Expert Database 2010 Annual Report of Activities 1

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL REPORT OF EFSA 1 European Food Safety Authority 2 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy 1 On request from EFSA, EFSA-Q , issued on 28 /05/ Correspondence: AFSCO.secretariat@efsa.europa.eu Suggested citation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA);. [14 pp.] Available online: European Food Safety Authority, 2011

2 SUMMARY EFSA s expert database (EDB) was launched on the 5 th of June 2008 with the main objective to establish a database of external scientific experts that can be queried in order to support the activities carried out by the Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels and Working Groups. During 2010, the database continued to grow steadily, having received an average of approximately 70 applications per month, and a total of 815 applications. The EDB currently holds information on experts. The information on 92.5% of them is shared with external users of the database, namely with the members of the Advisory Forum and of the Focal Point Network. During the course of 2010, the EDB continued to be promoted through Focal Points (at national level) and amongst international organisations. All EU Member States (MS) and EEA/EFTA countries, with the exception of Liechtenstein, as well as 30 other countries are represented in the EDB. Analysis of data from the EDB revealed, however, that some MS and EEA/EFTA countries continue to have a relatively lower representation in the EDB, considering the country population at EU level. Consequently, these countries in particular may benefit from future promotion activities of the EDB. All main areas of expertise that fall within EFSA s remit are present on the EDB. New Technologies (12.4%) and Plant Health (15.8%) are areas that require further strengthening. Further investigation on underrepresented areas, namely via the collection of feedback from end-users of the EDB, is still required in order to identify areas requiring additional strengthening in the EDB. The identified areas may then merit from targeted EDB promotion activities. The assessment of the data by end of 2010 revealed an increase of almost 10% (from 17.6% by end of 2009 to 27.2%) of applications included in the EDB older than 11 months. Improvements are needed on the EDB policy for data renewal so as to keep data in the EDB accurate and up-to-date. The updated policy shall allow for a simplification of the process by which experts confirm their profiles to be up-to-date; and foresee adequate measures to be taken with regards to profiles that fail to be kept up-to-date after a defined period of time. Overall, general promotion activities aimed at increasing the total number of experts included in the EDB, as well as targeted promotion activities to underrepresented countries and scientific areas, continue to be the priority activities foreseen for 2011 on the EDB. Pooling of expertise and further cooperation activities with Focal Points and international organisations are crucial to achieve the abovementioned proposed objectives for KEYWORDS expert database, application, validation, eligibility, promotion, data renewal 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary... 2 Keywords... 2 Table of contents... 3 Mandate... 4 Objectives... 4 Evaluation Introduction Materials and Methods Applications submitted to the EDB Validity and eligibility check of submitted applications Overall assessment of data available in the database Expert distribution per country of origin Expert distribution per area of expertise Implementation of the data renewal policy Results Applications submitted to the EDB Validity and eligibility check of submitted applications Overall assessment of data available in the database Expert distribution per country of origin Expert distribution per area of expertise Implementation of the data renewal policy Discussion Applications submitted to the EDB Validity and eligibility check of submitted applications Overall assessment of data available in the database Expert distribution per country of origin Expert distribution per area of expertise Implementation of the data renewal policy Conclusions and recommendations

4 MANDATE The daily management of the Expert Database is coordinated by the Expert Database Administrator (a designated staff member of the Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit). The Expert Database Administrator is supported by the Expert Database Evaluation Committee (EDB EC), which meets regularly to discuss, amongst other issues, the assessment of applications submitted to the EDB. The EDB EC is further supported by the Expert Database Supervisory Committee (EDB SC). This Committee meets on a quarterly basis. The members of the EDB EC attend these meetings to present a quarterly report of activities and provide clarifications where needed. The Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit provides the secretariat for both the EDB EC and EDB SC meetings. The Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit is tasked to prepare annual reports of activities on the EDB. Such technical reports shall provide a comprehensive description of yearly activities, as well as an analysis of data held in the EDB, in particular regarding its growth; expertise available per country and per field of competence; and data validity. The yearly reports may also focus on a particular aspect of the EDB, to be decided on a case by case basis by the EDB SC. OBJECTIVES This annual report summarises the 2010 activities carried out to implement EFSA s EDB project, assesses data available in the EDB, as compared to data available by end of 2009, and evaluates how recommendations contained on the 2009 EDB Evaluation Report have been so far addressed. The report mainly concerns the period from January until December 2010, i.e. a period of 12 months (referred to in this report as reporting period ). 4

5 EVALUATION 1. Introduction The recommendation for EFSA to set up an expert database was made in the report of the ad-hoc Advisory Forum Working Group on the Input of National Authorities into the work of EFSA s Scientific Committee, Panels and other Expert Groups (INA-AFWG), presented to the Advisory Forum 3 at its meeting on May This recommendation was later endorsed by the Advisory Forum Steering Group on Cooperation on March The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the expert database project were endorsed by the Advisory Forum on April An EFSA Scientific Cooperation Working Group (ESCO WG) was set up in November Following its first meeting in December 2007, an EDB project plan was discussed and endorsed by the Advisory Forum and the Scientific Committee on April The ESCO WG met again on May 2008 to prepare the testing of the EDB IT tool, to agree on the strategy to populate the EDB and to prepare its official launch. Advisory Forum members, Focal Points 4 and ESCO Working Group Members participated on the testing stage, which occurred during the month of May The EDB was officially launched on the 5 th of June 2008, along with the publication of the Decision of the Executive Director concerning the selection of members of the Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels and external experts 5 (referred to in this report as Decision on the Selection of Experts ). The main objective of EFSA s expert database is to establish a database of external scientific experts that can be queried in order to support the activities carried out by the Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels, EFSA s networks, and respective Working Groups. By creating such a database, EFSA achieves the following goals: (1) enhances the transparency of the process through which experts are invited to participate in EFSA s scientific activities; (2) enhances EFSA s capacity to conduct risk assessments and other scientific activities falling within its remit; and (3) responds more effectively and flexibly to growing workload, particularly in cases where very specialised, unexpected or urgent work is required. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Applications submitted to the EDB EFSA s homepage displays a banner dedicated to the EDB, which redirects to EFSA s EDB webpage 6 containing general information on the database. The online procedure to submit an application to the EDB starts on this webpage and consists on three steps: i) registration in the database; ii) filling an electronic application, available at the expert database login page; and iii) submission of the completed application. Applicant experts shall indicate whether they wish to share their profiles just with EFSA, or also with MS, EEA/EFTA countries and the European Commission. During 2010, activities aiming to promote the EDB and thus to increase the amount of applications submitted were carried out. These included the pre-filling of applications on behalf of experts that provided their curricular information to EFSA in the context of past calls for expression of interest, followed by their invitation to join the EDB. Other promotion activities concerned the sending out of information messages about EFSA s expert database to experts participating in EFSA s activities (e.g. to participants of Scientific Colloquia), as well as the establishment of cooperation activities with Focal Points and international organisations for the identification of expert databases or networks of scientists falling within EFSA s remit. 3 Online webpage available at: 4 Online webpage available at: 5 Available online: 6 Available online: 5

6 2.2. Validity and eligibility check of submitted applications The process for inclusion of experts into the database is based on the assessment of a set of mandatory information provided with the online application. This task is carried out by the Administrator of the EDB (a representative from the Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit), supported by a representative from EFSA s Risk Assessment & Scientific Assistance Directorate and a representative from the Scientific Evaluation of Regulated Products Directorate, making up the Expert Database Evaluation Committee (EDB EC). The EDB EC is further supported by the Expert Database Supervisory Committee (EDB SC). This Committee meets on a quarterly basis. The members of the EDB EC attend these meetings to present a quarterly report of activities and provide clarifications where needed. The Advisory Forum & Scientific Cooperation Unit provides the secretariat for both the EDB EC and EDB SC meetings. The EDB EC and the EDB SC guide the Administrator of the EDB on the decision process for inclusion or exclusion of experts into/from the EDB, and on other matters related with the management of the EDB. Full details on the adopted assessment procedures are formally laid out in the EDB EC Procedures Overall assessment of data available in the database Expert distribution per country of origin Applications submitted to the EDB come from applicants from EU MS and beyond. One of the factors to be taken into consideration by EFSA staff when carrying out the selection of experts to contribute to scientific activities is MS representativeness. As foreseen on the Decision on the Selection of Experts... Specifically, for otherwise equal candidates, priority shall be given to underrepresented Member States. Experts from non-eu countries may be considered in case appropriate candidates from Member States cannot be identified; Expert distribution per area of expertise The EDB application form allows experts to choose from 12 main areas of expertise, subdivided into a total of 125 subfields of competence. Applicant experts are required to identify at least one subfield of competence in order to be able to submit their applications Implementation of the data renewal policy The current EDB policy for data renewal foresees that experts included in the database shall be annually requested to update their profiles or confirm that their profile information remains up-to-date. It also foresees a thorough reassessment of the status of the expert database project following a period of five years after its launch. The system in place to achieve an annual update of the information available in applications is based on the automatic submission of reminders to experts included in the database whose application is dated over 11 months since the last submission. 3. Results 3.1. Applications submitted to the EDB During 2010, a total of 815 applications were submitted to the EDB, corresponding to an average of approximately 70 submitted applications per month. An overview in time (from June 2008 to December 2010) of submitted applications is shown in Figure 1. A decrease on the overall monthly average, from 123 applications (observed by end of 2009) to 101 applications (observed by end of 2010) was noted. Figure 1 illustrates that during the reporting period the number of submitted applications was stable when compared to previous months. Monthly growth rates above 100 submitted applications were however observed during the course of July and September of

7 No. Applications Time Figure 1: Submitted applications from June 2008 until end of 2010 During 2010, EFSA continued to actively promote the EDB, via networking and cooperation activities. Focal Points (1) provided information and links to EFSA s EDB web pages; (2) used EDB promotion material, such as banners, posters and leaflets at national conferences; (3) organised Focal Point events; (4) provided support to experts applying to the EDB; and (5) queried the EDB in search for expertise for their own scientific projects 7. Cooperation activities with four European institutions / organisations (DG SANCO, DG RTD, TAIEX and JRC (IHCP)) and eight international organisations (OIE, ESCMID, SETAC, NZFSA, HEALTH CANADA, FSANZ, FAO/IAEA and US FDA), aiming to further populate the EDB, were initiated, continued and/or concluded during the course of Additional in-house activities, such as the establishment of direct contact with experts cooperating with or applying to (calls of) EFSA was also used as an important tool to promote the EDB Validity and eligibility check of submitted applications During the course of 2010, the EDB EC met five times and the EDB SC four times to discuss in detail the results of the validity and eligibility checks of applications made by the EDB Administrator. The final outcome of the validity and eligibility checks of applications submitted to the EDB during the reporting period and overtime since its launch is summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Assessment of submitted applications during the reporting period (year 2010) and in total Outcome of validity/eligibility checks No. of applications in 2010 Total no. of applications Not included Included 645 (79.1%) (86%) Update requested 95 (11.7%) 272 (9%) Excluded 31 (3.8%) 90 (3%) Not valid 15 (1.8%) 23 (0.8%) Drop Out 21 (2.6%) 30 (0.9%) Subtotal 162 (19.9%) 415 (13.7%) Pending assessment by EDB SC 8 (1%) 8 (0.3%) Total 815 (100%) (100%) 7 Further details available online on the report on Focal Point Activities in 2010: 7

8 During the reporting period, a total of 645 experts were included in the EDB, corresponding to 79.1% of all submitted applications, i.e. slightly below the overall proportion of included experts (86%) since the day of launch of the EDB. In 2010, a total of 162 applications (19.9%) were not included in the EDB: 95 experts were requested an update before any decision could be made on their inclusion; 31 were excluded from the EDB by decision of the EDB SC; 15 applications were considered not valid; and 21 experts requested to be removed from the database. At year end, eight applications were pending assessment by the EDB SC. By end of 2010, 92.5% of all included experts (i.e experts) had indicated their willingness to share their profiles with MS and EEA/EFTA countries, thus being visible to external users of the EDB. This proportion represents an increase of 7.1% when compared to the situation by end of 2009, and is a good indicator of the openness and willingness towards cooperation with other national food safety agencies expressed by experts joining the EDB Overall assessment of data available in the database Expert distribution per country of origin By end of 2010, experts from 60 different countries were included in the EDB. Experts from all MS and EEA/EFTA countries are represented in the EDB, with the single exception of Liechtenstein, along with 30 third-countries. Experts from these third-countries amount to 7.9% of all included experts. The number of experts included in the EDB per country of origin is presented in Figure 2. Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Netherlands and Spain are the countries presenting the highest number of experts, corresponding to 56% of all included experts. UNITED KINGDOM, 332 OTHERS, 204 AUSTRIA, 73 BELGIUM, 101 BULGARIA, 33 CYPRUS, 9 CZECH REPUBLIC, 21 DENMARK, 87 ESTONIA, 5 FINLAND, 53 SWITZERLAND, 49 FRANCE, 193 SWEDEN, 73 GERMANY, 253 SPAIN, 160 SLOVENIA, 25 GREECE, 76 SLOVAKIA, 27 ROMANIA, 45 HUNGARY, 31 PORTUGAL, 59 ICELAND, 1 POLAND, 34 IRELAND, 56 NORWAY, 48 NETHERLANDS, 171 MALTA, 6 LATVIA, 6 ITALY, 346 LUXEMBOURG, 6 LITHUANIA, 14 Figure 2: Number of EU and EEA/EFTA experts included in the EDB per country of origin 8

9 With regards to non-eu and non-eea/efta countries, United States, Canada and Turkey are the best represented in the EDB, amounting for 57.8% (i.e. 34.8%, 13.2% and 9.8% respectively) of all thirdcountry experts (see Figure 3). To note also that the candidate countries Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey are relatively well represented as third-countries, amounting to approximately 20% of all third-country experts. ARGENTINA, 2 AUSTRALIA, 9 URUGUAY, 1 ALBANIA, 1 BANGLADESH, 1 BOTSWANA, 1 BRAZIL, 1 UNITED STATES, 71 CANADA, 27 CHILE, 1 CHINA, 3 CROATIA, 11 UKRAINE, 1 TURKEY, 20 THAILAND, 2 SUDAN, 1 SOUTH AFRICA, 3 SAUDI ARABIA, 1 SERBIA, 10 RUSSIAN FEDERATION, 2 NEW ZEALAND, 10 PAKISTAN, 1 CUBA, 2 EGYPT, 1 INDIA, 4 ISRAEL, 6 JAPAN, 2 MACEDONIA, THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF, 6 MEXICO, 1 MOROCCO, 2 Figure 3: Number of non-eu and non-eea/efta experts included in the EDB per country of origin Expert distribution per area of expertise The proportion of experts included in the EDB per main area of expertise at the end of 2009 and at the end of 2010 is shown in Figure 4. The distribution of experts amongst the different areas of expertise available on the EDB has remained similar between the end of 2009 and the end of Despite their overall increase in terms of number of experts, the areas of expertise presenting a lower number of experts remain New Technologies and Plant Health, whereas those with highest number of experts remain the so called Other Areas and Food including nutrition. The main areas of expertise observing higher growth rates during 2010 (i.e. a higher increase on the proportion of experts selecting such expertise as compared to their proportion by end of 2009) were Plant Health (2.4% increase), the so called Other Areas (1.4% increase) and Exposure Assessment (1% increase). 9

10 BY END 2009 BY END % 60% 50% 53.5% 53.6% 62.3% 63.7% 40% 30% 20% 12.4% 15.8% 11.8% 13.4% 19.9% 19.4% 22.3% 22.7% 23.3% 23.6% 22.3% 21.9% 22.5% 22.6% 27.5% 28.5% 29.8% 26.8% 28.5% 30.6% 10% 0% Legend: (*1) NEW TECHN. - new technologies, such as nanotechnology and cloning (*2) GMO - genetically modified organisms (*3) FOOD PROD. - food production and food supply (*4) EXP. ASSESS. - exposure assessment (*5) PPR - plant protection products (*6) AHAW - animal production, health and welfare (*7) BIOHAZ - biological hazards (*8) OTHER AREAS - general areas e.g. food safety, statistics and modelling, agronomy, etc. Figure 4: Proportion of experts in the EDB per main area of expertise by end of 2009 and by end of Implementation of the data renewal policy As part of the EDB data renewal policy to keep information up-to-date, during the course of 2010 a total of reminders were sent out to experts with applications that became older than 11 months since the last submission. The assessment of the data at the end of 2010 indicates that, since the day of launch, a total of reminders have been sent out to experts, which means that 748 experts (27.3%) have received these reminders more than once. To date, 27.2% of all applications included in the EDB are older than 11 months. 4. Discussion 4.1. Applications submitted to the EDB The higher growth rates observed during the months of July and September 2010 (above 100 submitted applications per month) were the result of specific EDB promotion activities carried out during those periods. By end of June 2010, a total of 640 messages were sent out to experts that previously attended EFSA scientific colloquia, informing them about EFSA s EDB and inviting them to consider applying. During the course of September, profiles of 52 eligible candidates of the call for setting up a working group which assesses the quality of EFSA s scientific outputs were prefilled. Experts were then invited to join the EDB. Analysis of the response rates of prefilled experts clearly indicate that this type of promotion activity is the most effective one and should be further continued in 2011 whenever possible. In addition to spontaneous applications, the continued steady growth rates observed during 2010 resulted also from (1) the sending out of more than 700 dedicated messages to experts identified by Focal Points and working at national level, inviting them to consider applying to the EDB; and (2) cooperation activities aimed at promoting the EDB established with international organisations, such as SETAC, FSANZ, JRC (IHCP), FAO/IAEA and US FDA. It is clear that cooperation with Focal 10

11 Points and with international organisations is also an important instrument for further increasing the overall number of experts in the EDB and should therefore be continued / strengthened in Validity and eligibility check of submitted applications The proportion of experts requested an update on their profiles before any decision on their inclusion in the EDB could be made was 11.7% during the reporting period (only 2010, see Table 1). The overall proportion of applicants requested an update of the profile since the launch of the EDB has thus increased from 7.9% by end of 2009 to 9% by end of The application fields most frequently requested an update ( Education, Professional experience, Specific curricular information and Listing of publications ) contain the critical scientific information to assess the suitability of an expert to cooperate with EFSA. The proportion of applicants excluded from the EDB during the reporting period (only 2010) was 3.8%. The overall proportion since the launch of the EDB has thus slightly increased from 2.7% by end of 2009 to 3% by end of The main reasons leading the exclusion of the majority of these experts are the lack of professional experience (being it no professional experience at all or professional experience not falling within EFSA s remit) and the lack of evidence of publications or reports relevant to the expertise declared or to EFSA s remit. The overall number of applicants excluded from the EDB is considered to be kept at a low level, in line with the flexible eligibility criteria in use for deciding upon the inclusion of experts into the EDB. The proportion of applications considered Not valid during the reporting period (only 2010) was 1.8%, leading to an overall increase since day of launch of the EDB from 0.4% by end of 2009 to 0.8% by end of Despite this increase, the low number of non-valid applications continues to reflect a good understanding of the required information to be filled in the application forms. During 2010, a total of 21 experts previously included in the EDB (2.6%) requested to have their profiles deleted from the EDB. On the vast majority of these cases, the reasons presented for dropping out from the EDB were either the retirement of the experts or the lack of time availability to engage in cooperation activities with EFSA. The overall proportion of experts (0.9%) that have so far dropped out from the EDB since the launch of the EDB is considered to be low. The low proportion of applications pending assessment at the end of 2010 (1%) is a clear sign that the validity and eligibility checks of applications have been kept up-to-date Overall assessment of data available in the database Expert distribution per country of origin Representation of MS and EEA/EFTA countries in the EDB, in terms of number of experts, by end of 2010 varied between 13.3% for Italy (it was 13.7% by end of 2009) and 0.04% for Iceland (it was 0.05% by end of 2009). The distribution of experts per country of origin continues to follow an apparent positive correlation with the size of the country population. However, similarly to the situation by end of 2009, in five well populated MS the proportion of experts in the EDB is lower than one would expect from the relative size of the country population at EU level. To ensure a good overall EU geographical balance of available expertise in the EDB, it is recommended to continue to strengthen EDB promotion activities on the abovementioned five well populated MS as well as on the identified eight new MS. Similarly, it is also recommended that targeted promotion activities shall be continued to be carried out in Iceland and in the candidate countries Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey Expert distribution per area of expertise The proportion of experts selecting the areas of expertise best represented in the EDB, the so called Other Areas and Food including nutrition, has slightly increased in 2010 (see Figure 4). The main reason explaining a high number of experts in Other areas is clearly the general nature of the 11

12 underlying subfields of competence available to be chosen, e.g. food safety, bacteriology, parasitology, epidemiology, etc. As to the main category Food including nutrition, the high number of experts continues to be a consequence of the nature of the activity, a core area within EFSA s remit, covering the scope of three EFSA Panels (Dietetic products, nutrition and allergies - NDA; Food additives and nutrient sources added to food - ANS; and Food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids - CEF). The main areas of expertise apparently less represented in the EDB ( New technologies and Plant Health ) have also observed an increase during This was particularly evident (2.4% increase) for Plant Health. The fact that these areas of expertise remain the ones less represented in the EDB continues to be justified by the low number of underlying subfields of competence for the area of New technologies (just 2 subfields, nanotechnology and cloning), and by the relatively recent inclusion of Plant Health as an EFSA Panel. The above data extracted from the EDB provides a clear indication of those areas of expertise that may benefit from targeted promotion activities during the course of To complement the above analysis it is, however, recommended that, during 2011, additional input is collected with regards to which areas of expertise of the EDB merit further promotion. The collection of end-user feedback via a user-survey is therefore proposed Implementation of the data renewal policy The overall number of applications included in the EDB dated over 11 months has increased from 17.6% by end of 2009 to 27.2% by end of The observed increase in the EDB of the number of applications dated over 11 months since the last (re)submission was expected to occur, as not all experts update and re-submit their applications upon receiving automatic reminders from EFSA. With the aim to keep data in the EDB as accurate and up-to-date as possible, and following a past recommendation made by the European Data Protection Supervisor, the EDB SC has decided to implement an updated policy for data renewal during the course of Such updated policy shall allow for a simplification of the process by which experts may confirm their profiles to be up-to-date; and foresee the adequate measures to be taken by the EDB Administrator with regards to profiles that fail to be kept up-to-date after a defined period of time. 12

13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS During the course of 2010, EFSA s expert database continued to receive a constant number of applications, with an average of 70 applications per month and a total of 815 submitted applications. Activities that have mainly contributed to such growth were (1) direct invitations sent by EFSA to identified experts, as a follow up of their pre-filling into the EDB; and (2) invitation or information messages sent by EFSA, Focal Points or international organisations to identified networks of experts. Given the decrease on the average number of applications received per month at the end of 2010, processes aimed at further populating the EDB should continue to be carried out. The abovementioned activities shall therefore be pursued in 2011, namely the pre-filling of expert profiles known to EFSA from other activities (e.g. EFSA calls for expression of interest, Scientific Colloquia) and continued cooperation with Focal Points and international organisations in the identification of potential experts or networks of experts. The EDB currently holds information on experts, 92.5% of which is available to external users of the EDB (EU Member States, EEA/EFTA countries and the European Commission, via Advisory Forum and Focal Point representatives). Assessment of data at the end of 2010 revealed that the proportion of applications included in the EDB dated over 11 months increased from 17.6% to 27.2%. In order to keep data in the EDB accurate and up-to-date, it is recommended to update the EDB policy for data renewal during the course of The updated policy shall allow for a simplification of the process by which experts confirm their profiles to be up-to-date; and foresee the adequate measures to be taken with regards to profiles that fail to be kept up-to-date after a defined period of time. Overall, only 3% of submitted applications have so far been excluded from the EDB, indicating that promotion activities carried out by EFSA and Focal Points have attracted the right expertise. The main reasons leading to the exclusion of experts have been the lack of evidence of adequate professional experience and of publications or reports relevant to the expertise declared. The overall number of applicants excluded from the EDB is considered to be low. When considering the relative size of the country population at EU level, five large MS continued to show a relatively low number of experts included in the EDB. This was also observed for eight out of the 12 MS that joined the EU after To ensure a good overall geographical balance of available expertise at EU level in the EDB, it is recommended to continue strengthening EDB promotion activities in the abovementioned MS. Similarly, it is also recommended that targeted promotion activities are continued to be addressed to the candidate countries Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, as well as Montenegro and potential candidate countries. The main areas of expertise observing higher growth rates during 2010 were Plant Health, the so called Other Areas and Exposure Assessment. New Technologies and Plant Health continue to be the scientific areas of expertise apparently less well represented in the EDB. It is recommended that during 2011 additional input is collected with regards to which areas of expertise of the EDB require further strengthening. The collection of end-user feedback via a user-survey is therefore proposed. Once the underrepresented areas are identified, an increase on the respective number of experts may be achieved by fostering cooperation activities with international organisations operating on those areas. Support from Focal Points should also be considered so to best target the relevant specific national organisations and professional groups. In summary, the priority EDB activities for 2011 will be: To continue actively promoting the EDB via ongoing EFSA activities (calls for expression of interest, Scientific Colloquia, etc.) and via further cooperation with Focal Points and international organisations, so to increase the overall number of experts in the EDB; 13

14 To target EDB promotion activities to MS with a relatively low number of experts in the EDB, in particular via Focal Points; To collect feedback from end-users of the EDB so to best identify underrepresented scientific areas of expertise; To update the EDB policy for data renewal, allowing for a simplification of the process by which experts confirm their profiles to be up-to-date; and to foresee the adequate measures to be taken with regards to profiles that fail to be kept up-to-date within a defined period of time. 14