Web viewEUROPEAN COMMISSION. EUROSTAT. Directorate C: National Accounts, Prices and Key Indicators. Final Report DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEUROSTAT

Directorate C: National Accounts, Prices and Key Indicators

FINAL REPORT OF THE DMES TASK FORCE ON BENCHMARK REVISION POLICY

Version 29 November 2016

Final Report DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BOP Balance of PaymentsCMFB Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payments statisticsCOFOG Classification of the Functions of GovernmentCOICOP Classification of Individual Consumption by PurposeDMES Directors of Macro-Economic StatisticsEDP Excessive Deficit ProcedureEDPSWG EDP Statistics Working GroupEHRP European Harmonised Revision PolicyESA European System of AccountsESCB European System of Central BanksESS European Statistical SystemEU European UnionFRIBS Framework Regulation Integrating Business StatisticsGFS Government Finance StatisticsGNI Gross National IncomeGNIC GNI CommitteeIIP International Investment PositionMGDD Manual on Government Deficit and DebtNAWG National Accounts Working GroupPEEIs Principal European Economic IndicatorsSBS Structural Business StatisticsSDMX Statistical Data and Metadata ExchangeSIMSTAT Single Market Statistics

Final Report DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

At the 12th meeting of the Directors of Macro-Economic Statistics (DMES) on 25-26 June 2015, it was decided to:

- establish a DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy (DMES TF on BRP);

- organise a DMES Seminar on benchmark revisions in December 2015.

The seminar on benchmark revisions was organised on 11 December 2015 as part of the December meeting of the DMES.

With input from the DMES Seminar a mandate (Annex A) was drafted and a Task Force was formed (See Annex B for the composition of the Task Force).

In parallel, a CMFB Task Force on Harmonised European Revision Policy was active. This Task Force focussed on (quarterly and annual) routine revisions.

The two Task Forces worked closely together and two joint meetings were organised (see Annex C for an overview of the meetings).

The Task Force met four separate occasions and had very good discussions on the various relevant issues. Based on these discussions a number of recommendations were formulated and are listed in the different sections of this report. An overview of these recommendations can be found in the final section 10 along with the Task Force's conclusions.

First, the report outlines the background, goal of the Task Force and the terminologies used throughout the report. Then, the substantial issues are dealt with, namely the European harmonised benchmark revision year of dissemination, the consistency in the year of dissemination of revised data, benchmark revisions and administrative use of national accounts, and national major revisions. Before coming to the conclusions a separate section deals with the communication and public dissemination of benchmark revisions.

2. BACKGROUND

Consistency and comparability of national accounts and balance of payments/IIP data within countries, between domains, and across countries is hampered amongst other things by a lack of a harmonised revision policy or to be more precise, an implemented harmonised revision policy. Obviously, for users this situation is far from ideal. Moreover, for compilers an implemented harmonised revision policy would be useful. Discrepancies (asymmetries for instance) would not be blurred by vintage issues.

Co-ordination between source statistics (business statistics, population census, and many others) and national accounts and balance of payments/IIP is another issue where progress can and should be made. Implementing a European harmonised benchmark revision policy


for national accounts and balance of payments statistics would be a catalyst for further improvement in that respect.

The topic of harmonising revision policies has been on the agenda for many years - the CMFB discussed this issue in January 2003 while the NAWG (at that time the Working Party on National Accounts) looked at it in February 2001.

In 2011 the ESS guidelines on revision policy for the Principle European Economic Indicators (PEEIs) were finalised. The ESSC endorsed these guidelines in February 2012. The ESS guidelines follow the relevant standards defined in the European Statistics Code of Practice.

In July 2012 the CMFB agreed on the introduction of a harmonised European revision policy for national accounts and balance of payments/IIP, to be implemented by September 2014. The part on major revisions is presented below. The CMFB framework on revisions is in line with the ESS guidelines.

In February 2015 the CMFB launched a questionnaire to monitor the implementation of the revision policy. The majority of respondents (19 out of 29) were in favour of a possible harmonisation of the frequency and publication of major statistical (benchmark) revisions in the EU, though some of them expressed some doubts on feasibility issues. However, only six Member States planned to conduct them on a regular basis, following the European recommendation (every five years).


CMFB European Harmonised Revision Policy (part on major revisions)1

Furthermore, the CMFB recommendation states that “the national need for major revisions outside the major (European) ad-hoc revisions is recognised, although not formally in the proposal”.

European Union Member States have recently executed major revisions due to the implementation of ESA 2010 (in 2014), and the EU generally followed a co-ordinated timetable agreed at European level, which also extended to balance of payments statistics. According to the terminology used in the proposed European revision policy from the CMFB, this was a 'major ad-hoc revision'. Usually, during these revisions, new or changed basic data sources and/or new estimation models are also incorporated in addition to conceptual changes.

'Pure' benchmark revisions ('major regular revisions') take place on a regular basis (five to ten years) to incorporate results of changes in basic data sources (surveys and censuses) and/or new estimation methods.

According to the CMFB proposal, benchmark revisions should take place in years ending with '0' and '5', with implementation years ending with '4' or '9'.

It appears that most Member States have applied a major revision based on data concerning reporting year 2010. The common implementation year was 2014.

The revisions due to these major regular revisions substantially differed between Member States. Especially because of the consequences for EU budgetary (Own Resources) calculations, these revisions caused substantial comment in some Member States. The

1 Remark: In the scheme the word 'depth' is used where the ESS guidelines on revision policy use the term 'length'. In the ESS guidelines the term 'depth' is used for breakdowns/components.


different sizes of the revisions were partly caused by different intervals between major revisions in the different Member States. The pressure to come to a harmonised European policy for major regular revisions was increased substantially by these events2.

One of the reasons for discrepancies between national accounts/rest of the world data and balance of payments/IIP data was in the past partial inconsistency of concepts. ESA 2010 and BPM6 are now fully consistent and therefore this source of discrepancies has vanished. There is now a much greater need to address the remaining reasons for inconsistency and to include the need for such cross-domain consistency in a harmonised revision policy.

3. GOAL OF THE TASK FORCE

The main goal of the work of the DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy was to prepare a concrete proposal for the next harmonised benchmark revision for the national accounts, balance of payments and related areas. For this goal, the Task Force had to investigate the main factors to take into account when establishing the timing of a benchmark revision.

The Task Force was also asked to give guidance in the case of a national need for benchmark revisions outside the harmonised approach.

Furthermore, the Task Force was expected to address the issue of consistency between non-financial accounts and financial accounts, between quarterly and annual data, and between rest of the world accounts and balance of payments/IIP. The Task Force would also elaborate on the issue of consistency with national accounts data provided to Eurostat as part of the ESA Transmission Programme and national accounts data used for administrative purposes (for example EDP and Own Resources).

Finally, the Task Force was asked to elaborate on the communication and public dissemination of benchmark revisions.

For the mandate of the Task Force see Annex A.

4. TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE REPORT

Benchmark revisions

In the context of the work of this Task Force, the term 'benchmark revision' is used. In the terminology of the CMFB framework these revisions are called 'major regular revisions': major revisions that take place on a regular basis to incorporate results of changes in basic

2 The European Parliament asked the Commission in its Report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 (A8-0140/2016), based on the annual report of the European Court of Auditors, to take measures to reduce the number of years covered by reservation at the end of the next verification cycle for GNI-based contributions and to put in place the arrangements needed to reduce the impact of revisions of methods and sources presented by Member States for the compilation of their GNI.


data sources (e.g. surveys and censuses) and/or new estimation methods. The term 'benchmark revision' is closer to the practice of national accounts compilation and is equivalent to 'major regular revision'.

Routine revisions vs benchmark revisions

Initially, it was decided, in good co-operation with the CMFB Task Force, that routine revisions apply to annual and infra annual revision windows, combined with a specified depth to backward revisions. In the context of the harmonised European policy, this depth is 4 years (including T-1).

Some Member States however, execute (or plan to do so) 'annual benchmark revisions' with an impact on time series (usually a set number of years back but beyond the above mentioned routine revision window of 4 years). Annual benchmark revisions with an impact on time series beyond the routine revision window would thus be classified as major revisions. Some of these annual revisions do not comply with the idea of a benchmark revision (comprehensive update of all possible sources and methods with impact on all tables of the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme).

The CMFB Task Force opened the possibility to update time series in the third quarter with an undefined length. This could include the results of 'annual benchmark revisions'. The benchmark revisions in this report refer to 'real' benchmark revisions (see section on harmonised benchmark revisions below).

Focus on the year of dissemination

In the original CMFB framework the timing of major regular revisions was as follows:

"Benchmark years fixed with years ending with '0' and '5', implementing years with years ending '4' and '9', unless this is integrated with a European-wide major occasional revision in another year."

The Task Force decided that co-ordinating a benchmark revision should concern the year that the results of a benchmark revision are disseminated, not the reference year (which some countries call the 'benchmark year'). Member States should be free to decide on the most appropriate reference year3 according to the national data sources that are available4. So, years mentioned in this report refer to the year of dissemination only.

Harmonised benchmark revision

Before moving to the proposal for a harmonised benchmark revision, or actually a harmonised dissemination year, it is necessary to define it. The term 'harmonised' refers to

3 The Task Force underlined the reference year should be a recent year (normally less than five years).

4 The Task Force did not discuss the relation of this to chain-linking of volume series, where in effect a new base year is established each year. In the case of those countries benchmarking each year this process is straightforward, whereas those countries benchmarking periodically face a co-ordination issue to update the chained volume series.


a co-ordinated European major regular revision. In case of a major ad-hoc revision (due to the implementation of a new ESA for instance) this is usually combined with such a revision. A harmonised benchmark revision refers here to a co-ordinated European major revision between major ad-hoc revisions, when they occur. There are good examples of coordinating major ad-hoc revisions across the EU with a common dissemination date such as the implementation of ESA 2010, BPM6 and the move to NACE Rev.2.

In the context of the work of this Task Force, a revision was defined as a 'benchmark revision' when, at the time of dissemination, at the same time:

All ESA tables are aligned. (Although in practice this may not be fully achieved due to various deadlines for reporting ESA tables. Those tables delivered with longer transmission delays may then incorporate some further changes since the first results of the benchmark revision were disseminated.)

Time series cover a large number of years (starting in 2000 or 1995 - depending on the requirements in the ESA Transmission Programme – or further back), and in any case more than the 4-years threshold defined for routine revisions.

All pending classification issues for example regarding units have been resolved/implemented.

Major changes in sources or in compilation methods, if required, have been implemented.

Errors identified in an earlier stage have been corrected.

Furthermore, consistency between domains should be mentioned. Although consistency between domains (non-financial accounts and financial accounts, national accounts rest of the world accounts and balance of payments/IIP) is the ultimate aim for every publication, this consistency should at least be reached during the dissemination of the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision.

Summarising, a harmonised benchmark revision should lead to a situation where at least once every five years a maximum degree of consistency (within national accounts, across Member States and between domains) is reached, and the statistics concerned are based on the best possible data.

National major revisions

For benchmark revisions outside the European harmonised approach, the term 'national major revisions outside the European harmonised approach' or simply 'national major revisions' will be used. The Task Force members disapproved of the use of the word 'uncoordinated' as on a national level these revisions are of course coordinated. Section 8 deals with recommendations regarding national major revisions.


5. DISSEMINATION YEAR FOR THE NEXT HARMONISED BENCHMARK REVISION

Harmonised benchmark revision 2019

In 2014 all European Member States published the results of a major revision due to the harmonised implementation of ESA 2010. According to the terminology used in the CMFB framework, this was a 'major ad-hoc revision'. The majority of Member States simultaneously conducted benchmark revisions. So, data published in 2014 contained the results of both revisions. Many but not all Member States chose the year 2010 as new reference year.

Following the CMFB framework the dissemination of the next harmonised benchmark revision should be in 2014 + 5 = 2019. However, for several reasons, many Member States have indicated that they would not be able to meet this. Below, first the current situation is described. Then a two-step approach is proposed. First, how to deal with benchmark revisions in the period 2018-2021 and subsequently a harmonised benchmark revision in 2024 is suggested.

Current situation

Based on inputs from Task Force members, supplemented by information transmitted during the NAWG meeting 10-11 November 2016, Country plans are currently as follows:

In October 2016, Denmark has implemented a major revision of the balance of payments statistics, going back to 2005. The national accounts data will be revised accordingly, in November 2016, and other known issues will be dealt with at the same time. A decision on the next major revision has not been taken yet, but preliminary thoughts point to 2020 as the year of dissemination.

Malta will disseminate the results of a benchmark revision in 2017 and considers another benchmark dissemination in 2019.

Austria will probably disseminate the results of a benchmark revision in 2017.

The Netherlands will disseminate the results of a benchmark revision in 2018. Actually, the reference year was moved 5 years (from 2010 to 2015) but due to an acceleration of the production process the results will be published in 2018 instead of 2019.

Norway, Sweden and Belgium will disseminate the results of a benchmark revision in 2019. Possibly Spain and Finland will choose the same year.

Slovakia will choose between 2019 and 2020 for disseminating the results of the next benchmark revision.

Poland has derogations regarding the ESA 2010 Transmission programme until 2020 and due to this Poland will disseminate the results of a benchmark revision in that year (however, 2019 is also still on the table).

Czech Republic will publish the results of a benchmark revision in 2020.


France aims at disseminating the results of a benchmark revision in 2021, mainly because of changes occurring in business statistics due to profiling. Recently it was decided that in 2018 revised French national accounts data will be published due to adjusted cross border primary income flows. However, the planned benchmark revision with dissemination in 2021 remains.

Slovenia has no special benchmark revision policy, data is revised as need arises. Decision on the next benchmark year is not yet adopted.

United Kingdom and Ireland benchmark annually, so a choice of a specific year is not relevant for these countries. Although some Member States are considering this approach, most Member States stick to multi-year intervals. Partly to provide users with stable time series, partly because of the heavy burden of executing benchmark revisions.

The other Member States represented in the Task Force (Germany and Italy) have not yet decided on the next benchmark year. Italy is in favour of planning the dissemination of the results of the next benchmark revision in 2019 but has not yet taken a final decision on this issue.

Apart from specific country reasons to decide that an (extra) benchmark revision is needed (like substantial changes in one of the main sources or major developmental programmes delivering significant revisions) there are several European issues that impact all or almost all Member States. However, this does not lead automatically to a common year for a harmonised benchmark revision.

An important issue is the implementation of FRIBS. Actually, this issue consists of two elements. First of all, it is uncertain when the legal procedure for this new Regulation will be finalised (current planning is for 2018). So it is uncertain in which year the results of the changed business statistics will become available as inputs for the national accounts. Moreover, the possible impact on national accounts data is unknown and could be very significant.

Secondly, many Member States will have to change a part of the statistical units they use and examine more complex enterprises in more detail (profiling). The impact of this change is uncertain. Most probably for some Member States the change will lead to the need for a benchmark revision. Unfortunately, at least regarding a harmonised benchmark revision, there is not one single year where every country should be compliant with the (existing) Regulation concerned. The target is reference year 2017 as the first year to have reached 'a high level of compliance', possibly to finalise it fully for the reference year 2018. Data concerning 2018 will be available in June 2020. In case of a huge impact the Member States concerned would naturally execute a benchmark revision and disseminate the results in 2019, 2020 or 2021.

Another example is the next population census. This is planned for 2021 (reference year). The deadline for data transmission is March 2024. However, some Member States will have the data available much earlier. Especially in Member States without a population register, like IE, the possible impact on national accounts estimates is huge and therefore these Member States will need to include the new data as soon as possible. The fact that data comes available at different moment in the Member States makes it difficult to use


this factor to determine a common dissemination year for the revised results of national accounts/balance of payments.

Besides FRIBS and population census, the Task Force has looked into changes regarding household budget surveys, SIMSTAT, classifications like COICOP and COFOG, expiration of ESA 2010 Transmission Programme derogations and surveys regarding services. This exercise did not lead to a clear choice for one single harmonised dissemination year arising from these potential changes.

Finally, the administrative use of national accounts data was considered. This section only focuses on the choice of the next harmonised dissemination year. Further relevant issues regarding the administrative use of national accounts data are covered in Section 7.

Regarding EDP/GFS, no specific year for a harmonised benchmark revision seemed to be required. The Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD) was last updated in March 2016. The manual provides guidance for ESA 2010 and will be updated every other year, therefore again in 2018. Interim clarifications will be dealt with through the issuance of 'Guidance notes' or 'Clarifications'. Most changes are in fact well identified in advance, such that Member States can prepare or anticipate. In addition, the time needed for implementation would also vary significantly across Member States. Overall, revisions due to changes of the MGDD do not lead to the need for a specific common benchmark revision year. However, if changes in the MGDD, Guidance notes or Clarifications have a significant impact on the result of a single Member State, this could trigger a benchmark revision in the Member State concerned.

Regarding the GNI/Own Resources process, the situation is as follows: from this perspective the next harmonised benchmark revision should be implemented at the latest in 2019. There is a strong pressure from the European Parliament (and the European Court of Auditors) to reduce the number of open years and the impact of (benchmark) revisions. As listed above, some Member States plan to revise their national accounts later, for instance in 2020 or 2021. For obvious reasons those Member States would not prefer to have two benchmark revisions within two or three years. The next section will elaborate on these cases. Eurostat staff responsible for the GNI assessment procedure explained that there could be the need for placing general reservations for Member States that will have benchmark revisions later than 2019.

Given the range of current planning indicated for benchmark revisions, the Task Force examined the pros and cons of disseminating the results of a harmonised benchmark revision in the years 2019-2021. The results are listed on the next page.


Pros and cons of harmonised benchmarking in the years 2019-2021 (year of dissemination)

2019

Pros: - In line with CMFB framework for five yearly major revisions (2014 +5 = 2019)

- Limiting the number of 'open years' regarding the Own Resources/GNI and ensuring that the benchmark revision is implemented prior to the end of the current GNI assessment cycle.

Cons: - Some Member States indicated to plan a benchmark revision (dissemination) in another defined year due to source data and/or resourcing issues.

- Some Member States will choose another year (not yet defined) due to (uncertain) impacts of changes in main sources.

- Short deadline for planning and resourcing (final decision will be taken in the DMES meeting in December 2016).

- Some Member States have derogations until 2020 concerning the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme.

- Disseminating new national accounts data in September 2019 would be too late to be included via the regional accounts in the Structural Funds procedure. Probably the reporting years 2015, 2016 and 2017 will have to be transmitted to DG REGIO in spring 2019. The average of the three years is used for checking the eligibility of NUTS 2 regions.

2020Pros: - Some Member States have derogations until 2020 concerning the ESA 2010

Transmission Programme.- For some Member States the data sources will be better than in 2019.

Cons: - Leaves six years between benchmark revisions.- Some Member States will choose another year due to changes in main

sources.

2021Pros: - Greater possibility for taking on changes in data sources.

- Long period for planning and resourcing.

Cons: - Later than specified in the CMFB framework for major revisions and seven years after the last harmonised revision.

- Some Member States will choose another year due to changes in main sources.

- May miss some new major data sources in close following years (e.g. Population Census).

- There is a 'tail risk'. If changed sources were delayed beyond 2020, the time between two benchmarks could even become longer.


To conclude: In 2014 all Member States disseminated the revised results of the national accounts due the implementation of ESA 2010. Based on the CMFB framework, supplemented with the need to use the best possible data for GNI/Own Resources and to avoid withholding of revision needs, the next harmonised dissemination year for the results of benchmark revisions should ideally be 2019. Five years between benchmark revisions is seen as the maximum delay to ensure 'freshness'.

Although the principle of harmonisation of revision policies across countries is strongly supported, the majority of members of the Task Force could not agree on the year 2019. Some Member States plan to disseminate the results of a next benchmark revision in 2020 or 2021 (and some already in 2017 or 2018). In addition, some Member States will revise annually (so including 2019). Nevertheless, a recommendation was formulated in line with the CMFB framework

Recommendation I: Member States are recommended to consider the dissemination in 2019 of the results of the next national accounts benchmark revision and a parallel benchmark revision for balance of payments/IIP.

Benchmark revisions 2018-2021

So, although the CMFB framework points at 2019 as the next harmonised benchmark year, not all Member States will disseminate the results of the next benchmark revision in that year.

For those Member States that do not disseminate the results of the next benchmark revision in 2018 or 2019 this could lead to extending the number of 'open years' in the GNI/Own Resources assessment procedure. The GNI used for Own Resources purposes follows the concepts of ESA 95 for the reporting years up to and including 2013. So for those years there is a discrepancy between GNI used for the Own Resources and the figures in the tables according to the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme. The differences, however, can be explained in detail through transition items. Apart from this temporary difference, the figures used for the Own Resources should be fully in line with those of the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme. Outstanding reservations for Own Resources are normally dealt with during benchmark revisions. In case a Member State would address specific reservations for Own Resources without immediately adjusting the whole national accounts system, there would be an additional (temporary) discrepancy.

From a transparency point of view the figures should be as much as possible in line. In general no distinction should be made between economic data and administrative data. It is the same data based on the same methodological rules used for different purposes. However, addressing separate specific GNI reservations before a benchmark revision could reduce the impact of the benchmark revision itself. Not all reservations would need a full benchmark revision.

Recommendation II: When a Member State decides to disseminate the results of a benchmark revision after 2019, it could consider addressing separate specific GNI reservations before the planned dissemination year of the next benchmark revision if the reservations concerned do not require a full benchmark revision.


Harmonised benchmark revision 2024

Although the Task Force in principle agreed on 2019 as a common year for the next harmonised benchmark revision in practice some countries cannot meet this agreement. The Task Force proposed to use the next benchmark revision as a 'springboard' for the subsequent better harmonised benchmark revision in the middle of the next decade, assuming that there is ample lead-time to better coordinate those factors which have made a common dissemination year in 2019-2021 difficult. Perhaps, supported by an increased awareness of the importance and the help of an early planning, it is possible to agree to transition to a harmonised benchmark revision in 2024 (= 2019 + 5).

Following the CMFB framework, the interval between benchmark revisions should be five years at maximum. If some Member States will choose for 2020 or 2021 the following harmonised benchmark revision would be less than five years later.

The choice of the next harmonised benchmark revision should of course take into account a possible next major ad-hoc revision due to the implementation of the next ESA. The Regulation on ESA 2010 was adopted in May 2013. This version of ESA was implemented in 2014. Given the likely timetable for a future revision of SNA, and the subsequent time taken to develop and legislate a new ESA, it seems highly unlikely that the next version of ESA will be implemented by 2024.

Recommendation III: Member States are recommended to move over time towards 2024 as the dissemination year of the next harmonised benchmark revision.

6. CONSISTENCY IN THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION OF REVISED DATA

Timing within the year

As regards timing of major revisions within the year, the common practice is that these coincide with the annual revision cycle in the routine revision practice. On first sight there is no recommendation needed on this issue. However, Member States follow different schemes for their annual revision cycle. For routine revisions the length of the time series ('depth') is fixed for the different quarters. The CMFB Task Force recommends however for the third quarter an unlimited depth. So, benchmark revisions are to be carried out so that they can be introduced inside a year in accordance with the third quarter routine revision.5

Recommendation IV: Benchmark revisions - 5-yearly or at lower intervals - should be disseminated in line with the harmonised annual revision cycle. Following the recommendations of the CMFB Task Force on Harmonised European Revision Policy the third quarter seems to best qualify for linking the results of a benchmark revision to the harmonised annual revision policy.

Consistency of annual and quarterly data

5 However, at the time of drafting this final report the exact wording of the final report of the CMFB Task Force on Harmonised European Revision Policy was not yet available.


Quarterly and annual data should be aligned. This should be the case for the production account as well as the sector accounts. However, in practice due to different deadlines in the ESA Transmission Programme and national reasons this is not always the case for a short period.

Recommendation V: When the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision are disseminated, the annual and quarterly data should be aligned for the whole time series.

Length and level of detail of time series

The ESA Transmission Programme covers a large number of years, going back to 2000 or 1995 as appropriate. However, when Member States implement large revisions in size, they are taken back many years to avoid discontinuities, and usually beyond that required for the ESA Transmission Programme. In order to avoid inconsistencies between parts of time series of different topics/tables, the length of the adjusted time series transmitted on a voluntary basis should be equal.

Consistency is one of the key elements of national accounts. Theoretically, the whole time series and every level of detail should be consistent. In practice however, it is not possible to publish all results at the same moment. An agreed minimum requirement is to publish consistent time series as required in the ESA Transmission Programme (under ESA 2010 for most tables 1995 onwards).

Recommendation VI: When the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision are transmitted to Eurostat, the transmission should at least cover consistent time series as required in the ESA Transmission Programme.

This recommendation applies to main aggregates, tables by industry, regional tables, etc. Actually, it includes recommendation V concerning consistent time series of annual and quarterly figures. Some Member States have derogations regarding the Transmission Programme but this situation should be resolved in 2020. However, the situation is less clear regarding the symmetric input-output table and the supply and use tables. Actually, these tables do not contain time series but each table zooms in on a specific year.

In the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme it is indicated that: "when data that have already been transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) are revised, those revised data shall be transmitted to the Commission no later than the day they are published by the national authority".

So, according to the Transmission Programme, symmetric input-output tables and supply and use tables should be transmitted if they are updated. However, it is not completely clear if they should be updated in case of a benchmark revision.

The symmetric input-output table should be transmitted every five years. In case of a benchmark revision it is unclear if the Member State should compile an updated version of the tables which have been previously transmitted to Eurostat. What is clear is that if a Member State publishes an updated version of the table concerned, this table should be transmitted to Eurostat.


The supply and use tables should be transmitted annually (after three years). For some Member States it may not be possible to transmit revised supply and use tables that are fully consistent with the latest revised estimates of the main GDP aggregate series. This exercise may require additional work and these Member States may not be able to provide a coherent set of integrated tables across years in order to maintain consistency across the national accounts framework in the time series.

The members of the Task Force supported the idea that input-output tables form a special category. There should not be an obligation to update 'old' input-output tables.

Regarding the supply and use tables the situation is more heterogeneous. For some Member States all tables are consistent for all years because the supply and use tables are an integral part of the compilation and balancing process. The other Member States would prefer not to have to update supply and use tables for past years.

One could say, all tables should be consistent with each other for all required years because no exceptions are listed. On the other hand, the statement mentioned above (in italics) leaves open the possibility that a Member State does not revise all previously transmitted tables. For the most recent years, however, there is general agreement that the supply and use tables of these years should be consistent with the updated estimates of the main aggregates.

Recommendation VII: When the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision are transmitted to Eurostat, the transmission should cover consistent supply and use tables for as many years as possible. Member States that do not (yet) use supply and use tables in their balancing process should at least transmit updated supply and use tables for the year T-4 (followed in December by the transmission of supply and use tables for the year T-3 according to the Transmission Programme).

Non-financial accounts and financial accounts

Conceptually, non-financial accounts and financial accounts are aligned. Results are closely connected as financial transactions are the counterpart of non-financial transactions. In practice, however, a statistical discrepancy between the capital and the financial accounts is often observed, indicated by different numbers for net lending/borrowing. Moreover, the presentation of balance sheets requires a consistent recording of non-financial and financial stocks and their changes due to transactions, revaluations and other changes in volumes (stock-flow consistency).

Both non-financial accounts and financial accounts focus on levels as well as on changes. Due to financial innovation and the inherent higher volatility of financial stocks and transactions, revisions in the financial accounts (including balance sheets) are often higher than those for non-financial aggregates. Some countries apply for that reason a different revision policy for the financial accounts. If needed, the entire time series of the financial accounts are adjusted yearly in order to obtain consistent stock and transaction series without statistical breaks. The interval for non-financial accounts is according to the CMFB framework up to five years. In case of increased 'tension' between non-financial and financial accounts, as indicated by an increasing statistical discrepancy for the recording of net lending/borrowing, an extra benchmark revision of the non-financial accounts can be executed. Given that the more frequent revision of the financial accounts


series is often not accompanied by a parallel benchmark revision of the complete ESA Transmission Programme, these revisions share features of both benchmark and 'annual routine revisions'.

Recommendation VIII: At benchmark intervals of the ESA tables, the greatest possible consistency of the non-financial accounts and the financial accounts should be ensured. The policies for revising time series should be co-ordinated. Financial accounts time series should normally be reviewed at annual frequency. If, due to this, in the years after a benchmark revision significant discrepancies to the non-financial accounts arise, an additional benchmark revision of the non-financial accounts may be considered. Discrepancies between non-financial and financial accounts should be monitored closely.

Rest of the world accounts and balance of payments/IIP

From the national accounts point of view the balance of payments is one of its source statistics. In practice the relationship is more complex. The different source data are confronted and balanced. The balance of payments data should be available in time for the national accounts compilation/balancing process. Conversely, relevant national accounts estimates (regarding illegal economic activities, for instance) should also be available in time for the balance of payments production process.

The resulting national accounts figures (concerning the rest of the world accounts) should ideally equal those of the published balance of payment figures. Close cooperation between compilers of both domains is a precondition for consistency.

Regarding the issue of consistency it should not make any difference if the national accounts and the balance of payments are produced in the same institution or not.

Recommendation IX: To arrive at consistency of simultaneously published national accounts and balance of payments data from a benchmark revision (including time series) the compilers of both domains should coordinate their work processes and exchange required estimates in good time (in concrete terms: early enough to be able to publish simultaneously consistent data).

7. BENCHMARK REVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTS DATA

In general no distinction should be made between national accounts data used for administrative purposes and national accounts data used for other purposes. It is the same data based on the same methodological rules used for different purposes.

National accounts data is not only used for administrative purposes. The administrative assessment procedures themselves often lead to revisions of national accounts figures, sometimes having impacts on related time series.


In section 5, EDP and GNI/Own Resources were already discussed in relation to the choosing of a dissemination year for the next harmonised benchmark revision.

This section further focuses on EDP and GNI/Own Resources in the context of benchmark revisions.

It is worth mentioning that national accounts and balance of payments data are used in many other administrative procedures (such as having GDP as denominator for instance). And of course the non-administrative use if national accounts data in monitoring the economy, preparing and evaluating economic policy, business cycle analysis, productivity analysis, etc. are very important. Therefore, all users want the best possible data including consistent time series.

Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP)

It was recognised by the members of the Task Force that the EDP is a strong mechanism for improving national accounts data. Most required changes concern the previous 4 years (T-1 to T-4) which fall in the routine revisions window, dealt with by the CMFB Task Force on European Harmonised Revision Policy.

EDP clarification rounds in the first three weeks of April and October routinely lead to requests for changes in the data reported: EDP, but also the underlying GFS. Eurostat can express reservation or change the data reported, as the data used for EDP must be fully exact at all times. In addition, 'Dialogue visits' from Eurostat to Member States (and 'Requests for clarifications' rounds taking place in April and October) result in a list of opened issues ('action points'). These issues should generally be addressed in the following months so the next notification (or, occasionally, the following one) must include the required changes.

The Eurostat Directorate D, occupied with EDP and GFS, considers four principles as vital: (1) the reported debt/deficit must always be correct at any time, (2) requested changes must be implemented without delay (unless Eurostat agrees on waiting for a routine revision), (3) underlying GFS data must be coherent with EDP data, (4) this concerns at least the last four years, although the policy focus is largely on the latest year6.

The Task Force took note of the practice of significant revisions regarding historical GFS data. As an example, when considering 'total expenditure' of the sector S13, most Member States have revised data from October 2014 (last benchmark) to April 2016, with only 7 Member States showing no revision at all for that aggregate (Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Sweden) for the years 1995-2009. Half of the Member States had at least one data revision in excess of 0.5% of total expenditure, for one of those years. Additionally, many revisions also concerned breakdowns with unchanged totals.

In case EDP data must be revised and these revisions have an impact on time series beyond the routine revisions window, the following options occur:

6 Input on EDP/GFS was provided by the EDPSWG Chair summarising the discussion carried out in the June 2016 meeting (item B.7), based on findings gathered by an ad-hoc expert group on revision policy for EDP and GFS (that met twice in the 1st semester of 2016 and processed two questionnaires on Member States’ practices and policy preferences). The four principles above were accepted by most Member States.


a. GFS time series beyond T-4 are revised immediately, as well as all counter transactions.

b. GFS time series beyond T-4 are not revised immediately. This causes a break in the time series. Materiality thresholds would typically be considered too, when judging the nuisance of a break in time series.

c. GFS time series beyond T-4 are revised immediately without revising the counter transactions. This leads to inconsistencies within the national accounts (GFS being an integral part of national accounts).

Only Member States that apply an annual update strategy, including time series beyond T-4, like United Kingdom and Ireland and possibly Slovenia and Sweden, find it straightforward to apply option a. Some Member States, like Sweden, apply a materiality threshold to decide when to revise all national accounts for historical years. The idea of using a materiality threshold for historical data revisions, proposed by Poland, was welcomed by the 'expert group on revision policy for EDP and GFS'. Other Member States will usually include changes in time series later and possibly only in the next planned benchmark revision.

Concerning option b, the Task Force agreed with the notion that the immediate incorporation in national accounts (for the opened years) of all innovations stemming from EDP/GFS (e.g. change in sectorisation, or change in methods to comply with EDP) was generally good practice7, even in the absence of revisions to historical years, as long as the implied break in time series was not deemed significant or material. This ensured the best S13 accounts possible to be embedded in national accounts, at a cost of modest breaks in time series. This approach is to some extent already common practice in the compilation of accounts. The Task Force did not wish to elaborate on the definition of what is a material break in time series, a subject best left to national accounts compilers.

Other Member States will usually include changes in time series noticeably later and possibly only in the next planned benchmark revision.

The (not listed) option to have a temporary discrepancy between EDP and GFS figures (possibly accompanied by a bridge table) was favoured by several members of the Task Force but was rejected by Eurostat staff responsible for EDP as being against the relevant Regulation (479/2009) and breaking an important consistency link for explaining changes in the deficit by underlying transactions. However, some Task Force members interpret Regulation 479/2009 otherwise and think that this Regulation does not imply nor request that GFS data should be revised according to changes in EDP-data.

Eurostat Directorate D emphasised that users (like DGECFIN) insist on EDP/GFS consistency. A situation with two deficits (B.9) of general government (the ESA one and the EDP one), is deemed unacceptable, with the expenditure and revenue breakdowns only available for the ESA B.9. Such a situation may also pose a credibility problem towards the general public.

GNI/Own Resources

7 However, Guidance notes come in between updates of the Manual on Government Deficit and Debt with shorter term implementation. Some Member States find this practice difficult to process.


GNI data for Own Resources can differ from regular data transmissions to Eurostat (ESA 2010 not yet applied for the years up to and including 2013, time bar after four years, etc.).

As already stated in Section 5, Member States could consider addressing separate specific GNI reservations before a planned benchmark reservation. In this case, a (temporary) difference between data for administrative use and the regular data transmissions to Eurostat occurs. For transparency reasons differences between regular data transmissions to Eurostat and national accounts data used for administrative purposes should be explained. For the sake of completeness, because it mainly refers to routine revisions, if the EDP clarification rounds in the first three weeks of October lead to changes that have a significant impact on GNI (more than 0.1%), these revised figures should also be included in the GNI for Own Resources purposes.

Members of the Task Force raised concerns with the differing approaches and principles applied by EDP/GFS and GNI/Own Resources. This poses problems for Member States, for example handling significant re-classifications within short EDP/GFS deadlines supplemented with the challenges caused by having a regular update of the Manual on Government Deficit and Deficit (MGDD). However, experts familiar with both fields consider them very different, operating with different motivations, methods and time tables, such that there is little scope to have approaches brought closer together in any meaningful way.

In view of this analysis, the Task Force agreed to formulate only a recommended minimum standard regarding consistency at the time of a benchmark revision. However, it is obvious that the aim must be to arrive at consistency between national accounts data used for administrative purposes and data transmitted to Eurostat as part of the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme as much as possible, not only at the time of a benchmark revision.

Recommendation X: At the time of dissemination of the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision, national accounts data used for administrative purposes should be fully consistent with data transmitted to Eurostat as part of the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme.

8. NATIONAL MAJOR REVISIONS

National major revisions8 are all national accounts revisions outside the European harmonised dissemination years by Member States which impact time series outside the routine window of 4 years (T-1 to T-4). This may concern Member States that execute major revision ('real' benchmark revisions or otherwise) on an annual basis. Other Member States could follow an approach with a certain interval but due to substantial changes in one of the main sources (structural business statistics, population survey, etc.) or due to

8 During the discussions it appeared better to replace the word 'benchmark' in this item by 'major'. Referring to the earlier mentioned hybrid practices, this issue does not only concern 'real' benchmark revisions outside the proposed harmonised framework. It can also concern 'lighter' revisions without all elements of a real benchmark revision (but with an impact on time series outside the routine revision window of 4 years).


EDP or GNI/Own Resources issues they execute a benchmark revision outside the harmonised scheme.

In the CMFB framework on a harmonised revision policy the need for national major revisions is recognised:

"The national need for major revisions outside the major (European) ad-hoc or regular revisions is recognised, although not formally in the proposal. Indeed, the trade-off between national data accuracy and the respect to the revisions practice should be assessed on a case by case basis and discussed with the relevant European statistical authorities. In the forthcoming decade the expected number of major ad-hoc revisions (e.g. euro area enlargements) is high, which would allow keeping the number of national major revisions to a minimum. Moreover, national compilers should, as much as possible, coordinate the development and introduction of new data sources or methodologies with major regular revisions."

Moreover, according to the ESS guidelines on revision policy for PEEIs: "Accuracy is one of the key issues mentioned in the European Statistics Code of Practice. Therefore, new and better estimation models as well as new information on the structure of an indicator (weighting pattern), which have a significant impact on important macro-economic variables mentioned in press releases, should be implemented as soon as possible. When a methodological change is of major relevance for a country, leading to more accurate figures, the country could introduce the methodological change as soon as possible provided that the consistency with existing European legal acts is maintained."

The Task Force has discussed the issue if there should be a sort of threshold for national major revisions. Changes due to the correction of errors or the implementation of improved sources or methods that lead to revisions bigger than this threshold would urge for a major revision. Finally, it was decided to leave this question to the Member States involved. Most important reasons for this were:

- The impact of new or changed sources on key aggregates is not always easy to estimate.

- National accounts concern more than the key aggregates GDP and GNI.

So, Member States sometimes have to execute a major revision outside the harmonised approach. The question is what does this mean for the harmonised approach. For those Member States that have major revisions on an annual basis it is clear that they are always compliant with a harmonised approach. For other Member States, the decision to execute a benchmark revision outside the scheme of a harmonised approach would most probably mean that no benchmark revision will be executed with dissemination of the results in a year of the harmonised approach. Due to the workload associated with benchmark revisions (including the compilation of time series!) these Member States will not make two benchmark revisions within two or three years.

What would be a reasonable treatment of these cases where Member States deviate from the harmonised approach? In the case where a Member State has executed a major revision one or two years before a European harmonised benchmark revision, the Member State concerned could be exempted from another benchmark revision the following year or two


years later if it can demonstrate a new major revision is not necessary (regarding for instance the absence of substantial changes in major sources).

Recommendation XI: When a Member State needs to execute a national major revision outside the European harmonised approach, this Member State can be exempted from executing two major revisions within two or three years if it can demonstrate the absence of substantial changes in major sources in the year(s) concerned.

9. COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF BENCHMARK REVISIONS

The CMFB guidelines on communication of major statistical revisions in the European Union of 4 July 2007 operationalise Principle 8 ("... revisions follow standard, well-established and transparent procedures") of the Code of Practice. In the case of a national major revision these guidelines should be applied by the Member State concerned. In the case of a European harmonised benchmark revision Eurostat should take the lead regarding co-ordination and communication at the European level.

The way the change to ESA 2010 was handled (regarding co-ordination, transmission using SDMX and communication) was much appreciated by users.

Some elements of good communication practices (partly based on the CMFB guidelines) are:

- A European harmonised benchmark revision should be carefully co-ordinated across the ESS and in close co-operation with the CMFB and ESCB, in order to achieve best possible co-ordination with the balance of payment and financial accounts.

- In the case of a national major revision: if national accounts and balance of payments are not produced by the same institution, the organisations involved should agree on the choice of a benchmark year and coordinate planning and communication.Moreover, Eurostat could collect and make available to users a calendar of expected national major revisions.

- Preparations of a communications plan should start well in advance.

- A benchmark revision should be publicly announced in advance of the release date (at least a quarter in advance for annual and quarterly statistics). At the same time, sufficiently detailed information should be provided in an official letter to the Chairperson of the Statistical Programme Committee.

- Some 'heavy users' could be informed about the benchmark revision separately. Without violating rules concerning embargo, this communication could be more detailed/technical.

- The actual release of the results of a benchmark revision should be accompanied by sufficient documentation allowing users to appropriately assess the new presentation of the macro-economic and/or social situation.


- In the case of a 'pure' benchmark revision users should be informed that no conceptual changes are involved.

- Background documents and Q&A notes displayed on the website proved to be very useful.

Recommendation XII: The co-ordination and communication concerning benchmark revisions should be prepared well in advance. The CMFB guidelines on communication of major statistical revisions in the European Union should be applied. Eurostat should play a central role in the communication of European harmonised benchmark revisions.

10. CONCLUSIONS AND OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2014 all Member States disseminated the revised results of the national accounts due to the implementation of ESA 2010. Based on the CMFB framework, supplemented with the need to use the best possible data for GNI/Own Resources and to avoid delays to necessary revisions, the next harmonised dissemination year for the results of benchmark revisions should ideally be 2019. Five years between benchmark revisions is seen as the maximum delay to ensure 'freshness' of data used in the national accounts/balance of payments compilation.

Although the idea of harmonisation of revision policies was strongly supported, the majority of members of the Task Force could not agree on the year 2019 (or any other year) for common dissemination of their benchmark revisions. For different reasons and constraints some Member States will disseminate the results of a benchmark revision in another year between 2017 and 2021. The Task Force tried to set up some 'flexibility guidelines' to deal with this situation.

The Task Force proposed to use the next benchmark revision as a 'springboard' for the subsequent better harmonised benchmark revision schedule, with a proposal to transition towards a European harmonised dissemination year of 2024. This would provide lead-time to better co-ordinate those factors (including source data changes) which have made a common benchmark revision (dissemination year) in 2019 difficult to agree.

During the discussions in the Task Force meetings, several times the close co-ordination between national accounts/balance of payments and source statistics was mentioned as desirable. Given the primary and critical use of these source statistics in the compilation of national accounts, the Task force sees future harmonised availability of these sources in line with future national accounts harmonised benchmark revisions as a key factor in the success of the revisions policy.

Overview of the recommendations:


Recommendation I: Member States are recommended to consider the dissemination in 2019 of the results of the next national accounts benchmark revision and a parallel benchmark revision for balance of payments/IIP.

Recommendation II: When a Member State decides to disseminate the results of a benchmark revision after 2019, it could consider addressing separate specific GNI reservations before the planned dissemination year of the next benchmark revision if the reservations concerned do not require a full benchmark revision.

Recommendation III: Member States are recommended to move over time towards 2024 as the dissemination year of the next harmonised benchmark revision.

Recommendation IV: Benchmark revisions - 5-yearly or at lower intervals - should be disseminated in line with the harmonised annual revision cycle. Following the recommendations of the CMFB Task Force on Harmonised European Revision Policy the third quarter seems to best qualify for linking the results of a benchmark revision to the harmonised annual revision policy.

Recommendation V: When the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision are disseminated, the annual and quarterly data should be aligned for the whole time series.

Recommendation VI: When the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision are transmitted to Eurostat, the transmission should at least cover consistent time series as required in the ESA Transmission Programme.

Recommendation VII: When the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision are transmitted to Eurostat, the transmission should cover consistent supply and use tables for as many years as possible. Member States that do not (yet) use supply and use tables in their balancing process should at least transmit updated supply and use tables for the year T-4 (followed in December by the transmission of supply and use tables for the year T-3 according to the Transmission Programme).

Recommendation VIII: At benchmark intervals of the ESA tables, the greatest possible consistency of the non-financial accounts and the financial accounts should be ensured. The policies for revising time series should be co-ordinated. Financial accounts time series should normally be reviewed at annual frequency. If, due to this, in the years after a benchmark revision significant discrepancies to the non-financial accounts arise, an additional benchmark revision of the non-financial accounts may be considered. Discrepancies between non-financial and financial accounts should be monitored closely.

Recommendation IX: To arrive at consistency of simultaneously published national accounts and balance of payments data from a benchmark revision (including time series) the compilers of both domains should coordinate their work processes and exchange estimates in good time (in concrete terms: early enough to be able to publish simultaneously consistent data).


Recommendation X: At the time of dissemination of the results of a (harmonised) benchmark revision national accounts data used for administrative purposes should be fully consistent with data transmitted to Eurostat as part of the ESA 2010 Transmission Programme.

Recommendation XI: When a Member State needs to execute a national major revision outside the European harmonised approach, this Member States can be exempted from executing two major revisions within two or three years if it can demonstrate the absence of substantial changes in major sources in the year(s) concerned.

Recommendation XII: The co-ordination and communication concerning benchmark revisions should be prepared well in advance. The CMFB guidelines on communication of major statistical revisions in the European Union should be applied. Eurostat should play a central role in the communication of European harmonised benchmark revisions.


ANNEX A.

MANDATE OF THE DMES TASK FORCE ON BENCHMARK REVISION POLICY

1 INTRODUCTION

At the 12th meeting of the Directors of Macro-Economic Statistics (DMES) on 25-26 June 2015, it was decided to establish a DMES Task Force on revision policy. This DMES Task Force should focus on benchmark revisions (called 'major regular revisions' in the CMFB documents). In parallel, a CMFB Task Force on European Harmonised Revision Policy (TF EHRP) is active. This Task Force will focus on (quarterly and annual) routine revisions. The two Task Forces will work closely together.

The topic of harmonising revision policy has been on the agenda for many years - the NAWG (at that time Working Party on National Accounts) discussed this issue in February 2001 while the CMFB looked at it in January 2003.

In July 2012 the CMFB agreed on the introduction of a harmonised European revision policy for national accounts and balance of payments, to be implemented by September 2014. The part on major revisions is displayed below:


Remark: In the scheme the word depth' is used where the ESS guidelines on revision policy use the term 'length'. In the ESS guidelines the term 'depth' is used for breakdowns/components.

In 2011 the ESS guidelines on revision policy for the Principle European Economic Indicators (PEEIs) were finalised. The ESSC endorsed these guidelines in February 2012. The ESS guidelines follow the relevant standards defined in the European Statistics Code of Practice. The CMFB framework on revisions is in line with the ESS guidelines.

In February 2015 the CMFB launched a questionnaire to monitor the implementation of the revision policy. The majority of respondents (19 out of 29) were in favour of a possible harmonisation of the frequency and publication of major statistical (benchmark) revisions in the EU, though some of them expressed some doubts on feasibility issues. However, only six Member States planned to conduct them on a regular basis, following the European recommendation (say, every five years).

The DMES Task Force will take full account of this past work, the discussion at the DMES Seminar on benchmark revisions which took place on 11 th December 2015, and the ongoing work of the CMFB Task Force.

2 PROPOSED MANDATE OF THE DMES TASK FORCE ON BENCHMARK REVISION POLICY

I. Objective of the Task Force

The Task Force shall:

Elaborate the main factors to take into account when establishing the timing of a benchmark revision;

Make a concrete proposal for the next harmonised benchmark revision ('major regular revision') for the national accounts;

Substantiate the proposal for the next harmonised benchmark revision, taking into account the main factors identified;

Provide guidance in case of national need for benchmark revisions outside the harmonised approach;

Elaborate on the issue of consistency between non-financial accounts and financial accounts, between quarterly and annual data, and between Rest of the World accounts and BoP/IIP at the time of a benchmark revision.

Elaborate on the issue of consistency with national accounts data provided to Eurostat as part of the ESA Transmission Programme and national accounts data used for administrative purposes (for example, EDP and Own Resources);

Elaborate on the communication and public dissemination of benchmark revisions, both from a national and European perspective, taking into account the experiences gained in the 2014 benchmark revision.


Clarify terminology issues where appropriate (for example, where 'benchmark revision' may be difficult to interpret for some parts of the national accounts system);

II. Scope of the work

The Task Force will discuss the possible factors impacting the choice of a harmonised benchmark year and compile a concrete proposal. This includes the issue of reporting year (the year, or possibly years, for which a benchmark year is calculated) compared with dissemination year (when the results are published).

Because of substantial changes in important basic sources at national level, Member States could be obliged to execute benchmark revisions outside the harmonised approach. The Task Force will provide guidance regarding the substantial changes (for example, if it is possible to formulate a threshold) and the consequences of this issue for the harmonised approach. Besides this, some Member States execute benchmark revisions on a more frequent basis (more than once every five years). This issue will also be included in the discussions.

The Task Force will discuss the consistency of national accounts data, starting from the general principle that all national accounts figures should be consistent at the point of a benchmark revision. The Task Force will elaborate on possible (temporary) inconsistencies between different accounts, analysing from where they may arise and how they may be dealt with.

Several national accounts figures are used for administrative purposes (GDP, GNI, debt and deficit figures concerning General Government). Assuring consistency of all figures, for all reporting years, has been seen to be challenging. The Task Force will elaborate on the issues raised in the context of a benchmark revision.

The Task Force will build on the CMFB harmonised European revision policy from 2012. The terminology used in the CMFB document will be followed. If appropriate, additional clarifications will be provided.

Benchmark revisions have a connection with routine revisions in benchmark years. The Task Force will work closely together with the CMFB Task Force on European Harmonised Revision Policy to cover borderline issues. A joint meeting of the two Task Forces will be considered.


III. Composition of the Task Force

Participation in the Task Force is open to all Member States or organisations represented in the DMES. The size of the Task Force will be limited to about 12 members, with Eurostat deciding on final membership in the case of more expressions of interest. The following Member States have expressed their willingness to participate in this Task Force: DK, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, NL, AT, PL, SI, FI, SE, UK, NO. The ECB will participate as observer. With this number of participants Eurostat considers the Task Force to be complete.

The Task Force will be chaired by Eurostat (John Verrinder, Head of Unit C1, National Accounts methodology, Sector accounts, Financial indicators) and the secretariat will also be provided by Eurostat (Henk Nijmeijer, Statistical Officer Unit C1).

From Eurostat side, the following other units will be closely involved in the work of the Task Force: Unit C2 (National and regional accounts production, Balance of payments), Unit C3 (Statistics for administrative purposes) and Directorate D (Government finance statistics).

No reimbursement of costs will be available for participants in the Task Force.

IV. Time Frame

The Task Force will take up its work after review of the draft mandate and nomination of its members. The Task Force shall provide an interim (oral) reporting to the DMES in June 2016 and a final (written) report in December 2016.

V. Reporting

The Task Force will report to the DMES. The NAWG, BOP WG, EDPS WG and the GNIC will be informed of the developments as appropriate.

The Task Force will exchange information with the CMFB Task Force if common issues to the benchmark and routine revisions are identified. The CMFB will be informed of and invited to comment on developments as appropriate.

3 TENTATIVE PLANNING

After a written procedure the mandate will be finalised in January 2016.


A first meeting of the Task Force is scheduled for Thursday 28 January 2016 (one day meeting).

Two subsequent meetings of the Task Force are foreseen. A joint meeting with the CMFB Task Force on European Harmonised Revision Policy will be considered.

In the period September-November 2016, the Task Force members will have electronic exchanges. Work might be shared between Task Force members on the drafting of elements of the final report.

A final report of the Task Force will be presented to the DMES in its December 2016 meeting.

A more detailed and possibly revised schedule and work steps will be elaborated on the basis of input received from Task Force members in the start-up phase.

Tentative schedule:

What When

Start-up phase (establishment of the Task Force)

January 2016

First meeting 28 January 2016

Subsequent meetings (subject to confirmation of dates)

April 2016,

September 2016

Final Report (first draft) November 2016

Final Report (incorporating NAWG, CMFB and DMES comments)

End of 2016


ANNEX B. MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE

The DMES Task Force was chaired by Eurostat: John VERRINDER, Head of Unit C1, National Accounts Methodology, Indicators. Henk NIJMEIJER, of the same unit, acted as secretary.

The members were:

DK Mr Thomas BIE

DE Mr Stefan HAUF

ES Ms Maria Antonia MARTINEZ LUENGO

FR Ms Marie HASSAN

IE Mr Brian KING

IT Mr Filippo MOAURO

NL Mr Kees VENNIX

AT Ms Ursula HAVEL

PL Ms Irmina CERLING

SI Ms Simona PECELI

FI Ms Sari KUISMA

SE Maria WIBERG, succeeded by Ms Maria FALK

UK Mr Sanjiv MAHAJAN

NO Mr Steinar TODSEN

Observer:

ECB Mr Henning AHNERT

From Eurostat, besides Unit C1, the following were involved:

- Unit C2, National Accounts Production (responsible for co-chairing the CMFB task force);

- Unit C3, Statistics for Administrative Purposes (GNI for Own Resources);- Directorate D, Government Finance Statistics (EDP).


ANNEX C. OVERVIEW OF THE MEETINGS

DMES Seminar on Benchmark Revisions

- Friday 11 December 2015

Meetings of the DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy:

- Thursday 28 January 2016

- Thursday 28 April 2016

- Wednesday 29 June 2016

- Thursday 13 October 2016

Joint meetings of the DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy and the CMFB Task Force on European Harmonised Revision Policy:

- Wednesday 27 April 2016

- Friday 14 October 2016

All meetings listed above were held in Luxembourg.


ANNEX D. REFERENCES

- CMFB, Guidelines on communication of major statistical revisions in the European Union, 4 July 2007.

- CMFB, Towards a common revision policy for national accounts and balance of payments, Doc. CMFB 09/07/A.8.1, July 2009.

- CMFB, Results of the fact-finding exercise on release and revision policies, Doc. CMFB 2012/07/A.5.1, July 2012.

- CMFB, Analyses and follow-up to the results of the questionnaire on the state of play concerning the 2015 implementation of the revision policy advised by the CMFB in 2012, July 2015.

- DMES, Further harmonisation of revision policies for national accounts and balance of payments, Doc. DMES/2015/06-13, June 2015.

- DMES, Overview of the current situation regarding benchmark revisions, document for DMES Seminar on benchmark revisions, December 2015.

- European Parliament, Report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III – Commission and executive agencies. A8-0140/2016.

- Eurostat, ESS guidelines on revision policy for PEEIs, 2013.


Documents

Web viewEUROPEAN COMMISSION. EUROSTAT. Directorate C: National Accounts, Prices and Key Indicators. Final Report DMES Task Force on Benchmark Revision Policy