191
8.3.2.4 Chemical Pollution
The complex web of policies, laws and stakeholder groups with different ambitions,
in combination with deep uncertainties about both exposure conditions and the
inherent properties of thousands of substances on the market, results in possible
controversies with regard to chemical pollution. Only few substances on the market
have been thoroughly assessed with regard to health and environmental risks
(Allanou et al. 1999 ; Gilbert 2011 ). Moreover, risk assessments are routinely done
substance by substance, according to the highly structured TGD (see above),
overlooking how substances may interact despite evidence of special effects of
exposure to mixtures (‘cocktail effects’; see Kortenkamp et al. 2009 ). All in all, this
makes chemical policy more about managing uncertainty than about managing
well- studied risks. Lack of knowledge results in that different actors are competing
over preferential rights to interpret the incertitude, which consequently leads to
politicisation and disagreements , even within so-called impartial expert groups
(Eriksson et al. 2010a , b ). Such controversies were obvious not least during the
setting up of the REACH regulation in the 1990s and 2000s. While the regulation
was considered one of the most contested pieces of legislation in the history of the
EU (Fisher 2008 ; Selin 2007 ), still today, no specifi c forum exists for dealing with
stakeholder disagreements, at least not beyond conventional representation, consultations and meetings.
In the market-oriented sphere of chemicals policy, stakeholder disagreements
and confl icts arise along several lines, for example, between proactive and reactive
member states and EU institutions and between other stakeholders such as NGOs
and business organisations (Eriksson et al. 2010a ). The debates centre on the health
or environmental impact of a specifi c substance and what principles should guide
decisions under uncertainty. NGOs and some environmentally ambitious member
states support the precautionary principle, i.e. to err on the side of safety and allow
for basing measures on intrinsic hazardous properties, whereas industrial organisations commonly promote a non-precautionary, solely risk-based approach, in which
the burden of proof is placed on the regulator. This means that management measures must be based on proven unacceptable risks. In contrast to fi sheries, where
opposition to the dominant set-up of science policy comes from a user perspective
(fi shers’ organisations), the science-policy interface in chemicals is criticised more
from an environmental point of view.
In the more recent and environment-oriented policy sphere (mentioned in Sect.
8.3.1.4 , including MSFD and BSAP ), the precautionary principle is often explicitly
recognised. Hence, the mere presence of a substance, suspected to be problematic
for the environment, commonly motivates requests for preventive measures. This
comparatively low burden of proof for public policymakers implies a very different
science-policy interface than in the sphere of chemicals policy. However, nowadays
some precautionary elements can be found also in the REACH regulation , which
allows for decisions on preventive measures, such as authorisation of substances
that are toxic or very bioaccumulative and persistent , even if there is uncertainty
about exposure conditions. Such precautionary measures in cases of scientifi c
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…
8.3.2.4 Chemical Pollution
The complex web of policies, laws and stakeholder groups with different ambitions,
in combination with deep uncertainties about both exposure conditions and the
inherent properties of thousands of substances on the market, results in possible
controversies with regard to chemical pollution. Only few substances on the market
have been thoroughly assessed with regard to health and environmental risks
(Allanou et al. 1999 ; Gilbert 2011 ). Moreover, risk assessments are routinely done
substance by substance, according to the highly structured TGD (see above),
overlooking how substances may interact despite evidence of special effects of
exposure to mixtures (‘cocktail effects’; see Kortenkamp et al. 2009 ). All in all, this
makes chemical policy more about managing uncertainty than about managing
well- studied risks. Lack of knowledge results in that different actors are competing
over preferential rights to interpret the incertitude, which consequently leads to
politicisation and disagreements , even within so-called impartial expert groups
(Eriksson et al. 2010a , b ). Such controversies were obvious not least during the
setting up of the REACH regulation in the 1990s and 2000s. While the regulation
was considered one of the most contested pieces of legislation in the history of the
EU (Fisher 2008 ; Selin 2007 ), still today, no specifi c forum exists for dealing with
stakeholder disagreements, at least not beyond conventional representation, consultations and meetings.
In the market-oriented sphere of chemicals policy, stakeholder disagreements
and confl icts arise along several lines, for example, between proactive and reactive
member states and EU institutions and between other stakeholders such as NGOs
and business organisations (Eriksson et al. 2010a ). The debates centre on the health
or environmental impact of a specifi c substance and what principles should guide
decisions under uncertainty. NGOs and some environmentally ambitious member
states support the precautionary principle, i.e. to err on the side of safety and allow
for basing measures on intrinsic hazardous properties, whereas industrial organisations commonly promote a non-precautionary, solely risk-based approach, in which
the burden of proof is placed on the regulator. This means that management measures must be based on proven unacceptable risks. In contrast to fi sheries, where
opposition to the dominant set-up of science policy comes from a user perspective
(fi shers’ organisations), the science-policy interface in chemicals is criticised more
from an environmental point of view.
In the more recent and environment-oriented policy sphere (mentioned in Sect.
8.3.1.4 , including MSFD and BSAP ), the precautionary principle is often explicitly
recognised. Hence, the mere presence of a substance, suspected to be problematic
for the environment, commonly motivates requests for preventive measures. This
comparatively low burden of proof for public policymakers implies a very different
science-policy interface than in the sphere of chemicals policy. However, nowadays
some precautionary elements can be found also in the REACH regulation , which
allows for decisions on preventive measures, such as authorisation of substances
that are toxic or very bioaccumulative and persistent , even if there is uncertainty
about exposure conditions. Such precautionary measures in cases of scientifi c
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…