure better coverage of SDG indicators, and improve the general
quality of this data source. The Philippines Statistics Authority (PSA) reported that it played a
significant role in overseeing all major statistical activities in the country both in conducting
surveys and compiling administrative data, and a PSA board has been established to ensure
the smooth running of these activities. As a first step to address the quality of administrative
data in the Philippines, the PSA with the assistance from Paris21 set out to determine what
sort of budget had been allocated to the production of statistics by other agencies outside the
PSA, and found most did not know the budget they had for this activity, specifically on
administrative data.
The second point raised by Philippines was their approaches with assisting other agencies
within the PSS to develop statistical skills, first through dialogue to identify issues and
provide solutions, but also in providing training, both theoretical and practical on statistical
methodologies. The PSA plans to cross-post staff to other departments to further assist with
this process.
Finally, Philippines reported on the work they are doing at the local government level to
ensure administrative data is being generated and follows correct classifications for data items
such as industry, occupation, etc. Initial investigations found this was not happening, and as
such, these provinces were struggling to generate tabulations, and consolidate their results
with other provinces. PSA will be working with these local government data producers to
Page 10 of 15
assess their methods and help them harmonize their practices to fall in line with national
classifications. Five provinces are already involved in this initial project work.
Data roadmaps for sustainable development
The question directed to the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data (GPSDD)
related to their guidelines for developing a data roadmap for sustainable development, and
how this tool can help countries ready themselves for implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
The GPSDD reported there were two key takeaways from this work: i) the value of
establishing a multi-stakeholder mechanism to sustain a discussion on new data sources, and
ii) the importance of creating new partnerships to draw on new data sources. Examples from
Colombia and Kenya were shared illustrating good examples of creating a high level inter-
institutional commission for the SDGs from different agencies and stakeholders.
In Colombia, the GPSDD reported that work developing an SDG roadmap enabled them to
establish new partnerships to experiment with new data sources from the private sector. They
felt that 10% of data gaps could be filled by private sector partners.
In Kenya, the data roadmap and SDG roadmap helped establish a multi-stakeholder body to
bring together civil society, academia, and the government. Stakeholder workshops included
participation from ESRI to address imaging and geospatial needs and also saw Civicus
involved to address how citizen generated data could best be used.
Assessment tool selection process by countries
Eurostat was asked to provide some advice in terms of which tool to use for what purpose, the
timing and when to approach international organizations. Referring to the question on timing
Eurostat mentioned that requesting a GA is very valuable when a country is in the process of
developing a new long-term strategy or an NSDS or when it plans to revise the statistical law
or when a new cooperation programme is to be designed. The GA report will provide
recommendations that are useful for strategic planning, for the revision of the law or for
designing an assistance programme. GA should be implemented every 5-6 years in order to
provide time for countries in between to implement the recommendations. A PR looks at the
institutional environment of a statistical office and assesses its compliance with the Code of
Practice relevant for the region. It can help in developing or revising a Statistical Law because
it provides recommendations on law, coordination, confidentiality, professional
independence, etc. Sector Reviews are most appropriate when a particular statistical domain
should be further developed and improved. Finally, the Snapshot can be used when the NSI is
ready for a self-assessment but not yet for an external assessment.
Defining the role of NSO within the NSS
The question to Georgia focused on how a review can be used to define the role of the NSO
within the NSS, and how they achieved this in their most recent review, including
modification to the statistics law if required. In response Georgia firstly pointed out that an
important part of the review exercise was to be very transparent with all stakeholders of the
NSS and as such organised a meeting to discuss review recommendations with all ministries,
academia, scientists, etc. The large number of recommendations (123 in total), lack of
resources and under-qualified staff within the NSS caused concern for Georgia, but they
reported to have started cooperation projects already, taking a step-by-step approach.
Page 11 of 15
A key starting point to implementing the recommendations for Georgia was to identify the
set-up of the NSS, and identifying what were considered official statistics. They thus
focussed on defining the criteria of official statistics, and addressed issues such as
professional independence in producing these statistics and how to protect confidentiality in
the process. Other areas where Georgia has made progress since its assessment were in the
areas of developing methodologies and establishing a quality management unit within
Geostat, working with stakeholders to define the criteria for quality of statistics, and
translating the code of practice into the local language and circulated to all stakeholders.
Discussions from the Floor
Iran: The issue of whether to have a decentralized system differs a lot depending on the size
of the country. In order to be able to address the 2030 Agenda, Iran will be looking to focus
much more on administrative data, which mean a lot more coordination amongst agencies. In
order to achieve this, the NSO needs to push hard to harmonize data between agencies, to
ensure that statistical standards and concepts are applied appropriately.
Indonesia: An issue being faced by Indonesia is getting the right balance between protecting
the rights of data providers and making as much use as possible of individual data. Policy
makers within government request access to individual data to identify who the poor are and
to help them with specific programmes, however the NSO cannot provide this information for
confidentiality reasons. The approaches and consequences of possibly granting access to
individual data need further discussion. Indonesia also mentioned that in order to meet the
demands of SDGs, further training on Small Area Estimation is required, especially for a
large country like theirs where very small sample fractions are adopted for sample surveys.
In response to Indonesia’s comment on confidentiality, Philippines mentioned they
anonymize their data, which entails more than just the removal of names from the individual
data. They also reported that they only include provincial level geographic information on
data released to the public, not municipality or other finer level geographical information. In
the past Philippines had been charging for access to public use files from the census but as of
next year this will become free, once users have signed a legal contract to gain access to this
data. In the case of enterprise data, Philippines do not release individual data as it is against
the confidentiality rules. The PSA has also established a data enclave where data users can go
and use their computers to tabulate information at the national level.
Eurostat added in on the discussion on confidentiality, adding that there had been a case in
Montenegro where a parliamentarian asked for census data to check the voter list. The case
went to court with the NSO winning the case and confidentiality being protected.
New Zealand: The suggestion was raised that perhaps an additional tool to help countries
select which tool was best for them when deciding on what type of review countries should
adopt for their national statistical systems. Countries run the risk of wasting a lot of time if the
wrong tool is chosen, and providing guidance to countries on the right selection would act as a
defence on why that tool was chosen.
Bhutan: As with Fiji, also undertook a self-assessment of their NSS, because they had the
need to develop their statistics law, in order to aid problems such as weak coordination
amongst stakeholders. The issue of centralization of their NSS also came up during
Page 12 of 15
deliberations and Bhutan is now grappling with the issue of remaining decentralized or
moving to a more centralized system. Bhutan reported they are also working with UNDP on
developing a SDG roadmap to align their statistical processes with the requirements of the
SDGs.
Vanuatu: Raised the issue on where we go from here with so many discussions on good
practices for building strong statistical systems, but with lack of both human and financial
resources to achieve this. Vanuatu was wondering what resources the UN provides to
countries with respect to technical consultants and general advice to countries.
Australia: Raised the point that given a lot of investment goes in to adopting these tools by
countries, it would be nice to know which review tools have been making a difference and
which achieve the greatest results when considering the investment made by countries in
adopting them.
In response to Australia Eurostat reported that for those reviews that Eurostat has undertaken,
the reports drafted by external experts with the EU logo on them are quite powerful. So, the
NSO use them successfully to promote statistics and argue with their governments on those
issues mentioned in the reports. Examples of such help are revisions of statistical laws,
increase in resources, agreements with other data providers and administrative data holders,
improved coordination, etc.. Whilst these assessments indeed require efforts and investments
from the side of the countries, all agree that the improvements that can be made are worth the
investment.
Final wrap-up comments from panel members
Maldives supported the remarks from Bhutan that statistical legislation was crucial, and it was
a major problem for Maldives. It was the onus of Chief Statisticians to be very strong without
legal backing to support their roles. Maldives also reported they had learnt a lot from the
Philippines experience on decentralization, and in order to increase the efficiency of the NSS
are committed to continue to find good practices and examples from others.
Philippines are currently looking at all data sources available to explore the possibility of
producing Tier I and Tier II indicators, including looking at proxy indicators and additional
agencies as a data source, including private sector, which has recently been added to the PSA
board. The move to add a private sector representative to the PSA board was to strengthen
relationships and assist with producing proxy indicators which could not be produced
otherwise.
Eurostat stressed the importance of a strong and modern legislation which was lacking in
many countries, including confidentiality principles and others from the UN fundamental
principles. The generic law on official statistics can be used to revise statistical laws in the
future; however, coordination of the NSS – in the absence of a strong legal basis for it - can
also be done with the help of soft coordination mechanisms.
Georgia reconfirmed that now was a great time to promote statistics with politicians,
especially with all the focus on SDGs. Originally Georgia had established 14 goals, without
any plan for development of statistics. They reported that more than 30% of data requirements
cannot be met at the moment, and as such a lot of work was still to be done, but the process of
reaching out to counterparts and asking for international support must start now.
Page 13 of 15
The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data stressed that a common theme
from the day’s discussions was the importance of users and producers speaking to each other
to improve statistical practices. One of the elements the SDGs bring to the floor is the need
for a common understanding between these two sides, from within and beyond government.
Fiji described the efforts of tackling SDG implementation in the pacific where the countries
have established a task force, which is enabling countries to learn from each other. Fiji has
been learning from approaches adopted by Samoa, and their work on SDGs, in particular their
mapping exercise.
Session 4 -
The fourth session was chaired by EUROSTAT (Ms Claudia Junker). The objective of this
session was to present the Generic Law on Official Statistics (GLOS) based on the experience
in the GA in and produced for the EECCA countries and to present also the experience of the
NSI of Kyrgyzstan and the Lao Statistics Bureau in elaborating the statistics law.
The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia - NSSRA (Ms Anahit Safyan)
was invited to present the process of producing the GLOS. In the absence of the
representative (who cancelled her participation due to difficulties encountered in obtaining
visa), EUROSTAT (Ms Claudia Junker) presented the slides provided for this section of
Session 1. The presentation described how was the process was initiated by UNECE, EFTA
and Eurostat, the main objectives and the structure of the GSL, as well as the novelties that
this model law brings and its advantages.
Lao Statistics Bureau (Dr Samaychanh Boupha) presented the Statistics Law of Lao PDR.
The presentation provided an overview of the reviewed Statistical Law, the participative
process to improve the law, the timeline of activities and the expectations from the new
statistical law.
The National Statistics Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic (Ms Elmira Alymkulova) prepared
a presentation on the Improvement of legal acts regulating activities in the field of production
of official statistics. Due to the unavailability of interpretation for this session, the presenter
could not deliver the presentation in Russian and the slides were read by Ms Claudia Junker.
The presentation detailed the main recommendations from the GA of the NSS of the Kyrgyz
Republic in 2012, focusing on the improvement of the Law on State Statistics in line with the
UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. The law was amended in 2013 and the next
step is to draft a new law based on GLOS in 2017 and launch the necessary adoption
procedures.
The many questions for session 4 focused on the coverage and description of quality of
statistics in the GLOS, the principle of confidentiality in the GLOS, the place of the NSI in
the government and how they are addressed in the GLOS. Also, a question on its similarity
with the UNSD handbook on statistical organization was raised.
Eurostat mentioned that the provisions for the quality of statistics are included in chapter 8 –
quality commitment- that applies for all producers of official statistics. The GLOS provides
the need to implement external assessment of data quality and to consult users. Regarding
data confidentiality Eurostat answered that in the context of the development of the GLOS, all
experts agreed that the principle of statistical confidentiality has a very high value and even if
it may seem efficient to share individual data with the government for efficiency gains, the
value of the confidentiality principle is higher as it is a basic principle for conducting
Page 14 of 15
statistical surveys and having the trust of the respondents that their data is only used for
statistical purposes. Hence, government agencies should collect data needed for purely
administrative purposes themselves.
The participant from Maldives raised the question of guidelines provided by the GLOS, in
particular referring to the minister responsible for statistics. Eurostat responded that the GLOS
provides that the NSI should not be sub-ordinated to any Minister but directly to the Prime-
Minister or the President.
Another question raised discussed the similarities between the GLOS and the UNSD
handbook on statistical organization. Eurostat responded that the GLOS is based on the
recommendations formulated in the GA in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
Countries. It is more recent and modern, and considers best practice from more advanced
countries but also the specific situation in the EECCA countries.
Myanmar addressed a question to the participant from Lao PDR, asking if the new law has
influenced the budgetary allocation for statistics. Lao Statistics Bureau used to belong to the
Ministry of Planning but now it is separate and has its own budget.
FAO mentioned there is a need to extend the GLOS to cover various domains of the
administrative system and other countries. The definition of official statistics was appreciated.
He mentioned that it is important to involve line ministries in the development of the law,
particularly since they are involved in the cooperation for the SDGs.
Conclusions: Participants were informed about the Generic law on Official statistics and
some country examples of statistical laws. A strong legal basis is important for every NSS and
it should regulate main principles such as confidentiality, coordination of the NSS and place
of the NSO in the NSS. Participants were encouraged to take inspiration from the GLOS when
they will revise their statistical laws.
Key recommendations from the seminar
a) A strong legal basis including the professional independence of the NSI as well as
guaranteeing free access to administrative data is essential for every NSI and the generic law
on official statistics may provide some guidance on content and formulations in the process of
revising statistical laws
b) Countries need to investigate about the availability and quality of administrative data in
order to be able to deliver data for the SDG monitoring.
c) NSSs need to work more on establishing partnerships with the private sector which can
help fill SDG data gaps
d) Countries are encouraged to standardize their data collections as much as possible, with
particular focus on administrative data, and the NSOs should take the lead in this area.
e) More guidance to countries is needed to assist them in the most appropriate procedures for
making disaggregated data sets accessible to users
Page 15 of 15
f) Further guidance to assist countries wishing to review their NSS, to choose which the most
appropriate tool is for them will need to be developed.
g) The timing of undertaking a comprehensive review should be linked to the development of
a NSDS.
h) Countries are strongly encouraged to use the range of reviews/assessment tools on offer to
develop their statistical laws to make it clearer how coordination efforts of the country should
operate, with particular emphasis on the role of the NSO within this environment
i) Reviews of NSSs will also review human resource issues, addressing both the staffing
numbers required to meet SDG reporting requirements, as well as their qualifications and
profiles needed to understand the complex indicators introduced by the SDGs.
* * *
