COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on European statistics on population and housing, amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 763/2008 and (EU) No 1260/2013
Date: 2023-01-20
Institutions: European Commission, Eurostat
Subjects: EU statistics, census, data collection, exchange of information, family, household, population census, population statistics, statistical method

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.1.2023  SWD(2023) 13 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Accompanying the document Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on European statistics on population and housing, amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 763/2008 and (EU) No 1260/2013     {COM(2023) 31 final} - {SEC(2023) 38 final} - {SWD(2023) 11 final} - {SWD(2023) 12 final} - {SWD(2023) 14 final} - {SWD(2023) 15 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 

1.1. Political and legal context ........................................................................................ 4 

1.2. Purpose of the evaluation ......................................................................................... 5 

1.3. Scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................ 6 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................... 6 

2.1. Initial problem/needs statement ............................................................................... 6 

2.2. Description of the intervention and its objectives .................................................... 7 

2.3. Baseline and points of comparison, including evolution of policy needs ............... 9 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 13 

3.1. Inputs and external factors ..................................................................................... 13 

3.2. Description of the current situation........................................................................ 14 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................. 16 

4.1. Short description of methodology .......................................................................... 16 

4.2. Limitations and robustness of findings .................................................................. 18 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................ 19 

5.1. Relevance – initial situation (RI) ........................................................................... 19 

5.2. Relevance – evolution until today (RE) ................................................................. 21 

5.3. Effectiveness (EE) ................................................................................................. 23 

5.4. Efficiency (EI) ....................................................................................................... 27 

5.5. Coherence – internal (CI) ...................................................................................... 34 

5.6. Coherence – external (CE) ..................................................................................... 36 

5.7. EU added value (EU) ............................................................................................. 38 

5.8. Statistical quality (SQ) ........................................................................................... 41 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 46 

6.1. What is working well ............................................................................................. 46 

6.2. What is not working well ....................................................................................... 46 

6.3. Lessons learnt ........................................................................................................ 48 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 49 

ANNEX 2: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................... 56 

ANNEX  3:  STATISTICAL  DATASETS  OF  EUROPEAN  STATISTICS  ON 

POPULATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE INTERVENTION ............................. 68 

ANNEX 4: COMPLETE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ............................................. 90 

2 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Census 

Census Hub 

Decennial data collection on population and housing census 

Web tool for central access to European census outputs 

Census Regulation 

Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 on population and housing censuses 

CES 

Conference of European Statisticians 

Demography Regulation 

Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 on European demographic 
statistics 

ECOFIN Council 

Economic and Financial Affairs Council  

EEA 

EFTA 

EPC 

ESOP 

ESS 

ESSC 

EU 

Eurobase 

Eurostat 

FTE 

ISG 

European Economic Area 

European Free Trade Association 

Economic Policy Committee 

European statistics on population 

European Statistical System 

European Statistical System Committee 

European Union 

Public database of European statistics disseminated by Eurostat 

Statistical office of the European Union 

Full-time equivalent 

Interservice group of the European Commission 

Migration Regulation 

Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on 
migration and international protection 

MS 

NSI 

OPC 

TEC 

TEU 

TFEU 

UNECE 

Member State(s) of the European Union 

National statistical institute 

Open public consultation 

Treaty establishing the European Community 

Treaty on European Union 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

3 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Political and legal context 

According  to  Article 9  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU),  every  national  of  a 
Member State, in addition to their national citizenship, is also a citizen of the European 
Union  (EU).  To  develop  policies  to  benefit  the  people  of  Europe,  EU  institutions  need 
timely, reliable, detailed, harmonised and comparable European statistics. EU institutions 
also need a reliable and comparable count of the whole population of the EU. This will 
help  the  institutions  to  uphold  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  in  all  their  activities, 
and to  defend  individual citizens’ rights  as enshrined in  Article 10  of the Treaty on the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  and  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of 
the  European  Union.  The  Commission  is  required  to  monitor  and  report  on  the  EU’s 
demographic situation in line with Article 159 TFEU. EU institutions also need accurate 
and  comparable  population  figures  for  administrative  and  procedural  purposes,  e.g.  for 
qualified majority voting in the Council.  

Population  statistics  are  the  backbone  of  all  social  statistics,  as  they  provide  the  most 
accurate  and  up-to-date  reference  information  on  the  entire  population  and  its  basic 
demographic  characteristics.  An  accurate  picture  of  the  population,  with  very  good 
coverage  and  location  information,  is  indispensable  for  any  more  detailed  annual 
population  estimates,  sample  surveys,  and  regional  analysis.  Population  estimates  are 
also needed to obtain per capita indicators in  statistics. Population statistics provide the 
input  for  preparing  population  projections  for  the  EU’s  long-term  economic  and 
budgetary  projections  in  particular.  Population  statistics  are  also  useful  more  generally 
for formulating and implementing the EU’s economic, social and cohesion policies. 

The  Treaties  oblige  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  adopt  measures  for 
producing  official  statistics  where  necessary  for  EU  policies  (Article  338  TFEU, 
formerly  Article  285  TEC).  Over  the  past  three  decades,  many  EU  policy  areas  have 
experienced strongly increasing and evolving needs for complete, coherent, comparable, 
reliable and regular European statistics. The statistics needed in these policy areas cover 
population, demography and international migration, and are crucial to support evidence-
based policymaking.  

After an initial period of voluntary collections of data from Member States, various EU 
institutions  expressed  a  need  for  a  better  common  basis  for  population  and  migration 
statistics,  including  for  legislation  at  EU  level1.  Therefore,  the  Commission  (Eurostat) 
initiated legislative work  in  2005 on several  legal  instruments  to  establish a legal basis 
for  these  statistics  to  address  policy  needs  in  a  proportionate  way.  Relevant  legal  acts 
adopted as part of this legislative work include: 

  Regulation  (EC)  No  763/2008  on  population  and  housing  censuses2  (‘Census 

Regulation’); 

  Regulation 

(EU)  No  1260/2013  on  European  demographic 

statistics3 

(‘Demography Regulation’);  

1 For instance, the 2001 Laeken European Council, the 2003 Thessaloniki European Council, and European 

Parliament resolution 2003/2157 of 6 November 2003. 

2  Regulation  (EC)  No  763/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July  2008  on 

population and housing censuses (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 14). 

4 

 
                                                 
  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  on  Community  statistics  on  migration  and 
international  protection4  (‘Migration  Regulation’),  in  particular  Article 3  thereof 
on international migration, migrant stocks and acquisitions of citizenship. 

The Commission  also  adopted various implementing measures to  help  implement  these 
regulations. In this staff working document, we will use the term ‘the intervention’ as a 
general term to describe these three Regulations and their implementing measures.  

Many  EU  policy  areas  have  become  increasingly  dynamic  over  the  past  decade  in 
response  to  social,  economic  and  environmental  developments.  These  developments 
include  demographic  changes5,  migration6  and  the  increasing  exposure  of  Europeans  to 
natural disasters in the wake of climate change7. Even while this intervention was being 
implemented, evidence-based policymaking in many areas has continued to evolve. This 
policymaking  now  requires  even  more  harmonised,  detailed,  frequent  and  timely 
European statistics on population and migration. Many of these policy areas also require 
statistics  on  small  or  functional  geographies  (e.g.  grids  and  cities,  and  breakdowns  by 
functional area such as urban and rural areas). Moreover, statistical needs are expected to 
continue to change rapidly in this increasingly dynamic policy and societal environment. 

1.2.  Purpose of the evaluation 

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  assess  official  statistics  at  EU  level  on  population, 
demographic events  and international migration. The evaluation aims to assess whether 
these  statistics  have  been  providing  sufficient  data  evidence  to  support  both  EU 
policymaking  and  the  functioning  of  EU  political  decision-making.  This  includes 
evaluating  the  relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  EU  value  added,  and 
statistical quality (a contextual ad hoc criterion) of all mandatory and voluntary European 
statistics produced in these domains. In particular, relevance will be measured against: (i) 
the initial policy and institutional needs before 2005(at the start of the intervention), and 
(ii)  current  and  evolving  needs  over  time.  The  geographic  coverage  of  the  statistics  in 
question  is  the  European  Economic  Area  (EEA),  and  the  time  coverage  includes  all 
reference dates and periods of statistics between 1 January 2008 (the first reference year 
of  the  Migration  Regulation)  and  31 December 2020.  This  means  in  particular  that 
census  outputs  only from  a single round (2011) can be  fully  evaluated.  This  is  because 
statistical outputs from the previous 2001 round were produced before work began on the 
intervention,  and  outputs  from  the  ongoing  2021  round  will  not  be  available  for  the 
whole  EU  at  the  time  of  concluding  this  evaluation.  However,  administrative  and 
procedural  aspects  of  the  2021  EU  census  round  (e.g.  cost  and  burden  estimates, 
coherence with international recommendations) will be included in this evaluation.  

3 Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on 

European demographic statistics (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 330, 10.12.2013, p. 39). 

4  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  July  2007  on 
Community  statistics  on  migration  and  international  protection  and  repealing  Council  Regulation 
(EEC) No 311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 
199, 31.7.2007, p. 23). 

5 See Commission Report on the Impact of Demographic Change, 2020. 

6 Communication on A European Agenda on Migration, COM(2015) 240, 

7 Communication on The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640. 

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  inform  a  decision  on  whether  follow-up  action  is 
needed to update or redevelop the existing legal base given current and further evolving 
needs for policies and decision-making in the EU. 

1.3. 

Scope of the evaluation 

This  evaluation  covers  European  statistics  that  describe  the  population  residing  in  the 
EU. The key underlying concept is thus the place of residence of a person according to a 
given  definition.  Currently,  annual  statistics  on  demographic  characteristics  of  the 
resident  population  are  published  under  the  Demography  Regulation.  This  evaluation 
also  covers  more  detailed  statistics  in  areas  such  as  the  family,  household  and  housing 
situations  of  the  resident  population.  These  more  detailed  statistics  are  currently 
published every 10 years under the Census Regulation. Finally, this evaluation will also 
consider  annual  statistics  published  under  Article 3  of  the  Migration  Regulation  on:  (i) 
migrant  stocks  (resident  population  with  migration  history);  (ii)  international  migration 
flows (changes of residence between countries both within and entering/leaving the EU); 
and  (iii)  citizenship.  A  comprehensive  table  of  datasets  used  for  this  evaluation  is 
provided in Annex 3. 

A number of statistical collections are out of the scope of this evaluation. For example, 
statistics  on  asylum  and  managed  migration  under  Articles  4  to  7  of  the  Migration 
Regulation address administrative and judicial events related to the migration of non-EU 
nationals. These statistics complement the statistics based on actual residence under this 
intervention, and the legal basis was revised only very recently8. Statistics on asylum and 
managed  migration  are  therefore  beyond  the  scope  of  this  evaluation.  In  addition, 
European statistics on persons and households based on data at individual level collected 
from samples are out of the scope of this evaluation, as these are governed by a separate 
legal basis only recently adopted9. Derived statistical indicators in the European System 
of Accounts and regional statistics based on population counts are also out of scope and 
will  not  be  evaluated.  All  these  related  or  dependent  European  statistics  are  therefore 
considered external factors to the intervention evaluated here. 

The evaluation covers all Member States and EEA/EFTA countries. 

The  time  period  covered  by  the  evaluation  is  2005-2021.  This  includes  the  population 
and housing censuses in the EU of 2011 and 2021. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1. 

Initial problem/needs statement 

Until  2005,  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  the  EU  in  accordance  with  the  Treaties, 
policymakers  needed  a  variety  of  statistics  for  evidence-based  policymaking  in  areas 
such as: (i) social and economic cohesion; (ii) structural and regional cohesion; (iii) civil 

8  Regulation  (EU)  2020/851  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  June  2020  amending 
Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection (Text 
with EEA relevance) (OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 1). 

9  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1700  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10  October  2019 
establishing a common framework for European statistics relating to persons and households, based on 
data  at  individual  level  collected  from  samples  […]  (Text  with  EEA  relevance)  (OJ  L  261I, 
14.10.2019, p. 1). 

6 

 
 
                                                 
rights;  (iv)  migration  and  internal  affairs;  (v)  the  environment;  (vi)  energy  and  (vii) 
health. In particular, common official statistics for the EU were needed on: 

  population and housing censuses (conducted every 10 years) covering population, 
family,  households,  and  housing  at  a  very  detailed  territorial  level  (down  to  the 
municipality); 

  annual  population  and  demographic  events  including  at  national  and  regional 

levels; and 

  annual  international  migration  at  national  level,  including  acquisition  of 

citizenship. 

In  addition  to  policy  needs,  EU  institutions  need  high-quality  statistical  information  on 
population and demography for other purposes. This includes but is not limited to: 

 

 

regular,  total,  usually  resident  population  at  national  level  for  voting  in  the 
Council10; 
regular  population  projections  for  EU  long-term  economic  and  budgetary 
projections within the European Semester11; 

  annual monitoring of the EU’s demographic situation12. 

Figure 1 presents a detailed visual map of the various statistics needs and their policy and 
institutional drivers. 

Before  the  intervention  (i.e.  before  the  introduction  of  the  Census,  Demography  and 
Migration  Regulations),  Member  States  produced  all  related  statistics  at  EU  level  on  a 
voluntary  basis  coordinated  by  Eurostat.  These  statistics  were  produced  partly  under  a 
soft  formalisation  through  so-called  gentlemen’s  agreements  between  Eurostat  and  the 
national  statistical  institutes  (NSIs).  However,  the  experience  with  these  arrangements 
before 2005 showed that this approach could not meet the policy and societal needs at the 
time.  In  particular,  there  were  serious  and  well-known  gaps  in  the  completeness, 
coherence,  comparability,  and  punctuality  of  statistics  disseminated  at  EU  level  until 
2005. 

Article 338  TFEU  (formerly  Article 285  TEC)  obliges  the  legislator  to  adopt  measures 
for  the  production  of  official  statistics  where  necessary  for  EU  policies.  Given  the 
shortcomings with this system as it existed until 2005, the Commission took the initiative 
and proposed legislation  to  address  the  gaps in  the statistics  needed for evidence-based 
EU policymaking. 

2.2.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The main reason for legislative action taken after 2005 was the insufficient completeness, 
coherence,  comparability,  timeliness  and  punctuality  of  the  most  important  topical 
statistics.  Before  2005,  these  data  were  produced  based  on  voluntary  data  collections. 

10 The 2001 Treaty of Nice introduced an element of weighting by total usually resident population of the 
Member  States  in  Council  voting  procedures.  Since  1  November  2014,  this  is  expressed  in  the 
qualified majority voting under Article 16(4) TEU. 

11  The  ECOFIN  Council  mandates  to  the  EPC  on  the  economic  and  fiscal  implications  of  ageing 
populations establish a need for common demographic projections to be provided by Eurostat (initial 
doc. ECFIN/EPC(2006)51285 of 22 May 2006, latest doc. 8743/21 adopted on 18 June 2021). 

12 Required under Article 159 TFEU (ex Article 143 TEC). 

7 

 
                                                 
Given the experience of weaknesses in the statistics caused by the unregulated nature of 
the  voluntary  data  collections,  Eurostat  considered  regulation  at  EU  level  necessary  to 
address  the  statistical-quality  gaps  effectively.  The  Commission  therefore  adopted  new 
proposals  in  2005,  2007  and  201113  for  the  Migration,  Census  and  Demography 
Regulations  respectively.  These  proposals  are  introduced  in  Section 1  as  the  legislative 
inputs to the Migration, Census and Demography Regulations  (see also  Section 3). The 
explanatory memoranda accompanying these proposals outline the policy drivers, at the 
time  the  legislative  proposal  was  being  drawn  up,  for  the  statistical  needs  identified. 
Figure 1 sets out a detailed list of these policy drivers. 

Eurostat prepared the legislative proposals to address the objectives of this intervention 
in a proportionate but effective way. In particular, the general objectives were to: 

  provide  sufficient  data  evidence  (sufficient  in  terms  of  statistical  content  and 
quality)  on  national  and  regional  population,  demography  and  international 
migration for EU policymaking; 

  address EU institutional needs for statistical information of the highest quality for 

the functioning of the EU in accordance with the Treaties. 

The specific objectives were to: 

  disseminate  complete,  comparable,  reliable  (i.e.  accurate,  timely  and  punctual) 

and regular EU-level statistics on: 
  persons,  families,  households,  dwellings  and  housing  arrangements  from 

population and housing censuses; 

  demography, population stock, and population balance; 
 
 

international migration and citizenship; 
total population at national level for qualified majority voting in the Council; 

  provide  a  sufficient  basis  of  demography  and  migration  statistics  to  produce 
population projections for EU long-term economic and budgetary projections; and 
  ensure by comprehensive, accurate and comparable metadata including statistical-
quality  documentation  (see  Annex  3  for  a  comprehensive  inventory  of  data 
collections in each domain). 

Finally,  operational  objectives  breaking  down  each  specific  objective  are  to  provide 
individual  statistical  products  (e.g. exact  cross-tabulations  needed  for  a  given  statistical 
unit) serving detailed needs for a given reference time or period. At this level of detail, 
the  three  legislative  proposals  deliberately  sought  a  balance  between  two  sets  of 
objectives:  (i)  essential  operational  objectives,  to  be  included  as  data  and  metadata 
transmission obligations in the legal base; and (ii) auxiliary operational objectives, to be 
implemented by initiating or continuing voluntary data collections outside the legal base. 
Annex 3  contains  a  comprehensive 
tabulation  of  operational  objectives/outputs 
(datasets). 

All  three  legislative  proposals  upheld  a  basic  principle  to  ensure  proportionality,  i.e.  to 
limit  regulation  to  the  minimum  necessary  to  deliver  on  these  objectives.  This  was 
achieved  by  proposing  to  regulate  only  the  essential  statistical  output  (operational 
objectives)  in  terms  of  statistical  content  and  quality.  With  a  legal  base  adopted  at  EU 
level, the targeted quality improvements were to be achieved as follows: 

13 Proposals COM(2005) 375, COM(2007) 69, and COM(2011) 903. 

8 

 
                                                 
Table 1 – Pre-/post-intervention situations for each domain 

Domain 

Pre-intervention 
(Member States send 
statistics to Eurostat 
voluntarily) 

Post-intervention 
(Member States send statistics to 
Eurostat in line with EU 
regulations) 

Population and housing 
census 

Census rounds 1990/1991, 
2001 

Census rounds 2011 (completed), 
2021 (ongoing) 

Demography 

Annual data until ref. year 
2012 

Annual data for ref. years 2013- 
2020 

International migration incl. 
citizenship 

Annual data until ref. year 
2007 

Annual data for ref. years 2008-
2020 

  completeness (of data and metadata across all Member States) through reporting 
obligations  for  all  Member  States  on  a  common  set  of  mandatory  data  and 
metadata; 

  coherence  (across  statistical  outputs  for  a  single  reporting  country)  and 
comparability  (across  reporting  countries  for  a  single  statistical  output)  through 
legal  provisions  on  common  statistical  definitions,  topics  and  breakdowns, 
accompanied by harmonised methodological guidance in each domain; 
timeliness  (reducing  the  time  between  the  end  of  the  reference  period  and 
dissemination of a statistical output) and punctuality (reducing the time between 
the  scheduled  and  actual  dissemination  of  a  statistical  output)  through  legally 
fixed  common  transmission  deadlines  for  all  mandatory  data  and  metadata 
collections. 

 

However, such firm output orientation entails particular need for comprehensive quality 
reporting across the entire statistical production process (the last specific objective). This 
was  reflected  in  dedicated  provisions  on  mandatory  metadata  and/or  quality  reporting 
across all proposals. 

2.3.  Baseline and points of comparison, including evolution of policy needs 

Most  statistics  included  in  this  intervention  had  already  been  collected  on  a  voluntary 
basis before 2005. The situation before 2005 – i.e. the content and quality of all relevant 
statistics disseminated at EU level until the first reference periods of the legal bases14 – is 
thus the baseline to which the post-intervention situation should be compared. In all three 
statistical  domains  (the  population  and  housing  census;  demography  statistics;  and 
international migration statistics), the pre-intervention situation is given by all public data 
and  metadata  available  on  Eurobase  for  the  respective  domain-specific  pre-regulation 
periods.  The  post-intervention  situation  is  given  by  all  public  data  and  metadata  on 
Eurobase for the respective domain-specific regulated periods up to and including 2019 
(see  the  concise  overview  in  Table 1  and  detailed  data  collections  to  be  traced  back 
across the points of comparison in Annex 315). 

14  First  regulated  reference  years  following  the  intervention:  2008  for  mandatory  statistics  under  the 
Migration Regulation, 2011 for the EU census programme under the Census Regulation, and 2013 for 
mandatory statistics under the Demography Regulation. 

15 The census domain is special because the currently ongoing 2021 census round is only the second one 
implemented  under  the  Census  Regulation.  Therefore,  information  from  the  2021  round  will  be 

9 

 
                                                 
 
The  pre-  and  post-intervention  situations  are  also  helpful  points  of  comparison  for 
determining the problem/needs definition. More precisely, two reference times are fixed: 
(i) the pre-2005 situation establishing the original policy drivers that led to the statistical 
needs identified for the intervention; and (ii) the post-2021 situation anticipating evolved 
policy drivers for the medium-term future after the 2021 census round. This comparison 
will be a key element of this evaluation, enabling an updated assessment of the relevance 
of the intervention in various policy contexts that experienced a great deal of change over 
the  past  decade  (see  Figure 1  outlining  the  evolution  of  broad  policy  drivers  between 
2005 and 2021; details are presented under the relevance assessment in Section 5).  

Therefore,  a  related  key  element  of  this  evaluation  is  a  detailed  assessment  of  the 
voluntary  data  collections  that  were  initiated  in  parallel  to  the  implementation  of  this 
intervention, often to address ad hoc urgent policy needs for statistics. These include, for 
instance, data collections on new migration flows after the United Kingdom left the EU 
and  new  infra-annual  statistics  responding  to  the COVID-19  pandemic.  All  of  these  ad 
hoc voluntary data collections are also included in Annex 3. 

Finally,  there  is  a  general  lack  of  sufficiently  detailed  background  information  on  this 
intervention.  This  is  because  requirements  for  impact  assessments  at  the  time  (before 
2005) were far less detailed than they are today. For this reason, significant information 
gaps  were  encountered  when  attempting  to  reconstruct  a  comprehensive  and  reliable 
picture  of  the  baseline  (the  pre-2005  situation  and  initial  assumptions  determining  the 
intervention).  Therefore,  the  default  baseline  is  sometimes  complemented  by  specific 
accessible  points  of  comparison  –  for  example  a  hypothetical  scenario  of  perfect 
statistical quality – when evaluating certain quality indicators.  

included  in  this  evaluation  to  the  extent  it  is  available  (mostly  procedural  information  such  as 
resources and costs, but no statistical outputs yet), and the year 2021 is listed in Table 1 in parentheses. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
Figure 1 – Detailed problem definition including initial EU policy and institutional drivers, the relation of these drivers to specific objectives, and how the problems and needs have developed from then until today 

11 

Statistical needs (pre-2005)Specific objectivesregular total population at national level of highest qualityregular European statistics on population and housing censuses incl. municipality levelregular European statistics on population and demographic events incl. regional levelsregular European statistics on international migrationat national levelSufficient statistical quality in terms of:•completeness•coherence and comparability•reliability (accuracy, timeliness, punctuality)•frequencyregular population projectionsDisseminate decennialEuropean statistics on population and housing censuses down to LAU levelDisseminate annualEuropean statistics on population and demographic events down to NUTS3 levelDisseminate annualEuropean statistics on international migration at national levelDisseminate annualtotal population at national level complying with a strict definition based on 12 months’ residenceDisseminate regular population projections at national and NUTS3 levelsDisseminate comprehensive, accurate and comparable metadata including statistical quality documentationStatistical needs (post-2021)regular total population at national level of highest qualitymore detailed integratedEuropean statistics on populationincl.demographic events, international and regional migrationmore harmonised statistical concepts across all outputs, in particular population basedetailed and functional geographic breakdowns: grids, cities, functional areas (DEGURBA)Sufficient statistical quality in terms of:•completeness•better coherence and comparability(population base)•reliability incl. bettertimeliness•higher frequencyregular population projectionsEU policy drivers (2005)EU institutional driversEU institutional driversadditional EU policy drivers (2021)annual monitoring of the EU demographic situation underArticle 143 TECprocedures for voting in the Council depend on total population since Treaty of NiceEU long-term economic and budgetary projectionswithin the European Semester based on Ecofin Council mandateannual monitoring of the EU demographic situation underArticle 159 TFEUprocedures for qualified majority voting in the Council based on Article 16(4) TEUEU long-term economic and budgetary projectionswithin the European Semester based on Ecofin Council mandate•backbone of annual population estimates, sample surveys, and regional analysis (many policy areas)•labourmarket developments (economic and social policies)•challenges related to ageing (economic, social, health policies)•all derived ‘per capita’ indicators (many policy areas)•monitoring the EU sustainable development strategy (many policy areas)•economic, social and territorial cohesion, with particular focus on the least favouredregions •migrant populations incl. socioeconomic backgrounds (migration and integration policies)•access to decent housing (social inclusion policy)•energy, water and other consumption by buildings (economic and environmental policies)structural flexibility to adapt data collections to quickly evolving policy needs incl. quick crisis response•policy and research users keep asking for an EU-wide harmonised  population-base definition•policy and research users also want data on vulnerable groups, to reduce double counting, and to reduce migration-flow inconsistencies•cohesion and regional policies•access to services, exposure risks, crisis response•development of rural areas (long-term vision)biggest known disruption drivers (all policy areas):•migration (past experience, potentially recurrent),•pandemics (ongoing, potentially recurrent),•climate change (started, staying for next decades)•need for comparable European statistics –across the EU and over time with fine granularity•improved use of existing administrative dataspecific new topics and characteristics: equality/non-discrimination, housing, specific migratory movements•equality/non-discrimination policies•European Green Deal•free movement and labour mobility 
 
 
Figure 2 – Complete intervention logic: from initial needs to current impacts 

12 

Problem/needs (pre-2005)•Article 338 TFEU (ex Article 285 TEC) obliges the legislator to “adopt measures for the production of statistics where necessary for the performance of the activities of the Union”•Evidence-based policy-making in various EU policy areas needs complete, coherent, comparable, reliable and regular European statistics on:opopulation and housing censuses incl. municipality level;odemography incl. regional levels;ointernational migration at national level.•EU institutions need information of the highest quality on population and demography for the functioning of the EU in accordance with the Treaties. This information includes:oregular total national populations for votingin the Council;oregular population projections for EU long-term economic and budgetary projectionswithin the European Semester;omonitoring: annual EU demographic situation under Article 159 TFEU (ex Article 143 TEC), and the EU sustainable development strategy (quality of life).•Census and population statistics are the backbone of other statistics•So far, voluntary collections, partly based on ‘gentlemen’s agreements’, are the only means of producing such statisticsSpecific objectives•Disseminate complete, coherent, comparableand reliable European statistics on;odecennial population and housing censuses down to LAU level;oannual population and demographic events down to NUTS3 level;oannual international migration at national level;oannual total population at national level complying with a strict twelve-month definition for qualified majority voting;oregular population projections at national and NUTS3 levels for EU long-term economic and budgetary projections.•Disseminate comprehensive, accurate and comparable metadata including statistical quality documentationInputs•Quality framework for European statisticsoR 223/2009oEuropean statistics code of practice•EU census legislationoR 763/2008oIRs 1201/2009, 519/2010, 1151/2010oIRs 2017/543, 2017/712, 2017/881oIR 2018/1799oExplanatory notes 2011 + 2021•Demographic statistics legislationoR 1260/2013oIR 205/2014•International migration statistics legislationoR 862/2007oIR 351/2010•EU and MS human and financial resourcesActivities•MS mandatory data and metadata collectionsoDecennial EU population and housing censuses starting from reference year 2011oAnnual statistics on population and vital events for reference years  2013-2027 (sunset clause)oAnnual statistics on international migration, migrant stocks and citizenship starting from reference year 2008•MS voluntary data and metadata collections to address evolving policy needsoAuxiliary population and demographic statisticsoAuxiliary migration statistics•Eurostat methodological guidance, data validation, quality assurance and dissemination•Eurostat EU-level stakeholder management (Expert groups, Commission reports to EP and Council, etc.)Outputs•High-quality European statistical data and metadatao2011 EU population and housing censusoAnnual statistics on population and vital eventsoAnnual statistics on international migration, migrant stocks and citizenshipoAnnual total population at national level for qualified majority voting in the Council•Long-term and short-term population projections•Dissemination products publicly availableo2011 EU census results and quality reports on Census HuboAnnual population, demography and migration datasets and quality reports on EurobaseoTopical statistical analysis and publications (e.g. Statistics Explained, Statistical Atlas on 2011 EU census, interactive publication on Demography of Europe)•Commission reports to EP and Council, and to the publico2012, 2015, 2018, 2021 reports on R 862/2007o2018 report on R 1260/2013Impacts•Policy-makers at all levels in the EU use evidence from European statistics on population, demography and international migration •Statistical information on population and demography serves the functioning of the EUin accordance with the Treaties•Basis for other statistics (samples of persons and households, nat.accounts)•Rich and reliable information on European population is a global public good available to everybody free of charge, and with a wide range of user groupsResults•EU policy cycle based on high-quality official statistics and analysis on population, demography and international migration at EU, national, regional and local levels in many policy areas: regional, structural, migration, social, economic, environmental, health, internal affairs […]•Qualified majority voting in the Council based on total population at national level, EU long-term economic and budgetary projections within the European Semester based on population projections (Ageing Report 2021), 2020 Report on the Impact of Demographic Change (Article 159 TFEU)•All statistics users benefit from public, comparable statistics and quality information on population and its demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, including improved academic research and media reportingExternal factors:related or depending European statistics (asylum and managed migration statistics incl. seasonal workers, samples of persons and households, European System of Accounts), international statistical cooperation (UNSD, UNECE/CES, etc.), demographic research activitiesat EU and international levels, policy cycle at EU and Member-State levels, societal background –such as demographic change, economic climateGeneral objectives•Provide sufficient data evidence on national and regional population, demography and international migration for policy-making at EU, national, and sub-national levels•AddressEU institutional and monitoring needs for high-quality statistical information in accordance with the Treaties 
 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 

A  comprehensive  overview  of  the  intervention  logic  and  its  implementation  steps 
down to current results and impacts is provided in Figure 2. 

3.1. 

Inputs and external factors 

As noted in Section 2, the intervention logic is closely linked to the legislative initiatives 
put  forward  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  considered  the  legal  acts  (i.e.  the 
Census,  Demography  and  Migration  Regulations)  to  be  the  key  instruments  for 
producing outputs (high-quality official statistics and quality documentation) that deliver 
on  the  objectives  of  the  intervention.  Therefore,  all  legal  acts  adopted  under  the 
intervention  are  considered  as  inputs  for  this  evaluation16.  Figure 2  contains  a 
comprehensive  list  of  these  inputs.  In  this  context,  Regulation  (EC)  No  223/2009  on 
European  statistics17  (the  ‘European  statistics  Regulation’)  extends  the  mentioned 
legislative  inputs  by  providing  the  general  legal  base  for  a  common  quality  framework 
for all official statistics produced at EU level, including all domains evaluated here. 

The resource inputs to  the intervention  were  the human and  financial resources  at both 
EU level (mainly Eurostat staff and calls for grant proposals organised by Eurostat) and 
national  level  (mainly  staff  of  NSIs  and  national  funding  for  the  data  collections).  The 
adoption of the legal bases created legal obligations that ensured the stable availability of 
these  resources  during  the  implementation  of  the  Census,  Demography  and  Migration 
Regulations.  A  quantification  of  these  resources  will  be  a  central  element  of  the 
evaluation method described in Section 4. 

Various external factors provide important context – either to the implementation process 
or  to  the  outputs  of  the  intervention.  These  external  factors  are  addressed  in  the 
paragraphs below. 

Related European statistics are those official statistics disseminated by Eurostat that are 
similar  enough  to  the  domains  addressed  by  this  intervention  to  raise  problems  of 
coherence  and  interdependence.  However,  they  are  conceptually  or  methodologically 
distinct  enough  that  they  were  considered  out  of  scope  of  the  intervention.  Among  the 
most  relevant  domains  are  asylum  and  managed  migration  statistics,  which  are  mostly 
regulated  under  Articles  4-7  of  the  Migration  Regulation  and  deal  with  administrative 
and  judicial  procedures  related  to  migration  (e.g.  asylum  applications  and  decisions, 
Dublin  procedures,  enforcement  of  immigration  legislation,  and  residence  permits). 
There are close conceptual  links  to the statistics considered under this intervention,  but 
the  relevant  statistical  units  are  profoundly  different:  resident  population  of  a  given 
geographic  area  and 
intervention)  versus  migration-related 
administrative or judicial acts. Furthermore, samples of persons and households generally 

its  changes 

(this 

16  This  also  follows  previous  approaches  to  evaluating  statistical  interventions,  e.g.  SWD(2019)  425 

Evaluation of the European Fishery Statistics. 

17  Regulation  (EC)  No  223/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2009  on 
European statistics and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1101/2008 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  the  transmission  of  data  subject  to  statistical  confidentiality  to  the  Statistical 
Office  of the European Communities, Council Regulation  (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics, 
and Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom establishing a Committee on the Statistical Programmes 
of  the  European  Communities  (Text  with  relevance  for  the  EEA  and  for  Switzerland)  (OJ  L  87, 
31.3.2009, p. 164). 

13 

 
                                                 
depend  on  the  full-enumeration  population  statistics  under  this  intervention  (sampling 
frames).  They  thus  share  many  statistical  concepts  and  definitions  of  this  intervention, 
but  on  the  other  hand  they  are  fundamentally  different  from  a  methodological 
perspective.  The  recent  adoption  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1700  on  European  statistics 
relating  to  persons  and  households,  based  on  data  at  individual  level  collected  from 
samples (footnote 9) has created a new context for the population statistics evaluated in 
this  staff  working  document.  Finally,  national  accounts18  use  population  as  well  as 
household and dwelling figures from censuses to produce derived indicators. 

International  statistical  cooperation  creates  an  environment  of  common  concepts  and 
definitions  in  which  many  ESS  members  participate.  Eurostat  actively  contributes  to  – 
and  promotes  –  this  environment  at  various  levels  to  foster  the  international 
harmonisation  of  official  statistics.  Key  aspects  of  this  environment  are  the  statistical 
coordination  and  governance  activities  coordinated  globally  by  the  UN  Statistical 
Division  and  for  the  European  region  of  the  United  Nations  by  the  UN  Economic 
Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE).  Networks  of  experts  organised  by  these  United 
Nations  bodies  produce  and  regularly  update  international  guidelines  (such  as  the 
Recommendations  for  the  Censuses  of  Population  and  Housing  endorsed  by  the 
Conference of European Statisticians).  

Demographic research activities at EU and international levels have been an element of 
attention  during  the  period  of  implementation  of  this  intervention.  One  demographic 
research  activity  has  been  in  particular  focus  recently:  the  concept  of  actual  presence. 
This concept is related to the usual-residence concept, and has been the focus of recent 
research using new data sources to measure migration and cross-border mobility, such as 
mobile devices, social media networks, satellite images and internet platforms19. Another 
area  of  research  where  Eurostat  is  an  independent  actor  is  the  harmonised  population 
projections for the whole EU based on European demographic data. Eurostat corresponds 
regularly with the international community in this area and with ESS partners. Eurostat 
projections  are  a  key  input  to  EU  long-term  economic  and  budgetary  projections 
mandated by the Council (footnote 11). 

3.2.  Description of the current situation  

Based  on  the  above  inputs  and  external  factors,  Member  States  engaged  in  several 
activities  to  implement  the  three  Regulations  comprising  the  intervention.  The  first 
activity by Member States was the development and operationalisation of mandatory data 
and metadata collections under the newly adopted legal bases. Eurostat also took action, 
further  processing  the  data  collected  from  Member  States  to  help  the  dissemination  of 
European statistics. Eurostat’s action in this area focused in particular on data validation 
and  quality  assurance,  as  well  as  on  methodological  guidance  where  necessary  to 
implement  common  statistical  concepts  coherently  in  national  data  collections.  Finally, 
Eurostat  also  collaborates  at  EU  level  and  internationally  including  with  statistical 
producers, policy users, EU institutions and international organisations (see Section 4). 

18 Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21  May 2013 on the 
European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) 
(OJ L 174, 26.6.2013, p. 1). 

19 E.g. Ricciato et al., Towards a methodological framework for estimating present population density from 
mobile  network  operator  data,  Pervasive  and  Mobile  Computing  68,  101263,  2020. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2020.101263. 

14 

 
                                                 
The implementation of the intervention can be considered as completed to the extent that 
all mandatory data collections have now entered a mature phase characterised by routine 
and  robust  production  processes  that  have  now  been  established  for  some  years.  When 
necessary,  these  processes  continue  to  undergo  mostly  occasional,  technical  or  small 
methodological  updates20.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  generally  very  good  compliance  of 
national  statistics  providers  with  the  legislation  in  force,  as  documented  in  regular 
implementation  reports  to the European Parliament and the Council  for the annual  data 
collections21. Eurostat monitors legal compliance regularly, and this led to some bilateral 
exchanges with some Member States at technical level, but outputs  generally  achieve a 
high level of compliance. 

The  statistical  outputs  being  generated  by  the  intervention  have  resulted  in  tangible 
benefits  for  statistics  users.  Firstly,  the  statistics  help  to  inform  evidence-based  EU 
policymaking in many areas such as: (i) social and economic cohesion; (ii) structural and 
regional cohesion; (iii) civil  rights;  (iv) migration and internal  affairs;  (v) environment; 
(vi)  energy;  and  (vii)  health.  Moreover,  total  population  at  national  level  (based  on  a 
strict  application  of  the  twelve-month  definition  of  usual  residence,  reported  under 
Article  4  of  the  Demography  Regulation)  is  used  to  verify  the  population  quota  in 
qualified majority voting of the Council. Furthermore, annual demographic statistics and 
projections  inform  EU  institutions  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  the  EU.  For  instance, 
these statistics and projections contributed to the 2021 Ageing Report22 and are a basis for 
the  EU’s  long-term  economic  and  budgetary  projections  under  the  European  Semester. 
They  were  also  used  for  the  2020  Report  on  the  Impact  of  Demographic  Change23 
addressing  Article  159  TFEU  (formerly  Article  143  TEC).  Finally,  statistical  outputs 
from  this  intervention  are  among  the  most  widely  consulted  European  statistics.  Since 
2016,  international  migration  statistics  have  been  the  most  visited  of  the  thematic 
sections  on  the  website,  with  strong  and  continuing  user  interest.  Similarly,  the 
periodically  updated  ‘Statistics  Explained’  article  on  migration  and  migrant  population 
statistics24  has  established  itself  since  2016  as  one  of  the  most  frequently  consulted 
‘Statistics Explained’ pages. 

However, there are two substantial developments that could not have been foreseen at the 
time the legal bases for the intervention were being drawn up.  

The  first  of  these  developments  is  the  rapid  change  in  relevant  policy  drivers  over  the 
past  decade.  There  has  been  particularly  rapid  change  brought  by:  (i)  demographic 
developments  including  migration  and  ageing;  (ii)  the  Green  Deal;  (iii)  fundamental 
rights monitoring; and (iv) the urbanisation and integration of rural areas. This created a 

20 Again, the census domain is special due to its less frequent nature: the practice established by the Census 
Regulation  is  that  each  census  round  must  be  specified  by  dedicated  implementing  legislation,  thus 
allowing a limited element of flexibility to adapt to evolving needs between census rounds. 

21  Previous  reports  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council:  COM(2012) 528,  COM(2015) 374, 
the  Migration  Regulation; 

COM(2018) 594,  COM(2021) 489  on 
COM(2018) 843 on the implementation of the Demography Regulation. 

implementation  of 

the 

22 https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-ageing-report-economic-and-budgetary-projections-eu-

member-states-2019-2070_en 

23 COM(2020) 241 and accompanying SWD(2021) 46. 

24 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics 

15 

 
                                                 
situation  where  statistics  producers,  who  were  still  implementing  relatively  recent 
obligations  under  the  intervention,  were  confronted  with  new  and  quickly  changing 
policy  needs  for  statistics.  Often  these  needs  were  out  of  scope  of  the  recently  enacted 
legal bases.  

The  second  development  is  the  equally  rapid  change  in  the  relevant  data  sources,  a 
change that was also not anticipated by the legislation. There were three aspects to this 
rapid  change in  data sources:  (i) the  rapid improvement in  the quality  and accessibility 
for  statistical  purposes  of  administrative  sources  available  in  an  increasing  number  of 
Member  States;  (ii)  the  establishment  of  large-scale  IT  systems  and  interoperability 
platforms at EU level; and (iii) the emergence of ‘big data’, including privately held data 
sources. As a result of these two main developments, new or changed policy needs were 
emerging in parallel with developments in data sources and methodologies that could not 
be properly exploited within the legal framework. 

In  conclusion,  the  current  situation  is  characterised  by  a  firm  legal  framework  that 
emerged from the intervention, and very good overall compliance by all Member States 
with  this  framework.  This  evaluation  should  therefore  focus  on  the  legal  framework’s 
ability not only to deliver on the initial objectives of the intervention, but also to remain 
relevant in a highly dynamic policy, technical and methodological context. 

4.  METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

This  evaluation  assessed  the  performance  of  the  current  legal  framework  on  European 
population  statistics  according  to  six  criteria:  relevance  (2005  situation  and  evolution 
until today), effectiveness, efficiency, coherence (internal and external), EU added value 
and  statistical  quality.  To  achieve  this,  and  to  answer  the  evaluation  questions  in 
Section 5,  Eurostat  assessed  two  broad  perspectives:  (i)  how  the  statistics  are  produced 
from source to publication; and (ii) how these publications are received by the statistics 
users.  The  full  evaluation  framework  (criteria,  questions,  indicators  and  evidence 
sources) is provided in Annex 4. 

The initiative on redeveloping European statistics on population (ESOP)25 was published 
in  March  2021.  It  relies  on  a  back-to  back  evaluation  and  impact  assessment.  The 
combined evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment was publicly consulted in 
April 2021. Eurostat then carried out the evaluation, impact assessment and stakeholder 
consultation  between  May  2021  and  February  2022  with  the  support  of  an  external 
contractor  and  guidance  from  an  interservice  steering  group  (ISG)  composed  of 
representatives of 16 Commission Directorates-General (DG) (see Annex 1, point 2). 

Eurostat  identified  the  following  evidence  and  corresponding  sources  to  be  used  for 
evaluation and impact assessment: 

  desk  research  –  analysis  of  legal,  contextual,  methodological  and  technical 

background documents relevant to the intervention; 

25 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12958-European-statistics-on-

population-ESOP  

16 

 
 
                                                 
  opinions  of  statistics  producers  –  various  consultation  activities  engaging  NSIs, 
national  holders  of  administrative source data used for population  statistics, and 
EU citizens acting as census respondents; 

  opinions  of  statistics  users  within  the  Commission  –  consultation  activities  and 
drawing upon Eurostat’s working relations and good communication with  many 
Commission  services  and  in  particular  the  Commission  network  of  statistical 
correspondents; 

  opinions  of  other  users  –  various  consultation  activities,  in  particular  the  open 

public consultation (OPC). 

A detailed account of all evidence and sources used can be found in Annex 1.5. 

Eurostat then developed a consultation  strategy that  further refined the typology of key 
stakeholders as well as suitable consultation activities. The following main stakeholders 
were identified. 

  Data  providers 

comprising  administrative  data  providers 

(public 
administrations  and other organisations that provide or may provide source data 
to  statistical  authorities  for  producing  European  statistics)  and  individual 
respondents (individuals who are included in the data collection such as sample 
surveys  and  census  enumerations  and  who  provide  answers  to  the  statistical 
authorities collecting this data).  

  Statistics  producers  are  the  NSIs  and  other  national  authorities  collecting, 
processing  and  sending  relevant  statistical  data  to  Eurostat.  They  ensure  the 
quality of the data.  

  Statistics users, divided into four categories set out below. 

o  Institutional  users  are  the  policymakers  or  entities  directly  supporting 
policymaking  at  various  administrative  levels.  They  include  EU  bodies, 
international  organisations,  national  ministries,  government 
research 
institutes, and regional/local authorities.  

o  Other  professional  users  contribute  occasionally  and  indirectly  to  the 
policymaking  process  at  EU  and  other  levels.  These  other  users  include 
academics,  research  institutes,  professional  organisations,  advisory  councils, 
NGOs, and individual private companies.  

o  Media organisations. 

o  The general public. 

The  stakeholder  groups  were  then  mapped  onto  suitable  and  proportionate  consultation 
activities  in  a  detailed  consultation  plan  (Table 2).  Eurostat  carried  out  the  expert 
consultations  in  its  relevant  expert  groups  with  ESS  members  (the  Directors  of  Social 
Statistics group, topical working groups, and a task force) and by written consultations, 
for  instance  with  the  Commission  network  of  statistical  correspondents.  Eurostat  also 
prepared and implemented the public  consultation survey and two targeted consultation 
surveys  partly  with  support  from  the  contractor.  Finally,  5  workshops  and  47  in-depth 
interviews were organised, hosted and documented by the contractor with Eurostat inputs 
on the selection of appropriate participants, agenda setting and occasional interventions. 

17 

 
Table 2 - Mapping of stakeholder groups onto consultation activities 

Activity 

Public 
consultation 

Targeted 
survey 

Targeted 
workshops 

Expert 
consultations 

Interviews 

Period 

Q4 2021 

Q4 2021 

Q2-Q4 2021  Q3-Q4 2021 

Stakeholder 
group 

Administrative 
data providers 

Individual 
respondents 

Statistics 
producers 

Institutional users 

Media 

Other 
professional users 

General public 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Due  to  the  back-to-back  evaluation  and  impact  assessment,  all  consultation  surveys 
contained  both:  (i)  sections  or  elements  focusing  on  an  evaluation  of  the  current 
framework  (a  ‘backward-looking’  assessment  –  analysed  in  this  staff  working 
document);  and  (ii)  ideas  for  future  improvement  (forward-looking  –  analysed  in  the 
impact  assessment).  Analysis  of  the  two  targeted  surveys  was  straightforward,  as  these 
mapped  well  onto  specific  user  subgroups  listed  above,  namely  EU-level  institutional 
users  (targeted  at  the  network  of  statistical  correspondents  of  all  Commission  services) 
and  statistics  producers  (targeted  at  the  NSIs).  To  analyse  the  results  of  the  OPC,  all 
replies  were  first  categorised  into  the  key  stakeholder  groups  listed  above  and  then 
assessed in turn. The workshops were used to obtain stakeholder feedback at the start and 
at the end of the evaluation (addressing the problem definition – September 2021, and the 
problem validation – January 2022).  

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

A  broad  structural  limitation  of  the  desk  research  was  the  fact  that  the  basic  legal  acts 
under this intervention were adopted between 2007 and 2013 – at a time when the Better 
Regulation  guidelines  and  ensuing  need  for  effective  monitoring  and  evaluation 
mechanisms were not in place yet. Moreover, the costs of producing statistics at Member 
State level were not documented in sufficient detail at that time. In particular, virtually all 
national production systems for population statistics were historically set up, maintained 
and updated to simultaneously cater to both national and EU-level statistical needs. This 
makes  it  extremely  difficult  for  Member  States  to  separate:  (i)  the  baseline  costs  of 
catering to national needs; from (ii) the incremental costs incurred only to comply with 
the legal framework under this intervention (and costs of catering to EU-level statistical 
needs more generally).  

Finally, the period when the legal framework was implemented in the Member States – 
roughly from 2007 to 2014 – coincided with another fundamental trend, namely the first 

18 

 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
stages  of  the  transition  of  many  national  statistical  production  systems  from  traditional 
data  sources  to  an  increased  –  or  even  exclusive  –  use  of  administrative  data  sources. 
This broad trend is assumed to have substantially affected costs across this period. This 
cost  effect  is  likely  to  have  been  much  greater  than  any  changes  in  costs  due  to  the 
intervention – at least in some Member States. 

These limitations have made it difficult to quantify implementation costs cleanly against 
the hypothetical baseline (i.e. the 2005 situation augmented by the effects of Regulation 
(EC)  No  223/2009),  and  thus  to  assess  efficiency  quantitatively.  Therefore,  related 
evaluation  questions  and  indicators  were  designed  to  acknowledge  this  difficulty  by 
adding  additional  qualitative  opinion  elements  covered  by  the  stakeholder  consultation. 
Nevertheless,  monetised  baseline  and  incremental  costs  on  Member  States  and  on 
Eurostat  itself  by  each  statistical  domain,  are  estimated  from  the  consultation  results  at 
hand,  combined  with  both  regular  Eurostat  consultations  on  statistical  production  costs 
and  UNECE  publications  on  the  costs  of  previous  census  rounds26.  The  estimation 
models and  assumptions  are described in  detail in Annex  2, and findings are presented 
under the discussion of efficiency in Section 5.4 below. 

It was not possible to quantify or estimate the monetary value of: (i) costs for data users 
or for individual persons; and (ii)  benefits  in  general.  This  was in  part due to  a lack of 
available  data,  for  example  on  the  costs  to  citizens  of  participating  in  census  rounds. 
More  generally,  this  was  due  to  certain  costs  and  benefits  being  inappropriate  for 
quantification  because  their  effects  are  more  ambiguous  and  variable  across  Member 
States  and  stakeholder  groups.  For  example,  the  benefits  to  non-institutional  data  users 
from  increased  access  to  high  quality  European  statistics  on  population  would  be 
challenging  to  quantify,  since  this  would  depend  on  several  additional  factors,  such  as 
how these data would be used or the cost of accessing data through alternative sources. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This  evaluation  addresses  all  five  standard  criteria  (relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence,  and  EU  added  value)  as  well  as  statistical  quality  as  an  auxiliary  criterion. 
Statistical  quality  affects  the  standard  criteria  in  various  ways,  so  that  indicators 
contributing to the standard criteria often draw from statistical quality indicators as part 
of  the  evidence.  In  general,  each  evaluation  question  was  assessed  with  at  least  one 
indicator, where indicators are either qualitative or quantitative depending on the source 
data  available  and  the  nature  of  the  indicator.  An  overview  of  the  complete  evaluation 
framework in terms of criteria – questions – indicators is provided in Annex 4. 

5.1. Relevance – initial situation (RI) 

The need for this intervention was based on statistical requirements and constraints  that 
existed  in  the  baseline  scenario  of  around  2005.  However,  the  reference  scenario  has 
changed  significantly  between  the  baseline  and  today.  Therefore,  an  evaluation  of  the 
relevance of the intervention should take at least two perspectives: performance against 
the  baseline  scenario  (‘initial  relevance’)  and  performance  against  current  needs  and 

26 

https://unece.org/measuring-population-and-housing; 
housing-practices-unece-countries-2000-round-censuses  

https://unece.org/measuring-population-and-

19 

 
 
                                                 
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Figure 1 – Evolution of the share of initial EU use cases addressed by European datasets (indicator RI1.1) over the 
period of implementing the intervention. (Source: Eurostat analysis) 

constraints  (‘evolved  relevance’).  This  section  evaluates  only  initial  relevance,  whereas 
evolved relevance under the reference scenario of today is evaluated in section 5.2. 

RI1  –  To  what  extent  do  statistical  objectives  and  outputs  correspond  to  the  needs  for 
evidence-based EU policymaking? 

  All  EU  institutional-  and  policy-related  topical  needs  known  at  the  baseline  were 
addressed. 

When the intervention began around 2005, several EU-level data needs in the population-
statistics  domain  were  well  known  and  expressed  by  various  EU  bodies  (footnote 1). 
These needs are documented in the explanatory memoranda of the Commission proposals 
for  –  as  well  as  in  the  recitals  of  –  the  current  legislation.  As  Figure 1  shows,  the  EU-
level  needs  can  be  broadly  split  into  policy  needs  (supporting  EU  policies)  and 
institutional needs (emerging directly from  provisions in the Treaties explicitly relevant 
to  population  statistics).  Indicator  RI1.1  measures  if/when  initial  EU  use  cases  (policy 
and institutional) were addressed successively by datasets that became regulated through 
this intervention. Figure 3 shows the time evolution of the indicator, clearly highlighting 
the  step-by-step  improvements  around  the  years  when  particular  base  acts  started  to 
deliver data (2009 for the Migration Regulation,  2014 for the Census  and Demography 
Regulations).  The  key  quality  gaps  at  the  time  (2005)  that  were  addressed  by  this 
intervention  were  comparability,  timeliness  and  completeness  of  the  data  across  all 
Member States (see Section 5.8). 

RI2 – To what extent do statistical objectives and outputs serve institutional needs for the 
functioning of the EU? 

  Addressing  EU  institutional  needs  for  the  definition  and  implementation  of  the 
population  base  leaves  room  for  improvement.  Gaps  exist  in  statistics  inputs  for 
population projections. 

There are three main institutional needs introduced in Section 2 for European population 
statistics: (i) monitoring of the demographic situation; (ii) national population weights for 
qualified majorities in the Council; and (iii) inputs to population projections needed for 
long-term  economic  planning.  These  needs  imply  certain  aspects  of  the  statistics:  for 
instance,  policy  and  democratic-representation  considerations  require  a  population-base 
definition (who is counted among the population and who is not) that reflects the actual 
population  present.  Indicator  RI2.1  shows  that  the  compromises  accepted  under  this 
intervention  have  generally  led  to  a  regulated  definition  of  the  population  base  that  is 

20 

 
 
 
overall  barely  sufficient  in  this  respect.  The  Demography  Regulation  requires  national 
population  figures  based  on  a  strict  base  definition  only  for  Council  voting  weights. 
These national population figures must be of the highest possible quality27 but the factual 
accuracy or comparability achieved is currently not quantified, and there are indications 
that  the  strict  definition  is  not  implemented  coherently  in  all  cases  (RI2.2,  see  EE3.1). 
Finally, there are gaps in statistics inputs for producing population projections that were 
in  principle known at  the time of developing the intervention, but  not  fully  reflected in 
the resulting legal framework (RI2.3). 

5.2. Relevance – evolution until today (RE) 

RE1 – To what extent do population statistics address current policy needs for detailed, 
frequent  and  harmonised  data  on  population  aspects,  including  at  highest  geographic 
granularity? 

 The evolution  of  EU  policy needs since the baseline has  led to  significant  new  data 
gaps. 

The previous section showed that the intervention has indeed led to many highly relevant 
and  needed  datasets  from  a  baseline  perspective.  However,  indicators  RE1.1–RE1.5 
measure  the  gaps  due  to  emerging  policy  needs  that  currently  exist  but  that  were  not 
anticipated at the baseline. 

Indicator 

Gap type 

Baseline  Target  Current 

Key gap(s) 

RE1.1 

Detail 

Good 

Good 

Barely 
sufficient 

-  Housing data for Green Deal 
-  Equality data for 

fundamental rights policies 

RE1.2 

Frequency 

Good 

Good 

Decent 

RE1.3 

Timeliness 

Good 

Good 

Decent 

-  Housing data for Green Deal 
-  Quarterly (seasonal) 

population for urban/rural 
integration 

Legal deadline for EU census 
results of 27 months after the 
census year is too late 

RE1.4 

Harmonisation  Decent 

Good 

Barely 
sufficient 

No harmonisation of the 
population-base definition at EU 
level 

RE1.5 

Geographic 
granularity 

Good 

Good 

Barely 
sufficient 

NUTS-level data, incl. on 
migration, functional typologies 
and georeferenced data for 
regional and urban/rural 
cohesion policies, and cross-
border analysis 

27  A  qualified  majority  in  accordance  with  Article  16(4)  TEU  requires  at  least  15  Council  votes 
representing at least 65% of the EU’s population, where some (rare)  combinations of Member States 
can lead to results that are extremely close to the population threshold. For instance, AT, BE, BG, CY, 
DE, ES, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL and PT (15 MS) would represent 65.000032% of the Union 
population based on 2021 data. 

21 

 
                                                 
Figure 2 – Opinions of OPC respondents on which dataset topics they consider a priority to be improved by 2030. 
(Source: ICF analysis of OPC responses) 

In summary, the evolution of the policy environment over time has led to significant gaps 
that did not exist at the time of the baseline, most notably in the detail of characteristics, 
harmonisation, and the geographic granularity of the statistics. 

RE2  –  To  what  extent  are  established  statistical  objectives  fit  to  respond  to  evolving 
policy needs? 

  RE1  identified  a  significant  increase  in  gaps  over  time.  Statistics  users  across  all 
groups do not find that the statistics adapt quickly to new needs. 

The previous question identified several key gaps that emerged after the intervention was 
implemented. According to  indicator RE2.1, the current  legal  framework  is  now barely 
sufficient  to  address  these  gaps,  essentially  because  it  provides  almost  no  flexibility 
mechanisms  (e.g.  only  very  few  details  can  be  changed  by  delegated  powers).  This  is 
substantiated by the OPC results, where most respondents across all stakeholder groups 
except statistics producers agreed only ‘somewhat’ that the legislation is fit for purpose. 
The  inability  of  the  legal  framework  to  adapt  is  also  illustrated  in  the  clear  opinion  of 
statistics users that the statistics cannot adapt quickly to new needs. Only a minority of 
OPC  respondents  across all stakeholder  groups  (except  statistics producers) agreed that 
the  statistics  adapt  quickly  to  new  needs.  The  share  of  disagreement  was  most 
pronounced among the professional and institutional users. Moreover, opinions on the ad 
hoc data collections initiated outside the legal framework in response to COVID-19 seem 
to indicate that such voluntary ad hoc measures may not be sufficient to meet the needs 
experienced in a rapidly changing crisis. 

Finally, after the 2011  census, Eurostat  and the  NSIs concluded there was a substantial 
need  for  a  complete  collection  of  key  2021  census  data  on  a  common  European  1 km2 
grid. However, this could not be regulated under the Census Regulation due to its lack of 

22 

 
 
flexibility.  Therefore,  the  Commission  had  to  proceed  with  an  ad  hoc  act  under  a 
different legal base to ensure EU completeness and comparability28. 

RE3 – Who are the main current users of European statistics on population and to what 
extent do the currently available European statistics on population meet their needs? 

 A variety of user groups other than EU institutional users is identified. These groups 
are  generally  somewhat  more  satisfied  with  the  current  statistics,  but  raise  the  same 
main topics for improvement as RE1. 

RE1 focused on the needs of EU-level institutional users representing the most influential 
user  group  of  European  statistics.  However,  in  addition  to  institutional  users  at  other 
governance levels, the stakeholder consultation also addressed other relevant user groups 
in  line  with  the  expectations  of  the  consultation  strategy.  These  other  relevant  user 
the  relevant  policy  areas  and 
groups  most  notably 
academic/research institutions. The views of these user groups are captured by the OPC, 
workshops and interviews. 

include  NGOs  active 

in 

The consultations of these more diverse groups found that they are generally somewhat 
more  satisfied  that  their  data  needs  are  being  met  than  EU-level  institutional  users. 
However, these more diverse groups have also identified areas for improvement that are 
in  line  with  the  findings  of  RE1,  namely:  (i)  the  timeliness  of  statistics;  (ii)  the 
availability  of  data  on  subgroups  at  risk  of  inequality  and  non-discrimination  (such  as 
LGBTI  groups  and  ethnic  minorities);  (iii)  the  availability  of  data  on  EU  internal  and 
external migration; and (iv) access issues (such as the utility of metadata and other user-
friendliness concerns). This is also reflected in Figure 4, which shows OPC priorities for 
dataset topics to be improved by 2030. Thus, changes in the needs of statistics users often 
reflect major societal changes such as migration, gender issues and social norms29. 

5.3. Effectiveness (EE) 

EE1 – To what extent is the output of high quality? 

 Several quality aspects have improved significantly, especially for statistics that were 
included in  the three new  Regulations. Key gaps remain in:  (i) availability of  statistics 
when  data  transmission  is  voluntary;  and  (ii)  comparability  of  statistics  due  to 
insufficient harmonisation. 

At  the  time  of  the  baseline  around  2005,  all  relevant  statistics  were  produced  on  a 
voluntary  basis.  This  led  to  significant  gaps  in  the  statistical-quality  dimensions  of 
comparability, timeliness and completeness at EU level – i.e. data were not available for 
all  Member  States,  or  were  only  available  after  considerable  delay.  It  also  meant  that 
some statistical categories were not fully comparable. Therefore, improvement on these 
quality aspects is a criterion for measuring the effectiveness of the intervention. Findings 
from indicators on respective quality dimensions are summarised in the table below. 

28   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1799 of 21 November 2018 on the establishment of 
a temporary direct statistical action for the dissemination of selected topics of the 2021 population and 
housing census geocoded to a 1 km2 grid (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 296, 22.11.2018, p. 19). 

29   ICF Final Report supporting ESOP evaluation (2022), Section 4.1. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
Quality dim. 

Ind. 

Definition 

Baseline  Target  Current 

Coherence 

Coherence 

SQ1.3  Percentage of ESS members with 
coherent annual population totals 
across datasets 

SQ1.5  Percentage of ESS members with 
coherence between annual 
population stocks and demographic 
changes 

72% 
(2005) 

100% 

100% 

44% 
(2004-
2012 av.) 

100% 
(from 
2014 on) 

43% 
(2013-
2019 av.) 

Comparability  SQ2.2  Percentage of consistent bilateral 

migration flows between ESS 
members (<20% difference) 

Comparability  SQ2.3  Relative asymmetry of total intra-EU 

migration (% of total immigration) 

25% 
(2005) 

13.8% 
(2008) 

Timeliness 

SQ4.1  Largest delay of EU complete annual 
population data compared to 
reference date 

552 days 
(2007-
2012) 

Punctuality 

SQ5.1  Largest delay compared to agreed 

deadline among ESS members 

Completeness  SQ6.1  Percentage of mandatory statistics 

published with EU-level 
completeness 

Completeness  SQ6.2  Percentage of voluntary statistics 

published with EU-level 
completeness 

294 days 
(2007-
2012) 

42.6% 
(2000-
2006 av.) 

41.2% 
(2000-
2006 av.) 

100% 

25% 
(2019) 

0% 

≤ 552 
days 

0 days 

100% 

100% 

3.7% 
(2019) 

397 days 
(2013-
2019) 

31 days 
(2013-
2019) 

98.9% 
(2013-
2019 av.) 

58.4% 
(2013-
2019 av.) 

This  shows  that  coherence  (SQ1.3),  comparability  (SQ2.3),  timeliness  (SQ4.1)30,  and 
completeness  (SQ6.1)  have  all  improved  significantly  for  data  that  became  mandatory 
with the intervention. However, the quality aspects of voluntary data have not improved 
at the same rate (SQ2.2, SQ6.2), which was to be expected given the baseline experience. 
This  is  very  much  in  line  with  the  general  opinion  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation, who largely agreed (more than 75% agreed in each stakeholder group) that 
the  current  statistics  are  of  high  quality  overall.  There  was  also  widespread  agreement 
that the voluntary parts should be subject to a regulation in the future (more than 75% in 
each  stakeholder  group  agreed  except  for  the  statistics  producers).  Finally,  the  lack  of 
improvement  on  indicator  SQ1.5  –  despite  underlying  mandatory  data  –  is  a  direct 
consequence of the harmonisation gap identified in question RI2 that persists even after 
the intervention. 

EE2  –  To  what  extent  do  statistics  published  under  the  intervention  serve  EU 
policymaking? 

30 Note an intricacy: the delay in receiving complete EU data compared to the reference date (timeliness, 
SQ4.1) did not improve at the same rate as the compliance with agreed deadlines (punctuality, SQ5.1). 
This is because Member States only agreed to commit to a longer formal deadline (12 months instead 
of 8.5 months) when the deadline was included in the Demography Regulation. This highlights typical 
trade-offs between quality dimensions (here completeness vs timeliness) that become explicit when the 
statistics are made subject to a regulation. 

24 

 
  
                                                 
1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

3,0%
2,5%
2,0%
1,5%
1,0%
0,5%
0,0%

Mandatory

Voluntary

Partly mandatory

Indicators

EE2.2 - mandatory datasets

EE2.3 - voluntary datasets

Figure  3  –  Left:  average  completeness  of  EU  aggregates  in  annual  datasets,  by  collection  base  and  reference  year 
(EE2.1). Right: average share of population categorised as ‘unknown’, over all variables where this category exists 
and  over  all  Member  States  (EE2.2  mandatory,  EE2.3  voluntary  datasets).  (Source:  Eurostat  analysis  of  Eurobase 
datasets) 

 The availability of EU aggregates and complete coverage of the EU population  and 
its demographic characteristics have generally improved, leading to improved evidence 
for EU policymaking. 

A key element of data utility for policy-making at EU level – and thus effectiveness of 
this intervention – is the availability of EU aggregates. To make EU aggregates available, 
the  data  need  to  be  complete  across  all  Member  States  and  a  dedicated  aggregate 
category must be created in the geographic breakdowns – e.g. ‘EU28 (2013-2020)’. The 
left-hand side of Figure 5 shows the average completeness of EU aggregates in annual31 
datasets,  illustrating  two  trends.  First,  the  Migration  Regulation  introduced  various 
mandatory  or  partly  mandatory  datasets  from  2009,  but  without  including  clear 
approaches  to  aggregate  migration  data  coming  from  NSIs  to  EU  level.  Second,  the 
Demography  Regulation  introduced  mandatory  datasets  and  required  EU  aggregates  to 
be calculated (a significant improvement can be seen from 2013). 

Another key element for policymaking at all levels is the comprehensive coverage of the 
population  under  the  required  characteristics.  The  presence  of  ‘unknown’  categories 
reduces  this  comprehensive  coverage  for  the  affected  variables.  The  right-hand  side  of 
Figure 5  shows  the  average  percentage  of  the  population  with  an  ‘unknown’ 
characteristic across all affected variables and Member States in the annual data. Again, 
there is a clear performance difference between the mandatory and voluntary datasets. In 
particular, legislation to implement the Demography Regulation32 capped the population 
percentage reported as ‘unknown’ to at most 5% of the total population in the mandatory 
data. The sharp increase in the voluntary data around 2009 comes from the introduction 
of a variable on education that was initially reported as ‘unknown’ to a significant extent.  

EE3  –  To  what  extent  do  statistics  published  under  the  intervention  serve  institutional 
needs for the functioning of the EU? 

31 The 2011 census datasets are not included here explicitly because no EU aggregates were calculated, so 

the indicator is trivially 0. 

32  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  205/2014  of  4  March  2014  laying  down  uniformed 
conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  European  demographic  statistics,  as  regards  breakdowns  of  data,  deadlines  and  data 
revisions (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 65, 5.3.2014, p. 10). 

25 

 
                                                 
     
 
 
Groups at risk of inequality or discrimination

Regional and urban/rural mobility

1

1

3

3

Population of rural areas

Population of urban areas

Acquisitions and losses of citizenship

0

EU mobility

Housing and homelessness

3

3

2

2

Household size

Fertility rates

Population age

Life expectancy

Population size and structure

6

4

2

5

5

10

7

8

4

4

1

4

6

5

4

4

7

4

3

3

0

0
0

1

0

2

1

3

1

0

0
0

0
1
0

5

1

5

6

3

3

5

8

7

7

3

3

0
0

0

1

0%

50%

100%

Very sufficient

Somewhat sufficient

Neutral

Somewhat insufficient

Very insufficient

Figure 4 – Institutional users’ views according to the OPC on sufficiency of current data by societal change topic. 
(Source: Eurostat analysis of OPC responses) 

 There are indications that population figures for Council voting weights can be made 
more coherent for all Member States. Although core topics for demographic monitoring 
are  covered  well,  data  gaps  have  opened  up  on  emerging  topics  of  demographic  and 
societal change. 

As  discussed  under  question  RI2  (Section 5.1),  the  quality  –  and  in  particular  the 
accuracy – of total population figures corresponding to a strict common definition of the 
population base (usual residence based on 12 months stay) is central to the effectiveness 
of  these  data  to  establish  reliable  Council  voting  weights.  Indicator  RI2.2  already 
established that there is insufficient information available on accuracy. Therefore EE3.1 
analyses  the  coherence  in  implementation  of  the  strict  definition  across  Member  States 
and  thus  the  emerging  comparability  of  these  figures  at  EU  level.  The  information 
available  on  national  situations  indicates  that  22  Member  States  applied  the  definition 
coherently in 2022, up from 17 Member States when this data collection started in 2014. 
Some progress has therefore been made and this has led to decent EU-level comparability 
of these figures at present, even though a major gap remains due to a lack of information 
on accuracy.  

The appropriateness of the statistics for monitoring the demographic situation is another 
factor in the effectiveness of statistics for institutional purposes. A ‘soft’ indication of its 
performance in this respect can be seen in the opinions gathered in the OPC on whether 
various  elements  of  demographic  and  societal  change  are  sufficiently  covered  by  the 
current  statistics  (EE3.2).  Figure 6  shows  several  topics  where  only  a  minority  of  the 
respondents  from  the  institutional  user  group  found  the  currently  published  statistics  to 
be  sufficient.  These  topics  are  equality  (only  31%  of  respondents  found  the  statistics 
sufficient),  housing  (33%),  urban/rural  mobility  (33%),  intra-EU  migration  (38%)  and 
rural  population  (47%).  These  responses  are  in  line  with  the  targeted  consultation  with 
Commission statistical correspondents, who said that the key policy topics suffering from 
insufficient data were: the Green Deal (housing data), urban/rural integration (functional 
typologies and seasonal data) and fundamental rights policies (equality data). Among all 
other professional users – including researchers – the picture is even more distinct, with 
even smaller  shares  than institutional  users saying there was sufficient  data on equality 

26 

 
 
 
(14%), housing (21%), urban/rural mobility (28%), intra-EU migration (37%) and rural 
population  (42%).  The  other  professional  users  were  also  mostly  dissatisfied  with  the 
data  on  acquisitions  or  losses  of  citizenship  (only  30%  were  satisfied)  and  urban 
population (41%). 

EE4  –  What  are  the  existing  cooperation  arrangements  between  NSIs  and  national 
authorities  in  charge  of  administrative  data  sources  that  are  used  for  population 
statistics? How effective are those arrangements? 

  Cooperation  arrangements  between  NSIs  and  national  authorities  are  largely 
effective, although stakeholders identified clear room for further improvement. 

The  targeted  NSI  survey  asked  about  the  existence  of  legislative  or  other  formal 
arrangements for cooperation between the NSI and the national authorities in charge of 
relevant  administrative  sources.  In  their  responses,  NSIs  pointed  to  written  agreements 
with the data owners (79% of NSIs said they had such agreements in place for all or most 
relevant sources), followed by effective coordination mechanisms in place (59%). Over a 
third  of  participating  NSIs  indicated  that  they  are  informed  in  advance  of  changes  to 
administrative data sources for all or for the most relevant sources (34%), and 28% said 
they were consulted on designs or changes to administrative data sources. These results 
tend  to  match  the  results  from  the  case-study  interviews,  indicating  that  NSIs  have  a 
series  of  coordination  mechanisms  that  can  be  activated  for  different  types  of  sources. 
Nonetheless, the workshops showed a continuous discussion on the difficulties that NSIs 
face in accessing data. 

In the NSI survey, NSIs were also asked how often they faced difficulties in cooperating 
with data owners. Most NSIs (66%) said they rarely face difficulties. Less than a quarter 
said  they  faced  issues  always  or  sometimes  (24%),  while  10%  said  they  never  face 
issues. When asked about main limitations/restrictions in the cooperation agreements, the 
main issues raised by the NSIs were excessive formality or bureaucracy. The NSIs also 
said that delays in sending data were generally a rare occurrence, and outright refusal to 
send data was either rare or did not happen. Nevertheless, most NSIs (68%) agreed that 
there  was  room  to  improve  cooperation  between  NSIs  and  national  authorities,  while 
21% disagreed. 

Findings from the case studies indicate that, overall, the current agreements seem to be 
sufficient  to  gather  the  required  data,  but  not  sufficient  for  gathering  data  on  areas  of 
emerging interest. Although the situation may vary between countries, these results seem 
to  follow  a  general  trend,  namely  that  serious  problems  with  data  access  only  seem  to 
affect specific sectors. 

5.4. Efficiency (EI) 

EI1 – To what extent is the output compliant with legal requirements? 

  Only  occasional  issues  were  followed  up  on  and  no  infringement  cases  were 
launched. The current legal base consisting of three separate acts leads to administrative 
inefficiencies (REFIT relevance). 

Since the adoption of the three base acts, Eurostat has monitored the legal compliance of 
Member  States  with  mandatory  statistical  requirements  as  a  part  of  its  implementation 
efforts,  but  being  somewhat  less  strict  during  the  transitional  periods  after  new 
obligations  entered  into  force.  Overall,  Eurostat  only  identified  occasional  issues  in 
compliance over the years, and these issues were followed up at expert level to improve 

27 

 
100

80

60

40

20

0

50
49%

33
32%

19
19%

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

0
2
0
2

Mandatory

Partly mandatory

Voluntary

Figure 5 – Number of annual and infra-annual datasets by release year (left) and for 2020 only (right), and split by 
collection base (EI2.1). (Source: Eurostat analysis) 

compliance gradually. Eurostat monitored and addressed compliance, and did not have to 
launch any infringement procedures in the process (EI1.1). 

Another issue relevant to efficiency is the fact that the current legal framework consists 
of three separate legal acts that Member States need to be comply with and that Eurostat 
needs to enforce and monitor. Apart from trailing internal incoherence (Section 5.5), this 
is  assumed  to  cause  at  least  some  redundant  administrative  procedures,  creating 
opportunities for REFIT simplifications. 

EI2 – To what extent are voluntary data collections required to cover statistical needs? 

  The  intervention  was  efficient  in  regulating  a  large  part  of  the  statistics  addressing 
key needs. Nevertheless, there is room for further efficiency gains due to the existence of 
many currently voluntary datasets that are highly complete (REFIT relevance). 

Voluntary  data  collections  are  generally  less  efficient  at  EU  level,  because  not  all 
Member States invest the same resources in providing these data. This means that most 
of  the  EU-level  value  added  is  lost  because  these  data  are  then  not  complete,  timely 
and/or  comparable  enough.  Often,  a  relatively  small  incremental  investment  in 
completing the data, i.e. by  regulating them and supporting implementation  financially, 
can lead to significant increase in value added. Therefore the share of data needs covered 
by voluntary collections (EI2.1) is a proxy indicator for the efficiency of the intervention.  

Figure 7 shows the evolution over time of the numbers of mandatory, partly mandatory, 
and voluntary datasets published. Three changes  are obvious from  this figure. The first 
change  is  the  introduction  of  mostly  partly-mandatory  datasets  by  the  Migration 
Regulation from 2008 on. The second change is the conversion of voluntary datasets to 
mandatory  datasets,  and  the  addition  of  new  voluntary  datasets  in  the  wake  of  the 
Demography  Regulation  from  2014  on.  The  third  change  is  the  sharp  increase  in 
voluntary datasets from 2020 responding to urgent needs related to COVID-19. Thus in 
2020, almost half of the annual and infra-annual datasets published in the ESOP domains 
are voluntary, and only a third of all datasets are fully regulated by EU legislation. This 
indicates  room  for  efficiency  gains,  also  in  a  REFIT  context,  especially  by  regulating 
voluntary datasets that are already now highly complete.  

EI3 – How often are mandatory vs voluntary datasets accessed by users? 

28 

 
 
 
Most popular datasets

ESOP averages by legal base

s
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

400

300

200

100

0

s
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

nama_gdp fixed

prc_hicp_midx

une_rt_m

demo_gind (m)

mandatory

voluntary

partly mandatory

Figure  6  –  The  left-hand  chart  shows  accesses  per  year  to  some  of  the  most  popular  Eurostat  datasets,  namely  on: 
annual  GDP  (nama_gdp_fixed);  consumer  prices  (prc_hicp_midx);  monthly  unemployment  (une_rt_m);  and  the 
demographic balance within ESOP scope (demo_gind). The right-hand chart shows average accesses to datasets per 
year by legal base. (Source: Eurostat analysis of monthly Eurobase access analytics) 

  In  line  with  the  general  trend,  the  number  of  queries  of  population  statistics  has 
roughly  doubled  over  the  past  decade  for  most  domains.  Mandatory  datasets  are 
significantly more popular than voluntary ones. 

OPC respondents from almost all stakeholder groups use the Eurostat website or database 
to  consult  statistics  on  the  European  population.  The  only  group  with  a  significant 
minority (41%) that did not know about these resources were the individual respondents 
to statistical survey questionnaires (i.e. non-regular users).  

On  access  to  annual  data  through  Eurobase33  (EI3.1),  Figure 8  (left-hand  chart)  shows 
that  the  numbers  accessing  the  most  popular  demographic  dataset  (demo_gind  – 
demographic balance) have increased significantly over the past decade (from less than 
50 000  per  year  until  2014  to  more  than  100 000  per  year  since  2018).  However,  this 
increase in interest is not unique to population statistics and therefore cannot be attributed 
to  an  isolated  effect  of  the  intervention.  For  example,  popular  Eurostat  datasets  across 
other domains (e.g. GDP, the consumer price index, and unemployment) have also seen 
an  increase  in  popularity,  roughly  doubling  access  numbers  over  the  past  decade.  The 
right-hand side of Figure 8 confirms that the partly or fully regulated datasets under this 
intervention  are  also  significantly  more  popular  on  average  than  the  datasets  that 
remained voluntary.  

On access to 2011 EU census output through the Census Hub34 (EI3.1), Eurostat did not 
produce regular analytics. An ad hoc extraction was only possible from 2017 onwards, so 
there are no data for the period most likely to have seen the most user interest, i.e. during 
the period after initial publication in 2014. Nevertheless, the website analytics for 2017-
2021 show that 2011 EU census outputs are still just as popular as annual data, with more 
than 160 000 queries per year for the most popular dataset (hypercube 55 – population by 
NUTS  3  region,  sex  and  single  year  of  age).  And  on  average,  there  are  almost  8 000 

33 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database  

34 https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2  

29 

 
                                                 
 
 
queries per year and per hypercube on population (more than 6 300 queries on housing, 
2 100  on  families  and  fewer  than  1 000  on  households).  This  also  shows  that  census 
outputs on housing are almost as popular as outputs on population.  

EI4  –  How  efficient  are  existing  cooperation  arrangements  between  NSIs  and  national 
authorities in charge of administrative data sources used for population statistics? 

  Even  though  cooperation  arrangements  are  widespread,  NSIs  attribute  efficiency 
losses mainly to the insufficient willingness of source owners to communicate and involve 
NSIs  in  the  design  of  –  or  changes  to  –  these  sources.  Good  and  close  coordination 
seems a key factor. 

EE4  revealed  a  problem:  although  there  are  already  formal,  effective  cooperation 
arrangements  between  NSIs  and  national  authorities,  the  role  of  most  NSIs  is  more 
limited  in  decision-making  or  change  processes  related  to  the  relevant  administrative 
sources.  For  instance,  66%  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  NSI  survey  noted  that  they 
were informed in advance of changes to administrative sources only for some or none of 
the relevant sources. And 72% of respondents to the targeted NSI survey said they were 
consulted on the design of – or changes to – only some or none of the relevant sources. 
Therefore, despite formalised – and to some extent efficient – cooperation mechanisms, 
some NSIs experience insufficient communication or involvement in key decisions made 
by national authorities. This may lead to inefficiencies, as substantiated by feedback from 
interviews,  where  views  on  cooperation  arrangements  varied  greatly  across  Member 
States.  

Some  of  the  key  challenges  and  drivers  of  inefficiencies  in  these  cooperation 
arrangements are set out in the bullet points below35.  

  The  NSI  is  rarely  involved  in  making  decisions  on  data  structure  and  quality-
related issues, including when designing or modifying administrative databases. 
  There  is  often  a  lack  of  established  cooperation  mechanisms  between  NSIs  and 

data owners. 

  Data owners are often not willing to consider recommendations or requests from 

NSIs, and NSIs often lack the authority to request changes. 

  Excessive bureaucracy and delays often occur in the delivery of data, particularly 

 

sensitive or protected data. 
In  some  cases,  NSIs  reported  that  data  owners  misinterpreted  national  law  and 
refused  to  provide  access  to  data  and/or  requested  payments  from  NSIs  for  the 
data. 

  NSIs  that  reported  strong  collaboration  arrangements  attributed  this  to  the 
existence  of  established  coordination  mechanisms,  including  written  agreements 
covering each instance of data provision with data owners. 

When asked to  identify areas of cooperation that required improvement to  achieve cost 
savings in the production of population statistics, NSIs identified the following key areas: 
(i) the quality of data; (ii) staff availability; and  (iii) communication between NSIs and 
national  authorities.  A  substantial  proportion  of  NSIs  (48%)  were  unable  to  provide  a 
response when asked for suggested improvements to cooperative arrangements to ensure 
European  statistics  on  population  are  able  to  meet  user  needs.  Those  NSIs  that  did 

35 Eurostat (2018) Analysis of the legal and institutional environment in the EU Member States and EFTA 

Countries, admin-wp1.1_analysis_legal_institutional_environment_final.pdf (europa.eu). 

30 

 
                                                 
Table  3  –  Overview  of  costs  to  MS/NSIs  and  Eurostat  associated  with  the  current  legal  framework,  of  which 
incremental  costs  broken  down  by  legal  base.  (Source:  ICF  estimates  of  baseline  and  incremental  costs  to 
NSIs/Member States and Eurostat) 

Overview of costs identified in the evaluation (harmonised 2021 prices in million EUR ) 

NSI/Member State Administrations 

Eurostat 

One-off 

Recurring (average 
annual) 

One-off 

Recurring (average 
annual) 

Baseline 

Additional costs of the current 
framework – of which 

  Census 

  Demography 

  Migration 

- 

4.0 

- 

3.88 

0.15 

270.2 

57.9 

45.5 

8.6 

3.8 

- 

1.2 

0.08 

0.10 

1.00 

0.2 

1.1 

0.71 

0.17 

0.22 

respond gave suggestions relating mainly to data access, data sharing, and the frequency 
of data sharing. 

EI5 – What costs do data producers currently face when developing European statistics 
on population? 

 The costs of the intervention are mainly borne by Member States’ administrations and 
Eurostat.  Due  to  implementation  of  the  intervention,  the  recurring  baseline  costs  for 
statistical production have increased by roughly 20% for Member States and by roughly 
a factor of 5 for Eurostat, with the census accounting for the biggest share, although this 
depends  greatly  on  the  census  method  adopted  by  the  Member  State  (register-based, 
traditional or combined). 

The analysis by the contractor36 suggests that, overall, the main costs associated with the 
development of European statistics on population have been borne by: (i) NSIs/Member 
States; (ii) Eurostat; and (iii) to some extent the general population. However, it was not 
possible  to  quantify  these  costs  and  therefore  they  are  not  discussed  in  detail  in  this 
analysis. The greatest costs were incurred by Member States and their NSIs. The types of 
costs included in the cost analysis conducted as part of this study are detailed in Annex 2. 
These are set out in the two bullet points below. 

  Costs to Eurostat: regulatory costs (for preparing/communicating the legislation 
and  providing  financial  support),  enforcement  costs  (or  costs  relating  to 
monitoring compliance with the legislation and publishing data) and IT costs.  
  Costs to NSIs or Member States: compliance costs (relating to monitoring and 
ensuring  compliance  with  the  legislation),  administrative  costs  (to  design  and 
implement  procedures  to  collect/distribute  data,  as  well  as  to  train  staff), 
enforcement costs (covering costs required to monitor and report on data provided 
e.g. in terms of data quality etc.) and IT costs.  

As set out in Table 3, the analysis of costs developed as part of this evaluation generated 
an  indicative  estimate  of  the  incremental  costs  to  NSIs/Member  States  and  to  Eurostat 

36 ICF Final Report supporting ESOP evaluation (2022), Section 4.2.2. 

31 

 
                                                 
 
 
Figure 7 – Total and total per capita costs of delivering the 2001 and 2011 census, by census or method. (Source: 
ICF analysis of UNECE data) 

associated with the current regulatory framework. This indicative estimate is relative to 
the  baseline  scenario  before  the  implementation  of  the  Census,  Migration  and 
Demography  Regulations.  Table  3  sets  out  the  sum  of  costs  associated  with  all  three 
Regulations. Overall, additional costs to all Member States and their NSIs are estimated 
to  be  around  EUR  58  million  on  average  every  year  (an  average  of  2.2  million  per 
Member State), with an additional EUR 4 million in one-off set-up costs. This suggests 
that  costs  to  Member  States  increased  relatively  little  (by  around  20%),  adding  to  the 
existing baseline cost of EUR 270 million. For Eurostat, incremental costs are estimated 
at  EUR  1.1  million  on  average  every  year,  with  a  EUR  1.2  million  additional  one-off 
cost.  These  estimates  suggest  that,  relative  to  the  baseline,  costs  to  Eurostat  more  than 
quadrupled, in line with its increased legislative responsibilities. 

Table 3 also shows a breakdown of the incremental costs associated with each individual 
piece  of  legislation,  relative  to  the  baseline.  This  shows  that  delivery  of  annual 
demography statistics are more costly to NSIs/Member States than delivery of migration 
statistics.  However,  costs  related  to  census  statistics  are  considerably  higher  for  both 
NSIs  and  Eurostat  than  those  related  to  the  production  of  annual  demography  or 
migration statistics. As shown in  Figure 9, the overall and per capita costs vary  greatly 
depending on the census method. For example, the costs associated with a register-based 
method  –  becoming  more  and  more  common  across  Member  States  –  are  much  lower 
than for a traditional or combined census method. This is substantiated by findings from 
the NSI survey, where 12 out of 31 respondents suggested that the use of administrative 
sources would help improve the cost and organisational efficiency with  which statistics 
are produced.  

Generally, the key cost drivers for producing European statistics on population under the 
current  legislative  framework  include  the  cost  of  staff,  IT  equipment  and  assuring  data 
quality. Feedback from  the NSI survey suggests  that the main drivers of  costs are staff 
and IT: 16 out of 30 respondents to the survey said these were the key cost drivers. Other 
drivers  suggested  by  respondents  included  the  quality  of  data,  changing  variables,  and 
data collection.  

EI6 – What benefits do data users currently get from European statistics on population 
(i.e. baseline benefits)? 

 The existing legal framework improved key gaps from the 2000s. This led to various 
benefits  that  were  identified  and  valued  by  all  stakeholder  groups,  most  notably 
improved comparability across Member States and better evidence for decision-making. 

32 

 
 
 
This evaluation has shown that the existing legal framework succeeded in improving key 
policy  gaps  from  the  2000s  by  improving  data  availability  (RI1)  and  quality  (SQ1-6). 
This  helped to  add significant  value at  EU level  (EU1-5). According to  the analysis by 
the contractor37, this generated the key benefits set out in the bullet points below (see full 
list in Annex 2). 

  Benefits  to  the  general  public:  improved  access  to  data  and  evidence,  more 
accurate  media  reporting,  increased  awareness  of  population  data,  and  greater 
engagement  with  the  data-gathering  process.  In  the  longer  term,  the  improved 
statistics  will  bring  benefits  associated  with  improved  policymaking  at  the  EU 
and Member-State level. 

  Benefits  to  NSIs/Member  States:  increased  access  to  higher  quality  and  more 
timely  data.  Staff  are  more  skilled  in  –  and  have  greater  ownership  over  –  the 
data-collection  process.  NSIs  and  Member  States  are  better  able  to  collaborate 
with data owners and meet user needs. In the longer term, the improved statistics 
will  bring  economic  and  social  benefits  related  to  better  understanding  of 
population data and associated improvements in policymaking.  

  Benefits  to  Eurostat:  reductions  in  administrative  burden  associated  with  the 
coordination  and  interpretation  of  data  provided  voluntarily.  Eurostat  also 
benefits  from  an  improved  reputation  and  is  better  able  to  meet  user  needs  and 
evolving policy needs. 

  Benefits  to  the  EU  more  widely:  increased  access  to  high-quality,  timely, 
reliable  and  detailed  statistics  to  feed  into  decision-making.  This  includes  being 
better  able  to  make  informed  policy  decisions  which  in  turn  improves  the  EU’s 
reputation. 

  Benefits  to  non-institutional  data  users:  increased  access  to  high-quality, 
comparable, reliable, timely and detailed statistics. This leads to non-institutional 
data users being better able to produce detailed research and comparative analyses 
across Member States. 

Given the nature of the types of benefits identified, it was not possible or appropriate to 
quantify  these.  However,  according  to  feedback  from  the  interviews  conducted,  NSI 
survey, OPC and documents reviewed, overall the main benefits  are centred around the 
legislative  framework’s  ability  to  enable  access  to  high  quality  data  to  support  the 
development of evidence-based policy while reducing or minimising costs for data users. 

Figure 10 makes this point more clearly. It shows the views of OPC respondents on the 
various  benefits  brought  by  the  intervention,  with  many  respondents  agreeing  that  the 
intervention  helped  comparability  across  Member  States  (77%  agreed),  better  decision-
making (68%) and enhanced quality of products and services (66%). These findings were 
corroborated by feedback from the NSI survey, where 20 out of the 33 respondents saw 
the  availability  and  comparability  of  European  data  as  the  main  benefit  of  the 
intervention. A further 7 respondents  said  that the main benefit of the intervention was 
that the needs of data users were now being met. Stakeholders who were interviewed also 
said they valued Eurostat’s role in providing guidance, press releases and news based on 
European  data;  checking  and  validating  data;  and  providing  assurances  around  the 
comparability and reliability of data.  

37 ICF Final Report supporting ESOP evaluation (2022), Section 4.2.3. 

33 

 
                                                 
Figure 8 – OPC respondents’ level of agreement to benefits generated by the intervention. (Source: ICF analysis of 
responses provided to the OPC) 

5.5. Coherence – internal (CI)  

CI1 – To what extent do the legal bases cover statistical objectives through mandatory 
data collections? 

  The  intervention  initially  managed  to  regulate  many  datasets  serving  policy  needs, 
thus  reducing  users’  dependence  on  voluntary  datasets.  However,  dependence  on 
voluntary datasets increased once more due to the need for specific data addressing the 
COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onwards. 

An EU framework that is designed from the outset to put current and evolving data needs 
on a regulatory base – at least to a proportionate extent and in the medium or long term – 
can be considered more internally coherent than one that does not achieve this. From that 
perspective,  the  Census  Regulation  was  internally  coherent  by  enabling  delegated 
mechanisms  to  regulate  the  entire  content  (within  the  scope  defined  in  the  base  act) 
before each census round. Similarly, the Demography Regulation managed to reduce the 
number  of  voluntary  datasets  by  35%  from  2014  on  (CI1.1),  although  it  remained 
necessary  to  collect  voluntary  input  data  (regional  or  other  breakdowns)  for  regional 
population  projections  and  ad  hoc  policy  requests.  The  renewed  sharp  increase  in 
voluntary datasets in 2020 (up by 39% from 2019 in response to the needs created by the 
COVID-19 crisis) is not a problem in itself. Rather it is the lack of flexibility of the legal 
framework  to  regulate  some  of  these  datasets  in  the  medium  or  long  term  that  reduces 
internal coherence.  

CI2 – Is the current legal framework internally coherent? 

  The  legal  framework  is  generally  internally  coherent  and  the  various  legal  acts 
operate well together in achieving their objectives. Some internal inconsistencies remain 
around the weak and non-harmonised provisions on population-base definitions  across 
legal acts. 

34 

 
 
 
Figure 9 – NSI survey respondents’ views on the impact of maintaining different national population-base definitions. 
(Source: ICF analysis of NSI survey results) 

According  to  the  contractor’s  analysis38,  the  legal  framework  governing  European 
population  statistics  is  generally  internally  coherent  overall.  The  various  legal 
instruments covering population data collections also operate well together in achieving 
their general  and specific objectives. However, certain  issues have been identified with 
insufficiently  consistent  statistics,  such  as  in  the  area  of  migration  statistics  or  other 
statistics on population collected by Member States based on different definitions. These 
issues  could  be  caused  by  inconsistencies  in  the  existing  legal  framework.  Eurostat 
currently  undertakes  several  separate  collections  of  population  data  with  different 
periodicities  and  under  different  legal  bases.  Given  that  these  statistics  are  currently 
based on several legal acts that were not designed jointly, definitions and disaggregations 
of data were not developed together. This has resulted in sub-optimal internal coherence. 

The analysis of the legal framework shows that there are no major legislative gaps, but 
rather a series of inconsistencies that could be improved under a further harmonised EU 
legal framework governing population statistics. Such inconsistencies mainly stem from 
legal  provisions  that  are  not  internally  fully  coherent.  These  legal  provisions  grant 
Member States certain flexibility in defining their population base for different datasets39. 
Figure 11  shows  that,  when  keeping  the  flexibility  to  choose  national  population-base 
definitions, Member States accept a trade-off between negative impacts at EU level and 
the  main  positive  impact  of  cutting  production  costs.  Other  significant  reasons  for 
maintaining  national  definitions  given  by  most  NSI  survey  respondents  include 
constraints in available data sources (66% cited this as a reason), existing national legal 
frameworks (58%), and historical context (55%). 

One  final  inconsistency  is  that  the  current  legal  framework  endorses  a  variety  of  data 
sources (including administrative sources) to be used for statistical production. However, 

38   ICF Final Report supporting ESOP evaluation (2022), Section 4.3.1. 

39   For example, Article 2(b)-2(c) of the Migration Regulation requires international migration flows to be 
based on a strict twelve-month rule for all Member States (in-domain harmonisation across countries). 
However, Article 9(5) of the Demography Regulation requires population stock data by demographic 
and migrant characteristics to be based on the same national population-base definition of the reporting 
country  (in-country  harmonisation  across  domains).  This  leads  to  persistent  inconsistencies  in  the 
demographic balances of several Member States (see SQ1, Section 5.8). 

35 

 
                                                 
 
 
the  current  legal  framework  lacks  strong  sectoral  provisions  to  enable  producers  of 
official  population  statistics  (mainly  NSIs)  to  process  relevant  sources  for  statistical 
purposes.  As  a  result,  the  reuse  of  administrative  data  is  not  fully  embraced  or 
operationalised  for  all  relevant  sources  available  across  various  Member  States. 
Nevertheless, question EI4 (section 5.4) has established that gaps in practical cooperation 
with  data  owners  are  typically  more  relevant  than  a  lack  of  enabling  legal  provisions. 
Moreover,  according 
to  an  earlier  Eurostat  study  (footnote 35),  data-protection 
restrictions  stipulated  in  legal  acts  governing  specific  data  sources  are  another  main 
factor that lead to conflicts with NSIs’ legal right to access these sources. This means that 
additional  legal  acts  must  often  be  passed  to  allow  NSIs  to  access  these  specific  data 
sources.  

5.6.  Coherence – external (CE) 

CE1 – To what extent are population statistics coherent with related or depending other 
European statistics? 

  The  coherence  of  population  statistics  with  related  or  depending  other  European 
statistics  is  satisfactory.  The  intervention  led  to  improved  coherence  with  managed-
migration and national accounts data. 

An  important  element  in  the  intervention’s  external  coherence  is  the  level  of  statistical 
coherence of the data it produces with related statistics produced outside the intervention. 
Most relevant information overlaps in this respect are in the domains of: (i) asylum and 
managed-migration statistics; (ii) social surveys based on samples; (iii) national accounts 
statistics;  and  (iv)  health  statistics.  Some  findings  from  respective  indicators  are 
summarised below. 

  CE1.1  –  Coherence  of  data  on  immigrants  (flows  and  stocks)  with  data  on 
residence permits issued (from asylum and managed-migration statistics): despite 
a general rough correlation between these data, large discrepancies (up to >100%) 
and  large  variations  between  ESS  members  (smallest  around  2%)  are  observed. 
The most significant reasons for these discrepancies were identified, and several 
NSIs  are  trying  to  quantify  their  difference  components  (accounting  scheme, 
work in progress). 

  CE1.2 – Censuses used  as a sampling frame for other social surveys:  the use of 
census results in this respect has decreased between the baseline and 2017 (post-
intervention).  Nevertheless,  the  census  remains  important  for  this  purpose  in 
about  half  of  the  ESS  members.  This  reduced  role  of  the  census  is  likely  a 
consequence of the general transition towards register-based production systems 
(two  thirds  of  ESS  members  mainly  use  administrative  sources  for  sampling 
frames). 

  CE1.3  –  Census  and  annual  demographic  statistics  used  for  national  accounts: 
census  results  continue  to  play  a  prominent  role  in  the  compilation  of  national 
accounts, especially housing data. Demography statistics are not used in national 
accounts  –  instead  separate  data  are  produced  within  the  national  accounts 
domain40 that lead to the question of coherence (next point). 

40 Total population (national concept) published in national accounts annually (nama_10_pe) and quarterly 
(namq_10_pe); it could not be evaluated to  what extent NSIs use  population statistics as an input to 
produce these datasets. 

36 

 
                                                 
  CE1.4 – Coherence of annual population counts with respective national accounts 
data: average total population during a reference year is an indicator in the ESOP 
dataset  demo_gind,  but  is  also  produced  independently  in  the  national  accounts 
dataset  nama_10_pe.  The  average  absolute  deviation  between  these  indicators 
across  Member  States  is  stable  at  below  0.2%  for  the  entire  period  since  2005. 
The  largest  absolute  values  are  consistently  below  2%  and  there  are  no  notable 
trends  or  effects  from  this  intervention.  Therefore,  the  data  are  largely  but  not 
fully coherent, which is to be expected due to methodological reasons. 

  CE1.5  –  coherence  of  statistics  on  annual  deaths  with  health  statistics  on  total 
deaths:  the  discrepancies  between  these  statistics  over  the  years  of  their 
availability  (2011-2018)  remain  mostly  around  or  below  1%  for  all  Member 
States and other reporting countries. There are conceptual differences in the data 
collections  and  different  data  sources  are  used.  There  may  also  be  different 
definitions.  Systematic  biases  over  the  whole  time  series  are  visible  at  national 
levels.  So  far,  Eurostat  has  not  systematically  analysed  the  specific  national 
drivers for these biases in each Member State. 

CE2  –  To  what  extent  are  EU  concepts  and  definitions  harmonised  with  international 
practices or recommendations? 

  The  European  Statistical  System,  coordinated  by  Eurostat,  participates 
in 
international efforts to  harmonise concepts  and  definitions  of  population statistics. The 
few notable gaps identified relate to the population-base definition. 

Eurostat  contributes  to  –  and  actively  promotes  –  international  statistical  cooperation. 
This  creates  an  environment  of  common  concepts  and  definitions  that  ultimately  foster 
international harmonisation of official statistics. A key element of this framework is the 
set  of  recommendations  on  censuses  of  population  and  housing  organised  and  updated 
every 10 years by the UNECE and endorsed by the Conference of European Statisticians 
(CES). These CES recommendations are applicable – and intended to be relevant – to the 
needs of the 56 member countries of the UNECE. They are broadly comparable with the 
global  census  principles  and  recommendations  coordinated  by  the  UN  Statistical 
Division.  Moreover,  as  a  key  stakeholder  of  the  European  Statistical  System  (ESS), 
Eurostat is ideally placed to provide support to non-EU countries and non-EU institutions 
that are looking to approximate their official statistics to EU and international statistical 
standards. 

The  current  population  definition  in  the  EU  census  legislation  is  based  on  the  usual-
residence concept with a residence rule that requires 12 months of residence. However, 
this current population definition allows a default to national concepts based on legal or 
registered residence without a time criterion (RI2.2), which is not formally  in line with 
international recommendations that rely on a strict usual-residence concept41. In practice, 
the  national  data  supplied  to  the  United  Nations  or  the  OECD  generally  use  the  same 
population  definitions  as  those  data  supplied  to  Eurostat.  This  means  that  there  will  be 
coherence  between  the  data  for  a  particular  country  supplied  to  Eurostat,  the  United 
Nations  or  the  OECD.  However,  there  will  be  international  inconsistencies  with  the 
population definition and its application by different countries.  

CE3 – Is the current legal  framework coherent  with other EU policies and legislation, 
including the Charter on Fundamental Rights? 

41 E.g. 2020 CES Recommendations for the 2020 Censuses of Population and Housing §§392, 393. 

37 

 
                                                 
  The  legal  framework  is  generally  coherent  with  other  EU  policies  and  legislation, 
including the Charter on Fundamental Rights. The gap in data on equality is not related 
to incoherent legislation. 

According  to  the  contractor’s  analysis42,  the  legal  framework  governing  European 
population  statistics  is  generally  coherent  with  other  EU  policies  and  legislation, 
including  the  Charter  on  Fundamental  Rights.  The  contractor’s  analysis  also  concluded 
that  the  EU’s  legal  framework  operates  well  together  with  other  international  legal 
instruments that also cover population statistics. In the OPC, 52% of respondents agreed 
with these conclusions, whereas only 15% disagreed (the remainder were neutral – 14%, 
or uncertain – 19%). 

No  major  legislative  gaps  were  identified,  but  several  stakeholders  mentioned  issues 
related to  the collection of  data on  equality43. For instance, the European  Committee of 
Social Rights has identified a duty for national authorities to collect such data to inform 
policies. And at  EU level, these data are repeatedly  called for  to  support EU policies44. 
However,  during  consultations  with  NSIs,  some  countries  indicated  that  their  national 
legislation  does  not  allow  them  to  collect  statistics  on  equality  data,  such  as  data  on 
ethnic groups and other types of data considered as sensitive. Nevertheless, Commission 
studies45  concluded  that  no  Member  State  currently  imposes  an  absolute  prohibition  on 
collecting data on ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. Therefore, the data gap 
seems less the result of possible conflict between legal instruments and more the result of 
three  things:  (i)  technical/statistical  feasibility  (especially  with  production  systems 
largely based on administrative sources);  (ii) cultural  preconditions; and (iii) priority  in 
certain Member States. 

One important synergy is the synergy between the ESOP framework and the framework 
for  European  statistics  on  persons  and  households  based  on  samples  (footnote 9).  In 
2017,  Eurostat’s  modernisation  programme  for  social  statistics  suggested  separate 
framework regulations for social sample surveys and for population and census statistics. 
However,  the  two  frameworks  are  linked  in  many  aspects.  This  is  because  the  ESOP 
framework provides the population frames for data collections from samples (see CE1.2) 
as well as the necessary tools for benchmarking the data covered by samples. 

5.7. EU added value (EU) 

EU1 – To what extent is statistical quality achieved at EU level? 

 The key elements of statistical quality adding value at EU level are completeness and 
comparability across Member States. The intervention has improved both of these quality 
dimensions significantly for the data that became regulated. 

42   ICF Final Report supporting ESOP evaluation (2022), Section 4.3.2. 

43   Defined as data providing breakdowns by characteristics identified as reasons for discrimination under 
Article 10 TFEU: sex; racial or ethnic origin; religion or belief; disability; age; or sexual orientation. 

44   Targeted consultation with Commission services. 

45   DG  JUST  (2017)  Analysis  and  comparative  review  of  equality  data  collection  practices  in  the 
European Union – Data collection in the field of ethnicity; DG JUST (2017) Analysis and comparative 
review  of  equality  data  collection  practices  in  the  European  Union  –  Data  collection  in  relation  to 
LGBTI people. 

38 

 
                                                 
As  noted  earlier,  the  main  value  added  at  EU  level  for  statistical  quality  is  in 
completeness  and  comparability.  Improvements  in  these  two  areas  can  be  measured 
quantitatively based on the published data, but also qualitatively based on the opinions of 
key stakeholder groups from the OPC. 

On  completeness  (EU1.1),  the  quantitative  analysis  is  based  on  indicators  SQ6.1  and 
SQ6.2  (Figure 16).  This  quantitative  analysis  illustrates  how  the  common  legal  base 
(including provisions on data contents and deadlines for sending the data) has improved 
the EU-level completeness of regulated data from below 45% at the baseline (up to 2005) 
to essentially 100% post-intervention. However, the quantitative analysis also shows that 
voluntary data remain at a lower score of below 60% to this day. Most OPC respondents 
from most stakeholder groups find that the statistics are sufficiently complete. 

On  comparability  (EU1.2),  the  quantitative  analysis  is  based  on  indicators  SQ1.5  and 
SQ2.1-SQ2.3. This analysis shows that regulation again improved the situation where it 
was effective (SQ2.3), but that  comparability  gaps remain in  voluntary data (SQ2.2) or 
where the regulation was not effective in harmonising concepts (especially regarding the 
population  base  –  SQ1.5  and  SQ2.1).  Most  OPC  respondents  across  most  of  the 
stakeholder groups said that the statistics were sufficiently harmonised/comparable at EU 
level  overall.  However,  most  respondents  across  most  stakeholder  groups  agreed  only 
‘somewhat’ that the legislation ensured comparability between Member States. There is 
therefore  a  positive  opinion  overall  that  the  legislation  ensures  comparability,  but  most 
stakeholders are also aware of certain limitations. 

EU2 – To what extent did the intervention achieve methodological soundness at EU level 
(harmonisation of definitions and implementation, including the population base)? 

 The legal framework does not establish a strict common population base. This has led 
to  a  fragmented  landscape  of  national  definitions  used  by  Member  States.  This  in  turn 
had led to reduced comparability and a risk of double counting at EU level. 

The legal definition of usual residence provided for in the three Regulations of the legal 
framework  provides  for  some  flexibility:  where  the  circumstances  for  usual  residence 
based  on  12  months  of  actual  presence  cannot  be  established,  the  legal  or  registered 
residence can be used instead46. The problem with these defaulting options is that they are 
not defined legally. In particular, there is no duration-of-residence criterion. This means 
that  the  conceptualisation  and  implementation  is  largely  subject  to  national  legal, 
administrative or policy contexts. This leads to a situation where there could be up to 27 
factually different national definitions of the population base. 

Under  Article 8  of  the  Demography  Regulation,  Member  States  were  required  to  carry 
out feasibility studies on the use of the definition of ‘usual residence’ for population and 
vital events. In 2016, Eurostat analysed these feasibility studies, and reported its findings 
on  the  current  implementation  of  the  definition  of  population  base  across  all  Member 
States  under  the  current  EU  legal  framework.  The  results  showed  that  Member  States 
were  indeed  using  different  population-base  definitions,  including  individual  Member 
States using different population-base definitions for statistics under different legal acts47. 
Figure 12  shows  updated  information  from  the  targeted  NSI  survey  illustrating  the 
this  day. 
fragmented 

landscape  of  population-base  definitions 

that  remains 

to 

46 Census Regulation Article 2(d), Demography Regulation Article 2(c), Migration Regulation Article 2(a). 

47 COM(2018) 843. 

39 

 
                                                 
Figure 10 –  Population-base definitions  currently  in use  across ESS  members,  according  to  responses  to  the  NSI 
survey. (Source:  ICF analysis of NSI survey results) 

Interestingly,  the  OPC  results  show  that  significant  minorities  or  even  majorities  of 
respondents  across  all  stakeholder  groups  (more  than  42%  in  each  group  except  for 
researchers  and  statistics  producers)  were  not  aware  of  this  fragmented  landscape. 
However,  a  majority  across  all  groups  –  including  statistics  producers  –  agrees  (often 
even ‘strongly’) that harmonisation is important. 

In-depth interviews conducted by the contractor during the case studies highlighted that 
NSIs  consider  their  national  definitions  to  be  adapted  to  the  national  context.  The 
interviews  also  show  that  NSIs  consider  the  benefits  of  the  current  use  of  national 
definitions to centre around meeting current national requirements. Some NSIs asserted 
that  this  can  lead  to  issues  with  not  having  entirely  comparable  statistics  at  EU  level. 
These  NSIs  said  this  can  be  an  issue  for  some  data  users  that  had  a  greater  need  for 
comparable population statistics (those for whom precision at granular level is required). 
The  use  of  national  definitions  can  also  give  rise  to  issues  of  double  counting  when 
people  move  between  Member  States,  and  this  can  cause  discrepancies  in  European 
population  statistics.  Data users and international partners of  Eurostat identified similar 
problems,  for  instance  when  counting  people  who  migrate  between  Member  States  to 
study or work, or where people have second homes and spend parts of the year living in 
two or more places. 

EU3 – To what extent are the users satisfied? 

  Users  are  generally  of  the  opinion  that  European  population  statistics  are  of  high 
quality overall and add value compared to other sources of statistics. The overall level of 
appreciation  has  been  high  since  at  least  2009,  during  the  implementation  of  this 
intervention. 

Eurostat  regularly  conducts  standardised  user  satisfaction  surveys  (USS)  that  provide  a 
certain  level  of breakdown by topic areas.  These can be used to  obtain a time series to 
benchmark  the  OPC  results.  Figure 13  shows  USS  results  for  2009-2020  on  overall 
quality of the relevant area ‘Population and social conditions’ (more specific results for 
population statistics are not available) and compares these results to the average over all 
areas.  There  is  a  continuous  high  rating  (80%  or  more  of  users  ranking  it  as  ‘Very 
good/Good’) with almost no variation between 2009 and 2019, both in the relevant area 
and in the average. The small annual variations are very similar between the area-specific 

40 

 
 
 
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

Very good / Good Adequate

Poor / Very poor

No opinion

Population and social conditions

Average over all areas

Figure 11 – Left: Eurostat user satisfaction survey opinions on overall quality of the area “Population and social 
conditions”. Right: Comparison of the “Very good” category between area specific and average results. (Source: 
Eurostat analysis of user satisfaction survey results) 

and  average  results,  which  suggests  an  effect  mainly  from  variations  in  respondent 
groups between the years48. 

In the OPC, a vast majority of respondents across all stakeholder groups (more than 75% 
in each group) agreed that the statistics are of high quality overall. This aligns with the 
results  seen  in  the  USS  time  series,  when  the  categories  ‘Very  good/Good’  and 
‘Adequate’ are added together. Another question in the OPC was whether the current EU 
legislation adds value compared to other sources (national and international). Here again, 
the vast majority of respondents from all stakeholder groups (70% or more in all groups) 
agreed  with  the  statement.  The  same  high  level  of  agreement  of  70%  or  more  is  also 
found  across  all  stakeholder  groups  on  the  question  of  whether  the  legislation  enables 
them to obtain statistics from a single source. These responses need to be contextualised 
by feedback from EU-level institutional users (Commission DGs), who continue to stress 
key  gaps  and  shortcomings  for  EU  policymaking  (see  RE1,  Section 5.2)  both  in  the 
targeted consultation and on other occasions (e.g. regular sectoral Eurostat hearings with 
main user DGs).  

5.8. Statistical quality (SQ) 

Statistical  quality  dimensions  evaluated  in  this  section  follow  the  ESS  handbook  for 
quality  and  metadata  reporting  (2021  re-edition)49,  which  is  based  on  the  European 
statistics Code of  Practice (2017 revision)50 rooted in  Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation 
(EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics (footnote 17). 

SQ1 – Coherence 

  The  intervention  has  largely  improved  coherence  and  consistency  between  datasets, 
but gaps remain due to the lack of harmonisation in the population base. 

Within the scope of this evaluation, coherence refers to the compatibility of information 
across different datasets produced by the same entity (NSI or other) but potentially under 

48 There is one notable increase from 2019 to 2020, but average satisfaction increases very similarly, which 

suggests another (bigger) effect of the particular composition of the respondent group. 

49 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-gq-21-021 

50 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-catalogues/-/KS-02-18-142 

41 

 
                                                 
           
 
 
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure  12  –  Left:  Number  of  ESS  members  with  inconsistent  population-stock  aggregates  across  annual  datasets 
(SQ1.3). Right: Number of ESS members with inconsistent demographic balances between reference years (SQ1.5). 
(Source: Eurostat analysis of Eurobase datasets) 

different base acts (e.g. census vs annual population vs migrant population, etc.). This is 
in  line  with  the  ESS  handbook  conceptualisation,  which  compares  data  produced  from 
different  statistical  processes.  For  instance,  at  the  baseline,  total  population  aggregates 
were  notoriously  inconsistent  between  annual  demographic  and  migrant  population 
datasets. Only the Demography Regulation links the population used at national level to 
that  of  the  migrant  stocks,  so  that  these  inconsistencies  disappear  from  2014  onwards 
(SQ1.3,  Figure 14  left).  Similarly,  population  stocks  from  2011  are  largely  consistent 
with the census results of the same reference year for 25 ESS members (SQ1.4).  

However,  the  harmonisation  gap  for  the  population  base  under  the  current  legal 
framework  (question  RI2)  leads  to  coherence  issues  that  have  persisted  since  the 
intervention. For instance, according to the metadata51, 18 ESS members nominally apply 
the strict usual-residence concept based on a twelve-month stay for all annual population-
stock  data  at  national  level  (2020,  SQ1.1).  However,  5  of  these  18  report  different 
population  totals  between  the  dataset  for  Council  voting  weights  (where  strict  usual-
residence  rules  are  enforced)  and  other  annual  population-stock  datasets  in  2020.  This 
suggests  an  incoherent  implementation  of  the  usual-residence  concept  at  national  level 
(SQ1.2). In other situations, different population bases are used for population stocks and 
migration  flows,  which  leads  to  inconsistencies  between  stock  differences  and 
demographic changes (demographic balance) between reference years. For any reference 
year  since  the  baseline,  between  15  and  21  ESS  members  have  reported  inconsistent 
demographic  balances  (SQ1.5,  Figure 14  right).  The  intervention  did  not  improve  this 
situation because the underlying harmonisation gap was not resolved from the outset.  

SQ2 – Comparability 

  Generally,  comparability  at  EU  level  is  high  and  this  is  acknowledged  by  users 
(EU2). However, the lack of harmonisation in the population base has a negative impact. 

According to  the ESS handbook, comparability  refers to  data from  nominally the  same 
statistical processes across geographic regions and/or time spans. For this evaluation, the 
concept  is  interpreted  as  comparability  between  ESS  members  and  over  reference 
periods. The intervention has hugely improved the situation in this regard by regulating 
common concepts and definitions for all Member States. This is largely acknowledged by 

51  There  is  a  notable  discrepancy  between  population  bases  used  by  Member  States  according  to  the 
metadata and according to the NSI survey responses (EU2, Section 5.7). The present analysis does not 
delve into this discrepancy. 

42 

 
                                                 
   
 
 
users as documented under question EU1 (Section 5.7). Given the considerable progress 
compared to the baseline situation (no legal base for common concepts/definitions), the 
remaining comparability gaps surfacing in the data should be understood in context. 

For  instance,  the  differences  between  total  populations  reported  for  Council  voting 
weights (strict usual-residence rules nominally enforced) and in other annual datasets (no 
common  population-base  enforced)  may  be  used  as  a  rough  proxy  indicator  for  the 
remaining level of comparability limitation across Member States (SQ2.1). From 2014 to 
2020,  relative  differences  over  the  years  were  on  average  less  than  1%  (for  23  of  27 
Member States), and the largest relative differences encountered for individual Member 
States  were  always  below  5%  for  any  reference  year.  Other  interesting  comparability 
issues emerge from the comparison of migration flows, where nominally  ‘mirror’ flows 
should be comparable (immigration from country A reported by country B vs emigration 
to B reported by A), but the under-coverage of emigration is a known problem. Indeed, at 
individual-country level, large comparability gaps have remained since the baseline and 
up  to  today  (SQ2.2),  although  the  underlying  data  are  voluntary.  A  similar  consistency 
check at the level of total intra-EU migration (SQ2.3) – based on mandatory data under 
the  Migration  Regulation  –  reveals  much  better  comparability  overall  and  a  significant 
improvement  from  an  asymmetry  of  13.8%  at  the  baseline  down  to  7.5%  in  2016  and 
down to 3.7% in 201952. 

Finally, time-series revisions  of data may  either improve accuracy post hoc (e.g. of  the 
annual data following census years – see SQ3), or they may adapt the time series to new 
concepts or definitions retrospectively. In both cases, time-series revisions also improve 
the  comparability  of  data  over  time.  However,  the  current  legal  framework  does  not 
contain any provisions on time-series  revisions of annual data. Most respondents to the 
public  consultation  across  almost  all  key  stakeholder  groups  give  high  priority  to 
potential future improvements that would lead to better rules on revisions. 

SQ3 – Accuracy 

 The current non-availability of metadata on accuracy across most Member States is a 
critical issue. Therefore, a quantitative accuracy assessment is currently very difficult or 
impossible.  

Accuracy measures the reliability of data values in terms of bias and variation. As a first 
and  crucial  finding,  the  quality  metadata  made  available  by  Member  States  do  not 
currently document this quality dimension sufficiently (SQ3.1). For instance, virtually no 
information is provided on uncertainties (confidence intervals) of the data. On coverage 
errors (SQ3.3), only 2 ESS members provide quantitative estimates for annual population 
stocks under the Demography Regulation, and 8 ESS members provide them for census 
2011  outputs  at  NUTS  2  level,  with  average  magnitudes  around  2%  and  the  largest 
magnitudes up to 8% (under-coverage). 

Non-provision  of  data  points  is  also  an  accuracy  issue.  While  this  is  typically  not  a 
problem  for  mandatory  datasets  (where  compliance  requires  Member  States  to  provide 
the  data),  statistical  confidentiality  may  become  a  challenge  for  very  detailed  cross-
tabulations  mainly  occurring  in  census  outputs.  As  a  general  rule,  any  confidentiality 
treatment  leads  to  loss  of  accuracy.  When  cell  suppression  is  applied,  this  may  lead  to 
considerable  parts  of  output  tables  not  being  published.  This  was  the  case  in  the  2011 

52  This  also  reflects  increased  Eurostat  efforts  that  started  after  2014  to  facilitate  bilateral  information 

exchange to reduce coverage errors and thus reduce the underestimation of emigration flows. 

43 

 
                                                 
600

500

400

300

200

100

0

400

300

200

100

0

-100

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

7
1
0
2

8
1
0
2

9
1
0
2

Smallest delay

Average delay

Smallest delay

Average delay

Biggest delay

Biggest delay

Figure  13  –  Timeliness  (SQ4.1,  left)  and  punctuality  (SQ5.1,  right)  of  annual  population  data  across  the 
intervention period: smallest and largest delays for individual ESS members and average over all ESS members (in 
days). (Source: Eurostat analysis of data transmission dates recorded internally) 

census  round  (SQ3.2),  where  nine  ESS  member  used  cell  suppression.  Among  those 
countries, on average 116 (57%) of the output tables were affected and the average share 
of  suppressed  cells  per  affected  output  table  was  2.4%  (but  going  up  to  76%  in  rare 
cases). 

Finally, data revisions may be seen as a proxy indicator of accuracy. This is particularly 
true for revisions of annual data around census years in countries conducting a traditional 
census with full enumeration. Typically, census results are much more accurate and can 
thus be used as a benchmark to assess the level of accuracy of (pre-revised) annual data. 
For instance, after the 2011 census, 18 ESS members revised parts of their annual time 
series with average correction magnitudes at total population level around 1.4% but up to 
7.5% (SQ3.4)53.  

SQ4 – Timeliness and SQ5 – Punctuality 

  Even  though  agreed  deadlines  became  longer  through  the  intervention,  the 
significantly improved punctuality improved the overall timeliness of complete EU-level 
data. A comparison to national and other international practices shows room for further 
improvement on timeliness. 

Timeliness  and  punctuality  are  different  but  related  concepts  best  discussed  together. 
While  punctuality  refers  to  the  delay  between  data  delivery  and  the  nominally  agreed 
deadline,  timeliness  refers  to  the  delay  between  data  delivery  and  the  reference  date  of 
the  data.  Thus,  timeliness  consists  of  two  delay  components:  agreed  nominal  deadlines 
and  the  punctuality  of  keeping  these  deadlines.  There  is  an  intricate  interplay  between 
these  components  when  moving  from  voluntary  to  mandatory  data.  Typically,  in  a 
voluntary scenario, more ambitious deadlines can be agreed (because they are not legally 
binding)  and  thus  the  greater  issues  are  in  punctuality.  A  different  dynamic  is  at  work 
when regulating data collections: it is more difficult to agree on an ambitious deadline in 
these cases, but punctuality is then much better (because it becomes a compliance factor).  

53   Correction  magnitudes  can  be  significantly  higher  in  breakdowns  (e.g.  up  to  21%  for  some  sex/age 
groups). This stresses the importance of consistent and comprehensive revisions at least for all major 
demographic and regional breakdowns, not only for population totals. 

44 

 
                                                 
  
 
 
100,0%

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0%

SQ6.1 - mandatory

SQ6.2 - voluntary

Figure  14  –  EU-level  completeness  of  breakdowns  over  time:  those  that  became  mandatory  through  the 
intervention (SQ6.1) and those that remain voluntary until today (SQ6.2). (Source: Eurostat analysis of Eurobase 
datasets) 

Figure 15  shows  the  development  of  timeliness  (SQ4.1,  left)  and  punctuality  (SQ5.1, 
right) of annual population data from the baseline until 2019, illustrating these two main 
effects  of  the  Demography  Regulation:  after  2013,  (i)  the  nominal  deadline  became 
longer – from 8.5 months to 12 months after the reference date – and (ii) the punctuality 
improved significantly. If completeness across all Member States is the goal at EU level, 
the  longest  delays  are  relevant.  Here  there  has  been  an  improvement  in  punctuality  so 
that  overall  timeliness  improved  from  the  baseline  (up  to  a  delay  of  552  days  in  2010, 
with a delay in punctuality of up to 294 days) to post-intervention (the longest delay was 
of 397 days in 2013, with a delay in punctuality of up to 31 days).  

Nevertheless,  SQ4.2  shows  that  the  current  timeliness  of  annual  European  statistics 
remains  below  the  timeliness  of  national  statistical  publications  and  other  international 
statistics  transmissions  across  most  Member  States.  For  instance,  22  ESS  members 
publish national population stock data within 6 months of the reference date. And at least 
17 ESS members also manage to publish data on vital events and on migration within 6 
months of the reference date. Moreover, 13 ESS members send provisional data on vital 
events to the United Nations Statistics Division within 4 months of the reference year.  

SQ6 – Relevance 

  Apart  from  the  high  policy  relevance  of  statistical  topics  addressed  through  the 
intervention  (RI1),  mandatory  datasets  ensure  completeness  at  EU  level,  thus  making 
statistics much more relevant. 

In this evaluation, there is considerable overlap between relevance as a statistical-quality 
dimension  and  the  concept  of  relevance  of  the  intervention  addressed  in  Sections  5.1 
and 5.2.  In  particular,  questions  RI1  to  RE2  have  pointed  out  that  the  intervention  was 
initially highly relevant in terms of data needs and quality goals, but has lost relevance 
over time since the implementation. This loss in relevance was due to emerging needs on 
data content and further quality aspects that the adopted legal framework was not flexible 
enough to accommodate. 

Another aspect of relevance that should complement this picture is completeness, namely 
within  the  scope  of  this  evaluation  especially  completeness  of  annual  data  across  ESS 

45 

 
 
members.  Figure 16  shows  the  development  of  completeness  of  annual54  datasets  over 
time  that  are  now  regulated  (SQ6.1)  and  of  datasets  that  remain  voluntary  (SQ6.2).  As 
observed  in  various  earlier  instances,  there  is  a  significant  regulatory  effect.  The 
completeness  of  mandatory  data  increased  to  practically  100%  in  two  steps  correlated 
with  the  adoption  of  the  Migration  and  Demography  Regulations  in  2007  and  2013 
respectively. In the wake of the Migration Regulation, the completeness of voluntary data 
improved moderately, but has stagnated at around 60% ever since.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

6.1.  What is working well 

in  European 
This  evaluation  has  documented  significant  overall  improvements 
population statistics through the intervention, compared to the initial problems and needs 
faced by the statistical community before the intervention. In particular, the current legal 
framework  has  significantly  increased  EU  value  added.  It  achieved  this  by  greatly 
improving  –  for  the  datasets  that  became  regulated  –  EU-level:  (i)  completeness  and 
comparability (evaluation question EU1); (ii) coherence and consistency (SQ1); and (iii) 
timeliness (SQ4). Moreover, RI1 showed that these now-mandatory datasets delivered on 
all relevant topical needs for policymaking and institutions at EU level that were known 
at  the baseline in the 2000s.  The intervention thus improved the effectiveness  (EE1-3), 
efficiency (EI1-6), and coherence (CI1-2, CE1-3) of the statistical framework compared 
to  the  baseline  situation,  which  relied  solely  on  voluntary  data  collections.  In  the 
stakeholder consultation, most respondents across all key stakeholder groups  confirmed 
these  improvements  (e.g.  EU1)  and  stressed  the  added  value  of  the  current  legal 
framework at EU level (EU3).  

6.2.  What is not working well 

This  evaluation  has  also  revealed  significant  and  persisting  gaps  in  the  EU’s  legal 
framework for statistics. More precisely, the current legal framework: 

1.  does  not  fully  ensure  sufficiently  complete,  coherent,  and  comparable  statistics, 
especially when voluntary datasets covering relevant policy needs are factored in, 
which may lead to sub-optimal statistical evidence for decision-making; 

2.  does not ensure sufficient availability of population data in terms of frequencies 

and timeliness of data publications; 

3.  fails  to  capture  characteristics  and  details  of  topics  or  groups  that  have  become 

politically and societally relevant during the past decade; 

4.  is not flexible enough to adapt to evolving policy needs and to enable exploitation 
of  data  from  administrative  and  other  new  sources  in  the  Member  States  and  at 
EU level. 

Each gap is briefly elaborated on in the paragraphs below. 

Gap 1: Coherence, comparability, completeness 

The most significant quality gap remaining is the lack of harmonisation of the population 
base. More precisely, three conceptually different definitions (usual residence, registered 

54  As  pointed  out  in  question  CI1,  census  outputs  are  fully  mandatory  and  thus  complete,  up  to  the 

suppression issue addressed in question SQ3 on accuracy. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
residence,  legal  residence)  are  currently  allowed  and  applied  by  Member  States, 
sometimes using different definitions for different datasets. The legislation is not detailed 
enough  to  define  exhaustively  what  is  included  in  (and  excluded  from)  the  population. 
This  leads  to  issues of relevance (RI2, RE1)  as  well as statistical  coherence (SQ1) and 
comparability (SQ2). Notably, it creates a situation where the vast body of demographic 
and  migration  statistics  cannot  reach  its  potential  in  terms  of  comparability  between 
Member  States  and  coherence  between  datasets  due  to  differences  in  the  definitions 
applied. The lack of provisions on time-series revisions is another gap leading to reduced 
comparability over time (SQ2). 

Many  statistical  outputs  continue  to  be  collected  under  voluntary  arrangements55.  This 
leads  to  various  quality  (and  other)  gaps  documented  in  this  evaluation.  It  reduces  the 
effectiveness (EE1), efficiency (EI2 incl. REFIT relevance) and internal coherence (CI1) 
of  the  intervention,  but  it  also  leads  to  reduced  EU  value  added  (EU1),  mainly  due  to 
completeness gaps across Member States (SQ6). This finding is in line with the opinion 
of respondents  to  the  OPC  across all stakeholder groups – except  statistics producers – 
that potential future improvements should include measures to regulate the provision of 
data that are currently collected and provided voluntarily. 

Gap 2: Timeliness and frequency 

The  current  timeliness  of  the  statistics  (for  annual  and  –  in  particular  –  census  data) 
remains below user expectations (RE1). It also remains below the timeliness of national 
statistical  publications  and  other  international  statistics  transmissions  across  most 
Member States (SQ4). Similarly, annual  frequency is  perceived  by users  as  insufficient 
for  various  policy  needs,  for  instance  urban/rural  integration  (requiring  seasonal  data  – 
RE1)  and  dynamic  crisis  response  (requiring  effective  measures  for  quick  and  highly 
frequent  –  e.g. monthly  or weekly  – ad hoc data).  This  problem  with  timeliness  is  also 
connected to the lack of flexibility (RE2). 

Gap 3: Details of politically and societally relevant topics and groups 

Question  RE1  has  established  various  gaps  in  statistical  detail  that  have  significantly 
reduced  the  policy  relevance  of  the  current  legal  framework  over  time.  Most  notably, 
these  gaps  concern  the  characteristics  of  politically  relevant  topics  and  groups  (e.g. 
housing  data  for  the  Green  Deal;  data  on  migrants  and  EU  mobility;  data  on  the 
urban/rural  population;  and  data  on  vulnerable  minority  groups  for  policies  on  non-
discrimination  and  fundamental  rights).  These  gaps  can  also  be  seen  in  the  insufficient 
geographic granularity of the statistics (including most notably functional typologies and 
georeferenced  data  for  urban/rural  integration  and  cross-border  analysis).  These  gaps 
were  confirmed 
targeted  consultation  with  Commission  statistical 
correspondents,  but  also  by  most  respondents  to  the  OPC  across  almost  all  key 
stakeholder groups. 

through 

the 

Gap 4: The lack of flexibility of the legal framework 

Question  RE2  has  generally  established  that  the  current  legal  framework  is  failing  to 
adapt  sufficiently to  changing  policy needs.  This  has led to  a  gradual loss of relevance 
over time and to lost opportunities for efficiency gains (EI2). In particular, the framework 
establishes a fixed set of statistical units, variables/breakdowns and cross-tabulations to 
be  produced  regularly,  without  specific  mechanisms  to  update  these  statistical  contents 

55  E.g.  on  marriages,  divorces,  legally  induced  abortions,  losses  of  citizenship,  as  well  as  certain 

breakdowns of migration stocks and flows, live births and deaths. 

47 

 
                                                 
efficiently.  It  also  does  not  fully  embrace  the  exploitation  of  data  from  administrative 
sources,  and  in  particular  other  new  sources,  that  may  become  –  and  are  already 
becoming  –  available  in  the  Member  States  and  at  EU  level.  Finally,  the  current  legal 
framework  remains  output  oriented,  thus  allowing  multisource  statistics.  However, 
legislation  does  not  sufficiently  promote  the  use  of  data  sources  such  as  EU-level 
administrative records and privately held data (including for instance geospatial systems 
or mobile operators’ data). 

6.3.  Lessons learnt 

The key legislative drivers for the gaps  identified can be summarised  in  the four bullet 
points below.  

  Only  mandatory  data  collections  with  defined  common  rules  can  ensure 
completeness  and  timeliness  of  statistics  at  EU  level.  Regulating  voluntary  data 
collections  that  already  have  high  completeness  may  significantly  improve 
effectiveness and efficiency as considerable EU added value can be generated at 
limited incremental cost. 

  Voluntary data collections are appropriate instruments to pilot the production of 
new topics or characteristics, and to foster the incremental capability of national 
statistical  systems  to  provide  such  new  data.  However,  they  tend  to  become 
inefficient  over  time  because  recurrent  production  costs  eventually  fail  to 
generate  substantial  EU  value  added  in  terms  of  completeness  across  Member 
States. 

  Loose legal definitions of statistical topics lead to loss of control over conceptual 
harmonisation.  This  ultimately  leads  to  a  loss  of  coherence  and  comparability 
over time. The example of the definition of the population base has shown how a 
defaulting  clause  originally  introduced  as  an  exception  with  limited  scope  has 
turned into a new factual standard. 

  A legal framework that is too rigid makes it difficult to maintain relevance over 
time.  The  intervention  has  been  losing  relevance  rather  quickly,  beginning 
already during its implementation period, due to a lack of flexibility mechanisms 
to adapt data collections to evolving needs56 or to profit from opportunities driven 
by new data sources becoming available. 

Finally, this evaluation has also identified two regulatory causes of current inefficiencies 
in a REFIT context (Section 5.4). In particular, question EI1 has identified administrative 
redundancies  in  compliance,  enforcement  and  monitoring.  This  is  because  the  current 
legislation  is  scattered  across  three  legal  acts  that  were  not  developed  together. 
Moreover,  EI2  has  shown  that  the  current  status  quo  of  producing  many  voluntary 
datasets  with  high  –  but  not  full  –  completeness  across  Member  States  leads  to 
significantly reduced efficiency at EU level. 

56   With a minor exception under the Census Regulation, which leaves certain room to define statistical 
needs for each EU census round shortly before the census year, thus maintaining a higher relevance of 
census outputs over time. However, the 2021 round has shown that this flexibility was not sufficient in 
terms of introducing georeferenced data. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG 

Eurostat 

Decide Planning  PLAN/2021/1058457 

CWP reference  CWP 2022 Annex II - REFIT 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

After  political  validation  of  the  ESOP  initiative  in  February  2021,  an  ISG  chaired  by 
Eurostat and composed of representatives of 16 Commission DGs58 was set up. The role 
of this ISG was to supervise progress on the combined evaluation and impact assessment, 
including the stakeholder consultations. The ISG met four times to discuss the evaluation 
in this staff working document. Details and dates of these meetings are set out in the table 
below 

Meeting date 

Topics discussed 

31.3.2021 

20.8.2021 

21.10.2021 

27.1.2022 

Introduction to European population statistics 

 
  Draft evaluation roadmap/inception impact assessment (IIA) 
  Draft consultation strategy 
  Draft  terms  of  reference  for  a  tender  on  evaluation/impact 

assessment support 

Introduction of contractor ICF for support study 

 
  Progress on evaluation/IA incl. contractor inception results 
  Stakeholder consultation plan, activities and timing 
  Draft OPC questionnaire (launch of written consultation) 

  Progress on evaluation/IA incl. contractor interim results 
  Update on stakeholder consultation activities 

  Contractor feedback on final workshop results 
  Complete draft SWD on evaluation for endorsement 
  Advanced progress draft SWD on impact assessment 
  Draft SWD on consultation synopsis report 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

None. 

57 https://intragate.ec.europa.eu/decide/sep/?view-dossier-details-id=DORSALE-DOSSIER-2021-5573  

58  AGRI,  BUDG,  EAC,  ECFIN,  EMPL,  ENER,  HOME,  INTPA,  JRC,  JUST,  NEAR,  REGIO,  RTD, 

SANTE, SG and SJ. 

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD (IF APPLICABLE) 

The RSB was not  consulted over the  evaluation itself. However,  due to  a back-to-back 
setting, this SWD is annexed to the SWD on impact assessment that was consulted with 
the RSB at a meeting on 16 March 2022. 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Evidence and sources 

Evidence 

Desk research 

Opinion 
users: 
services 

of 

statistics 
Commission 

Sources 

  Statistical  data  and  metadata  published  during 

the 
evaluation  period,  and  partially  before  the  evaluation 
period when available (baseline) 

  Legal  acts  and  explanatory  memoranda  related  to  the 

intervention 

  Commission reports on implementation of legislation 
  Methodological guidelines and papers 
 
  Policy documents establishing statistical needs 

International recommendations 

A  comprehensive  list  of  documents  reviewed  is  provided  in 
Table 4. 

The fact that the existing legal framework evaluated here was 
adopted  before  Better  Regulation  guidelines  were  in  place 
presented  a  major  obstacle,  as  the  available  documentation 
does  not  provide  the  richness  and  comprehensiveness  of 
information typically required for evaluation. The stakeholder 
consultations attempted to balance resulting gaps as much as 
possible. 

  Written  consultation  with  the  Commission  network  of 

statistical correspondents 

  Bilateral exchanges to identify specific needs 
  OPC survey 

of 
Opinion 
statistics users 

other 

  Topical  workshop  with  selected  organisational  statistics 

 

users on problem definition 
In-depth interviews with selected organisational statistics 
users 

  OPC survey 

Opinion 
producers 

of 

statistics 

  Regular consultation of expert groups (see below) 
  Case studies with five selected Member States 
  OPC survey 
  Targeted survey with NSIs complementing the OPC 

50 

 
 
 
Expert advice used 

Eurostat  has  regularly  engaged  its  relevant  expert  groups  (see  Register  of  Commission 
Expert  Groups59)  to  seek  advice  and  inputs  on  the  progress  of  evaluation  and  impact 
assessment.  The  European  Statistical  System  Committee  was  also  informed  about  the 
progress. The three expert groups are: 

 

 
 

the  Working  Group  on  Population  and  Housing  Censuses  (E01544)  and  its 
subgroup the Task Force on the Future of Censuses; 
the Working Group on Population Statistics (E03076); 
the European Directors of Social Statistics (E01552). 

External support study 

Eurostat carried out this evaluation with topical support from a  contractor study carried 
out by ICF SA, Belgium. In particular, the support study provided: (i) the economic and 
subsidiarity  analysis;  (ii)  the  case  studies  on  population  definitions;  and  (iii) 
organisational  support  on  stakeholder  consultation  activities.  Parts  of  this  evaluation 
SWD  are  therefore  based  on  the  final  report  on  evaluation  support  and  other  analysis 
documents prepared by the contractor. 

Quality 

Based on the evidence sources and expert advice mentioned, Eurostat has carried out this 
evaluation  mostly  in-house,  with  topical  support  from  an  external  support  provider  on 
cost assessment and an economic study as also mentioned above.  Annex 4 provides the 
complete  research  framework  for  this  evaluation  including  all  questions  answered, 
corresponding  indicators  analysed  and  mapping  onto  evidence  sources  or  the  support 
study where applicable. 

Eurostat has documented all internal research on applicable indicators in detail (indicator 
definition, specific sources, measurement approach, raw data and analysis). All external 
references relevant for answering the evaluation questions were also added to this report. 

Eurostat has also monitored the work of the external support contractor regularly (at least 
every  two  weeks)  and  assessed  the  quality  of  the  final  report  on  evaluation  from  the 
external support study. The overall work quality and deliverables were found to be in line 
with the contract and generally sufficient to be used for this evaluation. 

59 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/home  

51 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 4 – List of reviewed documents 

Author 

Agilis 

DG ECFIN 

DG ECFIN 

DG HOME 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG REGIO 

DG REGIO 

DG REGIO 

European Central Bank 
(ECB) 

2018 

2017 

2017 

2016 

2022 

2017 

2014 

2018 

European Commission 

2021 

European Commission 

2021 

European Commission 

2018 

European Commission 

2018 

European Commission 

2018 

European Commission 

2017 

Published 

Title 

2017 

Analysis of the legal and  
institutional environment in the EU  
Member States and EFTA Countries 

2009-2021 

Ageing Report 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021 

2021 

Euro Area Housing Markets: Trends, Challenges and 
Policy Responses 

2009-2020 

Annual reports on migration and asylum 

Guidelines on improving the collection and use of 
equality data 

Analysis and comparative review of equality data 
collection practices in the European Union – Equality 
data indicators: Methodological approach Overview 
per EU Member State Technical annex 

Legal framework and practice in the EU Member 
States 

European handbook on equality data 

8th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial 
Cohesion 

7th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial 
Cohesion 

6th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial 
Cohesion 

The state of the housing market in the euro area (ECB 
Economic Bulletin, Issue 7/2018) 

Green paper on ageing: Fostering solidarity and 
responsibility between generations 

Report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2018/1799 on a temporary direct statistical action for 
the dissemination of selected topics of the 2021 
population and housing census geocoded to a 1 km2 
grid 

Report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 

Report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/881 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 on 
population and housing censuses, as regards the 
modalities and structure of the quality reports and the 

52 

 
Author 

Published 

Title 

European Commission 

2017 

European Commission 

2017 

European Commission 

2015 

European Commission 

2014 

European Commission 

2012 

European Commission 

2011 

European Commission 

2010 

European Commission 

2010 

European Commission 

2010 

European Commission 

2009 

technical format for data transmission 

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/712 establishing 
the reference year and the programme of the statistical 
data and metadata for population and housing 
censuses provided for by Regulation (EC) No 
763/2008 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/543 
laying down rules for the application of Regulation 
(EC) No 763/2008 on population and housing 
censuses as regards the technical specifications of the 
topics and of their breakdowns 

Report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 862/2007  

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
205/2014 laying down uniformed conditions for the 
implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 on 
European demographic statistics, as regards 
breakdowns of data, deadlines and data revisions 

Report from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on European statistics on 
demography 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1151/2010 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 on 
population and housing censuses, as regards the 
modalities and structure of the quality reports and the 
technical format for data transmission 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 519/2010 adopting 
the programme of the statistical data and of the 
metadata for population and housing censuses 
provided for by Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 351/2010 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on 
Community statistics on migration and international 
protection as regards the definitions of the categories 
of the groups of country of birth, groups of country of 
previous usual residence, groups of country of next 
usual residence and groups of citizenship 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1201/2009 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 on 
population and housing censuses as regards the 
technical specifications of the topics and of their 
breakdowns 

European Commission 

2007 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on population and housing 

53 

 
Author 

Published 

Title 

European Commission 

2005 

European Committee of the 
Regions 

European Parliament 

European Parliament 

European Parliament and 
Council 

European Parliament and 
Council 

European Parliament and 
Council 

European Parliament and 
Council 

European Parliament and 
Council 

European Parliament and 
Council 

European Parliamentary 
Research Service (EPRS) 

European Parliamentary 
Research Service (EPRS) 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

censuses 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on Community statistics on 
migration and international protection 

The impact of demographic change on European 
regions 

Resolution of 21 January 2021 on access to decent 
and affordable housing for all 

Demographic trends in EU regions 

REGULATION (EU) 2019/1700 establishing a 
common framework for European statistics relating to 
persons and households, based on data at individual 
level collected from samples 

Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 on European 
demographic statistics 

Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 on the European 
system of national and regional accounts in the 
European Union 

2016 

2021 

2019 

2019 

2013 

2013 

2009 

Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics 

2008 

2007 

Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 on population and 
housing censuses 

Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community 
statistics on migration and international protection 

2021 

Demographic Outlook for the European Union 

2013 

2021 

2007-2021 

2021 

2020 

How can regional and cohesion policies tackle 
demographic challenges? 

European statistical system handbook for quality and 
metadata reports 

Sustainable development in the European Union — 
Monitoring reports on progress towards the SDGs in 
an EU context 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2021 

The European System of Accounts — ESA 2010 — 
interactive version 

Quality assurance framework of the European 
statistical system 

2010-2020 

Report on the impact of demographic change 2010, 
2015, 2020 

2014-2020 

Eurostat Regional Yearbook 2010, 2014, 2020 

2009-2020 

Eurostat User Satisfaction Survey reports 2009, 2013-
2017, 2019-2020  

2019 

EU legislation on the 2021 population and housing 

54 

 
Author 

Published 

Title 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

ESSnet KOMUSO 

ESSnet KOMUSO 

ICF 

ICF 

United Nations 

United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) 

United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) 

United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) 

United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) 

2018 

2011 

2019 

2019 

2022 

2021 

2017 

2018 

2015 

2014 

2008 

censuses – explanatory notes 

European statistics code of practice for the national 
statistical authorities and Eurostat 

EU legislation on the 2011 population and housing 
censuses – explanatory notes 

Quality Guidelines for Multisource Statistics 

Quality Guidelines on Frames for Social Statistics 

Final report on evaluation support study for European 
statistics on population 

Inception Report on support study for European 
statistics on population 

Principles and Recommendations for Population and 
Housing Censuses 

Guidelines on the use of registers and administrative 
data for population and housing censuses 

Recommendations for the 2020 Censuses of 
Population and Housing 

Measuring population and housing. Practices of 
UNECE countries in the 2010 round of censuses 

Measuring population and housing Practices of 
UNECE countries in the 2000 round of censuses 

55 

 
 
ANNEX 2: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The  external  contractor  ICF  has  developed  an  approach  to  estimate  the  baseline  and 
incremental  costs  on  Member  States  and  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  under  this 
intervention, broken down by statistical domain in scope. The estimation documentation 
is provided here below. 

Detailed approach to the quantification of costs and benefits (efficiency) 

The  costs  and  benefits  estimated  as  part  of  this  evaluation  have  been  those  associated 
with  the  current  legal  framework  on  annual  population  statistics  and  more  specifically 
focusing on:  

  Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Migration; 
  Regulation No 1260/2013 on demographic statistics; 
  Regulation No 763/2008 on population and housing censuses. 

Costs have been calculated for four main stakeholder groups, namely: (i) Member States 
and  their  NSIs;  (ii)  the  European  Commission,  including  Eurostat  specifically;  (iii) 
employers/businesses/non-institutional  data  users;  and  (iv)  EU  citizens  and  non-EU 
nationals. The first two groups are generally referred to as ‘public administration’ for the 
purposes of cost assessments. 

Cost-and-benefit  items  were  identified  and  considered  for  all  four  groups.  However,  it 
was  only  possible  to  calculate  quantified  cost  estimates  for  the  first  two  groups,  and  it 
was  generally  not  appropriate  to  calculate  benefits.  This  was  in  part  due  to  a  lack  of 
available  data,  for  example  on  the  costs  to  citizens  of  participating  in  census  rounds. 
More generally however, it was because certain costs and benefits were inappropriate for 
quantification  due  to  their  effects  being  more  ambiguous  and  variable  across  Member 
States  and  stakeholder  groups.  For  example,  the  benefits  to  non-institutional  data  users 
from  increased  access  to  high-quality  European  statistics  on  population  would  be 
challenging  to  quantify.  This  is  because  these  benefits  would  depend  on  several 
additional  factors,  such  as  how  these  data  would  be  used  or  the  cost  of  accessing  data 
through alternative sources. Therefore, estimates for benefits are not available, and it is 
possible that the estimates for costs reported are an underestimate. 

Our overall approach to estimating costs and benefits consisted of the key steps set out in 
the bullet points below. 

  Firstly,  the  cost-and-benefit  items  associated  with  each  regulation  and  relevant 
provisions were identified and itemised. This itemisation considered: (i) the type 
of  cost  (i.e.  one-off/recurring  and  overall  cost  categories);  (ii)  the  stakeholder 
group impacted; and (iii) for Member States, what proportion and to what extent 
these  Member  States  were  impacted  by  the  implementation  of  the  current  legal 
framework.  The  evaluation  has  taken  into  consideration  the  fact  that  Member 
States were already providing data on a voluntary basis before the implementation 
of the different Regulations. The costs-and-benefits itemisation was reviewed and 
refined in cooperation with Eurostat. 

  As  noted  above,  the  contractor  determined  –  and  agreed  with  Eurostat  –  that  it 
was  not  possible  to  quantify  all  benefits.  For  each  cost  item,  estimates  for  the 
value of the cost were developed. Details  are set out below on how this process 
varied  between  stakeholder  groups  and  regulations/types  of  data.  Overall, 

56 

 
 
estimates  and  assumptions  were  based  on  a  combination  of  several  factors, 
including:  
o 

inputs provided by Eurostat, including through regular meetings/feedback 
requests  as  well  as  data  on  administrative-,  grant-,  IT/infrastructure-  and 
contract-related  costs  to  Eurostat  associated  with  the  three  in-scope 
Regulations; 
 a review of the completeness of voluntary and mandatory statistics over 
time;  

o 

o  a survey of Member States on costs associated with population statistics; 
o  data  gathered  throughout  the  research  study,  including  the  workshops, 

literature review, NSI survey and OPC; 

o  The study team members’ experience of conducting similar quantification 
exercises, in particular on the cost of reporting to the EU, training of staff, 
familiarisation  with  EU  legislation,  transposition,  and  compliance  costs 
(the  approach  is  similar  to:  (i)  one  used  most  recently  for  a  DG  HOME 
study  assessing  the  impacts  of  possible  revisions  to  the  Long-Term 
Residency  and  Single  Permit  Directives  in  2021  (positive  opinion  of  the 
RSB in October 2021); (ii) a DG JUST Study on the impacts of a possible 
revision of the Consumer Credit Directive (CCD) in 2020-2021 (positive 
opinion of the RSB in May 2021); and (iii) a DG HOME Evaluation of the 
Counter-Terrorism Directive (positive opinion of the  RSB in July 2021), 
among others in previous years).  

  Costs  and  cost-savings  for  each  cost  item  were  then  aggregated  across  Member 
States  where  relevant,  and  over  the  period  between  the  implementation  of  the 
relevant regulation60 and 2021. 

  This enabled aggregate costs across all relevant Member States to account for: (i) 
differences  in  costs across  Member States (e.g. public sector salaries61);  and (ii) 
the extent to which Member States were impacted by the Regulations62. This also 
accounted for costs accrued across a longer time period. For the sake of simplicity 
and comparison, the evaluation estimated all costs in 2021 EUR.  

  Finally,  estimated  costs  were  aggregated  for  each  Regulation  and  estimated  by 
stakeholder group (Member States and the European Commission) and cost type 
(i.e.  one-off  and  recurring).  Recurring  costs  were  estimated  as  average  annual 
costs  across  all  Member  States.  Costs  are  all  estimated  in  2021  EUR  and  as 
incremental, relative to the estimated baseline costs (i.e. the costs incurred before 
the 
data 
the  Regulations 
provisions/collections). Details of what this aggregation process consisted of are 

implementation 

voluntary 

due 

of 

to 

60  2007  for  Regulation  No  862/2007  on  Migration;  2013  for  Regulation  No  1260/2013  on  Demographic 

Statistics; and 2008 for Regulation No 763/2008 on Population and Housing Censuses. 

61  Salaries  across  Member  States  were  estimated  using  the  estimated  daily  labour  cost  of  public 
administration  staff,  assuming  215  working  days  per  year:  Labour  cost,  wages  and  salaries,  direct 
remuneration (excluding apprentices) by NACE Rev. 2 activity )  - LCS surveys 2008, 2012 and 2016 
[lc_ncost_r2]. Salaries are projected to 2021 using the HICP index (2020=100). 

62 Due to limitations in the available data on which Member States were – or are likely to be – affected by 
the  Regulations/changes  specifically,  this  proportion  was  calculated  on  the  total  costs  across  all 
Member  States  (i.e.  if  it  was  assumed  that  50%  of  Member  States  would  be  affected,  the  cost  was 
estimated  to  be  50%  of  the  total  overall  cost  across  all  Member  States).  This  may  not  be  entirely 
accurate, however, since costs, such as labour costs, vary across Member States. 

57 

 
                                                 
set  out  below  along  with  specific  calculations  and  assumptions  applied  to 
estimate costs for each stakeholder group and limitations of the model. 

Evaluation 

Annual population data (Demography and Migration Regulations) 

For costs associated with the introduction of the Demography and Migration Regulations 
(i.e.  No  862/2007  and  No  1260/2013),  following  the  estimation  of  the  values  for  each 
cost item (as set out in step 2 above), overall costs (i.e. step 3 and 4) were estimated  as 
set out in the bullet points below. 

  Firstly,  the  baseline  costs  were  estimated,  i.e.  the  costs  incurred  before  the 
implementation  of  the  relevant  Regulations  (i.e.  2007  for  the  Migration 
Regulation and 2013 for the Demography Regulation). These costs related to the 
collection, analysis and publication of demographic and migration data that was 
provided  voluntarily  before  the  introduction  of  the  Regulation,  and  later  made 
mandatory63.  These  costs  are  aggregated  across  all  Member  States  (where 
relevant)  but  estimated  for  one  year  only,  rather  than  by  an  average  of  annual 
costs  over  several  years.  This  approach  was  chosen  because,  before  the 
introduction  of  the  Regulation,  Member  States  provided  data  to  Eurostat  on  a 
voluntary  basis.  Therefore,  even  though  there  was  no  obligation  at  that  time  to 
provide  data,  some  costs  were  still  incurred  by  both  stakeholders  in  collecting, 
sending and publishing the data64.  
In the second step, the contractor calculated the total costs (annual average across 
the period between implementation and 2021 for recurring costs) for all new costs 
associated  with  the  introduction  of  the  Regulations,  as  set  out  in  the  cost 
itemisation,  across  each  stakeholder  group  (all  Member  States  and  the 
Commission)  as  per  step  3  above.  Then,  it  added  all  these  figures  for  all  cost 
items  into  an  overall  total  for  all  new  one-off  and  recurring  costs  to  Member 
States and the Commission.  

 

  Finally,  the  relevant  baseline  cost  was  subtracted  from  the  total  current  cost 
calculated (by cost type and stakeholder group) to estimate the total incremental 
cost (annual average for recurring costs) to all Member States associated with the 
introduction of the Regulations. 

Estimation of costs for the European Commission, including Eurostat 

63  Migration  and  demographic  data  points  that  were  provided  voluntarily  before  the  introduction  of  the 
Regulations and remain voluntary were excluded from the analysis as part of the evaluation. This was 
because these data points were not deemed to be costs related to the introduction of the  Regulations. 
Costs  associated  with  the  provision  of  voluntary  data  following  the  implementation  of  the  three  in-
scope  Regulations  are  included  within  the  impact  assessment,  which  assesses  the  impact  of  making 
these data points mandatory. 

64 However, a certain proportion of those costs  would be incurred by  Member  States regardless, because 
production of these data would be in line with national interests. To take this into account, we reduce 
administrative costs at the baseline by 50%. 

58 

 
 
 
                                                 
The main  costs for  the European Commission – and how these costs were calculated  – 
are set out in the bullet points below. 

  The  first  category  of  costs  was  the  introduction  and  subsequent  monitoring, 
reporting and enforcement of the Regulations. The Regulations required Eurostat 
to be provided with demographic and migration data within certain parameters of 
quality  and  timeliness.  The  Regulations  also  required  Eurostat  to  publish  these 
data and required guidance and implementing acts to be issued. The costs of these 
activities were based on estimates as to the number of days that would be required 
per type of activity. The number of days was then multiplied by the daily cost of a 
Commission official level AD-10 (i.e. based on a monthly salary of around EUR 
9 000 based on EU statistics65), assuming an average working  year of 215 days, 
and an average  of 17.9 days worked per month (based on figures from  Eurostat 
for  working  days  for  full-time  equivalent  (FTE)  staff66),  based  on  the  general 
formula: 

Number of days per FTE * number of FTEs * daily wages.  

  The  second  category  of  costs  was  the  administrative  costs  to  Eurostat.  This 
included  the  cost  of  financial  support  (grants)  provided  to  Member  States  to 
enable  them  to  provide  data  and  attend  working-group  meetings  and  business 
trips.  It  also  included  the  costs  of  Commission  research  studies  on  the 
Regulations.  These  estimates  were  based  on  data  provided  by  Eurostat.  For 
grants,  business  meetings  and  trips,  it  was  assumed  that  costs  were  evenly  split 
across  the  Demography  and  Migration  Regulations.  Contract  costs  were  100% 
relating to migration data, as indicated by Eurostat67. 

  The  third  category  of  costs  was  the  IT  and  infrastructure  costs  required  by 
Eurostat  to  implement  and  maintain  systems  that  receive  and  publish  statistical 
data and metadata. These  estimates  were based on data provided by Eurostat.  It 
was assumed that costs were evenly split between the Migration and Demography 
Regulations.  

  The  fourth  category  of  costs  was  baseline  costs  i.e.  any  costs  incurred  by 
Eurostat,  relating  to  migration  and  demography  data,  before  the  introduction  of 
the  relevant  Regulations.  It  is  assumed  that  the  only  baseline  costs  incurred 
related to the receipt and publication of data provided voluntarily, which was later 
rendered mandatory by the Regulations. No regulatory or compliance costs were 
incurred due to the lack of regulation. No IT-related costs were incurred relating 
to  migration  or  demography  data  before  the  introduction  of  the  Regulations  as 
none were reported by Eurostat before 2015. 

65 Figures available from https://euemployment.eu/how-much-do-eu-officials-earn/.  

66 This was calculated by dividing 215 by 12. Estimate available at: Eurostat (2020) Guiding principles for 
at: 

the 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/10501168/KS-GQ-19-006-EN-N.pdf. 

European 

Statistics; 

available 

analysis 

Cost 

of 

67  Grants  are  calculated  as  average  annual  costs  over  the  entire  period  and  presented  as  recurring  costs, 
although  in  practice  they  were  provided  over  only  3  years.  Business  trips,  meetings  and  contractual 
costs are presented as recurring costs and calculated as annual average costs across the whole period. 
Contract costs are presented  as a  one-off cost  for the  sake of simplicity, but in practice are incurred 
over the course of 3 years. 

59 

 
                                                 
Estimation of costs for national authorities 

The calculations of administrative, compliance, and enforcement costs for Member States 
and their NSIs were largely based on a general formula: 

Number of days per FTE * number of FTEs * daily wages* proportion of MS impacted 

Typically,  the  number  of  days  and  number  of  FTEs  assumed  for  activities  (such  as 
transposition, monitoring, reporting, familiarisation, adaptation, training, communication/ 
information provision, etc.) were based on the study teams’ own assumptions. These own 
assumptions  were  in  turn  based  on  both  estimates  provided  by  NSIs  within  the  NSI 
survey  and  the  study  teams’  experience  in  conducting  similar  studies,  as  stated  above. 
For example, feedback from the NSI survey stated that Member States employ around 6 
FTEs  (per  year)  on  average  to  compile  and  provide  mandatory  annual  population  data. 
Therefore,  assuming  that  respondents  may  have  in  some  cases  been  thinking  of  only 
demographic  or  migration  data  when  providing  this  estimate,  it  is  assumed  throughout 
the analysis that Member States employ 5 FTEs on average per regulation68. In addition, 
according  to  responses  to  the  NSI  survey,  on  average  42  FTEs  were  employed  in  each 
Member  State  to  work  on  population  data.  Assuming  around  60%  of  these  were 
dedicated to the census69 it was estimated that around 8.5 FTEs in total were employed to 
work  on  each  of  the  Demography  and  Migration  Regulations  in  each  Member  State. 
These  data,  relative  to  the  estimate  provided  for  the  FTEs  required  specifically  for 
compiling  and  providing  mandatory  annual  population  data,  was  used  to  derive  the 
number of additional FTEs (3.5 per Member State) required for additional tasks related to 
the  Regulations  (e.g.  monitoring  compliance,  reporting  etc.).  Assumptions  about  the 
complexity  of  the  task  and  data  involved  were  also  taken  into  account  to  adjust  the 
estimates.  

When  calculating  baseline  costs,  the  proportion  of  Member  States  affected  by  the 
introduction  of  the  Regulations  was  based  on  estimates  provided  by  Eurostat  of  the 
completeness  of  mandatory  statistics  over  time.  Based  on  this  research,  overall 
mandatory statistics were provided by around 40% of Member States before 2006. This 
percentage  was  applied  to  the  calculation  of  administrative  costs  incurred  by  Member 
States  at  the  baseline  before  the  introduction  of  the  Regulations.  As  noted  above,  this 
proportion  was  applied  to  overall  total  costs,  since  identifying  specific  Member  States 
that  would  be  affected  was  not  possible.  When  calculating  costs  associated  with  the 
current  Regulations,  assumptions  were  based  on  the  study  teams’  understanding  of  the 
processes required by each regulation. This understanding was guided by discussion with 
Eurostat.  This  discussion  covered  topics  such  as  the  proportion  of  Member  States  that 
would  have  to  update  their  processes  to  align  with  mandated  regional  definitions,  or 
decide upon preferred definitions. 

For  costs  relating  to  the  IT  equipment  required  to  collect  and  analyse  the  data  and 
metadata  required  by  the  Regulations,  costs  were  based  on  the  average  of  all  estimates 

68 Between 12 and 17 NSIs provide an estimate, depending on the year. 

69 This assumption is based on responses to the NSI survey, where two respondents provided an estimate of 
the size of the census team relative to all staff working on population statistics (in one case the census 
team  represented  60%  of  overall  staff  and  in  another  40%),  combined  with  the  assumption  that  the 
census is more costly. 

60 

 
 
                                                 
from the NSI survey70. It was assumed that costs were evenly split between the Migration 
and Demography Regulations. Costs relating to the delivery of feasibility studies on the 
implementation  of  the  Demography  Regulation  were  estimated  based  on  grant  data 
provided by Eurostat, by assessing the total eligible costs to Member States for delivering 
such studies. Costs relating to the European Statistical System Committee (ESSC) were 
estimated  based  on  publicly  available  information  on  the  ESSC’s  membership  and  its 
number of annual meetings71.  

Census data  

The  method  adopted  for  estimating  costs  associated  with  the  introduction  of  the 
Population  and  Housing  Census  Regulation  (No  763/2008)  differed  from  that  used  to 
estimate annual population statistics. This was due to the availability of data on the costs 
incurred  by  Member  States  to  deliver  the  2000/2001  and  2010/2011  census  rounds72. 
These data were drawn upon to estimate the cost to Member States, which was combined 
with  costs  borne  by  the  Commission  to  produce  an  overall  view.  For  the  census,  the 
baseline was estimated to be the cost of conducting the 1990/1991 and 2000/2001 census 
rounds, whereas the ‘post-implementation’ view was equivalent to the cost of conducting 
the 2011 and 2021 census rounds. 

Estimation of costs for the European Commission 

Costs to the European Commission, including Eurostat, associated with the introduction 
of  the  Census  Regulation  were  calculated  using  the  same  process  as  costs  relating  to 
annual  population  data.  Costs  were  calculated  in  relation  to:  (i)  regulatory  costs, 
including the provision of grants; (ii) enforcement costs; (iii) and administrative and IT-
related  or  equipment-related  costs.  These  calculations  drew  on  the  same  data,  general 
formula and assumptions set out  above,  and  focused on census delivery. Baseline costs 
were  estimated  for  costs  relating  to  publishing  data  and  IT  equipment  investment.  The 
cost  of  IT  equipment  was  estimated  based  on  UNECE  data  on:  (i)  the  total  cost  to 
Member  States  of  delivery  of  the  1990  and  2001  census  rounds;  as  well  as  (ii)  the 

70 Note that only five Member State NSIs provided an estimate of the cost of IT and infrastructure incurred. 
Estimates were provided for costs incurred in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2021 and 2025. Costs included in this 
analysis were average annual costs. The baseline estimate  for IT costs incurred was calculated based 
on the average of the estimates provided for 2005 and 2010 for demographic data, and for 2005 only 
for migration data, due to the difference in when the respective Regulations were introduced. Portugal 
was excluded from the baseline calculation since the estimate was provided for 2007 rather than 2005 
and was unusually high, and therefore skewed the average cost estimated. 

71 Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/european-statistical-system/governance-bodies/essc.  

72 UNECE (2014) Measuring population and housing – Practices of UNECE countries in the 2010 round of 

censuses, available at: 
https://unece.org/DAM/stats/publications/2013/Measuring_population_and_housing_2010.pdf; 
UNECE (2008) Measuring population and housing - Practices of UNECE countries in the 2000 round 
of censuses, available at: 
https://unece.org/DAM/stats/publications/Publication_on_2000_censuses.pdf. 

61 

 
 
 
                                                 
proportion of this budget that was spent on IT73, assuming Eurostat’s budget to be 20% 
of that spent by Member States before the implementation of the Census Regulation. 
All costs were then aggregated. For simplicity74, all ongoing costs were aggregated and 
presented as average annual costs, over the number of years pertaining to the baseline, or 
post-Census Regulation time period. For Eurostat this was 18 and 13 years, respectively 
i.e. 1990-2008, and 2008-202175. For NSIs this was 15 years for both the period before 
and after the introduction of the Census Regulation, since costs were estimated by census 
round with two rounds in each period. 

Estimation of costs for national authorities 

Costs to national authorities were estimated by taking the following steps. 

  Firstly, the data on per capita, and total76 costs associated with the delivery of the 
2001 and 2011 census rounds per Member State were extracted from the UNECE 
report,  alongside  information  on  the  type  of  census  conducted  in  each  Member 
State (i.e. the census methodology: traditional, register-based or combined)77. 

73 It was assumed that 8% of the overall budget was spent on IT equipment in 1990 and 9% in 2001. This is 
relative to the estimated 10.5% of overall MS budget spent on equipment, assuming Eurostat requires 
less equipment than MS and due to the trend of increased use of IT/technology to support censuses. 

74   Some costs varied in the number of years in which they were incurred due to the nature of the cost e.g. 
IT costs were incurred from 2007 and staff costs from 2012, as set out by Eurostat data. In some cases, 
ongoing  costs  were  estimated  to  have  been  incurred  for  only  the  year  in  which  the  census  was 
delivered,  and  a  specific  number  of  years  before/after  this.  This  was  because  some  costs,  such  as 
monitoring costs in the years before the Census Regulation, would only be incurred during the delivery 
of the census itself.  

75   For  simplicity,  the  number  of  years  between  the  first  census  round  considered  and  the  year  of 
implementation (2008) of the Census Regulation were counted as the ‘baseline’ years, despite the fact 
that this was a longer period than the period after the introduction of the Census Regulation. This is a 
robust assumption for some costs, where total values were estimated to have been incurred only in the 
years  before  or  after  the  Census  Regulation.  However,  in  other  cases  (e.g.  costs  drawing  from  the 
UNECE  estimates)  total  costs  were  estimated  ‘per  census’  and  therefore  the  annual  average  cost 
difference between the baseline and post-Census Regulation period may be overestimated. 

76   Note  that  overall  costs  were  not  made  available  for  the  2000  census  in  the  UNECE  reports.  These 
overall  costs  were  therefore  calculated  from  the  per  capita  estimates  by  multiplying  these  by  the 
population  in  each  Member  State  in  2000.  Data  extracted  on  16/11/2021  17:56:32  from  ESTAT.  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/DEMO_PJAN__custom_1585710/default/table?lang=e
n.  

77   Per capita costs had been translated to purchasing-power-parity (PPP) equivalents within the UNECE 
report. However, these figures were not used in our analysis, as these would adjust costs to account for 
the relative value in each Member State, whereas our analysis aimed to provide an overarching view of 
costs, from a ‘union’ perspective. Costs were presented in the UNECE reports in US dollars so were 
adjusted to 2021 EUR using the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers from the US Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (available here: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet) and an exchange rate of 
1  USD  =  0.8833  EUR  (exchange  rate  from  Bloomberg  on  the  17/11/2021),  available  here: 
bloomberg.com/quote/USDEUR:CUR.  

62 

 
 
                                                 
  Secondly,  based  on  these  figures,  the  total,  median78  and  average  cost  of 
delivering  the  2001  and  2011  census  rounds  were  calculated,  by  type  of  census 
methodology.  

  Thirdly,  estimates  were  developed  for  the  cost  of  delivering  the  1990  and  2021 
census rounds, based on: (i) 2001 and 2011 cost data by census methodology; as 
well  as  (ii)  the  trend  in  the  number  of  Member  States  adopting  each  census 
methodology over time. Key assumptions79 included: 

o  for  the  1991  census:  all  Member  States  used  traditional  census 
methodologies,  and  overall  costs  were  20%  higher  than  in  2001  in  line 
with the overall trend towards cost reduction; 

o  for the 2021 census: more Member States (15 in total) delivered a register-
based census and fewer delivered traditional or combined censuses (8 and 
4,  respectively),  which  meant  that  overall  costs  were  20%  lower  than  in 
2011. 

  Fourthly, the estimated average cost by census methodology type in 2001 (for the 
1991 estimate) and 2011 (for the 2021 estimate) was multiplied by the number of 
Member States  assumed to  have implemented each methodology, as well as the 
percentage  cost  reduction.  Costs  by  methodology  were  then  aggregated  into  an 
overall cost estimate for each round80. 

  Fifthly, compliance costs related to the monitoring and reporting on the quality of 
data sent to Eurostat were then added to these estimates, as it was assumed they 
were not included in the UNECE data. This cost was estimated using the average 
yearly salary of a public sector official in 2020 prices, and multiplying this by the 

78   This was calculated because, as stated in the UNECE reports, average values across all Member States 
were often skewed by outliers with extremely high or low costs.  For consistency, total costs are used 
for most of the cost analysis, since costs associated with annual population statistics were calculated as 
total  costs  to  all  Member  States.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that,  at  the  median,  overall  costs 
decreased between 2001 and 2011, whereas average costs increased, highlighting that  the presence of 
strong  outliers  are  a  possible  limitation  in  the  cost  estimates.  For  example,  it  could  be  argued  that 
certain Member States should be excluded from the analysis due to their being an outlier. France was 
excluded from this analysis due to the fact that it chose to implement a rolling census, associated with 
higher  costs,  a  decision  which  arguably  was  not  caused  by  the  changes  introduced  by  the  Census 
Regulation. 

79   Assumptions based on ICF interpretation of information from  UNECE (2014) Measuring population 
and  housing  -  Practices  of  UNECE  countries  in  the  2010  round  of  censuses;  available  at 
https://unece.org/DAM/stats/publications/2013/Measuring_population_and_housing_2010.pdf 
and 
UNECE (2008) Measuring population and housing - Practices of UNECE countries in the 2000 round 
at: 
of 
https://unece.org/DAM/stats/publications/Publication_on_2000_censuses.pdf. 

censuses, 

available 

80   Note that some estimates for the cost to Member States of delivering the 2021 census were provided in 
the Eurostat cost survey of Member States as well as the NSI survey. With regards to the former, the 
total and average values of all responses estimating  the sum of direct and indirect costs of the 2021 
census were used to check the values estimated using this method. Values for 2021 were found to be 
relatively  similar  (i.e.  estimating  a  total  cost  of  EUR  1.8bn  rather  than  EUR1.6bn,  and  an  average 
value of EUR 79m rather than EUR 108m). However, it is important to note that cost survey data may 
not be reliable or consistent, since some MS reported annual costs and others may have reported total 
costs of delivering the census (over many years). However, the average costs estimated by respondents 
to the NSI survey were much lower than those estimated using UNECE data, for 2011 (i.e.  EUR 9m 
rather than more than EUR 130m). This may be due to the fact that only 15 MS provided an estimate, 
and  these  may  have  been  an  underestimate  as  they  only  included  the  NSI’s  operational  budget  for 
census delivery, which may not include all cost types considered by the UNECE.  

63 

 
                                                 
assumed number of FTEs and level of effort incurred. It was assumed that these 
prices were incurred over the year of the census and the 5 subsequent years.  
  Sixthly,  overall  baseline  and  post-Census  Regulation  costs  were  calculated  by 
aggregating costs to all Member States assumed to have been incurred in the 1991 
and 2001 census rounds and those in the 2011 and 2021 rounds, respectively. The 
former costs were subtracted from the latter to estimate the incremental cost. All 
costs were then presented as annual averages, as stated above. 

  Note  that  due  to  the  manner  through  which  these  costs  were  estimated  (i.e.  the 
fact they were drawn from UNECE data) it was not possible to estimate one-off 
and  recurring  costs  separately,  since  these  data  were  not  available.  For  this 
reason, costs to Member States were presented as the overall annual average cost 
of delivering the census. 

64 

 
 
 
Overview of costs and benefits 

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

I. Overview of costs (in thousands of 2021 EUR, rounded to the nearest 1 000) and benefits identified in the evaluation 

NSIs/Member States 

Eurostat/ the EU 

Citizens/TCNs  Non-institutional 

Qualitative 

Monetary  Qualitative 

Census 

One-off 
costs 

Set-up costs 
(including changing 
census methodology) 

Not 
estimated 

Regulatory costs 
related to preparing 
and drafting the new 
Regulation 

Design, delivery and 
communication of 
training to staff 

data users 

Monet
ary 

Qualitative 

Qualitative 

83 

N/a 

N/a 

Time required to 
participate in 
census rounds 

N/a 

25 785 

Provision of financial 
support 

522 

Monitoring and 
publishing costs 

IT equipment costs 

Administrative costs 
required to design and 
implement new 
processes 

Increased access 
to detailed 
statistics and 
ability to conduct 
research 

Not 
estimated 

Reduced 
administrative burden 
related to coordination 
of voluntary data 

Not 
estimat
ed 

Improved 
awareness of, and 
engagement with 
data 

Improved ability to 
meet user needs and 
adapt to evolving 
policy needs 

Increased access to 
reliable, detailed and 
high-quality statistics 

Benefits 
associated with 
improved policy 

Improved access 
to open data and 
evidence 
(including 
accurate media 
reporting) 

Recurring 
costs 
(average 
annual) 

Benefits 

Administrative costs 
for delivery, 
including 
enumeration, general 
preparations, 
logistics, processing, 
checking and coding 
data, and publication 

IT and equipment 
costs 

Increased staff skills 
and greater 
ownership over the 
data-collection 
process  

Increased quality and 
timeliness of 
statistics 

Benefits related to 
improved 
policymaking 

Increased ability to 
meet both user 
needs, and evolving 
policy needs 

Increased access to 
detailed statistics to 
feed into decision-
making 

Migrat
ion  

One-off 
costs 

145 

Administrative costs 
associated with 
adapting a national 
definition 

Regulatory costs 
related to preparing 
and drafting the new 
regulation 

1 001  N/a 

N/a 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
Administrative costs 
associated with the 
delivery of training 
and guidance 

Compliance costs 
associated with 
adopting legislation 
and monitoring and 
reporting on 
compliance with this 
legislation 

Enforcement costs 
related to monitoring 
and reporting on the 
use of probable 
effect of estimates 

Administrative costs 
related to the design 
and implementation 
of the programme to 
collect data 

IT equipment costs 

Increased staff skills 
and greater 
ownership over the 
data-collection 
process 

Increased 
understanding of 
migration-related 
issues across the EU, 
and associated 
reputational gains 
from improved 
policymaking 

Increased ability to 
meet both user needs 
and evolving policy 
needs 

Increased access to 
detailed statistics to 
feed into decision-
making 

Administrative costs 
associated with 
deciding on a 
national definition 
and aligning regional 
definitions 

Administrative costs 
associated with the 

Recurring 
costs 
(average 
annual) 

Benefits 

Demog
raphy 

One-off 
costs 

3 807 

Enforcement costs 
related to monitoring, 
developing and 
submitting reports on 
statistics compiled 

Compliance costs 
associated with the 
ESSC 

Provision of financial 
support 

Monitoring and 
publishing costs 

IT equipment costs 

217 

N/a 

Provision and 
update of data to 
national authority 
owners 

Acceptance of 
loss of privacy  

Increased access 
to comparable, 
reliable migration 
data across the EU 
and ability to 
produce 
comparative 
analyses 

Not 
estimated 

Improved 
policymaking and 
associated reputational 
benefits 

Not 
estimat
ed 

Improved 
migration policy 
at the EU and MS 
level 

Improved access 
to open data and 
evidence 
(including 
accurate media 
reporting) 

Reduced 
administrative burden 
related to coordination 
of voluntary data 

Improved ability to 
meet user needs and 
adapt to evolving 
policy needs 

Increased access to 
reliable, detailed and 
high-quality statistics 

101 

N/a 

N/a 

3 878 

Regulatory costs 
related to preparing 
and drafting the new 
Regulation 

Enforcement costs 
relating to processes 
required to develop 
reports on 

66 

 
 
delivery of training 
and guidance 

implementation of the 
Regulation 

Compliance costs 
associated with 
adopting legislation 
and monitoring, and 
reporting on 
compliance with this 
legislation 

Administrative costs 
related to the design 
and implementation 
of the programme to 
collect data 

IT equipment costs 

Enforcement costs 
relating to 
monitoring and 
reporting on the 
feasibility of the use 
of definitions as well 
as on reference 
metadata 

Increased staff skills 
and greater 
ownership over the 
data-collection 
process 

Improved ability to 
coordinate with 
national authorities 

Increased ability to 
meet both user needs 
and evolving policy 
needs 

Increased access to 
detailed statistics to 
feed into decision-
making 

Recurring 
costs 
(average 
annual) 

Benefits 

8 640 

Compliance costs 
associated with the 
ESSC 

Provision of financial 
support 

Monitoring and 
publishing costs 

IT equipment costs 

165 

N/a 

Provision and 
update of data to 
national authority 
owners 

Acceptance of 
loss of privacy  

Not 
estimat
ed 

Improved policy 
at the EU and MS 
level 

Improved access 
to open data and 
evidence 
(including 
accurate media 
reporting) 

Increased access 
to comparable and 
reliable population 
data, and ability to 
produce 
comparative 
analyses 

Not 
estimated 

Improved ability to 
make informed policy 
decisions and 
associated reputational 
gains 

Reduced 
administrative burden 
related to coordination 
of voluntary data 

Improved ability to 
meet user needs and 
adapt to evolving 
policy needs 

Increased access to 
reliable, detailed and 
high-quality statistics 

67 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  3:  STATISTICAL  DATASETS  OF  EUROPEAN  STATISTICS  ON  POPULATION 
PUBLISHED UNDER THE INTERVENTION 

1. 

2011 EU CENSUS PROGRAMME ................................................................................................... 70 

1.1.  DATASETS ON PERSONS ............................................................................................................... 70 

1.2.  DATASETS ON FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS ......................................................................... 73 

1.3.  DATASETS ON DWELLINGS AND HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS ........................................... 74 

2. 

2021 EU CENSUS PROGRAMME ................................................................................................... 74 

2.1.  DATASETS ON PERSONS ............................................................................................................... 74 

2.2.  DATASETS ON FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS ......................................................................... 77 

2.3.  DATASETS ON DWELLINGS AND HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS ........................................... 77 

3.  DEMOGRAPHY, POPULATION STOCK AND BALANCE .......................................................... 78 

3.1.  MAIN POPULATION INDICATORS ............................................................................................... 78 

3.2.  POPULATION (NATIONAL LEVEL) .............................................................................................. 80 

3.3.  POPULATION (REGIONAL LEVEL) .............................................................................................. 81 

3.4.  FERTILITY (NATIONAL LEVEL) ................................................................................................... 81 

3.5.  FERTILITY (REGIONAL LEVEL) ................................................................................................... 82 

3.6.  MORTALITY (NATIONAL LEVEL) ............................................................................................... 83 

3.7.  MORTALITY (REGIONAL LEVEL) ................................................................................................ 84 

3.8.  DEATHS BY WEEK – SPECIAL DATA COLLECTION ................................................................ 84 

3.9.  MARRIAGES ..................................................................................................................................... 85 

3.10.  DIVORCES ......................................................................................................................................... 85 

4.  OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC DATASETS ............................................................................................ 86 

4.1.  YOUTH POPULATION ..................................................................................................................... 86 

4.2.  DEMOGRAPHY BY TYPOLOGY OF REGION.............................................................................. 86 

4.3.  DEMOGRAPHY OF CITIES AND FUNCTIONAL URBAN AREAS ............................................ 87 

4.4.  POPULATION  OF  CANDIDATE  COUNTRIES  AND  POTENTIAL  CANDIDATE 

COUNTRIES ...................................................................................................................................... 88 

5. 

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP .................................................................. 88 

5.1.  IMMIGRATION (MIGR_IMMI) ....................................................................................................... 88 

5.2.  EMIGRATION (MIGR_EMI) ............................................................................................................ 89 

5.3.  ACQUISITION AND LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP (MIGR_ACQN) .................................................... 89 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviations of legal bases 

CR 

Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 (Census Regulation) 

CIR-11 

Regulation (EU) No 519/201081 (Census 2011 implementing Regulation) 

CIR-21 

Regulation (EU) 2017/71282 (Census 2021 implementing Regulation) 

DR 

DIR 

MR 

MIR 

Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 (Demography Regulation) 

Regulation (EU) No 205/201483 (Demography implementing Regulation) 

Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 (Migration Regulation) 

Regulation (EU) No 351/201084 (Migration implementing Regulation) 

81 Commission Regulation (EU) No 519/2010 of 16 June 2010 adopting the programme of the statistical 
data  and  of  the  metadata  for  population  and  housing  censuses  provided  for  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
763/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (Text  with  EEA  relevance)  (OJ  L  151, 
17.6.2010, p. 1). 

82  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2017/712  of  20  April  2017  establishing  the  reference  year  and  the 
programme of the  statistical  data  and  metadata  for population and housing censuses provided for by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  763/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance) (OJ L 105, 21.4.2017, p. 1). 

83  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  205/2014  of  4  March  2014  laying  down  uniformed 
conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  European  demographic  statistics,  as  regards  breakdowns  of  data,  deadlines  and  data 
revisions (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 65, 5.3.2014, p. 10). 

84  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  351/2010  of  23  April  2010  implementing  Regulation  (EC)  No 
862/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  Community  statistics  on  migration  and 
international protection as regards the definitions of the  categories of the  groups of country of birth, 
groups of country of previous usual residence, groups of country of next usual residence and groups of 
citizenship (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 104, 24.4.2010, p. 37). 

69 

 
 
 
                                                 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

1.  2011 EU CENSUS PROGRAMME 

1.1. DATASETS ON PERSONS 

Groups 1 – 485 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 6 – 9  

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Group 10 

Mandatory 

Group 11 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Group 12 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 13-14 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, household status, current 
activity status (low details), place of birth (low details), 
citizenship (low details), 5-year age group and 
legal marital status (group 1) 
educational attainment (group 2) 
employment status (group 3) 
locality size (group 4) 

 
 
 
 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, family status (high details), 
current activity status (low details), place of birth (medium 
details), country of citizenship (medium details), 5-year age 
group and 
 
 
 
 

legal marital status (group 6) 
educational attainment (group 7) 
employment status (group 8) 
locality size (group 9) 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, occupation, industry (high 
details), current activity status (high details), education and 5-
year age group 
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, status in employment, 
occupation, industry (high details), current activity status 
(low details), country of citizenship (low details), 5-year age 
group  
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, size of the locality, status 
in employment, place of usual residence one year prior to the 
census, current activity status (low details), country of 
citizenship (low details), 5-year age group  
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, education, current activity 
status (low details), country of citizenship (low details), 5-year 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

85 2011 EU census outputs are published as an interactive table builder tool querying these dataset groups at https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2. 

70 

 
                                                 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

Groups 15-16 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, current activity status (low 
details), occupation, industry (high details), 5-year age group 
and: 

age group and: 

  occupation (group 13) 
 

industry (high details) (group 14) 

Group 17 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Group 18 

Mandatory 

Group 19 

Mandatory 

Group 20 

Mandatory 

Groups 21-22 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

 
 

country/place of birth (medium details) (group 15) 
country of citizenship (medium details) (group 16) 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, current activity status (low 
details), place of usual residence one year prior to the census, 
occupation, industry (high details), country of citizenship (low 
details), 5-year age group  
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, current activity status 
(high details), legal marital status, country of citizenship (low 
details), 5-year age group  
Population by location of place of work, sex, occupation, 
industry (high details), education, country of citizenship (low 
details), 5-year age group 
Population by location of place of work, sex, employment 
status, occupation, industry (high details), education, country 
of citizenship (low details), 5-year age group 
Population by location of place of work, sex, occupation, 
industry (high details), 5-year age group and: 

 
 

country/place of birth (medium details) (group 21) 
country of citizenship (medium details) (group 22) 

Groups 23-24 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 2 region, location of place of work, sex, 
education, country/place of birth (medium details), country of 
citizenship (medium details), 5-year age group and: 

Group 25 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 26-27 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

  occupation (group 23) 
 

industry (high details) (group 24) 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, year of arrival in the 
country since 1980, country/place of birth (medium details), 
country of citizenship (medium details), current activity status 
(low details), 5-year age group 
Population by territory of the Member State, sex, current 
activity status (low details), year of arrival in the country 
since 2000, 5-year age group and: 

71 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

 
 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

Group 28 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 29-30 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 31-35 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 36-37 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Groups 38-39 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

 
 

country/place of birth (high details) (group 26) 
country of citizenship (high details) (group 27) 

Population by territory of the Member State, sex, 
country/place of birth (high details), country of citizenship 
(low details), current activity status (low details), 5-year age 
group 
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, year of arrival in the 
country since 1980 (5-year interval), occupation, current 
activity status (low details), 5-year age group and: 

 
 

country/place of birth (medium details) (group 29) 
country of citizenship (medium details) (group 30) 
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, year of arrival in the 
country since 1980 (5-year interval), current activity status 
(low details), 5-year age group and: 

 
 

 
 

industry (high details) (groups 31, 32) 
country of citizenship (medium details) (groups 32, 33, 
35) 
employment status (group 33) 
country/place of birth (medium details) (groups 31, 33, 
34) 

  Education (groups 34, 35) 

Population by territory of the Member State, sex, year of 
arrival in the country since 2000, occupation, education, 
current activity status (low details),  5-year age group and:  

 
 

country/place of birth (medium details) (group 36) 
country of citizenship (medium details) (group 37) 
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, housing arrangements (low 
details), country/place of birth, country of citizenship, place of 
usual residence one year prior to the census, 5-year age group 
and: 

 
 

current activity status (low details) (group 38) 
size of the locality (group 39) 

Group 40 

Optional 

Group 42 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, housing arrangements, size 
of the locality and 5-year age group 
Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, age (single year), 
household status (medium details) and family status (high 
details) 

72 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

 
 
Dataset 

Groups 43-44 

Type of data 
collection 
Mandatory 

Legal basis 

Description 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, age (single year), current 
activity status and: 

Time series 
since 
n/a 

Publication and updates 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

Group 45 

Mandatory 

Group 46 

Mandatory 

Group 47 

Mandatory 

Group 48 

Mandatory 

Group 50 

Mandatory 

Group 51 

Mandatory 

Group 55 

Mandatory 

Group 56 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

1.2. DATASETS ON FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS 

  Occupation and industry (high details) (group 43) 
  Employment status, education, size of the locality (group 

44) 

Population by NUTS 2 region, sex, age (single year), 
country/place of birth (medium details) and country of 
citizenship (medium details) 
Population by NUTS 3 region, sex, legal marital status, place 
of usual residence one year prior to the census, country/place 
of birth (medium details), country of citizenship (medium 
details) and 5-year age group 
Population by NUTS 3 region, sex, household status, legal 
marital status, country/place of birth (low details) , country of 
citizenship (low details)  and 5-year age group 
Population by NUTS 3 region, sex, 5-year age group and 
household status (high details) 
Population by NUTS 3 region, sex, family status (low details), 
legal marital status, country/place of birth (low details), 
country of citizenship (low details) and 5-year age group 
Population by NUTS 3 region, sex, 5-year age group and 
family status (high details) 
Population by NUTS 3 region, sex and age (single year) 

Population by NUTS 3 region, sex and 5-year age group 

Group 52 

Mandatory 

Group 58 

Mandatory 

Group 5 

Mandatory 

Group 49 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Families by NUTS 3 region, type and size of family nucleus 
(high detail) 
Families by municipality, type and size of family nucleus (low 
detail) 
Private households by NUTS 2 region, type and size (high 
detail), and tenure status 
Private households by NUTS 3 region, type and size (high 
detail) 

73 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

 
 
Dataset 

Group 57 

Type of data 
collection 
Mandatory 

Legal basis 

Description 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Private households by municipality, type and size (low detail) 

Time series 
since 
n/a 

Publication and updates 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

1.3. DATASETS ON DWELLINGS AND HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS 

Group 53 

Mandatory 

Group 60 

Mandatory 

Group 41 

Mandatory 

Group 54 

Mandatory 

Group 59 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-11 Annex I 

Conventional dwellings by NUTS 3 region, building type, 
occupancy status and construction period 
Conventional dwellings by municipality, building type and 
occupancy status 
Occupied conventional dwellings by NUTS 2 region, 
ownership type, number of occupants, building type, size, 
density standard, water supply system, toilet and bathing 
facilities, and type of heating 
Occupied conventional dwellings by NUTS 3 region, building 
type, size, density standard and number of occupants 
Living quarters by municipality and type 

2.  2021 EU CENSUS PROGRAMME 

2.1. DATASETS ON PERSONS 

Group 186 

Mandatory 

Group 2 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 3 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Population by territory of the Member State sex, age (single 
year), legal marital status (high details), household status 
(high details) and family status (high details) 
Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, 5-year age group, legal 
marital status (low details), household status (high details), 
family status (high details), housing arrangements, size of the 
locality 
Population by LAU 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
household status (medium details), legal marital status (low 
details) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2014 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

Group 4 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by  Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, age (single year), current 

n/a 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 

86 2021 EU census outputs will be published on an updated CensusHub version, similar to 2011 outputs (see footnote 4). 

74 

 
 
                                                 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

Group 5 

Mandatory 

Group 6 

Mandatory 

Group 7 

Mandatory 

Group 8 

Group 9 

Mandatory 

Mandatory 

Group 10 

Mandatory 

Group 11 

Mandatory 

Groups 12-13 

Mandatory 

CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 14 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 15 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

activity status (high details), occupation, education 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
occupation, industry (low details), status in employment, 
education 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, location 
of place of work, occupation, industry (low details), status in 
employment, education 
Population by territory of the Member State, sex, 5-year age 
group, location of place of work, industry (low details), status 
in employment 
Population by LAU 2 regions, sex, country of citizenship (low 
details), country/place of birth (low details) 
Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, 5-year age group, country 
of citizenship (low details), country/place of birth (high 
details), year of arrival in the country since 1980 (single year) 
Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, 5-year age group, current 
activity status (low details), country of citizenship (low 
details), country/place of birth (low details), year of arrival in 
the country since 2000 
Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, 5-year age group, country 
of citizenship (high details), year of arrival in the country 
since 1980 (low details) 
Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, 5-year age group, country 
of citizenship (medium details), country/place of birth 
(medium details), place of usual residence one year prior to 
the census and: 

- 

- 

year of arrival in the country since 1980 (low details), 
employment status (group 12) 
year of arrival in the country since 1980 (high details), 
housing arrangements (group 13) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, current 
activity status (high details), country of citizenship (low 
details), country/place of birth (low details), year of arrival in 
the country since 1980 (low details), place of usual residence 
one year prior to the census, housing arrangements 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, current 
activity status (low details), education, country of citizenship 

n/a 

n/a 

75 

census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

 
 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

Group 16 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 17 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 18 

Mandatory 

Groups 19-20 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 21 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Group 22 

Mandatory 

Groups 23-24 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

(low details), country/place of birth (low details), year of 
arrival in the country since 1980 (single year) 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
occupation, country of citizenship (low details), country/place 
of birth (low details), year of arrival in the country since 1980 
(low details), place of usual residence one year prior to the 
census 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
industry (high details), country of citizenship (low details), 
year of arrival in the country since 1980 (low details), place of 
usual residence one year prior to the census 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, industry (high details), 
status in employment, education, country of citizenship (low 
details), country/place of birth (low details) 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
country/place of birth (low details) and: 

- 

- 

education, year of arrival in the country since 1980 (low 
details) (group 19) 
country of citizenship (low details), location of place of 
work (group 20) 

Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, legal 
marital status (low details), family status (medium details), 
household status (high detail), current activity status (high 
detail), education 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
household status (high detail), education, status in 
employment 
Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, family 
status (low details), current activity status (low detail) and: 
-  Household status (low details), education (group 23) 
-  Legal marital status (low detail), household status 

(medium details) (group 24) 

Groups 25-26 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, 5-year age group, 
household status (medium details), country of citizenship (low 
details), country/place of birth (low details) and: 

-  Legal marital status (low details) (group 25) 
- 
Family status (low details) (group 26) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

76 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

 
 
Dataset 

Groups 27-28 

Type of data 
collection 
Mandatory 

Legal basis 

Description 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 3 regions, sex, family status (medium 
details), household status (medium details) and: 

Time series 
since 
n/a 

Publication and updates 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

Groups 29-30 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

- 

- 

15-year age group, year of arrival in the country since 
1980 (low details) (group 27) 
5-year age group, place of usual residence one year prior 
to the census (group 28) 

Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, legal 
marital status (low details), family status (low details), 
household status (medium details), current activity status (low 
details) and: 

-  Country/place of birth (low details) (group 29) 
-  Country of citizenship (low details) (group 30) 

Groups 31-32 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Population by NUTS 2 regions, sex, 5-year age group, family 
status (low details), household status, status in employment, 
education and: 

-  Country/place of birth (low details) (group 31) 
-  Country of citizenship (low details) (group 32) 

2.2. DATASETS ON FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLDS 

Group 34 

Mandatory 

Group 36 

Mandatory 

Group 33 

Mandatory 

Group 35 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Families by NUTS 3 region, type and size of family nucleus 
(high details) 
Families by municipality, type and size of family nucleus (low 
details) 
Private households by NUTS 3 region, type, size and tenure 
status 
Private households by municipality, type and size 

2.3. DATASETS ON DWELLINGS AND HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS 

Group 37 

Mandatory 

Group 38 

Mandatory 

Group 39 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

Conventional dwellings by NUTS 3 region, building type, 
occupancy status and construction period 
Conventional dwellings by municipality, building type and 
occupancy status 
Occupied conventional dwellings by NUTS 3 region, building 
type, size, density standard, ownership type and number of 

77 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

 
 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

Group 40 

Mandatory 

Group 41 

Mandatory 

CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 
CR Art. 5(3) impl. by 
CIR-21 Annex I 

3.  DEMOGRAPHY, POPULATION STOCK AND BALANCE 

3.1. MAIN POPULATION INDICATORS 

demo_gind 

Mandatory 
and indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat  

DR Art. 3 impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(1-2) 

occupants  
Occupied conventional dwellings by NUTS 2 region, water 
supply system, toilet and bathing facilities, and type of heating 
Living quarters by municipality and type 

n/a 

n/a 

By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 
By 31 March 2024 (27 months after 
census reference year) 

1960 

Twice per year (February/March and 
July) and in case of data updates by the 
countries 

Population change - Demographic balance and crude rates at 
national level 
Population on 1 January – total and by sex  
Average population – total and by sex 
Population as a percentage of EU population 
Total population change 
Natural change of population 
Live births – total and by sex 
Deaths – total and by sex 
Net migration plus statistical adjustment 
Sum of births and deaths (natural turnover) 
Sum of immigration and emigration plus statistical adjustment 
(migration turnover plus statistical adjustment) 
Sum of population changes (population turnover) 
Crude rate of total population change  
Crude birth rate 
Crude death rate 
Crude rate of natural change of population 
Crude rate of net migration plus statistical adjustment 
Crude rate of sum of births and deaths (crude rate of natural 
turnover) 
Crude rate of sum of population changes (crude rate of population 
turnover) 
Crude rate of the sum of immigration and emigration plus 
statistical adjustment (Crude Rate of migration turnover plus 
statistical adjustment) 

78 

 
 
Dataset 

demo_r_gind3 

Type of data 
collection 
Mandatory 
and indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

Legal basis 

Description 

DR Art. 3 impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 

demo_pjanind 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_r_pjanind2 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_r_pjanind3 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_r_d3dens 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Population change - Demographic balance and crude rates at 
regional level (NUTS 3) 
Population on 1 January - total  
Live births - total 
Deaths - total 
Total population change 
Natural change of population 
Net migration plus statistical adjustment  
Crude birth rate 
Crude death rate 
Crude rate of total population change 
Crude rate of natural change of population 
Crude rate of net migration plus statistical adjustment  
Population structure indicators at national level 
Proportion of population by age groups  
Median age of population – total and by sex 
Age dependency ratio - variants  
Old-age dependency ration - variants 
Young-age dependency ratio  
Women per 100 men 
Population structure indicators by NUTS 2 region 
Proportion of population by age class  
Median age of population – total and by sex 
Age dependency ratio – variants 
Old-age dependency ratio -  variants 
Young-age dependency ratio - variants 
Women per 100 men 
Population structure indicators by NUTS 3 region 
Proportion of population by age class  
Median age of population – total and by sex 
Age dependency ratio – variants 
Old-age dependency ratio -  variants 
Young-age dependency ratio - variants 
Women per 100 men 
Population density by NUTS 3 region 

79 

Time series 
since 
2000 

Publication and updates 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

1960 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

1990 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

2014 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

1990 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

 
 
Dataset 

demo_r_d3area 

Type of data 
collection 
Voluntary 

Legal basis 

Description 

- 

Area by NUTS 3 region 

Time series 
since 
1990 

Publication and updates 

Annual 

3.2. POPULATION (NATIONAL LEVEL) 

demo_pjan 

Mandatory 

demo_pjangroup 

Mandatory 

demo_pjanbroad 

Mandatory 

demo_pjanedu 

Voluntary 

DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 
- 

demo_pjanmarsta 

Voluntary 

- 

Population on 1 January by age and sex  

Population on 1 January by age group and sex 

Population on 1 January by broad age group and sex 

Population on 1 January by age, sex and educational 
attainment level 
Population on 1 January by age, sex and legal marital status 

migr_pop2ctz 

migr_pop1ctz 

migr_pop3ctb 

migr_pop4ctb 

migr_pop5ctz 

migr_pop6ctb 

migr_pop7ctz 

migr_pop8ctb 

migr_pop9ctz 

demo_urespop 

Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Mandatory 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(i) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(i) 

Population on 1 January by age, sex and broad group of 
citizenship 
Population on 1 January by age group, sex and citizenship 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(ii) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(ii) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(i) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(ii) 

MR Art. 3(1)(c)(i) 

DR Art. 4(1) 

Population on 1 January by age group, sex and country of 
birth 
Population on 1 January by age, sex and broad group of 
country of birth 
Population on 1 January by sex, citizenship and broad group 
of country of birth 
Population on 1 January by sex, country of birth and broad 
group of citizenship 
Population on 1 January by age group, sex and level of human 
development of the country of citizenship 
Population on 1 January by age group, sex and level of human 
development of the country of birth 
EU and EFTA citizens who are usual residents in another 
EU/EFTA country as of 1 January 
Usually resident population on 1 January 

1960 

1960 

1960 

2007 

1960 

1998 

1998 

1998 

1998 

2009 

2009 

2014 

2014 

2016 

2014 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (October); no updates are 
done 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

3.3. POPULATION (REGIONAL LEVEL) 

demo_r_d2jan 

Mandatory 

demo_r_pjangroup  Mandatory 

demo_r_pjangrp3  Mandatory 

demo_r_pjanaggr3  Mandatory 

DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(1) impl. by 
DIR Art. 4(2) 

Population on 1 January by age, sex and NUTS 2 region 

Population on 1 January by age group, sex and NUTS 2 
region 
Population on 1 January by age group, sex and NUTS 3 
region 
Population on 1 January by broad age group, sex and NUTS 3 
region 

3.4. FERTILITY (NATIONAL LEVEL) 

demo_find 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_frate 

demo_fmonth 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Mandatory 

demo_fasec 

Mandatory 

demo_fordagec 

Mandatory 

demo_fordager 

Mandatory 

demo_fagec 

Voluntary 

demo_fager 

Voluntary 

demo_faeduc 

Voluntary 

- 

- 

Fertility indicators 
Total fertility rate  
Median age of women at childbirth  
Mean age of women at childbirth 
Mean age of women at birth of first and higher order child 
Percentage first and higher order live births   
Proportion of live births outside marriage 
Fertility rates by age 

DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2-3) 
DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
- 

Live births (total) by month 

Live births by mother's age and newborn's sex 

Live births by mother's age and birth order 

Live births by mother's year of birth (age reached) and birth 
order 
Live births by mother's age and legal marital status 

- 

- 

Live births by mother's year of birth (age reached) and legal 
marital status 
Live births by mother's age and educational attainment level 

1990 

1990 

2014 

1990 

1960 

1960 

1960 

2007 

1960 

1960 

1960 

1960 

2007 

81 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 

 
 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

demo_faemplc 

Voluntary 

demo_faczc 

Mandatory 

demo_facbc 

Mandatory 

demo_fweight 

Voluntary 

demo_fabortind 

demo_fabort 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Voluntary 

demo_fabortord 

Voluntary 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3.5. FERTILITY (REGIONAL LEVEL) 

demo_r_find2 

demo_r_find3 

demo_r_frate2 

demo_r_fagec 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Mandatory 

demo_r_births 

Mandatory 

demo_r_fagec3 

Mandatory 

- 

- 

- 

DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(a) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 

Live births by mother's age and activity status 

Live births by mother's age and citizenship 

Live births by mother's age and country of birth 

Live births by birth weight and duration of gestation 

Abortion indicators 
Abortion rate and ratio 

Legally induced abortions by mother's age  

Legally induced abortions by mother's age and number of 
previous live births 

Fertility indicators by NUTS 2 region 
Total fertility rate 
Mean age of women at childbirth 
Median age of women at childbirth 
Fertility indicators by NUTS 3 region 
Total fertility rate 
Mean age of women at childbirth 
Median age of women at childbirth 
Fertility rates by age and NUTS 2 region   

Live births by mother's age and NUTS 2 region 

Live births (total) by NUTS 3 region 

2007 

2007 

2007 

2013 

2013 

1960 

2007 

1990 

2013 

1990 

1990 

1990 

Live births by age group of the mothers and NUTS 3 region 

2013 

82 

case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
demo_mexrt 
demo_mlifetable 

Voluntary 
Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_mlexpec 

demo_mlexpecedu 

demo_mmonth 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Mandatory 

demo_magec 

Mandatory 

demo_mager 

Mandatory 

demo_maeduc 

Voluntary 

Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

3.6. MORTALITY (NATIONAL LEVEL) 

- 
- 

- 

- 

Excess mortality by month  
Life table by age and sex 
Age specific death rate 
Life expectancy at given exact age 
Probability of dying between exact ages 
Probability of surviving between exact ages 
Person-years lived between exact age 
Number left alive at given exact age 
Total person-years lived above given exact age 
Life expectancy by age and sex 

2020M1 
1960 

Monthly 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

1960 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Life expectancy by age, sex and educational attainment level 

2007 

Irregular 

DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2-3) 
DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
- 

Deaths (total) by month 

Deaths by age and sex 

Deaths by year of birth (age reached) and sex 

Deaths by age, sex and educational attainment level 

demo_marstac 

Voluntary 

- 

Deaths by age, sex and legal marital status 

demo_maczc 

Mandatory 

demo_macbc 

Mandatory 

demo_minfind 

demo_minf 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Voluntary 

DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
- 

Deaths by age, sex and citizenship 

Deaths by age, sex and country of birth 

Infant mortality rates 

- 

Infant mortality 

83 

1960 

1960 

1960 

2007 

2007 

2007 

2007 

1960 

1960 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

 
 
Dataset 

demo_minfs 

Type of data 
collection 
Voluntary 

demo_minfedu 

Voluntary 

demo_mfoet 

Voluntary 

Legal basis 

Description 

- 

- 

- 

Infant mortality by age and sex 

Infant mortality by mother's educational attainment level 
(ISCED11f) and father's educational attainment level 
(ISCED11) 
Late foetal deaths by mother's age 

3.7. MORTALITY (REGIONAL LEVEL) 

demo_r_mlife 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_r_mlifexp 

demo_r_magec 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Mandatory 

demo_r_deaths 

Mandatory 

demo_r_magec3 

Mandatory 

demo_r_minfind 

demo_r_minf 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Mandatory 

- 

- 

Life table by age, sex and NUTS 2 region 
Age specific death rate 
Life expectancy at given exact age 
Number dying between exact ages 
Probability of dying between exact ages 
Probability of surviving between exact ages  
Person-years lived between exact age 
Number left alive at given exact age 
Total person-years lived above given exact age 
Life expectancy by age, sex and NUTS 2 region 

DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 
- 

Deaths by age, sex and NUTS 2 region 

Deaths (total) by NUTS 3 region 

Deaths by age group, sex and NUTS 3 region 

Infant mortality rates by NUTS 2 region 

DR Art. 3(2)(b) impl. 
by DIR Art. 4(2) 

Infant mortality by NUTS 2 region 

3.8. DEATHS BY WEEK – SPECIAL DATA COLLECTION 

Time series 
since 
2007 

2013 

2007 

1990 

1990 

1990 

1990 

2013 

1990 

1990 

Publication and updates 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

demo_r_mwk_ts 

Voluntary 

- 

Deaths by week and sex 

2000W2 

Continuous 

84 

 
 
Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 
demo_r_mwk_20 
Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk_10 
Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk_05 
Voluntary 
Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk2_ts 
demo_r_mwk2_20  Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk2_10  Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk2_05  Voluntary 
Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk3_t 
demo_r_mwk3_ts 
Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk3_20  Voluntary 
demo_r_mwk3_10  Voluntary 
Voluntary 
demo_r_mweek3 

3.9. MARRIAGES 

demo_nind 

Voluntary and 
indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 

demo_nmsta 

Voluntary 

demo_nmsta2 

Voluntary 

demo_nsinagec 

Voluntary 

demo_nsinrt 

demo_marcz 

Indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Voluntary 

demo_marcb 

Voluntary 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Legal basis 

Description 

Deaths by week, sex and 20-year age group 
Deaths by week, sex and 10-year age group 
Deaths by week, sex and 5-year age group 
Deaths by week, sex and NUTS 2 region 
Deaths by week, sex, 20-year age group and NUTS 2 region 
Deaths by week, sex, 10-year age group and NUTS 2 region 
Deaths by week, sex, 5-year age group and NUTS 2 region 
Deaths by week and NUTS 3 region 
Deaths by week, sex and NUTS 3 region 
Deaths by week, sex, 20-year age group and NUTS 3 region 
Deaths by week, sex, 10-year age group and NUTS 3 region 
Deaths by week, sex, 5-year age group and NUTS 3 region  

Marriage indicators 
Marriages  
Crude marriage rate  
Mean age at first marriage – males and females 
Total first marriage rate – males and females 
Proportion of first marriages – males and females 

Time series 
since 
2000W1 
2000W2 
2000W1 
2000W1 
2000W1 
2000W1 
2000W1 
2000W6 
2000W1 
2000W5 
2000W1 
2000W4 

Publication and updates 

Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 
Continuous 

1960 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Marriages by sex and previous marital status 

1960 

Marriages by previous legal union status of bride and groom 

2013 

First-time marrying persons by age and sex 

First marriage rates by age and sex 

Marriages by citizenship of bride and groom  

Marriages by country of birth of bride and groom 

1990 

1990 

2012 

2012 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

3.10. 
demo_ndivind 

DIVORCES 

Voluntary and 

- 

Divorce indicators 

1960 

Once per year (February/March) and in 

85 

 
 
 
Dataset 

demo_ndivdur 

Type of data 
collection 
indicators 
calculated by 
Eurostat 
Voluntary 

demo_divcz 

Voluntary 

demo_divcb 

Voluntary 

Legal basis 

Description 

Divorces 
Crude divorce rate 
Divorces per 100 marriages 
Divorces by duration of marriage (reached during the year) 

Divorces by citizenship of wife and husband 

Divorces by country of birth of wife and husband 

- 

- 

- 

4.  OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC DATASETS 

4.1. YOUTH POPULATION 

yth_demo_010 

yth_demo_020 

yth_demo_060 

Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

4.2. DEMOGRAPHY BY TYPOLOGY OF REGION 

met_pjangrp3 

met_pjanaggr3 

met_gind3 

met_births 

met_deaths 

met_d3dens 

Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Child and youth population on 1 January by sex and age 

Ratio of children and young people in the total population on 
1 January by sex and age 
Youth population on 1 January by sex, age and country of 
birth 

Population on 1 January by five year age group, sex and 
metropolitan regions 
Population on 1 January by broad age group, sex and 
metropolitan regions 
Demographic balance and crude rates by metropolitan 
regions 
Live births (total) by metropolitan regions 

Deaths (total) by metropolitan regions 

Population density by metropolitan regions 

86 

Time series 
since 

Publication and updates 

case of data updates by the countries 

1990 

2012 

2012 

2008 

2009 

1998 

2014 

1990 

2000 

1990 

1990 

1990 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

 
 
Dataset 

met_d3area 

urt_pjangrp3 

urt_pjanaggr3 

urt_gind3 

urt_births 

urt_deaths 

urt_d3dens 

urt_d3area 

Type of data 
collection 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 

Legal basis 

Description 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Area of the regions by metropolitan regions 

Population on 1 January by five year age group, sex and other 
typologies 
Population on 1 January by broad age group, sex and other 
typologies 
Demographic balance and crude rates by other typologies 

Live births (total) by other typologies 

Deaths (total) by other typologies 

Population density by other typologies 

Area of the regions by other typologies 

4.3. DEMOGRAPHY OF CITIES AND FUNCTIONAL URBAN AREAS 

urb_cpop1 

urb_cpopstr 

urb_cpopcb 

urb_cfermo 

urb_lpop1 

urb_lpopstr 

urb_lpopcb 

urb_lfermor 

urb_cpopcb 

Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 
Derived 
dataset 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Population on 1 January by age groups and sex - cities and 
greater cities 
Population structure - cities and greater 

Population by citizenship and country of birth - cities and 
greater cities 
Fertility and mortality - cities and greater cities 

Population on 1 January by age groups and sex - functional 
urban areas 
Population structure - functional urban areas 

Population by citizenship and country of birth - functional 
urban areas 
Fertility and mortality - functional urban areas 

Population by citizenship and country of birth - cities and 
greater cities 

87 

Time series 
since 
1990 

2014 

1990 

2000 

1990 

1990 

1990 

1990 

1989 

1989 

1990 

1990 

1989 

1989 

1990 

1990 

1990 

Publication and updates 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

 
 
Dataset 

urb_lpopcb 

Type of data 
collection 
Derived 
dataset 

Legal basis 

Description 

n/a 

Population by citizenship and country of birth - functional 
urban areas 

Time series 
since 
1990 

Publication and updates 

Annual 

4.4. POPULATION OF CANDIDATE COUNTRIES AND POTENTIAL CANDIDATE COUNTRIES  

cpc_psdemo 

Voluntary 

n/a 

Candidate countries and potential candidates: population – 
demography 

2000 

Annual 

5.  INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP 

5.1. IMMIGRATION (MIGR_IMMI) 

migr_imm8 

migr_imm1ctz 

migr_imm3ctb 

migr_imm2ctz 

migr_imm4ctb 

Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 

Partly 
mandatory 

migr_imm6ctz 

Voluntary 

MR Art. 3(1)(a)(i) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 1.1 
MR Art. 3(1)(a)(ii) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 1.2 
- 

migr_imm7ctb 

Voluntary 

- 

migr_imm5prv 

Partly 
mandatory 

migr_imm9ctz 

Mandatory 

migr_imm10ctb 

Mandatory 

MR Art. 3(1)(a)(iii) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 1.3 
MR Art. 3(1)(a)(i) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 2 
MR Art. 3(1)(a)(ii) 
impl. by MIR 

MR Art. 3(1)(a) 

Immigration by age and sex 

MR Art. 3(1)(a)(i) 

Immigration by age group, sex and citizenship 

MR Art. 3(1)(a)(ii) 

Immigration by age group, sex and country of birth 

Immigration by age, sex and broad group of citizenship  

1990 

1998 

2008 

1998 

Immigration by age, sex and broad group of country of birth 

2008 

Immigration by sex, citizenship and broad group of country 
of birth 
Immigration by sex, country of birth and broad group of 
citizenship 
Immigration by age group, sex and country of previous 
residence 

Immigration by age group, sex and level of human 
development of the country of citizenship 

Immigration by age group, sex and level of human 
development of the country of birth 

2008 

2008 

1998 

2013 

2013 

88 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Time series 
since 

2013 

Dataset 

Type of data 
collection 

Legal basis 

Description 

migr_imm11prv 

Mandatory 

migr_imm12prv 

Voluntary 

Annex 2 
MR Art. 3(1)(a)(iii) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 2 
- 

5.2. EMIGRATION (MIGR_EMI) 

migr_emi2 

migr_emi1ctz 

Partly 
mandatory 
Partly 
mandatory 

migr_emi4ctb 

Voluntary 

migr_emi3nxt 

Partly 
mandatory 

migr_emi5nxt 

Voluntary 

MR Art. 3(1)(b)(ii-
iii) 
MR Art. 3(1)(b)(i) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 1.1 
- 

MR Art. 3(1)(b)(iv) 
impl. by MIR 
Annex 1.4 
- 

Immigration by age group, sex and level of human 
development of the country of previous residence 

Immigration by broad group of country of previous residence 

2013 

Emigration by age and sex  

Emigration by age group, sex and citizenship 

Emigration by age group, sex and country of birth 

Emigration by age group, sex and country of next usual 
residence  

1990 

2008 

2008 

1998 

Emigration by broad group of country of next usual residence 

2013 

5.3. ACQUISITION AND LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP (MIGR_ACQN) 

migr_acqs 

Mandatory 

MR Art. 3(1)(d) 

migr_acq 

Partly 
mandatory 

MR Art. 3(1)(d) 

migr_acq1ctz 

Mandatory 

MR Art. 3(1)(d) 

migr_lct 

Voluntary 

- 

Residents who acquired citizenship as a share of resident non-
citizens by former citizenship and sex 
Acquisition of citizenship by age group, sex and former 
citizenship 

Acquisition of citizenship by age group, sex and level of 
human development of former citizenship 
Loss of citizenship by sex and new citizenship  

2009 

1998 

2013 

2008 

89 

Publication and updates 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 
Once per year (February/March) and in 
case of data updates by the countries 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: COMPLETE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 

Evaluation criterion 

Evaluation question 

Indicator 

Baseline 

Target 

Current 

Statistics 

Legal bases, 
metadata, other 
documentation 

NSI 
survey  OPC 

Contract 
study 

Indicator results 

Information source(s) 

Relevance (objectives 
vs problem/needs) - 
pre-2005 situation 

RI1 

RI2 

To what extent do 
statistical objectives and 
outputs correspond to the 
needs for evidence-based 
EU policymaking? 

To what extent do 
statistical objectives and 
outputs serve 
institutional needs for 
the functioning of the 
EU? 

RE1 

Relevance evolution 
(objectives vs evolving 
needs) – current 
situation 

To what extent do 
population statistics 
address current policy 
needs for detailed, 
frequent and harmonised 
data on population 
aspects, including at the 
highest geographic 
granularity? 

RI1.1 

Share of initial EU use cases 
addressed by domain-specific 
datasets 

29% 

100% 

100% 

RI2.1 

RI2.2 

Suitability of the usual-residence 
definition based on a twelve-month 
rule vis-à-vis EU use cases 

Sensitivity of population quotas in 
Council voting to variations of total 
population counts used as input 

RI2.3 

Utility of population and migration 
statistics for population projections 

RE1.1 

Detail gaps of initial statistical 
objectives against current/new policy 
needs  

RE1.2 

Frequency gaps of initial statistical 
objectives against current/new policy 
needs 

RE1.3 

Timeliness gaps of initial statistical 
objectives against current/new policy 
needs  

RE1.4 

Harmonisation gaps of initial 
statistical objectives against 
current/new policy needs  

RE1.5 

Geographic granularity gaps of initial 
statistical objectives against 
current/new policy needs  

Poor 

Optimal 

Barely s. 

Poor 

Optimal 

Decent 

X 

1.5 

10 

6.5 

Good 

Good 

Barely s. 

Good 

Good 

Decent 

Good 

Good 

Decent 

Decent 

Good 

Barely s. 

Good 

Good 

Barely s. 

RE2 

To what extent are 
established statistical 
objectives fit to respond 
to evolving policy 
needs? 

RE2.1 

Fitness of initial statistical objectives 
and legal bases to serve evolving 
policy needs  

Poor 

Optimal 

Barely s. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

90 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
RE3 

Who are the main 
current users of 
European statistics on 
population and to what 
extent do the currently 
available European 
statistics on population 
meet their needs? 

EE1 

To what extent is the 
output of high quality? 

EE2 

To what extent do 
statistics published under 
the intervention serve 
EU policymaking? 

EE3 

To what extent do 
statistics published under 
the intervention serve 
institutional needs for 
the functioning of the 
EU? 

Effectiveness 
(outputs/results/impacts 
vs objectives) 

RE3.1 

Identification of main types of users 
of European statistics on population 

RE3.2 

Extent to which key users (including 
policymakers, public administrators, 
researchers, trade unions, students, 
civil society representatives, non-
governmental organisations and 
citizens) agree that the currently 
available European statistics on 
population meet their needs (now and 
in the future) 

RE3.3  Key users’ views on their needs that 
are not currently met 

EE1.1  Overall quality of mandatory vs 

voluntary statistics published 

EE1.2  Number of quality issues identified 

and non-resolved 

EE2.1 

Share of EU aggregates provided in 
datasets (mandatory and voluntary) 

EE2.2 

EE2.3 

EE3.1 

Complete coverage of EU population 
characteristics (share of ‘unknown’ 
in totals of mandatory datasets) 

Complete coverage of EU population 
characteristics (share of ‘unknown’ 
in totals of voluntary datasets) 

Accuracy and comparability of total 
population at national level delivered 
under Demography Regulation 
Article 4 

EE4 

What are the existing 
cooperation 
arrangements between 
NSIs and national 
authorities in charge of 
administrative data 
sources used for 
population statistics? 
How effective are those 
arrangements? 

EE4.1 

EE4.2 

Legislative arrangements for 
cooperation between NSIs and 
national authorities in the selected 
MS 

Non-legislative/procedural 
arrangements for cooperation 
between NSIs and national 
authorities in the selected MS 

EE4.3  Data producers’ views on the 
effectiveness of the existing 

91 

Barely s. 

Good 

Good 

X 

Poor 

Good 

Decent 

42% 

100% 

84% 

~0.1% 

0% 

~0.1% 

~0.1% 

0% 

~0.7% 

17 MS 

27 MS 

22 MS 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EE3.2  Overall availability of population 
statistics by policy topic 

Poor 

Good 

Decent 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
cooperation arrangements and areas 
where cooperation could be 
streamlined/improved  

EI1.1 

Number of compliance issues 
identified and followed up over the 
years 

EI2.1 

Number of voluntary datasets serving 
key policy needs, compared to 
number of mandatory datasets 

Poor 

Optimal 

Good 

100% 

0% 

50% 

X 

EI3.1 

Access analytics to mandatory and 
voluntary datasets, compared to each 
other and to other Eurostat datasets 

<50k/y 

>50k/y 

>100k/y 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EI4.1 

Data producers’ views on the 
efficiency of the existing cooperation 
arrangements and areas where the 
efficiency of existing arrangements 
could be improved 

EI5.1 

Data producers’ views on the main 
elements that give rise to costs 

EI5.2 

Monetised costs (where possible), or 
indicative scale of costs where costs 
cannot be monetised 

EI6.1 

Data users’ views on the main 
elements that give rise to benefits 

EI6.2 

Monetised benefits (where possible), 
or indicative scale of benefits where 
benefits cannot be monetised 

CI1.1 

Number of datasets not covered by 
the legal base 

45 

<45 

36 

X 

X 

To what extent is the 
output compliant with 
legal requirements? 

To what extent are 
voluntary data 
collections required to 
cover statistical needs? 

How often are 
mandatory vs voluntary 
datasets accessed by 
users? 

How efficient are 
existing cooperation 
arrangements between 
NSIs and national 
authorities in charge of 
administrative data 
sources used for 
population statistics? 

What costs do data 
producers currently face 
to develop European 
statistics on population 
(i.e. baseline costs)? 

What benefits do data 
users currently draw 
from European statistics 
on population (i.e. 
baseline benefits)? 

To what extent do legal 
bases cover statistical 
objectives through 
mandatory data 
collections? 

EI1 

EI2 

EI3 

Efficiency 
(outputs/results/impacts 
vs inputs) 

EI4 

EI5 

EI6 

CI1 

Coherence – internal 
(objectives vs inputs) 

CI2 

Is the current legal 
framework internally 
coherent? 

CI2.1 

Identification of main inconsistencies 
and gaps in the current legal 
framework governing European 
statistics on population 

92 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
CI2.2 

Experts’ and stakeholders’ views on 
the main inconsistencies and gaps 

CI2.3 

CI2.4 

CE1.1 

Number of provisions that are 
inconsistent 

Number of legislative gaps identified 

Cross-domain coherence of 
international migration vs asylum 
and managed-migration statistics 

Poor 

Good 

Decent 

CE1 

To what extent are 
population statistics 
coherent with related or 
depending other 
European statistics? 

CE1.2  Utility of census outputs as sampling 
frame for social surveys 

Good 

good 

Decent 

CE1.3  Utility of census/demography 
statistics for national accounts 

CE1.4 

Cross-domain coherence of 
population in demography statistics 
and national accounts 

Poor 

Good 

Decent 

<0.2% 

0% 

<0.2% 

CE1.5  Cross-domain coherence of mortality 

with health statistics 

<2% 

0% 

<2% 

Coherence - external 
(objectives vs external 
factors) 

CE2 

To what extent are EU 
concepts and definitions 
harmonised with 
international practices or 
recommendations? 

CE3 

Is the current legal 
framework coherent with 
other EU policy and 
legislation, including the 
Charter on Fundamental 
Rights? 

EU added value (of 

EU1 

To what extent is 
statistical quality 

CE2.1 

CE2.2 

CE3.1 

Number of concepts/definitions 
deviating between EU and 
UNECE/CES over all common 
concepts/definitions 

Coherence between European 
population statistics and 
EU/international demographic 
research activities 

Identification of main inconsistencies 
and gaps between the current legal 
framework governing European 
statistics on population and wider EU 
policy and legislation, including the 
Charter on Fundamental Rights 

CE3.2  Experts’ and stakeholders’ views on 

the main inconsistencies and gaps 

CE3.3  Number of provisions that are 

inconsistent 

CE3.4  Number of legislative gaps identified 

EU1.1  EU-level completeness of mandatory 

and voluntary statistics published 

93 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Barely s. 

Optimal 

Good 

X 

X 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Barely s. 

Optimal 

Good 

X 

X 

outputs/results/impacts) 

achieved at EU level? 

EU2 

To what extent is 
methodological 
soundness at EU level 
(harmonisation of 
definitions and 
implementation) 
achieved by the 
intervention (incl. 
harmonisation gap of 
population bases)? 

EU1.2  EU-level comparability of mandatory 

and voluntary statistics published 

EU2.1  Use of definitions (feasibility studies 

and case studies) 

EU2.2 

Implementation of definitions 
(feasibility studies and case studies) 

EU2.3 

Economic value (desk research and 
case studies -> all stakeholders/by 
MS and entire EU, to augment EI7 
and EI8) 

EU3 

To what extent are the 
users satisfied? 

EU3.1  User opinion on overall quality of 
European statistics 

Good 

Optimal 

Good 

Statistical quality (of 
outputs) 

SQ1  Coherence 

SQ2  Comparability 

SQ3  Accuracy 

SQ1.1  Differences in population bases used 

18 MS 

27 MS 

18 MS 

SQ1.2 

Consistency at national level between 
total population under DR Art. 4 and 
other annual population 

SQ1.3  Differences between aggregates 
across population tables 

SQ1.4 

Differences between census and 
annual population during census 
years 

17 MS 

27 MS 

22 MS 

72% 

100% 

100% 

N/A 

100% 

82% 

SQ1.5  Differences between demographic 

changes and evolution of stocks 

44% 

100% 

43% 

SQ2.1 

Differences at national level between 
total population under DR Article 4 
and other annual population across 
MS 

SQ2.2 

Differences between voluntary 
bilateral migration flows (country 
level asymmetries) 

SQ2.3 

Differences between mandatory EU 
internal migration flows (EU-level 
asymmetry) 

SQ3.1 

Relative/absolute uncertainty 
(confidence interval) of outputs, as 
available in metadata 

N/A 

0% 

<1.6% 

25% 

100% 

25% 

13.8% 

0% 

3.7% 

0 MS 

27 MS 

0 MS 

SQ3.2  Number/share of suppressed cells in 

mandatory statistical outputs 

N/A 

0 MS 

9 MS 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

94 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SQ3.3 

Coverage errors in statistical outputs, 
estimated share of target population 
if available 

0 MS 

27 MS 

≤ 8 MS 

SQ3.4  Revisions of published statistics 

N/A 

<1% 

1.4% 

X 

SQ4.1 

Development of time lag between 
reference date and European statistics 
published (EU complete and by MS) 

SQ4.2 

Timeliness of EU annual data 
compared to national and 
international practices for annual data 

552 days 

<552 days 

397 days 

552 days 

<552 days 

397 days 

SQ4 

Timeliness 

SQ5 

Punctuality 

SQ5.1 

SQ6 

Relevance 

SQ6.1 

SQ6.2 

Development of time lag between 
agreed/legal deadline and European 
statistics published (EU complete and 
by MS) 

Completeness of mandatory statistics 
published 

Completeness of voluntary statistics 
published 

294 days 

0 days 

31 days 

42.6% 

100% 

98.9% 

41.2% 

100% 

58.4% 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

95