Comments on SIEC by the Expert Group on International Economic and Social Classifications UNSD

Review of classifications According to general criteria defined in: Best practice guidelines for developing international statistical classifications These criteria are being applied to all international classifications Determine if a classification can be a member of the International Family of Classifications

General remarks A classification provides exhaustive building blocks and an aggregation structure for a defined scope of objects Not just a flat list of items Building blocks are mutually exclusive Defined using consistent criteria Different levels of the classification should have statistical application Classifications are typically more aligned with data presentation than collection Do not have to fully reflect contents of a questionnaire

EG comments on SIEC Primary use of the classification Improved from earlier draft How does SIEC act as guide for other classification schemes? What is relationship to other standards?

EG comments on SIEC Underlying concepts Scope refers to “products” But the concept of “energy products” is introduced late Should this be made clear in the title? Criteria for delineating categories are not always clear Differ from other classifications (e.g. CPC) Impacts criteria for aggregation Suggestions: More explicitly reflect primary vs. secondary EP Review criteria for subdividing waste: Renewable vs. non-renewable; organic vs. non-organic vs. mixed

EG comments on SIEC Number of levels / coding structure / balance This is a major concern SIEC coding system seems excessive (a 10-character code for a classification with only 67 items at the most detailed level) Detailed categories appear necessary in only few areas Can a regrouping help? What is the use of top and intermediate groupings? What are criteria for grouping? Examples for alternative structures have been given; subdivisions for section 5 have been suggested -> may need better explanation

EG comments on SIEC Correspondence tables Partial references to other standard classifications should be avoided (in particular CPC as reference classification for products) Difficult if CPC (or others) do not provide the detail necessary This could be taken into account for future CPC revisions (example: Agricultural products) Particular concern: Only partial coverage of CPC items Develop links to updated classifications (e.g. HS 2012) Observation: SIEC and HS treat coking coal differently -> needs clarification

EG comments on SIEC Explanatory notes General concern: Editing suggested -> needs review (distinguish definitions from supplementary text) General concern: Are needs / circumstances of developing countries properly reflected?

EG comments on SIEC Custodian Implementation plan Maintenance schedule Dissemination