2.  Introduction  Main administrative datasets used in compilation of NAS  Essential administrative data sources missing  Good practices and experiences in using administrative data for during the adoption of the 2008 SNA  Main challenges and difficulties that encountered  Recommendations for using of administrative data for compilation of national accounts

3.  The Statistical Office embarked on the revision of NAS in 2010 with a view of improving the quality of NAS and implementing recommendations of 2008 SNA  Rebasing (2001 to 2009) and revisions of the national accounts (2006 to 2012)  Development of SUT and I/O tables as an integral part of the revisions  Possible extension to SAM

4.  Implementation of 2008 SNA was done with the support of a NAS consultant  More technical support has been provided by MSA from IMF, East AFRITAC  Additional financial support by MEFMI

5.  Data sources and methodology have been peer reviewed by the IMF, EastAFRITAC and issues raised have largely been addressed  Estimates at current and constant prices are now complete for the years 2006-11  Supply and Use Tables has been finalised  Currently NAS is based on the SNA 1993  Plans are underway to release revised NAS based on the SNA 2008 from May 2014

6. Used in Compilation of NAS  VAT  Trade and BOP  Government; Audited Accounts and Budget Estimates  National Education Account Missing  Income tax

7.  Use of software (Nadabas) that incorporates administrative datasets into the NAS compilation system; data is stored in access and processed in excel  Use of a SUT which resulted to a more robust quality assurance approach through balancing of the supply and use of products (better benchmarks for 2009 base year)  Involvement of peer review  More data was available than in the previous revision  VAT  National Education Account

8. VAT Lacks sufficient details for compilation of IC and GFCF thus can be more useful if more details are collected Normally not comprehensive due to late filling by respondents. Data would be more useful if provided at establishment level to enable unit matching for QNA compilation Export Conflict; export data from HCDA is generally higher than that reported by KRA yet they are essentially supposed to be the same

9.  A general lack of appreciation of statistics by many respondents including public entities  Confidentiality issues; many respondents hesitate sharing information because of fear  of breaking confidentiality with their clients or customers  it could be shared with a third party e.g. KRA for tax purposes

10.  Most of the Sub-national (County) governments have failed to adopt use of IFMIS  It will be time consuming to analyze their data  Will lead into inaccuracy in the estimations

11.  Need for closer collaboration with the providers to ensure  Timeliness  Accuracy  Compatibility/compliance  Need for statistical capacity building to key administrative data providers  Regular technical meeting between the statistical office and data producers. These should be held along thematic groups e.g. agriculture, forestry and fishing

12. The End Thank you for your attention