Eurostat New round of peer reviews in the enlargement countries 1 Policy Group on Statistical Cooperation October 2015, Herceg Novi, Montenegro

Eurostat Background Peer reviews in the ESS 2006–2008 and Light peer reviews and global assessments in enlargement countries 2010 – 2012 About 5 years will have passed Progress based on the recommendations Change of professional and legal environment Pending actions might signal underlying problem Alushta Seminar June 2013 – support for a new round New round is more ambitious

Eurostat Scope and coverage 3 Enlargement countries (except Iceland) National Statistical Institutes + some Other National Authorities producing European statistics Code of Practice, all principles Coordination

4 The review process Standardised approach Team of three members per country including chair Self-assessment and documentation In-country visit Reports Improvement actions

Eurostat Self-assessment and documentation Comprehensive self-assessments for NSIs and some ONAs Other documentation (e.g. laws, strategies, policies, plans etc.) Web-sites The self-assessments provide input to peer reviewers, for focusing on special issues and as a basis for considering strengths and weaknesses in the institutions Focus on weaknesses Innovative practices should also be identified No ranking

Eurostat In-country visit Prior analysis of the questionnaires and documentation Generally 4-5 days Review of all 15 principles of the CoP Meetings with ONAs and stakeholders Meetings with senior and junior staff Meetings with different user groups Identifying challenges/problems Review of coordination role Wrap-up meeting with management 6

Eurostat Observers from other NSIs 7 TimingPR in countryObserver Q4 2015TR (pilot)RS Q2-Q3 2016RSMK Q3-Q4 2016MKBA Q1-Q2 2017BAAL Q3-Q4 2017ALXK Q1-Q2 2018XKME Q2-Q3 2018ME- Aim: to help with preparation Subject to prior approval of NSI being reviewed

Eurostat Report on compliance with CoP and coordination role 1.Executive summary 2.Introduction 3.Brief description of the national statistical system 4.Compliance with the Code of Practice and Coordination role 1.Strengths 2.Issues and recommendations 3.NSI views where they diverge from reviewers' assessment 5.Annexes on programme and participation

Eurostat Improvement Actions Drawn up by the NSI Based on recommendations SMART: Specific (What, Why, Who, Where, Which) Measurable (How much/many, how to know when accomplished?) Attainable (How) Relevant Time-bound (When)

Eurostat Audit-like approach External and impartial reviewers Standardised procedures and reports Evidence Review team is responsible for report with recommendations Evidence – typical questions: What are your procedures? How are they documented and where? How do you monitor that they are followed? What do you do in case of failure? Provide the documents Meetings with different stakeholders to ensure evidence

Eurostat Time schedule Discussion of methodology, timeline and first experience on the preparation of Turkey PGSC meeting, October 2015 Implementation of the pilot review in Turkey3-6 November 2015 Discussion of lessons from the pilot and fine-tuningApril 2016 Implementation of peer reviewsMarch 2016 – September 2018 PR in SerbiaQ2-Q PR in the former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaQ3-Q PR in Bosnia and HerzegovinaQ1-Q PR in AlbaniaQ3-Q Midway review and report, first monitoring resultsPGSC meeting, October 2017 PR in KosovoQ1-Q PR in MontenegroQ2-Q Discussion of resultsPGSC meeting, October 2018 First round of monitoring the implementation from 2017, the year following the review 11

Eurostat Concluding remarks The objective is identifying areas of improvement Extended scope Standardised approach, but no ranking Focus on weaknesses Evidence

Eurostat Thank you for your attention! 13