Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Introduction Read chapter Read first chapter

2010 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

17. Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The Case of SCHER

Authors : Johan Eriksson, Mikael Karlsson, Marta Reuter

Published in: Regulating Chemical Risks

Publisher: Springer Netherlands

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

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.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Capacity Building for Chemicals Control: Legislation, Institutions, Public–Private Relationships
next chapter Implementing Chemical Regulation: The Role of Inspectors
Footnotes
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
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
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
The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, which started in 1997.
 
5
European Commission 2004: The Scientific Committees on … Rules of procedure. SCs/01/04 final. Directorate C – Public Health and Risk Assessment.
 
6
Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.
 
7
Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.
 
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
Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.
 
10
Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.
 
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
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
Comments by DG Sanco Unit C7 on a previous draft of this chapter; e-mail sent to us on 17 July, 2009.
 
14
This is strikingly different as compared to the pressure put on DG Sanco.
 
Literature
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).
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.
Beyer, J. S. (1997) ‘Research Utilization: Bridging the Gap Between Communities’, Journal of Management Inquiry 6: 17–22.CrossRef
Black, I. (2001) ‘People losing faith in ‘anonymous’ EU’, The Guardian, July 18, 2001.
Christiansen, T. & E. Kirchner, eds (2000) Committee Governance in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Christiansen. T. & S. Piattoni, eds (2004) Informal Governance in the European Union. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
de Sadeleer, N. (2002) Environmental Principles: From Slogans to Legal Rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
External expert (2009), which has been working in connection with SCHER. Personal interview, March 2009.
Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.
Gornitzka A. and U. Sverdrup (2008) ‘Who Consults? The Configuration of Expert Groups in the European Union’, West European Politics 31(4): 725–750.CrossRef
Greim, H. (2008) Chair of SCHER. Personal interview, November 2008, Munich.
Hanke, W. (2008) Member of SCHER. Personal interview, November 2008, Warszaw.
Jansson, B. (2008) Vice-chair of SCHER. Personal interview, October 2008. Stockholm.
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Joerges, C. and E. Vos, eds (1999) EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Karlsson, M. (2005) Managing Environmental Risks for Sustainable Development: Policies for Hazardous Chemicals and Genetically Modified Organisms. Doctoral Thesis. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press.
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.
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.
Radaelli, C.M. (1999) ‘The public policy of the European Union: Whither politics of expertise?’ Journal of European Public Policy 6(5): 757–74.CrossRef
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.
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H-C. (eds) (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press.
DG Sanco (2009) Two representatives of DG Sanco, European Commission. Personal interview, March 2009, Brussels.
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.CrossRef
Van Schendelen, M. (1998) EU Committees as Influential Policymakers. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Weale, A. (2000) ‘Government by Committee Lost the People’s Confidence?’ In Elitism, Populism, and European Politics, edited by J. Hayward. Oxford. Clarendon Press.
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.
Metadata
Title
Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The Case of SCHER
Authors
Johan Eriksson
Mikael Karlsson
Marta Reuter
Copyright Year
2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Book
Regulating Chemical Risks

Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9427-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-90-481-9428-5

Copyright Year: 2010

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9428-5_17