Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:30:44.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulating New Risks: Emergency Contexts, Institutional Reform and the Difficulties of Europeanisation – Case Studies from Portugal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Maria Eduarda Gonçalves
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The expression “risk regulation” conveys the idea of normalisation of the way in which the State deals with the problems raised by risk, through rules, institutions and procedures set up to either prevent risk or manage it once it materialises. It must be conceded, however, that there is a tension between risk regulation (understood as a means of bringing risk under control) and the fact that the emergence of new risks has persistently caused turmoil. For this reason, risk is proving to be a serious test of the State's ability to pursue the public interest when dealing with issues which are characteristically complex, both technically and socially.

The European Union has responded to the BSE and GMO crises by developing a truly European risk regulation system which has been a major driver of legal and institutional reform. Implementation has been far from homogeneous across the Member States, however, my premise being that the objective of normalisation has met perhaps unexpected obstacles in Southern European countries like Portugal, raising the question of the kind of local conditions which may either favour or hinder Europeanisation processes. This paper discusses the topic based on the analysis of three case studies illustrating the way the Portuguese state has tackled environmental and public health risks, and the impact of EU law and policy on the whole question.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 540 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Baldwin, Robert and Cave, Martin, Understanding Regulation, Theory, Strategy, and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 2 Google Scholar.

2 Ogus, Anthony, Regulation: Legal Form and Economic Theory (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar; Moss, David and Cisternino, John (eds), New Perspectives on Regulation (Cambridge MA.: The Tobin Project, 2009)Google Scholar.

3 Baldwin/Cave, Understanding Regulation, Theory, Strategy, and Practice, supra note 1, pp. 142 et sqq.

4 Hood, Christopher, Rothstein, Henry, Baldwin, Robert, The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 The public interest concept is itself a fluid one. Broadly speaking, the concept can be interpreted as relating to general as opposed to private or group interests, though it has been argued that “constructs of the public interest currently in play … reflect(ing) almost exclusively economic considerations.” ( Feintuck, M., The Public Interest in Regulation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)), p. 7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 David Vogel, “The new politics of risk regulation in Europe”, 2001, available on the Internet at <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CARR/pdf/DPs/Disspaper3.pdf> (last accessed on 26 October 2011).

7 A important achievement under this reform has been the establishment of new European agencies, a prominent example being the European Food Safety Authority, in 2002. More recently, other agencies have been established with risk assessment and/or risk management functions, namely the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

8 Radaelli, Claudio, “The Europeanisation of public policy”, in Featherstone, Kevin and Radaelli, Claudio (eds), The Politics of Europeanisation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 27–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borzel, T., Risse, T., “Conceptualising the domestic impact of Europe”, in Featherstone, Kevin and Radaelli, Claudio (eds), The Politics of Europeanisation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 57–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delanty, G., Rumford, C., Rethinking Europe. Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanisatisation (London and New York: Routledge, 2005)Google Scholar.

9 Portugal signed the Act of Accession in 1985 and formally entered the European Community in 1986.

10 These case studies were part of a broader research project carried out under the OBSERVA programme (Environment, Society, Public Opinion) from 2003 to 2007. See Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda, Bastos, Cristiana, Delicado, Ana, Raposo, Helder, Domingues, Mafalda, Os Portugueses e os Novos Riscos (Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2007)Google Scholar.

11 Baldwin/Cave, Understanding Regulation, Theory, Strategy, and Practice, supra note 1, pp. 2–3.

12 Majone, Giandomenico, Regulating Europe (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar.

13 Hood/Rothstein/Baldwin, The Government of Risk, supra note 4, p. 3; Baldwin/Cave, p. 136.

14 Ravetz, Jerome R., Funtowicz, Silvio O., Uncertainty and quality in science for policy (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991)Google Scholar; Slovic, Paul, “Perceived risk, trust and democracy”, 36(6) Risk Analysis (December, 1993), p. 675 Google Scholar.

15 Gyerin, Thomas, “Boundaries of science”, in Jasanoff, Sheila, Markle, Gerald E., Petersen, James C., Pinch, Trevor (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage, 1995), pp. 393 et sqq. Google Scholar; Millstone, Erik, van Zwanenberg, Patrick, “Politics of expert advice: lessons from the early history of the BSE saga”, 28(2) Science and Public Policy (2001), p. 109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brian Wynne et al., Taking Knowledge Society Seriously, Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance (Brussels: European Commission, 2007), p. 35.

16 This principle is contained in Article 191 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

17 Carr, Susan, “Ethical and value-based aspects of the European Commission's precautionary principle”, 15 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2002), pp. 31–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stokes, Elen “The EC courts’ contribution to refining the parameters of precaution”, 11(4) Journal of Risk Research (2008), pp. 491–507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda, “The precautionary principle in European Law”, in Rodotà, S., Tallacchini, M., Trattato di Biodiritto – Ambito e Fonti (Milano: Giuffrè Editore, 2010), pp. 515 et sqq Google Scholar.

18 Hood/Rothstein/Baldwin, The Government of Risk, supra note 4, p. 9.

19 Ibidem, pp. 28 et sqq.

20 Vogel, “The new politics of risk regulation in Europe”, supra note 6, pp. 8–9; Gonçalves, M.E., “Implementation of EIA directives in Portugal: How changes in civic culture are challenging political and administrative practice”, 22(3) Environmental Impact Assessment Review (May 2002), p. 266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Decree-Law No. 120/99, 16 April 1999, in compliance with Law No. 20/99, 15 April 1999.

22 Gonçalves, M.E., “The importance of being European: the science and politics of BSE in Portugal”, 25(4) Science, Technology & Human Values (2000), p. 427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Second Bi-annual BSE Follow-up Report, Communication of the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, COM (1998) 598 final, 18.11.1998. See Gonçalves, M.E., Domingues, M., “Crónica de uma crise anunciada: a BSE entre incerteza científica, controvérsia pública e inércia política”, in Gonçalves, M.E. et al., Os Portugueses e os Novos Riscos (Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2007), pp. 32–33 Google Scholar.

24 Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 104/98, Diário da República, I Série B No. 187, 14th August 1998.

25 Available on the Internet at <http://www.asae.pt/> (last accessed on 26 October 2011).

26 “The Agency carries out and commissions extensive scientific research and survey work to ensure that our advice to the public is based on the best and most up-to-date science. We are advised in our work by independent scientific committees.” Available on the Internet at <http://www.food.gov.uk/science/> (last accessed on 26 October 2011).

27 See the Agency's research programme and activities available on the Internet at <http://www.afsset.fr/index.php?pageid=452&MDLCODE=actu&themeid=13> (last accessed on 26 October 2011).

28 Several laboratories work for the ASAE, but their role is technical, rather than scientific. Available on the Internet at <http://www.asae.pt/> (last accessed on 26 October 2011).

29 Directive 85/337/EC of the European Community, amended in 1997, in 2003 and in 2009, imposes the prior assessment of the environmental impact of projects whose dimension or consequences may affect the environment significantly. In Portugal, this directive was first adapted into national law through Decree-Law No. 186/90, of 6th June, further developed by Decree (Decreto Regulamentar) No. 38/90, of 27th November 1990. This legislation was derogated and replaced by Decree-Law No. 69/2000, of 3rd May. The EIA seeks to “obtain integrated information on the possible direct and indirect effects on the natural and social environment of projects submitted to it and foresee the implementation of measures designed to prevent, minimize and compensate such effects, in order to contribute to the adoption of environmentally sustainable decisions” (Art. 4 of Decree-Law No. 69/2000).

30 Matias, Marisa, “Don't treat us like dirt: The Fight against the Coincineration of Dangerous Industrial Waste in the Outskirts of Coimbra”, 9(2) South European Society and Politics (2004), pp. 132–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H. Raposo, “Riscos da co-incineração ou co-incineração dos riscos? Análise das controvérsias sobre resíduos industriais perigosos”, in Gonçalves et al., pp. 49–74.

31 The fact that the implementation of the Directive shows variation across Member States has been recognized by a recent EC report. See Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC), COM(2009) 378 final 2009, Brussels, 23.7.2009, p. 4.

32 Parecer sobre o processo de co-incineração de Resíduos Industriais, Lisboa, Conselho Nacional do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável (CNADS), 1998.

33 Comuniqué from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Prime Minister's Office, “As cimenteiras e a co-incineração de resíduos industriais”, January 1999. However, this possibility did not raise the attention of the interested parties.

34 Irigalba, A.C., Etxaleku, A., Echavarren, J.M., “La Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental: Recopilación, análisis y punto de vista crítico desde la perspectiva sociológica”, in Aledo Tur, A. and Domínguez Gómez, J.A. (eds), Sociología Ambiental (Madrid: Grupo Editorial Universitario, 2002), pp. 374 et sqq Google Scholar.

35 Delicado, Ana, Bastos, Cristiana, “Riscos de guerra em missões de paz”, in Gonçalves, M.E. et al., Os Portugueses e os Novos Riscos (Lisboa: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, 2007), pp. 75 et sqq Google Scholar.

36 Cf. Marta Fernandes, “O ‘não-problema’ do urânio empobrecido e a impunidade da NATO”, Público, 18.4.2001.

37 Delicado/Bastos, “Riscos de guerra em missões de paz”, supra note 35, p. 88.

38 Doern, Bruce G., Reed, Ted, “Science and scientists in regulatory governance: a mezzo-level framework for analysis”, 28(3) Science and Public Policy (2001), pp. 195–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halffman, W., “Science-policy boundaries: national styles?”, 30(6) Science and Public Policy (2005), pp. 457–467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Vogel, David, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Hood/Rothstein/Baldwin, 2001.

40 Renn, Ortwin, “Style of Using Scientific Expertise: A Comparative Framework”, 22(3) Science and Public Policy (1995), pp. 147 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Guston, David, “Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy, revisited: ‘science in policy’ and the US Report on Carcinogens”, 30(5) Science and Public Policy (2003), p. 349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Frewer, L., Salter, B., “Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: the case of BSE”, 29(2) Science and Public Policy (2002), p. 144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Millstone/van Zwanenberg, “Politics of expert advice”, supra note 15, p. 99.

44 Jasanoff, Sheila, “(No?) Accounting for expertise”, 30(3) Science and Public Policy (2003), p. 161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Liberatore, Angela, Funtowicz, Silvio, “‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: what does this mean, and why bother?”, 30(3) Science and Public Policy (2003), pp. 146–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nowotny, Helga, “Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge”, 30(3) Science and Public Policy (2003), pp. 151–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lidskog, Rolf, “Scientized citizens and democratized science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide”, 11(1) Journal of Risk Research (2008), pp. 69–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 European Commission (EC), White Paper on Food Safety, COM (1999) 719 final, Brussels, 12 January 2000, p. 9.

47 M.E. Gonçalves, “The importance of being European: the science and politics of BSE in Portugal”, p. 428.

48 Gonçalves/Domingues, “Crónica de uma crise anunciada: a BSE entre incerteza científica, controvérsia pública e inércia política”, supra note 23, pp. 38–39.

49 “Divulgação de estudos. CIRVER deixam 20 mil toneladas para co-incineração”, Público, 3 March 2006.

50 Cf. Sebastião Formosinho, José Cavalheiro, Casimiro Pio, Relatório de Actualização dos Processos de Co-Incineração de Resíduos em Articulação com os CIRVER, December 2005, pp. 40– 41, available on the Internet at <http://www.mne.gov.pt/NR/rdonlyres/8708474F-EC12-4386-8364-6ABCEB626F69/0/Relatorio_Coincineracao.pdf> (last accessed on 26 October 2011). The legal framework for using co-incineration of industrial waste in cement factories is contained in Decree-Law No. 85/2005, 28 April.

51 Delicado/Bastos, “Riscos de guerra em missões de paz”, supra note 35, p. 95.

52 Delicado/Bastos, “Riscos de guerra em missões de paz”, supra note 35, p. 89.

53 Gonçalves, M.E., Delicado, A., “The politics of risk in contemporary Portugal. Tensions in the relationship between science and policy”, 36(2) Science and Public Policy (2009), pp. 229–339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Interview held in 2003.

55 Parecer da Comissão Científica Independente – CCI, em relação às exposições resultantes da Consulta Pública levada a cabo pelo Instituto de Promoção Ambiental, sobre o Tratamento de Resíduos Industriais Perigosos, available on the Internet at <http://paginas.fe.up.pt/∼jotace/cci/conspublica.PDF> (last accessed on 26 October 2011).

56 Statement by Beja Santos, mentioned in Joana Amaral Cardoso, “Segurança alimentar: o milagre português”, Público, 15-2-2005.