1. As was stated in the report of the third annual Joint Programme Review (CES/816) the review has now evolved into a continuous procedure. There are regular contacts among the three secretariats at all levels, culminating in "summit" meetings of the heads of the three organisations that deal with any problems that are still outstanding.
2. In the past year there have been two such meetings. The main meeting took place in Luxembourg on 4 October 1994 and an ad hoc meeting was held in Paris on 10 January 1995.
3. This report reflects the discussions at these meetings as well as other activities that have taken place in the period from June 1994 to March 1995.
4. The reason for having the extra meeting was that the three organisations considered that it would be useful to use high-level meetings to prepare for the CES Bureau meetings of October 1994 and February 1995. At each of these it had been proposed to discuss in detail one of the sub-programmes of the Integrated Presentation of International Statistical Work in the ECE Region (CES/1995/R.15 and Adds.1 to 6). It was thought that the three secretariats might be able to propose to the Bureau a common approach in order to save time and concentrate discussion at the Bureau meeting. For both meetings each of the three organisations prepared a "think piece" on the overall sub-programme and detailed comments on each programme element, including suggestions for which organisation should assume the "rapporteur/focal point" duties.
5. The Bureau found this preparatory work helpful (see the minutes of the second meeting of the 1994/5 Bureau, 17-18 October 1994, CES/BUR.95/10 and of the third meeting 6-7 February, CES/BUR.95/25) and the three organisations also found it useful. It is likely, therefore, that similar types of JPR meetings will take place prior to the October 1995 and February 1996 Bureau meetings.
6. During the course of the discussion of the sub-programme on economic statistics it was noted that the mandate of the Intersecretariat task force on price statistics is primarily limited to consumer price indices. OECD and the IMF are active in the Former Soviet Union and the Balkan countries in areas of prices with the possibility that the World Bank will become active in work in these countries also. It was agreed that there was a need for some coordinated approach to all price indices covering all the CES countries. OECD was asked to instigate steps to improve this situation by calling a meeting to look at producer prices, construction indices, export and import prices, as well as the particular problems of the transition countries, with the international organisations concerned.
7. Eurostat expressed regret that the OECD member countries apparently had reached a consensus to continue reporting in ISIC Rev. 2, despite the fact that a numerical majority were able to report in NACE Rev.1 or ISIC Rev.3. In addition the lack of correspondence between NACE Rev.1 and ISIC Rev. 3 at lower than the 2-digit level was highlighted by the meeting. There was also a problem with confidentiality since some of the data that Eurostat collects which OECD would like to share, is confidential.
8. A regular annual meeting was established between OECD and Eurostat which has resulted in some progress in coordinating efforts. OECD now uses the framework of Eurostat's work on methodology as the basis for their work on this. Problems on the timing of data requests and classification difficulties are in the process of being resolved.
9. There has been good cooperation between OECD and Eurostat in the area of Science and Technology statistics with the joint publication of the Canberra manual and the agreement to have one meeting per year in Eurostat and one in OECD.
10. OECD indicated a problem with annual foreign trade data for which they have access from Eurostat. The data in the database is converted to ECUs using the average exchange rate on monthly data. Eurostat agreed to make the data available in national currency, thus OECD can obtain data in national currencies from Eurostat, rather than from the countries themselves.
11. ECE collects foreign trade data from countries in transition. Upon request this data will be made available to both other organisations.
12. Eurostat is currently encouraging users in the European Commission to make greater use of OECD's OLIS database. This question arose when the European Commission's Directorate General for Economic Affairs complained that the only way of receiving up-to-date national accounts data for non-EU countries was directly from the statistical offices as the data received on paper from OECD was out-of-date. OECD has given assurances that the data on OLIS is updated sufficiently frequently.
13. The major event has been the start of operations of the European Environment Agency (EEA). The split of responsibilities between the EEA and Eurostat has been determined and a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations prepared. OECD and ECE should ensure that the EEA will be invited to all relevant meetings. Overall co-operation in this area was thought to be successful although the increasing number of databases should be monitored.
14. The meeting welcomed the co-operative effort among the Council of Europe, ECE and Eurostat in respect of the Census in The Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. It noted that each of the three organisations had contributed in a different way to the planning and conducting of the census and that the assistance they had provided to the national authorities had benefited by the participation of all three organisations in the work.
15. One major issue that was discussed was the revision of the UN recommendations on international migration statistics. This work involves close collaboration among Eurostat, UNSD and ECE. Eurostat is analysing the results of a detailed questionnaire sent to all ECE countries on the implementation of the current recommendations. It was pointed out that the involvement of OECD's expert group SOPEMI would prove very useful in this work as it would bring the views of the users into the discussion. The involvement of Eurostat and ECE in the working of this group would therefore be of importance. Eurostat and UNSD had jointly visited the international organisations in Geneva in order to inform them on the progress of the work. This joint mission was welcomed as a good example of inter- agency cooperation.
16. UNSD has decided to merge its questionnaire on migration statistics with the joint Eurostat/ECE questionnaire. Eurostat will send the questionnaire to all EU and EFTA countries, collect the data, perform checks and then would send processed tables to UNSD and ECE.
17. There was some concern with the fact that OECD was envisaging a data collection on migration statistics. It was felt by both ECE and Eurostat that this would increase the reporting burden of the member states. OECD was asked to investigate.
18. OECD and Eurostat were defining the terms of the co-operation in the field of social protection statistics. Eurostat's ESSPROS data for the EU countries has already been included in the "Social data base" of the OECD. Data for the non-EU countries was being collected by the OECD. The raw data provided to Eurostat by the Member States was being aggregated in a different way to the OECD: while the former followed a "functional" logic, the latter classified the data by "main policy area". Furthermore, the OECD included data from other sources. Therefore, when published, the statistics from the two data bases would be different. The users of the statistics would have to be informed about the origin of these differences.
19. OECD required improved statistics on public sector employment in order to make cross-country comparisons. Neither ECE nor Eurostat currently compile this sort of information although there is some call for data on value added by the public sector.
20. During the year a possible lack of coordination between ECE work on forestry and the OECD-Eurostat joint questionnaire had come to light. This was solved by an exchange of letters.
21. As in previous years the combined meetings timetable is contained in the Integrated Presentation of Work Programmes although Eurostat's contribution is only provisional as the timetable is fixed only in December for the following year and the number of meetings is only tentative owing to budgetary uncertainties. It can be seen from this programme that many meetings are now held jointly.
22. In view of the increasing number of joint meetings and the fact that the rules of procedures of the three organisations are different it was decided that some ground rules be drawn up in respect of joint meetings. It was agreed that, where a meeting is designated in its title as a "joint" meeting of two or more organisations, the rules of procedure of all these organisations should be followed to the fullest extent possible. The meeting should also be co-chaired to reflect the rules of the sponsoring organisations. If, however, there should be an item on the agenda which was exclusively relevant to the member countries of one organisation (for example in the context of a decision-making committee of the European Union), the rules of procedure (in respect of participation, chairmanship, decision making, etc.) for meetings held under the auspices of that organisation would be followed for that item only.
23. During the course of the year a request was received for a contribution to two documents for the twenty-eighth session of the Statistical Commission, describing past work, in one document, and, in the other, the future plans of the statistical divisions of international organisations. The JPR felt that such a contribution by the three organisations was unnecessary (although ECE had already replied) in the light of work done by the three organisations for the Integrated Presentation of Statistical Programmes. It was suggested to UNSD that this be made available as a room document at future sessions instead of ECE, OECD and Eurostat contributing individually.
24. The heads of the statistical divisions at ECE and OECD and the general director of Eurostat are in agreement that the work of the Joint Programme Review continues to be constructive. As the process continues fewer problems tend to materialise and the reasons for this have been good lines of communication among the three secretariats. The three organisations propose to the Conference that the JPR will continue in the same format as in 1995/6.
25. As the Review is a continuous process, the heads of national statistical offices are reminded that whenever they have a matter that they think should be put before the JPR it should be brought to the attention of the heads of any of the three organisations immediately as such problems can often be resolved fairly quickly without recourse to the main meeting.