Advertisement

Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The Case of SCHER

  • Johan Eriksson
  • Mikael Karlsson
  • Marta Reuter
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Experts Policy Risk SCHER Science 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Beyer, J. S. (1997) ‘Research Utilization: Bridging the Gap Between Communities’, Journal of Management Inquiry 6: 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, I. (2001) ‘People losing faith in ‘anonymous’ EU’, The Guardian, July 18, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Christiansen, T. & E. Kirchner, eds (2000) Committee Governance in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christiansen. T. & S. Piattoni, eds (2004) Informal Governance in the European Union. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. de Sadeleer, N. (2002) Environmental Principles: From Slogans to Legal Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. European Commission (2009a) Register of Experts Groups. Brussels: European Commission, Secretariat General. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/
  13. 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
  14. External expert (2009), which has been working in connection with SCHER. Personal interview, March 2009.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Gornitzka A. and U. Sverdrup (2008) ‘Who Consults? The Configuration of Expert Groups in the European Union’, West European Politics 31(4): 725–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greim, H. (2008) Chair of SCHER. Personal interview, November 2008, Munich.Google Scholar
  18. Hanke, W. (2008) Member of SCHER. Personal interview, November 2008, Warszaw.Google Scholar
  19. Jansson, B. (2008) Vice-chair of SCHER. Personal interview, October 2008. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Joerges, C. and E. Vos, eds (1999) EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Radaelli, C.M. (1999) ‘The public policy of the European Union: Whither politics of expertise?’ Journal of European Public Policy 6(5): 757–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H-C. (eds) (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  28. DG Sanco (2009) Two representatives of DG Sanco, European Commission. Personal interview, March 2009, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Schendelen, M. (1998) EU Committees as Influential Policymakers. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Södertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden
  2. 2.NaturskyddsföreningenStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations