INDICATORS

The first step was to consult the Working Parties, which were expected (with the projects
they represented) to have the best knowledge of indicator availability and development
in their specific areas. In 2006, they were asked for their suggestions for:
1. Improving existing indicators, e.g. by better definitions and better source
identification.
2. Adding or deleting indicators.
DG SANCO was also consulted for suggestions from the EU policy needs perspective.
Towards the end of 2006 and during 2007, ECHIM received several suggestions. They
were divided into the categories of suggestions as shown above; improving existing
indicators (1) and adding new indicators (2). The suggestions falling under 1 were taken
up in the process of writing the Documentation Sheets, i.e. the full documentation of
definitions, data sources, etc. for each of the existing shortlist indicators. This is further
described under Chapter 3.6. The process of deciding on additions is discussed below.
As to the suggestions for additions, the total number eventually amounted to almost 60,
even though the Working Parties were encouraged to be selective. They were also asked
to produce the rationale and full documentation for each proposal, keeping in mind
the criteria that were used for the original shortlist selection (see above), plus practical
feasibility (validity, availability, etc.). There was a lot of communication between the
Working Parties and projects and the ECHIM secretariat to clarify questions arising
from the proposals. At the same time, the ECHIM Core Group insisted that the number
of additions be limited in order to keep the shortlist short (at most 5–7 additions).
In order to select new indicators a procedure was adapted based on suggestion by
RIVM. In selecting the indicators to be added, the next step should be to present the
list of indicators (proposed by the Working Parties) to the members of the Working
Party Indicators. Subsequently the list should be submitted to a voting procedure in
the meeting of Working Party Indicators. Working Party Indicators was considered
to be the best forum to judge both the policy relevance and practical feasibility of
the proposals. At their meeting in December 2007, the final list of 53 items and the
proposed procedure were presented. It was decided at this meeting that the Network of
Competent Authorities (NCA) should also have the opportunity to make suggestions
for additions based on policy relevance at their January 2008 meeting. Also at that
Working Party Indicators meeting, a pilot voting procedure was carried out by asking all
participants to select their top seven choices. Voting forms were filled by 35 participants.
Out of the 53 proposed items, the highest-ranking one received 20 votes, while only 6
items got no votes at all. In other words, there were quite diverse views.
34