Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Regulating Chemical Risks pp 301–317Cite as

Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The Case of SCHER

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter analyses the science–policy interface in EU chemicals policy, with a particular focus on the relationship between Risk Assessment and Risk Management. This is achieved through a case study of SCHER – the scientific committee responsible for assessing chemical risks in the EU. Thus this chapter also makes a contribution to the study of ‘committee governance’, and the politics of expertise in the EU more generally. This study has shown that, by and large, SCHER seems to be able to maintain a traditional role as scientific peer-reviewer, with some, though seldom any direct or significant, impact on policy decisions made by the Commission. Views on risk assessment and particularly on risk management vary among the committee members, with some voicing industry-friendly ideas and others supporting ‘green’ visions, including the precautionary principle. However, SCHER almost always reaches consensus on its opinions. An unexpected result, however, is how managing DG Sanco officers tried to control the publication of this study, which illustrates a political fear of policy studies such as the present one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is no clear definition of what an ‘expert group’ or ‘expert committee’ within the EU is (see e.g. Larsson, 2003). In this article we focus on expert committees (i.e. groups) that are set up by the European Commission for the preparatory phase in the EU governance system, which is the most common type of EU committee (as distinguished from committees under the Council and Parliament for the adoption phase and committees under the Commission for the implementation phase, i.e. for the Comitology procedure). Depending on the purpose, committees in the preparatory phase can be composed of people from, for example, member states, civil society, industry, and academia. See the further explanation and the register of expert groups at the European Commission (2009a).

  2. 2.

    Commission Decision 2004/210/EC, which was amended in 2007 (Decision 2007/263/EC). SCHER is one of three scientific committees that have been set up by the Commission. The other two are the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (at the time of our study, called the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products) and the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. All three committees are regulated by the same ‘rules of procedure’.

  3. 3.

    We have interviewed three committee members: Chairman Helmut Greim, Vice-chairman Bo Jansson and the sole member from the new members states from the former Eastern Bloc (i.e. the Polish representative Hanke Wojciech), two persons working at DG Sanco, in the unit responsible for risk assessment and directly involved in the work of SCHER and one person who, as an external expert, has participated in meetings with SCHER (and who wished to remain anonymous). The interviews were conducted during the period October 2008 to March 2009. The interviews with the three committee members were digitally voice recorded; the other interviews were not. Each interview took about 1–1.5 h. All of the interviews were semi-structured, and the questions were open-ended. The themes that guided the interviews are also used to structure this chapter: the mandate and composition of SCHER, the working process, coping with external pressure and the role and influence of SCHER.

  4. 4.

    The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, which started in 1997.

  5. 5.

    European Commission 2004: The Scientific Committees on … Rules of procedure. SCs/01/04 final. Directorate C – Public Health and Risk Assessment.

  6. 6.

    Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.

  7. 7.

    Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.

  8. 8.

    We asked Jansson and Greim if they had been contacted by the DG Sanco officer, and they ­confirmed that Greim had been contacted but that there had been no direct contact between DG Sanco and Jansson regarding these interviews.

  9. 9.

    Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.

  10. 10.

    Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.

  11. 11.

    SCHER. 2005. Opinion on “Update of the risk assessment of bis(pentabromophenyl) ether (decabromodiphenyl ether)”. Adopted 18 March, 2005. DG SANCO. European Commission.

  12. 12.

    See e.g. critical comments from the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, the bromine producers’ lobby organisation, on www.bsef.com/science/scientific-studies-4/deca-bde-2/.

  13. 13.

    Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.

  14. 14.

    This is strikingly different as compared to the pressure put on DG Sanco.

References

  • Amara, N., Ouimet, M. and Landry, R. (2004) ‘New evidence on instrumental, conceptual and symbolical utilization of university research in government agencies’, Science Communication 26(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, N. (2007) ‘The Legacy of the Precautionary Principle in US Law: The Rise of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment as Undermining Factors in Health, Safety and Environmental Protection’. In de Sadeleer, N. (ed.) Implementing the precautionary principle. Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, J. S. (1997) ‘Research Utilization: Bridging the Gap Between Communities’, Journal of Management Inquiry 6: 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, I. (2001) ‘People losing faith in ‘anonymous’ EU’, The Guardian, July 18, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (2003) “Irrational Fears or Legitimate Concerns” – Risk Perception in Perspective. Presentation given at the Risk Perception: Science, Public Debate and Policy Making Conference. Brussels, 4 December 2003. European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/03/593&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

  • Christiansen, T. & E. Kirchner, eds (2000) Committee Governance in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen. T. & S. Piattoni, eds (2004) Informal Governance in the European Union. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer, N. (2002) Environmental Principles: From Slogans to Legal Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, C. A. & O. James (2007) ‘Principal-agent modelling and learning: the European Commission, experts and agricultural hormones’, Public Policy and Administration 22(4): 403–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEC (1993) Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, Official Journal L. 84, 5.4.93, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, J., Karlsson M. and Reuter M. (2010) ‘Technocracy, politicization, and non-involvement: politics of expertise in the European regulation of chemicals’, Review of Policy Research, 27(2): 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009a) Register of Experts Groups. Brussels: European Commission, Secretariat General. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/

  • European Commission (2009b) Rules of Procedure. The Scientific Committees on: Consumer Safety (SCSS), Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), Emerging and Newly Identified Risks (SCENIHR). Brussels: European Commission, Health and Consumers Directorate-General. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/rules_procedure_en.pdf

  • External expert (2009), which has been working in connection with SCHER. Personal interview, March 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka A. and U. Sverdrup (2008) ‘Who Consults? The Configuration of Expert Groups in the European Union’, West European Politics 31(4): 725–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greim, H. (2008) Chair of SCHER. Personal interview, November 2008, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanke, W. (2008) Member of SCHER. Personal interview, November 2008, Warszaw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson, B. (2008) Vice-chair of SCHER. Personal interview, October 2008. Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, C. and E. Vos, eds (1999) EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, M. (2005) Managing Environmental Risks for Sustainable Development: Policies for Hazardous Chemicals and Genetically Modified Organisms. Doctoral Thesis. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, T. (2003) Precooking in the European Union. The World of Expert Groups. Ds 2003:16. A Report to the Expert Group of Public Finance (ESO). Stockholm: Fritzes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madelin, Robert (2004) ‘The Importance of Scientific Advice in the Community Decision Making Process’. Director General for Health and Consumer Protection, the European Commission. Presentation given at the inaugural joint meeting of the members of the non-food scientific committees, Brussels, 7 September 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C.M. (1999) ‘The public policy of the European Union: Whither politics of expertise?’ Journal of European Public Policy 6(5): 757–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhinard, M. (2003) ‘Committees in the European Union: An Empirical and Normative Assessment.’ Paper prepared for the EUSA 8th International Biennial Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, March 27–29, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H-C. (eds) (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DG Sanco (2009) Two representatives of DG Sanco, European Commission. Personal interview, March 2009, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, A. and Scholten, P. (2006) ‘The Political Flow of Wisdom: Science Institutions as Policy Venues in The Netherlands’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(7): 1104–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Schendelen, M. (1998) EU Committees as Influential Policymakers. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale, A. (2000) ‘Government by Committee Lost the People’s Confidence?’ In Elitism, Populism, and European Politics, edited by J. Hayward. Oxford. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J. H. H. (1999) ‘Epilogue: ‘Comitology’ as Revolution – Infranationalism, Constitutionalism and Democracy’. In EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics., edited by C. Joerges and E. Vos. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Södertörn University, SE 141 89, Huddinge, Sweden

    Johan Eriksson

  2. Naturskyddsföreningen, 4625, Åsögatan 115, SE 116 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Mikael Karlsson

  3. Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, SE 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Marta Reuter

Authors
  1. Johan Eriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikael Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marta Reuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Eriksson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Political Science, Södertörn University, Alfred Nobels allé 7, Flemingsberg, 14189, Sweden

    Johan Eriksson

  2. , Department of Political Science, Södertörn University, Alfred Nobels allé 7, Flemingsberg, 14189, Sweden

    Michael Gilek

  3. , Philosophy Unit, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78B, Stockholm, 10044, Sweden

    Christina Rudén

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eriksson, J., Karlsson, M., Reuter, M. (2010). Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The Case of SCHER. In: Eriksson, J., Gilek, M., Rudén, C. (eds) Regulating Chemical Risks. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9428-5_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation