Policy Group on Statistical Co-Operation Phare

Policy Group on Statistical Co-operation Phare

First Meeting on 19-20, November 1998

Warsaw - Poland

PGSC/98-1/10

Permanent Compliance Monitoring

NW/22.10.98

1.Introduction

The European Council of Copenhague in 1993 set full compliance with the acquis communautaire at the moment of entry into the EU as one of three criteria to be respected. The acquis communautaire in total can thus be understood as a sort of club membership rules. Exceptions will not be liked by the other members and shall be minimised in number, scope and time.

The screening exercise now finalised provided a photograph of the compliance situation as well as some plans for the future. It shall though be noted that screening only covered the legally compelling part of the statistical acquis communautaire. In the understanding of Eurostat the other parts of the statistical acquis are as important and deserve also permanent monitoring. It should also be noted that a statement of compliance is a complex matter which can be settled at the end only after thorough investigation.

The purpose of permanent monitoring with an updated view of the compliance situation at any time is numerous, a schema of possible inputs and outputs is provided in the annex and will be described below. Other reasons for starting a systematic operation are:

Statistical Officies of Phare countries are also requested within their Government to comply with the acquis and to deliver evidence of this.
Member States’ Governments will also increasingly request evidence of compliance and of progress made. The European Council has asked for annual progress reports (see separate document), monitoring is required in any case for this report.
Phare as main pre-accession instrument, but also other instruments to come are very accession oriented. This means that Phare support is granted for investment and institution building which helps to comply with the acquis. The link shall be demonstrated in a transparent way which will application for funds make more successful.

From the outset it should be made clear that monitoring compliance has nothing to do with inspection or control. Like in Eurostat relations with Member States’ Statistical Offices we follow the hypothesis that non-compliance is not the fault of statistical offices but normally missing administrative and financial conditions. Deficiencies and future development needs need to be marked in order to secure sustainable future funding (see also document on screening).

For the management of permanent compliance monitoring the principle of close contacts inside the statistical system is also to be mobilised.

2.Inputs and Outputs for compliance monitoring

The graph in the annex shows the potential of inputs in terms of knowledge to the monitoring system which are quite heterogeneous:

Self- assessments: This is surely the most important source of information. Countries are most probably doing already this in a systematic way, they need in turn all new developments of the statistical acquis.
By product of co-operation: In the course of co-operation, e.g. in reports about missions, relevant information may come up.
Evaluation and review by experts from Member States and others: This is the main purpose of the Programme Secretariat. Systematic reviews shall be organised and financed, possibly combined with self-evaluations.
Pilot projects: Phare countries, Member States and Eurostat working closely together in running a common project, will automatically also collect information about the compliance situation in the sector of the project. Distillation of this information with reasonable effort must be organised.
Working groups: The same as in pilot projects is valid here. In a sense a working group is the most appropriate forum to compile a statement of compliance as all relevant actors can be assembled. They also represent the authority to give an undoubted statement in the statistical sector of the group. Also the compilation should be comparatively simple, as this can become a part of the agenda of the groups.
Long term stays: Persons from Phare countries statistical systems do of course have a view of their system in the area they are working. They will bring this knowledge to Eurostat in an unofficial way, they are also in a good position to compare their system to the acquis during the stay, as it is most accessible to them.
Compliance reports, output of seminars, sectoral evaluations: Compliance information is potentially also discussed in reports on national Phare programmes, as result of seminars or on the profound evaluations which have already taken place.
Availability of data: This is a common objective indicator for compliance which is relevant to all sectors. There are still no other common indicators found which are objectively observable. Sector specific indicators need still to be developed.

All possible inputs have to be systematically reviewed and used in the compliance monitoring system.

As main products of the monitoring system the following should be seen:

Identification of co-operation needs: In line with the Phare orientation as being the main pre-accession instrument, compliance information provides excellent input for identifying needs fro co-operation.
Programming general co-operation: The general situation of compliance will of course be useful in programming statistical co-operation.
Argumentation for funding requirements: Funding requirements need to be argued in line with the orientation of the instruments, now being Phare which will be completed by ISPA and SAPARD from the year 2000. Compliance will also be the only sustainable argument for a statistical share in the national Phare programmes.
Regular compliance reports: On top of the annual small reports on progress with respect to compliance, Commission and Council will demand much more detailed information about the situation in each candidate country. These reports should be easy to establish as concrete outcome of a permanent system.

The main problem will be to mobilise all available input in a systematic way and to compile the information with a reasonable effort.

3.Actors and organisation

Main actors become visible when the process of compiling compliance information is analysed:

Candidate countries: main and indispensable source of information, providing self-evaluations, helping with other statistics compiling agencies
Eurostat: Runs pilot projects, working groups, co-ordinates co-operation, provides meeting fora, etc. Eurostat sector specific units are also the finally responsible fro giving a compliance statement to the Council.
Programme Secretariat: supports Eurostat, compiles information, commissions expert evaluations in candidate countries, provides input for all sort of reporting.
Member States, EFTA and independent experts: co-operate in pilot projects and working group meetings, provide expertise for assessments.
CESD: provides programme information from the information system, provides relevant information from any reports due in the framework of co-operation.

Decisions asked from the PGSC:

The PGSC is asked to commit the Statistical Offices of applicant countries to provide the necessary information input for monitoring their compliance with the acquis communautaire in statistics.
The Statistical Offices will furthermore co-operate with the Programme Secretariat in order to allow the secretariat to fulfil its task given by Eurostat in the framework of the Phare programme.
The Statistical Offices will also help to compile compliance information from other agencies collecting statistics in their countries.
The applicant countries accept and support the role of reviewing the situation in their countries devoted to Member States’ statistical experts by Eurostat and the Programme Secretariat.

Annex