COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 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) 11 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  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) 12 final} - {SWD(2023) 13 final} - {SWD(2023) 14 final} - {SWD(2023) 15 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 5 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................. 11 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 24 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 26 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 29 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 37 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 50 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 53 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 58 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 64 

ANNEX 2: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 71 

ANNEX 3: ANALYTICAL METHODS ................................................................................................... 124 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

B2G 

BRG 

Census 

Business-to-government 

European Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines 

Decennial population and housing census data collection 

Census Hub 

Web tool for central access to European census outputs 

Census Regulation 

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

CES 

CFR 

Conference of European Statisticians 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 

DEGURBA 

Degree of urbanisation 

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

DSS 

EEA 

EFTA 

EP 

ESA 

ESOP 

ESS 

ESSC 

EU 

EUDPR 

Eurobase 

Eurostat 

EU-LFS 

EU-SILC 

statistics 

Directors of Social Statistics (Eurostat expert group) 

European Economic Area 

European Free Trade Association 

European Parliament 

European System of Accounts 

European statistics on population 

European Statistical System 

European Statistical System Committee 

European Union 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 on the protection of natural persons 
with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  Union 
institutions,  bodies,  offices  and  agencies  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data (EU Data Protection Regulation) 

Public database of European statistics disseminated by Eurostat 

Statistical office of the European Union, Directorate-General of 
the European Commission 

European Union labour force survey 

European Union statistics on income and living conditions 

3 

 
 
FTE 

FUA 

GDP 

GDPR 

ISG 

LAU 

LGBTIQ+ 

Full-time equivalent 

Functional urban area 

Gross domestic product 

Regulation  (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural  persons 
with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) 

Interservice group of the European Commission 

Local administrative unit 

Lesbian,  gay,  bisexual,  transgender,  intersex,  queer  and  other 
minority gender identities and sexual orientations 

MCDA 

Multi-criteria decision analysis 

Migration Regulation 

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

MS 

NSI 

NUTS 

OI-OO 

OPC 

PHD 

REFIT 

TEU 

TFEU 

UN 

UNECE 

UNSD 

Member State(s) of the European Union 

National statistical institute 

Classification of territorial units for statistics 

‘One  in,  one  out’  approach  to  minimise  new  net  burden  for 
citizens and businesses 

Open public consultation 

Private holders of data 

Regulatory fitness and performance programme of the European 
Commission 

Treaty on European Union 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

United Nations Statistics Division 

Usual residence 

Statistical concept to establish the population base, i.e. the set of 
persons  (the  ‘usually  resident  population’)  that  should  be 
included in population statistics for a given geographic area 

4 

 
 
 
1.  1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Eurostat and the European Statistical System 

Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union (EU), ensures the production of high-quality, 
comparable European statistics1 under Regulation (EC) No 223/20092 (the ‘Statistical law’) and the 
statistical  principles,  notably  those  laid  down  in  the  European  statistics  Code  of  Practice3.  These 
rules and principles aim to ensure, among other things, the independence, impartiality, objectivity 
and reliability of European statistics, and through those objectives public trust in the statistics. The 
main uses of European statistics are to serve EU policy design and implementation and monitoring, 
and their main users are EU institutions. 

The  European  Statistical  System  (ESS)  is  the  partnership  between  Eurostat  and  the  national 
statistical  institutes  (NSIs),  as  well  as  other  national  authorities  responsible  for  developing, 
producing and publishing European statistics in each Member State. This partnership also includes 
the European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries, i.e. 
Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Norway  and  Switzerland.  The  ESS  functions  as  a  network  in  which 
Eurostat’s  role  is  to  lead  the  way  in  the  harmonisation  of  statistics  in  close  cooperation  with 
national  statistical  authorities,  which  collect  data  and  compile  statistics  for  national  and  EU 
purposes.  To  fulfil  this  role,  Eurostat  issues  statistical  regulations  and  methodological  guides, 
organises expert groups, and assesses the quality of statistics and Member States’ legal compliance. 
In line with the EU’s principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, each ESS member develops a 
statistical system suitable to their individual institutional context, while still following the common 
rules. The ESS also coordinates its work with candidate countries, other Commission departments 
at EU level, and international organisations, such as the United Nations Economic Commission for 
Europe (UNECE) and other United Nations (UN) bodies. 

Eurostat’s  activities  are  further  influenced  by  overarching  policies  such  as  the  EU’s  Better 
Regulation agenda4, which promotes open and transparent EU decision-making and evidence-based 
decisions,  and  European  Commission  President  Ursula  von  der  Leyen’s  six  political  priorities, 
among  them  ‘An  economy  that  works  for  people’,  ‘Promoting  our  European  way  of  life’  and  ‘A 
new  push  for  European  democracy’5.  Implementing,  monitoring  and  assessing  these  priorities 
requires impartial and objective data – that is, official statistics. 

Policies for the EU’s population and citizens 

Under  Article 9  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU),  every  national  of  a  Member  State,  in 
addition to the national citizenship, is also a citizen of the EU. To define and implement policies 
and  activities  benefiting  the  EU  population  and  citizens  in  the  areas  of  the  EU’s  powers,  as  laid 

1 Statistics in the ESS context are defined according to Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 (see footnote 2) as 
‘quantitative and qualitative, aggregated and representative information characterising a collective phenomenon in a 
considered population.’ 

2 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 (OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 164). 
3  European  statistics  Code  of  Practice,  revised  version  endorsed  by  the  European  Statistical  System  Committee  on 

16 November 2017 (KS-02-18-142). 

4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how_en  
5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024_en 

5 

 
                                                 
Figure 1 – Scope of European statistics on population 

down  in  Articles 2  and 3  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU),  EU 
institutions  need  timely,  reliable,  detailed,  harmonised  and  comparable  European  statistics.  To 
observe the principle of non-discrimination in all its activities and the individual citizens’ rights as 
enshrined  in  Articles 10  and 19  of  the  TFEU  and  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union  (CFR),  EU  institutions  need  a  reliable  and  comparable  count  of  the  whole 
population  of  the  EU.  Moreover,  the  Commission  is  required  to  monitor  and  report  on  the  EU 
demographic  situation  in  line  with  Article 159  of  the  TFEU.  EU  institutions  must  also  have 
accurate  and  comparable  population  figures  at  their  disposal  for  administrative  and  procedural 
purposes, e.g. qualified majority voting in the Council. 

The  Treaties  oblige  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  adopt  measures  for  producing 
official  statistics where  necessary for EU policies (Article 338  of the  TFEU). Over the past  three 
decades,  many  EU  policy  areas  have  seen  strongly  increasing  and  evolving  needs  for  complete, 
coherent,  comparable,  reliable  and  regular  European  statistics  on  population,  demography  and 
international  migration6  to  support  evidence-based  policymaking.  For  instance,  long-standing 
policy  needs  that  already  led  to  the  current  legislation  concerned  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion,  migration  (including  labour  market  integration  and  wider  developments)  or  challenges 
related to ageing. Policy needs that have emerged more recently concern more detailed geographic 
patterns, including on migration, EU and regional mobility, urban/rural integration at local levels, 
monitoring the European Green Deal, and equality and non-discrimination. 

European statistics on population 

Population and demographic statistics are among the most popular data Eurostat produces, and they 
are  important  for  almost  every  area  of  policy.  For  instance,  EU  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion policies, labour market and integration policies, equality policies and the EU’s long-term 
economic and budgetary projections have been relying on these statistics over the past two decades. 
However, these statistics also provide essential input for public research and informing the society 
at large. Finally, population statistics are very relevant to the general public because they describe 
facts and events that concern each individual. 

6  ‘Migration’  refers  to  the  general  demographic  concept  of  people  moving  to  live  in  a  different  country.  It  excludes 
specific administrative actions related to the entry and stay of non-EU nationals, such as asylum applications, granting 
refugee status, border controls and issuing residence permits. Statistics on these areas are specified under Articles 4 to 7 
of Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 and have been recently updated. 

6 

 
                                                 
 
 
As  part  of  this  initiative  and  as  illustrated  in  Figure  1,  European  statistics  on  population  (ESOP) 
cover official European statistics on population, demographic events and migration, statistics from 
the population and housing censuses, and the various indicators based on these statistics. Eurostat 
has published statistics in these areas since 1960, when the first survey on the size and structure of 
the active population in Member States at that time was introduced. Since then, population statistics 
have  been  produced  mainly  by  taking  results  from  a  direct  enumeration  of  the  population  during 
population censuses and interpolating intermediate periods with information on population changes 
from  civil  registration  administrative  systems  (on  births,  deaths  and  migration).  This  means  the 
burden of production has always been mostly on statistical authorities, except for the censuses that 
interviewed  nearly  the  entire  resident  population,  typically  at  decennial  intervals.  The  ongoing 
move from traditional field censuses to combined or even fully register-based modes minimises the 
burden of production for the general public and moves it onto the statistical authorities. 

Until  2007,  Member  States  transmitted  all  related  data  on  a  voluntary  basis,  which  resulted  in 
inconsistencies and lack of completeness or timeliness (see evaluation of the current legislation)7. 
Therefore,  after  a  previous  intervention  these  statistics  are  now  based  on  legislation  adopted 
between  2007  and  2013.  First,  Regulation  (EC)  No 862/20078  (Migration  Regulation)  set  out 
requirements  on migration statistics in  line with the  action plan for the  collection and analysis of 
Community  statistics  in  the  field  of  migration9.  It  includes  statistics  on:  (i)  immigration  to  and 
emigration from Member States, including from the territory of one Member State to that of another 
Member  State  and  between  a  Member  State  and  the  territory  of  a  non-EU  country;  (ii)  the 
citizenship and country  of birth of persons usually resident in the territory of the Member States; 
and (iii) statistics on citizenship acquisitions. Regulation (EC) No 763/200810 (Census Regulation) 
then set out common rules for providing comprehensive census data on population and housing in 
the EU every 10 years. This ensured compilation of detailed data on specific demographic, social 
and  economic  characteristics  of  persons,  families  and  households,  as  well  as  on  housing  at  a 
national,  regional  and  local  level.  Finally,  Regulation  (EU)  No 1260/201311  (Demography 
Regulation) laid down common rules for European demographic data, including data requirements 
on  population  stocks  and  vital  events  such  as  births  and  deaths.  This  Regulation  also  obliged 
Member  States  to  provide  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  with  harmonised  data  on  the  total  national 
population to be used as weights for the qualified majority voting in the Council. 

All  three  regulations  specified  definitions,  data  variables  and  periodicity  of  statistics.  Data 
breakdowns  (e.g.  demographic  or  geographical)  and  detailed  tabulations  were  defined  mostly  in 
implementing  acts.  Eurostat  currently  collects  data  from  Member  States  according  to  data 
requirements specified in these statistical regulations. Where the legislation does not cover the EU’s 
needs  for  statistics,  Eurostat  seeks  the  agreement  of  Member  States  to  initiate  voluntary  data 
collections.  For  instance,  statistics  on  marriages,  divorces,  legally  induced  abortions,  infant 
mortality and loss of citizenship are currently entirely voluntary. Various breakdowns of live births 
and deaths (e.g. marital  and activity status, educational attainment) and of international migration 

7 SWD(2023) 13. 
8 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 (OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 23). 
9 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament  to present an Action Plan for the 
collection and analysis of Community Statistics in the field of migration, COM(2003) 179. 
10  Regulation  (EC)  No  763/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  July  2008  on  population  and 
housing censuses (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 14). 
11 Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on European 
demographic statistics (OJ L 330, 10.12.2013, p. 39). 

7 

 
                                                 
are voluntary as well. To produce regional population projections that are important for the regional 
and  cohesion  policies  and  the  European  Semester,  Eurostat  collects  voluntary  data  on  regional 
international migration and interregional migration in the EU. 

In 2020, to respond to data needs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Eurostat and Member 
States  set  up  the  voluntary  data  collection  on  weekly  deaths  that  also  enables  the  publication  of 
statistics  on  excess  mortality.  The  evaluation  has  shown  that  regular  use  of  voluntary  data 
collections to address important user needs is not sustainable because timeliness and completeness 
of statistics at EU level cannot be guaranteed as needed. Many Member States compile and publish 
more extensive  national  population  statistics  than currently collected  at  EU level.  However, there 
are differences in national practices and data availability. 

European statistics on population – the backbone of social statistics 

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. 
Such  a  population  framework  with  very  good  coverage  and  location  information  is  indispensable 
for  more  detailed  annual  population  estimates,  data  collections  based  on  samples,  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  EU  long-term 
economic  and  budgetary  projections  specifically  and  EU  economic,  social  and  cohesion  policies 
more broadly. 

In 2014, to comply with emerging statistical needs, the Commission (Eurostat) began the process of 
modernising  social  statistics.  This  led  to  adopting  a  common  legal  framework  for  European 
statistics  on  persons  and  households,  based  on  data  at  individual  level  collected  from  samples  of 
persons and households12 in 2019. This framework is fundamental for laying a coherent foundation 
at  European  level  for  data  collections  on  samples.  This  initiative  on  European  statistics  on 
population  is  the second core element  of this modernisation process. Early  high-level  support  for 
the  initiative  in  the  ESS  was  expressed  in  the  2017  Budapest  Memorandum13,  which  endorses 
action on a flexible response to changing needs, further harmonisation of concepts and definitions, 
and expanding annual data collection, including on migration and geographic detail. 

European statistics on population and the global data and governance environment 

At  a  global  level,  there  is  action  to  coordinate  and  harmonise  population  and  housing  censuses 
through the World Population and Housing Census Programme, which is developed and updated on 
a  10-yearly  basis  under  the  coordination  of  the  United  Nations  Statistics  Division  (UNSD).  The 
current  2020  decennial  programme  encourages  all  countries  to  hold  at  least  one  census  between 
2015 and 2024 and take into account international and regional recommendations  on data quality, 
methods,  concepts  and  definitions.  The  programme  is  supported  by  a  set  of  principles  and 
recommendations  for  population  and  housing  censuses14  that  provides  extensive  guidance  to 
countries on the design and implementation of the census. Regional and topical guidelines on the 
census  and  different  methodological  and  implementation  issues  are  produced,  such  as  the 

12  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). 
13 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/13019146/13237859/FINAL+Budapest+memorandum.pdf/96a6db89-1395-
44a5-8a46-85e8c49d576c 
14 UN (2017) Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 3. 

8 

 
                                                 
Conference  of  European  Statisticians’  (CES)  recommendations  for  censuses  of  population  and 
housing15. These CES recommendations are compatible with the world census programme but are 
focused on the specific circumstances and needs of countries in Europe. Looking ahead to the next 
2030 worldwide census round, the foundations of which are currently being prepared, international 
recommendations are shifting further towards more efficient and versatile production systems, for 
instance  with  the  2018  UNECE  guidelines  on  the  use  of  registers  and  administrative  data  for 
population and housing censuses16 and with the UN Handbook on Registers-Based Population and 
Housing Censuses17 (draft in progress). These developments also address lessons learned from the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  which  showed  that  modern  official  statistics  systems  are  needed  that 
minimise  dependencies  on  responses  from  individual  contacts  while  becoming  more  efficient  to 
react to ad hoc public needs. 

Demography  and  migration  statistics  are  other  areas  for  which  there  is  fruitful  international 
statistical  cooperation.  The  UNSD  issues  guidelines  on  demography,  vital  events  and  migration 
statistics18,  and  collects  data  leading  to  the  publication  of  the  annual  Demographic  Yearbook19. 
Eurostat  has  integrated  the  UNSD  data  request  in  its  data  collection,  thus  helping  43  European 
countries  to  avoid  transmitting  the  same  data  twice  to  international  organisations.  In  the  area  of 
migration  statistics,  Eurostat  also  has  a  close  partnership  with  the  International  Organisation  for 
Migration, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF on methodological, 
promotional and technical assistance matters20. 

Furthermore,  official  statistics  are  being  developed  and  produced  in  the  context  of  a  public  data 
environment  that  is  currently  evolving  rapidly,  given  the  ongoing  digitalisation  of  all  sectors  of 
public life. More and more often over the past two decades, statistical office complement traditional 
methodological  approaches  with  opportunities  offered  by  Big  Data  to  increase  topical  relevance, 
timeliness  of  data  and  efficiency.  This  initially  started  with  the  increasing  use  of  administrative 
register  information  that  is  becoming  richer  and  more  accurate  –  a  transformation  that  is  still 
ongoing and not  equally achieved in all Member States. In addition, more and more new sources 
are becoming available (e.g. satellite, social network and mobile operator data), including sources 
held  in  the  private  sector.  A  modern  governance  framework  including  official  statistics  should 
embrace all these developments. For instance, the recently adopted Commission proposal for a Data 
Act21  provides  enablers  for  business-to-government  (B2G)  data  sharing  under  certain  conditions, 
including for official statistics. This new opportunity would  increase the potential benefits from a 
modern data environment and incentivise further modernisation of population statistics22. 

Current issues with European statistics on population 

As  recognised  by  the  evaluation,  statistical  data  on  the  European  population  –  including 
demographic  and  migration  events,  information  on  families,  and  households  and  housing 

15 https://unece.org/statistics/publications/conference-european-statisticians-recommendations-2020-censuses-
population 
16 https://unece.org/guidelines-use-registers-and-administrative-data-population-and-housing-censuses-0 
17 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/53rd-session/documents/BG-3e-Handbook-E.pdf 
18 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/standards-and-methods/ 
19 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/ 
20  e.g.  in  the  framework  of  the  Expert  Group  on  Refugee  and  Internally  Displaced  Persons  Statistics  and  the 
International Data Alliance for Children on the Move. 
21 COM(2022) 68. 
22  C  Bosco  et  al.  (2022)  Data  Innovation  in  Demography,  Migration  and  Human  Mobility,  EUR 30907  EN, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-76-46702-1, doi:10.2760/958409, JRC127369. 

9 

 
                                                 
arrangements  –  are  vital  for  evidence-based  policymaking.  In  the  European  context,  high-quality 
statistics across Member States are essential to support many policy areas and initiatives across the 
EU. Apart from the long-standing use cases mentioned above, four of the six Commission priorities 
for  2019-2024  (footnote 5)  have  expressed  clear  needs  for  specific  relevant  European  population 
statistics as data evidence for policy, namely ‘A European Green Deal’ (renovated, energy-efficient 
buildings), ‘Promoting our European way of life’ (fundamental rights), ‘A new push for European 
democracy’ (long-term vision for rural areas, rights of persons with disabilities) and ‘An economy 
that works for people’ (‘Union of equality’). Moreover, the final proposals of the Conference on the 
Future of Europe23 have noted a need for further EU-level efforts to collect such data. 

Appropriate  data  evidence  for  EU  policies  should  be  complete,  coherent  and  comparable  at  EU 
level as well as timely and frequent  enough to support policymaking effectively.  A long-standing 
practical  example is cohesion funding, which is allocated on the basis of regional population size 
and demographic patterns. If the underlying statistics are not comparable across all EU regions, this 
can  distort  the  allocation  of  funding.  Therefore,  it  is  important  that  the  data  collected  across 
Member  States  are  coordinated  and  consistent  to  have  relevant  and  comparable  data  to  support 
policy initiatives and comply with the EU’s aims and objectives. This includes ensuring consistent 
statistical  definitions  and  data  collection  methods, 
timeliness, 
completeness and required detail of statistical publications at EU level. 

the  periodicity, 

including 

In terms of periodicity and timeliness as set out in the current legislation, Eurostat’s demographic 
and international migration data collections are mostly annual and available in full detail 12 months 
after the reference year. This was insufficient in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, 
when timelier data were needed. Eurostat currently has no data available to answer user questions 
about  EU  citizens  returning  to  their  home  countries  as  a  result  of  Brexit  or  COVID-19  until  the 
annual data become available. In addition, a very recent ad hoc collection of statistics on Ukrainian 
residents in the EU directly before Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine showed that a majority 
of, but by far not all, Member States could respond with the necessary details on time. Furthermore, 
EU-level statistics on population and housing censuses are made available only 27 months after the 
reference  year.  This  delay  is  considered  to  be  too  long  by  key  policy  users,  even  while  they 
acknowledge the complexity of the process in some Member States. There are time lags between 
the releases of national census results and EU census outputs as well as across Member States. 

While  measures  were  taken  to  align  concepts  and  definitions  in  the  current  legal  framework,  the 
population  base  is  defined  in  each  regulation  with  some  statistically  important  differences  in  the 
formulation. Moreover, most of the legal definitions currently in place offer default exceptions for 
Member States to resort to national population definitions where the harmonised concept of usual 
residence based on 12 months’ presence is difficult to determine. 

The  evaluation  has  shown  that  this  lack  of  harmonisation  reduces  the  relevance,  coherence, 
consistency  and  comparability  of  statistics  across  Member  States,  with  negative  impacts  for 
decision-making based on them. There is therefore the need for a new legal basis that can provide a 
long-term  framework  for  necessary  developments  towards  further  convergence  of  population 
statistics.  This  should  include  real  progress  on  harmonisation  and  sufficient  flexibility  to  adapt 
better  to  evolving  policy  needs  and  to  make  the  most  of  opportunities  emerging  with  new  data 
sources.  Since  there  are  also  potential  opportunities  for  administrative  simplification  and  process 

23 ‘Future of Europe: Conference Plenary agrees final set of proposals’ (press release IP/22/2763); see measure 15.10. 

10 

 
                                                 
integration  compared  to  the  status  quo  under  three  non-aligned  legal  bases,  this  initiative  is 
included in the 2022 Commission work programme as a REFIT initiative. 

2.  2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

2.1. 

What are the problems? 

The evaluation  identified issues structured around the following four main problems.  The current 
legal framework: 

  does not ensure sufficiently complete, coherent, and comparable statistics, which may lead 

to suboptimal decision-making (Problem 1); 

  does  not  ensure  sufficient  availability  of  population  data  in  terms  of  frequency  and 

 

 

deadlines for data transmission (Problem 2); 
fails  to  capture  characteristics  and  details  of  politically  relevant  topics  or  groups,  e.g.  the 
data  provided  to  users,  and  the  way  it  is  presented,  is  not  detailed  enough  in  terms  of 
statistical topics, characteristics, and breakdowns for the population in general and relevant 
specific groups of interest (Problem 3); 
is  not  flexible  enough  to  adapt  to  evolving  policy  needs  and  to  enable  using  data  from 
administrative and other new sources in Member States and at EU level (Problem 4). 

The next section explains these problems in turn and how significant they are in terms of scale and 
impact.  It  also  examines  the  main  drivers  leading  to  the  problems  and  reflects  on  how  these 
problems are likely to evolve in the absence of targeted action. 

2.2. 

2.2. 

What are the problem drivers? 

2.2.1.  2.2.1. 

Problem 1: The current legal framework does not ensure sufficiently 
complete,  coherent,  and  comparable  statistics,  which  may  lead  to  suboptimal 
decision-making 

The most significant quality gap identified by the evaluation in the current legal framework is the 
lack  of  harmonisation  of  the  population  base.  More  precisely,  three  conceptually  different 
definitions  for  resident  population  are  currently  allowed  in  varying  formulations  across  the  three 
base  acts:  either  strict  usual  residence  based  on  12 months’  presence,  or  in  default  registered 
residence, or legal residence where strict usual residence cannot be determined. The default options 
were originally introduced in the legislation to accommodate specific constraints of a small number 
of Member States. However, as more and more countries are relying on administrative data sources, 
such  non-harmonised  default  definitions  are  becoming  an  increasingly  common  practice  across 
Member  States,  sometimes  even  using  different  definitions  for  different  datasets.  Figure  2 
illustrates  this  fragmented  landscape  across  the  ESS.  Moreover,  the  legislation  is  not  detailed 
enough to set out exhaustively what is included in (and excluded from) the population. 

An entailed gradual loss of relevance had already  been accepted when the current legislation was 
adopted,  since  many  policy  and  democratic  representation  considerations,  notably  at  EU  level, 
require  a  population  base  definition  (who  is  counted  among  the  population  and  who  is  not)  that 
reflects  the  actual  population  present.  The  compromises  detailed  above  have  generally  led  to  a 

11 

 
 
Figure 2 – Population base definitions currently in use across ESS members, according to responses to the NSI survey. (Source: 
ICF analysis of NSI survey Q4.2.1) 

barely  sufficient  situation  in  this  respect.  The  Demography  Regulation  only  requires  national 
population  figures  based  on  strict  usual  residence  for  Council  voting  weights.  However,  these 
figures must be of the highest possible quality24 but the factual accuracy or comparability achieved 
is currently not quantified, and the evaluation indicates that the strict definition for this purpose is 
not  implemented  consistently  in  all  Member  States.  (This  touches  on  another  issue  of  reduced 
completeness,  namely  insufficient  metadata  being  published  along  with  the  statistics,  which  was 
also raised by users during consultation surveys and interviews). 

The harmonisation gap also entails a situation where the vast body of demographic and migration 
statistics  cannot  reach  its  potential  in  terms  of  comparability  between  Member  States  and 
consistency  between  datasets  due  to  differences  in  the  definitions  applied.  For  instance,  different 
population  bases  are  often  used  for  population  stocks  and  migration  flows,  which  leads  to 
inconsistencies  between  stock  differences  and  demographic  changes  (demographic  balance) 
between  reference  years.  During  the  current  legislation’s  implementation,  only  between  8  and  14 
ESS members have been reporting consistent demographic balances. Regarding comparability, the 
differences  between  total  populations  reported  for  Council  voting  weights  (strict  usual  residence 
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. From 2014 to 2020, relative differences over the years were on average smaller than 1% (for 
23 of 27 Member States), and the largest relative differences encountered for single Member States 
were below 5% for any reference year25. 

The  open  public  consultation26  (OPC)  has  revealed  a  complex  picture  around  this  harmonisation 
gap and its relation to coherence and comparability. When asked whether the current statistics are 
sufficiently  harmonised,  comparable  and/or  coherent  overall,  OPC  respondents  across  all  key 

24 A qualified majority under Article 16(4) of the 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, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Poland  Portugal  and  Spain  (15  MS)  would  represent  65.000032%  of  the  EU’s 
population based on 2021 data. 
25 This assessment only addresses national population totals. It is likely that comparability losses are  much bigger in 
certain  parts  of  the  population  that  are  hard  to  capture  and/or  where  the  coverage  is  very  sensitive  to  the  population 
base. 
26 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12958-European-statistics-on-population-
ESOP/public-consultation_en 

12 

 
                                                 
 
 
Figure 3 – NSI survey respondents’ views on the impact of maintaining different national population base definitions. (Source: ICF 
analysis of NSI survey Q3.3) 

stakeholder  groups  did  not  have  a  strong  tendency  to  either  agree  or  disagree27.  Across  all 
stakeholder groups, however, there is a lack of knowledge about the current harmonisation gap of 
the population base definition. Only among researchers, the majority  of respondents is aware, but 
for example in the institutional user group, just about half of the respondents know about this gap. 
Then, contrary to  generic opinions above, once respondents have been made aware of the current 
harmonisation gap, more than 50% across all stakeholder groups strongly agree that harmonisation 
would be important28. 

The survey of national statistical institutes (NSIs)29 and in-depth interviews highlighted that NSIs 
consider their national definitions to be adapted to the national context and that the benefits of the 
current use of national definitions centre around meeting current national requirements. Some NSIs 
asserted that this can lead to not entirely comparable statistics at EU level, which can be an issue 
for some data users with more advanced needs for comparable population statistics (those for whom 
precision  at  a  granular  level  is  required).  The  use  of  national  definitions  can  also  lead  to  double 
counting  when  people  move  between  Member  States,  which  may  result  in  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. 
Figure  3  illustrates  NSIs’  (i.e.  statistics  producers)  opinion  that  the  status  quo  means  accepting  a 
trade-off  between  certain  drawbacks  for  the  quality  and  use  of  the  data  at  EU  level  (considered 
mostly  minor  impacts)  and  advantages  in  terms  of  reduced  production  costs  of  these  statistics 
(considered mostly a major impact).  

The lack of rules on time series revision is another gap leading to patchy revision practices across 
Member  States  and  thus  to  reduced  comparability  over  time,  in  particular  for  Member  States 
relying on more traditional data collection approaches (as opposed to administrative source-based 
approaches).  This  is  the  case  for  instance  when  annual  data  is  computed  as  incremental  changes 
(vital and migratory events accumulating over time) since the last census year and thus suffer from 

27 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.4). 
28 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.5). 
29 Responses to NSI survey (Q4.2.2). 

13 

 
                                                 
 
 
100,0%

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0%

Mandatory

Voluntary

Figure 4 – EU level completeness of breakdowns over time: those that became mandatory under the current legislation and those 
that are still voluntary today. (Source: Eurostat analysis of Eurobase datasets) 

accuracy decreasing with the time gap after the last census. However, the current legal framework 
does not contain any rules on time series revisions of annual data. The 2011 EU census experience 
illustrates some consequences, where, on Eurostat’s initiative, 18 countries voluntarily revised parts 
of their annual time series with average correction magnitudes at total population level of around 
1.4% but up to 7.5% in individual cases30. However, two of these countries only revised back to the 
reference  year  of  2011  (Germany;  avg.  -1.87%)  or  2010  (Poland;  avg.  -0.81%).  This  meant  that 
breaks in their time series remained around the census year 2011, with the German case extending 
to a visible time series break of the entire EU population due to the population size of the country. 
Consequently, most OPC respondents across almost all key stakeholder groups give high priority to 
potential future improvements leading to better revision rules31. 

Finally, continuing large parts of the statistical outputs under voluntary collections leads to various 
gaps  in  quality  and  other  related  gaps  documented  in  the  evaluation.  In  particular,  a  key 
consequence is the lack of completeness of voluntary statistics across all Member States (Figure 4). 
This limits the utility for EU-level analysis or publication of EU aggregates, and thus reduces the 
EU added value significantly. A related issue is the reduced efficiency of this practice: the overall 
baseline  production  costs  across  Member  States  delivering  voluntary  statistics  fail  to  deliver 
significant  benefits  at  EU  level.  Even  if  more  Member  States  start  producing  a  given  voluntary 
dataset, the practice will not be cost effective as long as there are other Member States that continue 
not to produce this dataset. These findings are in line with the opinion of OPC respondents across 
all  stakeholder  groups  (except  statistics  producers)  that  potential  future  improvements  should 
include  measures  to  regulate  data  that  is  currently  voluntary32.  Current  completeness  and 
comparability gaps are seen as most critical in the datasets on international migration – from/to and 
within the EU. 

30 The limitation of footnote 25 applies here too. In particular, a 2014 Eurostat analysis showed that the size of revisions 
can  be  much  larger  in  certain  population  groups,  e.g.  only  in  the  basic  demographic  breakdowns  by  age  and  sex 
corrections up to +21% were found (for males aged 20-24 in Ireland). 
31 Responses to OPC survey (Q3.16). 
32 Responses to OPC survey (Q3.13, Q3.14). 

14 

 
                                                 
 
 
25

20

15

10

5

0

25

20

15

10

5

0

T+6 m T+9 m

T+30 d

T+45 d

T+60 d

T+75 d

T+90 d

Figure  5  –  Number  of  ESS  members  currently  publishing  national  data  with  annual  frequency  (left)  and  with  infra-annual 
frequency (right), by statistical topic and by timeliness. Source: Eurostat analysis of information from NSI national websites (state 
as of 08/2021). 

2.2.2.  2.2.2. 

Problem  2:  The  current  legal  framework  does  not  ensure  sufficient 
availability  of  population  data  in  terms  of  frequency  and  deadlines  for  data 
transmissions 

Currently,  mandatory  demographic  and  international  migration  statistics  are  published  with  an 
annual frequency and a default deadline of 12 months after the reference period (timeliness) for the 
full details. These annual data are complemented by detailed decennial EU outputs from population 
and housing censuses that are published based on national schedules within a deadline of 27 months 
from the end of the census year (e.g. by March 2024 for 2021 EU census outputs)33. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  has  revealed  that  the  current  frequency  and  timeliness  of  the 
publication of statistics remains below user expectations. There were no strong opinions from OPC 
respondents across all stakeholder groups (and only a minority of respondents among institutional 
users found that the current statistics were generally not timely enough). However, population and 
housing  census  outputs  were  mentioned  most  often  as  most  critically  affected  by  insufficient 
frequency  and  especially  timeliness34.  The  targeted  consultation  of  Commission  departments 
(representing  EU-level  institutional  users)  also  indicated  critical  gaps.  In  particular,  regarding 
frequency, various EU policy areas (e.g. rural integration, seasonal movements between rural and 
urban  territories  including  workers)  have  been  identified  as  requiring  at  least  quarterly  data  on 
population  stocks  and  demographics,  including  migratory  events.  Moreover,  monitoring  the 
European Green Deal requires housing data more frequently than every 10 years, including data on 
energy characteristics of housing35. 

Similarly,  responding  effectively  to  disruptive  events  or  crises  –  requiring  effective  measures  for 
quick  and  very  frequent  (e.g.  monthly  or  weekly)  ad  hoc  data  collections  –  has  become  more 

33 Whereas 15 Member States already publish national population and migration estimates monthly or quarterly, and a 
majority of Member States publish national census results much faster than within the 27 months at EU level. 
34 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.4). 
35 Responses to the targeted consultation of statistical correspondents of Commission services. 

15 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
Groups at risk of inequality or discrimination

3

7

7

Regional and urban/rural mobility

5

8

19

13

19

12

6

Population of rural areas

Population of urban areas

10

10

11

13

13

16

Acquisitions and losses of citizenship

3

EU mobility

Housing and homelessness

7

8

Household size

Fertility rates

Population age

Life expectancy

Population size and structure

10

12

3

15

17

28

20

21

11

12

13

10

17

20

23

13

15

20

12

8

10

2

2

1

14

6

8

8

1

4

0

6

0

5

1

9

7

5

6

10

2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very sufficient

Somewhat sufficient

Neutral

Somewhat insufficient

Very insufficient

Figure 6 – Views of OPC respondents from all professional user groups (institutional, researchers and other) on the sufficiency of 
current  data,  by demographic  or  societal  change  topic and  excluding  answers  ‘don’t  know’. Source:  Eurostat  analysis  of  OPC 
responses to Q2.3 

important  during  the  past  decade.  For  instance,  Eurostat  has  not  been  able  to  sufficiently  answer 
user questions on EU citizens returning to their home countries following Brexit or the onset of the 
COVID-19 pandemic until the standard annual data became available,  and provided that Member 
States  sent  voluntary  breakdowns.  An  ad  hoc  data  collection  on  weekly  deaths  was  initiated  to 
address COVID-19 information needs, but OPC responses indicate that generally such (voluntary – 
see  Section 2.2.1)  ad  hoc  measures  may  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  such  highly  dynamic  crisis 
response needs36. These issues are also linked to the lack of flexibility in the legal framework (see 
Section 2.2.4). 

Finally,  from  the  statistics  producers’  perspective,  the  frequency  with  which  NSIs  publish 
population statistics nationally varies significantly37. However, Figure 5 shows that many of them 
already  publish  some  statistics  topics  at  national  level  more  frequently  and/or  more  quickly  than 
Eurostat  does  at  EU  level.  For  instance,  22  ESS  members  publish  national  population  stock  data 
within 6 months of the reference date, which is 6 months earlier than the 12-months legal deadline, 
and at least 17 ESS members manage to do so for data on vital events and on migration as well. The 
use of administrative data sources in particular makes more frequent/timely publication less costly 
and more efficient.  In a poll carried out during a consultation workshop with  directors of  NSIs38, 
64% of respondents indicated improved timeliness as the biggest priority for a future EU initiative. 
However, increasing the  EU-level  frequency and timeliness of data collections would  likely have 
varying  impacts  across  Member  States,  including  increased  administrative  burden  (and  costs)  on 
some NSIs, with production processes relying less on administrative sources. Nevertheless, there is 
a  similar  overall  cost-effectiveness  argument  at  EU  level  as  regards  completeness  (see 
Section 2.2.1)  –  understanding  that  the  status  quo  gets  less  efficient  the  more  Member  States  use 
baseline resources to attain a certain national standard without reaping the EU added value.  

36 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.6). 
37 Responses to NSI survey (Q2.16). 
38 DSS workshop ‘What users want and what modernised population statistics can deliver (inception results)’, virtual 
Teams meeting with 50 registered NSI participants, 23 September 2021. 

16 

 
                                                 
 
 
2.2.3.  2.2.3. 

fails 
characteristics and details of politically relevant groups or topics 

Problem  3:  The  current 

framework 

legal 

to  capture 

The  evaluation  has  identified  various  gaps  in  detail  that  have  led  to  a  significantly  reduced 
relevance  of  the  current  legal  framework  over  time  from  a  policy  perspective.  In  addition,  a 
majority  of  OPC  respondents  from  professional  user  groups  were  of  the  opinion  that,  generally 
speaking,  the  statistics  do  not  provide  enough  detail39.  The  most  crucial  gaps  identified  revolve 
around  characteristics  of  politically  relevant  topics  and  groups  (migrants,  migration  and  mobility 
within  the  EU;  urban/rural  population;  vulnerable  groups  for  equality,  non-discrimination  and 
fundamental rights policies; energy efficiency of housing for the European Green Deal), as well as 
around  an  insufficient  geographic  detail  of  the  statistics  (especially  functional  typologies  and 
georeferenced data for urban/rural mobility and cross-border analysis). These gaps were confirmed 
by  the  targeted  consultation  with  Commission  departments,  as  well  as  by  a  majority  of  OPC 
respondents  across  almost  all  key  stakeholder  groups  –  for  instance  professional  users’  views 
shown in Figure 6. Each topic will now be addressed briefly in turn. 

Migration and mobility to, from and within the EU 

The relevant concept of migration  used in  ESOP-related statistics is any  change of residence at  a 
given geographic level of detail, where the concept used for ‘residence’ links migration directly to 
the population base, or any  change thereof, at the same geographic level40. Therefore, changes of 
residence at any geographic level across the EU are in principle considered migration flows within 
the scope of ESOP. This includes international migration (between countries) both from/to the EU 
and within the EU, as well as internal migration (between regions or other geographic units inside 
the  same  country).  Moreover,  migrant  stocks  relate  to  population  subgroups  with  an  immigrant 
background (typically identified by a country of birth and/or citizenship different from the country 
of residence). 

Currently,  Eurostat  publishes  some  mandatory  data  on  international  migration  flows  and  migrant 
stocks under the Migration Regulation (flows and stocks by core demographic characteristics and 
broad  groups  of  countries  of  origin/destination),  complemented  by  a  variety  of  voluntary  data 
breakdowns of increasing policy relevance, including migration patterns at subnational level, more 
detailed  and  ideally  single-country  information  on  origin  or  destination,  and  socio-economic 
characteristics. However, as the evaluation has shown, most of these voluntary data are affected by 
a lack of EU completeness and comparability. Furthermore, there are no European statistics yet for 
other specific migratory movements (like short-term/seasonal movements or return migration) that 
receive increasing policy attention but are even harder to capture. 

Consequently,  OPC  responses  across  user-type  stakeholder  groups  indicate  an  insufficient  status 
quo;  for  instance,  EU  and  subnational  mobility  rank  among  the  most  insufficient  in  professional 
users’  views,  as  seen  in  Figure  6.  Moreover,  out  of  92  OPC  respondents  overall  that  noted  any 
inadequacies  in  the  current  data,  the  majority  identified  migration  within  the  EU  (66%)  directly 
followed  by  migration  from/to  the  EU  (62%)  as  high  priorities  to  improve  by  203041.  This  is 

39 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.4). 
40 It is this defining notion linking migration to a change of residence according to a given population base concept that 
separates the migration data within the scope of ESOP (Article 3 of the Migration Regulation) from the other statistics 
on administrative and judicial events related to international migration, legal and irregular migration under Articles 4 to 
7 of the Migration Regulation. 
41 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.4). 

17 

 
                                                 
16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Religious
affiliation

Ethnicity

Mother
tongue

Disability Non-binary

Race

gender

Other (not
specified)

Figure  7  –  Number  of  Member  States  publishing  equality  data  as  part  of  their  national  2021  census  outputs,  by  equality 
characteristics.  Source:  Eurostat  monitoring  survey  of  NSIs  on  2021  census  activities  (situation  as  of  September  2021,  sexual 
orientation not asked). 

substantiated  by  replies  to  the  targeted  consultation  of  Commission  departments,  where  various 
policy  areas  signalled  the  need  for  more  detailed  migration  data  –  including  flows  and  stocks  by 
socio-economic  characteristics  and  by  single  country  of  origin/destination  (flows)  or  of 
birth/citizenship (stocks) – to monitor the integration of immigrants in labour markets and society. 

Migration data also appears to be one of the datasets most requested by national data users, as 79% 
of  NSIs  have  indicated  migration  flows  within  the  EU  and  from/to  non-EU  countries  among  the 
most  commonly  requested  topics42.  At  the  consultation  workshop  with  NSIs  (footnote 38), 
migration within and from/to the EU was also ranked among the top priorities to be improved  by 
2030,  where  migration  within  the  EU  in  particular  poses  increased  challenges  due  to  freedom  of 
movement  entailing  reduced  availability  of  administrative  sources.  Moreover,  the  quality  of 
emigration data may be limited and may underestimate the true scale of the phenomenon as existing 
data  collection  processes  may  not  be  sufficiently  sensitive  to  disaggregate  emigration  by  detailed 
characteristics. 

Specific population groups 

The  term  ‘equality  data’  refers  to  data  on  population  subgroups  characterised  by  attributes  that 
make them more vulnerable to inequality or discrimination. Articles 10 and 19 of the TFEU list six 
grounds  for  discrimination  (variables)  that  are  relevant  for  EU  non-discrimination  policies:  sex, 
racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. To date, European 
equality statistics in the area of population statistics exist for the basic demographic characteristics, 
sex43  and  age44.  More  detailed  information  is  available  in  other  areas  of  European  statistics  on 

42 Responses to NSI survey (Q2.18). 
43  The  demographic  concept  of  ‘sex’  in  most  official  statistics  standards,  including  in  the  ESS,  links  to  the  (binary) 
biological  sex  assigned  at  birth.  However,  while  Articles 10  and 19  of  the  TFEU  literally  list  ‘sex’  from  an  equality 
perspective, this ground for discrimination is normally understood as also including self-identified gender identity. The 
latter is not addressed in any European statistics so far. 
44 The demographic concept of ‘age’ is generally already well-covered in current statistics, but sometimes a breakdown 
by 5-year age bands is used, which some stakeholders noted does not capture children and youth well (e.g. below/above 

18 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
disability, but notable gaps persist on race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender identity and sexual 
orientation.  Therefore,  the  targeted  consultation  of  Commission  departments  confirmed  that 
European equality data are greatly needed across all grounds for discrimination for EU policies on 
fundamental  rights  and  non-discrimination,  especially  in  the  context  of  the  ‘Union  of  equality’45. 
Moreover,  OPC  respondents  from  professional  user  groups  believe  that  equality  is  the  topic  with 
the most insufficient available data (see Figure 6; only 18% of the group that expressed an opinion 
finds the current data sufficient). Most recently, the final proposals of the Conference on the Future 
of Europe have also noted a need for further EU efforts to collect such data (footnote 23). 

At national level in the ESS, the coverage of equality data is patchy as well. For instance, according 
to  a  recent  Eurostat  survey  on  implementation  of  the  2021  census  round,  only  19  ESS  members 
published  any variables  on population  subgroups at  risk of inequality or  discrimination as part of 
their  national  2021  census  outputs46.  Figure  7  shows  the  number  of  ESS  members  publishing 
specific  equality  variables.  The  most  prevalent  reasons  for  not  providing  certain  equality  topics 
across Member States seem to be historical or cultural perceptions of such data as very sensitive or 
not  to  be  collected  by  public  authorities.  Moreover,  a  majority  of  NSI  respondents  saw 
implementation costs (10 Member States) and national census modes (9 Member States) as a huge 
barrier to  including self-declared  information in  their 2031  censuses47. National  legal barriers  are 
often  brought  up  as  an  argument  as  well,  but  recent  Commission  studies  have  found  that  such 
barriers do not factually exist in any Member State on race/ethnicity and gender48. 

National contexts aside, there are technical and feasibility challenges for the collection of such data. 
For  instance,  there  is  a  generally  accepted  principle  that  these  characteristics  should  be  self-
identified49,  which  would  require  primary  data  collection  (e.g.  based  on  surveys)  rather  than 
extraction  from  administrative  sources  (let  alone  the  fact  that  such  characteristics  are  often  not 
recorded  at  all  in  public  administration  registers).  Moreover,  the  quality  of  results  from  sample 
surveys  depends  on  an  accurate  sampling  of  the  target  population.  This  is  another  key  challenge 
because  the  best  sampling  frames  available  are  often  based  (again)  on  administrative  registers50. 
However,  these  registers  have  notorious  under-coverage  issues  with  certain  vulnerable  groups  – 
like  Roma  or  migrants  with  unclear  or  irregular  status  –  due  to  them  not  being  registered  in  the 
national systems. 

Housing data for the European Green Deal 

Only the censuses currently provide decennial outputs on housing arrangements and homelessness, 
including  data  on  housing  characteristics  such  as  the  type  of  facilities  and  heating  systems. 
However, the available variables have become less and less relevant to professional users, including 

18  years).  A  relatively  simple  improvement  for  the  future  would  thus  be  to  collect  age  by  single  years  wherever 
possible (as part of improved demographic details) and to define some dedicated age categories where necessary. 
45  Including  the  ‘1st  Commission  strategy  on  LGBTIQ  equality  in  the  EU’  (press  release  IP/20/2068),  the  ‘EU  Anti-
racism Action Plan 2020-2025’ (press release IP/20/1654), and the ‘Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
2021-2030’ (press release IP/21/810). 
46  Responses  to  the  2nd  Eurostat  monitoring  survey  with  NSIs  on  implementation  of  the  2021  census  round  (state 
September 2021). 
47 Responses to NSI survey (Q4.3.3). 
48  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. 
49 DG JUST (2016) European handbook on equality data, Section 2.2.4 on categorisation. 
50 ESSnet KOMUSO (2018) Quality Guidelines for Frames in Social Statistics. 

19 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
policy  users.  For  instance,  housing  is  the  second-lowest-rated  data  topic  (after  equality  data) 
according  to  professional  users  among  OPC  respondents  (see  Figure  6;  only  a  quarter  of  the 
respondents  that  expressed  an  opinion  finds  the  current  data  sufficient).  The  consultation  of 
Commission  departments  also  identified  a  need  for  more  frequent  and  timelier  housing  data, 
including appropriate variables to capture energy efficiency of housing and other aspects relevant to 
Green  Deal  monitoring.  Relevant  European  statistics  serving  these  needs  will  be  important  to 
measure whether the EU remains on the right track towards its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction 
goals over the next decades. 

During technical consultations with Commission informal expert groups, Eurostat collected several 
opinions  from  NSI  experts  indicating  that  housing  data  are  indeed  often  available  from 
administrative sources within the countries. In principle, this would lead to cost-efficient production 
of  more  frequent  and  more  relevant  housing  data,  at  least  in  some  Member  States.  The  Census 
Regulation  covers  the  need  for  data  supporting  ‘the  protection  of  the  environment  and  the 
promotion of energy efficiency’ in recital 2. However, its legal structure is not flexible enough to 
change  or  add  variables  in  response  to  such  needs  (see  problem 4).  Moreover,  the  intention  to 
address this under the present initiative has been subject to more critical opinions at higher levels of 
the ESS governance, where the main concern was rather whether these data should remain within 
the scope of ESOP, especially when buildings in general (beyond housing) are addressed. 

Geographic granularity 

Currently, mandatory annual statistics on demography and international migration are mostly only 
collected  at  national  level,  with  some  less  detailed  demographic  breakdowns  at  regional  level 
(NUTS 2, 3)51. More detailed regional breakdowns of annual statistics are currently only provided 
through  voluntary  data  collections,  with  the  typical  consequences  outlined  in  Section 2.2.1.  This 
annual  picture  is  complemented  by  mandatory  decennial  population  and  housing  census  outputs 
with  very  detailed  breakdowns,  including  at  local  administrative  unit  (LAU)  level  and  –  for  the 
2021 round – some key population indicators georeferenced to a pan-European 1 km square grid. 

The  evaluation  and  stakeholder  consultation  found  that  most  key  users  of  the  data  believe  the 
current situation is inadequate, due to a complete lack of subnational data on migration (stocks and 
flows). For instance, insufficient geographic detail was the second most frequent critical gap (after 
insufficient  detail  of  characteristics)  noted for any  statistical  topic by OPC respondents  across all 
stakeholder  groups52.  Consequently,  most  OPC  respondents  across  almost  all  stakeholder  groups 
(except  statistics  producers)  also  put  a  high  priority  for  a  future  initiative  on  adding  (mandatory) 
regional  detail  to  annual  demographic  and  migration  statistics,  and  on  providing  functional 
typologies  (DEGURBA,  cities,  FUAs)  and  1 km  square  grid  data  annually53.  This  is  in  line  with 
findings  from  the  targeted  consultation  of  Commission  departments  identifying  policy  needs  for 
more  annual  NUTS 3  data,  functional  typologies,  including  city  and  FUA  data)  and  prominently 
1 km square grid data54. 

The 1 km square grid data play key roles, both technically and in terms of policy. From a technical 
view, the total population at 1 km square grid level is needed to construct the functional typologies 

51 Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment 
of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ L 154, 21.6.2003, p. 1). 
52 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.4). 
53 Responses to OPC survey (Q3.3-6). 
54 Supporting e.g. monitoring and policies on regional cohesion, urban/rural integration, access to services. 

20 

 
                                                 
(DEGURBA,  cities,  FUAs),  which  Regulation  (EC)  No 1059/2003  defines  as  clusters  of  LAUs 
according to certain population density and movement patterns based on the grid. This means that 
even if Eurostat does not publish European grid data, NSIs need grid information at national level 
to determine and maintain the functional typologies. In terms of policy, only 1 km square (or more 
detailed) data allow accurate analysis on access to services (e.g. driving time to next hospital), local 
crisis management (e.g. locally contained natural disasters like flooding or wildfire) or cross-border 
patterns (e.g. functional urban areas clustering in a river basin, where the river happens to mark a 
national  border).  Finally,  the  baseline  includes  substantial  investment  across  the  ESS  to  create 
infrastructure for the first mandatory grid data collection from the 2021 EU census round55. 

Urban/rural integration 

Even  though  increased  availability  of  regional  data  at  NUTS 3  is  widely  acknowledged  by  users, 
the angle from  an urban/rural  dichotomy is  often underexposed. This  is  because NUTS 3 regions 
are  often  still  too  coarse  to  capture  urban/rural  patterns  according  to  functional  characteristics 
accurately (mostly related to local population density). Therefore, during the targeted consultation 
with Commission departments, policy needs were raised for cohesion and the integration of urban 
and rural areas, notably for the Commission’s long-term vision for rural areas56. These policy areas 
require  any  relevant  population  data  cross-tabulated  against 
the  degree  of  urbanisation 
(DEGURBA)  classification  defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  No 1059/2003  based  on  clusters  of  local 
administrative units (LAUs). In addition, population data on cities and their functional urban areas 
(FUA) are needed to shed further light on urban/rural patterns. 

While  European  statistics  cross-tabulated  against  DEGURBA  have  become  more  and  more 
prevalent  over  the  past  years,  no  statistics  published  under  the  current  legal  framework  have 
provided DEGURBA so far. Moreover, annual statistics on the population of cities and FUAs are 
currently  published  regularly  on  a  voluntary  basis  and  outside  the  ESOP  data  collections. 
Therefore,  these  data  suffer  from  a  lack  of  harmonisation  with  ESOP  data,  in  addition  to  the 
identified  drawbacks  of  voluntary  collections  (Section 2.2.1).  Consequently,  Figure  6  shows  that 
urban  (47%)  and  rural  (44%)  populations  also  rank  among  the  lowest  scoring  data  topics  among 
OPC respondents from professional user groups when asked about their agreement on whether the 
current data are sufficient. 

2.2.4.  2.2.4. 

Problem  4:  The  current  legal  framework  is  not  flexible  enough  to 
adapt  to  evolving  policy  needs  and  to  enable  using  data  from  administrative 
and other new sources in Member States and at EU level 

Currently, with regard to the output of the statistical production process, the legal framework sets 
out  a  fixed  set  of  statistical  units,  variables/breakdowns  and  cross-tabulations  to  be  produced 
regularly,  without  providing  for  specific  mechanisms  to  update  this  statistical  content  efficiently. 
The  evaluation  has  shown  that  this  current  static  framework  has  been  losing  relevance  rather 
quickly, starting during its implementation period and continuing to the present, due to a framework 
that is too rigid and lacking flexibility to adapt data collections to evolving needs. This is confirmed 
by the OPC, where a majority of respondents in all stakeholder groups (except statistics producers) 
agree  only  ‘somewhat’  that  the  legislation  is  fit  for  purpose.  The  Census  Regulation  represents  a 
minor  exception,  as  it  leaves  some  room  to  specify  statistical  needs  for  each  EU  census  round 
before the census year, thus maintaining a higher relevance of census outputs over time. However, 

55 Eurostat (2018) Selected Census 2021 topics on a European 1km2 grid – Cost-effectiveness analysis. 
56 COM(2021) 345. 

21 

 
                                                 
the  2021  round  has  shown  that  this  flexibility  was  not  sufficient  in  terms  of  introducing 
georeferenced/grid data, which necessitated an ad hoc legal act57 to ensure EU-level completeness, 
comparability and coherence. 

With  regard  to  input,  all  three  base  regulations  contain  enabling  provisions  allowing  reporting 
countries  to  choose  appropriate  sources  for  the  statistics,  with  the  Census  and  Migration 
Regulations mentioning administrative sources or registers explicitly. This is in line with a general 
principle  that  has  been  prevalent  in  the  ESS  of  ensuring  that  European  statistics  are  ‘output 
oriented’,  i.e.  minimising  legal  constraints  on  inputs  and  processing  of  the  statistical  production 
chain58.  Currently,  there  is  a  strong  ongoing  trend  towards  register-based  production  systems 
drawing from administrative sources. The evaluation has clearly shown that this leads to increased 
data availability at  significantly reduced production costs.  For example, according to  the baseline 
cost  assessment,  the  median  cost  of  a  traditional  census  across  EU-27  countries  was  roughly  20 
times the median cost of a register-based census both in the 2001 and the 2011 census rounds. The 
single most significant cost driver in this context for NSIs conducting traditional censuses is the full 
field enumeration of the entire population, which entails a complex organisation and coordination at 
national  level,  extensive  procedures,  and  repetitive  training  and  temporary  employment  of  large 
workforces  of  enumerators.  However,  NSIs  that  base  their  production  system  on  administrative 
information,  for  instance  from  administrative  population  registers,  can  usually  reduce  costs  and 
avoid such difficulties. Nevertheless, this creates new constraints, as the efficiency of such systems 
then  depends  on  the  information  already  available  from  such  sources.  If  other  information  is 
needed,  it  must  then  be  modelled  (a  typical  concern  being  quality)  or  collected  again  from  field 
surveys (which means costs scale up again quickly). 

The benefits of moving towards using more administrative and other sources are most pronounced 
in combination with a statistical population register as a central processing element of an integrated 
multisource statistical production system. According to the targeted NSI survey, 12 Member States 
(Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Slovakia, 
Spain, Sweden) already have a statistical population register and 8 more are planning one (Croatia, 
Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Portugal).  The  main  reasons  for  not  having 
one,  or  not  having  one  yet,  indicated  by  the  17  NSIs  concerned  are  the  current  national  legal 
framework (mentioned seven times) followed by historical reasons (six)59. A collaborative network 
of  ESS  experts  on  population  and  household  frames  for  social  statistics  also  acknowledged  the 
significant potential  added  value of  statistical  population  registers,  especially  when linked to  rich 
information from various sources60. 

However,  the  current  statistical  legislation  on  data  sources  does  not  allow  statistics  producers  to 
easily  access  appropriate sources held by other owners, including administrative sources. General 
access  enabling  legislation  exists  in  Article 17a  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 223/2009  and  also  very 

57 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  (OJ  L  296,  22.11.2018,  p. 19);  it  was  adopted  as  a  one-off  under  Article 14(2)  of  Regulation  (EC) 
No 223/2009. 
58 e.g. the European Statistics Code of Practice (footnote 3) puts a strong emphasis on outputs. 
59 Responses to NSI survey (Q4.1). 
60 ESSnet KOMUSO (2019) Quality Guidelines on Frames for Social Statistics (QGFSS) version 1.51 supported by the 
DSS (minutes on item 3.4 of the December 2019 meeting); see in particular guideline 3.4 on ‘rich frames’ representing 
a  type  of  statistical  population  register  and  Annex III  on  requirements  for  frame  contents  (person  and  household 
variables). 

22 

 
                                                 
often in national legislation, as 26 of 29 NSIs confirmed in the survey61. Such enabling legislation 
is generally covered by the GDPR62 and EUDPR63 providing for the processing of personal data for 
statistical purposes. However, legal access problems often persist, mainly where specific legislation 
on  a  given  source  database  has  more  restrictive  access  limitations.  Eurostat  is  experiencing  such 
problems  with  administrative  sources  held  by  eu-LISA64,  and  15  NSIs  indicate  similar  issues  by 
stating  that  additional  legal  acts  are  needed  to  access  some  or  all  specific  sources  relevant  for 
population statistics65. This suggests that the situation could be improved by  more explicit sector-
specific rules granting access to statistical offices as needed to all relevant sources for population 
statistics. Nevertheless, the evaluation also showed that the effectiveness and efficiency of practical 
cooperation agreements between NSIs and  administrative source owners are as important as legal 
enablers. 

Finally, the current legal framework does not encourage the use of new sources, such as privately 
held  data,  including,  for  instance,  geospatial  systems  or  mobile  operator  data.  While  the 
Demography  and  Migration  Regulations  at  least  allow  the  use  of  such  sources  in  principle,  the 
Census Regulation contains a closed list of eligible source types, excluding any new sources66. On 
top of the issues around access enabling legislation outlined in the previous paragraph, this puts a 
strict legal barrier on the use of such new sources for European population statistics. Therefore, the 
status quo falls critically short of the state of the art both methodologically67 and legally. Regarding 
the  legal  perspective,  the  recent  Commission  proposal  on  a  Data  Act  (footnote 21)  provides 
enablers  for  B2G  data  sharing,  including  for  official  statistics.  In  this  context,  the  previous 
paragraph pointed out that explicit sector-specific enablers (aligned with the Data Act proposal) on 
relevant new sources for population statistics may help improve new ESOP legislation in terms of 
continued relevance, effectiveness and efficiency. 

2.3. 

2.3. 

How likely are the problems to persist? 

The evaluation has identified the following four key legislative drivers for the problems described 
in Section 2.2. 

  Only  mandatory  data  collections  with  common  rules  can  ensure  completeness  and 
timeliness of statistics at EU level; regulating voluntary  data collections  that  already have 
high  completeness  may  lead  to  significant  effectiveness  and  efficiency  gains,  as 

61 Responses to NSI survey (Q2.8). 
62  Regulation  (EU) 2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27 April  2016  on  the  protection  of 
natural persons  with regard to the processing of personal data  and on the free  movement of such data, and repealing 
Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 
63 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of 
natural persons  with regard to the processing of personal  data  by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies 
and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No 45/2001  and  Decision  No 1247/2002/EC 
(OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39). 
64  European  Union  Agency  for  the  Operational  Management  of  Large-Scale  IT  Systems  in  the  Area  of  Freedom, 
Security and Justice (eu-LISA). 
65 Responses to NSI survey (Q2.8). 
66  Article 7  of  the  Demography  Regulation  does  not  list  any  specific  source  types  and  Article 9(1)  of  the  Migration 
Regulation  allows  any  ‘other  appropriate  sources’.  On  the  other  hand,  Article 4(1)  of  the  Census  Regulation  lists  as 
eligible source types ‘conventional censuses’, ‘register-based censuses’ (without a definition), or a combination thereof, 
possibly complemented by sample surveys. 
67 Eurostat is active in research in this respect; see e.g. Ricciato et al. (2020) Towards a methodological framework for 
estimating  present  population  density  from  mobile  network  operator  data.  Pervasive  and  Mobile  Computing  68, 
October 20, 101263. 

23 

 
                                                 
considerable  EU  added  value  can  be  generated  at  limited  incremental  costs  (linked  to 
problems 1, 2, 3). 

  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, as 
recurrent production costs eventually fail to generate substantial EU added value in terms of 
completeness and timeliness for all Member States (linked to problems 1, 2). 

  Loose  legal  definitions  of  statistical  concepts  lead  to  a  gradual  loss  of  control  over 
conceptual harmonisation, and thus ultimately over coherence and comparability, over time. 
The  population  base  example  shows  how  a  default  clause  originally  introduced  as  an 
exception  with  limited  scope  turned  into  a  new  standard  that  is  detrimental  to  European 
statistics.  However,  a  stronger  stance  on  definitions  also  requires  closer  guidance  and 
monitoring of implementation to ensure real harmonisation (linked to problem 1). 

  A legal framework that is too rigid prevents it remaining relevant over time. The current 
framework has been losing relevance rather quickly, starting during its implementation and 
continuing to the present day. This is due to a lack of flexibility mechanisms  for adapting 
data  collections  to  evolving  needs  or  for  benefiting  from  opportunities  driven  by  the 
availability of new data sources (linked to problems 1-4). 

The baseline assumes  continuing the status quo regarding the availability of European population 
data  (see  section 5.1).  The  insight  set  out  above  –  that  the  problems  emerge  directly  from  legal 
constraints  enshrined  in  the  current  framework  –  leads  to  the  conservative  scenario  in  which  the 
current framework will continue losing relevance as observed in the evaluation. This typically leads 
to  professional  users  turning  to  other  national  or  unofficial  sources  of  statistics,  both  affected  by 
reduced quality (measured from an EU perspective) and thus leading to poorer policy decisions. A 
more optimistic scenario would have to  operate on the assumption that evolving policy needs for 
data  would  be  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  future  by  voluntary  data  collections.  However,  the 
experience over the past two decades does not leave much room for such optimism. 

3.  3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1. 

3.1. 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for EU intervention in the area of European statistics is  Article 338 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which confers on the European Parliament 
and the Council the power to adopt measures for the production of statistics where necessary for the 
performance of the activities of the EU, in line with the ordinary legislative procedure. Article 338 
of  the  TFEU  sets  out  the  requirements  for  producing  European  statistics,  stating  that  they  must 
conform  to  standards  of  impartiality,  reliability,  objectivity,  scientific  independence,  cost-
effectiveness and statistical confidentiality. This section assesses whether a revision of the current 
legal framework governing European statistics on population is appropriate and justified, in view of 
its  purpose  to  ensure  high-quality  EU  population  data  in  line  with  the  statistical  principles  and 
quality criteria applicable to European statistics. 

Population  data  are  currently  collected  under  three  separate  Regulations  that  neither  allow 
flexibility nor respond sufficiently to new and emerging statistical needs of users and a recognised 
necessity for modernisation (Section 2.3). A partial revision of the legal framework on population 
statistics  is  inevitable  for  current  Regulation  (EU)  No 1260/2013  on  European  demographic 
statistics,  as,  under  Article 12,  it  will  cease  to  apply  in  2028.  A  minimal  revision  is  therefore 

24 

 
 
necessary even if the status quo is to be maintained. However, this also generates an opportunity for 
a  wider  review  to  modernise  the  broader  legal  framework  for  population  statistics,  which  also 
includes Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 on population and housing censuses as well as Article 3 of 
Regulation  (EC)  No 862/2007  on  statistics  on  international  migration.  This  would  also  enable 
maximising  the  added  value  of  capacity  already  developed  for  the  one-off  Commission 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 2018/1799  on  georeferenced  census  2021  outputs,  and  fully 
accounting for the integrated approach to statistical quality set out in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 
on European Statistics. 

Article 5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU)  enshrines  three  principles:  conferral, 
proportionality and subsidiarity. As an expression of the principle of conferral, Article 338 of the 
TFEU  empowers  the  EU  to  set  up  European  statistics.  Furthermore,  Article 338(2)  of  the  TFEU 
mentions six  general  principles that  EU  statistics  must  follow,  namely  impartiality,  reliability, 
objectivity,  professional  independence,  cost-effectiveness,  and  statistical  confidentiality.  These 
principles  are  specified  in  Article 2(a)  to  (f)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 223/2009  (footnote 2)  and 
further  specified  in  the  European  statistics  Code  of  Practice  (footnote 3)  maintained  by  the  ESS 
Committee  in  line  with  Article 11  of  the  same  regulation.  Article 338(2)  of  the  TFEU  also 
stipulates  that  EU  statistics  must  not  entail  excessive  burdens  on  businesses.  This  provision, 
together  with  Article 338(1)  of  the  TFEU,  according  to  which  statistics  must  only  be  produced 
where  necessary,  reflect  an  expression  of  the  principle  of  proportionality.  Finally,  legislative 
action on European population statistics falls under supporting competences, where the principle of 
subsidiarity  authorises  an  EU  intervention  only  if  a  specific  issue  cannot  be  addressed  by  the 
individual action of Member States (necessity test, Section 3.2) and provided the objective can be 
better achieved ‘by reason of the scale and effects of the proposed action’ at EU level (EU added 
value, Section 3.3). 

3.2. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The ESS provides an infrastructure for statistical information. The system is designed to meet the 
needs  of  multiple  users  for  decision-making  in  democratic  societies.  The  proposal  for  this 
regulation  has  been  drafted  to  protect  core  activities  of  ESS  partners  while  better  ensuring  the 
quality and comparability of statistics. One of the main criteria that statistical data must meet is to 
be  consistent  and  comparable.  Member  States  cannot  achieve  the  necessary  consistency  and 
comparability  without  a  clear  European  framework,  that  is  to  say  without  EU  legislation  laying 
down the common statistical concepts. 

The  principle  of  proportionality  aims  at  identifying  the  best  level  of  governance  to  ensure  that 
decisions  meet  the  public’s  needs  to  the  greatest  extent  possible.  Together  with  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality regulates how the EU exercises the powers conferred 
by the Member States on the EU. According to the principle of proportionality, EU action must be 
limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. It requires the EU to only take 
action that is deemed essential to achieve the aim pursued. To ensure compliance with the principle 
of proportionality, any EU intervention must ensure a higher level of coherence and comparability 
of population statistics across Member States. Further action at EU level is justified in light of the 
variety  of  measures  adopted  at  national  level  and  given  that  a  robust  legal  framework  for  the 
collection of population statistics is essential for maintaining relevant and comparable statistics at 
EU level based on harmonised concepts and approaches to methodology. 

Proportionality  also  requires  that  the  intervention  matches  the  size  and  nature  of  the  EU-related 
problems identified, including the right choice of policy instruments to address the problems. From 
this  perspective,  a  legislative  solution  would  be  necessary  and  proportionate,  as  the  problems 

25 

 
identified  have  a  genuine  EU-wide  scope  clearly  linked  to  gaps  in  the  current  EU  legislation 
(Section 2).  Without  further  EU  legislative  action,  these  problems  will  persist  or  worsen.  The 
current  EU  legislation  will  likely  continue  to  become  less  effective  and  efficient  in  achieving  its 
objectives  as  many  Member  States  continue  to  modernise  nationally  by  setting  up  statistical 
population registers and harnessing new data sources. Relevance will  also likely decrease further, 
as  the  EU-level  statistics  are  expected  to  diverge  further  from  users’  needs  in  terms  of  content, 
desired  frequency  or  timeliness.  Without  EU  legislative  action,  national  approaches  will  diverge 
further, leading to less comparable statistics, which in turn risks compromising policymaking at EU 
level. 

3.3. 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The added value of complete and comparable population and demographic statistics at EU level lies 
primarily in their significant contribution to various institutional needs and policy areas of the EU 
that are highly relevant for many political priorities of the Commission (i.e. An economy that works 
for people, Promoting our European way of life, A new push for European democracy). Population 
and  demographic  statistics  are  also  needed  to  feed  into  various  EU  institutional  tasks  and 
procedures laid down by the Treaties, such as national population weights to determine the 65% EU 
population  quota  for  qualified  majority  voting  of  the  Council  (Article 16  of  the  TEU),  EU  long-
term  economic  and  budgetary  projections  within  the  European  Semester  (Article 121(6)  of  the 
TFEU detailed in Regulation (EU) No 1175/2011), and monitoring of the annual EU demographic 
situation (Article 159 of the TFEU). 

These  data  inform  EU  policies  that  fall  under  shared  competences  (e.g.  social  policy;  economic, 
social  and  territorial  cohesion;  and  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice)  and  supporting 
competences  (e.g.  health,  youth,  civil  protection  and  administrative  cooperation).  Population 
statistics are the backbone of other European statistics (sample surveys, national accounts) and used 
to calculate per capita indicators. Finally, population and demographic statistics are also designed 
to meet the needs of multiple users, for decision-making at all levels in the EU, as well as research 
and informing the general public. The EU may therefore adopt measures in this area in line with the 
principle of subsidiarity under Article 5 of the TEU. 

4.  4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

Figure 8 presents a problem tree showing the logical links between problem drivers and general and 
specific  problems  identified  during  the  evaluation  and  the  consequences  of  these  problems  for 
policymakers  and other  data users.  As shown in the figure, the regulatory  problem  drivers  reveal 
the limitations in  the current  legal  framework,  which is not  harmonised and lacking in  coherence 
and flexibility, while at the same time practices in Member States are evolving and societal trends 
changing.  This  leads  to  specific  problems  in  comparability  of  population  data,  data  not  being  as 
timely and frequently produced as possible, limitations in the depth and comprehensiveness of data 
topics,  and  quality-related  problems.  Combined,  these  problems  lead  to  content  and  quality  gaps 
compared  to  policymakers  and  users’  evolving  needs  regarding  demographic  and  societal 
challenges. 

The  general  and  specific  objectives  for  an  EU  intervention  to  modernise  European  population 
statistics have been linked to the problems and their drivers. These are shown in the lower half of 
Figure 8 and detailed below. 

26 

 
 
4.1. 

4.1. 

General objective 

As shown, the general objective of EU intervention in this case is to better respond to users’ needs 
over time and to modernise and enhance the relevance, harmonisation and coherence of European 
population statistics. 

4.2. 

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

Statistics  are  assessed  in  the  context  of  the  ESS  framework  for  statistical  quality68,  and  the  key 
‘coherence’, 
‘relevance’, 
dimensions 
‘comparability’, ‘timeliness’ and ‘frequency’ (or ‘periodicity’). Therefore, the general objective can 
be broken down into four specific objectives (SOs) along statistical quality dimensions. 

‘completeness’, 

initiative  are 

including 

this 

for 

  SO1. Ensure complete, coherent and comparable European population statistics. This means 
all  European  statistics  should  be  available  from  all  Member  States  and  include  EU-level 
aggregate  information.  These  statistics  should  follow  the  same  underlying  concepts 
operationalised in a comparable way, so that the information is comparable across Member 
States and coherent across statistical products. 

  SO2. Ensure availability of timely and frequent  population  statistics to meet  users’ needs. 
This means all European statistics should be provided by all Member States and ready for 
publication according to a strict agreed deadline that takes into account user needs for the 
time span between reference period and publication of the statistics (timeliness). Statistical 
products  should  also  be  published  with  a  sufficient  granularity  of  publication  dates 
considering current user needs (frequency). 

  SO3. Provide statistics that  are sufficiently  comprehensive in  terms of  relevant  topics and 
sufficiently  detailed in  terms of  characteristics and breakdowns. This  means the European 
statistics  should  address  the  topical  and  detail  needs  of  key  statistics  users  and  give 
information that benefits society at large. Statistics must provide the data evidence needed 
for  better  policymaking  in  priority  areas  of  the  EU  as  well  as  support  decision-making  at 
other  governance  levels  or  provide  the  data  needed  for  relevant  research  or  for  public 
debates. 

  SO4.  Promote  legal  and  data  collection  frameworks  that  are  sufficiently  flexible  to  adapt 
datasets  to  evolving  policy  needs  and  to  opportunities  emerging  from  new  sources.  This 
means  the  EU  statistical  legislation  should  be  better  able  to  maintain  the  relevance  of 
statistical products over time, by enabling the use of more diverse sources and by offering 
mechanisms to update the statistical products. As worked out in Section 2.3, a key issue of 
the  current  legislation  is  its  inability  to  adapt  to  evolving  input  and  output  contexts.  The 
evaluation measured this in terms of the gradual loss of relevance of the statistical products. 

These specific objectives are SMART69 in that they directly link to the four gaps quantified in 
the  evaluation  (footnote 7).  The  evaluation  provides  quantitative  indicators  on  each  specific 
objective  to  follow  up  in  the  future,  for  instance  over  the  first  one  or  two  production  cycles 
(including censuses) after adoption of a new legal framework. This completes the pathway from 
the  problem  drivers  to  the  proposed  solutions  and  builds  the  foundation  for  developing  the 
policy measures and options outlined in Section 5. 

68  See  European  statistics  Code  of  Practice  (footnote 3)  and  European  statistical  system  handbook  for  quality  and 
metadata reports (2020 edition): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-gq-19-006. 
69 Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound in line with the Commission’s Better Regulation Tool #15. 

27 

 
                                                 
Figure 8 – Problem tree (contextual factors) 

28 

 
 
In general, as explained above, the specific objectives are clearly problem-driven as they match the 
specific  problems  worked  out  in  detail  in  the  evaluation  (footnote 7)  and  described  in  Section 2. 
From  this  perspective,  the  specific  objectives  have  clear  support  from  essentially  all  stakeholder 
groups because the underlying problems  are  flagged by those groups.  For instance, in the OPC70, 
completeness  and  comparability  (SO1)  and  insufficient  detail  (SO3)  were  mentioned  as  critical 
gaps in the current statistics by significant shares of respondents across all stakeholder groups for 
all statistical domains (except marriages and divorces), ranging from 53 respondents on acquisition 
or loss of citizenship to 94 on international migration (out of 172 respondents overall). Similarly, a 
lack  of  timeliness  and  frequency  (SO2)  were  noted  as  critical  gaps  by  between  19  respondents 
(acquisition or loss of citizenship) and 43  respondents  (population  census outputs). These current 
gaps and their relevance to EU policies were expressed even more strongly in the targeted survey of 
Commission  departments.  NSIs  generally  also  acknowledged  these  gaps  across  the  consultation 
activities  (OPC,  targeted  survey  and  workshops),  but  typically  saw  them  as  less  critical  than  did 
stakeholder groups representing statistics users. SO4 emerges as a foresight requirement for a new 
legal framework to minimise the risk of accumulating such critical gaps again quickly in the future. 

Furthermore, during interviews conducted in the external support study71, many of the stakeholders 
were asked to provide their views on the specific and operational objectives proposed for the ESOP 
initiative. Data users and international partners of Eurostat largely supported the policy objectives 
shown  in  Figure  8,  though  different  stakeholders  put  greater  or  lesser  emphasis  or  priority  on 
different  aspects.  Only  a couple of the NSIs commented on the policy objectives and highlighted 
some  of  the  practical  difficulties  of  addressing  them.  Stakeholders  interviewed  from  NSIs  and 
international organisations also pointed to some of the trade-offs between the policy objectives. For 
example, there is a trade-off between ensuring the timeliness and the quality/accuracy of the data. 
There may also be a trade-off between adapting the current system and ensuring consistency in the 
time  series  (though  some  international  partners  indicated  that  it  can  be  relatively  easy  to 
retrospectively  adjust  historic  time  series).  Some  NSI  stakeholders  further  mentioned  potential 
challenges related to personal data protection, particularly if data are to be disaggregated by very 
small areas and/or specific population groups, though it is also understood that methodologies are 
available or under development that could help to overcome these challenges. 

5.  5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1. 

5.1. 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Under  the  baseline  scenario  as  analysed  in  depth  in  the  evaluation,  each  statistical  domain  will 
continue  to  be  implemented  based  on  the  three  separate  legal  acts  currently  in  force  (Census, 
Demography and Migration Regulations). One issue is that the Demography Regulation contains a 
‘sunset  clause’  stating  that  it  will  cease  to  apply  on  31 August  2028.  However,  mandatory  data 
collections under that Regulation are currently generally running well with no reason to assume that 
this  status  quo  would  be  seriously  questioned  by  relevant  stakeholder  groups  (including  statistics 
producers)  in  the  baseline  scenario.  It  is  therefore  assumed  at  the  baseline  that  the  Demography 
Regulation would simply be amended to extend its application (see Section 5.3). In summary, the 
baseline has the characteristics described below. 

70 Responses to OPC survey (Q2.4). 
71 ICF (2022) Study supporting the evaluation and impact assessment of European statistics on population – final report 
on impact assessment support. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
There  are  no changes  regarding harmonisation of statistics across Member States.  The limited 
harmonisation  of  the  population  base  definitions  remains,  which  would  likely  mean  that  the  EU-
level  comparability  of  national  definitions  will  continue  to  diverge  further,  as  observed  in  the 
evaluation,  in  the  wake  of  an  ongoing  and  still  increasing  transition  to  national  register-based 
systems in most Member States. 

Demography, international migration, and population and housing census statistics are implemented 
as  separate statistical processes.  Member States may or may not  update, streamline or integrate 
their national processes in future, according to their own considerations. Eurostat keeps the existing 
data  flows  from  Member  States  unchanged.  This  means  possible  efficiency  gains  by  embracing 
administrative and other new sources remain uncoordinated at EU level and up to Member States. 

There are no new or more detailed statistical outputs adding EU value, as the mandatory data 
requirements are not updated. Voluntary data collections when agreed with Member States lead to 
gaps  in  terms  of  data  completeness  and  timeliness  and  cannot  sufficiently  deliver  EU  value,  as 
shown in the evaluation. 

The legal  framework is not flexible enough  to adapt the mandatory data collections  to  evolving 
policy or data  environments.  This  means that, as needs  evolve,  even if new voluntary  collections 
should perform better than the baseline assumes, there are no mechanisms to reap the full benefits 
at  EU  level  and  in  terms  of  the  efficiency  of  such  achievements.  With  regard  to  evolving  data 
environments, the current legislation generally does not sufficiently enable the use of new sources 
(e.g. B2G), and the Census Regulation currently even excludes such uses. 

5.2. 

5.2. 

Description of the policy options 

The aim of any policy option beyond the baseline is to deliver on each of the specific objectives set 
out in Section 4.2. To achieve this, more detailed policy measures were identified under 17 topics, 
where each topic acts on exactly one specific objective. More precisely, each topic provides a set of 
different  policy  measures  typically  relating  to  varying  levels  of  ambition  for  that  topic  (see 
Table 2). Each overarching policy option is then constructed bottom-up as a combination of policy 
measures from all 17 topics, thus acting with varying ambition on all specific objectives. 

Before grouping the various measures into policy options, however, a first feasibility assessment of 
each individual topic and measure was carried out. This process involved assessing how the topics 
and  measures  relate  to  one  another  (mutually  exclusive  or  complementary),  and  carrying  out  an 
initial screening of their likely effectiveness, as well as their technical, operational, economic and 
legal feasibility. This initial screening had the results described below. 

  A topic on the census frequency (original measures to maintain status quo, split the census 
into  decennial  and  annual  outputs  depending  on  the  relevance  of  the  data,  and  annual 
census) has been discarded because combinations of other measures factually imply that the 
frequency of (parts of) the census changes by default. 

  Two of the measures relating to the topic on output flexibility of the legal framework have 
also  been  discarded.  One  measure  ‘Include  limited  flexibility  to  adapt  statistics;  use 
voluntary data collections to serve emerging needs’ was discarded because it was assessed 
as being very similar to the status quo. The other measure ‘Include effective mechanisms to 
adapt statistics more quickly and efficiently when there is an added value for the EU, even if 
the administrative cost and burden are high’ was discarded as unrealistic. 

The remaining list of the most feasible individual measures, which have been retained for further 
analysis, is presented in Table 2. 

30 

 
Policy options were then constructed by grouping measures based on four main characteristics: 

  harmonisation  of  statistics  where  the  main  focus  is  on  the  population  base  definition 

 

(status quo, harmonisation with justified exceptions, strict harmonisation); 
integration  of  statistical  processes  (status  quo,  improved  statistical  processes,  integrated 
statistical processes); 

  statistical outputs (status quo, limited upgrade, more expansive upgrade, major upgrade); 
 

framework flexibility (status quo, limited flexibility, effective mechanisms). 

Table  2  lists  all  policy  topics  and  potential  measures  with  a  short  description  of  each.  Figure  9 
shows the resulting grouping of the measures into seven policy options: 

A – Baseline as described in Section 5.1. 

Policy  options  B.1  and  B.2  –  For  these  options,  there  is  some  simplification  of  EU-level  data 
collections,  but  the  statistical  production  processes  remain  separate  and  somewhat  improved 
depending  on  plans  of  Member  States,  and  the  harmonisation  of  the  definition  of  population 
remains limited. However, these options introduce  two incremental levels of  ambition in terms of 
statistical outputs (limited upgrade for B.1, more expansive upgrade as well as improved flexibility 
for B.2). 

Policy options C.1 and C.2 – In these options, EU data collections are simplified and the statistical 
production  processes  remain  separate  and  somewhat  improved  depending  on  plans  of  Member 
States,  but  the  harmonisation  of  the  population  base  definition  is  improved  relative  to  policy 
options A and B. Policy options C.1 and C.2 introduce the same two incremental levels of ambition 
in terms of statistical outputs as  policy options  B.1 and B.2 described above (limited upgrade for 
C.1, more expansive upgrade as well as improved flexibility for C.2). 

Policy  options  D.1  and  D.2  –  These  are  the  most  ambitious  options,  introducing  strict 
harmonisation of the population base definition as well as a major upgrade of statistical outputs. 
These  options  also  include  effective  flexibility  mechanisms  to  adapt  statistics  more  quickly  and 
efficiently to meet emerging user needs and exploit new data sources or methods. While option D.1 
leaves  statistical  production  processes  within  the  competence  of  Member  States,  option  D.2 
requires  all  Member  States  to  set  up  statistical  population  registers,  thus  initiating  the 
redevelopment and integration of statistical processes at national and EU levels. 

From the perspective of  the four main  characteristics introduced above, these  policy options  thus 
implement incremental ambitions to improve as follows (see also Table 1). 

With regard to the harmonisation of population base definitions, the status quo is maintained in 
policy options B (both B.1 and B.2). Incremental levels of harmonisation would be introduced for 
policy options C and D as follows. In policy option C (both C.1 and C.2), a harmonised population 
definition  would  be  introduced  for  all  datasets,  but  Member  States  would  still  be  able  to  use 
national  population  definitions  in  justified  exceptions  with  limited  impact  on  comparability  of 
statistics  across  Member  States.  Policy  option  D  (both  D.1  and  D.2)  introduces  a  strictly 
harmonised population definition whereby Member States would be required to use the strict usual 
residence  concept  including  the  12-months  rule  to  define  their  populations  for  all  datasets  for 
European statistics purposes. 

On statistical processes, all options will revise the legal framework and thus offer an opportunity 
to  streamline  it,  which  would  lead  to  simplified  data  collection  procedures  between  NSIs  and 
Eurostat. In the most ambitious option (D.2), all Member States would additionally be required to 

31 

 
Table  1  –  Comparative  ambition  of  the  policy  options  going  beyond  the  baseline  (A)  regarding  the  four  main  characteristics 
discussed in the text (scale: no ambition ‘0’, otherwise ‘+’, ‘++’ or ‘+++’). 

Option 
A (baseline) 
B.1 
B.2 
C.1 
C.2 
D.1 
D.2 

Harmonisation  Process integration 

0 
0 
0 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+++ 

Statistical outputs 
0 
+ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

Flexibility 
0 
+ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

set up a statistical population register. This would align with earlier ESS expert recommendations 
in the context of population and household frames for social statistics (footnote 60). 

In  terms  of  statistical  outputs,  three  incremental  levels  of  ambition  are  introduced  across  the 
options as follows. In policy options B.1 and C.1, the annual statistical outputs for demography and 
migration  would  become  more  detailed  to  a  limited  extent,  either  in  terms  of  characteristics  or 
geographical disaggregation. In policy options B.2 and C.2, statistical outputs on demography and 
migration  would  become  even  more  detailed  compared  to  policy  options  B.1  and  C.1.  Some 
currently  voluntary  datasets  and  breakdowns,  as  well  as  proportionate  time  series  updates,  would 
become  mandatory.  In  all  policy  options  B  and  C,  the  timeliness  would  be  improved.  In  policy 
option D (both D.1 and D.2), the required statistical outputs on migration and demography as well 
as regulation of currently voluntary datasets and breakdowns go further than in policy options B.2 
and  C.2.  Moreover,  timeliness  would  be  improved  and  the  NSIs  would  be  required  to  coordinate 
their census data releases. LAU-level data would become annual, and time series would be updated 
entirely.  

On  the  flexibility  of  the  legal  framework  governing  European  statistics  on  population,  the 
policy  options  B-C  introduce  limited  flexibility  to  adapt  statistics  to  emerging  needs  by  piloting 
voluntary collections, combined with a legal mechanism to regulate successful pilots and strengthen 
the legal base to benefit from administrative and other new data sources. Moreover, policy options 
B.2 and C.2 introduce basic interoperability of statistical population registers. In policy options D.1 
and D.2, the flexibility of the legal framework would be substantially improved by setting up  full 
EU-wide  interoperability  of  statistical  population  registers  as  well  as  an  effective  mechanism  to 
adapt  statistics  more  quickly  and  efficiently,  as  proportionate,  to  cover  more  general  emerging 
needs. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 – Detailed overview of policy topics and their policy measures and sub-measures 

 Policy topic 

 Policy measure 

Acting on 
SO 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Statistical population 
frames or registers 

Harmonisation of the 
population definition 

Regional detail of 
annual population 
statistics  

Regional detail of 
annual migration 
statistics 

Statistics at 
local/municipality 
level 

Georeferenced 
statistics 

1.1  Maintain status quo 

1.2 

NSIs set up statistical population registers; the 
registers would cover total population exhaustively 
and accurately and enable direct extraction of up-to-
date statistics  

2.1  Maintain status quo 

2.2 

2.3 

Publish European population statistics based on a 
strictly harmonised population definition (based on 
usual residence concept) for all datasets 

Publish European population statistics based on a 
harmonised population definition (based on a usual 
residence concept) for all datasets, with justified 
exceptions and limited impact on comparability of 
statistics across Member States  

3.1  Maintain status quo 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

NSIs provide all annual population data at NUTS 3 
level 

NSIs provide annual population data by functional 
geographic units (cities, functional urban areas) and 
typologies (DEGURBA classification) 

NSIs provide essential annual population data by 
functional geographic units (cities, functional urban 
areas) and typologies (DEGURBA classification) 

4.1  Maintain status quo 

4.2 

4.3 

NSIs provide migrant stocks and migration flows at 
NUTS 2 level 

NSIs provide migrant stocks and migration flows at 
NUTS 3 level 

5.1  Maintain status quo 

5.2 

NSIs provide LAU data annually 

6.1  Maintain status quo 

6.2 

6.3 

NSIs provide georeferenced data every 10 years 

NSIs provide georeferenced data annually 

7 

Infra-annual statistics  7.1  Maintain status quo 

7.2 

7.3 

NSIs provide detailed monthly data on population, 
births, deaths and migration regularly 

NSIs provide less detailed quarterly data on 
population, births, deaths and migration regularly 

8 

Timeliness of annual 

8.1  Maintain status quo 

33 

- 

1 

- 

1 

1 

- 

3 

3 

3 

- 

3 

3 

- 

3 

- 

3 

3 

- 

2 

2 

- 

 
 Policy topic 

 Policy measure 

Acting on 
SO 

population statistics 

9 

Timeliness of EU 
census outputs 

10 

Details of migrant 
population 
characteristics 

11 

Details of migration 
flow characteristics 

12 

13 

14 

Voluntary statistics on 
marriages, divorces, 
legally induced 
abortions, infant 
mortality and loss of 
citizenship 

Voluntary breakdowns 
of live births, deaths 
and international 
migration 

Statistics on equality 
and non-discrimination 
characteristics 

8.2 

8.3 

Quality first: NSIs provide annual data more quickly 
as far as possible, while ensuring high statistical 
quality before release 

Timeliness first: NSIs provide annual data 
substantially more quickly, at the expense of revising 
the data more often to improve quality gradually 

9.1  Maintain status quo 

9.2 

NSIs publish EU census data within a shorter legal 
deadline but without the obligation to coordinate the 
exact release date at EU level 

10.3  NSIs publish EU census data within a shorter legal 
deadline and with the obligation to coordinate the 
release date 

10.1  Maintain status quo 

10.2  Define migrant groups in more detail (e.g. by single 

years of age where possible) 

10.3  Define migrant groups in more detail (e.g. by single 
years of age where possible), including socio-
economic details 

11.1  Maintain status quo 

11.2  Ensure that statistics on migration flows within the EU 
become as detailed on demographic aspects as 
statistics on migration flows from/to non-EU countries 

11.3  Ensure that statistics on migration flows within the EU 

and from/to non-EU countries become more detailed 
and comprehensively cover demographic (e.g. single 
years of age where possible) and socio-economic 
aspects 

12.1  Maintain status quo 

12.2 

Set requirements for all NSIs to provide mandatory 
statistics on marriages, divorces, legally induced 
abortions, infant mortality and loss of citizenship 

13.1  Maintain status quo 

13.2 

Set requirements for NSIs to provide existing 
voluntary breakdowns on a mandatory basis 

14.1  Maintain status quo 

14.2 

14.3 

Provide size and demographic characteristics of the 
groups referred to 

Provide size and demographic characteristics of the 
groups referred to, and disaggregate other statistics by 
such group characteristics where relevant 

34 

2 

2 

- 

2 

2 

- 

3 

3 

- 

3 

3 

- 

3 

- 

3 

- 

3 

3 

 
 
 Policy topic 

 Policy measure 

Acting on 
SO 

15 

Flexibility of the legal 
framework for 
statistical outputs 

15.1  Maintain status quo 

15.2 

15.3 

Include limited flexibility to adapt statistics; introduce 
limited executive power on the Commission to enable 
the use of initial voluntary data collections to serve 
emerging needs with a mechanism to make them 
mandatory later depending on piloting results 

Include more effective executive power on the 
Commission to adapt statistics more quickly and 
efficiently (e.g. to meet emerging user needs, exploit 
new data sources or methods), where the 
administrative cost and burden are proportionate to the 
added value for the EU 

16 

Time series of annual 
statistics 

16.1  Maintain status quo (update historic time series where 

feasible; NSIs choose which time series to update) 

17 

Flexibility of the legal 
framework for inputs 
and new sources 

16.2  Update historic time series proportionately (from 1990 
for demography and from 2007 for international 
migration) to ensure a certain degree of comparability 
over time 

16.3  Update historic time series entirely (from 1960 for 
demography and from 1990 for international 
migration) to ensure comparability over time 

17.1  Maintain status quo 

17.2  Better use of administrative data sources at national 

and EU level, including reuse of interoperability 
systems 

17.3  Better use of privately held data (B2G) by effectively 
enabling the mechanisms provided for in the Data Act 
proposal (footnote 21) for European population 
statistics 

17.4  Basic interoperability of statistical population registers 

17.5 

Full EU-level interoperability of statistical population 
registers 

- 

4 

4 

- 

1 

1 

- 

4 

4 

4 

4 

35 

 
 
Figure 9 – Mapping of policy options to topic measures (the cell shading represents the different levels of ambition of each sub-measure: the darker, the more ambitious) 

36 

 
5.3. 

5.3. 

Options discarded at an early stage 

Another  option  has  been  taken  into  consideration,  in  which  demography  statistics  would  become 
deregulated  because  a  sunset  clause  is  included  in  the  Demography  Regulation.  However,  this 
option has not been included in the shortlist of options for further analysis as it was too similar to 
the baseline scenario. The rationale is that this sunset clause states that the Demography Regulation 
will cease to apply on 31 August 2028. This impact assessment looks at the impacts over a 10-year 
period, until 2031. Therefore, the differences between the baseline scenario and this option would 
only apply to the 3 last years of the time period assessed. Moreover, the evaluation has shown that 
the  currently  regulated  data  collections  are  mostly  running  well,  so  it  can  be  assumed  that  an 
amendment  of  the  Demography  Regulation  could  be  put  in  place  simply  by  extending  its 
application. 

6.  6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This section provides a partial quantitative assessment of the efficiency of the policy options, with 
impacts  monetised  to  the  extent  possible  based  on  the  available  evidence.  It  also  contains  a 
qualitative assessment for each of the policy options covering the following criteria: 

  effectiveness, including impacts on fundamental rights and wider environmental and social 

impacts; 

  coherence  with  the  EU  policy  objectives,  including  consistency  with  the  proportionality 

principle; 
  efficiency. 

A  detailed  analysis  of  impacts  is  provided  in  Annex  2  based  on  the  external  support  study 
(footnote 71). 

Scoring approaches used in the report 

The  consistency  of  each  policy  option  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  is  rated  as  ‘Pass’, 
‘Uncertain’ or ‘Fail’. 

The options have also been scored qualitatively against the criteria of effectiveness and coherence. 
Each option was scored against these three criteria using the following scoring system: 

Level of impact 
Very strong negative impact 

Score 
- 4 

Strong negative impact 

Moderate negative impact 

Slight negative impact 

No impact compared to baseline 

Slight positive impact 

Moderate positive impact 

Strong positive impact 

Very strong positive impact 

- 3 

- 2 

- 1 

0 

+ 1 

+ 2 

+ 3 

+ 4 

37 

 
 
However,  efficiency  has  been  assessed  qualitatively  by  confronting  the  incremental  costs  and 
benefits for each policy option. 

The  baseline  sets  a  ‘0’  against  all  three  criteria  (on  efficiency,  there  are  no  incremental  costs  or 
benefits). All policy options B-D have been scored relative to this baseline using the scoring system 
above. The options have also been scored relative to one another. Thus, two or more options with a 
similar impact against the same criterion have been given a tied score. For most criteria, it is clear 
that one or more options will have a very strong positive (+4), or very strong negative (-4) impact. 
For these criteria, the option(s) with  the strongest  impact  received the highest/lowest  score (+/-4), 
and all other options are scored relative to this maximum and the ‘0’. 

For a few criteria (e.g. social impact and impact on fundamental rights), the maximum score is 3, a 
strong positive impact. For these criteria, the score of 4 is not reached due to risk discounts related 
to concerns expressed by some stakeholders. Thus, a lower score was used as the comparator. 

Scores are given based on the evidence gathered from the consultation and desk research. 

6.1. 

6.1. 

Quantitative analysis of the options 

Quantitative  analyses  of  costs  have  been  carried  out  for  the  baseline  and  each  of  the  six  options, 
over a 10-year period (2022-2031)72. The costs associated with the baseline represent an estimation 
of the current costs, assuming these costs would remain constant over 10 years. The costs assessed 
for policy options B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, D.1 and D.2 are incremental relative to the baseline (denoted 
as  A).  These  only  estimate  the  added  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  each  of  the 
measures/action required by each option, over and above the baseline situation, i.e. costs that would 
be incurred in any scenario. As such, total costs associated with each option should be interpreted 
as  being  equal  to  the  costs  reported  for  the  baseline  in  addition  to  those  reported  for  every  other 
relevant  option.  A  specific  cost  itemisation  was  made  and  the  different  ‘cost  items’  were  then 
matched  to  the  generic  cost  itemisation  in  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines  (BRG).  Table  13  in 
Annex 2 (part 1.1) presents the cost types considered in the quantitative assessment of all options 
and how these relate to the specific cost items. 

Most benefits associated with each option, except for some potential cost savings related to reduced 
administrative  burden,  have  not  been  quantified  and  are  therefore  assessed  qualitatively  in 
Section 6.2. A more detailed costs-and-benefits assessment of each option is provided in Annex 2. 

6.1.1.  6.1.1. 

A – Baseline 

In the baseline scenario A, the harmonisation of population base definitions will remain limited by 
default provisions under the current legislation, statistical production processes will also remain up 
to Member States and the current requirements in terms of statistical outputs will continue to be the 
same.  Finally,  the  current  lack  of  flexibility  to  address  evolving  statistical  needs  as  well  as  to 
benefit from opportunities from new data sources will persist. 

The cost assessment of the baseline scenario was carried out based on the evaluation results. For all 
policy measures included in the baseline, and as always in a baseline scenario, the status quo will 

72 The detailed cost assessment is part of the external support study (footnote 71). 

38 

 
 
                                                 
remain. It should be noted that even though there is a sunset clause in the Demography Regulation, 
it  was  assumed  in  the  baseline  that  a  minimal  amendment  would  be  adopted  to  extend  its 
application (see Section 5.3). 

All recurrent costs incurred by the Census, Demography, and Migration Regulations were estimated 
to remain constant and were calculated over a 10-year period, for both the Commission (Eurostat) 
and the 27 Member States and their respective NSIs. However, the baseline scenario is not one of 
‘no change’. The baseline is dynamic in the sense that it takes into account ongoing and/or planned 
activities and takes into account the effects of national action (both legislative and voluntary) that 
can be expected to be taken regardless of any future EU initiative. Therefore, costs and cost savings 
associated  with  maintaining  statistical  population  registers  (for  those  Member  States  that  have 
implemented or are planning to implement one regardless of this initiative), implementing a strict 
usual  residence  definition  of  the  population  (for  those  Member  States  that  currently  adopt  this 
definition) or providing voluntary statistics are also included in the dynamic baseline. The rationale 
for the including these elements in the baseline is as follows. 

 

In  terms  of  statistical  processes,  Member  States  that  already  have  a  statistical  population 
register73  are  assumed  to  continue  to  incur  costs  to  keep  these  registers  up  to  date.  These 
costs are therefore included in the baseline. Similarly, some NSIs plan to set up a statistical 
population register in the near future74 and will therefore incur implementation costs as well 
as cost savings related to subsequent efficiency gains, regardless of a potential new EU legal 
base.  These  upcoming  effects  cannot  be  attributed  to  a  potential  new  EU  requirement  on 
NSIs to set up and maintain national statistical registers (see measure 1.2), and are therefore 
also included in the baseline75. 

  On  the  harmonisation  of  population  definitions,  some  Member  States  already  use  a 
population base definition based on the strict usual residence concept76. Following the same 
reasoning  as  above,  those  Member  States  already  incur  related  costs  and  will  continue  to 
incur them. These costs cannot be attributed to a potential new EU requirement to use that 
same definition (measures 2.2 or 2.3) and are thus included in the baseline. 

  Similarly,  some  Member  States  already  provide  datasets  voluntarily.  Data  currently 
collected  on  a  voluntary  basis  incur  costs  for  both  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  and  NSIs. 
These  costs  are  likely  to  remain  whether  a  new  regulation  makes  this  voluntary  data 
collection  mandatory  or  not.  These costs associated with  voluntary  data are therefore also 
included in the baseline. 

73  NSIs  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Does  your  NSI  maintain  a  national  population  register  for  statistical  purposes?’  The 
following  NSIs  responded  ‘Yes’:  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Netherlands, 
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden). 
74  NSIs  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Does  your  NSI  maintain  a  national  population  register  for  statistical  purposes?’  The 
following  NSIs  responded  ‘No,  but  planned’:  Croatia,  Cyprus,  France,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Portugal;  Greece 
imputed due to auxiliary information). 
75 The  contract  support  study  (footnote 71)  estimated  the  cost  savings  for  Member  States  planning  a  statistical 
population  register  using  the  same  model  as  in  Section 6.1.3.  However,  given  the  non-reciprocity  between  having  a 
register-based census and having a statistical population register, it was assumed conservatively that these costs savings 
would be equal to one tenth of the annual costs savings indicated by that model. 
76  NSI  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Which  definition(s)  of  the  population  is  used  by  your  NSI?’.  The  following  NSIs 
responded ‘strict usual residence’: Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania). 

39 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table  3  –  Overview  of  baseline  total  and  incremental  costs  in  million  2021  EUR  by  policy  option,  and  split  by  one-off  and 
recurrent per 10 years on Eurostat and on all aggregated 27 Member States. 

Option 

A – baseline total 

B.1 – incremental 

B.2 – incremental 

C.1 – incremental 

C.2 – incremental 

D.1 – incremental 

D.2 – incremental 

Eurostat 

Member States/NSIs (all 27) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

0.19 

0.39 

0.29 

0.48 

0.58 

0.83 

13.56 

0.10 

0.37 

0.61 

0.89 

1.18 

1.83 

5.82 

17.77 

12.46 

24.41 

41.41 

50.42 

1 677.41 

6.97 

33.98 

25.96 

52.97 

75.60 

128.92 

Table 4 – Overview of median costs per capita for the three Member State groups (see text) in 2021 EUR per capita. 

Option 

Group 1 

Group 2 

Group 3 

Member States/NSIs by group (median) 

A – baseline total 

B.1 – incremental 

B.2 – incremental 

C.1 – incremental 

C.2 – incremental 

D.1 – incremental 

D.2 – incremental 

2.37 

0.07 

0.24 

0.23 

0.44 

0.68 

0.98 

4.91 

0.04 

0.15 

0.13 

0.24 

0.37 

0.50 

4.07 

0.02 

0.06 

0.05 

0.07 

0.09 

0.19 

Table 5 – Overview of average costs per capita in the three Member State groups (see text) in 2021 EUR per capita. 

Option 

Group 1 

Group 2 

Group 3 

Member States/NSIs by group (average) 

A – baseline total 

B.1 – incremental 

B.2 – incremental 

C.1 – incremental 

C.2 – incremental 

D.1 – incremental 

D.2 – incremental 

D.2 – incremental 

3.00 

0.10 

0.35 

0.37 

0.63 

0.90 

1.22 

1.22 

7.33 

0.18 

0.66 

0.34 

0.81 

1.12 

1.68 

1.68 

40 

8.18 

0.23 

0.91 

0.54 

1.22 

2.48 

3.19 

3.19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  summary,  it  is  thus  important  to  note  that  the  baseline  costs  estimated  as  part  of  this  impact 
assessment  go  beyond  the  costs  associated  with  the  current  legal  framework,  in  that  they  also 
include  current  costs  incurred  on  aspects  affected  by  some  policy  measures  and  options.  As 
described  in  Section 2.2.4  and  substantiated  by  the  evaluation  findings,  there  is  a  clear  pattern 
expected in the overall baseline costs depending on whether NSIs can use administrative and other 
appropriate sources efficiently or not. While it is not straightforward to categorise Member States 
under  this  criterion,  the  existence  (or  not)  of  a  statistical  population  register  is  a  good  proxy. 
Therefore, Member States are split broadly into three groups as follows: 

  group 1 – already have a statistical population register77; 
  group 2 –  currently do not  have  a statistical  population  register  but are planning to  set  up 

one in the near future regardless of any EU intervention78; 

  group 3 – do not have and are not planning a statistical population register79. 

Indeed, the  contract  support study  (footnote 71)  has  confirmed  the expected pattern  of higher per 
capita costs in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1, both in medians (Table 4) and in averages (Table 5) 
across  members  of  each  group.  Note  that  the  pattern  holds  despite  cost  savings  included  in  the 
baseline  for  group 2,  likely  due  to  the  very  conservative  approach  taken  in  the  estimation  model 
(footnote 75). 

6.1.2.  6.1.2. 

Incremental costs incurred by policy options B-D 

A  comprehensive  and  detailed  quantitative  assessment  of  incremental  costs  incurred  by  policy 
options  B-D  is  provided  in  Annex  2  (part 1.1).  Table  3  shows  the  aggregated  baseline  and 
incremental  costs  in  2021  EUR  by  policy  option.  The  cost  model  is  aligned  to  the  basic 
characteristics of the  policy options  in  terms  of  harmonisation  – process integration  –  upgrade of 
statistical outputs (see Section 4.2 and Figure 9 for context). Incremental costs related to flexibility 
characteristics are considered indirect and largely depend on unknown context factors (e.g. specific 
new data needs or data source environments in the longer-term) so they could not be quantified. 

Table  3  also  shows  that  the  largest  part  of  both  baseline  and  incremental  costs  (97.7%  to  98.5% 
depending on the  policy option) are, or  would be, incurred by Member  States, more precisely by 
their  national  statistical  production  systems  coordinated  by  the  respective  NSIs.  This  reflects  the 
structure  of  the  ESS  governed  under  Regulation  (EC)  No 223/2009  (footnote 2),  where  Member 
States produce statistics under the coordination of Eurostat and governance of the ESS Committee 
(ESSC). Key features of each policy option regarding incremental costs are summarised below. 

B.1  causes  incremental  costs  compared  to  the  baseline  solely  through  the  limited  upgrade  of 
statistical outputs, including for instance improved detail and timeliness of statistics and decennial 
population grids. 

77  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain  and 
Sweden  following  replies  to  the  targeted  NSI  survey.  Note  that  Slovenia  was  imputed  to  group  1  following  findings 
form the case study in conjunction with a broad definition of ‘statistical population register’. 
78  Croatia,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Malta  and  Portugal  following  replies  to  the  targeted  NSI 
survey (Greece communicated information later). 
79  Czechia,  Germany,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Poland  and  Romania  following  replies  to  the  targeted  NSI  survey  (Q. 
‘Does your NSI maintain a national population register for statistical purposes?’ These NSIs responded ‘No, and not 
planned’). 

41 

 
                                                 
B.2 causes higher incremental costs than B.1 solely through a more expansive upgrade of statistical 
outputs, including  improved frequency and timeliness,  regulating some of the currently voluntary 
datasets and introducing annual population and housing grids as well as basic equality data. 

C.1  and  C.2  cause  higher  incremental  costs  than  B.1  and  B.2  respectively  solely  through  the 
improved  harmonisation  of  the  population  base  definition  based  on  the  strict  usual  residence 
concept, subject only to justified exceptions (measure 2.3). 

D.1 causes  higher incremental  costs than C.2  by  fully harmonising the  population  base definition 
without  exceptions  and  through  a  major  upgrade  of  statistical  outputs,  including  monthly 
demographic data, annual data at LAU level and more detailed equality data. 

D.2  causes  higher  incremental  costs  than  D.1  solely  through  the  obligation  on  Member  States  in 
group 3  to  set  up  a  statistical  population  register.  However,  this  option  also  generates  long-term 
recurrent cost savings for these Member States as described in Section 6.1.3. 

Regarding quantitative incremental cost estimates by policy option and Member State group, Table 
4 and Table 5 show that average incremental costs per capita are generally increasing from group 1 
to group 3, while median incremental costs per capita follow the opposite pattern (decreasing from 
group 1 to group 3). This is in contrast to the baseline assessment in Section 6.1.1 (where per capita 
cost patterns are consistent for averages and medians over group members), and it suggests that the 
cost model provided in the contract support study (footnote 71) was not  detailed enough to allow 
reliable quantitative estimates broken down by specific Member States or Member State groups. 

Nonetheless, the stakeholder consultation and regular expert consultations with NSIs provide three 
broad  qualitative  patterns  described  below  of  how  adaptation  or  modernisation  challenges  vary 
across Member States. 

1.  While upgrading statistical outputs does depend a lot on the specific details of the upgrade 
(e.g.  whether  only  timeliness  or  frequency  is  improved  or  whether  new  variables  or 
breakdowns are to be added that may or may not be available from sources already in use), 
it is generally acknowledged that an integrated statistical production system in place, with a 
statistical  population  register  as  a  backbone,  does  reduce  the  costs  of  such  upgrades.  This 
means  that  Member  States  in  group 3  (and  in  group 2  while  national  efforts  to  set  up  a 
statistical  population  register  are  ongoing)  will  likely  face  more  severe  challenges  than 
group 1 in adapting to any of the policy options. The same pattern is also relevant when it 
comes to preparing for additional flexibility (either to address changing policy needs or to 
set up data-sharing systems with new sources). 

2.  Most of the modernisation activities covered to a varying degree in the policy options would 
entail upfront investment (adaptation costs) that are not necessarily proportional to country 
size  in  terms  of  population  or  gross  domestic  product.  For  instance,  upgrading  IT 
infrastructure  or  introducing  new  data  products  (e.g.  infra-annual  publications)  typically 
entails  incremental  financial  and  human  resources  that  are  at  least  partly  comparable  in 
volume  across  countries,  whereas  smaller  countries  typically  have  fewer  staff  and  smaller 
budgets  for  official  population  statistics.  This  means  that  these  countries  are  generally 
expected to face relatively more severe challenges than larger countries in adapting to any 
of the policy options. 

3.  The  correct  implementation  of  a  harmonised  population  definition  based  on  a  strict  usual 
residence  concept  as  a  basis  for  annual  and  more  frequent  statistics  is  challenging  for  all 
Member  States,  in  particular  in  combination  with  the  expected  upgrading  of  statistical 
outputs. It is generally acknowledged that an integrated statistical production system based 

42 

 
on administrative and other readily available sources is needed to produce detailed statistical 
outputs  frequently  and  with  shorter  deadlines.  However,  multisource  production  systems 
ultimately  based  on  administrative  population  registers  have  well-known  coverage  issues 
with respect to the usually resident population. While efficient methods like signs of life are 
available in principle to control over-coverage (i.e. to identify persons not factually present 
at a given address), ESS80 and international81 guidance generally acknowledges that the only 
effective method currently available to check for systematic under-coverage of the registers 
against the usually resident population is to carry out dedicated field surveys. The costs of 
such  field  surveys  scale  with  their  frequency  and  geographic  area  covered  and  would  be 
incurred  by  all  Member  States  using  (or  transitioning  towards)  integrated  register-based 
production systems with a proper implementation of the usual residence concept. 

From these points, in particular 1 and 2, it may be roughly summarised that the smallest Member 
States in groups 2 and 3 are likely to face relatively the most severe challenges in adapting to any of 
the policy options. 

6.1.3.  6.1.3. 

Incremental cost savings (benefits) incurred by policy option D.2 

While  incremental  quantitative  costs  could  not  be  broken  down  by  specific  Member  States  or 
Member State groups due to a lack of granular information, the quantitative evidence for baseline 
costs  by  Member  State  is  more  robust  and  makes  it  possible  in  principle  to  model  some  specific 
cost savings. This is particularly true for census costs, for which there is comparably rich granular 
information  from  the  2001  and  2011  rounds  that  may  be  used  to  model  efficiency  differences 
between  production  systems,  either  based  on  statistical  population  registers  or  having  to  cope 
without  them.  This  is  used  here  as  a  rough  proxy  to  estimate  potential  cost  savings  expected 
specifically  from  policy  option  D.2  that  would introduce  such  statistical  registers  for  all  Member 
States. 

The  detailed  baseline  cost  assessment  by  Member  State  has  shown  that  there  is  a  significant  gap 
between Member States producing their annual and census statistics from  an up-to-date statistical 
population register  (group 1 in Section 6.1.1) and Member States currently  coping without such a 
register (groups 2 and 3). According to the baseline cost assessment, the median cost of a traditional 
census  across  EU-27  countries  was  roughly  20  times  the  median  cost  of  a  register-based  census 
both in the 2001 and the 2011 census round. A rough estimation of respective potential cost savings 
in the future, accounting for scale effects from changing population sizes, amounts conservatively 
to EUR 2 (EUR 1-4 with sensitivity margin of 50-200% around the best estimate) per capita less in 
a census round82, incurred only by six Member States not currently planning to set up a statistical 
population register83 (Annex 3). The total potential cost savings at EU level per future census round 
could  thus  amount  to  EUR 281 million  (between  EUR  141 million  and  EUR  563 million 
according to  sensitivity  margin). This  is  roughly  between two and eight  times the total  combined 
one-off and recurrent (over 10 years) incremental cost estimate for all affected Member States to set 
up and maintain such registers (see Annex 2 part 1.1.7). 

80 ESS Quality Guidelines on Frames for Social Statistics (footnote 60). 
81  UN  Handbook  on  Registers-Based  Population  and  Housing  Censuses  (second  draft  version  presented  to  the  UN 
Statistical Commission in March 2022, see footnote 17). 
82 External support study (footnote 71). 
83  NSIs  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Does  your  NSI  maintain  a  national  population  register  for  statistical  purposes?’  The 
following NSIs responded ‘No, and not planned’: CZ, DE, IE, LU, PL, RO). 

43 

 
                                                 
Similarly, recurrent cost savings can also be expected for the production of annual and infra-annual 
data, even at the highest demographic and geographic details and improved timeliness, due to the 
continuous  availability  of  a  single  statistical  source  at  microdata  (individual  person  record)  level 
from  which  the  tabulations  can  be  extracted.  This  would  incur  a  substantial  discount  on  the 
incremental costs related to the major upgrade of statistical outputs in policy option D.2, but such a 
discount was impossible to quantify reliably on top of the estimate of these costs. 

6.2. 

6.2. 

Qualitative analysis of the options 

Most benefits associated with each policy option, except for some potential cost savings related to 
reduced administrative burden (see Sections 6.1.3 and 8.2), have not been quantified. This is in part 
due to a lack of available data on the benefits associated with population statistics, and in part due 
to  the  nature  of  the  benefits  that  are  likely  to  be  generated  by  this  initiative.  For  many  of  the 
benefits  considered,  their  effects  are  more  indirect  and  variable  across  Member  States  and 
stakeholder  groups,  which  make  them  challenging  to  quantify  or  monetise.  For  example,  the 
benefits to data users from increased access to high-quality European statistics on population would 
depend on several additional factors, such as how these data would be used or the cost of accessing 
data through alternative sources. In addition, benefits to  policymaking at EU or other governance 
levels,  from  improved  access  to  reliable,  comparable  population  data  across  the  EU,  would  be 
difficult to monetise since these would depend on several contextual factors, such as the types of 
policies  at  each  governance  level  that  rely  on  population  data  or  what  the  impact  of  evidence 
quality would be. 

For  these  reasons,  respective  benefits  have  been  considered  qualitatively;  and  Table  6  shows  to 
what extent each of the policy options B-D achieve incremental benefits compared to the baseline, 
by beneficiary groups and specific benefit items. The tables in Annex 2 (part 1.2) provide a detailed 
and  systematic  qualitative  assessment  of  the  proportionality  and  incremental  impacts  by  option, 
based  on  the  policy  measures  included  in  each  option  (see  Figure  10)  and  how  these  affect  the 
effectiveness,  coherence  with  wider  EU  objectives  and  efficiency;  and  applying  the  qualitative 
scoring method introduced at the beginning of Section 6. 

Key  features  of  each  policy  option  regarding  incremental  policy  measures  and  their  benefits  on 
stakeholder groups are summarised below. Stakeholder groups’ views on each policy option were 
collected at three dedicated option validation workshops: one with participants from NSIs, one with 
representatives  of  Commission  departments  and  one  with  other  professional  users  (institutional 
users,  researchers,  NGOs).  Earlier  consultation  activities  could  not  refer  directly  to  the  policy 
options as these were not yet finalised at the time, but the OPC did ask for respondents’ priorities 
among  the  various  potential  measures  considered  under  each  of  the  policy  topics  (see  Table  2). 
Mapping  their  answers  to  policy  options  (Figure  9)  makes  it  possible  to  calculate  an  OPC-based 
relative  preference  for  the  policy  options  by  stakeholder  group.  The  result,  shown  in  Figure  10, 
corroborates the following summaries by option. 

B.1  causes  modest  incremental  benefits  from  better  data  evidence  for  various  professional  users, 
including  policymakers  (measures  3.2,  4.2,  6.2,  8.2,  9.2,  10.2,  11.2)  but  fails  to  deliver  on  key 
aspects  like  geographic  granularity  or  specific  topics  of  policy  interest.  Statistics  producers, 
including  Eurostat,  benefit  moderately  from  simplified  procedures  due  to  a  streamlined  legal 
framework for all datasets and lighter adaptation processes to evolving data needs (measure 15.2). 
Source  data  providers  benefit  from  simplified  procedures  due  to  a  clearer  legal  base  for  sharing 

44 

 
0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00

A

B.1

B.2

C.1

C.2

D.1

D.2

Institutional users (N=9)

Researchers (N=10)

Other professional users (N=28)

Statistics producers (N=10)

Figure 10 – Relative preference for policy options by stakeholder group, based on the prioritisation of policy measures expressed 
in  the  OPC  (responses  to  Q3.1  –  Q3.17).  Note  that  this  figure  only  covers  OPC  uptake,  so  findings  from  other  consultation 
activities (e.g. option validation workshops mentioned in Section 6.2) complement this picture. In particular, ‘institutional users’ 
do  not  cover  EU  policy  users,  who  did  not  submit  replies  to  the  OPC;  their  views  were  captured  in  a  targeted  survey  and  a 
dedicated option validation workshop with the Commission. (Source: Eurostat analysis) 

relevant data (measures 17.2 and 17.3). During the option validation workshops, participants from 
NSIs  and  professional  users  (Commission  departments,  other  institutional  users  and  researchers) 
identified policy option B.1 as realistic, i.e. feasible to implement84. 

B.2 causes larger incremental benefits for professional users than B.1 in terms of further improved 
data evidence for various policy and institutional purposes (additional measures 3.4, 4.3, 6.3, 7.3, 
8.3,  10.3,  11.3,  12.2,  13.2,  14.2,  16.2).  Statistics  producers  additionally  benefit  from  the 
interoperability  of  statistical  population  registers  for  simplified  sharing  of  relevant  data 
(measure 17.4). The feedback from the option validation workshops was mixed: a majority of NSI 
participants  stated  that  the  measures  under  policy  option  B.1  would  be  unrealistic  due  to  the 
increased  burden  involved,  while  the  opposite  view  was  broadly  expressed  among  professional 
users (see footnote 84). 

C.1 (C.2) causes larger incremental benefits relative to B.1 (B.2) solely through improved EU-level 
comparability  across  Member  States,  stemming  from 
the  harmonised  population  base 
(measure 2.3). Notably, large majorities of OPC respondents in all stakeholder groups (from 73%, 
or  8  out  of  11  respondents  among  statistics  producers,  up  to  93%  or  39  out  of  42  respondents 
among  professional  users)  put  a  high  priority  on  introducing  a  strictly  harmonised  population 
definition (either for all datasets  or with  justified exceptions)85. In the targeted survey  with  NSIs, 
maintaining the status quo of non-harmonised population definitions was considered to have minor 
or moderate negative impacts by a majority of the 29 respondents (69% on usability of European 
data  for  policymaking,  79%  each  on  comparability  of  national  data  and  on  quality  of  European 
data),  while  production  costs  was  the  only  area  where  a  majority  (55%)  of  respondents  saw  a 
positive  impact  (38%  ‘major’,  17%  ‘moderate’  or  ‘minor’)86.  During  the  option  validation 

84 See overall assessment of this option in the external support study (footnote 71), Section 4.5.4. 
85 Responses to OPC survey (Q3.2). 
86 Responses to NSI survey (Q3.3). 

45 

 
                                                 
 
 
workshops, most participants from NSIs as well as from among professional users found option C.1 
feasible to implement, whereas the views on C.2 were split: not realistic according to a majority of 
NSI participants, realistic according to professional users (see footnote 84). 

D.1 brings larger incremental benefits for users than C.2, with even better EU-level comparability 
through  full  harmonisation  (measure 2.2),  and  a  major  improvement  of  data  evidence  (additional 
measures  5.2,  7.2,  9.3,  14.3,  16.3).  Statistics  producers  and  Eurostat  both  benefit  from  further 
simplified processes due to effective adaptation mechanisms to evolving data needs (measure 15.3) 
and  from  full  EU-level  interoperability  of  statistical  population  registers  (measure 17.5).  In  the 
option  validation  workshops,  participants  from  NSIs  unanimously  found  D.1  unrealistic,  driven 
mostly  by  expectations  of  excessive  additional  burden  on  NSIs,  while  participants  among 
professional users generally stated that the option is realistic (see footnote 84). 

D.2  causes  larger  incremental  benefits  than  D.1  solely  through  the  introduction  of  statistical 
population  registers  across  all  Member  States  (measure 1.2).  This  benefits  users  with  higher  data 
quality in  general and quicker adaptation to their evolving needs. Statistics producers also benefit 
substantially  over  time  thanks  to  the  integrated  statistical  production  processes.  In  the  option 
validation  workshops,  NSI  participants  unanimously  agreed  that  D.2  is  unrealistic,  largely  due  to 
the costs involved in transitioning to statistical population registers and due to the subsidiarity and 
proportionality  concerns  around  them,  while  this  option  was  largely  viewed  positively  by 
professional  users  (see  footnote 84).  In  the  OPC,  a  large  majority  (84%,  or  27  out  of  32 
respondents)  among  professional  user  groups  also  prioritised  the  introduction  of  statistical 
population  registers,  while  the  opinions  of  statistics  producers  were  split  (50%,  or  5  out  of  10 
respondents prioritised maintaining the status quo)87. 

87 Responses to OPC survey (Q3.1). 

46 

 
 
                                                 
Table 6 – Beneficiaries and qualitative level of incremental benefits expected by policy options compared to the baseline (scale: no increment, ‘+’, ‘++’ or ‘+++’). 

Beneficiary 
People (the 
public and 
migrants) 

EU institutional 
users 

Other 
institutional 
users (national 
and subnational 
levels) 

Other 

Incremental benefits compared to the baseline 
Benefits from improved policymaking, including for potentially disadvantaged population groups 
Better information on own local/regional environment 
Reduced response burden, i.e. fewer direct inputs needed from individual persons 
Better EU-level timeliness and completeness of statistics across all Member States 
Better EU-level comparability and coherence of statistics across all Member States 
More accurate and comparable total population counts for Council voting 
Improved inputs to monitoring of demographic change and projecting long-term budget sustainability in 
relation to population ageing 
Better data evidence for regional and cohesion policies 
Better data evidence for local and urban/rural policies 
Better data evidence for free movement of persons in the EU internal market 
Better data evidence for non-EU migration and migrant integration policies 
Better data evidence for fundamental rights and non-discrimination policies 
Better data evidence for the European Green Deal and housing policies 
Better data evidence for access to services analysis and monitoring 
Better data evidence for disaster/crisis response 
Reputational gains from improved policymaking and EU decision-making in general 
Better comparability with other Member States on population size at all levels 
Better comparability with other Member States on migration patterns 
Better comparability with other Member States on migrant integration 
Better comparability with other Member States on housing 
Better comparability with other Member States on equality and non-discrimination 
Better comparability with other EU regions 
Better comparability with other EU municipalities and functional areas 
Better data evidence (through grids) for policymaking in border regions and local crisis response 
Reputational gains from improved visibility and transparency in a European context 
Better comparability of research/analysis across all Member States 

B.1 
+ 
+ 

+ 

B.2 
++ 
++ 

++ 
+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 
+ 

+ 

+ 
+ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+ 

C.1 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 
++ 
+ 

++ 

++ 
+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

++ 

+ 
+ 

C.2 
++ 
++ 

++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 

+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 

D.1 
+++ 
+++ 

+++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 

D.2 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
professional 
users 

Statistics 
producers 
(NSIs) 

Administrative 
data providers  

Eurostat 

Better research/analysis of detailed geographic patterns across the EU 
Better research/analysis of migration patterns and migrant integration across the EU 
Better research/analysis of equality and non-discrimination across the EU 
Better research/analysis of longitudinal patterns across the EU 
Reduced administrative burden (through ability to find all statistics on Eurostat’s website) 
Economic benefits from availability of better European statistics 
Benefits from improved policymaking (e.g. enhanced social cohesion) 
Improved comparability of statistics with other Member States 
Improved accuracy and coverage of statistics due to interoperability with other Member States 
Reduced administrative burden (through simplified statistics transmission processes) 
Reduced administrative burden (through integrated statistics production process) 
Reduced administrative burden (through improved use of administrative and/or other data sources) 
Reduced administrative burden (relating to regulatory changes to adapt to evolving policy needs) 
Increased ability to meet legal requirements 
Increased staff skills 
Improvements in administrative registers thanks to closer collaboration with NSIs 
Reduced administrative burden through streamlined data exchange with NSIs 
Increased added value from own data through improved reuse 
Improved legal base of statistical cooperation through a clear mandate 
Reputational gains from improved reuse of administrative registers 
Advancement of Eurostat mission ‘to provide high-quality statistics and data on Europe’ 
Improved collaboration with EU policy users 
Improved collaboration with ESS partners due to EU-wide interoperability 
Better data evidence for other European statistics (e.g. data collection based on samples, national 
accounts) 
Reduced administrative burden (relating to regulatory changes to adapt to evolving policy needs) 
Reduced administrative burden (related to coordination / quality assurance for voluntary data) 
Reputational gains from improved international standing of European statistics freely available to all 

+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+ 
+ 

++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 

+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
+ 
+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 
++ 
++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 

+ 

++ 
++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 

++ 

++ 
++ 
++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
+ 

++ 
+++ 
+ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7 – Comparative overview policy option assessments (see Annex 2 part 1.1 for detailed quantitative cost estimates and part 1.2 for detailed qualitative assessment scores) 

Dimension 

Proportionality 

  Necessary minimum 
  Limitation to EU scope 
  Costs commensurate 
  Simplest effective action 

Effectiveness – average 

  Specific objective 1 
  Specific objective 2 
  Specific objective 3 
  Specific objective 4 
 
fundamental rights 
 
society 
  environment 

Coherence with EU objectives 
Efficiency 
 

total incremental costs89 

Views of key stakeholder groups 

  Statistics producers 
  EU and other institutional users 
  Researchers, other professional users 

A 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
0.00 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
Baseline 
0 

Policy options 

B.1 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
0.93 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0.5 
1 
1 
1 

D.1 
Uncertain 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Uncertain 
3.14 
3 
3 
3.5 
3.5 
3 
3 
3 
4 
Ambition in incremental effectiveness grows with incremental costs 

C.2 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
2.21 
2.5 
2 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
3 

B.2 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
1.93 
1.5 
2 
3 
2 
1 
2 
2 
2 

C.1 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
1.21 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1.5 
1 
1 
2 

10.5 – 15.7 

42.0 – 63.0 

31.5 – 47.2 

63.0 – 94.5 

95.0 – 142.5 

Big difference of views between statistics producer and user profiles 

D.2 
Uncertain 
Pass 
Uncertain 
Pass 
Uncertain 
3.71 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
4 
4 
Better than D.188 
145.6 – 218.490 

Feasible 

Feasible 
Feasible but outputs not sufficient for current policy needs 
Feasible but outputs not sufficient for professional needs 

Split views 

Split views 
Barely sufficient 
Split views 

Not feasible (unanimous) 
Feasible and sufficient 
Feasible and sufficient 

88 According to the detailed comparative efficiency assessment in Annex 2 part 1.2 (see Subsections 1.2.6 for D.1 and 1.2.7 for D.2), policy option D.2 is expected to be more efficient than D.1 
in the long term due to the gradual cost savings and subsequent efficiency gains incurred through statistical population registers over time (this may stretch over a long period going beyond the 
10 years assessed here). While D.1 is expected to be less efficient than the more modest options (including notably C.2) due to the extremely ambitious increase in statistical outputs without 
taking strong facilitating action, the relative efficiency of D.2 against the more modest options remains unclear (see further description in Section 7). 
89 +/- 20% margin in millions of 2021 EUR. As shown in Table 3, most of these estimated incremental costs (97.7% to 98.5% depending on the policy option) fall on Member States, mostly 
in the form of additional human and financial resources required by NSIs and the respective national statistical production systems. 
90 Specifically for policy option D.2, almost all incremental costs with respect to D.1 are incurred by Member States not currently having or planning a statistical population register (group 3 in 
Section 6.1.1). Potential cost savings estimated in Section 6.1.3 have not been set off against the costs here, due to larger uncertainties around these estimates. 

49 

 
                                                 
7.  7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

In line with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines (BRG)91, a multi-criteria decision  analysis (MCDA) 
should  be  used  to  compare  the  different  options  in  terms  of  compliance  with  the  proportionality 
principle,  effectiveness  against  specific  objectives  and  wider  impacts  (fundamental  rights,  social, 
environmental), coherence with EU objectives, and efficiency. Table 7 summarises the assessment 
of all policy options for each of these criteria, by also including views of key stakeholder groups. A 
detailed reasoning for each of the assessments, presented by policy option, is provided in Annex 2. 
A comparison of policy options synthesising these findings is presented in this section. 

On proportionality, four questions were  answered (see also Section 4.6.1 of the  external support 
study, footnote 71): 

1.  Does the option go beyond what is necessary to satisfactorily achieve the objectives? 

All  options  pass,  as  all policy  measures  considered  are  clearly  linked  (albeit  with  varying 
ambitions) to specific problems with the current EU legal framework, as established by the 
evaluation. 

2.  Is  the  scope  of  the  option  limited  to  those  aspects  that  Member  States  cannot  achieve 

satisfactorily on their own and where the EU can do better? 
Member States alone clearly cannot provide European statistics fulfilling required common 
quality  standards,  especially  on  completeness,  comparability,  frequency,  timeliness  and 
geographic and topical detail, and thus relevance for EU policy needs. 
Policy options B.1 through D.1 pass, as all their measures are clearly linked to creating or 
improving such common standards. The status of option D.2 is uncertain due to measure 1.2 
requiring statistical population registers in all Member States. 
While  the  goals  of  improving  efficiency,  flexibility  and  comparability  across  all  Member 
States  are  proportionate,  some  NSI  experts  have  expressed  concerns  that  national  systems 
would lose flexibility to find their own solutions92. However, it is the freedom of movement 
in the EU internal market under EU law that presents characteristic challenges for statistics, 
such as highly dynamic and further increasing mobility, cross-border work/family patterns 
and  several  places  of  residence  split  across  regions  and  countries  becoming  common 
practice. 
Experience over the past years suggests that national approaches are ineffective to produce 
genuine  European  statistics93,  so  that  EU  action  would  be  proportionate  in  the  form  of 
(ideally interoperable) national population registers solely for statistical purposes. 

3.  Are  costs  for  the  EU,  national  governments,  regional  or  local  authorities,  economic 

operators or the public commensurate with the objectives of the initiative? 
Based on the quantitative analysis of the costs (Section 6.1), all policy options are judged as 
passing this question. This includes the costliest option, policy option D.2, because a large 
part of these costs (around the statistical population registers) would be an investment in the 

91 European Commission (2021) Better Regulation Toolbox Chapter 8, Tool #62. 
92 At the option validation workshop with NSIs and on various other regular expert consultations in the ESS. 
93  For  instance,  after  the  adoption  of  the  Demography  Regulation,  Eurostat  initiated  studies  with  NSIs  on  how  the 
population definition based on  usual residence can be implemented  within the national  systems. The outcome  is that 
currently  there  is  no  common  implementation  of  this  definition,  which  leads  to  the  continuing  situation  that  the  EU 
population  cannot  be  measured  at  a  single  place  of  residence  (or  main  residence)  across  the  entire  EU  territory,  and 
there  is  a  constant  risk  of  under  or  double  counting  people,  vital  events  and  migration  asymmetries.  In  absence  of  a 
single European identifier, addressing such issues is generally difficult for NSIs, but there are methods based on data 
sharing  between  NSIs  that  are  worth  exploring.  In  the  longer  term,  additional  benefits  could  emerge  from  improved 
European digital identities under a proposed amendment to Regulation (EU) No 910/2014; COM(2021) 281. 

50 

 
                                                 
capacities of a few Member States (group 3 in Section 6.1) that is expected to be offset by 
long-term savings and wider benefits at EU level. 

4.  Is  the  form  of  action  (choice  of  instrument)  as  simple  as  possible  and  coherent  with  the 

satisfactory achievement of the objective and effective enforcement? 
The choice of legal instrument (one new regulation or an update of existing legislation) to 
implement  the  policy  options  has  not  been  explored  in  depth  in  this  study.  Any  of  the 
measures entailed can, in principle, be achieved by each approach, whereas integrating the 
current  three  basic  acts  into  one  would  have  natural  benefits  for  streamlining  all  related 
processes. Thus options B.1 through C.2 pass this question, while whether D.1 and D.2 pass 
remains uncertain: D.1 is so ambitious on statistical outputs that there are increased risks of 
significant  non-compliance  across  Member  States.  The  statistical  population  registers 
required under D.2 can be seen as facilitating the statistical infrastructure in this respect. It 
is  known from  experience that statistical  population  registers are not  simple to  implement 
and  may  compete  with  other  measures  that  address  comparability  issues  at  EU  level  (e.g. 
harmonised population definition, internal migration flows)94. 

Regarding effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives (SO), all options were scored against 
the relevant policy measures included (see Figure 9) for each SO. 

  SO1  (completeness,  coherence,  comparability)  took  into  account  policy  measures  to 
harmonise  the  population  definition  (policy  topic 2),  ensure  completeness  of  voluntary 
statistics (topics 12, 13) and ensure a consistent time series (topic 16). Moreover, statistical 
population  registers  (topic 1)  were  considered  to  reduce  implementation  risks  of  a 
harmonised  population  definition.  Therefore,  option  D.2  scored  highest  (+4),  followed  by 
D.1 (+3) and C.2 (+2.5). 

  SO2  (timeliness  and  frequency)  took  into  account  measures  to  improve  the  publication 
frequencies (topics 5, 7) and the time between reference and publication dates (topics 8, 9) 
of  various  statistical  products.  Statistical  population  registers  (topic 1)  were  considered  to 
improve production efficiency and thus reduce compliance risks. Option D.2 scored highest 
(+4), followed by D.1 (+3) and by B.2 and C.2 (+2). 

  SO3 (geographic and topical detail) took into account measures to improve the geographic 
detail  of  existing  statistics  (topics 3,  4,  6)  and  introduce  new  statistics  or  more  details  on 
topics  of  key  policy  interest  (topics 10,  11,  14).  Statistical  population  registers  (topic 1) 
would  allow  georeferencing  of  the  whole  population  and  also  improve  the  availability  of 
statistical detail and thus reduce compliance risks. Option D.2 scored highest (+4), followed 
by D.1 (+3.5) and B.2 resp. C.2 (+3). 

  SO4  (input  and  output  flexibility)  took  into  account  measures  to  adapt  the  statistical 
products more quickly and efficiently to evolving policy needs (topic 15) and enable better 
use  of  existing  or  new  data  sources  that  may  become  available  in  the  future  (topic 17). 
Statistical population registers (topic 1) would streamline the integration of data sources and 
also  be  more  flexible  to  extract  new  statistical  outputs,  and  thus  reduce  compliance  risks. 
Option D.2 scored highest (+4), followed by D.1 (+3.5) and B.2 resp. C.2 (+2). 

Options  were  also  scored  against  wider  impacts  on  fundamental  rights,  society  and  environment. 
While the scores generally followed the patterns of SO scores, the impact of statistical population 

94 For instance, instead of setting up statistical population registers, a thorough scaled-up auditing of national practices 
by Eurostat, including regular country visits to extensively assess national production systems, could be considered – at 
least  in  principle  –  to  give  stronger  incentives  for  common  operationalisation  and  implementation  of  the  harmonised 
concepts. 

51 

 
                                                 
registers in option D.2 were particular, in that some concerns were expressed about certain risks of 
negative  impacts  on  fundamental  rights  (related  to  personal  data  protection)  and  social  impacts 
(doubts  around  the  social  licence).  However,  they  would  have  specific  positive  environmental 
impacts  by  embracing  digitalisation  and  efficient  production  systems,  thus  reducing  the  carbon 
footprint  of  statistics  production,  especially  when  full  field  enumerations  for  traditional  censuses 
become  obsolete.  Overall,  on  effectiveness,  option  D.2  scored  highest  (+3.71)  followed  by  D.1 
(+3.14) and C.2 (+2.21). 

Regarding  coherence  with  EU  objectives,  all  options  were  scored  against  the  relevant  policy 
measures  on  how  ambitiously  statistics  move  towards  EU-level  comparability  of  population 
definitions  (topic 2),  deliver  on  the  data  needs  for  current  EU  priorities  (topics  3,  6  as  regards 
urban/rural  integration  and  the  Green  Deal;  topics  4,  10,  11  for  migrant  integration;  topic  14  for 
equality) and improve flexibility to adapt to evolving policy needs and data environments (topics 1, 
15, 17 for enabling new data sources and interoperability of ESS production systems). Overall, on 
coherence options D.1 and D.2 scored the highest (+4) followed by C.2 (+3) and B.2 resp. C.1 (+2). 

Regarding  efficiency,  baseline  and  incremental  costs  by  policy  option  have  been  quantified  in 
Section 6.1. The baseline (A) sets zero incremental costs or benefits but is considered dynamic in 
that key impacts of modernisation already planned in some Member States (group 2 of Section 6.1) 
are  factored  in.  However,  most  of  the  benefits  could  not  be  quantified,  so  incremental  costs  and 
benefits by option can only be confronted qualitatively. Nevertheless, three broad qualitative trends 
can be identified. 

1.  Incremental effectiveness grows  steadily  with  incremental  costs. This  means that a simple 
retail  analogy  applies:  the  more  expensive  option  buys  more  or  bigger  benefits  –  in 
increasing order, this is B.1, C.1, B.2, C.2, D.1 and D.2. However,  a key  aspect to note is 
that  most  costs  are  incurred  by  statistics  producers,  while  the  most  relevant  direct 
beneficiaries are statistics users (see Table 6). Nonetheless, at a higher level, both costs and 
direct  benefits  are  incurred  by  the  same  actors,  namely  public  administrations  across  the 
EU.  Researchers  and  other  professional  users  also  benefit  directly  from  better  statistics 
availability,  while  society  as  a  whole  benefits  from  key  indirect  benefits,  mostly  through 
better policymaking. 

2.  Introducing  a  harmonised  population  definition  based  on  a  strict  usual  residence  concept 
(going from option B.1 to C.1 or from B.2 to C.2) is estimated to be almost as expensive as 
all  the  significant  improvements  on  statistical  output  and  flexibility  together  (going  from 
B.1  to  B.2  or  from  C.1  to  C.2).  This  is  because,  even  in  advanced  integrated  statistical 
production systems based on administrative registers, complex specific efforts are needed to 
capture the actual presence of persons  at a registered place of residence (i.e. control over-
coverage) and the size and characteristics of population groups actually present on a given 
territory  but  not  registered  there  (i.e.  control  under-coverage).  Nonetheless,  improving  on 
this aspect has a leverage effect on higher quality, not only of population outputs from this 
initiative,  but  of  all  European  social  statistics  (since  accurate  enumeration  of  the  whole 
population is the backbone of other statistical tools such as collecting data from samples). 
3.  The respective high incremental costs and burdens during an extended adjustment phase of 
options D.1 and D.2 along the lines of points 1 and 2 above are clear, but despite associated 
large benefits, the extent to which these outweigh the costs is uncertain. Nonetheless, option 
D.2 is considered more efficient than D.1, as they both have the same statistical outputs and 
flexibility, but statistical production in D.2 is expected to be more efficient in the long term 
due  to  the  full  process  integration  through  statistical  population  registers.  However,  the 
monetised cost and benefit estimates for option D.2 are very uncertain, meaning it is unclear 
over  which  period  the  net  recurrent  benefits  break  even  with  the  required  one-off 

52 

 
investments. In reality, D.2 is expected to be much more efficient than the baseline, maybe 
even than all options B-C (especially as recurrent cost savings accrue), but a conservative 
assessment requires particular caution on this option, which may be very costly upfront for 
some Member States. 

The views of key stakeholder groups on the different policy options mainly reflect the insights on 
effectiveness  v  costs  (see  point 1  of  the  efficiency  assessment  above).  Most  statistics  producers 
consulted  during  the  various  consultation  activities  (OPC,  targeted  survey,  two  dedicated 
workshops)  focused  exclusively  on  the  additional  costs  and  burden  on  their  own  organisation. 
However,  most  professional  statistics  users  consulted  (institutional  users,  researchers  and  other 
professional  users)  put  emphasis  primarily  on  the  benefits  of  upgraded  statistical  outputs  and 
flexibility. This led to a deep division between these stakeholder profiles. The producers strongly 
favoured the status quo (baseline) or, at most, options B.1 or C.1, while the users strongly favoured 
options  D.1  or  D.2  or,  at  least,  C.2.  This  split  between  producers  and  users  is  clearly  visible  in 
Figure  10  (illustrating  OPC  uptake)  and  in  Table  7  (integrating  the  uptake  from  all  consultation 
activities)95. 

8.  8. PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1. 

8.1. 

Overall ranking and selection of the preferred option 

Table 7 summarises the comparative performance of all policy options against the criteria assessed. 
With  a  lack  of  quantified  benefits,  a  direct  ranking  of  options  is  not  possible.  The  efficiency 
assessment, however, showed qualitatively that none of the options is obviously more cost-effective 
than  any  other.  Rather,  the  options  offer  increasing  benefits  (directly  for  statistics  users  and 
indirectly  for  the  whole  society)  at  increasing  costs  (mostly  for  statistics  producers,  i.e.  national 
statistical production systems). The deep division between producers and users of statistics reflects 
this pattern, as producers focused on costs while users prioritised the benefits. Option C.2 appears 
as  a  possible  compromise  because  costs  are  still  considered  high  by  producers  (but  not  by  too 
much), while benefits are considered barely sufficient by users (but still an improvement compared 
to the current situation). 

The  underlying  policy  decision  to  be  made  is  which  level  of  ambition  –  and  costs  entailed  –  is 
deemed  appropriate  for  a  more  future-proof  EU  framework  for  population  statistics.  The  main 
concerns of statistics producers need to be read in this context as driven mainly by a strict limitation 
of new costs and burden. However, the assessment has clearly shown that ambitious action on data 
needs for EU policy priorities has its price, in the form of additional resources needed for statistics 
producers  that  are  substantial  compared  to  the  current  baseline  costs  (up  to  around  10%  for 
option D.2 according to  Table 3). More precisely, only the most ambitious options, D.1 and  D.2, 
contain strong  measures  to  address  the needs of  key  EU policy  areas like urban/rural  integration, 
the  Green  Deal,  and  fundamental  rights  and  non-discrimination.  Additionally,  only  option D.2 
includes  statistical  population  registers  as  a  strong  measure  to  increase  production  efficiency  and 
thus facilitate delivering the ambitious output goals. 

95 Unfortunately, the dedicated option validation workshops (see external support study, footnote 71) failed to reconcile 
these  perspectives.  In  particular,  the  workshop  with  NSI  experts  did  not  distinguish  clearly  incremental  costs  and 
burden from technical and methodological feasibility aspects. 

53 

 
 
                                                 
Therefore, the overall preferred option is D.2. While option D.2 is the most ambitious in terms of 
statistical  output and flexibility of the framework, it achieves the best  result thanks to a similarly 
ambitious simplification and integration of the statistical production systems and sustainable long-
term  efficiency  gains.  However,  the  main  issues  of  this  option  argued  in  Section 7  are  the 
uncertainties  around  subsidiarity  and  proportionality,  and  the  significant  incremental  costs  and 
benefits of introducing interoperable statistical population registers in all Member States. 

Therefore,  an  alternative  (conservative)  approach  preferring  option  C.2  would  also  be 
reasonable if the acknowledged sizeable uncertainties around the proportionality and efficiency  of 
option D.2 are  given more weight  – this  would  also  be more  acceptable to statistics producers  as 
key stakeholders for implementation. 

Finally, as pointed out in Section 4.2, each option was constructed bottom-up from a combination 
of  more  specific  policy  measures  addressing  the  specific  objectives.  This  means  that  all  options 
represent  a  form  of  necessary  simplification  among  the  available  measure  combinations.  While 
option  D.2  represents  a  group  of  measures  that  collectively  emerged  as  the  preferred  package 
among all assessed, when further developing this intervention it may be reasonable, proportionate 
and  ultimately  necessary  to  consider  adjustments  around  this  package  at  the  level  of  individual 
measures.  However, the  unique feature  of option D.2 – and a significant  facilitating  factor  for its 
very ambitious output goals – is the introduction of interoperable statistical population registers in 
all  Member  States,  which  makes  this  option  the  most  ambitious  one,  not  only  in  terms  of 
requirements  and  outputs,  but  also  in  terms  of  expected  long-term  simplification,  integration  and 
efficiency  gains.  Therefore,  a  legislative  proposal  in  line  with  option D.2  should  include  credible 
ambition in this direction. 

8.2. 

8.2. 

REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

All options going beyond the baseline, including the preferred options C.2 or D.2, would entail an 
update  of  the  current  legal  framework  and  thus  make  some  level  of  streamlining  the  legal  base 
relative  to  the  current  situation  possible.  This  may  give  rise  to  benefits  in  terms  of  compliance, 
monitoring and enforcement, and associated cost savings. 

For  instance,  it  is  expected  that  some  cost  savings  could  be  made  by  reducing  the  current 
administrative burdens borne by the Commission (Eurostat) as well as Member States in all groups 
and their respective NSIs. It was not possible within the scope of this study to quantify this effect 
due  to  uncertainties  around  the  overall  cumulative  effect  that  streamlining  the  legal  framework 
would  have  on  individual  Member  States.  For  example,  it  is  possible  that  the  individual 
administrative approach taken by each Member State to provide and report on population statistics 
is embedded within other procedures, tempering the cost-saving effect from streamlining the legal 
base. 

More generally, given the nature of the measures proposed (i.e. the fact that most measures required 
placing  additional  requirements  and  therefore  burdens  on  statistics  producers  and  thus  on  public 
administrations),  net  simplifications  and  associated  savings  were  challenging  to  quantify. 
Nonetheless,  Table  8  summarises  the  qualitative  analysis  of  the  relevant  benefits  under  the 
preferred option. 

Notable  simplifications  are  incurred  by  introducing  flexibility  features  leading  to  simplified  data 
sharing  between  source  data  owners  and  NSIs  as  well  as  to  simplified  regulatory  adaptations  of 
NSIs and Eurostat to evolving data needs. Users will benefit from simplified and centralised access 
to  all  relevant  data  through  the  Eurostat  website.  Moreover,  both  NSIs  and  Eurostat  will  also 
benefit from simplified data transmission procedures from streamlined legislation. 

54 

 
Table 8 – Summary of REFIT relevant benefits of the preferred option D.2 and alternative C.2. 

Beneficiary 
Professional users 
Statistics producers 
(NSIs) 

Admin. data providers  
Eurostat 

Reduced administrative burden through: 
ability to find all needed statistics on Eurostat website 
simplified statistics transmission processes 
integrated statistics production process 
improved use of administrative and/or other data sources 
regulatory changes to adapt to evolving policy needs 
streamlined data exchange with NSIs 
regulatory changes to adapt to evolving policy needs 
coordination/quality assurance for voluntary data 

D.2 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
+++ 
++ 
+++ 
+++ 

C.2 
++ 
+ 

++ 
+++ 
++ 
++ 
++ 

Finally,  the  introduction  of  statistical  population  registers  in  all  Member  States  (measure 1.2, 
uniquely appearing in option D.2) is expected to bring about significant long-term efficiency gains 
due to  a substantial simplification and full integration of national  statistical  production processes. 
The full volume of potential cost savings is very hard to quantify, and will depend on the specific 
national backgrounds of the Member States that currently do not have such a register  and are not 
planning one (group 3 in Section 6.1). Nevertheless, this impact assessment has set a benchmark by 
roughly  estimating  the  potential  recurrent  EU-level  cost  savings  on  censuses  to  between 
EUR 141 million and EUR 563 million per census round (Section 6.1.3). 

In  practice,  Member  States  in  group 3  that  do  not  currently  intend  to  set  up  statistical  population 
registers might also accrue recurring cost savings in relation to the delivery of other types of data 
requirements,  including  annual  statistics. However, these impacts  could  not  be reliably quantified 
since no data were available on the isolated effect of using statistical population registers for annual 
statistics specifically. To this end, the estimate for cost savings associated with the census rounds is 
a proxy for the wider cost savings associated with the use of statistical population registers. Since 
the cost savings related to the census was significant for those Member States that do not currently 
have a population register, estimating this value was deemed to be the most proportionate approach. 

8.3. 

8.3. 

Application of the ‘one in, one out’ (OI-OO) approach 

8.3.1.  8.3.1. 

Potential new burden on citizens 

Regarding  any  new  burden  on  citizens,  the  only  potential  source  of  such  impacts  under  the 
preferred  options  D.2  or  C.2  is  policy  measure 14.3  (only  in  D.2),  introducing  new  collection 
modes for equality data. Since at least some of these variables would need to be collected by self-
declaration (see footnote 49), some form of incremental direct interaction with citizens (e.g. surveys 
conducted in person, by phone or online) will generally be required. However, due to the relative 
stability of respective population group patterns, such data are expected to be needed only in less 
frequent  intervals,  for  instance  during  census  years.  For  instance,  according  to  the  targeted  NSI 
survey, in the 2021 census round 20 Member States relied on either full enumeration (13 countries) 
or  sample  surveys  (7 countries)  as  part  of  their  census  taking  modes96.  Moreover,  according  to  a 
Eurostat  monitoring  survey  (state    September  2021),  in  total  19 countries  will  publish  data  on  at 

96 Responses to NSI survey (Q2.1); Greece imputed from https://www.statistics.gr/en/2021-census-pop-hous. 

55 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
least one of the equality variables other than sex and age with the 2021 census results, four of them 
based on a fully register-based census97. 

The incremental burden on citizens will be mainly measured by additional time afforded by survey 
respondents  to  answer  the  relevant  new  questions.  Now  the  point  is  that  sample  surveys  are  a 
standard instrument of data collection carried out regularly also at EU level (e.g. annually for EU-
SILC or even quarterly for the EU-LFS), with considerable baseline burden on citizens in terms of 
average person-time spent per year. For example, according to the impact assessment on Regulation 
(EU) 2019/170098, a typical LFS interview covering roughly 100 questions takes about 20 minutes 
(median). At a typical sample size of around 1% of the population per quarter99, this means a total 
response  burden  of  very  roughly  6  million  person-hours  per  year  EU-wide  (order  of  magnitude). 
Going further, the following  assumptions  can be made  for collecting  equality-relevant  population 
data other than sex and age based on a sample survey: 

  a roughly similar setting as EU-LFS is needed in terms of sample size per survey (1%) and 

question duration (0.2 minutes per question)100; 

  an equality survey would be conducted (or respective module added to an existing survey) 

multiannually, e.g. once every 10 years during census years; 

  about 10 extra questions would be needed (two questions per five equality dimensions other 

than age). 

As a result, the total incremental time burden on citizens would be a fraction of 1/400 or 0.25% of 
the regular baseline burden caused by EU-LFS only. 

However,  there  are  issues  specific  to  surveys  or  survey  questions  addressing  grounds  for 
discrimination, namely that the overall response rate drops with each question potentially perceived 
as  contentious  or  sensitive  by  a  sizeable  share  of  respondents101.  This  is  a  known  challenge 
normally requiring larger sample sizes and thus overall response time to achieve the same level of 
accuracy (e.g. compared to  EU-LFS). Therefore, one could  allow a very  conservative uncertainty 
margin on the result above, for instance estimating the relative incremental burden as up to 1% of 
the current baseline burden. It can still be concluded that a new or extended direct population data 
collection  at  EU  level  –  under  the  assumptions  reflected  above  –  would  cause  only  negligible 
incremental  response  burden  on  citizens  and  would  thus  not  generate  any  significant  net  ins 
relevant for OI-OO. 

97 This  means  these  countries  have  some  of  the  equality  variables  in  national  administrative  sources,  e.g.  non-binary 
gender (AT), ethnicity (LT, LV), religious affiliation (FI, LT). 
98 SWD(2016) 283. 
99 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Labour_force_survey_(LFS)_-
_sampling_design,_sample_size_and_sampling_errors#What_is_the_sample_size_in_each_country_.3F 
100 Notably, the target  groups of EU-LFS and such a  new survey  would not be  fully the  same, as EU-LFS addresses 
private households only, whereas target groups at risk of discrimination or inequality do not necessarily live in regular 
private  households. However, this intricacy does not affect the ensuing argument on rough total response  time  in the 
whole  population.  (It  does  affect  the  potential  incremental  costs  on  NSIs  carrying  out  such  a  survey,  but  this  is  not 
relevant here.) 
101 In a Eurobarometer survey, respondents expressed support for providing sensitive personal details on an anonymous 
basis,  if  that  could  help  to  combat  discrimination  in  their  country.  This  applies  to  information  on  their  ethnic  origin 
(72% in favour), their religion or beliefs (71%),  their health situation (66%)  and their sexual orientation (63%), This 
shows  that  there  are  sizeable  minorities  who  still  have  reservations  against  such  questions,  which  supports  the 
assumptions  that  the  non-response  would  typically  increase.  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Discrimination  in  the  EU  in 
2015: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d629b6d1-6d05-11e5-9317-01aa75ed71a1. 

56 

 
                                                 
Table 9 – Overview of B2G direct benefits related to the Data Act proposal (impact assessment (IA) preferred policy option) – from 
Table I in Annex 3 to the IA (footnote 102) 

Overview of B2G incremental benefits related to the Data Act proposal (IA preferred option) 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Lower administrative 
burden 

EUR 155 million per year 

Direct benefits 

Large and medium businesses should 
experience lower compliance costs 
and less duplication in B2G data 
sharing. 

Qualitative benefits include improved 
reputation and workforce motivation. 

Table 10 – Overview of B2G incremental costs related to the Data Act proposal (IA preferred option) – from Table II in Annex 3 to 
the IA (footnote 102) 

Overview of B2G incremental costs related to the Data Act proposal (IA preferred option) 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

B2G data 
sharing  

Direct costs 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 552.5 m  EUR 78.1 m  n/a 

EUR 21.6 m 

Indirect costs 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

8.3.2.  8.3.2. 

Potential new costs for businesses 

Regarding new costs for businesses, the only potential source of such impacts under the preferred 
options  D.2  or  C.2  is  policy  measure 17.3,  enabling  B2G  data-sharing  approaches  to  European 
population  statistics.  In  this  context,  the  impact  assessment  on  the  Commission’s  initiative  on  a 
Data  Act102  has  assessed  relevant  costs  and  benefits  of  such  approaches  to  official  statistics  in 
general. A summary of these is presented in Table 9 and Table 10. 

The direct  benefit  in  Table 9  relates to  the  fact  that  statistical  authorities in  the ESS try  any way 
they  can  to  maximise  the  use  of  new  sources  from  private  holders  of  data  (PHD).  Such  factual 
requests, partly based on national laws, already create a factual procedural burden, and thus costs, 
that  are  driven  further  by  redundancies  and  inefficiencies  in  the  absence  of  a  legal  base.  Clear 
common enablers across the EU as included in the Data Act proposal are thus estimated to lead to a 

102 SWD(2022) 34. 

57 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
direct saving of administrative costs of EUR 155 million per year on the PHDs to be shared under 
B2G.  However,  the  direct  costs  on  PHD  businesses  in  Table  10  consist  of  (one-off)  adjustment 
costs of EUR 552.5 million and (recurrent) administrative costs of EUR 78.1 million per year. 

A  cost-benefit  analysis  focusing  on  the  OI-OO  relevant  impacts  incurred  by  the  PHD  sector 
suggests that  the benefit mentioned above  affects the PHD sector directly  and  exclusively, which 
allows for direct compensation and offsetting of OI-OO relevant costs. In particular: 

  administrative  costs  (recurrent)  are  directly  offset  by  administrative  cost  savings 
introduced by the same initiative, leaving recurrent excess cost savings of EUR 76.9 million 
per year; 

  adjustment  costs  (one-off)  are  compensated  over  time  by  the  recurrent  offsetting  excess 
cost  savings  above;  more  specifically,  just  over  7  years  would  be  needed,  based  on  the 
estimated amounts, for the entire PHD sector to fully compensate their adjustments. 

According  to  this  analysis,  B2G  data  sharing  in  general,  including  for  official  statistics,  is  not 
expected  to  generate  OI-OO  relevant  net  ins  on  businesses.  This  argument  can  be  projected  to 
specific sectors of official statistics – such as population statistics – by assuming a linear scaling of 
both  benefits  and  costs  from  B2G  by  the  same  factor.  In  this  model,  it  is  not  even  necessary  to 
estimate 
the  OI-OO 
offsetting/compensation  relation  above  is  also  linear  and  thus  not  sensitive  to  the  value  of  the 
scaling factor. 

statistics  because 

for  population 

specific 

scaling 

factor 

the 

9.  9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  performance  of  the  new  ESOP  legislation  will  be  monitored  and  evaluated  against  the 
operational  objectives  (OOs)  set  out  in  Table  11.  The  following  paragraphs  outline  the  main 
considerations for monitoring and evaluating each stage of the policy cycle. These will complement 
the regular monitoring and quality control mechanisms already present in the ESS that are mostly 
based on regular quality reports by NSIs.  It has become a default standard to anchor such quality 
reporting in EU statistical legislation, and this initiative aims to further strengthen and specify the 
legal  basis  on  quality  reporting  and  monitoring.  Additionally,  surveys  with  key  user  groups  have 
shown to be useful in the stakeholder consultation for this initiative. These could become regular 
parts of the monitoring approach to track the user uptake of the updated statistical outputs. 

During  the  implementation  phase  of  the  new  legal  framework,  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  will 
continue  organising  regular  expert  group  meetings  with  partner  NSIs  in  the  ESS  to  discuss  and 
clarify any issues that may arise, continuing a long-standing history of good and close cooperation 
between  Eurostat  and  its  ESS  partners  on  technical  and  statistical  matters.  This  includes  diligent 
joint preparation of key implementing acts regulating the detailed new statistical data and metadata 
requirements, which will be of central interest to both statistics users and producers. For instance, 
Eurostat can establish topical task forces to address specific technical challenges in achieving the 
objectives  of  the  new  legislation.  The  implementation  stage  is  planned  to  conclude  with  a  first 
evaluation  focusing  on  the  implementation,  functioning  and  initial  impacts  of  the  new  legal 
framework. To obtain sufficient information on the performance, this evaluation is planned within 3 
to  5  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  legal  framework,  in  line  with  BRG  advice  that 
evaluations should have access to at least 3 full years of data. 

After  transition  to  the  application  phase,  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  plans  to  evaluate  the 
functioning and impact of the legislation every 3 to 5 years. Table 11 below outlines some potential 

58 

 
 
indicators  to  monitor  the  effectiveness  of  a  new  ESOP  framework  against  each  OO,  including 
potential  data  sources  that  that  are  easily  available  and  credible.  In  this  context,  the  recent 
evaluation  of  the  current  legislation  (see  footnote 7)  has  developed  several  highly  valuable 
indicators  –  in  particular  regarding  statistical  quality  based  on  data  and  metadata  published  by 
Eurostat  –  that  will  be  considered  for  consecutive  monitoring  of  the  new  legal  status  quo.  In 
addition, Eurostat’s regular user satisfaction survey, along with targeted surveys (e.g. of NSIs and 
statistical  correspondents  of  Commission  services),  have  proven  to  be  good  tools  for  evidence-
gathering during the past stakeholder consultation, and are thus considered valuable instruments for 
future evaluations. 

59 

 
Table 11 – Possible key performance indicators, targets and data sources for the operational objectives (OO). Indicators reused from the recent evaluation of the current legislation are referenced by their 
acronyms used in Annex 5 of the evaluation report (e.g. ‘SQ1.4’ for ‘statistical quality indicator number 1.4’ and so on – see evaluation report). Current benchmarks are taken from the evaluation report 
(footnote 7) and from stakeholder consultation findings, otherwise the source is referenced explicitly. 

SO 

OO 

Possible key performance indicators and data sources 

Current benchmarks 

Targets 

1 Complete, 
coherent and 
comparable statistics 

1.1 Coherent processes 
used to produce 
statistics across 
Member States (MS) 
to improve 
comparability 

KPI 1.1.1 Number of MS producing their data with a single 
integrated process 

12 MS 

All MS after 10 years from 
adoption of the new legal 
framework 

Sources: Eurostat metadata, quality reports, targeted 
surveys with NSIs 

KPI 1.1.2 Evaluation SQ1.4: number of MS providing 
coherent annual and census data for 2031 

Source: Eurostat data 

22 MS  

All MS 

KPI 1.1.3 Evaluation SQ1.5: number of MS providing 
consistent demographic balances 

12 MS 

All MS after end of 
transition period 

Source: Eurostat data 

KPI 1.2.1 Evaluation SQ1.1: number of MS using the strict 
usual residence definition for their population base 

18 MS 

All MS after end of 
transition period 

  Sources: Eurostat metadata, quality reports, targeted 

surveys with NSIs 

KPI 1.2.2 Number of MS providing qualitative metadata on 
how they implement the population base definition 

0 MS103 

All MS 

1.2 Consistent 
population base 
definitions used across 
MS and within 
datasets submitted by a 
MS 

  Sources: Eurostat metadata, quality reports 

KPI 1.2.3 Number of MS providing quantitative metadata 
on how accurately they implement the population base 
definition 

0 MS (footnote 103) 

All MS 

103 Eurobase metadata accompanying the dataset on usually resident population on 1 January (demo_urespop): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/demo_urespop_esms.htm 

60 

 
                                                 
SO 

OO 

Possible key performance indicators and data sources 

Current benchmarks 

Targets 

1.3 Complete 
transmission of 
mandatory datasets 
from all MS 

  Sources: Eurostat metadata, quality reports 

KPI 1.3.1 Evaluation SQ6.1: completeness of mandatory 
statistics 

98.9% 

  Source: Eurostat data 

KPI 1.3.2 Evaluation EE2.1: share of EU aggregates 
provided in mandatory datasets 

84% 

  Source: Eurostat data 

KPI 1.3.3 Evaluation EE2.2: share of ‘unknown’ in 
mandatory breakdowns 

~0.1% 

  Source: Eurostat data 

All MS provide all 
mandatory breakdown 
categories after end of 
transition period 

All mandatory breakdowns 
include an EU aggregate 
category after end of 
transition period 

No more than 5% of any 
population broken down by 
a variable where the 
category ‘unknown’ exists 
are assigned to that 
category 

1.4 Update historic 
time series 

KPI 1.4.1 Number of MS having updated the last 10 
reference years before the 2021 census 

  Source: Eurostat record of data revisions 

10 MS (2011 census)104  All MS where the 2021 

census requires revisions of 
the last 10 reference years 

KPI 1.4.2 Number of MS having updated the complete time 
series 

0 MS 

All MS after end of 
transition period 

  Source: Eurostat record of data revisions 

2 Timely and 
frequent statistics 
meeting user needs 

2.1 Frequencies and 
deadlines set out in EU 
legislation better meet 
users’ needs 

KPI 2.1.1 Opinion of key user groups including policy and 
institutional users 

n/a 

  Sources: Eurostat user satisfaction survey, targeted surveys 

A majority of policy and 
institutional users agree that 
that frequency and 
timeliness have improved 

104 Auxiliary information assessed for indicator SQ3.4 of the evaluation report (footnote 7). 

61 

 
                                                 
SO 

OO 

Possible key performance indicators and data sources 

Current benchmarks 

Targets 

with Commission statistical correspondents 

KPI 2.1.2 Evaluation SQ4.1: EU data timeliness evolution 

397 days 

  Source: Eurostat record of data transmissions 

KPI 2.1.3 Evaluation SQ4.2: EU data timeliness compared 
to national and international practices 

  Sources: Eurostat record of data transmissions, metadata 

of national and international data collections 

2.2 MS compliance 
with legal deadlines 

KPI 2.2.1 Evaluation SQ5.1: punctuality of MS data 
transmissions 

  Source: Eurostat record of data transmissions 

22 MS (population) 

18 MS (births) 

17 MS (deaths) 

20 MS (migration) 

31 days 

3 Statistics are 
sufficiently 
comprehensive in 
terms of policy 
relevant topics or 
groups and 
sufficiently detailed 
in terms of 
characteristics and 
breakdowns 

3.1 Statistics better 
meet users’ needs 
regarding: 

  migrants and 

migration flows 

  specific 

population groups 
characteristics 

  geographical 

detail of statistics 

  housing 

  Opinion of key user groups including policy and 

n/a 

institutional users regarding: 

KPI 3.1.1 Migrants and migration flows 

KPI 3.1.2 Specific population groups characteristics 

KPI 3.1.3 Geographical detail of statistics 

KPI 3.1.4 Housing 

  Sources: Eurostat user satisfaction survey, targeted surveys 

with Commission statistical correspondents 

62 

after the implementation of 
the new legal framework 

Time elapsed between 
reference period and 
publication of EU-complete 
data becomes shorter than 
baseline for all mandatory 
datasets under the new 
legal framework 

All MS achieve timeliness 
standard T+6 months 
currently achieved by a 
majority of MS in national 
data collections 

All MS transmit mandatory 
datasets within the agreed 
legal deadlines after end of 
transition period (i.e. 0 
days) 

A majority of policy and 
institutional users agree that 
statistical detail has 
improved after 
implementation of the new 
legal framework 

 
 
 
 
SO 

OO 

Possible key performance indicators and data sources 

Current benchmarks 

Targets 

4 Legal framework 
is sufficiently 
flexible to adapt data 
to quickly evolving 
policy needs and 
opportunities from 
new data sources 

4.1 Improved 
flexibility to adapt 
statistical outputs to 
evolving policy needs 

KPI 4.1.1 Number of new datasets that were regulated 
using the flexibility mechanism over time 

0 

  Sources: Executive acts adopted by the European 

Commission 

KPI 4.1.2 Opinion of key user groups including policy and 
institutional users 

n/a 

  Sources: Eurostat user satisfaction survey, targeted surveys 

with Commission statistical correspondents 

KPI 4.1.3 Opinion of NSIs on effectiveness and 
proportionality of the flexibility mechanism 

  Source: targeted surveys with NSIs 

4.2 Dynamic and 
flexible use of relevant 
data sources available 
or becoming available 

KPI 4.2.1 Number of new data sources included in 
statistical production over time 

  Sources: Eurostat documentation, metadata, quality and 

specific reports 

n/a 

0 

KPI 4.2.2 Opinion of NSIs on improved availability of 
relevant source data and/or cooperation with data owners 

n/a 

  Source: targeted surveys with NSIs 

63 

At least one successful 
application of the flexibility 
mechanism during the first 
10 years after adoption of 
the new legal framework 

A majority of policy and 
institutional users agree that 
flexibility regarding new 
data needs has improved 
10 years after the adoption 
of the new legal framework 

A majority of NSIs agrees 
that flexibility regarding 
new data needs is effective 
and proportionate 

At least one new data 
source is successfully 
included in production in 
the first 10 years after 
adoption of the new legal 
framework 

A majority of NSIs confirm 
improved availability of 
relevant source data and/or 
cooperation with data 
owners 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

10.  1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG 

Eurostat 

Decide Planning  PLAN/2021/10584105 

CWP reference 

CWP 2022 Annex II - REFIT 

11.  2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

After  political  validation  of  the  ESOP  initiative  in  February  2021,  an  interservice  steering  group 
(ISG) chaired by Eurostat and composed of representatives of 16 Commission DGs106 was set up to 
supervise  the  progress  on  combined  evaluation  and  impact  assessment  including  stakeholder 
consultations. The ISG met six times: 

Meeting date 

Topics discussed 

31/03/2021 

20/08/2021 

21/10/2021 

27/01/2022 

Introduction to European population statistics 

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

Introduction of contractor ICF SA 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 
  Progress draft SWD on impact assessment 
  Progress draft SWD on consultation synopsis 

10/02/2022 

  Complete draft SWD on impact assessment for endorsement 
  Complete draft SWD on consultation synopsis for endorsement 

16/06/2022 

  Revised draft SWD on impact assessment for endorsement of 

changes addressing the RSB opinion  

105 https://intragate.ec.europa.eu/decide/sep/?view-dossier-details-id=DORSALE-DOSSIER-2021-5573 
106 SG, SJ, AGRI, BUDG, EAC, ECFIN, EMPL, ENER, HOME, INTPA, JRC, JUST, NEAR, REGIO, RTD, SANTE. 

64 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
12.  3. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The RSB was consulted on this impact assessment at a meeting on 16 March 2022. 

13.  4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Evidence and sources 

Evidence 

Sources 

  Statistical data and metadata currently published (baseline) 
  Legal acts and explanatory memoranda related to the 

current legislation 

  Commission reports on implementation of the current 

legislation 

  Methodological guidelines and papers 
 
  Policy documents establishing statistical needs 

International recommendations 

A comprehensive list of documents reviewed is provided in 
Table 12. 

  Written consultation with the Commission network of 

statistical correspondents 

  Bilateral exchanges to pinpoint specific needs 
  OPC survey 

  Topical workshop with selected organisational statistics 

 

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

  OPC survey 

  Regular consultation of relevant Commission expert 

groups (see below) 

  Case studies with five selected Member States 
  OPC survey 
  Targeted survey with NSIs complementing the OPC 

Desk research 

Opinion of statistics users: 
Commission services 

Opinion of other statistics 
users 

Opinion of statistics 
producers 

Expert advice used 

To  seek  advice  and  inputs  on  the  progress  of  evaluation  and  impact  assessment,  Eurostat  has 
engaged the following Expert Groups (see Register of Commission Expert Groups107) regularly: 

  Working Group on Population and Housing Censuses (E01544) and its subgroup the Task Force on 

the Future of Censuses; 

  Working Group on Population Statistics (E03076); 
  European Directors of Social Statistics (E01552). 

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

65 

 
 
 
                                                 
The European Statistical System Committee was also informed about the progress. 

External support study 

Eurostat carried out this impact assessment with support from a contractor study contributed by ICF 
SA, Belgium. In particular, the quantitative cost analysis, the methodological approach to scoring 
and  ranking  of  the  policy  options  as  well  as  support  on  stakeholder  consultation  activities,  were 
provided through the support study. Parts of this  impact  assessment SWD are therefore based on 
the  final  report  on  the  study  supporting  the  impact  assessment  and  other  analysis  documents 
prepared by the contractor. 

Quality 

Based on the evidence sources and expert advice mentioned, Eurostat has carried out  this impact 
assessment using various inputs from an external support provider on stakeholder consultation, cost 
quantification and options design and comparison as mentioned above. Eurostat has monitored the 
work of the external support contractor regularly (at least every two weeks) and assessed the quality 
of the final report on impact assessment. The overall work quality and deliverables were found to 
be in line with the contract and generally sufficient to be used for this evaluation [preliminary draft 
as contract still runs until 7 April 2022; revisit after final acceptance of all contract deliverables]. 

All external references relevant for aspects of the impact assessment were also added to this report. 

66 

 
 
Table 12 – List of reviewed documents 

Author 

Agilis 

DG ECFIN 

DG ECFIN 

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 

DG HOME 

2009 – 2020  Annual reports on migration and asylum 

DG JUST / Subgroup on 
Equality Data 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG JUST 

DG REGIO 

DG REGIO 

DG REGIO 

ECB 

2021 

2018 

2017 

2017 

2017 

2017 

2016 

2015 

2022 

2017 

2014 

2018 

European Commission 

2021 

European Commission 

2021 

European Commission 

2018 

European Commission 

2018 

European Commission 

2018 

European Commission 

2017 

Guidance note on the collection and use of equality data 
based on racial or ethnic origin 

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 

Data collection in relation to LGBTI People 

Data collection in the field of ethnicity 

European handbook on equality data 

Special Eurobarometer 437 – Discrimination in the EU in 
2015 

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 

67 

 
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 

European Commission 

2007 

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) 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 

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

68 

 
Author 

Published  Title 

European Commission 

2005 

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

European Committee of the 
Regions 

2016 

The impact of demographic change on European regions 

European Parliament 

2021 

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

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) 

European Commission’s 
Joint Research Centre 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

2019 

2019 

2013 

2013 

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 

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 

2022 

2020 

How can regional and cohesion policies tackle 
demographic challenges? 

Data Innovation in Demography, Migration and Human 
Mobility 

European statistical system handbook for quality and 
metadata reports 

2007 – 2021  Sustainable development in the European Union — 

Monitoring reports on progress towards the SDGs in an 
EU context 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2021 

2021 

2020 

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 

69 

 
Author 

Published  Title 

Eurostat 

Eurostat 

ESSnet KOMUSO 

ESSnet KOMUSO 

ICF 

ICF 

United Nations 

UNECE 

UNECE 

UNECE 

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 impact assessment 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 

70 

 
 
ANNEX 2: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

14.  1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

14.1.  1.1. 

Detailed quantitative costs by policy option 

This  part  of  Annex  2  provides  detailed  quantitative  cost  assessments  of  all  options  including  the 
baseline  (option  A),  based  on  a  detailed  cost  itemisation  applied  in  the  external  support  study 
(footnote 71; see also Annex 3) and mapped onto BRG cost items in Table 13 below. Incremental 
costs of options B – D are aligned to the main option characteristics introduced in section 4.2, and 
all  amounts  are given in thousands of 2021 EUR with  a range of +/-5%  around the best  estimate 
derived from the cost model to account for a margin of error.108 As explained further in Annex 3, 
one-off  costs  are  calculated  over  3  years  to  account  for  the  transition  period  to  a  new  legal 
framework. 

108  The  final  report  on  the  support  study  (footnote 71)  provides  more  extensive  variations  including  additional  error 
margins of +/-10% and +/-20% around the best estimate. 

71 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
BRG cost 
items  

Direct 
adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Table 13 – Mapping between BRG cost items and detailed cost items assessed in this study, including definitions 

One-off / 
recurrent 
One-off  

Stake-
holders  
Eurostat 

Detailed cost 
items  
Regulatory costs   Costs required to prepare and draft the new 

Definitions  

One-off  

MS/NSIs 

Recurrent  MS/NSIs 

Recurrent 

Eurostat 

Administrative 
costs - training, 
guidance and 
support 
Administrative 
costs - design and 
implementation of 
new procedures 

Enforcement costs 
- monitoring and 
reporting 

regulation, including adopting executive acts, 
communication and provision of training 
Resources required to develop, implement and 
communicate any training required and/or 
commission experts to cover skills gaps 

Resources required to design and implement a 
programme to collect, accumulate, manage, 
clean and transmit demographic data (in the 
manner required by the regulation) including 
through collaboration/ data transmission 
between NSIs and national authorities 
Resources required to monitor MS alignment 
to, and compliance with the requirements of 
the new regulation (including around data 
protection, data quality and transparency) and 
to receive and publish data provided 
Resources required to monitor and ensure 
compliance to the regulation in the MS 

Direct 
enforcement 
costs 

Recurrent 

NSIs/MS 

Recurrent 

NSIs/MS 

Enforcement costs 
- monitoring and 
reporting 
Compliance costs  Resources required to ensure compliance with 

Eurostat 
NSIs/MS 

IT costs  

requirements, including adopting national 
arrangements or legislation to ensure 
cooperation with relevant source data holders 
New software/application/IT update necessary 
for implementing the new measure 

IT costs 

Direct 
regulatory fees 
and charges 
Indirect costs 

One-off / 
recurrent 
Not 
estimated  

Not 
estimated  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.1.1. 1.1.1. 

14.1.2. 1.1.1. 

A – Baseline 

The baseline scenario is described in section 6.1.1. The following tables present an overview of the 
costs entailed by this policy option. 

Table 14 – Overview of baseline costs (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 10 
years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 10 
years) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

22,706 – 23,901 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4,299 – 4,525 

N/A 

2,377 – 2,502 

N/A 

89,739 – 94,462 

N/A 

2,181 – 2,296 

N/A 

92,081 – 96,927 

N/A 

8,214 – 8,646 

N/A 

1,461,036 – 1,537,933 

Population 
frames or 
registers  

Population 
Definitions  

Mandatory 
demography 
statistics 

Mandatory 
migration 
statistics 

Mandatory 
census 
statistics 

Voluntary 
statistics 

A – 
BASELINE 
Limited 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes and 
current 
statistical 
outputs 

N/A 

758 – 798 

Cost savings 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

3,357 – 3,534 

111,730 – 123,492 

Total baseline 
costs  

N/A 

12,886 – 14,242 

1,481,810 – 1,637,790 

Table 15 – Overview of baseline costs (BRG format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

A – 
BASELINE 
Limited 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes and 
current 
statistical 
outputs 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off  Recurrent (over 10 
years) 

One-off  Recurrent (over 10 
years) 

Direct 
adjustment costs  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct 
regulatory fees 
and charges 

Direct 
enforcement 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

1,481,810 – 1,637,790 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

12,886 – 14,242 

N/A 

N/A 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
costs 

Indirect costs 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

14.1.3. 1.1.2. 

Policy  option  B.1  –  Limited  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, limited upgrade of statistical outputs  

In  policy  option  B.1,  the  status  quo  remains  for  the  harmonisation  of  population  definition 
(limited), as well as for the statistical processes (separate resp. up to Member States).  

The incremental costs of this option, relatively to the baseline, are incurred by the limited upgrade 
of the statistical outputs. Updated statistical requirements are introduced in demography, migration, 
and housing census statistics.  

Under this Option, the European Commission would incur the following incremental costs: 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698 
o  IT costs: EUR 97,116  

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 97,072 
o  IT costs: N/A 

Under this Option, all 27 Member states (NSIs) would incur the following incremental costs:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 2,111,179 
o  IT costs: EUR 3,704,262 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 1,519,285 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 360,945 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 1,450,227 
o  IT costs: EUR 3,635,085 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 16 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option B.1 (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years)  

One-off 

Recurrent (over 10 
years) 

Regulatory costs 

93 – 103  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Administrative 
costs - training, 
guidance and 
support 

N/A 

N/A 

2,006 – 2,217  N/A 

Compliance costs  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

92 – 102 

N/A 

N/A 

1,443 – 1,595 

343 – 379 

POLICY 
OPTION B.1 
Limited 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
limited update 
of statistical 
outputs 

Enforcement 
costs - monitoring 
and reporting 

Administrative 
costs - design and 
implementation 
of new 
procedures 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

1,378 – 1,523 

IT costs 

92 – 102 

0 

3,519 – 3,889 

3,453 – 3,817 

Table 17 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option B.1 (BRG format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent 
(over 10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

POLICY 
OPTION B.1 
Limited 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
limited update 
of statistical 
outputs 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

93 – 103 

N/A 

2,006 – 2,217  N/A 

Direct 
administrative costs 

Direct enforcement 
costs 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

92 – 102 

N/A 

N/A 

1,378 – 1,523  

1,786 – 1,974 

IT costs 

92 – 102 

0 

3,519 – 3,889 

3,453 – 3,817 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Indirect costs 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
14.1.4. 1.1.3. 

Policy  option  B.2  -  Limited  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, more expansive upgrade of statistical outputs and flexibility 

In  policy  option  B.2,  similarly  to  Option  B.1,  the  status  quo  remains  for  the  harmonisation  of 
population definition (limited), as well as for the statistical processes (separate resp. up to Member 
States). However, the more expansive upgrade of statistical outputs can be expected to  accelerate 
indirectly the current transition towards integrated register-based systems at national levels. 

The  incremental  costs  of  this  option,  relatively  to  the  baseline,  are  incurred  by  an  update  of  the 
statistical outputs (more expansive update of requirements for census, demography, and migration 
statistics compared to option B.1 and Option C.1) which also includes to make mandatory some of 
the existing voluntary statistics data.  

Under  policy  option  B.2,  the  European  Commission  would  incur  the  following  incremental  costs 
due to the more important upgrade of statistical outputs: 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: EUR 288,602  

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 304,618  
o  IT costs: EUR 65,425 

All  27  Member  states  (NSIs)  would  incur  the  following  incremental  costs  due  to  the  more 
important upgrade of statistical outputs:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 6,929,358 
o  IT costs: EUR 10,841,743 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 9,668,179 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 2,381,134 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 9,087,189 
o  IT costs: EUR 12,839,075 

76 

 
 
 
Table 18 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option B.2 (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years)  

One-off 

Recurrent (over 10 
years) 

Regulatory costs  93 - 103 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

POLICY 
OPTION B.2 
Limited 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
upgrade of 
statistical 
outputs and 
flexibility 

Administrative 
costs - training, 
guidance and 
support 

Compliance 
costs 

Enforcement 
costs - 
monitoring and 
reporting 

Administrative 
costs - design 
and 
implementation 
of new 
procedures 

N/A 

N/A 

6,583 - 7,276 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

9,185 – 10,152 

N/A 

289 – 320 

N/A 

2,262 – 2,500 

IT costs 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

8,633 – 9,542 

Table 19 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option B.2 (BRG format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent 
(over 10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

93 – 103 

N/A 

6,583 – 7,276 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

8,633 – 9,542 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

N/A 

289 – 320 

N/A 

11,447 – 12,652 

IT costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

274 – 303 

62 – 69  

10,300 –11,384 

12,197 – 13,481 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Indirect costs 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

POLICY 
OPTION B.2 
Limited 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
upgrade of 
statistical 
outputs and 
flexibility 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.1.5. 1.1.4. 

Policy  option  C.1  -  Improved  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, limited upgrade of statistical outputs 

In policy option C.1, the status quo remains with regards to the statistical processes.  

An improvement of the harmonisation of population definitions is however introduced.  

The incremental costs associated with a better harmonisation of population definition are estimated 
to be the following for the European Commission (Eurostat): 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: N/A 

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 513,322 
o  IT costs: N/A 

The  incremental  costs  incurred  by  Member  States  (NSIs)109  to  meet  the  requirements  of  an 
improved harmonisation of population definitions are estimated to be the following:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 2,627,940 
o  IT costs: EUR 4,015,460 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 6,241,425 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 6,241,425 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 6,510,559 
o  IT costs: N/A 

In terms of statistical outputs, the incremental costs of this option, relatively to the baseline, are 
incurred by the limited upgrade of these. Similarly to Option B.1, updated statistical requirements 
are introduced in demography, migration and housing census statistics.  

Under this  Option  the European Commission  would incur the following incremental costs due to 
the limited upgrade of statistical outputs: 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698 
o  IT costs: EUR 97,116  

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 97,072 
o  IT costs: N/A 

Under this Option, all 27 Member states (NSIs) would incur the following incremental costs:  

109 It was assumed that the Member States that replied to the NSIs survey question ‘Which population definition(s) is 
used in your NSI?’ with ‘Combined’ or other’ would be most likely to transition to the use of a population definition 
based on the strict usual residence concept, should the regulation restrict the extent to which NSIs can be exempt from 
using this population definition. Those NSIs are: AT, CZ, DE, EE, ES, LV, PL, SI. 

78 

 
                                                 
  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 2,111,179 
o  IT costs: EUR 3,704,262 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 1,519,285 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 360,945 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 1,450,227 
o  IT costs: EUR 3,635,085 

79 

 
 
 
 
Table 20 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option C.1 (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 10 
years)  

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

Regulatory costs  186 – 205 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

POLICY 
OPTION C.1 
Improved 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
limited update 
of statistical 
outputs 

Administrative 
costs - training, 
guidance and 
support 

Compliance 
costs 

Enforcement 
costs - 
monitoring and 
reporting 

Administrative 
costs - design 
and 
implementation 
of new 
procedures 

N/A 

N/A 

4,502 – 4,976  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

7,373 – 8,149 

N/A 

582 – 643 

N/A 

6,272 – 6,932 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

7,563 – 8,359 

IT costs 

92 – 102 

0 

7,334 – 8,106 

3,453 – 2,817 

Table 21 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option C.1 (BRG format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

186 – 205 

N/A 

4,502 – 4,976  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

7,563 – 8,359 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

N/A 

582 – 643 

N/A 

13,645 – 15,081 

IT costs 

92 – 102 

0 

7,334 – 8,106 

3,454 – 3,817 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Indirect costs 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

POLICY 
OPTION C.1 
Improved 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
limited update 
of statistical 
outputs 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
14.1.6. 1.1.5. 

Policy  option  C.2  –  Improved  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, more expansive upgrade of statistical outputs and flexibility 

In policy option C.2, the status quo remains with regards to the statistical processes. However, the 
more  expansive  upgrade  of  statistical  outputs  can  be  expected  to  accelerate  indirectly  the  current 
transition towards integrated register-based systems at national levels. 

An  improvement  of  the  harmonisation  of  population  definitions  is  introduced,  similarly  to 
Option  C.1. Therefore, the costs incurred by both the European Commission  (Eurostat) and NSIs 
for  harmonising  better  population  definitions  are  the  same  than  those  estimated  in  policy  option 
C.1. 

The incremental costs associated with a better harmonisation of population definition are estimated 
to be the following for the European Commission (Eurostat): 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: N/A 

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 513,322 
o  IT costs: N/A 

The  incremental  costs  incurred  by  NSIs  to  meet  the  requirements  of  improved  harmonisation  of 
population definitions are estimated to be:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 2,627,940 
o  IT costs: EUR 4,015,460 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 6,241,425 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 6,241,425 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 6,510,559 
o  IT costs: N/A 

The incremental costs of this option C.2, relatively to the baseline, are also incurred by an update 
of  the  statistical  outputs  (more  expansive  update  of  requirements  for  census,  demography,  and 
migration  statistics  compared  to  option  B.1  and  Option  C.1)  which  also  includes  to  make 
mandatory  some  of  the  existing  voluntary  statistics  data.  These  costs  incurred  by  the  more 
expensive upgrade of statistical outputs are the same than those estimated in Option B.2.  

Under  policy  option  C.2,  the  European  Commission  would  incur  the  following  incremental  costs 
due to the more important upgrade of statistical outputs: 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: EUR 288,602  

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 304,618  
o  IT costs: EUR 65.425 

All EU-27 (NSIs) would incur the following incremental costs due to the more important upgrade 
of statistical outputs:  

81 

 
  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 6,929,358 
o  IT costs: EUR 10,841,743 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 9,668,179 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 2,381,134 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 9,087,189 
o  IT costs: EUR 12,839,075 

82 

 
 
 
Table 22 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option C.2 (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years)  

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

Regulatory costs  186 – 205 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

POLICY 
OPTION C.2 
Improved 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
upgrade of 
statistical 
outputs and 
flexibility 

Administrative 
costs – training, 
guidance and 
support 

Compliance 
costs 

Enforcement 
costs – 
monitoring and 
reporting 

Administrative 
costs – design 
and 
implementation 
of new 
procedures 

IT costs 

N/A 

N/A 

9,079 – 10,035  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

15,114 – 16,705 

N/A 

779 – 861 

N/A 

8,191 – 9,054 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

14,818 – 16,378 

274 – 303 

62 – 69 

14,114 – 
15,600  

12,197 – 13,481 

Table 23 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option C.2 – BRG format 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off  

Recurrent 
(over 10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

186 - 205 

N/A 

9,079 – 10,035  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

14,818 – 16,378 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

23,305 – 25,759 

IT costs 

274 - 303 

62- 69 

14,114 – 
15,600  

12,197 – 13,481 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Indirect costs 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

POLICY 
OPTION C.2 
Improved 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
upgrade of 
statistical 
outputs and 
flexibility 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
14.1.7. 1.1.6. 

Policy  option  D.1  –  Full  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, major upgrade of statistical outputs 

In policy option D.1, statistical processes remain separated. This option however introduces the full 
harmonisation  of  population  definitions  based  on  the  usual  residence  concept,  as  well  as  a  major 
upgrade of statistical outputs. Similar to Option B.2, requirements are more important compared to 
those in policy option B.2 and C.2, covering existing and new topics of demography, migration, and 
population and housing census statistics. Some of census outputs will be available more frequently 
than  every  10  years.  With  regards  to  the  full  harmonisation  of  population  definitions,  the 
incremental costs to the Commission (Eurostat) associated with this measure are estimated as:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,658  
o  IT costs: N/A 

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 515,322 
o  IT costs: N/A  

The  full harmonisation  of  population  definitions  will  incur  incremental  costs  to  Member  States. 
NSIs  which  are  currently  not  using  the  definition  based  on  the  strict  usual  residence  concept  to 
define their population are expected to incur the following incremental costs: 

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 7,470,299 
o  IT costs: EUR 8,532,8541 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 4,949,187 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 4,949,187 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 14,661,584 
o  IT costs: N/A 

Regarding the major upgrade of statistical outputs, the following incremental costs are expected 
to be incurred by the Commission (Eurostat): 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: EUR 388,463 

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 514.821 
o  IT costs: EUR 151.197 

It was estimated that all 27 Member states (NSIs) would incur the following incremental costs due 
to the more detailed and new requirements in terms of statistical outputs:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 11,400,365 
o  IT costs: EUR 14,003,918 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 14,916,619 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 4,139,822 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 16,043,674 
o  IT costs: EUR 15,942,196 

84 

 
Table 24 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option D.1 (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years)  

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

Regulatory costs  186 – 205 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

POLICY 
OPTION D.1 
Full 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
major upgrade 
of statistical 
outputs 

Administrative 
costs - training, 
guidance and 
support 

Compliance 
costs 

Enforcement 
costs - 
monitoring and 
reporting 

Administrative 
costs - design 
and 
implementation 
of new 
procedures 

IT costs 

N/A 

N/A 

17,972 – 
19,814 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

18,873 – 20,859 

N/A 

979 – 1,082 

N/A 

8,635 – 9,543 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

29,170 – 32,241 

369 – 408 

144 – 159 

21,410 –
23,664 

15,145 – 16,739 

Table 25 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option D.1 (BRG format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent 
(over 10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

186 – 205 

N/A 

17,972 – 
19,814 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

29,170 – 32,241 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

N/A 

979 – 1,082 

N/A 

27,508 – 30,402 

IT costs 

369 – 408 

144 – 159 

21,410 – 
23,664 

15,145 – 16,739 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Indirect costs 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

POLICY 
OPTION D.1 
Full 
harmonisation, 
separate 
statistical 
processes, 
major upgrade 
of statistical 
outputs 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
14.1.8. 1.1.7. 

Policy option D.2 – Full harmonisation, redeveloped and integrated 
statistical  processes  in  a  single  and  flexible  framework,  major  upgrade  of 
statistical outputs 

Policy  option  D.2  introduces  the  development  of  integrated  statistical  processes  in  a  single  and 
flexible framework. Under this option, NSIs are required to set up national statistical registers. It 
also  introduces  the  full  harmonisation  of  population  definitions  based  on  the  usual  residence 
concept.  There  is  also  a  major  upgrade  of  statistical  outputs  (requirements  are  more  important 
than  those  in  policy  options  B.2  and  C.2),  covering  existing  and  new  topics  of  demography, 
migration, and population and housing census statistics. Some of census outputs will be available 
more frequently than every 10 years. 

For  the  implementation  of  national  statistical  registers,  the  incremental  costs  for  the  European 
Commission (Eurostat) are estimated to be:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: EUR 145,673  

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 172,573 
o  IT costs: EUR 476,510 

This  measure,  specific  to  policy  option  D.2,  would  also  incur  incremental  costs  for  all  Member 
States  (NSIs)  without  a  national  statistical  register  in  place  or  planned110.  The  incremental  costs 
related to the implementation of national statistical registers are estimated to be:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 7,401,716 
o  IT costs: EUR 3,011,595 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 27,623,368 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 19,796,747 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 4,842,327 
o  IT costs: EUR 1,970,236 

With  regard  to  the  full  harmonisation  of  population  definitions,  the  incremental  costs  to  the 
Commission (Eurostat) under policy option D.2 are estimated to be:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,658  
o  IT costs: N/A 

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 512,322 
o  IT costs: N/A 

110 NSI survey responses (Q.  ‘Does your NSI maintain a national statistical register?’ The following responded ‘No 
and not planned’: Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia). 

86 

 
                                                 
Full harmonisation of population definitions will incur incremental costs to Member States. NSIs 
not  currently  using  the  definition  based  on  the  strict  usual  residence  concept  to  define  their 
population are expected to incur the following incremental costs: 

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 7,470,299 
o  IT costs: EUR 8,532,854 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 4,949,187 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 4,989,187 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 14,661,584 
o  IT costs: N/A 

For the major upgrade of statistical outputs, the following incremental costs are expected to be 
incurred by the Commission (Eurostat): 

  One-off costs: 

o  Regulatory costs: EUR 97,698  
o  IT costs: EUR 388,463 

  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Enforcement costs: EUR 514,821 
o  IT costs: EUR 151,197 

EU-27  (NSIs)  would  incur  the  following  incremental  costs,  due  to  the  more  detailed  and  new 
requirements in terms of statistical outputs:  

  One-off costs: 

o  Administrative costs: EUR 11,400,365 
o  IT costs: EUR 14,003,918 
  Recurrent (over 10 years) costs:  

o  Compliance costs: EUR 14,916,619 
o  Enforcement costs: EUR 4,139,822 
o  Administrative costs: EUR 16,043,674 
o  IT costs: EUR 15,942196 

87 

 
 
 
 
Table 26 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option D.2 (Detailed format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years)  

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

Regulatory costs  278 – 308 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

POLICY 
OPTION D.2 
Full 
harmonisation, 
redeveloped 
and integrated 
statistical 
processes in a 
single and 
flexible 
framework, 
major upgrade 
of statistical 
outputs 

Administrative 
costs - training, 
guidance and 
support 

Compliance 
costs 

Enforcement 
costs - 
monitoring and 
reporting 

Administrative 
costs - design 
and 
implementation 
of new 
procedures 

IT costs 

N/A 

N/A 

24,959 – 
27,586 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

45,115 – 49,864 

N/A 

1,143 – 1,263 

N/A 

27,441 – 30,330 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

33,770 – 37,325 

507 – 561 

596 – 659 

24,271 –
26,826 

17,017 – 18,808 

Table 27 – Overview of incremental costs of policy option D.2 (BRG format in thousands of 2021 EUR) 

European Commission 

NSIs/Member States – all 27 

One-off 

Recurrent 
(over 10 years) 

One-off 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

278 – 308 

N/A 

24,959 - 27,586  N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

33,770 – 37,325 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

N/A 

1,143 – 1,263 

N/A 

72,556 – 80,194 

IT costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

507 – 561 

596 - 659 

24,271 – 
26,826 

17,017 – 18,808 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Indirect costs 

Not estimated  Not estimated 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

POLICY 
OPTION D.2 
Full 
harmonisation, 
redeveloped 
and integrated 
statistical 
processes in a 
single and 
flexible 
framework, 
major upgrade 
of statistical 
outputs 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
14.2.  1.2. 

Detailed qualitative scoring by policy option 

14.2.1. 1.2.1. 

A – Baseline 

Assessment criterion 

Score 

Brief description 

Consistency with 
proportionality principle 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain / 
Fail) 

Pass 

Does the option go 
beyond what is necessary 
to satisfactorily achieve 
the objectives? 

Pass 

Is the scope of the option 
limited to those aspects 
that Member States 
cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken. There is no 
risk that the option will go beyond what is necessary to achieve the 
policy objectives. 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken. Current EU 
action is limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their own, such as statistical population frames 
fulfilling certain common criteria. Member States have the flexibility to 
use a national population definition and to provide additional data on a 
voluntary basis. Results from the evaluation show that current EU 
action provides added value. 

Are costs for the Union, 
national governments, 
regional or local 
authorities, economic 
operators or citizens 
commensurate with the 
objectives of the 
initiative? 

Pass 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken. Thus, costs 
for data producers would be minimised.  

However, data users will incur costs because the population base is not 
harmonised, for example costs associated with obtaining data directly 
from NSIs and additional data processing. 

Pass 

Is the form of action 
(choice of instrument) as 
simple as possible and 
coherent with 
satisfactory achievement 
of the objective and 
effective enforcement? 

Effectiveness in 
achieving policy 
objectives: 

SO1:  

To ensure complete, 
coherent and comparable 
European population 
statistics 

SO2:  

 (-4 to +4) 

0 

0 

To ensure the availability 
of timely and frequent 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken. Each 
statistical domain would continue to be implemented as a separate 
statistical process based on its own EU legislation. Thus, a patchwork 
of legislation would remain. The choice of action may not be as simple 
as possible. 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken to improve 
completeness, comparability or coherence of ESOP.  

The baseline fails to meet SO1. 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken to improve 
timeliness and frequency of statistics outputs.  

89 

 
 
 
population statistics to 
meet users’ needs 

SO3:  

0 

To provide statistics that 
are sufficiently 
comprehensive in terms 
of relevant topics and 
sufficiently detailed in 
terms of characteristics 
and breakdowns 

SO4:  

0 

To promote frameworks 
that are sufficiently 
flexible to adapt to 
evolving policy needs 
and opportunities from 
new sources 

Impacts on fundamental 
rights 

0 

Social impacts 

0 

The baseline fails to meet SO2. 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken to enhance the 
detail and scope of population statistics in terms of characteristics and 
breakdowns.  

The baseline fails to meet SO3. 

Under the baseline, no further EU action would be taken and no new 
frameworks to ensure flexibility would be proposed.  

The baseline fails to meet SO4. 

All criteria were scored ‘0’ at the baseline to set a meaningful reference 
for the subsequent policy options. Nonetheless, stakeholder 
consultations revealed shortcomings in European statistics in relation to 
fundamental rights protection. Several respondents highlighted the lack 
of disaggregated data across population subgroups at risk of inequality 
or discrimination, including disaggregated and comparable data on all 
grounds in Article 21 of the Charter111.  

The lack of a legal obligation of equality data collection on all Charter 
grounds was noted as a factor preventing systematic collection of data 
to regularly assess the situation of individuals and groups of individuals 
at risk of inequality and discrimination. Equality bodies and public 
institutions would benefit from such statistics in their decision-making.  
The lack of equality data was highlighted in the EU Gender Equality 
Strategy 2020-2025, the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy, the EU Roma 
Strategic Framework and the EU Anti-racism Action Plan 2020-2025. 

All criteria were scored ‘0’ at the baseline to set a meaningful reference 
for the subsequent policy options.  

Population statistics are the backbone of all social statistics as they 
provide reference information on the entire population and its basic 
demographic characteristics. Many of the proposed measures in 
subsequent policy options are expected to contribute to modernising 
social statistics, thus maintaining the status quo is suboptimal.  
Modernisation of social statistics is needed to support various Union 
actions, such as the promotion of social inclusion and the monitoring of 
social cohesion at national and regional level. Demographic changes 

111 Sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, 
membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation. 

90 

 
                                                 
such as ageing, increasing life expectancy, declining fertility and 
depopulation of some areas have social and economic impacts. 
European statistics on population were crucial for the Commission’s 
report on the impact of demographic change and the Green Paper on 
Ageing; population data are equally crucial for the Long-Term Vision 
for Rural Areas initiative, to monitor the changes in the age structure of 
the agricultural population, population density and rural access to 
services. 

Environmental impacts  0 

All criteria were scored ‘0’ at the baseline to set a meaningful reference 
for the subsequent policy options. 

Coherence with 
overarching objectives of 
EU policy 

 (-4 to +4) 

Coherence 

0 

Efficiency 

The European Green Deal envisages a new growth strategy that will 
transform the Union into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive 
economy where no person and no place is left behind. Improving the 
population and housing data with sufficient regional detail, and in 
particular grid data, is essential to understanding relevant issues such as 
the spatial dimension of exposure to water, air and soil pollution or 
access to smart mobility. 

Maintaining the status quo would mean that some shortcomings of the 
current framework would not be resolved (e.g. lack of harmonisation 
and flexibility, insufficient data to support the development of EU 
legislation on politically relevant groups or topics, such as equality, the 
Green Deal, rural population characteristics). 

A ‘no action’ approach would have a somewhat negative effective on 
effective legal coherence between the ESOP and new EU legal 
instruments. 

The baseline has a neutral overall effect on efficiency, as no 
incremental impacts are incurred by definition of the baseline. All 
stakeholders will continue to incur the current level of baseline costs. 
Baseline benefits, including improved quality, timeliness and 
availability of statistical outputs across the EU relative to the situation 
in which data were provided voluntarily, will also be sustained.  

Overall baseline efficiency may be relatively high – analysis from the 
evaluation suggests that the current legal framework delivered benefits 
efficiently. 

Overall assessment 

Under the baseline, there will be no specific policy changes at EU level and all measures represent a 
continuation of the status quo. However, it is assumed the Demography Regulation will be amended to extend 
its application.  

This option may fail the proportionality principle if the legislative framework remains overly complex and 
gives rise to an unnecessary cost burden for data users.  

91 

 
 
 
 
This option would not be effective in addressing the problems identified with the current EU legal framework. 
Population statistics would continue to lack comparability and countries would continue to provide statistics 
covering different characteristics and at different levels of spatial and temporal disaggregation. Data users, 
including policymakers, would continue to lack access to the datasets and breakdowns they need, which may 
(indirectly) negatively impact fundamental rights policymakers would lack the information required to support 
Union actions to protect groups at risk of inequality and discrimination. It would also have indirect negative 
social impacts, as modernisation of social statistics is needed to support Union actions, such as the promotion 
of social inclusion and the monitoring of social cohesion at national and regional level. Demographic changes 
such as ageing, increasing life expectancy, declining fertility and depopulation of some areas have social and 
economic impacts.  

In terms of coherence with other EU instruments, the results from the evaluation show that the policy 
landscape has evolved considerably since the current legislation came into force. Several new synergies have 
emerged in recent years due to an increased focus on policy areas such as non-discrimination and equality, the 
Green Transition and digitalisation. As it stands, the current legal framework fails to capture characteristics 
and details of politically relevant groups and topics. 

Feedback from the public consultation revealed that the current legislative framework is perceived as enabling 
the efficient production of statistics in a manner that generates greater value than burden. Given that the same 
level of ongoing costs will continue to be incurred, the overall expected efficiency of this option is neutral, 
assuming no net change. 

In summary, maintaining the baseline would not be effective in addressing the problems identified with ESOP 
framework, as population statistics would continue to lack comparability and the necessary disaggregation 
required by policymakers and requested by other data users. 

92 

 
 
 
 
14.2.2. 1.2.2. 

Policy  option  B.1  -  Limited  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, limited upgrade of statistical outputs 

Assessment criterion  Score 

Brief description 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain 
/ Fall) 

Pass 

Consistency with 
proportionality principle 

Does the option go 
beyond what is 
necessary to 
satisfactorily achieve the 
objectives? 

Pass 

Is the scope of the option 
limited to those aspects 
that Member States 
cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Policy option B.1 entails marginal changes compared to the baseline, and 
the measures under this option do not go beyond what is necessary to 
satisfactorily achieve the objectives. 

Policy option B.1 would only marginally extend statistical requirements 
compared to the baseline, and no new statistical topics would be 
implemented. The scope of the option is limited to those aspects that 
Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and where the 
Union can do better (e.g. updated statistical requirements and increased 
quality of outputs). 

Pass 

The expected costs for the Union, national governments, regional or local 
authorities, economic operators or citizens, are expected to be minimal 
when compared to the objectives to be achieved. 

Are costs for the Union, 
national governments, 
regional or local 
authorities, economic 
operators or citizens 
commensurate with the 
objectives of the 
initiative? 

Pass 

Is the form of action 
(choice or instrument) as 
simple as possible and 
coherent with 
satisfactory achievement 
of the objective and 
effective enforcement? 

The updated statistical requirements will be introduced in demography, 
migration, and population and housing census statistics to meet user needs 
on statistical topics covered by the current EU legislation, therefore the 
form of action (choice of instrument) is as simple as possible, and 
coherent with satisfactory achievement of the objective and effective 
enforcement.  

Effectiveness in 
achieving the policy 
objectives: 

 (-4 to +4)   

SO1:  

1 

To ensure complete, 
coherent and comparable 
European population 
statistics 

In policy option B.1, similar to policy option B.2 and the baseline, 
harmonisation of population definitions remains limited. NSIs would not 
be required to implement national statistical registers for processing 
population statistics. However, policy options B.1 and B.2 still improve 
overall completeness and coherence relatively to the baseline (A). 

By failing to harmonise the population definition (measure 2), there is a 
risk that this option does not go far enough in improving the 
comparability of European population statistics. 

93 

 
 
SO2:  

1 

To ensure the 
availability of timely and 
frequent population 
statistics to meet users’ 
needs 

In policy option B.1, legal deadlines for census outputs are shortened 
(measure 9.2) and in topic 8 on timeliness, measure 8.2 ‘quality first’ is 
chosen over 8.3 ‘timeliness first’.  

Policy option B.1 does not improve the frequency of data availability 
(measure 6.2 makes geo-referenced data mandatory every 10 years but 
this is expected to impact more on comprehensiveness rather than 
frequency of data availability). Policy option B.1 performs better in 
meeting SO2 than the baseline (A), and equal to policy option C.1. 

SO3:  

1 

To provide statistics that 
are sufficiently 
comprehensive in terms 
of relevant topics and 
sufficiently detailed in 
terms of characteristics 
and breakdowns 

In policy option B.1 (and similar to policy option C.1), data on current 
statistical output are more detailed than the baseline (more characteristics 
on migration statistics; improved disaggregation of annual population 
data and migration statistics). In terms of comprehensiveness of relevant 
topics, policy option B.1 does not bring new statistical topics and 
voluntary datasets and breakdowns are not made mandatory. Overall, 
policy option B.1 (like policy option C.1) scores better than Policy the 
baseline (A) but does not perform as well on SO3 as policy options B.2, 
C.2 and D.1 and D.2.  

SO4:  

1 

To promote frameworks 
that are sufficiently 
flexible to adapt to 
evolving policy needs 
and opportunities from 
new sources 

Impacts on fundamental 
rights 

0.5 

Detail of statistics is increased slightly, but no new topics are added. By 
omitting any changes under measures 12, 13 and 14, there is also a high 
risk that this option will not address user needs sufficiently (e.g. 
policymakers and NGOs concerned with equality). 

Policy option B.1 improves the framework flexibility compared to the 
baseline by introducing limited flexibility to adapt outputs (measure 15.2) 
as well as enabling better use of administrative and new sources for 
statistical purposes (measures 17.2 and 17.3).  

Policy option B.1 represents a marginal improvement in fundamental 
rights impacts. The ten measures under this option (3.2, 4.2, 6.2, 8.2, 9.2, 
10.2, 11.2, 15.2, 17.2, 17.3) would collectively improve fundamental 
rights only marginally and indirectly, as the measures are mostly aimed at 
timeliness and detail of demographic statistics already collected. The 
individual impact of each measure on fundamental rights is difficult to 
establish.  

Nevertheless, the collective improvement and modernisation of 
population statistics envisaged is likely to have indirect impacts on 
fundamental rights by improving the quality and availability of the 
relevant data of specific vulnerable and at-risk groups. For example, 
measure 10.2 ‘define migrant groups in more detail’ would help to better 
understand the integration of third-country nationals and thereby inform 
integration policies. 

Social impacts 

1 

Policy option B.1 represents an improvement in social impact and, more 
specifically, provision of social statistics for informed evidence-based 
policy-making at EU and national level. The total of the seven measures 

94 

 
 
Environmental impacts  1 

would collectively improve social impacts only marginally and indirectly, 
as they are aimed at timeliness, harmonisation and quality of population 
statistics collected. 

Nevertheless, the collective improvement and modernisation of 
population statistics envisaged is likely to have a slight indirect positive 
impact by improving the quality and availability of the relevant data of 
specific issues of interest to policy-making.  

In the consultation, public authorities and NGOs highlighted that they rely 
on population statistics for formulating and monitoring environmental 
policies. 

Policy option B.1 would have only a small positive environmental impact. 
This impact would be indirect, resulting from the marginal improvement 
in the statistics needed for evidence-based environmental policymaking.  

Nevertheless, the collective improvement and modernisation of statistics 
envisaged is likely to have a slight indirect positive impact by improving 
the quality and availability of the relevant data of specific issues of 
interest to environmental evidence-based policy-making.  

The measures under policy option B.1 are not anticipated to drive any 
direct environmental impacts. 

Coherence with 
overarching objectives 
of EU policy 

 (-4 to +4)   

Coherence 

 1 

Relative to the baseline, policy option B.1 represents a marginal 
improvement in the coherence of the ESOP framework with the 
overarching objectives of EU policies. The ten measures included under 
this option (3.2, 4.2, 6.2, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 15.2, 17.2, 17.3) are 
expected to bring about only  a relatively small improvement in the 
coherence of the ESOP framework compared to the measures proposed 
under subsequent policy options. 

Although a slight improvement over the baseline, the measures included 
under this option may be insufficient to meet forthcoming EU policy 
needs. For example, policymakers and NGOs require better data on 
individuals and groups at risk of inequality and discrimination. This lack 
of data has been highlighted as problematic, for instance, in the EU 
Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy, the 
EU Roma Strategic Framework and the EU Anti-racism Action Plan 
2020-2025. Policy option B.1 therefore scores lower than B.2, C.2, D.1 
and D.2 which all include targeted measures (under measures 12-14) 
aimed at improving the topical coverage of EU population statistics. 

Efficiency 

Incremental costs over the baseline 
with range +/- 20%, in thousands of 
2021 EUR 

Eurostat 

MS/NSIs 

One-off (over 3y) Recurrent (over 

One-off (over 3y) Recurrent (over 

10 years) 

10 years) 

95 

 
 
148 - 222 

74 – 110 

4,420 – 6,630 

5,294 – 7,940 

Policy option B.1 entails a limited upgrade of statistical outputs and as 
such would generate relatively minor additional costs to Member States 
and Eurostat/the Commission, associated with developing, implementing, 
monitoring and enforcing compliance with these more complex and 
detailed outputs. The additional costs to Eurostat are mainly driven by 
minor regulatory and enforcement costs associated with the new 
measures, as well as one-off IT costs. For MS/NSIs, additional costs are 
driven by one-off IT investment and administrative costs as well as 
recurrent costs associated with enforcement, compliance and 
administration of the new requirements and procedures. 

It would also preserve the benefits generated by the current legal 
framework. Additional benefits would be generated for Member States, 
the Commission and data users in line with further improvements in the 
quality, detail and understanding of European statistics on population, as 
well as the quality and accuracy of evidence and media reporting. This 
would likely lead to improvements in Member States’ ability to make 
decisions, as well as the effectiveness/accuracy of policy at a local and 
EU level, with associated economic and social benefits for citizens, 
Member States and the EU as a whole. Eurostat would benefit from 
improvements in its ability to meet changing policy needs and 
reputational gains associated with improvements in the quality, detail and 
quantity of data published. Administrative burdens may also be reduced 
for data users, including non-institutional data users, in line with the 
increased availability of data from a single reliable source (Eurostat). 
Finally, a more flexible framework should generate efficiency gains in 
administrative burden to adapt to evolving needs or new sources. 

Overall assessment 

Under policy option B.1, there will be limited changes to the status quo, including limited harmonisation, 
separate statistical processes and limited update of statistical outputs.  

In terms of its compliance with the proportionality principle, policy option B.1 is similar to the baseline (A) 
and does not go beyond what is necessary to satisfactorily achieve the objectives. 

This option would not be effective in addressing the problems identified with the current EU legal framework. 
Differences in who is counted in European population figures will persist and statistical processes will remain 
fragmented as in the baseline. While policy option B.1 makes improvements in terms of the ten measures 
proposed, it does not make changes remarkable enough to be assigned a high comparative score, given the 
broader effectiveness of more ambitious options in achieving the four specific objectives. 

Regarding coherence with other EU policy objectives, policy option B.1 is expected to bring about relatively 
minor positive impacts. Slightly positive impacts are expected on fundamental rights, as some of the measures 
will indirectly contribute to the quality and availability of socio-demographic characteristics of specific 
vulnerable and at-risk groups. Similarly, the measures under policy option B.1 are expected to bring about 
relatively minor positive regulatory, environmental, and social impacts.  

Concerning efficiency, this option is associated with relatively minor additional costs while upgrading the 
statistical outputs produced. A limited upgrade may minimise the additional burden imposed while generating 
added benefits by increasing, improving and rendering timelier the available European population data 
available from Eurostat.  

96 

 
In summary, although a marginal improvement from the baseline, policy option B.1 would be suboptimal and 
ineffective in addressing the problems identified in the current legislation. Both NSIs and non-NSIs identified 
policy option B.1 as realistic (i.e. feasible to implement) in the validation workshops. 

97 

 
 
 
 
14.2.3. 1.2.3. 

Policy  option  B.2  -  Limited  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, more expansive upgrade of statistical outputs and flexibility 

Assessment criterion  Score 

Brief description 

Consistency with 
proportionality 
principle 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain 
/ Fall) 

Pass 

Pass 

Pass 

Pass 

Does the option go 
beyond what is 
necessary to 
satisfactorily achieve 
the objectives? 

Is the scope of the 
option limited to those 
aspects that Member 
States cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Are costs for the 
Union, national 
governments, regional 
or local authorities, 
economic operators or 
citizens commensurate 
with the objectives of 
the initiative? 

Is the form of action 
(choice or instrument) 
as simple as possible 
and coherent with 
satisfactory 
achievement of the 
objective and effective 
enforcement? 

Option B.2 is similar to policy option B.1 in that it does not address 
harmonisation of population definitions or statistical processes and entails 
marginal changes compared to the baseline. The measures under this 
option do not go beyond what is necessary to satisfactorily achieve the 
objectives.  

This option would only moderately extend statistical requirements 
compared to the baseline, and some existing voluntary statistical topics 
will become mandatory. The scope of the option is limited to those aspects 
that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and where 
the Union can do better (e.g. updated statistical requirements and 
increased timeliness). 

The expected costs for the Union, national governments, regional or local 
authorities, economic operators or citizens, are expected to increase 
slightly, although they will remain minimal in relation to the objectives to 
be achieved. 

The updated statistical requirements will be introduced in demography, 
migration, and census statistics to meet user needs on statistical topics 
covered by the current EU legislation. The form of action (choice of 
instrument) is thus as simple as possible and coherent with satisfactory 
achievement of the objective and effective enforcement.  

Effectiveness in 
achieving the policy 
objectives: 

 (-4 to +4)  

SO1:  

1.5 

To ensure complete, 
coherent and 
comparable European 
population statistics 

Policy option B.2 is expected to have only a small positive impact on 
SO1. The completeness of statistical outputs would be slightly improved 
relative to the baseline (mostly as some voluntary statistics would become 
mandatory under measures 12.2 and 13.2).  However, this option would 
not help to harmonise the population definitions or statistical processes 
used by Member States. Option B.2 therefore scores slightly better than 
Option B.1, but less well than Options C.1 to D.2. 

SO2:  

2 

Policy option B.2 (like policy option C.2) performs better in ensuring the 
availability of timely and frequent population statistics than policy options 

98 

 
 
To ensure the 
availability of timely 
and frequent 
population statistics to 
meet users’ needs 

SO3:  

3 

To provide statistics 
that are sufficiently 
comprehensive in 
terms of relevant 
topics and sufficiently 
detailed in terms of 
characteristics and 
breakdowns 

SO4:  

2 

To promote 
frameworks that are 
sufficiently flexible to 
adapt to evolving 
policy needs and 
opportunities from 
new sources 

Impacts on 
fundamental rights 

1 

B.1 and C.1. Legal deadlines for census outputs are shortened (measure 
9.2) and in topic 8 on timeliness, 8.3 ‘timeliness first’ is chosen over 8.2 
‘quality first.’ Moreover, measure7.3 introduces infra-annual (quarterly) 
data.  

Policy option B.2 (as well as policy option C.2, D.1, and D.2) makes geo-
referenced data mandatory annually. 

Policy option B.2 performs better in meeting SO2 than policy option B.1 
(largely by introducing annual georeferenced data in measure 6.3 and 
quarterly data in measure 7.3, and by prioritising timeliness in measure 
8.3), but scores less well than policy options D.1 to D.2 (which go further 
in providing annual LAU data in measure 5.2, detailed monthly data in 
measure 7.2 and shorter census deadlines in measure 9.3). Overall, 
policy option B.2 is expected to have a moderate positive impact on the 
timeliness and frequency of population statistics. 

In policy option B.2 (similar to policy options C.2, D.1, and D.2), data on 
current statistical output are significantly more detailed than the baseline 
or either policy option B.1 or C.1 (more characteristics on migration 
statistics through measures 10.3 and 11.3; improved disaggregation of 
annual population data and migration statistics through measures 3.4 and 
4.3). 

In terms of comprehensiveness of relevant topics, policy option B.2 brings 
new statistical topics including on equality and non-discrimination 
(measure 14.2), and voluntary datasets and breakdowns are made 
mandatory. 

Overall, policy option B.2 (like policy options C.2, D.1 and D.2) scores 
significantly better than the baseline and either policy option B.1 or C.1. It 
is thus expected to have a strong positive impact against SO3. 

Policy option B.2 (similar to policy option C.2) brings flexibility to the 
overall framework and a legal mechanism for emerging needs is put in 
place. Policy option B.2 (like policy option C.2) performs better than B.1 
and C.1 due to introducing basic interoperability of statistical population 
registers. 

Overall, policy option B.2 is expected to have a moderate positive impact 
in terms of SO4. By introducing a limited flexibility mechanism, this 
option also reduces the risk of decreasing relevance of population statistics 
compared to B.1 and C.1. 

Policy option B.2 represents a substantial improvement compared to the 
baseline and policy option B.1 in respect of fundamental rights, as it 
introduces equality data under measure 14.2. The other 13 measures under 
this option would collectively indirectly improve fundamental rights, as 
the measures are aimed at timeliness, completeness and more detail of 
population statistics. For example, measure 4.3 aims for NSIs to provide 
migration data at NUTS 3 level and measure 10.3 aims to define migrant 
groups in more detail, including socioeconomic details. These measures 
would facilitate evidence-based policy-making in respect of vulnerable 
and at-risk groups at local administrative level.  

99 

 
Social impacts 

2 

Environmental impacts 2 

However, it also poses a potential risk to fundamental rights (data privacy) 
if sensitive data are collected and processed. Despite all necessary 
safeguards112, the feedback from consultees indicates that there is a trade-
off between increasing the availability of data that can be used to protect 
groups at risk of inequality and discrimination, and the need to protect 
citizens’ personal data, especially where sensitive topics are affected. This 
is reflected with a score discount on net impact on fundamental rights. 

Policy option B.2 represents an improvement over the baseline and policy 
option B.1 in respect of social impacts, specifically the provision of social 
statistics for informed evidence-based policy-making at EU and national 
levels, by including statistics on migrant populations and flows (measures 
10.3 and 11.3), on relevant societal topics currently only provided 
voluntarily by the Member States (measures 12.2 and 12.3) and on the size 
and demographic characteristics of particular groups (measure 14.2). 

The collective improvement and modernisation of population statistics 
envisaged is likely to have an indirect positive impact also by improving 
the quality and availability of data for specific issues of interest to policy-
making, like equality or housing. Given the increased ambition in the level 
of update of statistical outputs, associated benefits would be incrementally 
higher than under policy options B.1 and C.1. 

Policy option B.2 represents an improvement compared to the baseline or 
to policy option B.1 in respect of environmental impact, specifically the 
annual grid data on housing (measure 6.3). Some of the measures (e.g. 3.2, 
4.3 and 6.3) aim to improve the geographic disaggregation of the statistics, 
which may indirectly benefit decision-making on environmental issues at 
regional and local levels. 

Given the increased ambition in the level of update of statistical outputs, 
associated benefits would be incrementally higher than under policy 
options B.1 and C.1. 

This option is not anticipated to have any direct environmental impacts. 
Overall, this option is expected to have a moderate (indirect) positive 
environmental impact. 

Coherence with 
overarching objectives 
of EU policy 

 (-4 to +4)  

Coherence 

2 

The measures under policy option B.2 will bring about updated statistical 
requirements in demography, migration, and population and housing 
census statistics to better meet user needs on statistical topics covered by 
the current EU legislation (e.g. supporting rural areas development, the 
Green Deal, equality). A limited flexibility mechanism will allow the 
framework to adapt to emerging needs, while basic interoperability among 
Member States increases statistical coherence. The collective measures 

112  For  instance,  the  most  sensitive  data  would  be  certain  self-declared  characteristics  on  grounds  for  discrimination 
such  as  gender  identity,  race/ethnicity  or  sexual  orientation.  These  would  have  to  be  collected  through  anonymised 
voluntary surveys in which respondents cannot be in any way individually identified and that cannot be used for  any 
other purposes than statistics. 

100 

 
                                                 
Efficiency 

Incremental costs over the 
baseline with range +/- 20%, in 
thousands of 2021 EUR 

could be seen as a moderate improvement towards effective legal 
coherence between the ESOP and new EU legal instruments.  

Eurostat 

MS/NSIs 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent (over 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent (over 

10 years) 

10 years) 

294 – 440  

282 - 422 

13,506 – 20,260  25,822 – 38,732 

Costs generated by policy option B.2 would be incrementally higher than 
those in policy option B.1, as it entails a more ambitious upgrade of the 
statistical outputs required of Member States. This assumes that most 
processes/equipment required to deliver these requirements would be 
more complex and therefore resource-intensive or costly. Additional 
administrative, IT and compliance and enforcement costs will also be 
incurred by MS/NSIs. For Eurostat, key cost drivers include more costly 
one-off and recurring IT costs as well as additional 
enforcement/monitoring costs associated with the additional requirements. 
The inclusion of measures associated with gathering socio-economic data 
on migrant populations as well as equalities data would also likely mean 
all activities associated with data gathering are more costly. It is possible 
that additional minor administrative burden would be imposed on citizens 
in line with the requirement to respond to additional surveys (e.g. on 
equality, see section 8.3.1). However, the overall effect is unclear, given 
the potential for alignment/streamlining with other data-gathering 
processes. 

Benefits generated would be incrementally higher than those under policy 
option B.1, including benefits from increased access to higher quality, 
more detailed and timely data, as well as the associated improvements in 
decision-making and policy-making. NSIs and Eurostat may benefit from 
further increases in staff skills related to the production of population 
statistics and related reputational gains. Additional benefits would be 
generated, for example in access to accurate equality and non-
discrimination data (leading to associated economic and social benefits) 
and an updated time series (leading to improvements in the quality and 
efficiency of research studies). Eurostat (and to some extent NSIs) might 
draw significant cost savings through reductions in the administrative 
burden relating to coordination, review and quality assurance of voluntary 
statistics (associated with relatively limited additional costs to NSIs and 
Member States, as many already provide data voluntarily), as well as 
adaptation to changing policy needs. 

Overall, the expected efficiency is higher than for policy option B.1, as the 
additional benefits generated are expected to add value (based on 
stakeholder feedback, see Annex 2).  

Overall assessment 

Under policy option B.2, limited harmonisation and separate statistical processes will remain and an upgrade 
of statistical outputs and more flexibility is proposed.  

101 

 
 
It is coherent with the proportionality principle. It does not go beyond what is necessary to satisfactorily 
achieve the objectives, as the scope is limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union can do better (e.g. updated statistical requirements and 
increased timeliness). The 14 measures would moderately extend statistical requirements and some existing 
voluntary statistical topics would become mandatory. Differences in who is counted in European population 
figures will persist and statistical processes will remain fragmented, as in the baseline. 

The measures under policy option B.2 are expected to bring about a moderate positive impact on the overall 
coherence of the ESOP framework with wider EU legislation, but with a somewhat limited harmonisation 
and extent of changes compared to other options. 

Positive impacts on fundamental rights are expected, as equality data are introduced and some other 
measures will add socio-demographic characteristics of specific vulnerable and at-risk groups, while some 
NSIs also raised concerns about data protection despite all necessary safeguards that would be put in place 
(footnote 112). Similarly, the measures under policy option B.2 are expected to bring about moderate 
positive environmental and social impacts.  

Looking at efficiency, based on the stakeholder feedback, the measures included in policy option B.2 are 
preferable to those under B.1 and could generate added value, although incrementally higher costs would 
also be incurred. The feedback from both option validation workshops was mixed: A majority of NSIs stated 
that the measures under policy Option B.2 would be unrealistic, while the opposite view was broadly 
expressed during the non-NSI validation workshop. 

102 

 
 
 
14.2.4. 1.2.4. 

Policy  option  C.1  –  Improved  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, limited update of statistical outputs 

Assessment criterion  Score 

Brief description 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain 
/ Fall) 

Pass 

Consistency with 
proportionality principle 

Does the option go 
beyond what is 
necessary to 
satisfactorily achieve the 
objectives? 

Pass 

Is the scope of the option 
limited to those aspects 
that Member States 
cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Although policy option C.1 goes further than policy options B.1 or B.2 in 
addressing harmonisation of population definitions, statistical processes 
and flexibility of the ESOP framework, it does not go beyond what is 
necessary to satisfactorily achieve the objectives. 

Policy option C.1 would only moderately extend statistical requirements 
compared to the baseline, and some existing voluntary statistical topics 
will become mandatory. Its scope is limited to those aspects that Member 
States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union 
can do better (e.g. extending the range of statistical topics required and 
improved harmonisation). 

Pass 

The expected costs for the Union, national governments, regional or local 
authorities, economic operators or citizens, are expected to increase 
slightly, although remain minimal in relation to the objectives to be 
achieved. 

Are costs for the Union, 
national governments, 
regional or local 
authorities, economic 
operators or citizens 
commensurate with the 
objectives of the 
initiative? 

Pass 

Is the form of action 
(choice or instrument) as 
simple as possible and 
coherent with 
satisfactory achievement 
of the objective and 
effective enforcement? 

The updated statistical requirements will be introduced in demography, 
migration, and population and housing census statistics to meet user needs 
on statistical topics covered by the current EU legislation. The form of 
action (choice of instrument) is as simple as possible and coherent with 
satisfactory achievement of the objective and effective enforcement.  

Effectiveness in 
achieving the policy 
objectives: 

 (-4 to +4)   

SO1:  

2 

To ensure complete, 
coherent and comparable 
European population 
statistics 

Policy option C.1 introduces a harmonised population base and otherwise 
performs the same as policy option B.1. The harmonisation will lead to 
substantially more coherent and comparable EU level data, therefore this 
option performs better on SO1 than B.1 and also B.2 and would create 
overall moderate positive impacts on SO1. 

This also reduces the risk that this option does not go far enough in 
improving the comparability of European population statistics. 

SO2:  

1 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to 

103 

 
 
To ensure the 
availability of timely and 
frequent population 
statistics to meet users’ 
needs 

SO3:  

1 

To provide statistics that 
are sufficiently 
comprehensive in terms 
of relevant topics and 
sufficiently detailed in 
terms of characteristics 
and breakdowns 

SO4:  

1 

To promote frameworks 
that are sufficiently 
flexible to adapt to 
evolving policy needs 
and opportunities from 
new sources 

Impacts on fundamental 
rights 

1.5 

Social impacts 

1 

Environmental impacts  1 

improve achieving SO2, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy 
option B.1 (see part 1.2.2 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to 
improve achieving SO3, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy 
option B.1 (see part 1.2.2 of this Annex).  

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to 
improve achieving SO4, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy 
option B.1 (see part 1.2.2 of this Annex).  

Policy option C.1 introduces a harmonised population base and otherwise 
performs the same as policy option B.1. The harmonisation will lead to 
improved accuracy of the demographic representation of the EU 
population in qualified majority voting of the Council, therefore this 
option performs better on fundamental rights impact than B.1, but less 
well than C.2 and D.1 to D.2. 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to have 
any social impact, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy option B.1 
(see part 1.2.2 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to have 
any social impact, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy option B.1 
(see part 1.2.2 of this Annex).  

Coherence with 
overarching objectives 
of EU policy 

 (-4 to +4)   

Coherence 

2 

Policy option C.1 introduces a harmonised population base and otherwise 
performs the same as policy option B.1. The harmonisation will lead to 
improved coherence and comparability of information on the EU 
population, therefore this option performs better on EU coherence than 
B.1.  

On the other hand, C.1 scores the same as B.2 overall on coherence, 
because the lack of harmonisation in B.2 is balanced by the more 
comprehensive data detail addressing EU policy priorities (rural 

104 

 
 
Efficiency 

Incremental costs over the baseline 
with range +/- 20%, in thousands of 
2021 EUR 

development, non, discrimination) and by a more powerful flexibility 
mechanism. 

Eurostat 

MS/NSIs 

One-off (over 3y) Recurrent (over 

One-off (over 3y) Recurrent (over 

10 years) 

10 years) 

222 – 334 

466 – 698 

9,469 – 14,203 

19,729 - 29,593 

The costs and benefits generated by policy option C.1 mirror those of 
policy option B.1, aside from the costs and benefits associated with 
increased harmonisation of population definitions. Several Member States 
would have to switch to a strict usual residence definition and therefore 
incur additional costs, particularly one-off IT costs and costs associated 
with the provision of training/guidance as well as recurring compliance, 
enforcement and administrative costs. Eurostat would also incur minor 
additional regulatory and enforcement costs.  

Policy option C.1 would generate additional benefits compared to policy 
option B.1, in line with the improved comparability across Member 
States. This might improve the accuracy and efficiency of research 
conducted and thus policy decisions based on population data. However, 
harmonisation will not be achieved for all datasets and challenges in 
respect of comparability of data will persist. Overall, it remains unclear if 
the incremental benefits of improved harmonisation would outweigh the 
incremental costs compared to B.1, and thus if C.1 would be considered 
more efficient than B.1 or not. 

Nonetheless, the public consultation suggested that allowing justified 
exceptions in harmonisation may be preferable, despite its limiting effects 
on achieving the benefits of full harmonisation. 

Overall assessment 

Policy option C.1 would see improved harmonisation, separate statistical processes, update of statistical 
outputs and some flexibility improvements. 

It is coherent with the proportionality principle. Although policy option C.1 goes further than policy options 
B.1 or B.2 in addressing harmonisation of population definitions, statistical processes and flexibility of the 
legal framework, it does not go beyond what is necessary to satisfactorily achieve the objectives, as the scope 
is limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and where the Union 
can do better (e.g. extending the range of statistical topics required and improved harmonisation). Policy 
option C.1 fails to adequately improve on the baseline on statistical outputs regarding frequency and detail, 
which has a high impact on overall effectiveness in achieving the specific objectives. 

The measures under policy option C.1 are expected to have a moderate positive impact on the overall 
coherence between the ESOP framework and wider EU legislation, with improved harmonisation of the 
processes involved in the collection of population statistics overall. 

Positive impacts on fundamental rights are expected, as some of the measures will indirectly contribute to the 
quality and availability of socio-demographic characteristics of specific vulnerable and at-risk groups. 
Similarly, the improved harmonisation under policy option C.1 are expected to bring about relatively minor 

105 

 
 
positive indirect regulatory, environmental and social impacts.  

Concerning efficiency, the expected costs and benefits generated by the implementation of policy option C.1 
mirror those of policy option B.1, aside from costs and benefits associated with the harmonisation of 
population definitions. Feedback from NSIs, data users and the Commission’s Statistical Correspondents 
indicates that policy option C.1 is feasible to implement. 

106 

 
 
14.2.5. 1.2.5. 

Policy  option  C.2  –  Improved  harmonisation,  separate  statistical 

processes, more expansive upgrade of statistical outputs and flexibility 

Assessment criterion  Score 

Brief description 

Consistency with 
proportionality 
principle 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain 
/ Fall) 

Pass 

Pass 

Pass 

Pass 

Does the option go 
beyond what is 
necessary to 
satisfactorily achieve 
the objectives? 

Is the scope of the 
option limited to those 
aspects that Member 
States cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Are costs for the 
Union, national 
governments, regional 
or local authorities, 
economic operators or 
citizens commensurate 
with the objectives of 
the initiative? 

Is the form of action 
(choice or instrument) 
as simple as possible 
and coherent with 
satisfactory 
achievement of the 
objective and effective 
enforcement? 

Although policy option C.2 goes further than policy options B.1 or B.2 in 
addressing harmonisation of population definitions, statistical processes 
and flexibility of the ESOP framework, it does not go beyond what is 
necessary to satisfactorily achieve the objectives.  

Policy option C.2 would only moderately extend statistical requirements, 
and some existing voluntary statistical topics will become mandatory. The 
scope is limited to those aspects that Member States cannot satisfactorily 
achieve on their own, and where the Union can do better (e.g. extending 
the range of statistical topics required and improved harmonisation). 

The expected costs for the Union, national governments, regional or local 
authorities, economic operators or citizens, are expected to increase 
slightly, although remain minimal in relation to the objectives to be 
achieved. 

The updated statistical requirements will be introduced in demography, 
migration, and population and housing census statistics to meet user needs 
on statistical topics covered by EU legislation. The form of action (choice 
of instrument) is as simple as possible and coherent with satisfactory 
achievement of the objective and effective enforcement.  

Effectiveness in 
achieving the policy 
objectives: 

 (-4 to +4)  

SO1:  

2.5 

To ensure complete, 
coherent and 
comparable European 
population statistics 

Policy option C.2 introduces a harmonised population base and otherwise 
performs the same as policy option B.2, including as regards its 
prevalence over C.1. The harmonisation will lead to substantially more 
coherent and comparable EU level data, therefore this option performs 
better on SO1 than B.2 and would create overall strong positive impacts 
on SO1. 

This also reduces the risk that this option does not go far enough in 

107 

 
 
 
2 

3 

SO2:  

To ensure the 
availability of timely 
and frequent 
population statistics to 
meet users’ needs 

SO3:  

To provide statistics 
that are sufficiently 
comprehensive in 
terms of relevant 
topics and sufficiently 
detailed in terms of 
characteristics and 
breakdowns 

SO4:  

2 

To promote 
frameworks that are 
sufficiently flexible to 
adapt to evolving 
policy needs and 
opportunities from 
new sources 

Impacts on 
fundamental rights 

2 

Social impacts 

2 

Environmental impacts 2 

improving the comparability of European population statistics. 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.2 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to 
improve achieving SO2, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy 
option B.2 (see part 1.2.3 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.2 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to 
improve achieving SO3, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy 
option B.2 (see part 1.2.3 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.2 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to 
improve achieving SO4, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy 
option B.2 (see part 1.2.3 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.2 (2.2. 
‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is expected to have 
beneficial impact on fundamental rights due to more accurate 
demographic representation in qualified majority voting of the council. 
Therefore, C.2 scores higher than B.2, but less well than D.1 to D.2. 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.2 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to affect 
social impacts, thus this option is ranked as equal to policy option B.2 (see 
part 1.2.3 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from B.2 (measure 
2.2. ‘harmonisation of the population definition’) is not expected to affect 
environmental impacts, thus this option is ranked equal to policy option 
B.2 (see part 1.2.3 of this Annex). 

Coherence with 
overarching objectives 
of EU policy 

(-4 to +4)   

Coherence 

3 

Policy option C.2 combines the benefits of an expansive upgrade of 
statistical outputs and flexibility from B.2 with an improved 
harmonisation of the population base firstly introduced in C.1 and thus 
ranks better than B.2 and C.1 with an overall strong positive impact on 

108 

 
Efficiency 

Incremental costs over the 
baseline with range +/- 20%, in 
thousands of 2021 EUR 

coherence. 

Eurostat 

MS/NSIs 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent (over 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent (over 

10 years) 

10 years) 

368 – 552 

673 – 1,009 

18,555 – 27,833  40,257 – 60,385 

Similar to policy option B.1 in relation to C.1, the costs and benefits 
generated by policy option C.2 are expected to be the same as those of 
policy option B.2, aside from the costs and benefits associated with 
increased harmonisation of population definitions. Measure 2.3 (on 
harmonisation) would likely lead to additional costs for Eurostat and NSIs 
(specifically one-off IT costs and costs associated with the provision of 
training/guidance as well as recurring compliance, enforcement and 
administrative costs for MS/NSIs and minor additional regulatory and 
enforcement costs for Eurostat). 

Applying the same logic again here, it remains unclear if the incremental 
benefits of improved harmonisation would outweigh the incremental costs 
compared to B.2, and thus if C.2 would be considered more efficient than 
B.2 or not. 

Overall assessment 

Policy option C.2 would see improved harmonisation, separate statistical processes, upgrade of statistical 
outputs and improved flexibility. Differences in who is counted in European population figures will be 
partially reduced and statistical topics covered by EU legislation will be extended in line with users’ needs. 

Policy option C.2 is coherent with the proportionality principle and a ‘Pass’ score is justified. 

The relatively strong performance of policy option C.2 in achieving the specific objectives is compounded 
by evidence from the stakeholder consultations. The proposal for a flexible harmonised population definition 
attracted strong support across all user groups, meaning that despite retaining the status quo on population 
registers, policy option C.2 performs well on SO1. It also performs strongly on SO2, SO3 and SO4, thus can 
be highly scored overall in achieving the specific objectives. 

Positive impacts on fundamental rights are expected, as equality data are introduced and some other 
measures will add socio-demographic characteristics of specific vulnerable and at-risk groups, while some 
NSIs also raised concerns about data protection despite all necessary safeguards that would be put in place 
(footnote 112). Similarly, the measures under policy option C.2 are expected to bring about relatively 
positive indirect regulatory, environmental and social impacts. 

Looking at efficiency, the costs and benefits generated by implementing policy option C.2 are expected to be 
the same as those generated by policy option B.2, aside from costs and benefits associated with increased 
harmonisation of population definitions. The net effect on efficiency compared to B.2 remains unclear. 

Although this option scores relatively well in terms of effectiveness (surpassed only by Options D.1 and 
D.2), a large majority of NSIs indicated that policy option C.2 is not realistic due to heavily increased burden 
and resource needs. In contrast, non-NSIs and the Commission’s Statistical Correspondents indicated during 
their respective workshops that policy option C.2 is realistic. 

109 

 
 
14.2.6. 1.2.6. 

Policy option D.1 – Full  harmonisation,  separate statistical process 
(no  requirement  for  statistical  population  registers),  major  upgrade  of 
statistical outputs, and flexible framework 

Assessment 
criterion 

Score 

Brief description 

Consistency with 
proportionality 
principle 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain / 
Fall) 

Pass 

Does the option go 
beyond what is 
necessary to achieve 
the objectives 
satisfactorily? 

Policy option D.1 goes further than all previous policy options in how it 
addresses harmonisation of population definitions, statistical processes 
and flexibility of the legal framework. However, this policy option does 
not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives satisfactorily.  

Is the scope of the 
option limited to 
those aspects that 
Member States 
cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Uncertain  This option would significantly extend statistical requirements when 

compared to the baseline, and all existing voluntary statistical topics will 
become mandatory. The scope of the option might not be limited to those 
aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and 
where the Union can do better (extending the range of statistical topics 
required and full harmonisation). 

The expected costs for the Union, national governments, regional or local 
authorities, economic operators or citizens, are expected to slightly 
increase although remain minimal in relation to the objectives to be 
achieved. 

Pass 

Are costs for the 
Union, national 
governments, 
regional or local 
authorities, economic 
operators or citizens 
commensurate with 
the objectives of the 
initiative? 

Uncertain  The updated statistical requirements will be introduced in a new, single 
framework, and statistical processes will be redeveloped, therefore the 
form of action (choice of instrument) is not as simple as possible, and 
coherent with satisfactory achievement of the objective and effective 
enforcement, as the introduction of an entirely new integrated legal 
instrument can be expected to entail additional adjustment efforts for some 
of the stakeholders involved. 

Is the form of action 
(choice or 
instrument) as simple 
as possible and 
coherent with 
satisfactory 
achievement of the 
objective and 
effective 
enforcement? 

Effectiveness in 
achieving the policy 
objectives: 

 (-4 to +4) 

SO1:  

3 

To ensure complete, 
coherent and 

Compared to policy option C.2, policy options D.1 and D.2 introduce full 
harmonisation of population definitions (based on the strict usual 
residence concept, measure 2.2). Moreover, all voluntary data are 
regulated under measures 12.2, 13.2 and the time series is fully updated 

110 

 
 
 
comparable European 
population statistics 

(measure 16.3).  

However, going the maximum ambition in terms of SO1 without 
similarly strong facilitation measures increases the risk that many 
Member States would not be able to fulfil these new requirements. This 
could lead to excessive use of derogations or even dragging compliance 
issues. This is accounted for with a small score discount on SO1. 

Despite these risks, policy option D.1 would still entail strong positive 
impacts under SO1, which justifies the second highest score on achieving 
SO1, falling short only of the added value from statistical population 
registers included only in option D.2. 

Policy options D.1 and D.2 perform the best in ensuring the availability of 
timely and frequent population statistics. Legal deadlines for census 
outputs are shortened (measure 9.2) and in topic 8 on timeliness, 8.3 
‘timeliness first’ is chosen over 8.2 ‘quality first.’  

Policy option D.1 (as well as policy option B.2, C.2, and D.2) also makes 
georeferenced data mandatory annually and measure 7.2 introduces 
population statistics on a quarterly basis. Policy option D.1 (similar to 
policy option D.2) also introduces population statistics at LAU level 
annually. 

Nevertheless, the risk discount discussed under SO1 also applies to SO2. 

Collectively, the measures under policy option D.1 would still deliver a 
strong positive impact on the timeliness and frequency of population 
statistics, surpassed only by Option D.2. 

In policy option D.1 (and similarly to policy option B.2, C.2, and D.2), 
data on current statistical output are more detailed compared to the 
baseline and compared to both policy options B.1 and C.1 (more 
characteristics regarding migration statistics under measures 10.3 and 
11.3, and improved disaggregation of annual population data and 
migration statistics under measures 3.2, 3.4, 4.3 and 6.3). 

In terms of comprehensiveness of relevant topics, policy option D.1 brings 
new statistical topics including extensive equality data (measure 14.3), 
and voluntary datasets and breakdowns are made mandatory (measures 
12.2, 13.2).  

Nevertheless, the risk discount discussed under SO1 also applies to SO3. 

Overall, policy option D.1 introduces strong positive impacts under SO3 
and thus scores better than the baseline and policy options B.1, B.2, C.1, 
and C.2, falling slightly short of D.2 only due to the risk discount.  

Policy option D.1 (like policy option D.2) offers highly flexible legal 
frameworks around data collection and seeks mechanisms to adapt 
statistics more quickly and efficiently (e.g., to meet emerging user needs, 
exploit new data sources or methods). Moreover, strong enablers on 
improved use of administrative and new sources as well as full EU level 
interoperability of existing statistical population registers are introduced. 

111 

SO2:  

3 

To ensure the 
availability of timely 
and frequent 
population statistics 
to meet users’ needs 

SO3:  

3.5 

To provide statistics 
that are sufficiently 
comprehensive in 
terms of relevant 
topics and 
sufficiently details in 
terms of 
characteristics and 
breakdowns 

SO4:  

3.5 

To promote 
frameworks that are 
sufficiently flexible 
to adapt to evolving 
policy needs and 
opportunities from 

 
new sources 

Impacts on 
fundamental rights 

3 

Social impacts 

3 

Environmental 
impacts 

3 

Policy option D.1 will bring about full harmonisation and differences in 
who is counted in European population figures will be removed by the 
introduction of a single, harmonised population definition. New statistical 
topics, particularly regarding equality, will cover comprehensively present 
and emerging user needs. This will contribute to improving the quality and 
availability of the relevant data of specific vulnerable and at-risk groups 
and lead to better informed policy making. 

However, considering the significant ambition entailed in these measures, 
risks presented under SO1 and SO3 apply here too. Moreover, as noted 
previously, despite all necessary safeguards to be put in place (see 
footnote 112) there is a trade-off between increasing the availability of 
data that can be used to protect groups at risk of inequality and 
discrimination, and the need to protect citizens’ anonymity, especially 
where sensitive data are to be collected and processed.  

Overall, including a risk discount policy option D.1 would introduce 
strong positive impacts on fundamental rights. 

Policy option D.1 represents an improvement in comparison to option C.2 
concerning social impacts – and more specifically, provision of social 
statistics for informed evidence-based policy making at EU and national 
level. The measures under this option, and increased level of ambition of 
the upgrade of statistical outputs across measures would collectively 
improve social impacts since the measures are aimed at inter alia 
timeliness, harmonisation and detail of population statistics collected. 
Overall this option is expected to have strong positive social impacts. 

However, considering the significant ambition entailed in these 
measures, risks presented under SO3 apply here too. 

Overall, including a risk discount policy option D.1 would introduce 
strong positive social impacts. 

Policy option D.1 represents an improvement in comparison to the 
baseline and option C.2 concerning environmental impact. The measures, 
and in particular the increased level of ambition of the statistical output 
associated with certain measures (particularly measure 6.3) under this 
option would collectively improve environmental impacts. 

However, considering the significant ambition entailed in these 
measures, risks presented under SO3 apply here too. 

Overall, Option D.1 is expected to have a strong positive environmental 
impact. 

 (-4 to +4) 

Coherence with 
overarching 
objectives of EU 
policy 

Coherence 

4 

The measures under policy option D.1 are expected to bring about mostly 
positive impacts to the overall coherence of the ESOP framework within 

112 

 
 
Efficiency 

Incremental costs over the 
baseline with range +/- 20%, in 
thousands of 2021 EUR 

the wider EU landscape by means of full harmonisation and a major 
upgrade of statistical outputs in comparison to the measures proposed 
under previous policy options. The measures under this policy option will 
ensure that statistical topics will cover comprehensively present and 
emerging user needs. Moreover, flexibility mechanisms will allow the 
ESOP framework to easily adapt to emerging needs as well by allowing to 
embrace new data sources as they emerge. Finally, full interoperability is 
in line with wider aims for efficiency gains through digitalisation. 
Therefore, the collective measures would create very strong positive 
impacts towards an effective legal coherence between the ESOP and other 
new EU legal instruments.  

Eurostat 

MS/NSIs 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent (over 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent  (over 

10 years) 

10 years) 

444 – 666 

898 – 1,346 

31,470 – 47,204  57,458 – 86,186 

Option D.1 is significantly more ambitious than option C.2 regarding 
statistical outputs, harmonisation and flexibility and as such generates 
higher costs and benefits. All benefits generated in B.2 and C.2 would also 
be incrementally higher in line with these improvements.  

Costs in relation to the requirement for strict harmonisation, though 
significant, would only be incurred by those Member States that do not 
currently apply the usual residence definition. Member States would also 
generate higher costs relative to options B.2 and C.2, in line with the 
added complexity and requirements from the upgraded statistical output. 
In particular, the added detail required within measures associated with 
gathering socio-economic data on migrant populations as well as equality 
data would also likely mean all activities associated with data gathering 
are more costly activities. Therefore, costs to MS are driven by higher 
costs in all cost categories relative to policy options B.2 and C.2. 

Relative to baseline situation, Eurostat would incur costs associated with 
the preparation and development of measures, IT investment to cope with 
both the receipt of upgraded statistical outputs across all Member States. 
Enforcement costs were estimated to be relatively minor in relation to the 
harmonisation of population definitions, however. Additional burden are 
likely to be incurred by citizens, in line with the increased burden 
associated with responding to new surveys.  

Benefits generated by this option are also likely higher than those in all 
other options, given the increased level of ambition and number of 
measures included. Achieving full harmonisation would likely lead to 
improvements in the accuracy of policy and budgetary decisions regarding 
the population (or reduced costs based on inaccuracies of those decisions) 
and improved efficiency and accuracy of comparative research produced 
across Member States. It might also reduce the administrative burden to 
Eurostat associated with adjusting non-harmonised data as well as in 
conducting checks on data provided voluntarily (as in B.2 and C.2). 

113 

 
 
Although it has not been possible to quantify the benefits of this option, 
the available anecdotal evidence from the consultation seems to suggest 
that it is unlikely that the benefits will outweigh the very high additional 
costs associated with this option.  

Overall assessment 

Under policy option D.1, there will be full harmonisation of the population definition and improvements 
made to the flexibility of the EU legal framework. A major upgrade of statistical outputs will also be 
provided. However, unlike Option D.2, there will not be any requirement for Member States to adopt 
statistical population registers. In terms of its compliance with the proportionality principle, policy option 
D.1 goes further than other policy options in addressing the harmonisation of population definitions, 
increasing statistical outputs and enhancing the flexibility of the legal framework. However, the expected 
costs are expected to be much higher than for the previous policy options. Thus, this level of EU action may 
not be proportionate to the objectives of the ESOP initiative and thus, it is uncertain whether this option fully 
complies with the proportionality principle. Indeed, policy option D.1 was not viewed very favourably by 
NSIs during the options validation workshop even by NSIs that already use administrative or statistical 
population registers. In the workshop, NSIs voted unanimously that policy option D.1 is unrealistic due to 
very heavily increased burden and resource needs, despite potential benefits expected for NSIs (see Table 6). 
However, the Commission Statistical Correspondents and non-NSIs, in their respective validation 
workshops, generally stated that the option is realistic. 

Policy option D.1 is expected to have a very strong positive impact on coherence. In particular, the flexibility 
to be provided under Option D.1 will help to ensure that European population statistics and the EU legal 
framework governing their collection can be adapted, as needed, to align with users’ needs as well as new 
data sources, and with wider EU policy and legislation in the years to come.  

In terms of effectiveness, policy option D.1 scores second highest just below D.2. The theoretical 
effectiveness under every specific objective is very high, and the results of the consultation tend to 
corroborate this predicted effectiveness by returning strong endorsements from a variety of statistical users. 

Very positive impacts are expected on fundamental rights as extensive equality data are introduced and the 
other measures will indirectly contribute to the quality and availability of socio-demographic characteristics 
of specific vulnerable and at-risk groups and consequently to a better informed policy making. However, 
despite all necessary safeguards (see footnote 112) the benefits of improved data available are also offset to 
some extent by concerns over data privacy. Similarly, the measures under policy option D.1 are also 
expected to bring about positive indirect environmental and social impacts within improved harmonisation.  

Concerning efficiency, the high costs and burdens associated with option D.1 especially during an extended 
adjustment phase are clear, yet, despite associated benefits being present (see Table 6), the extent to which 
the benefits outweigh these costs are less certain.  

114 

 
 
14.2.7. 1.2.7. 

Policy option D.2 – Full harmonisation, redeveloped and integrated 
statistical  processes  in  a  single  and  flexible  framework,  major  upgrade  of 
statistical outputs 

Assessment 
criterion 

Score 

Brief description 

Consistency with 
proportionality 
principle 

 (Pass / 
Uncertain / 
Fall) 

Pass 

Does the option go 
beyond what is 
necessary to 
satisfactorily achieve 
the objectives? 

Policy option D.2 goes further than any other policy options in addressing 
harmonisation of population definitions, statistical processes and 
flexibility of the ESOP framework. However, it does not go beyond what 
is necessary to satisfactorily achieve the objectives.  

Is the scope of the 
option limited to 
those aspects that 
Member States 
cannot achieve 
satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the 
Union can do better? 

Uncertain  Policy option D.2 would significantly extend statistical requirements 
compared to the baseline, with all existing voluntary statistical topics 
becoming mandatory. The scope might not be limited to those aspects that 
Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their own, and where the 
Union can do better (extending the range of statistical topics required and 
full harmonisation). 

The expected costs for the Union, national governments, regional or local 
authorities, economic operators or citizens, are expected to slightly 
increase, although remain minimal in relation to the objectives to be 
achieved. 

Pass 

Are costs for the 
Union, national 
governments, 
regional or local 
authorities, economic 
operators or citizens 
commensurate with 
the objectives of the 
initiative? 

Uncertain  Statistical processes will be redeveloped and integrated. The form of 

action (choice of instrument) is not as simple as possible and coherent 
with satisfactory achievement of the objective and effective enforcement, 
as the introduction of an entirely new integrated legal instrument can be 
expected to entail additional adjustment efforts for some stakeholders. 

Is the form of action 
(choice or 
instrument) as simple 
as possible and 
coherent with 
satisfactory 
achievement of the 
objective and 
effective 
enforcement? 

Effectiveness in 
achieving the policy 
objectives: 

 (-4 to +4) 

SO1:  

4 

To ensure complete, 
coherent and 

Policy option D.2 (like policy option D.1) introduces the full 
harmonisation of population definitions (based on a strict usual residence 
concept). Going beyond policy option D.1, In policy option D.2, NSIs are 
also required to implement national statistical registers which should 

115 

 
 
 
comparable European 
population statistics 

4 

4 

SO2:  

To ensure the 
availability of timely 
and frequent 
population statistics 
to meet users’ needs 

SO3:  

To provide statistics 
that are sufficiently 
comprehensive in 
terms of relevant 
topics and 
sufficiently detailed 
in terms of 
characteristics and 
breakdowns 

SO4:  

4 

To promote 
frameworks that are 
sufficiently flexible 
to adapt to evolving 
policy needs and 
opportunities from 
new sources 

Impacts on 
fundamental rights 

3 

Social impacts 

3 

further improve coherence and comparability. Moreover, the EU wide 
introduction of efficient integrated statistical production systems 
ultimately reduces risks of compliance issues in the long term. Therefore, 
policy option D.2 performs best on SO1, creating very strong positive 
impacts. 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is expected to reduce the risks in 
achieving SO2 compared to policy option D.1 (as for SO1 above), thus 
this option will introduce very strong positive impacts on SO2 and thus 
score higher than policy option D.1 (see part 1.2.6 of this Annex).  

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is expected to reduce the risks in 
achieving SO3 compared to policy option D.1 (as for SO1 above), thus 
this option will introduce very strong positive impacts on SO3 and thus 
score higher than policy option D.1 (see part 1.2.6 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is expected to reduce the risks in 
achieving SO4 compared to policy option D.1 (as for SO1 above), thus 
this option will introduce very strong positive impacts on SO4 and thus 
score higher than policy option D.1 (see part 1.2.6 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is expected to reduce the risks in 
achieving the relevant measures (in particular 14.3) compared to policy 
option D.1. On the other hand, according to NSI opinions, the introduction 
of a statistical population register creates itself sizeable additional 
fundamental rights concerns (voiced e.g. by NSIs in the stakeholder 
consultation) in those countries that do not have such a system yet, mostly 
around the proportionality of compiling and/or interlinking such amounts 
of personal data even if solely for statistical purposes. This is accounted 
for with a risk discount on this score. 

Overall, this option will introduce very strong positive impacts on SO4 
and thus score higher than policy option D.1 (see part 1.2.6 of this 
Annex), but the risk discount is estimated to roughly balance this. 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is expected to reduce the risks in 
achieving the relevant measures to improve evidence for policies on 
labour market integration, social inclusion and equality (measures 3.2, 3.3, 

116 

 
 
Environmental 
impacts 

4 

 (-4 to +4) 

Coherence with 
overarching 
objectives of EU 
policy 

Coherence 

4 

Efficiency 

Incremental costs over the 
baseline with range +/- 20%, in 
thousands of 2021 EUR 

6.3, 7.2, 11.3, 12.2, 14.3) compared to policy option D.1. On the other 
hand, according to some NSI opinions, introducing a statistical population 
register may likely be perceived as a very sensitive issue in some of the 
Member States where no such system exists yet, especially when 
combined with EU level interoperability elements. In the worst case, this 
might trigger sizeable negative public attention that may question the 
social license of producing official population statistics overall. This is 
accounted for with a risk discount on this score. 

Overall, this option will introduce very strong positive impacts on SO4 
and thus score higher than policy option D.1 (see part 1.2.6 of this 
Annex), but the risk discount is estimated to roughly balance this. 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is expected to reduce the risks in 
achieving the relevant measures (in particular 6.3) compared to policy 
option D.1. Moreover, the introduction of statistical population registers 
would greatly reduce the efforts compared to traditional censuses, and 
thus minimise the environmental footprint of the census. 

Overall, this option will introduce very strong (indirect) positive 
environmental impacts and thus score higher than policy option D.1 (see 
part 1.2.6 of this Annex). 

The single measure distinguishing this policy option from D.1 (measure 
2.2. ‘statistical population registers’) is not expected to improve coherence 
with EU policy objectives beyond the goals already in option D.1, thus 
this option is ranked as equal to policy option D.1 (see part 1.2.6 of this 
Annex).  

Eurostat 

MS/NSIs 

One-off (over 
3y) 

Recurrent (over 
10 years) 

One-off (over 3y)  Recurrent (over 

10 years) 

629 – 943 

1,391 – 2,087 

38,323 – 57,485  97,981 – 146,971 

Policy option D.2 is the most ambitious option and differs from D.1 only 
in the added requirement to use statistical population registers.  

While significant, costs related to the establishment of statistical 
population registers would only be incurred by those Member States that 
do not and are not already planning to develop a population register. 
Eurostat would incur additional costs associated with the preparation and 
development of this additional measure relative to D.1, as well as IT 
investment to create the necessary infrastructure for a European 
framework of statistical population registers including interoperability 

117 

 
 
 
mechanisms.  

The use of population registers would likely lead to further improvements 
in the accuracy of policy and budgetary decisions and improved efficiency 
and accuracy of research. The use of population registers would lead to 
benefits, including to Eurostat and the wider EU, through increased 
flexibility and ease of access to up-to-date data, as well as to Member 
States (those that do not or are not planning to implement a population 
register) and citizens, for example, associated with reduced long-term 
costs and administrative burdens associated with the production of data, 
including more efficient delivery of censuses. Overall, all types of 
statistics under this initiative, and many other social statistics products 
beyond population statistics, are expected to profit in the form of higher 
statistical quality at EU level (such as through better sampling frames for 
social surveys based on samples). 

As with measure D.1, however, despite these clear benefits, the extent to 
which they outweigh the very high additional costs associated with this 
option remains uncertain. Nevertheless, even in absence of a more robust 
efficiency benchmark against the B – C options, the long-term efficiency 
gains introduced by the statistical registers clearly lead to a relatively 
better efficiency performance than D.1: All incremental costs and benefits 
except entailed by the statistical registers are exactly the same, but the 
sizeable upfront investment required in such statistical registers in the 
affected Member States (group 3 in section 6.1) will very likely create 
sustainable long-term efficiency gains in producing all kinds of ambitious 
statistical outputs. 

Overall assessment 

Policy option D.2 differs from D.1 in that it mandates the use of statistical population registers. Therefore, it 
goes further than the other policy options in addressing the coherence and flexibility of the ESOP 
framework. It also goes further than all the other options in addressing the four specific objectives and is thus 
scored as the most effective option overall However, the expected costs would be higher, and the mandatory 
introduction of statistical population registers might not be simple or coherent with satisfactory achievement 
of the objective and effective enforcement. It is therefore uncertain whether this option is coherent with the 
proportionality principle. Indeed, despite the potentially significant long-term benefits expected, the NSIs 
that participated in the validation workshop unanimously agreed that policy option D.2 is unrealistic, largely 
due to the costs involved in transitioning to national statistical population registers. Conversely, this option 
was largely viewed positively by data users. The measure on establishing statistical population registers was 
viewed particularly positively by the data users who responded to the public consultation. 

In terms of coherence, policy option D.2 is expected to have very strong positive impacts on the overall 
ESOP framework relative to the baseline within the wider EU landscape by means of a full harmonisation 
and redeveloped and integrated statistical processes. Such a framework would represent the state of the art in 
flexibility to adapt as users’ needs change and as new sources of data and methods become available. 

Positive environmental impacts are also expected, in line with likely simplifications of processes and 
reductions in burden, as well as greening the data collection procedures by using statistical population 
registers. Fundamental rights and social impacts are stronger than in option D.1 through the statistical 
population registers, but this is balanced by specific risk concerns around data protection and a sufficient 
social license for such endeavours.  

Looking at efficiency, as with D.1 the high costs and burdens associated with policy option D.2 especially 
during an extended adjustment phase are clear, as are the benefits, but the extent to which the benefits 

118 

 
outweigh the costs is less certain. The overall efficiency of this option is therefore judged qualitatively as 
negative compared to other B – C options (that are less ambitious in delivering on the objectives but also 
have more modest – and less uncertain – incremental cost estimates). Nevertheless, the long-term efficiency 
gains introduced by the statistical registers lead to a better efficiency performance than D.1 (introducing 
most ambitious statistical outputs and flexibility mechanisms without any action to foster efficiency 
improvements). 

Overall, if the subsidiarity and proportionality concerns around statistical population registers are considered 
less tangible, option D.2 prevails overall due to very strong positive impacts despite question marks 
remaining around its efficiency. 

119 

 
 
 
 
15.  2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 
Amount 

Description 

Comments 

Direct benefits 

Better information on own local/regional environment  Not quantified 

People (citizens and migrants) 

Reduced response burden 

Not quantified 

Better  EU  level  timeliness  and  completeness  of 
statistics across all Member States 

Not quantified 

EU level institutional users 

Better  EU  level  comparability  and  coherence  of 
statistics across all Member States 

Not quantified 

More accurate and comparable total population counts 
for Council voting 

Not quantified 

Improved  inputs  to  demographic  change  monitoring 
and  projecting  the  long-term  budget  sustainability  in 
relation to population ageing 

Not quantified 

Better  data  evidence  for  monitoring  and  policy-
making 

Not quantified 

Better  comparability  with  other  Member  States  and 
EU regions 

Not quantified 

Other  institutional  users  (national  and  sub-
national levels) 

Better  data  evidence  (through  grids)  for  policy-
making in border regions and local crisis response 

Not quantified 

Better  research/analysis  incl.  improved  comparability 
across the EU 

Not quantified 

Other professional users 

Reduced  administrative  burden  (through  ability  to 
find all needed statistics on Eurostat website) 

Not quantified 

Economic  benefits  from  better  European  statistics 
available 

Not quantified 

Improved  comparability  of  statistics  with  other 
Member States 

Not quantified 

Statistics producers (NSIs) 

Improved  accuracy  and  coverage  of  statistics  due  to 
interoperability with other Member States 

Not quantified 

Reduced  administrative  burden  (through  simplified 
statistics transmission processes) 

Not quantified 

Reduced  administrative  burden  (through  integrated 
statistics production process) 

e.g. between EUR 141 
million  and  EUR  563 
million  per  EU  census 
round 

Reduced  administrative  burden  (through  improved 
use of administrative and/or other data sources) 

Not quantified 

Reduced administrative burden (relating to regulatory 
changes to adapt to evolving policy needs) 

Not quantified 

Reduced  administrative  burden  through  streamlined 
data exchange with NSIs 

Not quantified 

Administrative data providers 

Increased  value  added  from  own  data 
improved reuse 

through 

Not quantified 

Improved legal base of statistical cooperation through 
clear mandate 

Not quantified 

120 

 
Better data evidence for other European statistics (e.g. 
sample surveys, national accounts) 

Not quantified 

Eurostat 

Improved collaboration with  ESS partners due  to EU 
wide interoperability 

Not quantified 

Reduced administrative burden (relating to regulatory 
changes to adapt to evolving policy needs) 

Not quantified 

Reduced 
coordination/ quality assurance for voluntary data) 

administrative 

(related 

burden 

to 

Not quantified 

Indirect benefits 

Benefits from improved policy-making 

Not quantified 

People 

Reputational gains from improved policy-making and 
EU decision-making in general 

Not quantified 

EU level institutional users 

Reputational  gains  from  improved  visibility  and 
transparency in a European context 

Not quantified 

Other  institutional  users  (national  and  sub-
national levels) 

Increased ability to meet legal requirements 

Not quantified 

Statistics producers (NSIs) 

Increased staff skills 

Not quantified 

Improvements  in  administrative  registers  thanks  to 
closer collaboration with NSI 

Not quantified 

Administrative data providers 

Reputational  gains 
administrative registers 

from 

improved 

reuse  of 

Not quantified 

Advancement  of  Eurostat  mission  ‘to  provide  high 
quality statistics and data on Europe’ 

Not quantified 

Eurostat 

Improved collaboration with EU level policy users 

Not quantified 

Reputational  gains 
standing of European statistics free for all 

from  enhanced 

international 

Not quantified 

(1) Estimates are gross values relative to the baseline for the preferred option as a whole (i.e. the impact of individual 
actions/obligations of the preferred option are aggregated together); (2) Please indicate which stakeholder group is the 
main recipient of the benefit in the comment section;(3) For reductions in regulatory costs, please describe details as to 
how the saving arises (e.g. reductions in adjustment costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, 
etc.;);  (4)  Cost  savings  related  to  the  ’one  in,  one  out’  approach  are  detailed  in  Tool  #58  and  #59  of  the  ‘better 
regulation’ toolbox. * if relevant 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option (in thousands of 2021 EUR with a +/- 20% uncertainty margin) 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Policy 
option D.2  

IT costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

20,537 – 30,807  

N/A 

N/A 

27,970 – 41,956 

20,464 – 30,679 

14,569 – 21,854 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

N/A 

62,062 – 92,793 

Not estimated 

Not estimated 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

121 

 
 
(1)  Estimates  (gross  values)  to  be provided  with  respect  to  the  baseline;  (2)  costs  are  provided  for  each  identifiable 
action/obligation of the preferred option otherwise for all retained options when no preferred option is specified; (3) If 
relevant  and  available,  please  present  information  on  costs  according  to  the  standard  typology  of  costs  (adjustment 
costs,  administrative  costs,  regulatory  charges,  enforcement  costs,  indirect  costs;).  (4)  Administrative  costs  for 
offsetting as explained in Tool #58 and #59 of the ‘better regulation’ toolbox. The total adjustment costs should equal 
the sum of the adjustment costs presented in the upper part of the table (whenever they are quantifiable and/or can be 
monetised). Measures taken with a view to compensate adjustment costs to the greatest extent possible are presented in 
the section of the impact assessment report presenting the preferred option. 

16.  3. RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

The  preferred  policy  option  D.2  covers  various  measures  to  improve  the  EU  level  data  evidence  relevant  for  several  sustainable 
development goals (SDGs). However, impacts in terms of actual progress towards any of the SDGs stemming from improved data 
evidence are naturally indirect and hard to assess. For instance, if used for improved SDG policy-making, actual progress would 
largely  depend  on  dispersed  contextual  factors  and  on  the  sensitivity  of  policy  impacts  on  the  availability  and  quality  of  data 
evidence. Therefore, the table below lists the relevant SDGs including improved data evidence expected under the relevant measures 
included in the preferred option (cf. Figure 9 and  

122 

 
 
 
Table 2), but does not analyse the indirect policy impacts further, in line with the general approach 
taken in section 6.2. 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s) 
Relevant SDG 

Comments – new/improved collection of 

Expected progress towards the 
Goal 

1 – No poverty 

Better data evidence for monitoring 
and relevant policies 

3 – Good health and well-
being 

4 – Quality education 

5 – Gender equality 

9 – Industry, innovation 
and infrastructure 

10 – Reduced inequalities 

11 – Sustainable cities and 
communities 

13 – Climate action 

15 – Life on land 

16 – Peace, justice and 
strong institutions 

 annual housing data incl. homelessness (measure 6.3) 
 socio-economic details of migrants (measures 10.3, 11.3) 
 equality data incl. on vulnerable groups based e.g. on 

race/ethnicity (measure 14.3) 

 more frequent and detailed demographic incl. mortality 

data for better indicators like regional or local life 
expectancy (measures 3.2, 3.3, 5.2, 7.2, 12.2) 

 socio-economic details of migrants (measures 10.3, 11.3) 

 mandatory annual data on education details of population 

stocks (measure 13.2) 

 equality data incl. on gender identity (measure 14.3) 

 annual georeferenced housing data incl. energy efficiency 

characteristics (measure 6.3) 

 equality data incl. on vulnerable groups (measure 14.3) 

 annual population data for cities and FUAs (measure 3.3) 
 annual georeferenced population and housing data 

(measure 6.3) 

 annual georeferenced housing data incl. energy efficiency 

characteristics (measure 6.3) 

 annual population data by DEGURBA (measure 3.3) 
 infra-annual population data (measure 7.2) 
 annual georeferenced population and housing data 

(measure 6.3) 

 migration data at NUTS 3 regional level (measure 4.3) 

 equality data incl. on vulnerable groups based e.g. on 

race/ethnicity (measure 14.3) 

123 

 
 
ANNEX 3: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

The contract support study on this impact assessment has assessed a total of seven options, namely: 

  A – Baseline scenario 

  policy option B.1 – Limited harmonisation, separate statistical processes, limited upgrade of 

statistical outputs 

  policy  option  B.2  –  Limited  harmonisation,  separate  statistical  processes,  more  expansive 

upgrade of statistical outputs and flexibility 

  policy  option  C.1  –  Improved  harmonisation,  separate  statistical  processes,  updated 

statistical outputs 

  policy option C.2 – Improved harmonisation, separate statistical processes, more expansive 

upgrade of statistical outputs and flexibility 

  policy  option  D.1  –  Full  harmonisation,  separate  statistical  processes  and  flexible 

framework, major upgrade of statistical outputs 

  policy option D.2 – Full harmonisation, redeveloped and integrated statistical processes in a 

single and flexible framework, major upgrade of statistical outputs  

Costs  and  benefits  have  been  considered  for  four  main  stakeholder  groups,  namely  1)  Member 
States  and  their  National  Statistical  Institutes  (NSIs),  2)  the  European  Commission,  including 
Eurostat specifically 3) employers / businesses / non-institutional data users and 4) EU citizens and 
third-country nationals. Whereas cost and benefit items were identified and considered for all four 
groups, costs estimates  could  only be quantified  for the  first  two  and benefits  were  generally not 
appropriate for quantification. 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 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 since this would depend on several additional factors, 
such  as  how  this  data  would  be  used  or  the  cost  of  accessing  data  through  alternative  sources. 
Therefore, estimates  for  benefits  are not  available. For the same reason,  cost  estimates should be 
considered  with  caution:  it  is  likely  that  these  costs  have  been  underestimated  and  represent  a 
minimal figure of overall costs incurred by the different groups of stakeholders. 

17.  1. OVERALL APPROACH  

Our overall approach to the estimation of costs and benefits consisted of the following key steps: 

Firstly, the cost and benefit items associated with each policy measure were identified and itemised, 
considering the type of cost (i.e., one-off or recurrent costs, overall cost categories), the stakeholder 
group  impacted  and,  in  the  case  of  Member  States,  the  proportion  and/the  extent  to  which  these 
Member States were likely to be impacted by the different measures. This itemisation was reviewed 
and refined in cooperation with Eurostat. 

124 

 
 
As  noted  above,  it  was  determined,  and  agreed  with  Eurostat,  that  benefits  were  not  possible  to 
quantify.  These  have  however  been  qualitatively  defined  in  the  main  report,  as  well  as  in  more 
details in Annex 2.  

In consultation with Eurostat, it was agreed to assess the costs and benefits associated with each of 
the  seven  policy  options.  The  quantification  of  these  costs  has  been  carried  out  considering  the 
impact  of  each  policy  option  as  a  whole  rather  than  assessing  the  impact  of  each  measure 
individually to then aggregating these into options. 

Overall,  estimates  and  assumptions  were  based  on  a  combination  of  several  factors  or  criteria, 
including:  

  The implementation of statistical registers;  

  The  introduction  of  more  harmonised  population  definition  based  on  the  usual  residence 

concept; and, 

  The different level of ambitions of each option in terms of upgrade of statistical outputs 

Costs  and  costs  savings  for  each  cost  item  and  (group  of)  policy  measures  were  then  aggregated 
across Member States, where relevant. 

Finally, estimated costs and cost savings were aggregated for each policy option and estimated by 
stakeholder group (Member States and the European Commission) and cost type (i.e. one-off and 
recurrent. Details of what this aggregation process consisted of, as well as specific calculations and 
assumptions applied to estimate costs for each stakeholder group and limitations of the model are 
set out below. 

18.  2. SOURCES 

The  assessment  of  the  costs  and  the  benefits  was  carried  out  using  multiple  sources  and 
triangulating data when possible. The main sources used have been: 

1.  Inputs provided by Eurostat, including through  regular meetings/feedback requests as well 
as data around 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  and  a  survey  of  Member  States’  regarding  costs  associated 
with population statistics. 

2.  Data  gathered  throughout  the  research  study,  including  the  workshops,  literature  review, 

NSI survey and Open Public Consultation 

3.  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  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),  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 DG 

125 

 
 
HOME Evaluation of the Counter-Terrorism Directive (positive opinion of the RSB in July 
2021), among others in previous years.  

19.  3. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 

19.1.  3.1. 

Costs itemisation  

The IA study assesses the impact of seven policy options, including the baseline, on different cost 
types. 

Costs likely to be borne by the Commission (Eurostat) were itemised as follow:  

  Regulatory  costs:  Costs  required  to  prepare  and  draft  the  new  regulation,  including 
adopting  implementing  acts,  communication,  and  provision  of  training,  working  group 
meetings  managing  the  overall  delivery  of  the  intervention.  These  are  one-off  costs, 
occurring over a 3-year transition period  

  Enforcement costs: Resources required to monitor MS alignment to, and compliance with 
the requirements  of the  new regulation  (including  around data protection, data quality  and 
transparency) and to receive and publish data provided. These are recurrent costs, occurring 
over the 10-year period  

  IT  costs:  Costs  associated  with  new  software/application/IT  update  necessary  for 
implementing the new measure (one-off costs), as well as the maintenance of IT equipment 
(recurrent costs) 

The following cost items were identified as being the main costs likely to be borne by the Member 
States and their respective NSIs: 

  Administrative costs: these are the costs associated with any resources required to develop, 
implement,  and  communicate  any  training  required  (one-off  costs),  as  well  as  any  costs 
associated  with  the  design,  implementation  and  running  of  (new)  procedures  (recurrent 
costs) 

  Compliances costs:  these are the costs with  resources required to  ensure  compliance with 
requirements, including adopting national arrangements or legislation to ensure cooperation 
with relevant source data holders (recurrent costs) 

  Enforcement  costs:  these  are  the  costs  associated  with  resources  required  to  monitor  and 

ensure compliance to the regulation in the MS (recurrent costs) 

  IT  costs:  Costs  associated  with  new  software/application/IT  update  necessary  for 
implementing the new measure (one-off costs), as well as the maintenance of IT equipment 
(recurrent costs) 

19.2.  3.2. 

Assessment period and social discount rate 

The study considers the impact of the various policy options considered over a 10-year period from 
Year 0 to Year 10.  

126 

 
 
For this impact assessment, it was assumed that all adjustment costs (or otherwise so-called “one-
off”  costs)  would  occur  over  a  3-year  transition  period,  from  Year  0  to  Year  2  included.  All  on-
going (also so-called “recurrent”) costs have been accounted for the whole 10-year period. 

Costs are all estimated in today’s value (2021 EUR) and as incremental, relative to the estimated 
baseline  costs.  The  baseline  costs  are  the  costs  likely  to  be  incurred  in  the  absence  of  a  new 
regulation, or in the continuation of the current situation, assuming all aspects of the current legal 
framework of European population statistics remain unchanged. 

A  3%  social  discount  rate  has  been  applied,  in  line  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Better 
Regulation Guidelines.  

19.3.  3.3. 

Labour costs 

With regards to the NSIs, estimations of the different labour costs across each Member State were 
made using the 2016 labour cost  of the public  administration sector113. Annual  labour costs have 
been estimated up to 2021 in line with the HICP AARoC114. Between 2021 and 2023 included were 
estimated  in  line  with  the  OECD  HICP  forecast.  Annual  labour  costs  from  2024  onwards  were 
estimated based on the average of the annual rate of change applicable between 2021 and 2023 for 
each  Member  States  and  assumed  constant  over  for  the  remaining  of  the  study  period. 
In order to obtain daily labour costs projections across each member States, it was assumed that 1 
FTE corresponds to 215 working days per year, as follows: 

Estimated Daily NSIs staff labour costs = {PA estimated annual labour costs /215}. 

Eurostat labour costs were estimated on the assumption that a monthly salary of an AD10  official 
was EUR 9,000 and using 215 working days per year (equivalent to 17,9 working days per month), 
as follows: 

Estimated Daily Eurostat staff labour costs = {AD10 officials monthly salary /17.9}. 

19.4.  3.4. 

Costs estimation  

Most of the cost estimates were produced using the following formula: 

N. of FTEs * Level of effort (person days) *Daily Labour Costs, 

based on data points and costs estimates provided through the consultation process (feedbacks from 
Eurostat, interviews and NSIs surveys, Public Consultation).  

113  Labour  cost,  wages  and  salaries,  direct  remuneration  (excluding  apprentices)  by  NACE  Rev.  2  activity)  -  LCS 
surveys 2008, 2012 and 2016 [lc_ncost_r2], available at: 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lc_ncost_r2&lang=en 
114 HICP - annual data (average index and rate of change) [PRC_HICP_AIND__custom_1686993], available at: 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=prc_hicp_aind 

127 

 
 
                                                 
20.  4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

20.1.  4.1. 

Baseline scenario  

In  the  baseline  scenario  A,  limited  harmonisation  of  population  definition  will  remain,  statistical 
processes  will  remain  separate,  and  the  current  requirements  in  terms  of  statistical  outputs  will 
continue as they are.  

The cost assessment of the baseline scenario was carried out based on the evaluation results. For all 
sub-measures included in policy option A, the status quo will remain. Notwithstanding the sunset 
clause in Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013, policy option A assumes that a replacement legal act on 
demography statistics will be proposed when it expires in 2028. 

It is important to note that the costs estimated for policy option A (the baseline scenario) are not the 
same as the costs associated with the current legal framework. Indeed, all recurrent costs incurred 
by  Regulation  (EC)  No  862/2007  (on  migration  statistics),  No  763/2008  (the  Census  Regulation) 
and  Regulation  (EU)  No  1260/2013  (demography)  were  estimated  to  remain  constant  and 
calculated over a 10-year period for both the European Commission (Eurostat) and the 27 Member 
States (EU-27) and their respective NSIs.  

However,  in  addition  to  these  costs,  costs  associated  with  the  provision  of  voluntary  statistics, 
maintaining  statistical  population  registers  (for  those  Member  States  that  currently  have  or  are 
planning  to  implement  one  regardless  of  this  initiative)  and  maintaining  a  strict  Usual  Residence 
definition  of  population  (for  those  Member  States  that  currently  adopt  this  definition)  are  also 
included in the baseline costs. The rationale for the inclusion of these costs in the baseline is that: 

 

It  was  assumed  that  those  Member  States  with  a  population  register115  have  incurred  and 
will continue to incur costs relating to keeping these registers up-to date. These costs were 
therefore accounted for in policy option A. Similarly, some NSIs are planning to transition 
to  a  register-based  system116  in  the  near  future  and  will  therefore  incur  costs.  As  these 
Member States are planning to use national statistical registers regardless of a potential new 
regulation, the forthcoming costs cannot be attributed to a new regulation that would include 
a provision requiring for NSIs to set up and maintain national statistical registers. 

  Some Member States are already strictly using the population definition based on the usual 
residence concept117. Those Member States are already incurring costs relating to the use of 
this definition and will continue to do so. These costs cannot therefore be attributed to a new 
regulation  that  would  include  a  provision  requiring  NSIs  to  either  strictly  use  the  usual 
residence definition or to restrict their possibilities to use the legal or registered population 
definitions.  

  Some  Member  States  are  already  providing  data  on  a  voluntary  basis.  Data  currently 
collected on a voluntary basis incur costs to both the European Commission (Eurostat) and 

115 NSIs survey responses (Q. ‘Does your NSI maintain a national statistical register?’. The following NSIs responded 
‘Yes’:  Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain, 
Sweden). 
116 NSIs survey responses (Q. ‘Does your NSI maintain a national statistical register?’. The following NSIs responded 
‘No, but planned’: Croatia, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal). 
117  NSI  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Which  definition(s)  of  the  population  is  used  by  your  NSI?’.  The  following  NSIs 
responded ‘strict usual residence’: Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania). 

128 

 
                                                 
NSIs. These costs are likely to  remain  irrespective of whether a new regulation  makes the 
existing voluntary data mandatory 

Therefore,  the  costs  attributable  to  the  baseline  scenario  and  incurred  by  both  the  Commission 
(Eurostat) and the NSIs can be categorised as follow:  

  Costs of mandatory migration statistics  

  Costs of mandatory demography statistics  

  Costs of mandatory Census (population and housing statistics)  

  Costs of maintaining Statistical Registers  

  Costs of maintaining harmonised population definitions  

  Costs of Voluntary Statistics  

The costs and benefits estimated as part of this impact assessment (qualitatively and quantitatively) 
are  incremental  costs/benefits,  and  therefore  presented  as  additional  costs/benefits  relative  to  the 
baseline scenario A. 

Details and values of the estimated costs for the baseline are included in the main report. 

20.2.  4.2. 

Policy options and factors considered for assessing costs 

As mentioned earlier, the policy options have been built  and therefore  assessed considering three 
main factors or criteria:  national statistical registers, levels of further harmonisation in population 
definitions and the level of statistical outputs.  

20.2.1. 4.2.1. 

National statistical registers 

The  requirement  for  NSIs  to  implement  national  statistical  registers  of  measure  1.2118  is  only 
introduced  in  policy  option  D.2  (the  status  quo  being  maintained  under  all  other  options). 
Therefore, for all options except D.2, no incremental (additional relative to the baseline) costs will 
be incurred due to this factor. 

Under  policy  option  D.2,  all  Member  States  that  do  not  currently  have  a  register  and  are  not 
planning on having one119, will incur costs resulting from the obligation of setting up a statistical 
register. 

Details and values of the costs incurred by these Member States and the Commission are included 
in the main report.  

118 Measure 1.2: NSIs establish national statistical registers. 
119 NSIs survey responses (Q. ‘Does your NSI maintain a national statistical register?’. The following NSIs responded 
‘No, and not planned’: Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovenia). 

129 

 
                                                 
20.2.2. 4.2.2. 

Costs savings for the NSIs due to integrated statistical processes 

An estimate of the cost  savings to  Member States in  the long run associated with  the delivery of 
register-based  censuses,  relative  to  traditional  or  combined  censuses,  was  estimated  for  those 
Member  States  that  currently  do  not  and  are  not  planning  already  to  implement  a  population 
register. Costs saving are expected to occur because of integrating statistical processes through the 
implementation  of  statistical  population  registers.  In  this  analysis,  costs  saving  were  estimated 
based  on  data  on  the  total  cost  of  delivering  the  2000/01  and  2010/11  census  rounds  by  census 
methodology available from the UNECE120. Costs provided for Member States were converted into 
2021 EUR and then the average and median per capita cost of delivering each census round across 
all  Member  States  for  which  data  was  available  were  calculated,  by  census  methodology.  The 
difference  between  the  cost  of  delivering  a  census  overall  (i.e.  across  all  census  methodologies), 
and  the  cost  of  delivering  a  register-based  census  was  then  calculated121.  Based  on  this,  the  per 
capita cost  saving  associated with  a register-based census  was  estimated  to  be  EUR 4.52 in  2000 
and  EUR 5.05  in  2011.  Adopting  a  conservative  approach,  the  lowest  figure  was  selected,  and  a 
10% error range applied to this122. Maintaining this conservative approach, the lower range figure 
for the per capita cost saving was then used to estimate total savings to Member States123. 

To estimate the cost savings per capita over time, national population in the EU as of 1st January 
2021124, and population projections125 for 2025, 2030, 2035 from Eurostat have been used. To have 
yearly projections, a simple linear trend  function has been applied to  cover for the  years missing 
between 2021-2025, 2025-2030, and 2030. 

The total estimated costs savings for the relevant NSIs are around EUR 575 million. 

20.2.3. 4.2.3. 

Harmonisation of population definition 

The options are introducing two different levels of further harmonisation of population definitions 
relative to the Baseline (Policy option A) 

In  policy  Option  B.1  and  B.2,  like  in  the  baseline,  the  harmonisation  of  population  definitions 
remains fragmented. There are therefore no incremental costs associated with this factor for policy 
option B.1 and policy option B.2.  

120 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 of censuses, available at: 
https://unece.org/DAM/stats/publications/Publication_on_2000_censuses.pdf. 
121 The median was selected as the preferred metric since it is less sensitive to outliers. 
122  i.e.  to  allow  a  margin  of  error,  the  per  capita  cost  saving  was  estimated  to  range  from  between  EUR 4.07  to 
EUR 4.97 (+/- 10% of 4.52). 
123 This was estimated as a figure of EUR 4.07 per capita. In addition, it was noted that three Member Stated appeared 
to have changed census methodology between the two rounds, of which two changed to a register-based census. The 
cost  difference  between  the  delivery  of  the  2000/01  and  2010/11  census  rounds  for  those  Member  States  was  also 
calculated, as a possible proxy/ further check on the estimate of per capita cost savings associated with switching to a 
register-based  census.  This  cost  saving  associated  with  a  register-based  census,  relative  to  a  traditional  or  combined 
census, was estimated to be EUR 6 per capita. Note, however, that this result must be interpreted carefully: the estimate 
was calculated based on data from only 2 Member States and does not account for other factors that may have affected 
costs over time (i.e. between the two census rounds). 
124 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00001/default/table?lang=en 
125 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/PROJ_19NP/default/table?lang=en 

130 

 
                                                 
In policy options C.1 and C.2, harmonisation of population definition is improved (measure 2.3)126. 
Due to the limitation in the definitions of what “justified exemptions” entail, it was assumed that all 
Member states currently not already using a definition strictly based on the usual residence concept, 
and/or  not  using  the  legal  or  registered  residence  would  have  to  completely  switch  to  using  the 
usual residence concept for defining their population base127. This is based on the assumption that 
those  8  Member  States  (using  either  combined  or  other  definitions)  are  likely  to  no  longer  be 
eligible for the justified exemptions. 

Policy options D.1 and D.2 introduce a full harmonisation through the measure 2.2128. The costs of 
fully harmonising the population definitions based on the strict usual residence concept are going to 
be borne by all 17 Member States129 that are not currently using this definition for all datasets.  

Details  and  values  of  costs  associated  with  the  different  levels  of  harmonisation  of  population 
definitions are set out in the main report.  

It should be noted that for this factor, the Commission (Eurostat) and the Member states will incur 
similar costs in policy options C.1 and C.2, associated with the harmonisation improvement.  

Similarly, costs associated with the full harmonisation will be equal under policy options D.1 and 
D.2. 

Limitation  should  be  noted  around  the  costs’  estimation  and  the  feasibility  for  certain  Member 
states to use the strict usual residence concept to define their population  base. For the purpose of 
this study, it was assumed that the level of effort and number of days required for such a transition 
would be the same across all Member States and that transitioning to a strict definition was possible 
for every Member States in terms of technical and operational feasibility. However, a review of the 
feasibility studies carried out by the Member States  in 2016 has demonstrated that this would not 
necessarily be the case for all Member States130. Nevertheless, methodological work has progressed 
in the meantime, for instance some Member States have advanced on more sophisticated register-
based  methods  around  ‘signs  of  life’  that  could  ultimately  allow  efficient  adjustments  of  the 
population base at microdata (person record) level. 

20.2.4. 4.2.4. 

Statistical outputs 

The options are introducing three different levels of ambition relative to the baseline (policy option 
A) regarding statistical outputs requirements.  

  Policy option B.1 and policy option C.1 introduce the smallest update in terms of statistical 
outputs. Updated statistical requirements will be introduced in demography, migration, and 

126  Measure  2.3:  harmonised  population  definition  (based  on  usual  residence  concept)  with  stricter  and  justified 
exceptions. 
127  NSI  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Which  definition(s)  of  the  population  is  used  by  your  NSI?’.  The  following  NSIs 
responded ‘combined or other’: Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia, Spain). 
128 Measure 2.2: Strictly harmonised population definition (based on usual residence) for all datasets. 
129  NSI  survey  responses  (Q.  ‘Which  definition(s)  of  the  population  is  used  by  your  NSI?’.  The  following  NSIs 
responded  ‘legal  residence’,  ‘registered  residence’,  ‘combined’  or  ‘other’:  Austria,  Belgium,  Czechia,  Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden). 
130  Feasibility  studies  on  the  use  of  strict  usual  residence  concept  for  population  definitions  carried  out  according  to 
Article 8  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 1260/2013.  Denmark  mentioned  that  such  a  transition  would  be  very  costly,  while 
Germany assessed this measure as not feasible. 

131 

 
                                                 
population and housing census statistics on statistical topics that are covered by the current 
EU legislation. No new statistical topics and outputs will be implemented. 

  Policy  option  B.2  and  C.2:  Statistical  topics  covered  by  the  current  EU  legislation  will  be 
further  extended  relative  to  requirements  in  policy  options  B.1  and  C.1.  Some  existing 
voluntary statistical topics will become mandatory. Upgraded statistical requirements will be 
introduced  in  demography,  migration,  and  population  and  housing  census  statistics.  New 
statistical topics will be added 

  Policy options D.1 and D.2: Statistical topics covered by the current EU legislation will be 
even further extended relative to  requirements in  policy options B.2  and  C.2. Some of the 
voluntary statistical topics will become mandatory. In addition, new statistical topics will be 
added. Statistical output will reach most ambitious level by covering existing and new topics 
of  demography,  migration,  and  population  and  housing  census  statistics.  Some  of  census 
outputs will be required more frequently than every 10 years 

Analysis  of  these  three  levels  of  ambitions  in  terms  of  statistical  outputs  requirements  has  been 
carried  out  to  understand  which  policy  option  contain  measures  on  statistical  outputs  that  simply 
entail an incremental level of effort relative to the baseline (i.e. the current regulation) by requiring 
the same type of datasets but in more details and/or characteristics and which policy option, instead 
would require the introduction of entirely new datasets and/or making voluntary dataset mandatory. 

Depending  on  each  of  these  levels  of  ambition,  incremental  levels  of  effort  were  estimated 
proportionately and relative to the baseline by estimating the additional days and FTE required for 
meeting the different requirements brought by the various measures and their level of ambitions.  

Incremental costs were estimated based on the same assumptions and data drawn upon to estimate 
costs  in  the  evaluation.  These  costs  were  associated  with  administrative  costs  to  Member  States, 
and  enforcement  costs  to  Eurostat,  since  it  is  assumed,  these  are  the  only  cost  items  that  will 
increase relative to the baseline.  

Details and values of estimated costs incurred by both the Commission (Eurostat) and the Member 
states and resulting from these different levels of ambition in terms of statistical outputs are set out 
in  part 1.1  of  Annex  2.  It  should  also  be  noticed  that  these  costs  borne  by  the  Commission 
(Eurostat) and the Member States due to the least ambitious upgrade are therefore equal in policy 
options B.1 and C.1; Cost incurred by a more extensive upgrade of statistical outputs are similar in 
policy  options  B.2  and  C.2;  and  costs  incurred  due  to  a  major  and  most  ambitious  upgrade  of 
statistical outputs are equal in policy options D.1 and D.2. 

132