1. Prodcom Working Group
Item 03.5 – Confidentiality & dissemination of PRODCOM statistics
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

2. OBJECTIVES:
Review of the confidentiality practices of PRODCOM statistics
2. Review of their impact on the data dissemination by Eurostat
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

3. USED TOOLS:
Analysis of data for 2012 as of 5 March 2014, to see "Reported" vs "Disseminated"
Questionnaire sent to MS regarding their confidentiality practices (4 questions, comprising also questions related to indicators)
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

4. At EU-level
ESTIMATION = when data for some products cannot be reported (ex: if an enterprise cannot report the volume in the required measurement unit). Estimation is done by National Statistical Institutes / Eurostat.
ROUNDING = is applied to the EU total, so that an approximate figure can be given without revealing the confidential data. The rounding base is also shown in order to indicate the range of possible true values of the total.
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

5. At EU-level Mapping of type of confidentiality on transparency degree:
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

6. Rounding degree at NACE-class (2-digits) level
Sold Value
- Part 1 -
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

7. Rounding degree at NACE-class (2-digits) level
Sold Value
- Part 2 -
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

8. Transparency degree at 4-dig level class, Sold Value
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

9. Transparency degree at CPA class (6-dig level), Sold Value
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

10. CONCLUSIONS (1) At EU level – flagged as confidential:
- approx. 22.5% of the sold value
- approx. 17.5% of the number of codes
- the real value of sold production for EU27 aggregate was of 99.83% in comparison with the published one (good mitigation)
2. At 4-digits class level
7 countries did not allow the publishing of more than 50% of the value for more than half of number of classes reported
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

11. CONCLUSIONS (2)
Significant variation of national confidentiality practices – significant difference in transparency
(Ex: EE, IT, FI, DK, LT / BE, IE, NL, SE, LV, SI, SK)
Countries with PASSIVE confidentiality - there are ways to mitigate the topic sensitivity by properly informing producers’ enterprises of their rights
Active confidentiality does not necessarily result in a low transparency degree (PT 91.2%, ES 87.4%, UK 85%)
For item 3: In general, the countries with passive confidentiality are more transparent
For item 4:
Estonie (100%) - enterprises are obliged to inform every year by a letter if they don't want to publish information that could enable to identify the name of the enterprise behind the Prodcom code
Finland (96%) - the number of producer enterprises is concealed but the value and quantity data revealed, unless appropriate active confidentiality is asked for by a producer enterprise. Enterprises are informed of their right to active confidentiality, which is buttressed by a dominance rule: also in case of comprising more than 80 per cent of the value of production in a PRODCOM heading they are entitled to have the relevant numbers concealed
Denmark (88%) - A reporting enterprise may request that Prodcom data for a specific code is treated as confidential. This request is accepted if at least one of two conditions is met: less than 3 enterprises report sales of this code / one enterprise report more than 85% of heading value.
Lithuanie (85%) - the company has to ask not to publish the information (it is the case just for 4 companies)
No clear correlation between the size of the Member States and their transparency degree
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

12. CONCLUSIONS (3)
Dissemination needs to be improved at all levels of aggregation, including at product (8-digits) and CPA (6-digits) levels.
The disclosure level could be improved by publishing the totals at least at 2- or 4-digit level classes
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

13. QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKING GROUP (1)
Shall the confidentiality rules of Member States be more precisely defined or even harmonised under FRIBS?
Would the Member States consider less conservative approaches to confidentiality than the present ones?
What is the likelihood of uniformly adopting the principle of passive confidentiality? Are the Member States willing to test the application of this principle in a coming data collection round with the support of EU grants?
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

14. QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKING GROUP (2)
Could a unification of the confidentiality rules lead to a better dissemination if an active confidentiality is continued to be applied?
Could a combined application of the passive and active confidentiality meet the specific situation in all Member States?
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014

15. THANK YOU
Item 03.5
Prodcom Working Group
18th -19th September 2014