115
been considered in a similar way to decaBDE in the case of PBDEs , i.e. showing
potentially less worrying properties and therefore being given, at most, secondary
attention in the policy process. From a broader point of view, it also remains to be
seen to what extent the use of other perfl uorinated substances with similar hazardous properties will increase, following the phase-out of PFOS and, potentially,
PFOA. Science-based concerns are not necessarily smaller in those cases (Scheringer
et al. 2014 ).
5.6 Discussion
This study has focused on how public risk governance of three generations ( chlorinated , brominated , fl uorinated) of hazardous chemicals and specifi c examples
linked to these (PCBs, PBDEs, PFOS/PFOA) has developed in BSR over time, with
a special focus on the EU and HELCOM.
Indeed, both the EU and HELCOM have responded with various types of legislation, recommendations and policies in order to manage the problems and risks
caused by these substances. In general, the response has been more reactive than
proactive, but when the stricter types of measures pointed out in the article once
have been taken, both problems and risks have decreased over time, even though
not to the extent needed in order to reach the overall objectives of a non- toxic
environment.
If we look at the question of time, the regulatory response to societal debate
might generally be seen as more rapid (or less slow) in recent years, than in the past,
both in the EU and under the Helsinki Convention . Even if the fl uorinated substances
(third generation) have been in use for a long time, the EU and HELCOM have
reacted more fi rmly in the PFOS case than in the PCB case. That is what could be
expected given the more solid knowledge base and the higher environmental awareness today.
Still, given this improved state of knowledge and awareness on chemical risks,
and given decades of recurring experiences of regulatory bottlenecks, one must ask
if the decision-making processes in the EU are not unreasonably slow today. The
question must even be raised if these processes might actually be comparatively
slower than in the past. For example, the management of decaBDE (second generation) has been characterised by signifi cantly stronger requirements than in the PCB
case (fi rst generation), to produce an overwhelming body of evidence, based on
quite traditional risk assessment processes, despite the fact that history has shown
this to be problematic and despite the fact that precaution nowadays is a part of the
EU treaty as well as secondary law.
17 Further scholarly studies on these and other
substance cases are needed though, to be able to draw fi rm conclusions on the topic,
17 The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU 2007 ) and REACH (e.g. authorisation can be
demanded for hazardous substances even without necessarily proving them to be toxic) include
precautionary elements.
5 Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations…
been considered in a similar way to decaBDE in the case of PBDEs , i.e. showing
potentially less worrying properties and therefore being given, at most, secondary
attention in the policy process. From a broader point of view, it also remains to be
seen to what extent the use of other perfl uorinated substances with similar hazardous properties will increase, following the phase-out of PFOS and, potentially,
PFOA. Science-based concerns are not necessarily smaller in those cases (Scheringer
et al. 2014 ).
5.6 Discussion
This study has focused on how public risk governance of three generations ( chlorinated , brominated , fl uorinated) of hazardous chemicals and specifi c examples
linked to these (PCBs, PBDEs, PFOS/PFOA) has developed in BSR over time, with
a special focus on the EU and HELCOM.
Indeed, both the EU and HELCOM have responded with various types of legislation, recommendations and policies in order to manage the problems and risks
caused by these substances. In general, the response has been more reactive than
proactive, but when the stricter types of measures pointed out in the article once
have been taken, both problems and risks have decreased over time, even though
not to the extent needed in order to reach the overall objectives of a non- toxic
environment.
If we look at the question of time, the regulatory response to societal debate
might generally be seen as more rapid (or less slow) in recent years, than in the past,
both in the EU and under the Helsinki Convention . Even if the fl uorinated substances
(third generation) have been in use for a long time, the EU and HELCOM have
reacted more fi rmly in the PFOS case than in the PCB case. That is what could be
expected given the more solid knowledge base and the higher environmental awareness today.
Still, given this improved state of knowledge and awareness on chemical risks,
and given decades of recurring experiences of regulatory bottlenecks, one must ask
if the decision-making processes in the EU are not unreasonably slow today. The
question must even be raised if these processes might actually be comparatively
slower than in the past. For example, the management of decaBDE (second generation) has been characterised by signifi cantly stronger requirements than in the PCB
case (fi rst generation), to produce an overwhelming body of evidence, based on
quite traditional risk assessment processes, despite the fact that history has shown
this to be problematic and despite the fact that precaution nowadays is a part of the
EU treaty as well as secondary law.
17 Further scholarly studies on these and other
substance cases are needed though, to be able to draw fi rm conclusions on the topic,
17 The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU 2007 ) and REACH (e.g. authorisation can be
demanded for hazardous substances even without necessarily proving them to be toxic) include
precautionary elements.
5 Governance of Chemicals in the Baltic Sea Region: A Study of Three Generations…