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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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?

9. EG comments on SIEC Custodian Implementation plan Maintenance schedule
Dissemination