DRAFT

Asia-Pacific Regional Programme for Economic Statistics – Screening Tool Summary of Results – Pacific sub-region

One of the first activities in the Implementation Plan of the Regional Programme for Improvement of Economic Statistics in Asia and the Pacific (RPES)1 was to conduct a capacity screening of national statistics systems with the objective of providing a baseline for the implementation of the Core Set of Economic Statistics.2

The Steering Group for the Regional Programme developed a questionnaire for ESCAP member countries, which was administered to twenty-one member countries in the Pacific sub-region in March 2013, and responses were received in May 2013. Aside from those for Australia and New Zealand, all surveys were submitted by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Eighteen of the responding countries filled out the questionnaires themselves and SPC completed the questionnaires for the Marshall Islands, Palau and Tuvalu.

List of responding countries

Lower middle-income Upper middle-income High-income Fiji American Samoa Australia Kiribati Cook Islands French Polynesia Marshall Islands Nauru Guam Federated States of Micronesia Niue New Caledonia Papua New Guinea Palau New Zealand Samoa Tuvalu Northern Mariana Islands Solomon Islands Tonga Vanuatu

Based on 2011 GNI per capita, the World Bank classifies six of these countries as high- income, six more are classified as upper middle-income, and the last nine are classified as lower middle-income. Details of these classifications are provided in Annex 1.

The capacity screening questionnaire has five sections: technical cooperation, institutional setting, IT and human resources, (statistical) infrastructure, and the Core Set of economic statistics.

1 E/ESCAP/CST(2)/5. Proposed regional programme for the improvement of economic statistics in Asia and the Pacific. Available at http://www.unescap.org/official-documents/committee-on-statistics/session/2 2 E/ESCAP/CST(2)/4. Proposed core set of economic statistics for Asia and the Pacific. Available at http://www.unescap.org/official-documents/committee-on-statistics/session/2

1 DRAFT

Section 1: Technical Cooperation

Section 1 responses for countries completing the questionnaire on their own are summarized in Table 1A, while those completed by SPC are reported separately in 1B. Questions 1.2 and 1.3 entail a judgment call on the side of the respondent hence may need to be verified.

Table 1A: RPES Technical Cooperation (Self‐completed) Yes No Blank Currently involved in international technical cooperation projects and 1.1 3 3 15 programmes aimed at building capacity for economic statistics. Interested in participating in Regional Programme on Economic Statistics 1.2 (RPES) as a provider of technical assistance to other national statistical 4 2 15 systems. Interested in participating in Regional Programme on Economic Statistics 1.3 (RPES) as a recipient of technical assistance from other national statistical 3 3 15 systems and international agencies.

Table 1B: RPES Technical Cooperation (SPC) Yes No Blank Currently involved in international technical cooperation projects and 1.1 13 2 6 programmes aimed at building capacity for economic statistics. Interested in participating in Regional Programme on Economic Statistics 1.2 (RPES) as a provider of technical assistance to other national statistical 6 9 6 systems. Interested in participating in Regional Programme on Economic Statistics 1.3 (RPES) as a recipient of technical assistance from other national statistical 15 0 6 systems and international agencies.

New Caledonia replied “No” to all of Section 1 (Table 1A). Several respondents indicating that they are not interested in participating as a provider of technical assistance cited a lack of sufficient resources, as the main reason.

2 DRAFT

Section 2: Institutional Setting

The first of the five components of Section 2, statistical legislation, is summarized in Table 2. American Samoa omitted question 2.1.3 and New Caledonia marked “No” to the last three questions.

Table 2: Statistical Legislation Yes No Blank Existence of a Statistical law indicating distribution of responsibilities for 2.1.1 21 0 0 producing official statistics. (If no law, skip to 2.2)

Law/regulation to protect confidentiality of respondent's information and 2.1.2 21 0 0 ensure that data are used for statistical purposes only.

Law/regulation requires transparent statistical system, meaning that terms, 2.1.3 19 1 1 conditions and methodologies of official statistical producers are made public.

There are current/ongoing plans to modify legislation that governs the 2.1.4 8 13 0 statistical system.

Statistical law protects the independence of official statistics from political 2.1.5 19 2 0 influence.

Sub-section 2.2, strategic planning, begins with a question about the status of statistical strategic planning. The results by economic grouping are shown in Figure 1.

Only American Samoa, French Polynesia and Northern Mariana Islands reported that no strategy is planned. The results for the remainder of sub-section 2.2, filled out by the other 18 countries, are given in Table 3.

3 DRAFT

Figure 1: Status of National Statistical Strategy

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Number of Countries 1 0 Lower middle-income Upper middle-income High-income

Being Implemented Being Designed or Planned Not Planned

Most omissions (questions left blank) in Table 3 were by Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands, and Tonga. All of 2.2.3 was marked “Yes” by Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand, Samoa, and Vanuatu.

Table 3: Strategic Planning Yes No Blank 2.2.2 National strategic plan/NSDS available on public website. 3 15 1 2.2.3 Statistical strategic plan or NSDS covers/includes: 2.2.3.1 Issues relating to co-ordination across the NSS 8 7 4 2.2.3.2 Government support (and the need for improved advocacy) 19 0 0 2.2.3.3 Adequacy of existing statistical legislation 11 4 4 Detailed action plan (including specific activities, responsibilities, 2.2.3.4 10 9 0 timelines) and cost and funding sources for proposed activities

2.2.3.5 Monitoring and review process 12 3 4

In sub-section 2.3, six countries reported a centralized statistical system, while 13 countries reported semi-centralized and American Samoa, and Guam reported that their systems were decentralized (See Figure 2).

4 DRAFT

Figure 2: Level of Centralization

Centralized Semi-centralized Decentralized

0 5 10 15 20 Number of Countries

Responses to the follow-up questions in 2.3 are given in Table 4. American Samoa and New Caledonia were the only countries to reply “No” to both questions in Table 4.

Table 4: National Statistical Coordination Yes No The distribution of responsibility among agencies for producing the Core 2.3.2 15 6 Set of economic statistics is clearly specified

Plans are currently being implemented or are under development to 2.3.3 16 5 improve coordination of production of economic statistics

The remainder of Section 2 was a series of yes/no questions regarding dissemination and advocacy, displayed in Table 5. American Samoa skipped question 2.4.2 and replied “No” to all others aside from 2.4.4. Papua New Guinea also marked only one “Yes”, to question 2.5.3, while all of sub-section 2.5 was marked “No” by Kiribati and Palau.

5 DRAFT

Table 5: Dissemination and Advocacy Yes No Blank 2.4.1 Publication policies are in place and available to users and staff 14 7 0

2.4.2 Contact points for each subject/statistical domain are publicized 14 6 1

Catalogues of publications, documents, and other services, including information 2.4.3 14 7 0 on any charges, are publically available

Information on how to receive assistance understanding/interpreting data from 2.4.4 16 5 0 producing agencies are publicised for users

There are current/ongoing activities to improve awareness and use of economic 2.5.1 17 4 0 statistics from official sources within countries There are current/ongoing activities in country to build analytical/research 2.5.2 capacities, develop data analysis methodologies, and increase utilization of 12 9 0 official data There is sufficient awareness, knowledge and appreciation among users/potential 2.5.3 13 8 0 users of the relevance of official statistics for economic policy

Seminars or other regular opportunities for communication with users are 2.5.4 10 11 0 organized by producers of economic statistics

6 DRAFT

Section 3: IT and Human Resources

The first question of Section 3 asked whether each country’s IT systems were adequate for producing the Core Set. Sixteen countries replied “Yes” and Fiji, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands replied “No”.

The second question aimed at measuring the size of economic statistics staff for each country, with a follow-up regarding the adequacy of skills. Australia and New Zealand reported economic statistics staffs of 1000 and 310, respectively, but all other countries in the sub-region reported less than 25, with 14 countries reporting less than ten staff members.3 Only Australia, New Zealand, and New Caledonia reported that their human resources were adequate for production and dissemination of the Core Set. Although the response to the question on adequacy is subjective, the overwhelmingly negative response is notable. The remainder of Section 3 is summarized in Table 6. American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and Papua New Guinea replied “No” to all of Section 3.

Table 6: Human Resources Yes No Human resources are adequate for producing and disseminating the Core Set of 3.2.2 4 17 Economic Statistics

3.2.3 Skills need / assessment recently conducted within your agency 17 4

3.2.4 Staff manuals/guidelines available on statistical processes for internal use 8 13

Internal processes (e.g. data editing, metadata documentation, etc.) are documented 3.2.5 11 10 for internal use and reference by new staff

3 Some countries have provided the overall number of staff due to the difficulty of delineating exactly how many staff members work on economic statistics.

7 DRAFT

Section 4: Infrastructure

The fourth section is made up of 12 sub-sections, not including a set of optional questions at the end filled out by only the Northern Mariana Islands.

In sub-section 4.1 countries were asked if they use a quality assessment framework (QAF). Those who do not were asked if one was planned, and those who do were asked if international guidelines are followed. Of the countries that do use a QAF, all six indicated that they follow international standards, with IMF’s DQAF being specified by four of them. The responses to the first two questions are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Quality Assessment Framework

8

7

6

5

4

3

Number ofNumber Countries 2

1

0 Lower middle-income Upper middle-income High-income

Have QAF Planned Not planned

Sub-section 4.2, Metadata Repository, had a large number of “No” responses from the Pacific countries. Results are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7: Metadata Repository Yes No Blank Statistical releases accompanied with comprehensive metadata (source information, 4.2.1 16 4 1 relevant accompanying notes and disclaimers for users, etc.)

4.2.2 Centralized national metadata repository available 3 17 1

4.2.3 Metadata format standard implemented 4 16 1

4.2.4 Metadata quality standard implemented 5 15 1

American Samoa omitted all of 4.2. Vanuatu all replied “No” to the whole sub-section, while 15 countries replied “No” to each of the last three questions. Only New Zealand replied “Yes” to the whole sub-section.

8 DRAFT

Figure 4 displays the responses to the first part of sub-section 4.3, with most of the remainder summarized in Table 8. The question on industrial classification (4.3.4) is covered in sub-section 4.5.4

Figure 4: Business Registers

In Use Planned Not Planned

0 5 10 15 20

Number of Countries

Nauru and Niue omitted all questions in Table 8 and Tuvalu omitted 4.3.3.

Table 8: Business Registers, Births and Deaths Yes No Blank Use of business register shared by a number of agencies in the national 4.3.3 6 10 5 statistical system 4.3.5 Established method for identifying 'births' (new businesses) 12 7 0

Established method for identifying 'deaths' (disbanded businesses or 4.3.6 11 8 2 mergers)

Sub-section 4.4 adds three more questions to the first half of the infrastructure section before moving on to the key collections. Responses are summarized in Table 9. Questions 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 were left blank by Vanuatu and New Caledonia, respectively.

Table 9: Other Statistical Infrastructure Yes No Blank 4.4.1 Documented general guidelines available for survey sampling design 11 9 1

Design of key data collections include method to estimate the non-observed 4.4.2 11 10 0 economy, including informal economy and informal employment

4.4.3 Participant in ICP Programme (for calculating PPPs) 19 1 1

Sub-sections 4.5 through 4.12 are a series of key collections in which respondents were first asked to indicate if they report the specified collection, then a series of follow-up questions were administered in each sub-section regarding standards followed, frequency of collections, and timeliness of reporting. Figure 5 gives the number of countries in the sub-region that conduct the key data collections.

4 There is no inconsistency for industrial classification used in business registers and national accounts except for a few cases. Nauru and Kiribati left question 4.3.3 blank and Palau indicated use of ISIC Rev. 3 for business register purposes while the response to 4.5.5 read Others without further elaboration.

9 DRAFT

Figure 5: Key Collections 25

21 20 20 20 17 15 15 14 Countries

of

11

10

Number 6

5

0 NA BOP LFS HIES EES PC EC AG

NA = National Accounts, BOP = Balance of Payments, LFS = Labour Force Survey, HIES = Household Income and Expenditure Survey, EES = Enterprise/Establishment Survey, PC = Population Census, EC = Economic Census, AC = Agricultural Census

Figures 6A and 6B summarize the frequencies of collection for each item from Figure 5.

Figure 6A: Collection Frequencies 4.5 - 4.7, 4.9

16

14

12

10

8

6

Number of Countries 4

2

0 National Accounts Balance of Payments Labour Force Survey Enterprise/Establishment Survey

Monthly Quarterly Annually Ad-Hoc Other

10 DRAFT

Figure 6B: Collection Frequencies 4.8, 4.10 - 4.12

12

10

8

6

4 Number of Countries Number 2

0 Household Income and Population Census Economic Census Agricultural Census Expenditure Survey

Annually Every 5 yrs Every 10 yrs Other

Figures 7A and 7B summarize the timeliness of reporting (in months) for each key collection.

Figure 7A: Timeliness of Reporting 4.5 - 4.8

12

10

8

6

4 Number of Countries

2

0 National Accounts Balance of Payments Labour Force Survey Household Income and Expenditure Survey

3 months or less 4-6 months 7-12 months > 1 year

11 DRAFT

Figure 7B: Timeliness of Reporting 4.9 - 4.12

14

12

10

8

6

Number of Countries of Number 4

2

0 Enterprise/Establishment Population Census Economic Census Agricultural Census Survey

4-6 months 7-12 months > 1 year

Sub-section 4.5 elaborates on national accounts inquiries. Figure 8 summarizes the sub- region’s latest implemented standards for systems of national accounts.

Although only two countries reported that the 2008 SNA had been implemented, ten countries reported that they have plans to update, while only American Samoa and Papua New Guinea specifically stated that they do not have plans to update their SNA standards. The two “Other” responses came from American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands, both stating that their standards were handled by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Figure 8: Latest SNA Standard Implemented

1968 1993 2008 Other

0 5 10 15 20 Number of Countries

12 DRAFT

Next, countries were asked to specify which industrial classifications they use. Although only eight countries reported that they use ISIC Rev. 4, nine other countries stated that they have plans to update.

Figure 9: Industrial Classification Used

ISIC Rev. 3 ISIC Rev. 3.1 ISIC Rev. 4 Other

0 5 10 15 20 Number of Countries

For product classification of national accounts there were very few responses received. Micronesia FS and Cook Islands use CPC v1, Vanuatu uses CPC v1.1, and Australia and New Zealand use v2. Seven other countries stated that they plan to update to CPC v2.

Remaining classifications in sub-section 4.5 are summarized in Table 10. Both questions in Table 10 were omitted by Northern Mariana Islands.

Table 10: Other Statistical Infrastructure Yes No Blank 4.5.9 Classification of individual consumption by purpose (COICOP)? 12 8 1

4.5.10 Classification of Functions of Government (COFOG)? 9 11 1

The end of Section 4, additional data collections, had a response from Northern Mariana Islands. They stated that every two years a Federal Labour Wage requirement is collected.

Section 5: Core Set

In the Core Set, a set of thirty-one indicators are listed and each country was asked to specify the frequency of collection for each item. For 14 of the 31 indicators, a majority of countries reported that they do not have any data available corresponding to the item.5

Tables 11 through 14 summarize which countries meet the recommended frequency that the Regional Programme specifies, which do not meet the recommended frequency, and which indicated ad-hoc collection or do not have the indicators available (N/A). The codes for each column are as follows: M = number of countries meeting or exceeding the

5 There are some differences between the Core Set of Economic Statistics and the National Minimum Development Indicators specified by SPC. The latter is available at http://www.spc.int/nmdi/MdiHome.aspx

13 DRAFT recommended frequency; B = number of countries regularly collecting the indicator but at a rate below the recommended frequency; A = number of countries reporting ad-hoc collection; O = number of countries reporting other rates of collection; U = number of countries reporting that the item is unavailable; X = number of countries leaving responses blank.

Only one country met the standard for commodity price index (New Caledonia) and external merchandise (Fiji), while Australia skipped the external merchandise indicator.

Recommended Table 11: Prices and Costs frequency M B A U X Consumer price index (CPI) Quarterly 21 0 0 0 0 Producer price index (PPI) Quarterly 4 0 0 16 0 Commodity price index Monthly 1 1 0 19 0 External merchandise trade price indices Monthly 0 5 0 14 2 Wages / Earnings data Quarterly 4 8 0 9 0 Labour costs index / Wage index Quarterly 2 0 0 19 0

STI industry output was skipped by Niue. The “Other” response to GDP expenditure was entered by Samoa, with a comment stating, “Experimental estimates available.” Australia is the only country meeting standards for collection of economy structure statistics and productivity.

Recommended Table 12: Demand and Output frequency M B A O U X GDP (Production) Quarterly 3 18 0 0 0 0 GDP (Expenditure) Quarterly 2 11 0 2 6 0 External Trade – Merchandise Monthly 6 13 0 0 2 0 External Trade – Services Quarterly 0 7 0 0 14 0 Short-term Indicators – Industry Output Quarterly 5 4 0 0 12 0 Short-term Indicators – Services Output Quarterly 4 2 0 0 15 0 Short-term Indicators – Consumer Demand Quarterly 2 1 0 0 18 0 Short-term Indicators – Fixed Investment Quarterly 2 2 1 0 16 0 Short-term Indicators – Inventories Quarterly 2 2 0 0 17 0 Economy structure statistics Every 5 years 1 3 0 0 17 0 Productivity Annually 2 1 0 0 18 0

Institutional sector accounts was omitted by New Caledonia. The “Other” response for income distribution was given by New Caledonia with no additional comments.

14 DRAFT

Recommended Table 13: Income and Wealth frequency M B A O U X Integrated National Accounts Annually 7 1 0 0 13 0 Institutional Sector Accounts Annually 6 0 0 0 14 1 Balance of Payments (BOP) Quarterly 8 9 0 0 4 0 International Investment Position (IIP) Annually 5 7 0 0 9 0 External debt Quarterly 6 6 0 0 9 0 Income distribution Every 5 years 2 2 1 15 1

The first three indicators in Table 14 were omitted by New Caledonia. Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands both omitted the hours worked indicator. Australia is the only country that reported a collection of natural resources.

Recommended Table 14: Money, Labour and Government frequency M B A U X Assets/liabilities of depository corporations Monthly 5 8 0 7 1 Broad money and credit aggregates Monthly 5 6 0 9 1 Interest rate statistics Monthly 6 7 0 7 1 General government operations Quarterly 4 16 0 1 0 General government debt Quarterly 3 15 0 3 0 Labour supply and demand Annually 2 4 1 14 0 Hours worked Quarterly 2 4 1 12 2 Natural resources Annually 1 0 1 19 0

15 DRAFT

Annex 1: Country Profiles

Population* GDP/Capita** Economic Grouping American Samoa 55,128 N/A Upper middle‐income Australia 23,050,471 $39,335 High‐income Cook Islands 20,523 $9,037 Upper middle‐income Fiji 874,742 $3,548 Lower middle‐income French Polynesia 273,814 $22,236 High‐income Guam 162,810 N/A High‐income Kiribati 100,786 $1,131 Lower middle‐income Marshall Islands 52,555 $3,000 Lower middle‐income Micronesia (F.S.) 103,395 $2,425 Lower middle‐income Nauru 10,032 $3,104 Upper middle‐income New Caledonia 253,155 $30,553 High‐income New Zealand 4,459,852 $27,257 High‐income Niue 1,384 N/A Upper middle‐income Northern Mariana Is. 53,305 N/A High‐income Palau 20,754 $7,810 Upper middle‐income Papua New Guinea 7,167,010 $1,008 Lower middle‐income Samoa 188,889 $2,419 Lower middle‐income Solomon Islands 549,598 $1,067 Lower middle‐income Tonga 104,941 $2,667 Lower middle‐income Tuvalu 9,860 $2,521 Upper middle‐income Vanuatu 247,262 $2,178 Lower middle‐income *2012 measurement **2005 USD (2011 measurement)

Source: UNESCAP Statistics Division. Note on Statistical Methods for the Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013.

16 DRAFT

Annex 2: National agencies and sources for filling

Agencies involved in economic statistics Source of Information Ma’u A. Leha, American Samoa Department of Commerce‐Statistics Div Acting Chief Statistician Australia Australian Bureau of Statistics Michael Smedes, ABS Cook Islands Statistics Office SPC Fiji Bureau of Statistics Fiji Reserve Bank of Fiji SPC French Polynesia SPC Guam Bureau of Statistics and Plans SPC Kiribati National Statistics Office SPC Economic Policy, Planning and Statistics Marshall Islands Office SPC FSM National Government Micronesia (F.S.) (28 agencies specified) SPC Nauru Bureau of Statistics Nauru Departments of Treasury and Immigration SPC New Caledonia ISEE; NSO; Central Bank Alexandre Gautier, ISEE New Zealand Statistics New Zealand Jeff Cope, SNZ Niue Statistics Niue SPC US Department of Commerce: Alfonis Sound, Director Statistics Division, Bureau of Census, NASS, Central Stats Division Northern Mariana Is. Bureau of Economic Analysis Dept. of Commerce Palau Bureau of Budget Planning SPC National Statistical Office Bank of Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea Department of Customs SPC Samoa Bureau of Statistics Ministry of Finance Ministry of Revenue Samoa National Prodent Fund Central Bank of Samoa Land Transport Authority Leota Aliielua Salani, Samoa Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries SBS National Statistics Office Solomon Islands Reserve Bank of Solomon Islands SPC Statistics Department Finance Tonga Reserve Bank of Tonga SPC Central Statistics Office Tuvalu Department of Treasury SPC Vanuatu National Statistics Office Reserve Bank of Vanuatu Vanuatu Department of Treasury SPC

17