Case Study Chemical Pollution

RISKGOV report
RISKGOV Report
‘Hazardous Substances: a Case Study of Environmental Risk Governance in the Baltic
Sea Region’
Deliverable number: 5
Reporting Period: January 2010 to December 2010
Names and affiliation of participants
Oksana Udovyk, Louise Rabilloud, Michael Gilek, Mikael Karlsson
Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences,
SE141 89 Huddinge,
SWEDEN
RISKGOV report
Table of Content
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
Acronym List ........................................................................................................................ 5
Aims and Scope ..................................................................................................................... 7
General Background .............................................................................................................. 8
Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................... 9
1.
Working Package 1 – Governance Structures ............................................................... 10
1.1. Actors in the Baltic Sea Region .................................................................................. 11
1.2. Regulatory Framework in the Baltic Sea Region......................................................... 16
1.3. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 22
2.
Working Package 2: Assessment – Management Interactions ....................................... 25
2.1. The Organisation and Type of Risk Assessment Activities ...................................... 26
2.2. Generation and Evaluation of Management Options ................................................ 31
2.3. Assessment and Management Approaches for Dealing with Scientific Disagreement
and Uncertainty................................................................................................................. 33
2.4. Ecosystem Approach to Management...................................................................... 38
2.5. The Role of Science ................................................................................................ 40
2.6. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 42
3.
Working Package 3 – Stakeholder Communication ...................................................... 44
3.1.Risk Framing............................................................................................................... 45
3.2.Institutional Risk Communication and Public Participation ......................................... 47
3.3.Discussion ................................................................................................................... 54
Annex I. List of Interviews .................................................................................................. 67
Annex II. Governmental and non-governmental Organisations and Networks ....................... 68
Annex III. Major Governance Structures and actors .............................................................. 77
Annex IV. Timelines of regulatory framework development ................................................ 78
2
RISKGOV report
Summary
This report aims to describe and analyse the structures and processes that shape risk
governance of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea area and, based on this, discuss
conditions and opportunities that could improve chemical risk governance. With this purpose
in mind we have analysed the risk governance of hazardous chemicals along three dimensions
and Work Packages (WP): governance structures (WP 1), risk assessment-risk management
interactions (WP 2) and stakeholder communication (WP 3). The report is an initial outcome
of the RISKGOV project, in which risk governance in various areas eventually will be
compared in order to gain new insights on environmental risk governance and to extract
policy-relevant advise on how to better deal with environmental risks in the Baltic Sea
context.
The report is based on a study of key documents treating policies and risks, 22 semi-structured
in-depth interviews with stakeholders conducted in the period February–October 2010, as well
as participatory observations at scientific conferences and stakeholder meetings.
WP 1 identifies the most important risk governance structures, and maps actors and
regulations. In particular, it is concluded that development at the EU and HELCOM level are
of main importance for the management of chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. Thus, actors
within the EU and HELCOM, as well as regulations within EU – most notably the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the
REACH regulation – and regulations and recommendations dealt with by HELCOM – in
particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) – were identified as crucial for further analyses
in WP 2 and WP 3. Although we recognise the importance and the substantial improvements
that have been made in chemical regulation within the EU and HELCOM, these developments
are not sufficient in order to meet key objective at hand, nor do they adequately manage
relations with Russia. WP 1 concludes that, although there are numerous of national and
international regulations creating a massive web of regulations, existing chemical regulation
and informal governance structures are very far from covering all existing chemical risks
(especially new chemicals and mixtures of chemicals) and to allow for a sufficient extent of
safety. Care must be taken in the development of new regulations to promote synergies and
data exchange rather than causing further barriers, overlaps and conflicts that could reduce the
efficiency. Innovative policy developments, as well as improved international collaboration,
are therefore needed, which will be placed in focus in further studies within the RISKGOV
project.
WP 2 focuses on an in-depth understanding of the interactions between risk assessment and
risk management of chemicals. The main assessment and management activities in the Baltic
Sea region are identified and analysed. It is concluded that assessments commonly are based
on a rather technocratic separation of assessment and management activities (with often
unclear strategies for bringing these activities together in decision-making). Assessments also
generally suffer from lack of data, insufficient harmonisation of methodology, as well as
unclear strategies for assessing uncertainties and adjusted communication of assessment
results. Consequently, assessments would benefit greatly from more harmonised assessment
methodologies, not least for chemical mixtures, ecological effects as well as methods for
integrating various lines of evidence. Both assessment and management might benefit from
increased stakeholder participation. Furthermore, we have analysed risk assessment and
management interactions through the prisms of uncertainty and the Ecosystem Approach to
Management (EAM). These aspects have become top challenges for the assessment and
management of chemical risks as well as for coping with science-policy interactions
connected with the governance of chemical risks. We conclude that the enormous knowledge
gap (for most chemicals, for the risks of chemical mixtures, for ecosystem-specific risks etc)
need to be addressed by combining increased efforts on data and knowledge production with
better ways of assessing, communicating and managing uncertainty. Hence, a main question is
how much evidence is needed for motivating decision-making on risk reduction. This is a
3
RISKGOV report
policy-related issue, not a scientific one. However, science does need to develop and
implement improved methodology for assessing and communicating uncertainty to relevant
stakeholders. On the management side, the precautionary principle is increasingly stipulated
for coping with uncertainty. In spite of that, there is no consensus on the exact implementation
of the principle in practice, and regulations such as REACH, the WFD, the MSFD and the
BSAP ought to be developed on this point. Risk reduction is needed and motivated even, or
even particularly, under uncertainty. Looking at the EAM, the approach is clearly receiving
increase attention (e.g. in the BSAP and the MSFD), but only partially in the field of chemical
regulation and concrete measures. So far, it is therefore not certain that the EAM will
substantially improve risk management in cases of high uncertainty. On the contrary,
requirements on implementation of the EAM may stall measures and increase complexity.
These initial insights will be further developed in coming RISKGOV publications.
WP 3 describes and analyses how risks of hazardous chemicals are framed by key actors and
stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region, such as governments, agencies, regionally intergovernmental agencies such as HELCOM, economic actors, academia, and civil society. It is
shown that different actors have different ways of framing the risk of chemicals in the Baltic
Sea. For example, differences were observed along a gradient spanning from framing
chemicals and chemical products as basically useful for society, to framing chemicals as
substantial threats to the environment and human health. Most interviewed stakeholders could
be placed somewhere in the middle of this gradient between benefit and cost. This is reflected
in the dominant opinions expressed on required general management approaches, which do
not fundamentally question abundant production of chemicals, but rather suggest a focus on
managing chemicals with proven hazardous properties, thus tilting towards a market rather
than an environmental starting point. This view on chemical risk management is rather
surprising given the major uncertainties and lack of data described in WP 2. In light of this we
propose that the management of chemicals might benefit from a shift towards seeing quality
of life as based on sufficiency of chemicals rather than on (over)-abundance of them. Many of
the interviewed stakeholders (e.g. politicians, journalists and NGO staff) also expressed a
surprising lack of interest in the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea
region. If concern mostly expressed was health risks of chemicals. It is also clear that besides
some NGOs and other stakeholders, quite few have a primary focus on taking initiatives for
improving the management of chemicals, something that is a problem given the common
political ambitions to increase participation in connection with implementation of the EAM.
WP 3 also analyses existing institutional arrangements for and procedures of risk
communication at the regional Baltic Sea level. Clearly, communication between the EU and
Russia is still in need of improvement, as is two-way communications and cooperation
between stakeholders, as well as between actors connected with risk assessment and risk
management and the general public. For example, in those (rare) cases when scientific
information about chemicals does exist, it is not well communicated among knowledge
producers and stakeholders, and current scientific assessment activities seldom relate directly
to concerns of stakeholders or the public.
In conclusion our initial analysis and conclusions show that risks of chemicals are rather dealt
with by traditional risk-based governmental strategies, than by broad environmental
governance, based on precaution and the ecosystem approach to management. Furthermore,
there are no clear strategies or guidelines on how to cope with uncertainty in assessment and
management. As a result, even though there is a growing scientific capacity to develop new
chemicals, there is at present no well functioning system for their safe management. We will
address these challenges further in future RISKGOV publications.
4
RISKGOV report
Acronym List
ALARP
BSAP
As Low As Reasonably Practicable principle
Baltic Sea Action Plan of HELCOM
BSS
Baltic Sea Strategy of EU
CBI
Confidential Business Information
CCB
Coalition Clean Baltic
CEFIC
the European Chemical Industry Council
CLRTAP
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
COHIBA
HELCOM project on control of hazardous substances in the
Baltic Sea region
COMMPS
Combined Monitoring-based and Model-ling-based Priority
Setting scheme
CSA
Chemical Safety Assessment (in REACH)
EAM
Ecosystem Approach to Management
ECHA
European Chemical Agency
EP
European Parliament
EU
The European Union
GHS
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Chemicals
HELCOM
The Helsinki Commission, under the Helsinki Convention
ICES
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
ILO
International Labour Organization
MP
Maritime Policy
MSFD
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
NGO
Non-Governmental Organizations
OSPAR
The Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment
of the North-East Atlantic
PBT
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
PIC
Prior Informed Consent
POP
Persistent Organic Pollutants
5
RISKGOV report
PSSA
Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas
RBD
River Basin District
REACH
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals
SAICM
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
SSNC
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
TGD
Technical Guidance Document of EU for risk assessment of the
chemicals
UN
United Nations
UNCED
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WHO
World Health Organization
WWF
Worldwide Fund for Nature
6
RISKGOV report
Aims and Scope
The aim of this case study is to analyse the major regulatory frameworks for hazardous
chemicals, chemical policies and norms as well as the forms of decision-making, consultation,
interaction and stakeholder involvement and communication in the Baltic Sea connected with
chemical risks. We also aims at developing in-depth understanding of the interactions between
chemicals risk assessment and risk management, how uncertainties and the ecosystem
approach to management (EAM) are understood and handled, as well as how management
options are generated and evaluated. Finally, we analyse how chemical risk issues are framed
and communicated, as well as the role of communication in chemical risk governance.
The study is focused on the regional Baltic Sea level, in contrast with most previous studies,
which have often focused on either national or transnational levels, or on identifying rational
and optimal management strategies. This regional approach is especially important given the
growing recognition of the EAM (which for example entails an international regional
watershed perspective on environment), as well as the ongoing partial regionalisation of for
example environmental policy within the EU.
While focusing on the Baltic Sea region, we recognise the existence of two main regulatory
arenas area, namely the EU and Russia, the latter being the only non-EU member country
bordering the Baltic Sea. It was decided to exemplify the national level within EU with
Sweden, and outside the EU with Russia. These national examples were mainly chosen to
illustrate the interactions between national and regional levels, not to develop in-depth
comparisons of individual countries.
The main focus of the study is on manufactured chemicals, in particular so-called industrial
chemicals. This group of chemicals constitutes the major bulk of chemicals used in society.
Some pesticides, biocides and pharmaceuticals are mentioned, but particular legal control on
them is not covered in detail. The study is structured in three Work Packages (WP):
WP 1 (Governance Structures) focuses on the regional governance scale and on central
national and international risk management measures. The study begins with a broad
description of the most important regulatory actors and bodies, central conventions and
regulations, action plans as well as governmental and non-governmental networks,
collaborative patterns and other structures and institutions influencing governance at different
levels.
WP 2 (Assessment-Management Interactions) includes an analysis of the organisation and
content of risk assessment activities connected with hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea and
other relevant levels, such as the EU. The package focuses on assessment and management
approaches, and their interactions, for dealing with scientific disagreements and uncertainty.
Special attention is given to the issues of generation and evaluation of management options.
This package in total thus focuses on double-sided science-policy interactions.
WP 3 (Stakeholder Communication) includes an analysis of how chemical risks are framed
by key actors and stakeholders in the Baltic Sea area, as well as an analysis of existing
institutional arrangements and procedures for chemical risk communication in the region.
7
RISKGOV report
General Background
Since the mid of the last century the production of chemicals and their application in
medicine, agriculture, industry and in many other areas have increased tremendously. While
increasing in production and use, chemicals have also become responsible for adverse impacts
on human health and the environment (Gebel et al, 2009).
Problems connected with chemical pollution have become acute in the Baltic Sea the last
decades. Being a relatively young water body, constituting a semi-enclosed shallow sea with a
large catchment area, with a very special marine and coastal environment, the Baltic Sea is
very sensitive to the impact of pollution (Ducrotoy and Elliott, 2008). In spite of this, the 85
million people living in the fourteen-country catchment area have since a long time extracted
resources from the Baltic Sea (Ducrotoy and Elliott, 2008). Municipal waste water,
agricultural leakage and other sources have loaded the sea with phosphorus and nitrogen
(Savchuk et al., 2008), which together with intensive fishing and changing climate have
contributed to ecosystem regime shifts in some sub-basins (Österblom et al, 2010). Presently,
the most severe environmental problems include eutrophication, overfishing, biodiversity loss,
climate change and oil pollution, as well as the problem in focus of our case study – the
contamination by hazardous chemicals (SEPA, 2005).
Many toxic and persistent man-made substances, such as PCBs, DDT, polychlorinated
camphenes, and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs), have found their way into the Baltic Sea
(HELCOM, 2010). Many harmful substances have been detected in Baltic Sea biota like
chlorinated terpenes, halogenated paraffins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and
chlorinated pesticides, such as chlordane and dieldrin (HELCOM, 2010). Human activity is
also responsible for the increase of certain natural substances in the Baltic Sea, such as
nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen compounds), heavy metals and hydrocarbons. According
to HELCOM (2010), the inputs of some hazardous substances to the Baltic Sea have declined
over the past 20 to 30 years. In particular, the discharges of heavy metals have decreased
significantly. As a result, we can observe the recovery of populations in Baltic Sea wildlife
such as white-tailed eagle and grey seals. However, DDT, PCBs, dioxins and other old
contaminants are still found in elevated concentrations in the Baltic ecosystem and the causes
and sources of many of these are still not sufficiently known. Looking at most other
chemicals, and in particular at new and emerging chemical contaminants, very little
information is available on sources, environmental concentrations and environmental risks.
In spite of decreasing environmental concentrations of several chemicals, and linked
indications of improving health status of some top predators, the latest HELCOM integrated
thematic assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea concludes that almost all
assessed open sea and coastal areas have an environmental status implying “Baltic Sea with
life disturbed by hazardous substances” (HELCOM, 2010). Moreover, the levels of some
substances are so high that for example responsible Swedish authorities recommended women
in fertile age, with respect to health risks for their children, to be very restrictive in their
consumption of some fatty fish species such as salmon and herring (SNFA, 2008). Thus, there
are still challenges connected with the governance of health and environmental risks posed by
chemicals.
8
RISKGOV report
Materials and Methods
In this study, data was collected through in-depth stakeholder interviews and other oral
information; together with reviewing documents, reports and publications from different
sources.
Semi-structured interview with open-ended questions was used for this study. The method of
in-depth interviews was chosen before surveys to provide an in-depth knowledge about the
issue. While understanding that analysis of in-depth interviews is rather time intensive and
often involves a small number of respondents, this type of interviews enables discovery of
issues and perspectives that could not be fully covered by other methods such as
questionnaires. The respondents consisted of individual actors, persons from related branches
of HELCOM, national and EU authorities, scientists, politicians and journalists. A total of 22
interviews were conducted during March – October 2010 (see the interviews list in the Annex
I).
Participatory observations were also made during relevant conferences, meetings, workshops
and discussions. This allowed a deeper exploration of the topic and gave the opportunity to
cross-check data that was collected through interviews.
Observations were made at the following events:
 Conference on the theme “Coping with Uncertainty”. Stockholm, Sweden, November,
2009 (arranged by RISKGOV).
 “Brainstorming” roundtable discussion with key stakeholders on the topic “Scientific
Uncertainty, Precaution and the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to
Management for the Baltic Sea”. Stockholm, Sweden, March, 2010 (arranged by
RISKGOV).
 The 4th Stakeholders’ Day of the European Chemicals Agency. Helsinki, Finland,
May, 2010.
 The International Chemicals Forum. Helsinki, Finland, May, 2010.
 HELCOM Ministerial seminar “Building marine policy on best available knowledge”.
Stockholm, Sweden, August, 2010.
The document and literature studies were based on policy documents, peer-reviewed journals,
papers and reports as well as publications from regional governmental and nongovernmental
bodies. Mainly we focused our studies to EU and HELCOM related policies and regulatory
documents;
EU: The Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD) and the REACH regulation; together with several technical risk assessment
documents.
HELCOM: The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) under the Helsinki Convention, several
relevant official recommendations, technical documents for monitoring and assessment,
current relevant assessment reports.
The main method for WP 1 and WP 2 was literature and document analysis, although a few
selected interviews with experts and respondents from key bodies also provided a fruitful
complement.
In the WP 3 framing analysis, “frames” was used as a heuristic instrument for analysing
stakeholders’ perspectives and perceptions, keeping in mind that these frames can be explicit
or rather implicit. The frame analysis of WP. 3 was based on three main sources:
 literature and document research including analysis of documents of stakeholder selfrepresentations;
 qualitative, semi-structured interviews (following an interview guide) with key
stakeholders (inter)-governmental organisations, public authorities, scientific
institutions/academia, economic actors and NGOs.
 participatory observation
9
RISKGOV report
1. Working Package 1 – Governance Structures
SUMMARY
WP 1 identifies the most important risk governance structures, and maps actors and
regulations. In particular, it is concluded that development at the EU and HELCOM level are
of main importance for the management of chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. Thus, actors
within the EU and HELCOM, as well as regulations within EU – most notably the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the
REACH regulation – and regulations and recommendations dealt with by HELCOM – in
particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) – were identified as crucial for further analyses
in WP 2 and WP 3. Although we recognise the importance and the substantial improvements
that have been made in chemical regulation within the EU and HELCOM, these developments
are not sufficient in order to meet key objective at hand, nor do they adequately manage
relations with Russia. WP 1 concludes that, although there are numerous of national and
international regulations creating a massive web of regulations, existing chemical regulation
and informal governance structures are very far from covering all existing chemical risks
(especially new chemicals and mixtures of chemicals) and to allow for a sufficient extent of
safety. Care must be taken in the development of new regulations to promote synergies and
data exchange rather than causing further barriers, overlaps and conflicts that could reduce the
efficiency. Innovative policy developments, as well as improved international collaboration,
are therefore needed, which will be placed in focus in further studies within the RISKGOV
project.
10
RISKGOV report
1.1. Actors in the Baltic Sea Region
“There is a great number of actors involved in the management of chemicals. Sometimes it
looks to be so dense and complex, like a spider web”- expert from the academia
Governmental Organisations and Networks
International Actors
The problems associated with chemicals are of concern to the global population. Thus the
management of chemicals is addressed in a number of international organisations, including
UN organisations, treaties, and programmes. The main UN body directly dealing with
chemicals in the environment is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It
delivers policy and technical assistance for the sound management of chemicals. For example,
UNEP Chemicals programme builds and strengthens partnerships with governments,
organisations (like OECD), and non-governmental organisations. It also works closely with
agencies within the UN family (see Annex II) and the secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and
Stockholm conventions on chemicals and wastes. A good example of this cooperation is an
introduction of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)1, as
a policy framework to foster the sound management of chemicals (UNEP web, 2010). See
more about these organisations in Annex II.
The EU Actors
Today, EU environment legislation is a result of co-decision between the Council and the
European Parliament, on basis of proposals from the Commission. The ministerial Council
represents Member States and is commonly the most powerful actor. The power of the
European Parliament has increased over time and it is a central actor for not least
environmental protection and chemicals policy. The European Commission is responsible for
drafting new legislation and in our case, DG Enterprise and DG Environment are the most
central actors. DG Enterprise can be seen as an actor supporting chemicals development and
trade (Pesendorfer, 2006), while DG Environment puts much attention on chemicals safety
concerning environment and human health (Hey, 2000). In fact, not only DG Environment but
also the environmental ministers from the Northern European states (including Denmark,
Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) are often actors supporting environmental
protection. They dominated the initial discussions on revising EU chemicals law (Selin, 2007;
Andersen and Liefferink, 1999).
Other important actors are national economic affairs departments and political leaders of
several EU members with large chemical industries (e.g. France, Germany and the UK). They
may support the development of chemicals trade and industry even though their
environmental ministers may express strong opposition and vice versa (Selin, 2007). Selin
(2007) gave the example of the British Prime Minister, the French President and the German
Chancellor opposing the “environmentalisation” during the negotiations on a new chemicals
legislation (eventually called REACH), stating that that a new REACH policy must not
endanger the competitiveness of the European chemical industry.
Other important actors in EU chemical policy include the European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA), the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), the Joint
Research Centre (JRC) and The European Environmental Agency (EEA). ECHA manages the
registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction processes for chemical substances
(ECHA web, 2010). SCHER provides advice to the Commission on issues related to risks of
chemicals that may have negative impact on human and environmental health. The Committee
1
See more about SAICAM on http://www.saicm.org.
11
RISKGOV report
also addresses questions relating to methodological aspects of the assessment of health and
environmental risks of chemicals. JRC provides scientific and technical support for the
development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies and thereby often as a reference
centre for science and technology for the Union (JRC web, 2010). The EEA is also an
important actor in EU environmental reporting and monitoring. By commissioning studies on
certain topics, the EEA has the possibility to influence policy evaluation, agenda-setting and
policy formulation (EEA web, 2010).
Regional Actors
Within the Baltic Sea regional actors, the most influential one is HELCOM, set up under the
Helsinki Convention (Helsinki Convention, 1992), which has been working to protect the
marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of pollution, including hazardous
chemicals for more than 30 years. It consists of delegates from all 10 Parties (9 countries
bordering the Baltic Sea and European Union). The main decisions are made at the ministerial
meetings every year. The work of the Commission is currently carried out by 5 Groups (see
Fig. 1.1). HELCOM LAND, which is one of the delegations, mainly deals with chemicals
issues. Most of the day-to-day HELCOM activities are highly scientific and technology
intensive work. Participants in the various HELCOM sub-groups generally have specialised
scientific and technological education and professional experience (HELCOM web, 2010).
Figure 1.1 HELCOM structure (HELCOM web, 2010)
Several countries that belong to HELCOM are also members of OSPAR. The OSPAR
Convention guides international cooperation on the protection of the marine environment of
the North-East Atlantic from, for example, chemicals pollution. However in light of recent
developments in EU environment policy (e.g. the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)), OSPAR’s work on the selection and
prioritisation of substances has been put on hold and it now focuses to collaborate with the EU
(OSPAR web, 2010).
Another governmental regional actor is the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS). It is an
overall political forum for guidance and coordination for regional inter-governmental
cooperation. One of CBSS’ missions is to contribute to a sustainable Baltic Sea region by
providing a platform for the members as well as acting as a bridge between stakeholders.
However, the role of the CBSS in chemicals management in the Baltic Sea is rather limited
(CBSS web, 2010)
Sub regional to sub national level
It is also possible to identify important actors at a sub-regional level. The special authorities
(river basin authorities) for the management of river basins were created with the introduction
of the WFD. The rivers can be either transboundary (in this case the authority may be
international) or national (in this case the authority is national or sub national) (Nilsson and
12
RISKGOV report
Langaas, 2006). There are 13 international and several national river basin districts (RBD) in
the Baltic Sea drainage area (see Fig. 1.2).
Figure 1.2 RBDs, the 13 international RBDs highlighted (dark blue) (Nilsson and Langaas,
2006)
National Actors
Although many aspects of chemical policies are regulated at the EU level, individual Member
States still do have the authority in many areas, for example concerning implementation,
supervision, taxation, and in softer policy options such as assistance to industry (Kern, 2004).
Thus, it is worth looking at national examples, here, from Sweden, as an EU member, and
Russia.
Swedish Actors
The main Swedish political actor dealing with chemicals in the Baltic Sea is the government
with the Ministry of the Environment. The health of the Baltic Sea is prioritised and the
parliament has decided 16 environmental quality objectives and to reach “a Non-Toxic
Environment” is one of them.
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi), as the central implementing and supervisory
authority under the Ministry of the Environment, has responsibility for the goal of “a NonToxic Environment”. It supervises importers and manufacturers of chemical products and
articles and supports the supervision of chemicals by municipalities and county administrative
boards. Kemi is also responsible for e.g. implementing and enforcing REACH in Sweden and
assists in developing and implementing international conventions (KEMI web, 2010).
Another important actor is the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. It is the national
agency for environmental protection and nature conservation as well as outdoor recreation and
hunting issues. Among its key task are to present proposals for environmental policy and
legislation to the government and to ensure that much of environmental policy (Swedish EPA
web, 2010).
In 2005 Sweden adopted a new National Marine Policy as part of the work with the Marine
Strategy for the European Union. The main goal of this strategy is “a sea in balance, and
living coastlines and archipelagos” (Naturvårdsverket, 2006). According to interviewees, new
13
RISKGOV report
marine authority that, preliminary will be responsible for the marine environment and its
resources, will be developed. This will change the existing actors’ structure for Sweden.
Russian Actors
The key authority responsible for formulating and implementing the environmental policy
including chemicals in Russia is the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology (MNRE web,
2011). The Ministry performs state policy formulation as well as normative and legal
regulation in relation to the use and protection of natural resources. The Ministry has five
agencies under its supervision, where three of them are working with chemicals in water
bodies. These are:
The Federal Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service (FSNRMS web, 2011),
which ensures environmental and economic security of Russia. The main tasks of the agency
are the detection, suppression and prevention of crime associated with illegal and
unsustainable use of natural resources, with negative impacts on the environment.
The Federal Water Resources Agency (FWRA web, 2011) is a federal executive body
performing the functions related to rendering State services and federal property management
in the sphere of water resources.
Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service (RTN web, 2011) is the
supervisory body dealing with ecological, technological and nuclear issues. Its functions
include the passage of regulatory legal acts, supervision and oversight in the field of
environmental protection. There are several regional units of RTN that coordinate the annual
storage, disposal and management of hazardous waste; discharges of wastewater, and air
emissions. The North-West regional unit of RTN (RTNN web, 2011) covers the area of the
Baltic Sea.
Non-Governmental Organisations and Networks
International level
There are several non-governmental organisations and networks dealing with chemicals at an
international level. The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is the largest
world-wide organisation, representing 80 percent of global chemicals industry. ICCA is also
the main channel of communication between the industry and various international
organisations that are concerned with health, environment and trade-related issues (ICCA
web, 2010).
Environmental measures have for a long time been promoted by international environmental
NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FoE) and the Worldwide Fund for Nature
(WWF). The newly established NGO ChemSec, the International Chemical Secretariat is
actively working towards a toxic-free environment (ChemSec web, 2010). These NGOs have
staff resources to e.g. employ own policy advisers and communicate frequently with policymakers and the public. None the less, as most actors, green NGOs focus their work mainly
quite few hazardous chemicals (Pesendorfer, 2006).
A new and science-based actor under development is the International Panel on Chemical
Pollution (IPCP). It aims to collect scientific knowledge about chemical pollution problems
and provide summaries and interpretations of the available knowledge for decision-makers
and the public (IPCP web, 2010). Another central scientific actor is the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which since long coordinates and promotes marine
research on e.g. the marine environment, and living marine resources. Besides summarising
existing scientific knowledge and aiming to fill knowledge gaps, ICES actively gives sciencebased advice. ICES has, for example, a specific Marine Chemistry Working Group (MCWG)
which deals with hazardous chemicals in the marine environment (ICES web, 2010).
14
RISKGOV report
EU level
The European counterpart to ICCA is the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC).
Acting as an umbrella organisation, CEFIC has gathered numerous sector groups and
affiliated associations. CEFIC represents its member toward various organisations and has
established working relations and networks with EU institutions and all important actors
(CEFIC web, 2010).
There are a number of other organisations representing business. Many of these organisations
mainly or exclusively exist to influence politics. An example of this is the Downstream Users
of Chemicals Co-ordination group (DUCC), founded in 2001 (DUCC web, 2010).
The strongest supporters of a more protective chemicals policy within the EU are
environmental non-governmental organisations, among them the European Environmental
Bureau (EEB web, 2010), Greenpeace Europe (Greenpeace web, 2010), WWF Europe (WWF
web, 2010), Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE web, 2010) and so on,, as well as a large
number of other smaller NGOs (Pesendorfer, 2006 and Selin, 2007).
Regional level (Baltic Sea level)
There are several NGO at the Baltic Sea level. Among them is Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB).
It unites 26 member organisations from Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Germany, Denmark and Sweden. The main goal of CCB is to promote the protection and
improvement of the Baltic Sea environment and natural resources. CCB’s activities
concerning hazardous substances focus primarily on point sources (CCB web, 2010).
Some activities made by the Baltic Sea Action Group (BSAG web, 2010) operate throughout
the entire Baltic Sea area. It is an independent foundation that does concrete work in relation
to the Baltic Sea environment and aims to accelerate the implementation of HELCOM’s
Baltic Sea Action Plan. Another NGO is the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC) with a network
of 100 member cities from ten Baltic Sea countries. (UBC web, 2010).
The scientific development in the Baltic region is promoted by BONUS Baltic Organizations'
Network for Funding Science (BONUS EEIG). It is a newly established independent
organisation that funds research in the area. Its members are either funding agencies, or
organisations managing national funding allocations for the joint calls under the Joint Baltic
Sea Research Programme (BONUS web, 2010). It is worth to mention that this report is also
supported by BONUS.
National level
Swedish NGOs
In Sweden, environmental organisations have been working with chemical hazards for a long
time. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) founded in 1909, picked up on
environmental risks of chemicals, in particular pesticides, already in the 1950s (SSNC web,
2010). Today SSNC works with, for example, campaigns on hazardous substances, such as
brominated flame retardants, with the purpose of both achieving national phase-outs and
communicating perceived shortcomings of EU chemicals policy (see Eriksson et al. 2010b).
The Swedish branch of Greenpeace is also active in the chemicals area and WWF Sweden
works on e.g. the Baltic Sea environment (Greenpeace web, 2010 and WWF web, 2010). The
NGOs commonly collaborate on policy issues. In particular SSNC also carries out surveys on
the content of hazardous chemicals in products, such as toys, textiles, hygiene products, shoes
and sunscreens with the purpose of initiating debate and stricter regulation.
15
RISKGOV report
Russian NGOs
The environmental movement, as any other NGO movements, was not very developed during
the USSR time (Shulenina, 2003). It was not until the late 80s as a civil society environmental
movement developed.
Today, there are several Russian NGOs dealing with environmental protection of the Baltic
Sea. Among them there is the Green World (GW web, 2011) which is working on saving the
coast of the Gulf of Finland. Another NGO, the Ecology and Business (EB web, 2011) is
working to promote the implementation of programmes, projects and decisions of HELCOM,
as well as providing information to all interested parties about the activities of the Helsinki
Commission. Friends of the Baltic (FB web, 2011) works with environmental problems in the
area of St. Petersburg as well as in small towns and villages on the South and North shores of
the Gulf of Finland.
The Russian branch of Greenpeace and WWF are also active in the chemicals area
(Greenpeace web, 2010 and WWF web, 2010).
1.2. Regulatory Framework in the Baltic Sea Region
“I see that international cooperation around the Baltic is improving. All existing
regulations WFD, MSFD, EU BSS and HELCOM BSAP are good tools for cooperation.
The only way we can go forward is by cooperation.” –Respondent from authority
International regulatory framework
The international community has been engaged in continuous cooperation on hazardous
chemicals since the 1960s (Selin, 2009) (see Annex IV). However, mainly domestic
regulations regarding chemicals use existed at that time (Perrez, 2006). After the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio (UNCED), regulatory and
policy action relating to chemicals became more international and many international
organisations started to cooperate, for example the Programme for the Sound Management of
Chemicals (IOMC) between UNEP, ILO, OECD and others. However, rather than addressing
all chemical management issues under a single treaty, agreements are quite specific and
numerous (Buccini, 2004).
Within this growing amount of international initiatives, Selin (2009) distinguishes four main
international treaties – the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, CLRTAP and the
Stockholm Convention – which create a framework for “life cycle management” by together
covering major elements “from cradle to grave”. A summary, inspired by Selin (2009), is
presented in the following table:
Table 1.1 Summary of the four main international chemicals treaties
Name
Description
Webpage
The Basel Convention on
the Control of
Transboundary
Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and
their Disposal
1992
The Rotterdam
Convention
2004
Covers hazardous wastes that are explosive,
www.basel.int
flammable, poisonous, infectious, corrosive, and
toxic or ecotoxic. The aim of the convention is to
control every step in the chain management of
the chemical: from the generation to the disposal.
Covers pesticides and industrial chemicals that
have been banned or severely restricted for
health or environmental reasons by the parties.
The objectives are for the parties to share
responsibility and efforts on the specified
16
www.pic.int
RISKGOV report
The Convention on
Long-Range
Transboundary Air
Pollution (CLRTAP)
2003
Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic
Pollutants
2004
hazardous chemicals. This is done by improved
exchange of information among countries about
imports and exports.
Identifies 16 POPs in a POP protocol. Some of
the substances are banned, others need to be
eliminated and reduced.
www.unece.or
g
Identifies 21 POPs that need to be illuminated to www.pops.int
protect human health and the environment. These
substances are required to be eliminated,
restricted in production or their unintentional
releases need to be reduced.
However, this web of regulations still does not cover more than a small amount of the
chemicals in use in society. Some are of the opinion that the numerous efforts taken by
international forum and organisations are not sufficient to solve global chemical problems
(Krueger and Selin, 2002). Others, although agreeing on the needs for improved international
chemicals regulation, instead argue that an extensive number of international agreements
might create a risk for overlaps and conflicts as well as a lower degree of implementation
(Bengtsson, 2010). A greater problem than the amount of regulations, though, is the true or
perceived conflicts that may arise between objectives and operation of interrelated policies or
between chemicals policy and policy in other areas (e.g. competitiveness). To cope with the
first, of these challenges by promoting regulatory and management synergies, many actors
worked for the establishment of increasingly important SAICM (Strategic Approach to
International Chemicals Management). Furthermore, recently an Ad Hoc Joint Working
Group (Ad Hoc web, 2011) to enhance cooperation under the Basel, Rotterdam, and
Stockholm Conventions was created (Perrez, 2006). Parallel to this, the development of a
globally harmonised system for classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) has been
completed (GHS web, 2011).
When looking specifically at the Baltic Sea, the countries bordering the sea have ratified
different conventions and are members of different organisations (see Table 1.2). This creates
a rather complex regulatory system in the Baltic Sea.
Table 1.2. Membership of Baltic Sea countries in the EU and HELCOM, and ratification of
the OSPAR Convention, the CLRTAP, the Stockholm Convention, the Basel Convention, and
the Rotterdam Convention (inspired by Selin, 2009)
Sweden
Finland
Demark
Germany
Poland
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia
Russia
EU
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
HELCOM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
OSPAR
+
+
+
+
CLRTAP
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Convention ratified, not
e.g. the POP protocol
Stockholm
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Signed but not
yet ratified
Basel
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Rotterdam
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
The complexity is also increased by the fact that different hazardous substances have been
prioritised differently in different international forum (Selin and VanDeveer, 2004).
In general, better coordination of regulations and management across treaties would also make
it easier for parties to meet their commitments. HELCOM is the only international forum that
17
RISKGOV report
unite all of the countries of the region. This means that it might play an important role in the
coordination of countries around the Baltic Sea. However, HELCOM’s limited power (i.e.
recommendations are not binding) might be a barrier to efficient management of chemical
risks in the Baltic Sea.
The EU regulatory framework
EU chemical policies have gradually developed since the 1960s (Karlsson, 2010see also
Annex IV). Due to a lack of data, high complexity and controversies, a new regulation was
developed - REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) in order to
cover most manufactured industrial chemicals. It became one of the largest pieces of the EU
legislation and entered into force in June 2007. A major part of REACH is the requirement for
manufacturers or importers of substances (in volumes more than 1 tonne per year and
manufacturer or importer) to register their substances by providing a chemical dossier to the
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). This is an important part of REACH, which implies
that data to promote safe use of chemicals must be provided by the industry (data demands
vary from very limited for low volumes, to higher for large volumes and for the most
hazardous classes).
A majority of the respondents argued that REACH is a positive step forward since
comprehensive risk assessments were earlier carried out only for very few of the several
thousands of substances in use in Europe. However, some argue that legislations like REACH
which aims to protect human health and the environment could end up damaging the
European economy (Haverland, 2009). ECHA mentioned in an interview that there is always
“an exaggeration from both sides (industry and environment)” (See further discussion in WP
2).
The EU’s particular attention on the regional environmental status of the Baltic Sea is stated
in the new EU strategy for the Baltic Sea (BSS). It calls for a sustainable development of the
region and incorporates both environmental and economic development of the region. One of
the key priorities of the strategy is reduction of hazardous substances (EC, 2009). Some
interviewees mentioned that the BSS might be an attempt of the EU to improve the
implementation of HELCOM recommendations. According to one respondent “the
environmental part of BSS is based on the HELCOM action plan and … it hopefully will
provide some additional commitments at least for EU member states and... additional
national resources for the regional implementation”. However, no new institutions or
financial support will be established for BSS implementation. This might create a difficult
implementation situation in different countries.
The Baltic Sea is partly regulated as a common water body by the WFD2 (EC, 2000) and as a
marine area by the MSFD (EC, 2008) and the Maritime Policy (MP) (EC 2007). The WFD
requires member states to assess both chemical and ecological status of their water bodies.
The ecological assessment is based on the status of the biological, hydro-morphological and
physico-chemical (including specific pollutants) quality elements (EC, 2000). The chemical
status is assessed by comparing monitored concentrations of various priority chemicals
(mainly in water) with defined Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). The WFD sets EQS
for 33 priority substances and 8 other pollutants (EC, 2000). By 2015, the WFD demands
good chemical as well as ecological status of EU waters (EC, 2000). According to one
respondent, if the water quality standards (the concentration of chemicals in the water) are not
reached by 2015, these substances can eventually be put on the REACH authorisation list.
Several interviewees agreed that the WFD is a step forward in protecting the common aquatic
environment. An expert from a Swedish marine research institution noted: “Before WFD the
problem was to measure the water status; thanks to the directive we see if the status is good
2
Covers only coastal waters up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial baseline for Good Chemical Status
18
RISKGOV report
or not which is crucial to have in the monitoring system”. However, several interviewees
criticised the WFD for several methodological assessment problems (see further discussion in
WP 2) and lack of economic and social aspects. Moreover, the implementation of the WFD
can vary among countries. For instance, a respondent from an authority said “for chemicals
we are doing the minimum, but acceptable minimum”. While respondents from Sweden
argued that countries should do as much as possible. Moreover, it was acknowledged that
many local authorities sometimes do not take the EU directives seriously. “Unserious”
attitudes can be explained by the fact that both the WFD and the MSFD are related to an
information gathering type of regulation, while “REACH is a regulation that actually can
enforce action, for instance banning the chemicals” said a respondent from an authority.
The MSFD focuses on marine waters and aims to achieve environmentally healthy marine
waters by 2021 (EC, 2008). The goal of the MSFD is in line with the objectives of the WFD.
Member states will need to assess the state of their marine environment based on 11
descriptors of good marine environmental status:
Descriptor 1: Biological diversity; Descriptor 2: Non-indigenous species; Descriptor 3:
Population of commercial fish / shell fish; Descriptor 4: Elements of marine food webs;
Descriptor 5: Eutrophication; Descriptor 6: Sea floor integrity; Descriptor 7: Alteration of
hydrographical conditions; Descriptor 8: Contaminants; Descriptor 9: Contaminants in fish
and seafood for human consumption; Descriptor 10: Marine litter; Descriptor 11: Introduction
of energy, including underwater noise.
Member states (collaborating by help of HELCOM in the case of the Baltic Sea) have to
establish targets, indicators and monitoring programmes (EC, 2008). This may be an
advantage as it allows more flexible approaches that can be adopted for regional seas such as
the Baltic Sea since it is different in many ecological features. But, on the other hand, it may
also result in an over-diversification of approaches in the setting of ‘good environmental
status objectives’ between the regional seas (Nõges et al., 2008). At this stage of development,
it is not possible to evaluate the outcomes of the MSFD. However, many interviewed experts
stressed that the MSFD might be able to improve the management of the Baltic Sea, hoping
that the MSFD will more fully incorporate EAM and improve pan-Baltic political and
scientific cooperation.
The MP and the BSS have a broader approach than the MSFD and the WFD, and seek
integration of a multitude of sectoral policies (i.e. chemicals, shipping and fisheries) (Van
Hoof and Van Tatenhove, 2009). The MSFD and the WFD have a clear environmental focus,
while the MP and BSS are more encompassing and stress the need for economic development
as well as sustainability (EC, 2008). In general, the WFD, the MSFD and the MP aim at
governing the water-marine environment, while the BSS covers the Baltic Sea region. Despite
ambitious aims to adopt more holistic approaches (such as EAM), the BSS and MP were
criticized by several respondents for not providing well-developed connections between the
environmental and economic parts of the policy.
From a chemicals’ perspective the MSFD, the WFD, the BSS and the MP present a change in
institutional setting; major policy measures no longer descend from the EU chemicals policy
alone (e.g. just REACH), but are increasingly derived from general environmental policy
developments (see more in the EAM section of WP 2).
Regional regulatory framework
Many efforts on reducing hazardous substances have taken place at a regional level; around
common seas like the Baltic Sea and river basins. Regional cooperation designed to
specifically protect the Baltic Sea has been led by HELCOM (Selin and VanDeveer, 2004)
(see Annex IV).
The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki
Convention, 1974, 1992) was the first regional international agreement that instituted
19
RISKGOV report
measures aiming to control all sources of pollution of the Baltic Sea. This Convention also
imposed specific obligations on the contracting parties to counteract the introduction of
hazardous substances (Brusendorff, 2007).
The first chemicals related recommendations of HELCOM were focused on specific
chemicals. Later HELCOM tried to cover more substances and in the 1980’s HELCOM
Ministerial Declaration identified 47 substances to be reduced to 50% by 1995 (HELCOM,
1998). In 1998, HELCOM members issued recommendation 19/5 regarding hazardous
substances, trying to cover a larger part of the present chemical hazards. It selected 280
hazardous substances that needed to be reduced by 2020. In 2007, HELCOM adopted the
BSAP that aims to restore good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021.
This plan used an alternative ecosystem based strategy instead of focusing on only single
specific hazards. In terms of chemical risks the BSAP selects 11 hazardous substances or
substance groups of priority concern and sets ecosystem-based targets for these.
All interviewees acknowledged the importance of regional level initiatives taken by
HELCOM, especially work related to identifying hotspots. Several interviewees mentioned
that HELCOM activities are very helpful in establishing pan-Baltic cooperation among
authorities and at a political level. One respondent mentioned that in several cases, for
instance for wastewater treatment, HELCOM has more ambitious, but non-binding,
requirements than the EU. Thus, compared to the EU, HELCOM focuses on particular
regional actions in the Baltic Sea ecosystem (see further discussion in EAM section in WP 2)
and has in some cases even more ambitious rules that might be more relevant to the Baltic Sea
(owing to the often argued particular sensitivity of the Baltic Sea environment).
The main criticism raised against HELCOM in the interviews relates to the fact that HELCON
recommendations are not legally binding. “It is always a battle to translate decisions from
HELCOM to the national regulations” noted one politically active respondent. The main
“hope” of the interviewees was that with the MSFD, EU BSS the status of HELCOM
decisions will be strengthened.
National Regulatory Framework
Nine countries – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and
Sweden – border the Baltic Sea. According to Selin and VanDeveer (2004) Nordic countries
tend to lead in the development of hazardous substances policy in the Baltic Sea area. These
countries have often taken domestic regulatory actions on hazardous substances before they
are targeted by the HELCOM or by the EU (Selin and VanDeveer, 2004). However, there are
also perceived differences between the Nordic countries. While Swedish interviewees
considered EU membership as “lowering national standards”, Finnish respondents
considered EU membership as a driving force for actions “I don’t know what can push us
forward except of the EU... It is forcing us to do something that I am not sure we would do
otherwise”.
According to Selin (2004), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia have often taken
domestic actions on hazardous substances only after decisions have been taken by HELCOM
or EU (HELCOM web, 2010). The Russian Federation, which is the only HELCOM member
state that is not an EU member country, tends to deliver reports that are quite vague and have
numerous data gaps on substance use, sale, stocks and emissions (Selin and VanDeveer,
2004). In general, Russian implementation of HELCOM obligations and recommendations is
more dependent on international assistance than any of the other Baltic Sea states. Thus,
continued capacity building in the Russian Federation presents a major challenge for the
management of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM, 2002).
Sweden
Similar to developments in other countries, the Swedish regulations were in the beginning
focused on a limited number of single chemicals (see Annex IV), whereas more general
20
RISKGOV report
regulations developed over time, from the 1970s and onwards (Karlsson, 2006a). According
to one respondent, Sweden reacted earlier compared to other Baltic Sea countries and even the
EU on problems connected with hazardous chemicals. As an example, the Swedish parliament
has defined a “Non-toxic environment” goal.
Several respondents mentioned that the Swedish membership in EU was a good development;
“We can do much more than we could do at the national level” as an authority expert put it.
However, EU membership was also mentioned by respondents to “lower the Swedish
chemical standards”.
According to several respondents, Sweden was and is leading in pushing for proenvironmental actions in the region. For example, one respondent acknowledges Sweden’s
pioneering position in developing a national BSAP implementation strategy. Moreover,
Sweden has always been arguing that the Baltic Sea is much more sensitive than other marine
areas, for example in PSSA discussions (Uggla 2007). As for example mentioned in one
interview; “On the EU level they do not agree with the special status of the Baltic, thus the
Baltic Sea cannot have a higher risk factor. If we do not win this discussion we cannot
continue with standards that we think are scientifically reasonable”.
The importance of the environmental protection of the Baltic Sea was stressed also by the
Environmental Minister of Sweden during the HELCOM ministerial meeting in 2010. Adding
to this, the Government in Sweden launched in 2005 a new National Marine Policy and
approved the creation of national marine authority, with the aim of promoting a holistic and
cross-sectoral management of the marine environment and marine natural resources.
Russia
The Soviet government perceived the development of the chemical industry as one of its most
important tasks (Aftalion, 2001). While large-scale producing enterprises were growing, the
environmental concerns were not that developed (Shulenina, 2003). Environmental issues
became an issue of interest for politicians and the mass media only in late 1980s due to
Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost policies, and not to mention the Chernobyl disaster
(Порядин 2001).
Today the Russian chemicals legislation is in a process of change (OECD, 2009). “Old rules
are not used anymore and the experts that were experienced in Soviet laws are not experts
anymore. New rules are changing. In general all stakeholders experience a lack of
information” as stated by a Russian scientist.
In general, interviewees agreed that the current Russian regulatory system for chemicals is
rather complex with many different actors involved. There are many laws and each “belongs
to different legislations, regulations and fields of law...The main problem of Russian
legislation is that it is not systemized” as mentioned by an Russian industry expert. This
complexity was mentioned also by the executive director of ECHA to be the main barrier for
increased cooperation between Russia and ECHA “because there is no clear partner
authority responsible for the same things as ECHA in Russia”.
Concerning regulatory harmonisation, the current Russian system of classification and
labelling of chemicals differs from that of the EU and the GHS, except the requirements for
safety data sheets (OECD, 2009). There are also significant differences in risk assessment
terminology in the EU and in Russia (Fjodorova et al., 2008; Ruut and Simanovska, 2004).
The issue of harmonisation of Russian chemical management legislation has become highly
discussed in relation to the accessibility of Russian exporters to the EU markets under the new
REACH regulation (ChemSec, 2006).
Concerning chemicals in the environment, there are officially defined concentration levels of
chemicals in different environmental compartments (e.g. water, soil and air). Maximum
21
RISKGOV report
permissible concentrations, tentative exposure levels and tentative permissible levels of
chemicals in various environmental media sometimes exceed those found in the EU
(Fjodorova et al., 2008). Similar to the WFD, the Russian government adopted a Water Code
of the Russian Federation, which also introduces EAM (Ganoulis and Nikitina, 2008).
Knowing that the WFD and possibly also the MSFD may be hard to implement in regional
seas as the Baltic Sea, shared between EU member states and countries outside the EU
(Nilsson and Langaas, 2006), it is important to understand possible conflicts and synergies
between EU and Russian regulations, such as the Water Code of the Russian Federation.
There is no environmental strategy specifically related to the Baltic Sea in Russia. The main
concern regarding the Russian chemical policy is, however, the practical implementation of
existing national and international regulations. “There is not that much control of the effects
of industries to the environment…rules exist but nobody controls them” mentioned a Russian
industry expert. A Russian academic expert added “today water quality standards in Russia
are very strict; they are therefore difficult to comply with and are often ignored”. An
illustrative example is obsolete pesticide handling without environmentally sound technology
(Vijgen and Egenhofer, 2009, and ChemSec, 2006) or a study done by Greenpeace showing
that national standards for chemicals are not followed in the St. Petersburg area of the Neva
River 3.
According to Wernstedt (2002) the situation can be improved with development in the
environmental monitoring sector, but that is very difficult, given the vastness of the Russian
territory. Today each station for water monitoring covers 9000 square kilometres (Wernstedt,
2002). In the same time, the Russian prime minister claimed to be concerned with Baltic Sea
environmental problems (Tisdall, 2010). However, very often, actions in the Baltic area are
supported by external initiatives, as exemplified by the Nordic Investment Bank’s4
investments in better sewage treatment in Russia.
The problem of effective cooperation with Russia for the management of the Baltic Sea was
raised by a majority of respondents. The Russian-Baltic relations are marked by gaps in
bilateral cooperation. Several interviewees showed scepticism towards Russian
implementation of existing environmental norms. This indicates that the current EU-Russia
Northern Dimension and the HELCOM arrangements do not sufficiently manage existing
disputes (Arnswald, 2000). The main hope of the majority of the interviewees is that in the
future (with the BSS and the MSFD), HELCOM will be able to improve current cooperation
situation.
1.3. Discussion
Chemical policy is complex in its actor constellation, networks and regulations. Management
of chemicals in transboundary water bodies is even more complex, as the problem is shared
across national borders. Approximately 40% of the global population lives in transboundary
water basins, 55% of which are located in Europe, emphasising the need for cooperation and
harmonisation of policies (Mylopoulos and Kolokytha, 2008).
3
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/A-toxic-river-runs-through-it/
The BSAP Fund is a fund managed by the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) and the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation
(NEFCO). The fund provides grants for technical assistance to projects that support the implementation of the HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Recipients eligible for financing through the Fund include both public and private entities
operating in the agricultural and wastewater treatment sectors, as well as those working to reduce hazardous waste in the
Baltic Sea catchment area. Sweden has committed SEK 90 million (EUR 9 million) to the BSAP Fund and Finland EUR 1.6
million
(see
further
at
http://www.nib.int/news_publications/publications/brochures_leaflets/technical_assistance_for_cleaner_baltic_sea).
4
22
RISKGOV report
The Baltic Sea is a good example of a European transboundary water basin. Nine countries
border the sea and five more (Belarus, the Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia and Ukraine)
belong to the watershed. A major problem is that the regulatory frameworks for the marine
area do not reach beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Kern (2004) consequently states
that new forms of governance beyond the nation state are crucial for the future development
of the Baltic Sea region. This environmentally based fact has been both reinforced and
underlined by social developments of various kind, such as (Kern, 2004; Kern and Löffelsend,
2004; Joas, Kern and Sandberg, 2007; Joas, Jahn and Kern, 2008):

The end of the Cold War and the transformation processes in the former socialist
countries;

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de
Janeiro);
European integration, the product of two waves of enlargement in 1995 (Sweden,
Finland) and in 2004 (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia together with six other
countries).

It is against this background, and following increasing knowledge about the challenges caused
by a broad number of substance, possible to observe general trends in transition from
regulations addressing specific chemicals at the national level, to international efforts to cover
a large number of hazardous chemicals (see timeline Annex IV), and even to applying an
ecosystem-based management strategy.
Today, there is a tremendous amount of national, regional, EU and international actors and
regulations related to the management of hazardous chemicals. However, the web of
regulations still does not cover more than a small amount of the chemicals in use. Some argue
that the solution lies in developing new regulations, but according to several of our
interviewees, a growing “diversity” in actors and regulations is not going to sufficiently
improve the implementation of real measures. Maybe a fruitful strategy therefore could focus
on developing a new and proactive approach that covers existing and new chemical risks,
rather than focusing on the number of the regulations. REACH is an attempt to use such an
approach by bringing together so-called existing and new chemicals in a joint regulatory
framework, even though the implementation is still very slow. This points at a need for policy
innovation in this area.
Acknowledging the importance of the international cooperation, a majority of the
interviewees still agreed that for the Baltic Sea ecosystem the recent development and
ongoing implementation of EU and HELCOM regulations are of main importance. This can
be explained by the fact that the EU regulations are legally binding for most of the Baltic Sea
countries (i.e. not for Russia) and that all of the countries are members of HELCOM; and
almost all interviewees agreed that development of global conventions goes very slow, in
particular considering the time it takes to implement them. “That is why there are only few
chemicals in the Stockholm Convention” as noted by a respondent linked to a Swedish
authority.
In the course of the interviews and literature studies it was possible to identify that the WFD,
the MSFD, REACH and the BSAP are at the forefront of the development of chemicals
management in the Baltic Sea region (although at different stages of implementation and with
different legal power). All those regulations generate a lot of information, relevant for the
management of the chemicals in the Baltic Sea; thus it is important to generate more
understanding on the complementarities, overlaps, and potential conflicts of the WFD, the
MSFD and REACH and HELCOM. Some mechanisms of interaction already exist but it is
still important to look for additional synergies. Already knowing that the WFD and possibly
also the MSFD may be hard to implement in regional seas such as the Baltic Sea shared
between EU member states and countries outside the EU, it is also important to widen the
search for possible cooperative mechanism in relation to the Russian Federation.
23
RISKGOV report
A majority of the respondents agreed that EU rules are the most important in the region, as
they are legally binding for most of the countries. Several of respondents expressed concern
that the EU membership lowered some of the national standards and might not allow for the
development of the specific regional measures. Several concerns were also raised in relation
to the sensitivity of the Baltic Sea ecosystem that according to several interviewees might
require development of stricter rules for chemicals at the regional (Baltic Sea) level than at the
general EU level. It is suggested that HELCOM will have an important leading role in future
regional Baltic Sea management of chemicals with the introduction of the new EU Baltic Sea
Strategy and the MSFD.
24
RISKGOV report
2. Working Package 2: Assessment – Management Interactions
SUMMARY
WP 2 focuses on an in-depth understanding of the interactions between risk assessment and
risk management of chemicals. The main assessment and management activities in the Baltic
Sea region are identified and analysed. It is concluded that assessments commonly are based
on a rather technocratic separation of assessment and management activities (with often
unclear strategies for bringing these activities together in decision-making). Assessments also
generally suffer from lack of data, insufficient harmonisation of methodology, as well as
unclear strategies for assessing uncertainties and adjusted communication of assessment
results. Consequently, assessments would benefit greatly from more harmonised assessment
methodologies, not least for chemical mixtures, ecological effects as well as methods for
integrating various lines of evidence. Both assessment and management might benefit from
increased stakeholder participation. Furthermore, we have analysed risk assessment and
management interactions through the prisms of uncertainty and the Ecosystem Approach to
Management (EAM). These aspects have become top challenges for the assessment and
management of chemical risks as well as for coping with science-policy interactions
connected with the governance of chemical risks. We conclude that the enormous knowledge
gap (for most chemicals, for the risks of chemical mixtures, for ecosystem-specific risks etc)
need to be addressed by combining increased efforts on data and knowledge production with
better ways of assessing, communicating and managing uncertainty. Hence, a main question is
how much evidence is needed for motivating decision-making on risk reduction. This is a
policy-related issue, not a scientific one. However, science does need to develop and
implement improved methodology for assessing and communicating uncertainty to relevant
stakeholders. On the management side, the precautionary principle is increasingly stipulated
for coping with uncertainty. In spite of that, there is no consensus on the exact implementation
of the principle in practice, and regulations such as REACH, the WFD, the MSFD and the
BSAP ought to be developed on this point. Risk reduction is needed and motivated even, or
even particularly, under uncertainty. Looking at the EAM, the approach is clearly receiving
increase attention (e.g. in the BSAP and the MSFD), but only partially in the field of chemical
regulation and concrete measures. So far, it is therefore not certain that the EAM will
substantially improve risk management in cases of high uncertainty. On the contrary,
requirements on implementation of the EAM may stall measures and increase complexity.
These initial insights will be further developed in coming RISKGOV publications.
25
RISKGOV report
2.1. The Organisation and Type of Risk Assessment Activities
Risk assessment is, using a rather technocratic definition, the assessment of probability and
extent of negative effects owing to an agent or activity. Similar approaches to risk assessment
have been developed and used by the EU, the US EPA and OECD. Despite the scientific
background of risk assessment, many national and international regulatory guidelines have
different definitions of the term “risk assessment”. The scope and nature of risk assessments
range widely, from general scientific analyses of how air pollutants affect an entire country, to
site-specific assessment of particular effluents and chemical contaminants. Thus, risk
assessment takes many different forms, depending on scope and purpose, the available data
and resources, and other factors (see Table 2.1) (Fairman, Mead and Williams, 1998).
Table 2.1 Types of risk assessments for chemicals in the EU and the Baltic Sea
Type
of
risk
assessment
Assessment of single
chemicals and
chemical products.
Assessment of
processes and
contamination
sources
Integrated
(ecosystem-based)
assessment
EU
Baltic Sea
REACH, Biocides, Pesticides,
Pharmaceuticals
Assessment and monitoring of
priority chemicals
EIA directive; IPPC directive
HELCOM hotspots
Whole Effluent Assessment
(COHIBA)
WFD, MSFD
HELCOM chemical assessments
etc HELCOM integrated
assessment
Risk assessment is also performed for different reasons:
(1) In the design and implementation of regulation, for instance in determining “acceptable”
risk levels which may form the basis of environmental standards (e.g. as in the WFD);
(2) To provide a basis for site-specific decisions (e.g. in land-use planning);
(3) Prioritisation of environmental risks, for instance in the determination of which chemicals
to regulate first (e.g. HELCOM BSAP, WFD and authorisation list of REACH);
(4) For comparison of risks, for instance to enable comparisons to be made between the
resources being allocated to the control of different types of risk, or to allow risk substitution
decisions to be made (e.g. REACH substitution).
As will be detailed in the following, , many organisations are now actively involved in
performing and using risk assessment at the international, EU and national levels.
International risk assessment
At the international level, chemicals risk assessments are performed by several organisations;
for example by scientist networks (e.g. IPCP), the Global International Waters Assessment
group5, by a special expert group of ICES- Marine Chemistry Working Group (MCWG)
among others. The OECD and its member countries are also working on assessing chemicals,
especially in terms of cooperative testing and assessment chemicals produced at high
volumes. The World Health Organization (WHO), through its International Programme on
Chemical Safety (IPCS) and partners, UNEP and the International Labour Organisation
(ILO), also conduct risk assessments of chemicals. Today, measures are taken to harmonise
different approaches to risk assessment and to minimise duplication mainly between
programmes from the EU, the OECD and IPCS. The development and international
harmonisation of risk assessment methodologies are recognised to be a great challenge.
5
http://www.iwlearn.net/iw-projects/Fsp_112799467513/reports/baltic-sea-17-giwa-regional-assessment
26
RISKGOV report
EU risk assessment
The EU’s risk assessment programme is a part of the legal scheme to reduce the risks of used
hazardous chemicals for human health and the environment and it fits into the international
OECD programme on the cooperative testing and assessment of chemicals. Thus, OECD
guidelines for risk assessment are widely used in different EU assessments, as an important
part of harmonisation of different chemicals assessments. However, according to an
interviewed EU expert “there is much novel research that is difficult to include in the
assessment because it is not following the guidelines according to OECD”.
For a long time in EU, with the exception of a few groups of chemicals, such as
pharmaceuticals, pesticides and food additives, chemicals manufacturers had the right to
continue to produce and market chemicals without investigating risks or finding alternatives.
The EU started to require data for new chemicals put on the market after 1981. Later it
applied for some of the existing substances. Those actions were coordinated by the European
Chemicals Bureau (ECB) and risk assessments were performed by the competent authorities
in member states (EEA, UNEP 1998). The EU Technical Guidance Document (TGD), based
on recommendations from OECD, was developed to provide guidelines for the risk
assessment of chemicals in EU. In Sweden, risk assessments were mainly performed by Kemi,
in Finland by the Finnish Environmental Institute, in Denmark by the Danish Environmental
Protection Authority, in Germany by the German Environmental Agency (UBA), the German
Occupational Safety Agency (BauA) and the German Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and
in Poland by the Polish Bureau for Chemical Products6. With the introduction of REACH, the
situation has slightly changed and industries are more responsible for performing assessments
for manufactured chemicals (see next section).
REACH Risk Assessment
The TGD guidelines are also used in REACH to guide the industry to perform the assessment
of chemicals, called chemical safety assessment (CSA). A manufacturer or importer of a
substance in quantities of 10 tonnes or more per year needs to prepare a chemical safety
assessment (CSA) and document this chemical safety report (CSR) as part of the chemical
registration dossier. In addition to risk assessment done by industry, the Commission, ECHA
or EU member states may also propose chemicals for a 'Candidate List' of Substances of Very
High Concern (SVHCs) based on the risk assessment and decided by ECHA. Once substances
are identified for this list, ECHA may recommend it for authorization, which the Commission
can confirm.. However, authorizations may be granted if the applicant can demonstrate that
the risk from the use of the substance is adequately controlled. If the risks are not adequately
controlled, an authorization may still be granted if it is proven that the socio-economic
benefits outweigh the risks and that there, for some types of substances, are no suitable
alternative substances or technologies. REACH also gives opportunities to restrict substances
more generally, based on risk assessments and interpretations of these in the same manner as
before REACH (Karlsson, 2010). In this way REACH aims at protecting human health and
the environment. REACH was mentioned by several respondents to be a very important step
in improving available information for chemicals in use (see further discussion in WP 1).
Yet, REACH is highly controversial, and its adoption may appear surprising given the level of
controversy that surrounded it (Selin, 2007). One question that was and still is discussed
concerns that testing requirements depend on production volumes – the higher the production
volume, the more extensive test batteries should be performed. This will not create
comprehensive information for the chemicals produced in the volume less than 1 tonne,
though, thus leaving the majority of chemicals outside the risk assessment (Karlsson, 2010;
Hansson and Rudén, 2010).
6
See further http://www.kemi.se, http://www.ymparisto.fi, http://www.mst.dk, www.umweltbundesamt.de, www.baua.de,
www.bfr.bund.de and www.chemikalia.mz.gov.pl respectively.
27
RISKGOV report
Another important feature, also mentioned by the interviewees, is the low requirements in
REACH for data on chemicals in specific articles such as toys. Adding to this, REACH also
supports new non-animal testing assessment methodologies. On the one hand this is an
important alternative approach, knowing that for testing of all chemicals in use; millions of
test organisms will be required (Hansson and Ruden, 2010). On the other hand however, these
alternative modelling and laboratory methods may, given the lack of ecotoxicological data,
even increase existing uncertainty. One further remaining drawback is that the classification
and labelling system does not distinguish between a substance that has been tested with
negative outcome and a substance for which no data is available (Hansson and Ruden, 2010).
This means that incentives for generating additional information are low. Something that
could be counteracted by introducing a specific label for untested or insufficiently tested
substances (Hansson and Ruden, 2010).
During the interviews, several respondents also criticised the credibility and scientific validity
of the dossiers produced by the industry. The issue of trust to the industry was raised several
times. ECHA will obviously not be able to check all of the dossiers; as one respondent noted
“At the end of the year we will get around 30000 dossiers for the high volume substances. It
will be impossible to check and verify all of them. So we have to trust the industry”. At the
same time REACH is also criticised by the industry for exposing confidential business related
information about produced chemicals, and for providing too complex guidelines. According
to a respondent from industry, a major problem for business actors is that many ECHA
publications and guidelines are “written in a language not easily understood by the industry”.
Consequently, REACH poses implementation challenges and there are reasons to suspect that
not all dossiers and risk assessments are prepared fully in line with the requirements. While
German industries are actively sending the dossiers, the industries from for instance Romania,
Poland, and Spain are lagging behind. According to ECHA, the best it can do so far is “only
to motivate them to submit the dossiers; other strong actions are not decided yet”. With time
however, failure to meet data delivery demands will lead to loss of market opportunities
Furthermore, according to a Russian industry representative, non-European industries lack
support and sufficient guidance from ECHA when performing risk assessments. This might
affect the quality of risk assessments of chemicals as well as of chemicals in articles imported
from outside the EU.
The perhaps main challenge in REACH is the slow process of performing all the required risk
assessments (both for chemicals dossiers and for identification of the chemicals to the
candidate list for authorisation). There are, for example, currently only 38 substances on the
candidate list. “It is bureaucracy. It takes so much time to decide on chemicals to be
authorised. But it is a normal procedure in the democratic society. Everyone who wants to say
something needs to be heard” said one of the respondents. Several experts said that the
solution is to focus on inherent properties of the substance instead of performing standard risk
assessment for each substance.
Risk assessment connected to the WFD
The WFD requests that EU waters achieve a good chemical (GCS) and ecological status
(GES) by 2015. Chemicals risk assessments under the WFD may concern determination of
substances to be controlled and can be related to monitoring results. In the former case, a list
of priority substances was selected among substances which present a significant risk to the
aquatic environment. Substances were prioritised for action on the basis of their risk and were
identified by: a) risk assessments carried out under previous regulation or b) targeted riskbased assessment focusing solely on aquatic ecotoxicity and human toxicity (via the aquatic
environment).
As a result of these risk assessments, 41 priority substances (33 new and 8 which were
regulated under previous legislation) were identified and Environmental Quality Standards
(EQS) were developed for these 41 chemicals. From the 33 priority substances, 13 were
28
RISKGOV report
considered “priority hazardous substances” due to their persistence, bioaccumulation and
toxicity. The Commission shall propose controls for eliminating discharges, emissions and
losses of such priority substances within 20 years after the adoption of such proposals.
Chemical risk assessments related to priority substances in the WFD are primarily performed
through monitoring concentrations, mainly in water, and comparing these with EQS (EC,
2000). Environmental targets referring to concentrations in biota have been established only
for mercury, hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene (EC, 2009).
In addition to EU-wide selected priority substances, the WFD also requires to identify
“specific pollutants”, that are part of good ecological status of the water. While for priority
substances EU level thresholds exist, Member States shall set quality standards for river basin
specific pollutants and shall take action to meet those quality standards by 2015 as part of
ecological status (EC, 2001). According to an interviewed WFD expert, identification of these
specific pollutants is a very complicated process due to the high uncertainty and ambiguity.
As a result, it was said to be omitted by many river basin authorities. In addition, some
methods were criticised by several respondents. For example, measurements of chemicals in
water were mentioned by several interviewees to be irrelevant, as chemicals are concentrated
mainly in sediments and biological objects.
Several respondents were also of the opinion that not enough socio-economic input is
required. Further, participation in relation to chemical risk assessment was generally seen as
problematic among interviewed experts. For example as one expert put it “the information is
really technical and it is really hard for common people to understand what we are doing”.
The same expert added “sometimes we feel that we have a bad status in a water body due to
agriculture or forestry problems, and of course the farmers think it is not their problem”. In
total, respondents generally saw present risk assessments as (purely) scientific exercises,
whereas interpretation and evaluation of these assessments were seen as more problematic and
therefore as something requiring dialogue with stakeholders.
Risk Assessment connected to the MSFD
The chemical status of EU marine waters (including the Baltic Sea) is covered by the MSFD.
When focusing particularly on the Baltic Sea area, the territory covered by the MSFD and the
BSAP is overlapping (the Baltic Sea). There is still no information on how chemical risk
assessment will be performed in relation to the MSFD; but an obvious question appears about
possible overlaps (or maybe synergies) between assessments done for the MSFD and the
BSAP. This question was raised, among others, by the German Environmental Minister
during the Ministerial seminar of HELCOM, 25 August 2010.
HELCOM Chemical Risk Assessment
The main assessment activities linked to HELCOM are done in the Monitoring and
Assessment Group (HELCOM MONAS). Risks are identified through analysis of the
HELCOM monitoring results. These results are also supported by data from scientific reports
and/or by modelling.
The integrated HELCOM thematic assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea 2010
is the latest thematic assessment (HELCOM, 2010). It is based on monitoring data (1999–
2007) on various chemicals, compared with threshold levels to establish the chemical status of
the water (5 classes are used – high, good, moderate, poor and bad see fig. 2.1.).
29
RISKGOV report
Figure 2.1. HELCOM Integrated classification of the ‘status of hazardous substances’ in the
Baltic Sea. Source: (HELCOM 2010)
A complicating factor for this assessment is that there are no generally agreed HELCOM
thresholds levels. This means that various countries had the option of carrying out the coastal
assessments using any threshold, “values they wished, whether national or internationally
agreed” (HELCOM, 2010). Some countries used country defined target, some OSPAR, EU,
U.S. EPA or NOAA targets, even though they are not specific to the Baltic Sea. Thus, there is
an obvious need to develop more harmonised criteria for the Baltic Sea or at the least to
introduce a common methodology to derive site- or country-specific thresholds.
In the interviews several problematic issues were also raised in connection with the HELCOM
assessment. For example, heterogeneity in methods and data sources, number and quality of
indicators, and the quality of derived threshold levels. These issues are all being addressed by
HELCOM but implementation of, for example, a harmonised methodology has proved to be
slow and problematic. Since the MSFD in the Baltic Sea region will be given coordinated help
by HELCOM, it is evident that HELCOMs capacity to improve assessments further will be
important for the implementation of the MSFD.
HELCOM risk assessments can however, be seen as a step forward since the measurements
are done in several matrices (biota, sediments, water, as well as biological effects), while
WFD-related assessments mainly focus on water. HELCOM assessment also covers the entire
Baltic Sea area; while WFD-related assessments cover national waters up to the outer limit of
territorial waters.
30
RISKGOV report
2.2.Generation and Evaluation of Management Options
“Water that we drink, food that we eat, air that we breath, mother’s milk and human blood
contain hazardous chemicals, something must have gone wrong and we need to think how to
fix it” - Russian scientist
Reduction of environmental risks can involve many techniques. For chemicals they are
discussed in the draft European Technical Guidance Document (CEC/ECB, 1996):
(1) Substitution. Can the chemicals be substituted by another, less risky chemical?
(2) Information. Providing information about safe use and disposal of chemicals.
(3) Education and information may also allow the public and users to choose lower risk
options and force the manufacturers into the production of less risky agents.
(4) Limit the availability of the agent by bans or limits on the production or importation
of the agent. Such a risk reduction technique may have more or less severe political or
economic implications and can often be controversial (Fairman, Mead and Williams, 1998).
There are also other ways to reduce risks such as ALARA principle (as low as reasonably
achievable principle); safety standards, use restrictions, contaminated land policies,
environmental liability legislation, civil action, and other strategies (Van Leeuwen and
Vermeire, 2007). A majority of the interviewees agreed that measures from all stakeholders
(consumers, industry, agriculture and government) are needed.
When looking at a more technical part of management, the impact of chemicals can be
reduced by measures at different points in their environmental lifecycles, from pre-market
screening to remediation of contaminated areas. A proactive approach is pre-market screening
but lack of knowledge about toxicity, persistence and other basic properties, as well as the
slow progress in conducting risk assessments, impede such possibilities and many measures
and reactive approaches are often applied. According to EEA and UNEP (1998), the slow
process of conducting risk assessment for all the substances and the high level of uncertainty
have led to an increased focus on exposure reduction rather than on more toxicity testing. This
approach has been used by the BSAP, the WFD and the MSFD. Their main objective is to
reduce overall chemical loads, starting with priority substances for which there is already
toxicity data.
Prioritisation
Prioritisation is an important factor for management actions and deserves attention. It is
apparent that prioritisation is a key point of interaction between assessment and management
(even though we acknowledge that it is possible to identify other interactions such as risk
evaluation etc).
HELCOM prioritisation
Recommendation 19/5 issues by HELCOM in 1998, lists 280 hazardous as potential
substances of concern. HELCOM selected 42 of these for immediate priority action. In order
to prioritise measures further, HELCOM and OSPAR used the DYNAMEC selection and
prioritisation mechanism, resulting in identification of eleven priority substances, or substance
groups, in the BSAP. Interestingly, it appears as though criteria for prioritisation were rather
unfocused in this process. Or as one interviewee put it “there were no clear criteria. It was
experience, experts’ judgments combined with available data”.
The EU Prioritisation
WFD priority substances
The WFD required the European Commission to establish a priority list of substances based
on their risks to the aquatic environment and to human health via the aquatic environment. For
these priority substances the European Commission had to propose community-wide
environmental quality standards (EcoQs). The first list was established in 2001. A Combined
31
RISKGOV report
Monitoring-based and Modelling-based Priority Setting scheme (COMMPS) was used to
select the substances (EC, 1999). In this process, expert groups first recommended a list of
priority chemicals, which subsequently was made available for commenting by interested
parties.
REACH priority (authorisation) substances
REACH includes a special prioritisation procedure for authorisation. So-called “substances of
very high concern” (SVHCs) are defined in article 57 and may, after proposal by e.g. Member
States, be placed on ECHA’s “Candidate list” and may eventually be included in Annex VII
of the REACH Regulation. Once included in Annex VII, they can not (after a transition
period) be placed on the market or be used, unless the company is granted an authorisation.
There is no tonnage threshold for a substance to be subject to authorisation and the selection is
based on specifically developed guidelines. Since October 2008, ECHA has published a list of
SVHCs7 but until January 2011, only 46 chemicals were listed and several respondents
(especially from NGOs) considered the figure too low. In the official list of hazardous
substances with a harmonised classification and labelling at EU level, more than 900
substances automatically meet the criteria for being identified as SVHC (Romano at el, 2010).
This suggests that the chemicals prioritisation is a subjective practice.
Alternative prioritisation
In additions to these main priority lists of chemicals, several lists of hazardous chemicals have
been developed by governmental agencies or non-governmental organisations, with different
purposes. The common denominator is, however, that they include substances that are
considered to be of special concern because of their negative effects on human health or
environment. Examples of priority lists are:
(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA): Extremely Hazardous
Substance List8
(2) Finnish Environment Institute: Proposal for a Selection of National Priority Substances9
(3) KEMI-PRIO: PRIO database10
(4) SIN List11 that include 356 substances and substance groups
(5) Trade Union Priority List for REACH Authorization12 that includes 334 substances
These lists are well-known examples and illustrate the lack of agreement on which and how
many chemicals that need to be prioritised and further regulated. NGOs and trade union lists
include more chemicals compared to the lists of EU or the BSAP (Romano et al. 2010). For
example, from the trade unions point of view, the lack of information on toxicity, production
volumes, uses and exposures of chemicals should not be used as an excuse for delaying the
inclusion of substances in the REACH Candidate List.
Several interviewees also criticised the reactive prioritisation approach in general. For
instance, some argued that cutting down the HELCOM list from 280 to 11 priority substances
did not eliminate the risks posed by the other 238. Similarly it can be argues that there are
most likely chemicals not on the priority list that constitute significant environmental risks.
7
See further on http://www.echa.europa.eu/chem_data/authorisation_process/candidate_list_table_en.asp.
8
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/1994/October/Day-12/pr-14.html
9
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=15659&lan=en
10
http://www.kemi.se/templates/PRIOEngframes____4144.aspx
11
http://www.sinlist.org/
12
http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf/TUListREACH.pdf
32
RISKGOV report
Also, risk connected with emerging chemicals usually fall outside the priority list approach,
although there are some ongoing chemical screening activities in the Baltic Sea area (Sharpe,
2001).
Socio-economic implications
There are several possible reasons for why there are more chemicals on the NGOs priority
lists compared to the governmental lists. The Finnish Environmental Minister mentioned
during the HELCOM ministerial meeting in Stockholm in 2010 that decision-makers need
very simplified and prioritised information. Keeping in mind the limited resources available, a
list of several hundred substances might, with that view, provide less useful information than
a highly prioritised list. The respondents agreed that the final decisions about how to manage
chemicals risk in particular are affected by various economic and social factors. For example,
a Swedish expert said: “Because politicians have to listen to all and not only scientists. They
count money and decide where to spend them and there are a lot of different problem (not
only environmental)”. Obviously, most decisions, including those about which chemicals to
prioritise, involve trade-offs between costs and benefits. Regrettably, it is difficult to evaluate
costs and benefits of chemicals, especially in monetary values (EEA and UNEP, 1998), and it
is not common to include such factors when assessing the risk of hazardous chemicals.
However, there are several arguments on how such cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness
evaluations in risk assessments could improve policy decisions (EEA and UNEP, 1998).
Values and social and economic aspects can also influence the agenda of scientists. There is a
widespread discussion about the aimed separation of science and policy in e.g. environmental
decision-making, which is an attempt to exclude subjective perceptions of facts (Hunt and
Shackley, 1999). Interviewees from EU expert groups claimed that their conclusions are
purely based on science, excluding biases. On the other hand, decision-making purely based
on scientific assessments was criticised by other respondent in light of the common lack of
data and substantial scientific uncertainty. It was also argued that sometimes scientists have to
do subjective judgments “because it is a question of weighing what is more important;
volume or toxicity in particular cases”.
Eriksson et al. (2010a) have, among others, described how members of e.g. EU expert
committees are affected by their values and affiliations, giving advice not seldom far from
being objective or neutral. Hence, it seems clear that there are valid arguments for recognising
and explicitly incorporating more socio-economic aspects, and stakeholder involvement, in
chemical risk assessments. For example, stakeholders (including community groups,
environmental organisations, industry, and consumers) are often disengaged from the
processing of risk-assessment at a time when risk assessments are increasingly intertwined
with societal concerns. Disconnections between the available scientific data and the
information needs of decision-makers often hinder the use of risk assessment as a decisionmaking tool (Abt et al., 2010). With respect to the WFD, several interviewees agreed that
more inclusion of economic and societal perspectives could have led to the development of
more feasible targets and proposed actions.
2.3.Assessment and Management Approaches for Dealing with Scientific
Disagreement and Uncertainty
Scientific disagreement
All interviewees agreed that chemicals may have a negative impact on human health and the
environment. However, there were disagreements about the extent of harm and the importance
of the problem. According to a respondent from academia, many scientists believe that
chemicals are not a serious issue.. As said, there is also disagreement regarding which
33
RISKGOV report
particular chemicals are toxic and how many chemicals that need to be regulated. One expert
mentioned the disagreement about the ways to cope with uncertainty (about type one and two
error)13. A major reason for these diverging opinions is not surprisingly a basic lack of
scientific data. One science expert mentioned that there are only few stations for monitoring
and that large areas therefore are not covered. One monitoring expert added that they do have
programmes to measure the presence of chemicals, but not to measure the associated
ecological consequences. Several respondents also mentioned that the narrow specialisation of
scientists in various fields (e.g. specific parts of ecology, toxicology and chemistry) can affect
the way they deal with chemicals which can be a reason for disagreements.
Uncertainty
A huge number of chemicals are used in modern societies (the estimated number is in range
from 30.000 to over 10.000). Adding to this complexity various hazardous metabolites and
derivatives can also be formed (e.g. DDE/DDD from DDT). Toxicological and
ecotoxicological data are missing for the vast majority of chemical substances (Allanou et al.,
1999). In particular, there is a general lack of knowledge on long-term effects, risks of
contaminant cocktails and ecosystem-specific behaviour and effects of chemicals. The
HELCOM thematic assessment of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea concluded that there
is a substantial lack of data on concentrations of chemicals, as well as on their potential
biological effects (HELCOM, 2010). Thus, one of the major difficulties concerning the
establishment of risk assessments is the extremely low availability of data and that the data
available is often uncertain (Fairman, Mead and Williams, 1998).
This lack of knowledge and data was mentioned by several interviewees. An expert from an
authority also said that “Sometimes I suspect that chemicals that we don’t measure or
mixtures of different chemicals are responsible for the damage to the ecosystem”.
Uncertainty was mentioned in several interviews to be a problem both in risk assessment and
risk management. Three categories of uncertainty have be identified: uncertainty in effect,
uncertainty in cause, and uncertainty in the relationship between a hypothesised cause and
effect (Rogers, 2003). This categorisation is relevant for chemicals risks. There is uncertainty
in effect, which means that even if there is knowledge that a particular chemical can cause
harm, there is not enough knowledge about the probability of that potential harm. The
uncertainty in cause is related to the lack of knowledge about particular causes of the harm
(e.g. it can be one particular chemical or a mix of chemicals or other reasons). Several
interviewees mentioned this type of uncertainty, related to observed problems in the biota of
the Baltic. For example according to a scientist “There is less fat in herring and seals in the
Baltic Sea. There must be a reason behind it. What is that reason? What are the reasons for
the birds’ disease? What are the reasons for the M7414 disease that affects salmons?”
Similarly an expert working with environmental assessment said: “we can say it is bad (status
of water) but we can’t say why”. According to Rogers (2003) the type of uncertainty
connected with cause-effects relations is of particular concern to the regulator. Furthermore,
uncertainties linked to “known unknowns” pose severe challenges for risk assessment as well
as risk management. One example of this type of uncertainty mentioned in the interviews was:
“source of uncertainty…We don’t have any knowledge on the inputs from Russia. Thus, we
cannot say that we have a problem”.
Addressing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment
13
Errors may be of Type I (i.e. false positive, meaning that a specific chemical is judged to be hazardous even though it is
not) or Type II (i.e. false negative, meaning that a specific chemical is not judged to be hazardous even though it is).
14
M74 syndrome is a thiamine responsive disease of salmon (Salmo salar) in the Baltic Sea and neighboring waters which
leads to the death of nearly all fry of certain females.
34
RISKGOV report
To characterise uncertainty is a key component of the risk assessment process. This should
concern all available knowledge about the type and extent of uncertainties in order to properly
inform risk-management decisions. Uncertainty in a risk assessment depends on the quantity,
quality, relevance of data, reliability and relevance of models and methods used to fill data
gaps.
Much has been written about how to categorise different types of uncertainty (Finkel, 1990;
Dakins et al., 1994; Krupnick et al., 2006). There are also several useful guidelines on the
mechanics of uncertainty analysis (Abt et al., 2010). For example, the US EPA’s practices in
addressing uncertainty include: (1) use of default values; (2) Quantitative Uncertainty
Analysis (QUA); (3) use of experts’ judgment. The choice of method of expressing
uncertainty is important and will most likely affect decision-making. Below we will give
example on addressing uncertainty in risk assessment.
HELCOM
One of the main methods to deal with uncertainty in HELCOM assessments is to propose
generation of additional data. Another way is to do a confidence assessment. The latest
HELCOM chemicals assessment included great heterogeneity in the data sources (HELCOM
2010). This report includes a short section analysing the confidence given to the estimated
integrated status classifications. However, the HELCOM report does not present a
comprehensive description and assessment of uncertainties in a specific section of the report.
EU
REACH
While doing the CSA (see previous chapter), the risk characterisation has to include an
explanation of uncertainty. “Uncertainty needs to be assessed in order to decide on the
robustness of the risk estimate. The uncertainty analysis is further detailed in Chapter
R.19”15.
According to Verdonck et al, (2007), the TGD of REACH addresses uncertainty in a quite
detailed manner. Guidance is given on how to differentiate (e.g. through an uncertainty matrix
or checklists), to assess (e.g. through scenarios or probabilistic assessment), and to deal with
the uncertainty (e.g., for risk refinement or to search for alternative solutions) (Verdonck et
al., 2007). However, fundamental uncertainty remains because of the design of the regulation.
For example, the REACH regulation does not require industry to provide data for chemicals
produced in a volume of less than 1 tonne. Thus, uncertainty remains for chemicals produced
in volumes less than 1 tonne. Moreover, one respondent said that ECHA will not be able to
check more than a small part of received risk assessments. This might be another type of
uncertainty, as it will not be possible to be certain on the results.
Hansson and Ruden (2010) also stress that REACH does not take into account already
existing scientific uncertainty. The classification and labelling system does not distinguish
between a substance that has been tested with negative outcome and a substance that has not
been tested. Thus, substances which lack data do not have their own label, which means that
in those cases the substance will remain unclassified (Hansson and Ruden, 2010). The lack of
data about chemicals in specific articles is another problem hardly managed by REACH, as
the regulation does not always require comprehensive information about content of chemicals
in products. According to Hansson and Ruden (2010), the content of chemical in different
products should be taken more seriously into account in order to decrease uncertainty.
WFD
The WFD calls for numerous decisions under uncertainty; it captures for example the lack of
knowledge about the present and future conditions of the water bodies, about the causal
15
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_r19_en.pdf?vers=20_08_08
35
RISKGOV report
relationships regarding the nature of pollution, mixture of chemicals and the effects of
interrelationship between different risks. Overall it can be argued that the WFD only alludes
to the problem of uncertainty (Newig, 2005). It was for example mentioned by a respondent
involved in WFD implementation that “…It is easy to discuss effect of different problems like
chemicals but in nature it is probably a mix of problems that affect the water status...”.
According to the same expert there is not enough data to make concluding statements; “we
make the conclusions based on monitoring results from one station only”. Several experts
mentioned the problem of giving water a particular status. If a water body, due to
uncertainties, is wrongly classified (e.g. moderate instead of good status) it may lead to
important consequences, e.g. costly restoration measures or the prohibition of further
establishments in the area. More data, specifically biological in nature, are needed to perform
the classification in accordance with WFD regulations. It will not be possible to collect all the
missing data, at least not within the timeframe of this first planning cycle (Hedelin and Lindh,
2008).
According to Sigel et al. (2009), uncertainty is not handled systematically neither in the
guidance documents of the WFD nor in the daily work of the experts. Interviews results also
indicate that local assessment experts act on basis of their practical experience in dealing with
similar situations and therefore use more or less ad-hoc solutions. Expert judgments are thus
very often used and experts also often decide on how to deal with uncertainty. The problem of
assessing the status of the water was often mentioned in the interviews. Some interviewees
thought that it is up to the officials to decide “It is better to be on the safe side and give the
bad status” stated a respondent from an authority. Other interviewees were however of the
opinion that officials never should act as arbiters.
To handle the ‘specific pollutants’ within the WFD is the most complicated task since it is
“covered with uncertainty”. This is because specific pollutants need to be identified at the
local level and, as mentioned by an interviewed WFD expert, there is a lack of localised
information (e.g. the amount of chemicals released or the ecological status of the waterbody).
Because of this inherent uncertainty there are different ways of dealing with specific
pollutants. The most widespread reaction is, according to the interviewed WFD expert, to
abstain from identifying specific pollutants.
Addressing Uncertainty in Management
Newig et al. (2005) identifies two types of uncertainties in decision-making, normative and
informational. Normative uncertainty refers to uncertainty related to the choice of appropriate
policy measures, while informational uncertainty relates to the lack of knowledge, i.e.
remaining uncertainty following a risk assessment. Thus even a complete review of all
available scientific data will not always provide clear, definitive answers to the risk
management questions that regulators must address. Four main uncertainties remain in the
assessment: (1) lack of information; (2) measurement of uncertainty; (3) observation
conditions; (4) inadequacies of models. Because of this, many risk assessments are
inconclusive and the challenge for the decision-maker is to decide what to do with these
uncertain results (Van Leeuwen and Vermeire, 2007). There are several approaches but
according to Newig et al. (2005), it is important to define the type of the uncertainty in
question since as normative and informational uncertainty can be managed in different ways.
An attempt to briefly exemplify and discuss the most important methods is presented below.
Informational uncertainty can be reduced by additional or improved testing. Simulation
models and scenario building can help e.g. to extrapolate and thus also reduce informational
uncertainty. Scientific dialogue with various expert as well as discussions with stakeholders is
mentioned by several respondents. For example, informational uncertainty can potentially be
reduced by including other knowledge sources such as local knowledge on environmental
status (Newig et al., 2005).
36
RISKGOV report
To rely on judgment of experts has historically been considered to be an important way to
deal with normative uncertainty. This is particularly visible in EU’s WFD, where decisions
are made by the authorities, on a case-by-case basis, according to the WFD expert.
Specifically including appraisal of societal concerns and values can also be a way to address
this source of uncertainty (Renn, 2008).
ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) is a management principle commonly applied
to reduce risk to. Cadmium (Cd) can be a good example of this approach. At high doses, there
is little uncertainty about hazard-harm relationships for Cd – it is toxic. However, there is
uncertainty about low dose effects. Since there is a significant uncertainty about the low dose
effects, an approach based on ALARP can be appropriate. There are also substantial
difficulties in deciding on what is reasonable and practicable.
An increasingly common way to cope with both informational and normative uncertainty is to
apply a precautionary approach. The precautionary principle, in one of its’ most widely cited
formulations, states: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation” (UN, 1992). For example, it is included in the Stockholm
Convention by requiring Parties through regulatory and assessment schemes to prevent
production and use of new pesticides or new industrial chemicals that exhibit POP properties,
considering that “lack of full scientific certainty shall not prevent a proposal for global action
on a chemical”16. A majority of the respondents from NGOs agreed that a precautionary
approach is the only correct way to deal with uncertainty in management; however it was
mentioned not to be completely applied in practice. As an example, both precautionary and
other management strategies can be seen for the endocrine disrupter atrazine. Atrazine is a
herbicide that has been found to have low toxicity and is probably not, as far as can be proved
today, a human carcinogen. However, endocrine effects of atrazine have been detected in
some studies (US-EPA, 2002). The controversy about endocrine disrupters exists because the
hazard-harm relationships are still uncertain; thus, there are different ways to manage atrazine
because of this uncertainty. For example the EU regulations ban atrazine, based on Also for
prove environmental reason and precautionary arguments; while atrazine is still in use in USA
(Sass and Colangelo, 2006). When looking at EU regulations, REACH states that the
precautionary principle should be applied, even though that is hardly reflected in the
substantive provisions, and REACH partially places the burden of proof with operators (see
e.g. Karlsson 2010).
However, in REACH some of the hazardous substances may be granted a permit through an
authorisation process. A producer needs to show that each substance in question is
“adequately controlled” or beneficial from a socio-economic point of view. However, any
socio-economic analysis of chemicals meets the problem of how to weigh the regulatory,
often obvious, costs in the short run, against the, commonly imprecise, health and
environmental benefits in the long run. The authorisation concept in REACH has, therefore,
been argued not to be fully compatible with the precautionary principle (Karlsson, 2010). In
general several of our respondents recognised the precautionary principle to be very
important. However, they all agreed that it is not always applied in practice.
Another way to deal with normative uncertainty in management is to apply the participatory
approach. According to Newig et al. (2005) it is the most appropriate way to handle normative
uncertainty, as it includes different societal values and goals that contribute to developing the
final decision. In the WFD, for example, participation is an important instrument for the
making decisions on measures to be applied in the river basin. According to the interviewed
16
The text outlines the right of States to refuse a hazardous substance which may pose a threat to human health and/or the
environment, even where there is a lack of full scientific certainty. For these reasons, the Stockholm Convention is seen as an
example of international adherence to the precautionary principle.
37
RISKGOV report
WFD expert, local WFD authorities make substantial efforts to involve the general public in
discussions on possible measures. In these discussions, participation generates opportunity to
gain insight into social system, provide information about acceptability of alternative actions,
thus promoting better informed and, supposedly, more easily to implement decisions (Newig
et al., 2005). Participation may also play a concrete role to reduce or manage uncertainty but it
can on the other hand be rather time consuming. It is important to mention that the
participatory process itself might create new uncertainties, i.e. uncertainties that would not
have arisen without letting interested parties participate (Newig et al., 2005). This was
exemplified by an authority respondent: “When the science is not conclusive, for pesticides
and biocides the decisions are made in the working group by all member states. It is like a
negotiation process between the experts. The stakeholders and NGOs can give their inputs.
When science is not sure then everyone can discuss”.
There are several other ways to deal with uncertainty in management, for example (EEA,
2001):
(1) Broaden the sources and forms of knowledge
(2) Take public concerns or a precautionary approach into consideration
(3) Promote multi-disciplinarity by including relevant social issues alongside physical,
chemical, biological and medical aspects
(4) Identify and reduce interdisciplinary obstacles to learning
(5) Provide ongoing scientific monitoring
(6) Scrutinise claimed justifications and benefits alongside the risks
Most of the recommendations above relate to the problem of improving the knowledge-base.
This will not eradicate all uncertainty or ignorance but it could increase the chances of
anticipating costly impacts and achieve a better balance between the pros and cons of the
solutions (Soneryd and Andersson, 2008).
2.4.Ecosystem Approach to Management
The EAM originates from the recognition that ecosystems are complex and that a
multidimensional perspective is needed to manage them adequately. The ecosystem approach
was codified in the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Later it was defined in
12 principles (see table 2.2).
Table 2.2 The 12 principles of EAM. Source: (CBD web, 2010)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Objectives of management are a matter of societal choice.
Management should be decentralised
Managers should consider effects on adjacent systems
Manage ecosystem in an economic context
Conservation of structure and functioning a priority
Manage ecosystems within the limits of their functioning.
Appropriate spatial and temporal scales.
Management objectives should be set for the long term.
Management must recognise that change is inevitable
Balance between conservation and use
Consider all forms of relevant information
Involve all relevant sectors and disciplines
One key dimension of the EAM is the holistic systems perspective under which all relevant
and interlinked systems and parameters should be taken into account, across all sectors,
disciplines and over time. Many interviewees expressed an understanding that failure to reach
the objectives for hazardous substances will harm the achievement of a favourable status of
biodiversity. At the same time management achievements related to eutrophication and
maritime activities will have an impact on reaching the goal of a Baltic Sea undisturbed by
38
RISKGOV report
hazardous substances. One NGO respondent stated that since the Baltic Sea is already heavily
polluted, additional stressors, such as algae blooms and overfishing, can act together to
increase the environmental risks; all stressors therefore need to be kept low. All respondents
agreed that different risks are related and to look at how various societal sectors and risks
interact is an important part of EAM. For hazardous substances, EAM thus implies that
combined effects of different chemical substances should be considered (e.g. so-called
‘cocktail effects’) and that hazardous chemicals and e.g. eutrophicating substances could be
relevant to address jointly since lower nutrients levels might, for example, cause release of
chemicals from bottom sediments.
In general, a majority of the interviewees recognised EAM to be important and a relevant
approach to manage the Baltic Sea. Only one interviewee (respondent from academia)
hesitated, saying that EAM is an approach which is too general and might bring more
uncertainty to the management of the sea. However, it is important to mention that the
understanding of the EAM concept varied among the respondents; spanning from
understanding it a purely theoretical concept to a practically applicable management tool.
When looking at the development over time of chemical regulations (see Annex IV) there is a
general trend from single-chemical regulations to broader regulations attempting to implement
EAM (such as the BSAP and the MSFD). At a regional level, HELCOM has the leading role
in promoting the EAM principle. The HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in Bremen 2003 decided
to fully implement the EAM by 2010, using EcoQs as central tools (HELCOM, 2006). At the
EU level several environmental directives stipulate strategies, recommendations, and
agreements that require a shift from local-based regulations to more ecosystem-based, holistic
environmental management (Apitz et al., 2006). The most relevant for the Baltic Sea are the
WFD and the MSFD. In general, the launch of the WFD was parallel to the development of
the EAM (UNESCO web 2000). What is in line with EAM in the WFD is management of the
water bodies according to natural but not political boundaries. The WFD also widens the
scope of water ecosystem management since the water status is assessed not only based on
chemical measurements but also on ecological ones (e.g. phytoplankton and fish). The MSFD
also goes toward adaptation of EAM by developing 11 different indicators for describing
good ecosystem status. Chemical status is only one of these indicators. Particular targets for
all of the indicators will be defined, often at the regional levels, by the Member States, for the
Baltic Sea supposedly coordinated within HELCOM . Although the outcomes of the MSFD
process are unknown, the procedure does allow for a more flexible approach than the WFD
and enables consideration of ecosystem-specific sensitivity (Nõges et al., 2008). Many experts
interviewed for this study, also stressed that the MSFD might be able to improve the
management of the Baltic Sea and fully incorporate the EAM.
It is clear that the EAM is an important principal aspect of water management in the EU and
HELCOM. However, particularly for chemicals, not much has been changed in current
regulatory practice. Both the BSAP and the WFD define lists of single substances that need to
be controlled. The majority of the respondents agreed that this approach is too far from
implementing the EAM, as it does not incorporate either cocktail effects of chemicals
mixtures or an understanding of interactions among risks. “One chemical might not do that
much damage for the ecosystem as the mix of chemicals”, noted one respondent from an
authority. It was also said that “you cannot point at one chemical. The cause of the problem is
very complex. To solve the problem you have to look at the whole ecosystem”. Moreover,
existing regulations are based on rather simplified assessments (explained in previous
chapters). For example in the WFD, the measurements of the chemicals are conducted in
water, when the concentration of the chemicals can be detected in sediments or biota at
several times the level found in the water (Hinsby et al., 2008). A recent comprehensive
review of the risk assessment of chemicals also concluded that at the present level of
understanding, it is usually not possible to predict adverse effects of chemicals on ecosystems
“We are only able to assess risks in a very general and simplified manner” (Van Leeuwen and
Vermeire, 2007).
39
RISKGOV report
An important question is then whether the EcoQs concept that expresses good quality status of
the ecosystem is an appropriate way to approach EAM. Some interviewees argued that EcoQs
are science-based. It seems to be a rather technocratic approach in which science defines
measurable standards to which a phenomenon has to comply (Heslenfeld and Enserink, 2008).
EcoQs emphasises ecological targets and put less attention to socio-economic aspects of EAM
(principle 1, 4, 10, 11, 12 are not fully included). They focus on good environmental status of
the marine/water environment, rather than on balancing multiple objectives of ecological,
economical and societal development (Van Hoof and Van Tatenhove, 2009). However, almost
all human activities have a direct and indirect impact on ecosystems and often need to be
managed in an ecosystem context in an integrated manner. The EU Marine and Maritime
Research Strategy also reflects emphasis on an “integrated approach to cope with ecosystem
complexity” (Van Hoof and Van Tatenhove, 2009). Furthermore, the Maritime Policy (MP),
or the newly adopted EU strategy for the Baltic Sea, may be seen as integrative and
participatory policy arrangement, as they seek to bring together actors from a wide variety of
sectors (shipping, oil and gas extraction, fisheries and conservation) and also raise the issue of
balancing ecological and economic objectives.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that from the 12 principles of EAM, only some are currently
incorporated in the assessment and management of hazardous chemicals. Results of our
interviews indicate that a lack of implementation lies to some extent in the understanding of
the EAM concept and its practical implementation. For example, even though agreeing on the
importance of EAM, none of the interviewees had a clear vision about the practical
implementation of EAM. “It is like the precautionary principle. It is the way it should be done
but it is not always the case” mentioned one of the politically active respondents. Some NGO
respondents argued that marine protected areas and biodiversity protection (mainly by
stopping overfishing) are the good ways to practically implement EAM. Some interviewees
also mentioned development of appropriate EcoQ, while others considered designation of
areas in the Baltic Sea as PSSA (particular sensitive sea area) as the main EAM
implementation tool. Today the Baltic Sea PSSA is approved by IMO (since November
2005), excluding Russian waters. However, several of the interviewed experts mentioned the
importance for the Baltic Sea to be PSSA in the framework of EU, as this might have a
greater effect on chemical target levels.
Several barriers for the implementation of EAM were also mentioned. Particularly lack of
appropriate tools and methods, neglect of socio-economic aspects as well as existing sectoral
barriers were highlighted. Or as a respondent from an authority put it “We don’t have any
structure that is dealing specifically with the EAM. We cannot accept that some issues are left
to the fisheries and other to chemicals regulating bodies. It is one ecosystem. It is easy to say
but very difficult to achieve if you have already existing bodies responsible for these things,
sectoral division. At least we need more cooperation between authorities”.
2.5.The Role of Science
The interactions between experts and policy-makers have emerged as an important discourse
in many scientific publications (Soneryd and Andersson, 2008; Maasen and Weingart, 2005;
Backstrand, 2003 and Brint, 1990) as well as in most of our interviews. This probably relates
to an increased importance of risk assessments in policy development concerning
environmental and health issues (Cohen, 1997; Haverland, 2009, Kurth and Glasmacher,
2008).
The European Union, as a political system, has a number of characteristics that promotes an
increased importance of science (Haverland, 2009). A major source of the EU legitimacy lies
in the quality of policy, guided by criteria such as “rationality” and “effectiveness”. Expertise
is required for this purpose (Radaelli, 1999). Because the European Commission itself has
relatively limited resources, it is dependent on external experts. At the stage of strategy
determination and policy preparation, numerous expert committees support the Commission.
40
RISKGOV report
In the preparation and contextualisation of policy implementation, the Commission also works
together with experts in the so-called “Comitology” (Steunenberg, Koboldt and Schmidtchen,
1996). Comitology in the European Union refers to the committee system, which oversees the
delegated acts implemented by the European Commission17. The WFD and the MSFD were
developed using comitology procedure. The comitology procedure is thus an example of a
governance process resulting in a rather high importance of science in EU decisions.
The “common implementation structure” is the main instrument for the decision making
process for the MSFD. The coordination group involves member states, neighbouring
countries and relevant stakeholders. The work is then divided among different working
groups; one of them is “good environmental status”. ICES and JRC gathered the expert group
to deal with the 11 descriptors for good environmental status. They worked for one year and
made a report and presented the state of the art and suggested indicators and criteria to use.
The results were presented to the coordinating group with suggestions on how to define
indicators for good environmental status. “Of course this became a discussion, back and forth
between experts and the coordinating group” a respondent with insight into the process
explained. Thus, expert influence was clearly visible in development of the MSFD.. A similar
approach was also used in the WFD. Thus, both the WFD and the MSFD have rather
technocratic approaches in which science defines a measurable standard to be reached (van
Hoof, 2009).
A different role of science can be seen in the REACH. With REACH a crucial shift of risk
assessment responsibility in some parts of REACH has taken place, from experts in
authorities to the industry. However, according to Bodar et al. (2002) authority experts still
have an important role in the new risk management system. These experts are still needed in
order to “check the industry assessment, to develop new methodologies, non-animal testing,
guidelines, new tools, interpretation of how the assessment needs to be done”. Furthermore,
public experts play a key role for e.g. authorisations and restrictions in REACH, i.e. for the
most protective among all provisions. In general, respondents agreed about the need of
science to understand chemical risks for the ecosystem and human health.
At the regional Baltic Sea level, science was mentioned to be very important for the work of
HELCOM, “We are definitely based on science firstly” mentioned an expert from HELCOM.
HELCOM has built a long-term established cooperation with scientific experts, monitoring
experts and expert groups that provide advice to policy makers.
There are also differences between various Baltic countries concerning the role of science in
policy making. Some countries tend to rely mainly on expert advice in their regulations,
usually in the form of expert committees. Others have set up extensive negotiation
procedures, in which a wide range of groups participate, even in rather technical discussions
(Soneryd and Andersson, 2008). In some countries, regulation is based on a precautionary
approach, which requires that risks should be minimised, even if the causes and mechanisms
are unknown. As an example, in Sweden the precautionary principle is recognised to be very
important (although a few respondents argued that even in Sweden there is an overemphasis
on strong scientific evidence), which differs compared to e.g. Poland (Eriksson et al. 2010b).
In summary, science plays an important role in the management of the chemicals both at EU
and HELCOM levels. The influence of experts can be explained by the fact that scientific
results sometimes are so complex that not many (for example the general public) can evaluate
the whole process that underpins the outcome (Soneryd and Andersson, 2008). However,
there is seldom sufficient knowledge for well-informed scientifically based decision-making
17
However, there are differences depending on the statutes in question, for e.g. REACH authorization, a committee of
Member States representatives decides on the outcome.
41
RISKGOV report
and consequently, risk managers might overestimate the reliability of risk assessment
outcomes (Verdonck et al., 2007).
2.6. Discussion
The results of WP 2 show that despite advances in the field, risk assessment and management
still face a number of substantial challenges, including:
 Speeding up the processes of risk assessments
 Lack of data, which leads to uncertainty in risk assessments;
 Establishing risk assessments for many unevaluated chemicals and mixtures of
chemicals
 Developing policies for decision-making under uncertainty
The complexity is presented both in the science and policy dimensions. Socio-economic
ambiguity, as well as regulatory and ecosystem complexity are just some of the challenges for
risk management.
There are several different chemical risks assessments approaches used internationally, on EU
and HELCOM, national and local levels. REACH, the WFD, the MSFD and HELCOM
chemicals risk assessments are the most relevant for the Baltic Sea region. While REACH
assessments partially are proactive (as new chemicals will be assessed before being placed on
the market), other assessments (WFD, MSFD, HELCOM) are rather reactive since they focus
on chemicals that are already present in the environment. Proactive and reactive assessments
differ in terms of methodology and data availability. There are many problems in the
environmental risk assessments which need to be resolved, examples are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
To harmonise the methodologies among different assessments and improve synergies
and feedbacks.
To develop appropriate assessment and monitoring strategies for:
a. determining the effects at population and community level
b. selecting appropriate end-points and indicator species
c. selecting appropriate field and laboratory tests
d. incorporating assessment of resilience and ecosystem recovery
e. assessing cocktail effects of chemical mixtures
Involve decision-makers and stakeholders early in the planning and scoping of the risk
assessments.
For chemical management, there are many possible approaches for improvement and for
complementing the presently dominating reactive risk reduction approach, in order to reduce
overall chemical loads. However, priority substances in focus differ among regulations,
showing that there is no general agreement on prioritisation mechanisms and which chemicals
thus need to be controlled firstly. From this point of view, REACH includes a step towards a
more proactive approach, but many REACH procedures are slow and not based on
precautionary management of uncertainty, which stalls appropriate measures. Finally, the lack
of clear management strategies for dealing with chemical mixtures is a major challenge that
needs to be addressed.
Concerning scientific disagreements several respondents mentioned that disagreements are
mainly based on different backgrounds, training and knowledge. Thus, a possible way to
reduce scientific disagreement would be to develop closer interdisciplinary cooperation.
Substantial uncertainty is present in both chemical risk assessment and management. A
general accepted and systematically applied approach for assessing and handling these
uncertainties is lacking. According to Ruden and Gilek (2010) the approach used for coping
with uncertainty relies on case-by-case expert judgments and that results therefore might vary
depending on experts training and experience. Thus, a strategy to deal with uncertainty in risk
assessment is to improve guidelines and requirements on uncertainty assessment in
42
RISKGOV report
assessment methodologies (Fairman, Mead and Williams, 1998). This might improve coping
with uncertainty also in risk management. We argue that strategies for assessing and
communicating uncertainty need to be improved by developing common guidelines. These
common guidelines should identify what level of detail to use in characterising uncertainty to
support risk-management decisions and public involvement in the process. Methods for
addressing major types of uncertainty already exist, and the guideline should therefore
primarily focus on developing a better understanding of when and which analyses to apply in
specific cases.
The majority of the respondents recognised the EAM as important and relevant for the Baltic
Sea environment, even though the concept was understood and interpreted differently by
different experts, including its meaning in practise. According to respondents, EAM is not
fully integrated in current regulations, neither concerning assessment nor management. This is
particularly relevant for chemicals, as there are no adequate methods for assessing chemicals
effect on the ecosystem (including chemicals cocktail effects and interactions among risks),
nor for managing chemicals on such a basis. In risk assessments a better understanding of
ecosystem complexity and of complex human and ecosystem interactions are this needed, as
are improved management approaches for balancing social, economic and ecological
objectives. In the Baltic Sea perspective, the question of ecosystem-specific risk and
sensitivity has a great importance for implementing the EAM. In chemical policy, risk
assessment (as an objective scientific exercise) is commonly separated from risk management
(considered to be purely normative). The EAM spans over the two parts, thereby underlining
that assessment indeed is a part of management, and that management without appropriate
assessment would be quite ineffective.
In general, a high level of uncertainty and recurring calls for implementation of the EAM
affects the traditional system of science-policy interactions. If scientific certainty cannot be
provided, what should then guide the final scientific conclusions and political decisions? The
results of WP 2 show that at the EU and HELCOM level, science plays a very important role
in the chemical decision-making. Risk assessments usually follow a rather technocratic model
both in EU and HELCOM, despite the development of the new models of risk governance
(Renn, 2008). Risk management procedures also rely heavily on science, although there are
trends to increase public participation and to apply a precautionary approach to both risk
assessment and risk management. However the role of the various actors in the risk
governance still seems not to be well defined. Many respondents expressed an interest in
guidelines better defining the relationship between the scientists, decision makers and
stakeholders, for example in the framework of the WFD. “We need to clarify our roles” as
mentioned by an interviewed expert from an authority.
43
RISKGOV report
3. Working Package 3 – Stakeholder Communication
SUMMARY
WP 3 describes and analyses how risks of hazardous chemicals are framed by key actors and
stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region, such as governments, agencies, regionally intergovernmental agencies such as HELCOM, economic actors, academia, and civil society. It is
shown that different actors have different ways of framing the risk of chemicals in the Baltic
Sea. For example, differences were observed along a gradient spanning from framing
chemicals and chemical products as basically useful for society, to framing chemicals as
substantial threats to the environment and human health. Most interviewed stakeholders could
be placed somewhere in the middle of this gradient between benefit and cost. This is reflected
in the dominant opinions expressed on required general management approaches, which do
not fundamentally question abundant production of chemicals, but rather suggest a focus on
managing chemicals with proven hazardous properties, thus tilting towards a market rather
than an environmental starting point. This view on chemical risk management is rather
surprising given the major uncertainties and lack of data described in WP 2. In light of this we
propose that the management of chemicals might benefit from a shift towards seeing quality
of life as based on sufficiency of chemicals rather than on (over)-abundance of them. Many of
the interviewed stakeholders (e.g. politicians, journalists and NGO staff) also expressed a
surprising lack of interest in the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea
region. If concern mostly expressed was health risks of chemicals. It is also clear that besides
some NGOs and other stakeholders, quite few have a primary focus on taking initiatives for
improving the management of chemicals, something that is a problem given the common
political ambitions to increase participation in connection with implementation of the EAM.
WP 3 also analyses existing institutional arrangements for and procedures of risk
communication at the regional Baltic Sea level. Clearly, communication between the EU and
Russia is still in need of improvement, as is two-way communications and cooperation
between stakeholders, as well as between actors connected with risk assessment and risk
management and the general public. For example, in those (rare) cases when scientific
information about chemicals does exist, it is not well communicated among knowledge
producers and stakeholders, and current scientific assessment activities seldom relate directly
to concerns of stakeholders or the public.
44
RISKGOV report
3.1.Risk Framing
Jasanoff (2003) states that the quality of solutions to problems depends on the way they are
framed. If a problem is framed too narrowly, too broadly, or wrongly, the solution will suffer
from the same defects.
Today, chemicals are framed to be important (e.g. pharmaceuticals) but are also a threat to
human life. In the first case where chemicals are framed to be important, the term chemical is
a product or a function (e.g. soft plastic or medicine). Users of chemicals do not want the
chemical “products” as such, but just the “services” that their chemical properties bring (EEA
and UNEP, 1998). For example, one interviewed Russian expert mentioned products like
shampoos and creams are marketed to be the products that “make things cleaner; however in
practice they pollute human bodies and the environmental with hazards”. Similar marketing
strategies were previously used for hazardous chemicals such as Bisphenol A (as soft plastic
for baby bottles) or DDT (as a safe pesticide) (see Fig. 1) Today the danger of using DDT or
plastics containing Bisphenol A is recognized.
Figure 3.1. DDT Advertisement, Time Magazine 30 June 1947
The use or banning of chemicals is still “a dilemma for us living on this planet. On the one
hand we need and use chemicals to solve our problems, but we also create more problems in
this way. We don’t even think how much we will pay in the future in terms of health and
environment” stated an expert from the academia. This shift in focus from chemicals to
products can affect the relationship between chemicals and environment because the chemical
itself shifts from being the source of pollution to be a source of “good service” (EEA and
UNEP, 1998). According to several NGO respondents, NGOs inform the society about the
chemical content of the products and their hazards and risks. In this way they are trying to
“deconstruct” a frame of “important for life” products. Today, abundant production and use of
chemicals is not questioned in general; it is only chemicals with proven hazardous properties
that are the main concern.
However, the respondents all agreed that the presence of chemicals in the environment (e.g.
Baltic Sea, air, human body and mother milk) is a problem. Still, there were different views
among different stakeholders on the extent and type of the problem.
In EU regulatory documents, it is possible to define three main regulatory frames of chemicals
risks as 1) health threats where consumer protection, safety of food among others are
mentioned. 2) environmental risks where REACH, the WFD and the MSFD are mentioned
and 3) health and safety at work which brings up EU legislation on protection of workers
from the risks of chemicals at work18. The EU legislation therefore tends to separate chemical
risks to the environment from human health risks19. This affects assessment and management
18
19
http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/my_environment/chemical_risks/index_en.htm
It should be mentioned, though, that REACH covers both health and environmental risks.
45
RISKGOV report
strategies (described in WP 2). For example, assessment of environmental and health risk are
usually separated, which might not be the most appropriate way to assess the risks according
to an interviewed expert from academia (see more in WP 2). The HELCOM regulatory
documents (e.g. Helsinki Convention and the BSAP) frame chemicals as a threat to both
environmental and human health. Economic and social consequences of environmental
degradation caused by chemicals are not included.
The respondents also had different ways of framing the issue. Several interviewees were
mainly concerned with potential effects on human health, for example risks related to
increased rates of cancers, physical birth defects and mental retardation. Some also framed the
issue to the chemical content that can be found in fat fish. The respondents often stated that
“the fish is unhealthy to eat”. The Swedish National Food Administration similarly
recommends children, pregnant women and women who are planning a family, to avoid
eating fatty fish species from the Baltic Sea more than twice a year (SNFA, 2008). A
respondent from a NGO commented that “we are already accepting in the society the fact that
you cannot eat fish from the Baltic, I think that this is outrageous”. Other respondents were
concerned with the health of Baltic Sea top predators (e.g. seals), while still others mentioned
general loss of biodiversity. Some had a more holistic approach and were concerned about the
health of the Baltic Sea ecosystem (that includes humans) in general.
Moreover, many chemical-testing policies focus on testing particular chemicals (not mixture)
and thus frame problems related to particular hazardous chemicals (see more in WP 2). The
same was observed during our interviews; respondents were concerned about particular
hazardous properties of particular chemicals (e.g. DDT, dioxin and PCB). However, several
respondents also mentioned chemical mixtures and cocktail effects as an important issue. One
of the respondent stated that ”this is a big concern, especially when taking into account that
our knowledge about combinations of chemicals is very limited and the number of chemicals
is constantly increasing”. In this case the chemical pollution was framed as a very complex
and uncertain problem, which given the state of knowledge is seen as hard (if not impossible)
to manage. Several respondents were also of the opinion that it is almost impossible to predict
the seriousness of the problems that we are facing.
Some respondents also had different views concerning the causes of the problems and what
measures can be taken in order to reduce them. The mentioned causes of the problem were
seen in individuals and industry as well as in general human activity. One of the NGO
respondents was of the opinion that the solution to the problem of hazardous chemicals is
termination of chemicals production in general. However, none of the other respondents
supported this idea. They discussed different methods to reduce emissions of chemicals;
starting from individual action, better regulations and better application of the regulations,
industry actions to the joint efforts of all of these. Everyone agreed that it is hard to pick only
one solution that will solve the problem.
All interviewees agreed that chemical pollution is not the main environmental or health
concern in the Baltic Sea area. An expert from a Swedish authority expressed the view that
“for me the main risk in the Baltic Sea is the increased transport of oil”. Several NGOs also
admitted that the issue of chemicals in the Baltic Sea might not be the top-issue on their
agenda. An expert from a Finnish authority agreed “we will see the effect of the chemicals risk
only over time”. So far, according to several respondents, eutrophication receives more
attention in the media. The reason for this was because eutrophication is a problem that can be
visualised, which is usually not the case for chemicals; consequently media may more rarely
writes about chemicals. According to several respondents, chemicals risks are mentioned in
media in relation to contaminated fish and the gas pipeline (Nord Stream) in the Baltic Sea.
Adding to this, some interviewees mentioned that the issue of chemical pollution is not on the
top of media’s agenda, as there is a general lack of interest in environmental problems. They
argued that this is quite natural due to the economic crisis and the predominant interest on
46
RISKGOV report
climate change related topics. Similar comments were given by Russian experts. However,
compared to respondents from EU member countries, environmental issues receive less
attention in Russia – “we need to wait for a disaster” in order for environmental issues to be
raised in Russian media, commented a Russian respondent. Moreover, environmental
problems in the Baltic Sea are considered to be “less important” compared to those in the
lake Baikal. Thus, it is possible to observe a lack of strong attention to the chemical risks in
the whole Baltic Sea area. Several interviewees agreed that if the issues are not discussed
often by the public they will probably not be discussed by the media and vice versa, which
will definitely affect the political discussions and the possibilities for management actions and
research funding.
3.2.Institutional Risk Communication and Public Participation
Communication about the risks of chemicals is a critical element for a sustainable chemicals
policy. It enables and empowers those affecting or affected by chemical production, use and
disposal, to make informed decisions that minimise risk (Denison and Scientist, 2005). For a
long time, risk communication focused on educating and persuading the public (Fischhoff,
1995), but this understanding has gradually been replaced by communicative risk governance,
in which exchanges of views take place between policy makers, experts, stakeholders and the
general public (Renn, 2008).
The various structural units of the EU and HELCOM serve as communication platforms in the
Baltic Sea region. For example, Swedish and Finnish environmental and chemicals authorities
communicate results of monitoring and assessment to the responsible bodies of the EU or
HELCOM, and simultaneously find results there, of monitoring or assessment done in other
countries. Communication within other international structures like ICES or OSPAR was
mentioned by some of the respondents to also be important, even tough less important than
the EU and HELCOM.
Many interviewees mentioned the growing importance of the EU for risk communication in
the region, but EU was also seen as a barrier for direct communication; an interviewed
researcher for example said that “many decisions are not made in Sweden but at the EU level.
Even if you convince the Swedish politicians, you cannot convince the whole Europe. You
have one representative from Sweden and even if he agrees with you, you are not sure if he
will convince the others”. The media does hardly cover the chemicals issues at EU level,
according to some interviewees. Stakeholders in the Baltic Sea countries are therefore not
always aware of major issues concerning chemicals, and have then obvious problems in
influencing decision-making. According to an interviewed EU expert this is due to the low
activity in the field of the EU and national media, which in turn reflects a low interest among
the public. The public definitely has an impact on media’s coverage, which might result in a
vicious cycle.
Within the EU, there are attempts to improve regional management and risk communication.
One attempt was made with the introduction of the WFD even though the introduction of new
structures (e.g. river basin commissions) has been criticised for creating regulatory
complications (Nilsson and Langaas, 2006; Mylopoulos and Kolokytha; 2008). In contrast,
the MSFD will not necessarily lead to creation of new regulatory bodies, but promotes using
existing ones (HELCOM, for the Baltic Sea) to coordinate action. HELCOM can in that case
become a more important communication platform in the region. According to several
interviewees, the BSS is also an attempt of the EU to strengthen the power of HELCOM in
the region.
Obviously, these EU measures do not reach to Russia. As an interviewed authority expert
said; ”Russia and Norway are not parts of the EU. But we are trying to involve them in our
activities” and added “We have not found any contacts in Russia yet, it really takes time”. The
problem of communication between EU and Russia was raised several times during the
47
RISKGOV report
interviews with politicians, authorities and scientists. From the Russian side, several
interviewees agreed on the problem, and one Russian journalist said that “The main problem
is that Russia has little communication with the EU and vice versa. We know little about each
other”. The language problem was also mentioned by an interviewed Russian journalist,
“everything that is in English is kind of “silent” for Russia”. A Russian industry expert also
claimed that Russian companies have little or no information about REACH. This might be a
problem, since chemicals can still be imported to EU in products. The executive director of
ECHA also discussed this issue during t he 4th Stakeholders’ Day of the European Chemicals
Agency, May, 2010. He mentioned that there are several cooperation projects between ECHA,
Canada and USA, but not with Russia. He explained that this is because there is no single
agency to cooperate with in Russia, “There is no structure similar to ECHA in Russia. It is
hard to know how and with whom to cooperate.”
The EU and HELCOM were mentioned to be good platforms of communication for
politicians and authorities but not for independent single scientist or laboratories. For
example, during interviews with scientists it was mentioned that research about the same
substance sometimes is done in several countries, which was seen as misuse of funding. If
different methods are used to analyse chemicals then different results will not be comparable.
An example of this can be seen in HELCOM’s latest chemicals risk assessment report, where
different thresholds levels for chemicals were used by different countries (HELCOM, 2010).
Several voices were also raised for improving information on what research is ongoing. A
respondent from an authority explained that the main communication in for example Sweden
is based on personal contacts, “It is important to know the right people and have a network of
contacts. If you send a letter to the agency, you will never know where it will end up”.
However, this mechanism might not be easy to apply for the whole Baltic Sea region and
several interviewees mentioned that an improved Baltic Sea regional research network is
needed.
Participation and communication with general public
Participation and communication with the general public is recognised to be an extremely
important element of risk governance (Renn, 2009). The concept of the public’s “right-toknow” (RTK) in the context of chemical information has received increasing attention in
chemicals policy. The spread of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs)20 is one
example of the legally-binding implementation of RTK. Aarhus Convention requires the
parties to this convention to set up PRTRs as a tool to provide the information to the general
public (AC web, 2011). With the worldwide spread and implementation of PRTR
programmes, a number of meetings and activities are taking place to share information and
advance the development of these programmes. Another example is the EU’s “Seveso”
Directive on Hazardous Installations where the public are informed by employers.
Furthermore, the Chemicals Product Register in Denmark, Finland, France, Norway and
Sweden helps to promote an understanding of which chemicals are found in consumer
products (EC, 1996).
There are numerous attempts of international actors to communicate to the public through new
media techniques. As for example:
 The "Safe Planet Campaign" of the United Nations
 The documentary "The Disappearing Male" (CBC Documentaries)
 The
film
"Underkastelsen"
by
Stefan
Jarl
(original
in
Swedish,
English title: "Submission: The defence of the unborn")
 The book and film "La Grande Invasion" by Stéphane Horel
20
http://www.prtr.net/
48
RISKGOV report
At the Baltic Sea level, the communication is lead by HELCOM, EU and several regional
branches of international NGOs like Greenpeace, FoE and WWF as well as national NGOs
and industry.
HELCOM
According to HELCOM rules, any intergovernmental organisation or non-governmental
international organisation (with specialised technical, scientific or equivalent expertise
pertinent to objectives of the Convention) can be represented as an observer at the meetings of
the Commission, given that some basic criteria are met. These are examples of NGOStakeholders involved: Alliance of Maritime Regional Interests in Europe (AMRIE), Baltic
Farmers’ Forum on Environment (BFFE), Baltic Ports Organisation (BPO), Baltic and
International Maritime Council (BIMCO), Birdlife International; European Chemical Industry
Council (CEFIC), Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC) and World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
A respondent stated that the work of HELCOM is mainly driven by science: “We have
established a growing and long term corporation with scientific experts, monitoring system,
expert groups which provide advices to policy makers. For example we have a monitoring
assessment group, which consists of scientists. They provide assessment so that policy makers
can judge what should be done”. The stakeholders are invited to the meetings as observers but
they are not directly involved in the work of for instance the risk assessment expert group. A
similar approach (i.e. that assessments and monitoring are not fully open for the public) is
used in some of the EU programmes and in national programmes. For example, an
interviewed expert from academia commented the process of selecting chemicals to be
monitored “it is a closed council that decides on the monitoring of the chemicals”.
At the same time, it is important to mention that substantial efforts have been made by
HELCOM to adjust the reporting of assessment results to different audiences. For example,
illustrated Atlas “comprehensive Atlas of the Baltic Sea”, TV-series “the Baltic – Sea of
Surprises”, radio series "The Baltic - A Sea of Change" are all available at the HELCOM
interactive webpage. However, several of the interviewed experts and stakeholders thought
that more and better examples of such adjusted information and communication are required.
For example, the Minister of the Environmental Protection of Finland clearly stated during the
HELCOM seminar 2010 that “more simplified information is needed”.
European Union
A majority of EU documents regarding the environment, health, risk and safety issues include
calls for public participation in the management (De Marchi, 2003). For example, the
Decision on conclusion of the Aarhus Convention by the EC (EC, 2005) and later Regulation
on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (EC, 2006) strongly support
public access to environmental and participation. Further, the sixth environment action
programme (EC, 2002a) is a current example that recognises and strongly encourages public
participation. Another important document that stresses the importance of public participation
is the European Commission White Paper on European Governance (EC, 2001a). In this
document, governance is described as “rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in
which powers are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openness,
participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence” (EC, 2001a). Similar ideas are
described in the European Commission Science and Society Action Plan, where the
recommendations are to take into account different types of knowledge (EC, 2002b).
The WFD is one of the first European regulations that explicitly demand a high degree of
involvement of non-state actors in the implementation (Newig et al., 2005). According to the
WFD, member states shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the
implementation of the directive; more detailed and stringent rules are given for public
information and consultation in the production of the river basin management plans. The
interviewed expert working with local implementation of the WFD agreed that participation is
49
RISKGOV report
indeed important in practice. However, this is mainly the case for the implementation part,
and not so much for the assessment and monitoring parts of the WFD. “The information is
really technical and it is really hard for common people to understand what we are doing.
Sometimes we feel that we have a bad status in a water body due to agriculture or forestry
problems, and of course the farmers think it is not their problem”. The same expert added that
they use scientific methods and cannot involve local knowledge, since even if local
knowledge is good it is not scientifically based. The final conclusion made about the status of
the water after assessment can definitely affect the selection of appropriate actions. Thus, lack
of public participation at the first assessment stage might affect management outcomes in the
WFD. In general, several interviewees mentioned that a socio-economic dimension was not
being fully incorporated in the WFD. “People just want to be secured. They don’t want to get
involved in the chemicals assessments”, said a Russian scientist.
The MSFD calls for an increased participation among stakeholders in marine governance. The
mechanism through which this will be implemented is yet to be determined (De Santo, 2010).
The chapter on “Updating, Reports and Public Information” of the MSFD sets requirements
for providing access to environmental information and public consultation. In particular,
Member States must regularly review their individual and regional marine strategies, report on
the implementation of these instruments, and ensure that this information is publicly available.
By seeking integration and participation, cutting across sectors, the Maritime Policy (MP) can
be seen as an integrative and participatory policy arrangement. It seeks to bring together
actors from a wide variety of sectors, hence also with an agenda covering a wide range of
issues. It brings on board new actors or at least brings them together in a new configuration.
The MP is thus an inclusive approach, embracing and incorporating, for example, both the
common fishery policy and the MSFD. Integration raises the question of inclusion of
increasingly heterogeneous stakes and stakeholders (shipping, oil and gas extraction, fisheries,
and conservation) and also raises the issue of balancing ecological and economic objectives.
The recently published “Marine and Maritime Research Strategy” (EC, 2008) reinforces this
emphasis on an “integrated approach to cope with complexity”.
Looking at the participatory management in REACH, it enables civil society organisations to
participate in discussion of the chemicals to be authorised (see more information in WP 2).
According to an interviewed expert from ECHA, dossiers submitted by member states are
published on the ECHA web page, whereafter “We invite each interested party to comment
them for a period of 45 days. If we do not receive comments of these documents it will
automatically be taken to the candidate list of substances annex 14 (candidate substances to
authorization”). For the latest proposal of eight new substances, 460 comments from all over
Europe were received. 57% of the comments come from the industry. “The Industry is usually
the biggest part; then member states and then NGOs” noted the same expert from ECHA.
Another expert from ECHA mentioned that, with growing recognition of the participatory
approach, the REACH authorisation process is comparatively slow since “in the democratic
society, everyone who wants to say something needs to be heard”.
However, REACH has also been criticised by environmental NGOs because of several
aspects; it does not provide sufficient public involvement and enough access to data (see e.g
EEB position on REACH21. On the other hand, one of the most comprehensive reviews of the
inclusiveness in the REACH framework concluded that there is certainly some cause for
satisfaction (Heyvaert, 2008). Other concerns are availability of information on a chemical
once it enters a product, and procedures for requesting information are too cumbersome. At
21
See the position statement on REACH of the European Environmental Bureau, available at
www.eeb.org/activities/chemicals/20031210-EEB-position-on-REACH.pdf, and the Copenhagen Chemicals Charter,
www.eeb.org/activities/chemicals/Copenhagen%20Chemicals%20Charter2310.pdf.
50
RISKGOV report
the same time article 33.2 of REACH states the importance of communicating information
about candidate list substances in products.
Industry
Traditionally, the flow of information on chemicals is limited among industries. Producers
and downstream users have little incentive to share information. This is explained by the
confidential business information (CBI) rules (Denison and Scientist, 2005). However, it is
critical to other actors in the value chain to have that information for a wide range of purposes
- including meeting regulatory obligations or supplier/customer requirements, disclosure and
labelling, and assessing risk (OECD, 2004). REACH improves the flow of information
between the actors in the supply chain. Specific risk information must be included into the
registration chemical dossier at ECHA (see more in WP 2). This is a controversial regulation
since on one hand it aims to improve the public data availability for the safety improvement
(that also goes inline of the EU governance strategy) and on the other, industry is concerned
about misuse of the business related information. There are also several limitations to what
information must be delivered in the registration chemical dossiers.
During the 4 th ECHA stakeholders’ meeting, the main concern of industry was the
confidentiality of the information provided. ECHA acknowledges the problem, but as
mentioned by the Executive Director of ECHA “all will be able to profit from increased
information in the future”. While there can be legitimate reasons for certain information to be
confidential business information (CBI), the public needs to be provided “with explanation”
for making conceal any data. According to interviews with NGOs, any data relevant to
assessing the hazard, exposure or risk posed by a chemical should not be qualified as CBI.
Still, many voluntary initiatives have been taken by the industry itself. For example some of
the companies in the Netherlands have succeeded in strongly reducing their emissions of
volatile organic compounds (EEA and UNEP, 1998). Many measures, including information
sharing, are taken by industry in the frame of corporate social responsibility (EEA and UNEP,
1998).
Labelling is another way to make information available to the public. Many efforts today are
done in order to harmonise the labelling requirements across countries, for them to be
accessible for all consumers (Pratt, 2002). The Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) has been developed under the auspices of the United
Nations ECE. The GHS (which can also be applied to consumer products and pesticides)
includes:
(a) harmonised criteria for classifying substances and mixtures according to their health,
environmental and physical hazards; and
(b) harmonised hazard communication elements, including requirements for labelling and
safety data sheets.
Much effort has been done by labour organisations to improve the amount and quality of the
information available to public, mainly to workers (Tietenberg and Wheeler, 2001). The
organisations have generally supported REACH legislative efforts, arguing that many
companies consistently fail to provide enough information for the workers (Cole, Elliott and
Lindley, 2009; Selin and VanDeveer, 2006).
Non- Governmental Organisations
Some authors argue that NGOs are stakeholders that play an important role in risk
communication of chemicals (Lahr and Kooistra, 2009). Environmental NGOs have earlier
been shown to have a crucial role when raising awareness to the general public concerning
environmental issues (Anderson and Chiavari, 2009).
All NGO respondents considered that raising awareness on environmental issues is a very
crucial part of their work. They may also want to start dialogues among politicians,
51
RISKGOV report
authorities, industries, NGOs and the public in order for actions to be taken. One respondent
explained that they collaborate with specialists around the world to get the latest information
on substances and that this information is subsequently used to raise general public awareness.
Others have their own research laboratories that provide scientific information. One NGO
commented on the importance of raising awareness among the public “once you succeed in
raising an issue…, it starts to get its “own life” so our work is not that necessary anymore”.
Compared to the general public, NGOs often have access to political negotiations, which is
why awareness rising is such a crucial task in order to prepare the ground for politicians to
make decisions; “politicians are sensitive of the pressure since they want to get votes so we
definitely need the support of the public”.
However, NGOs try to affect not only final political decision but also individuals; as one
respondent from an NGO said “one can think that a person can’t do much about for instance
the dioxin level in the Baltic Sea, but reductions of chemicals are much easier to accept if
there is an awareness and knowledge about the issue”. Some respondents from NGOs
mentioned that they also work to inform the private sector in order to reduce the production of
products containing hazardous chemicals. Thus, NGOs are trying to affect all involved
stakeholders that have an impact on the issue. However, although research has proved that
NGOs are powerful in raising awareness among the general public about chemical risks in the
Baltic Sea, some scholars claim that NGOs have been less influential then industry and have
had limited opportunities to engage politicians and the industry (Heyvaert, 2008; Selin, 2007).
Websites were mentioned to be a major communication tool for the interviewed NGOs. Some
of them also organise conferences and meetings where specialists and other actors are invited
in order to discuss hazardous substances. One NGO mentioned that it has communication
channels in order to target teachers. Those channels are used to develop specific material for
education, as “they are the key players for the coming generations”. Another responded from
an NGO stated that it is more important to focus on having an impact on politicians; thus they
are working with specific articles, papers, open letters and meetings directed to politicians.
While some NGOs, e.g. Greenpeace, have strong campaigns on chemicals found in electronic
products to prevent e-waste to be sent to developing countries, others (e.g. SSNC) show a
great interest and focus on chemicals found in other products (toys, clothes, shoes etc)
(Greenpeace web, 2010; SSNC web, 2010). To summarise, different NGOs use different
communication strategies and target groups in order to promote improvement in chemicals
management. These differences often take the form of division of labour (i.e. different NGOs
focus on different issues) as well as reflect the different main focuses of the NGOs.
Some of the respondents recognised the importance of joint efforts of Baltic NGOs in order to
solve chemicals pollution issues. The Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) is a good example of a
NGO network, working with environmental problems of the Baltic Sea. The main goal of
CCB is to “promote the protection and improvement of the Baltic Sea environment and
natural resources” by lobbying, raising awareness, supporting member organisations and
initiating projects in the field (CCB web, 2010).
Communication between Science and Policy
The role of science in policy making can be seen in different ways (see WP 2). However, the
majority of the interviewees were of the opinion that scientific findings need to be
communicated to the involved stakeholders. The communication issues in the frame of
science-policy interactions were raised several times in the course of the interviews.
At a first glance, the science-policy interface may seem to be straightforward: at the interface,
relevant scientific findings are passed on to policy-makers in national governments or
international institutions. However, researchers provide information which might be: (1) lost;
(2) not delivered; (3) not in time; (4) not understood; (5) not accepted; (6) not used; (7) not
used in appropriate way and (8) politicised (Scheringer, 2008)
52
RISKGOV report
An interviewed EU expert pointed out the need to “bridge the gap between science and
policy” and the importance of informing politicians. At the same time an expert from
academia was of the opinion that it is important for decision-makers to provide clear research
requests. Several respondents from academia mentioned that they are not aware of what kind
of information that politicians need.
One respondent was of the opinion that politicians need one clear message in order to avoid
confusion and to actually initiate actions: “politicians need only one message; otherwise they
don’t know what to do… They have little time to read the background. They have to listen to
scientists and if one says it is bad and another says it is good… they would not do anything”.
Information is also delivered in heavy and demanding documents which are difficult for
politicians to read. Thus, the information needs to be simplified and not overloaded with
uncertainty according to several respondents. The Environmental Minister of Finland asked
scientists to “simplify and prioritise” during the HELCOM ministerial meeting in Stockholm,
2010.
Some scientists expressed a clear understanding of this requirement for simplification and said
they do try to present syntheses, which explain the findings in a simple way. However, an
authority expert said “the problem is that scientists cannot go further from what they
definitely know. The easiest thing is to say that this is uncertain”. Thus, the same expert
suggested that scientists should provide discussions about uncertainty and possible
recommendations. However, several respondents from academia stated that they are not
providing recommendations. One respondent from a research institution added “Often, we
only give pure facts. “What to do” questions are more tricky...we just lay out the facts, saying
that this is the problem that should be addressed. But exactly in what way, it is not our
competence to say... because there is no easy answer”.
In general, there are significant differences in the way scientists and policy makers deal with
chemicals risks. Studies show that experts often tend to see risk as synonymous with
probability of harm or expected mortality (Slovic, 1999). Politicians have an interest not only
in tackling problems, but also in gaining as many votes as possible in the next election in
order to remain in power (Haverland, 2009). Policies are therefore for them also a mechanism
of pleasing voters and existing or potential coalition partners. The risk issue is in this respect
more related to social, economic and environmental goals than just “probability of harm or
expected mortality”. Thus, this affects the way both politicians and experts conceptualise
risks. If the risk is defined in a purely scientific way, the management options may differ from
those provided if the risk is defined in a more socially oriented way (Slovic, 1999). There are
also methodological differences. For example, scientific research aims to find answers and go
very deep inside the specific research problem, while politicians typically need a broad
overview of a certain topic and a focused selection of the knowledge that is most relevant to
the decisions to be made (Scheringer, 2008). Those are just some of the examples of the
differences that may create barriers in science-policy communication.
Moreover, EU membership is one additional potential barrier for science and policy to
communicate. A Swedish scientist explained that a majority of the decisions are not made in
Sweden but on EU level, thus the issue of how to communicate science to the EU politicians
was recognised to be a problem (at least for scientist active at the national level). Taking into
account that research within the EU is largely focused to one institution, The Joint Research
Centre (JRC), the importance of national or regional (Baltic Sea level) research results is
enormous.
In general, there is a dissimilarity of objectives and needs of scientists and policymakers, and
improved communication at the science-policy interface is generally identified as a key
objective. This need of improved communication was recognised both during interviews and
in the studied literature and documents. One respondent from an authority was of the opinion
that communication among authorities and scientists in Sweden very much is based on
53
RISKGOV report
personal contacts, which cannot easily be applied across the entire Baltic Sea region. Thus, the
need for “translators” of scientific information to decision makers was mentioned in some
interviews. Scheringer (2008) proposes to establish an institutional framework to improve the
science-policy interaction (Fig. 3.2). For a sound management of chemicals an increased
access of information is required for the planning, implementation, evaluation, and
coordination of chemicals management activities. Interlinked institutions can be responsible
for this.
Some of the respondents mentioned HELCOM to be a good example of such an interlinked
institution. Indeed, HELCOM has, as said above, taken substantial efforts with other
organisations to adapt results to various audiences (such as decision-makers). However, the
work of HELCOM is to a large extent scientifically based and several interviewed experts and
stakeholders consider that more and better examples of such adjusted information and
communication are required from HELCOM. For example, during the HELCOM ministerial
seminar 2010 the main message was “More simplified information is needed”. Another
example, but at an international level, is the IPCP.
3.3.Discussion
Chemicals can be framed in many ways. They could be framed as a product, which is
important for life (e.g. pharmaceuticals), but at the same time they could be framed as a
problem. NGOs are taking the leading role in improving the understanding of the issues of
chemicals i society and aim to inform people to promote environmentally adapted behaviour.
However, it is possible to identify several ways of framing the problems; from single threats
to human health to a very uncertain and growing problem. Chemical pollution can also be
framed as a not important environmental problem. Obviously, some of the frames are quite
narrow, while others are rather broad.
The way these issues are framed might affect decisions on how to design management. Thus,
it is important to improve the general knowledge about existing hazards in the environment in
order to counteract “wrong” frames (Jasanoff, 2003). For example, the existing “useful
chemicals products” framing in chemical management has potentially contributed to a focus
on proven hazardous properties, or even on proven risks, of chemicals. It might be beneficial
to think about possible shifts in chemicals management from abundance of chemicals
produced to sufficiency of chemicals.
Improved communication is also important in order to make the process of risk management
more transparent, and to ensure a better implementation of risk management decisions (Renn,
2008). At the Baltic Sea region, EU structures and HELCOM were mentioned to be the main
communication platforms. However, there is room for improving science-to-science
communication, as well as the general involvement of the stakeholders at all stages of the
management of chemicals.
Communication efforts have been done by the industries, both voluntary and in the legal
frame. However, industries have weak incentives to share information, considering
competition and referring to the confidential business information (CBI) rules. The REACH
regulation is aiming to slightly change this and will likely improve the information provided
by the industry. However, this initiative has been confronted by several industries.
Science-policy communication was recognised to be one among many complex challenges for
improving chemical risk communication. In many cases, a lack of communication or a lack of
clear coordination mechanisms have led to unused or unknown research results, and a lack of
communication of the research needs of decision makers to the scientific community
(Quevauviller et al., 2005). There are many potential barriers for a straightforward science
policy communication. An interlinked organisation that helps to transfer information from
54
RISKGOV report
science to policy and vice versa could therefore be important. Several examples of this kind of
organisations exist, however there is room for improvement.
A few respondents also mentioned the importance of an interaction between science and the
public. The interviewed experts dealing with scientific risk assessment did not see the
importance of listening to the general public or involving the public in risk assessments,
referring to securing the objectivity of science. We disagree on this traditional role of
scientists in the tower of knowledge, surrounded by an ignorant public, and consider that
laymen can give important contributions to the building of scientific knowledge, as long as
scientists are prepared to be active in dialogues outside their safety nets. The role of
communicating information from scientists to the general public was considered to be realised
by NGOs and partly by the media. Several NGOs agreed that they are communicating science
to the public. Even though it is possible to assume that NGOs are the link between science and
the public, more effective two-ways or three-ways communication is needed. While some
organisations have developed in order to improve the interaction between science and policy,
we consider that there is also a need to develop interlinked organisations to improve
communication between science and the general public.
There is a general lack of information about chemicals in the society. Only a few chemicals
are assessed but not even the minimal existing information is delivered properly and widely.
Furthermore, it seems clear that communication and collaboration between Russia and the EU
is rather difficult in the studied field. The language barrier, Russia’s lack of information about
REACH and difficulties for the EU to know with whom to collaborate, are examples of issues
encountered.
One worrying problem noted during our studies is the limited attention that chemical
problems receive in media and among many politicians, which might contribute to a lack of
interest among the general public to participate in chemicals risk governance. Taking into
account the general trends in transition from risk management and risk government that
involve multi-actor and multi-level process for dealing with risks, this might be a problem.
55
RISKGOV report
References
Abt, E., Rodricks, J.V., Levy, J.I., Zeise, L. and Burke, T.A., 2010, "Science and Decisions:
Advancing Risk Assessment", Risk Analysis, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1028-1036.
Aftalion, F., 2001, A history of the international chemical industry, Chemical Heritage
Foundation. Philadelphia
Allanou, R., Hansen, B.G., and Van der Bilt, Y., 1999, Public availability of data on EU high
production volume chemicals, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, EU
Chemicals Bureau, European Commission.
Andersen, M.S. and Liefferink, D., 1999, European environmental policy: The pioneers,
Manchester Univ Pr. New York
Anderson, J. and Chiavari, J., 2009, "Understanding and improving NGO position on CCS",
Energy Procedia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4811-4817.
Apitz, S.E., Elliott, M., Fountain, M. and Galloway, T.S., 2006, "European environmental
management: moving to an ecosystem approach.", Integrated environmental assessment
and management, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 80-85.
Arnswald, S., 2000, EU enlargement and the Baltic States: the incremental making of new
members, Ulkopoliittinen instituutti. Helsinki
Backstrand, K., 2003, "Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts,
Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance", Global Environmental
Politics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 24-24.
Hedelin, B. and Lindh, M., 2008, "Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive –
Prospects for Sustainable Water Planning in Sweden", European Environment, vol. 18,
pp. 327–344.
Bengtsson, G., 2010, "Global trends in chemicals management" in Regulating Chemical Risks
European and Global Challenges, eds. J. Eriksson, M. Gilek & C. Rudén, Springer,
Dordrecht
Bodar, C., Bruijn, J., Vermeire, T. and Zandt, P., 2002, "Trends in risk assessment of
chemicals in the European Union", Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 8, no. 7,
pp. 1825-1843.
Brint, S., 1990, "Rethinking the policy influence of experts: From general characterizations to
analysis of variation", Sociological Forum vol. 5, no 3, pp. 361-385
Brusendorff, A., 2007, "HELCOM’s Contribution to the Prevention of Marine Pollution" in
Pollution of the Sea—Prevention and Compensation, eds. J. Basedow and U. Magnus.
Springer Verlag: Berlin, 2007, pp 85-94
Buccini, J., 2004, The Global Pursuit of the Sound Management of Chemicals, Washington,
DC, the World Bank, 1-67.
CEC/ECB, 1996 Draft Technical Guidance Document of Risk Reduction Strategies,
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels/European Chemicals Bureau,
56
RISKGOV report
IspraChemSec, 2006, Chemicals management in Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian
Federation, Chemsec, Göteborg.
Cohen, N., 1997, "The Politics of Environmental Risk: Perceptions of Risk Assessment in the
State Legislatures.", Policy Studies Journal, vol. 25, no. 3.
Cole, M.A., Elliott, R.J.R. and Lindley, J.K., 2009, "Dirty money: Is there a wage premium
for working in a pollution intensive industry?", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 39,
no. 2, pp. 161-180.
Dakins, M.E., Toll, J.E. and Small, M.J., 1994, "Risk‐based environmental remediation:
Decision framework and role of uncertainty", Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1907-1915.
De Marchi, B., 2003, "Public participation and risk governance", Science and Public Policy,
vol. 30, pp. 171-176.
De Santo, E.M., 2010, "Environmental justice implications of Maritime Spatial Planning in
the European Union", Marine Policy, vol. 35. pp 34-38.
Denison, R.A. and Scientist, S., 2005, "Improving Information Flows–in Supply Chains and
Beyond", Workshop background paperBoston, April, 28-29, 2005.
Doull, J., Klaassen, C.D. and Amdur, M.O., 1980, Casarett and Doull's toxicology, McMillan,
New York.
Ducrotoy, J.P. and Elliott, M., 2008, "The science and management of the North Sea and the
Baltic Sea: Natural history, present threats and future challenges", Marine pollution
bulletin, vol. 57, no. 1-5, pp. 8-21.
EC, 1996, Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances, Official Journal L 010 , 14/01/1997. 13 -33
EC, 2009, Action Plan of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, COM(2009)
248 final, European Commission, Brussels
EC, 2008, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June
2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental
policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), Official Journal L 164, 25.6.2008, 19-40.
EC, 2007, An integrated maritime policy for the European Union. COM (2007) 575 final,
European Commission, Brussels.
EC, 2003, Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment. European Commission Joint
Research Center, EUR 20418 EN/1.
EC, 2002a, Council Decision 1600/2002/EC of 22 July 2002 on laying down the Sixth
Community Environment Action Programme. Official Journal, L 242, 10.9.2002.1-15
EC, 2002b, Science and Society Action Plan, COM
EC, 2001a, European Governance: A White Paper, COM (2001) 428.
57
RISKGOV report
EC, 2000, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October
2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Official
Journal, L 327, 22.12.2000, 1-72.
EC, 2005, Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf
of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public
participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Official
Journal L. 124, 17.5.2005. 1–3
EC, 2006, Regulation 2006/1367/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6
September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access
to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies. Official Journal L 264,
25.9.2006, 13–19
EC, 1999, Revised Proposal for a List of Priority Substances in the Context of the Water
Framework Directive (COMMPS Procedure). Fraunhofer-Institut
EEA, 2001, Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000,
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
EEA and UNEP, 1998, Chemicals in the European Environment: Low Doses, High Stakes?,
The EEA and UNEP Annual. Message 2 on the State of Europe's Environment.
Environment European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, and United
Nations Environment Programme, Châtelaine Switzerland. UNEP, UNEP/ROE/97/16
Eisenreich, S., Munn, S. and Pakalin, S., 2007, "Risk assessment of PBDEs in the European
Union–process and update", Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on
Brominated Flame Retardants, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 24–27.
Eriksson, J., Karlsson, M. and Reuter, M., 2010a, "Scientific Committees and EU Policy: The
Case of SCHER" in Regulating chemical risks: European and global challenges, eds. J.
Eriksson, M. Gilek and C. Rudén, Springer, Dordrecht.
Eriksson, J., Karlsson, M. and Reuter, M., 2010b, "Technocracy, Politicization, and
Noninvolvement: Politics of Expertise in the European Regulation of Chemicals", Review
of Policy Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 167-185.
Fairman, R., Mead, C.D. and Williams, W.P., 1998, Environmental risk assessment:
approaches, experiences and information sources, European Environment Agency,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Finkel, A.M., 1990, Confronting uncertainty in risk management: A guide for decisionmakers: report, EUA, Washington, DC.
Fjodorova, N., Novich, M., Vrachko, M., Kharchevnikova, N., Zholdakova, Z., Sinitsyna, O.
and Benfenati, E., 2008, "Regulatory assessment of chemicals within OECD member
countries, EU and in Russia", Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C, vol.
26, no. 1, pp. 40-88.
Ganoulis, J. and Nikitina, E. 2008, RF WATER CODE and EU WATER FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE, New Approaches and Policies to Water Management, CABRI-Volga.
58
RISKGOV report
Gebel, T., Lechtenberg-Auffarth, E. and Guhe, C., 2009, "About hazard and risk assessment:
Regulatory approaches in assessing safety in the European Union chemicals legislation",
Reproductive Toxicology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 188-195.
Hansson, S.O., and C. Rudén, 2010, "REACH: What has been achieved and what needs to be
done?" in Regulating Chemical Risks: European and Global Challenges, eds. J. Eriksson,
M. Gilek, and C. Rudén, Dordrecht, Springer.
Haverland, M., 2009, "How leader states influence EU policy-making: Analysing the expert
strategy". European Integration Online Papers, 13(Article no. 25), 1-19
HELCOM, 2006. HELCOM Ecological Objectives for an Ecosystem Approach.
HELCOM, 2002, Implementation of the HELCOM Objective with Regard to Hazardous
substances.
HELCOM, 1998. Final report on the implementation of the 1988 Ministerial
Declaration.Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 71, HELCOM, Helsinki.
HELCOM, 2010, Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea. An integrated thematic assessment
of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environment. Proceedings No.
120B, Helsinki, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, Helsinki
Commission.
Helsinki Convention, 1992, Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the
Baltic Sea Area, 1992.
Helsinki Convention, 1974, Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Baltic Sea Area, 1974
Heslenfeld, P. and Enserink, E.L., 2008, "OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives: the utility of
health indicators for the North Sea", ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 65, no. 8, pp.
1392.
Hey, C., 2000, "Towards balancing participation. A report on devolution, technical
committees and the new approach in EU environmental politics: The cases of
standardisation, chemicals control, IPPC and clean air policies in a comparative
perspective", EEB, Brussels.
Heyvaert, V., 2008, "The EU chemicals policy: towards inclusive governance?", LSE Law,
Society and Economy Working Papers, 07-2008. Department of Law, London School of
Economics and Political Science, London, UK
Hinsby, K., Condesso de Melo, M.T. and Dahl, M. 2008, "European case studies supporting
the derivation of natural background levels and groundwater threshold values for the
protection of dependent ecosystems and human health", Science of the Total
Environment, vol. 401, no. 1-3, pp. 1-20.
Jasanoff, S. 2003. "Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science",
Minerva 41: 223-244.
Joas, M., Kern, K. and Sandberg, S. 2007, "Actors and arenas in hybrid networks:
Implications for environmental policymaking in the Baltic Sea region", Ambio, vol. 36,
no. 2-3, pp. 237-242.
59
RISKGOV report
Joas, M., Jahn, D. and Kern, K. 2008, Governing a common sea, Earthscan. London
Karlsson, M., 2010, "The Precautionary Principle in EU and U.S. Chemicals Policy: A
Comparison of Industrial Chemicals Legislation". In Regulating Chemical Risks:
European and Global Challenges, eds. J. Eriksson, M. Gilek, and C. Rudén, Springer,
Dordrecht.
Karlsson, M., 2006, "The precautionary principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable
development", Journal of Risk Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 337-360.
Kern, K. and Löffelsend, T., 2004, "Sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region.
Governance beyond the nation state", Local Environment, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 451-467.
Kern, K.. and Löffelsend, T., 2004, "Governance Beyond the NationState:Transnationalization and Europeanization of the Baltic Sea Region", Discussion
paper, WZB Social Science Research Center Berlin.
Krueger, J. and Selin, H. 2002, "Governance for sound chemicals management: The need for
a more comprehensive global strategy", Global Governance, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 323-342.
Krupnick, A., Morgenstern, R. and Batz, M. 2006, Not a sure thing: Making regulatory
choices under uncertainty, 233 pp., Resour. for the Future, Washington, D. C
Kurth, R. and Glasmacher, S. 2008, "Quality of scientific advice to politics. Lecture at the
Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Science and Humanities", Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 458-466.
Lahr, J. and Kooistra, L. 2009, "Environmental risk mapping of pollutants: State of the art and
communication aspects", Science of the Total Environment, pp. 3899-3907
Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. 2005, "What’s New in Scientific Advice to Politics?" in
Democratization of Expertise? Springer, Netherlands, pp. 1-19.
Mee, L.D., Jefferson, R.L., Laffoley, D.A. and Elliott, M. 2008, "How good is good? Human
values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive", Marine pollution bulletin, vol.
56, no. 2, pp. 187-204.
Mylopoulos, Y.A. and Kolokytha, E.G., 2008, "Integrated water management in shared water
resources: The EU Water Framework Directive implementation in Greece", Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 347-353.
NAS, 2009, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, the National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC.
Naturvårdsverket, 2006, Aktionsplan för havsmiljö, Rapport 5563 [online] April 2006
Available at: <http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5563-1.pdf>
[Accessed 11 January 2011]
Newig, J., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Sigel, K., 2005a, "The role of public participation in managing
uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive", European
Environment, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 333-343.
Nilsson, S. and Langaas, S., 2006, "International river basin management under the EU Water
Framework Directive: An assessment of cooperation and water quality in the Baltic Sea
60
RISKGOV report
Drainage Basin", AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 304311.
Nõges, P., Kangur, K., Nõges, T., Reinart, A., Simola, H. and Viljanen, M., 2008, "Highlights
of large lake research and management in Europe", Hydrobiologia, vol. 599, no. 1, pp.
259-276.
OECD, 2009, Ensuring Environmental Compliance: Trends and Good Practices, OECD,
Paris.
OECD, 2004, "Workshop on Exchanging Information Across a Chemical Product Chain",
OECD Document ENV/JM/MONO(2004)29, 14 December 2004.
OSPAR Commission, 2006, "Dynamic Selection and Prioritisation Mechanism for Hazardous
Substances (New DYNAMEC Manual)".
Österblom, H., Gårdmark, A., Bergström, L., Müller-Karulis, B., Folke, C., Lindegren, M.,
Casini, M., Olsson, P., Diekmann, R. and Blenckner, T., 2010, "Making the ecosystem
approach operational--Can regime shifts in ecological-and governance systems facilitate
the transition?", Marine Policy, vol. 34 no. 6, pp 1290-1299.
Perrez, F.X., 2006, "The strategic approach to international chemicals management: Lost
opportunity or foundation for a brave new world?", Review of European Community and
International Environmental Law, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 245-257.
Pesendorfer, D., 2006, "EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change
between antagonistic goals?", Environmental Politics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 95-114.
Pratt, I., 2002, "Global harmonisation of classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals",
Toxicology letters, vol. 128, no. 1-3, pp. 5-15.
Quevauviller, P., Balabanis, P., Fragakis, C., Weydert, M., Oliver, M., Kaschl, A., Arnold, G.,
Kroll, A., Galbiati, L. and Zaldivar, J.M., 2005, "Science-policy integration needs in
support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive", Environmental
Science & Policy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 203-211.
Radaelli, C.M., 1999, "The public policy of the European Union: whither politics of
expertise?", Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 757-774.
Renn, O., 2006, Risk governance, Earthscan London.
Rogers, M.D., 2003, "Risk analysis under uncertainty, the Precautionary Principle, and the
new EU chemicals strategy", Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 37, no. 3,
pp. 370-381.
Romano, D., Santos, T. and Gadea, R., 2010, "Trade Union Priority List for REACH
authorisation", Journal of epidemiology and community health. vol. 65, no.1, pp 8-13.
Ruut, J. and Simanovska, J., 2004, Analysis of the Existing Chemicals Management System in
the Russian Federation, Baltic Environmental Forum (BEF) no. 2006:416, pp 1-42.
Sass, J.B. and Colangelo, A., 2006, "European Union bans atrazine, while the United States
negotiates continued use", International journal of occupational and environmental
health, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 260-267.
61
RISKGOV report
Savchuk, O.P., Wulff, F., Hille, S., Humborg, C. and Pollehne, F., 2008, "The Baltic Sea a
century ago--a reconstruction from model simulations, verified by observations", Journal
of Marine Systems, vol. 74, no. 1-2, pp. 485-494.
Scheringer, M., 2008. Academia’s Role for Sound Chemicals Management: Stockholm
Convention and International Panel on Chemical Pollution. In: United Nations University,
"Environmental Monitoring and Governance in the Asian Coastal Hydrosphere: Roles of
Academia and Private Sectors for the Stockholm Convention". Tokyo, Japan, 14
November 2008.
Selin, H., 2009, Managing Hazardous Chemicals: Longer-Range Challenges, Boston
University Creative Services, Boston.
Selin, H., 2007, "Coalition politics and chemicals management in a regulatory ambitious
Europe", Global Environmental Politics, vol. 7, no. 3.
Selin, H. and VanDeveer, S.D., 2006, "Raising global standards: Hazardous substances and ewaste management in the European Union", Environment, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 6-18.
Selin, H. and VanDeveer, S.D., 2004, "Baltic Sea hazardous substances management: Results
and challenges", Ambio, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 153-160.
SEPA 2005, Change beneath the surface, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,
Stockholm.
Sharpe, M., 2001, "Smart screening", Journal of Environmental Monitoring, vol. 3, no. 3.
Shulenina, N., 2003, "The environmental policy of contemporary Russia: from to demands to
arguments", Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов.Сер.:
Политология, vol. 4.
Sigel, K., Klauer, B. and Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009, "Risk analysis under uncertainty, the
Precautionary
Principle,
and
the
new
EU
chemicals
strategy
", Ecological Economics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 370-381.
Slovic, P., 1999, "Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment
battlefield", Risk analysis, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 689-701.
SNFA, 2008, Advice about food for you who are pregnant, The Swedish National Food
Administration, Uppsala.
Soneryd, L. and Andersson, K., 2008, Risk Governance Discussion Document, CARGO,
Comparison of Approaches to Risk Governance. Deliverable D3.
Steunenberg, B., Koboldt, C. and Schmidtchen, D., 1996, "Policymaking, comitology, and the
balance of power in the European Union", International Review of Law and Economics,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 329-344.
Tietenberg, T. and Wheeler, D., 2001, "Empowering the community: information strategies
for pollution control" in Frontiers of environmental economics, ed. H. Folmer, Edward
Elgar Publishing, pp. 85.
Time Magazine, 30 June 1947, DDT Advertisement (Figure 1)
62
RISKGOV report
Tisdall, S., 2010. Saving the Baltic Sea. Guardian, [online] 14 February. Available at:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/14/environmentpollution-finland-activism-baltic> [Accessed 27 November 2010] .
Uggla, Y. 2007, "Environmental protection and the freedom of the high seas: The Baltic Sea
as a PSSA from a Swedish perspective", Marine Policy, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 251-257.
UN, 1992, Results of the World Conference on Environment and Development: Agenda 21 in
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. 3-14 June 1992, New York, United Nations.
Van Hoof, L. and Van Tatenhove, J., 2009, "EU marine policy on the move: The tension
between fisheries and maritime policy", Marine Policy, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 726-732.
Van Leeuwen, C. and Vermeire, T., 2007, Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction.
Second edition. The Netherlands: Springer.
Verdonck, F.A.M., Souren, A., van Asselt, M.B.A., Van Sprang, P.A. and Vanrolleghem,
P.A., 2007, "Improving uncertainty analysis in European Union risk assessment of
chemicals", Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 3, no. 3, pp.
333-343.
Vijgen, J. and Egenhofer, C., 2009, Obsolete Pesticides: A ticking time bomb and why we
have to act now. CEPS Special Report.
Wernstedt, K., 2002, "Environmental protection in the Russian Federation: lessons and
opportunities", Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 45, no. 4, pp.
493-516.
Порядин, А., 2001, "Экологическая безопасность—неотъемлемое условие устойчивого
развития в XXI веке", Науч.и техн.б-ки, vol. 1, pp. 23-24.
63
RISKGOV report
Main website sources
AC web, (2011) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html
[Accessed January 2011]. Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.
Aarhus Convention.
Ad Hoc web, (2011) [Internet]. Available from: http://ahjwg.chem.unep.ch/ [Accessed
January 2011]. Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.
BONUS web, (2010) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.bonusportal.org/ [Accessed
November 2010].
BSAG web, (2010) Baltic Sea Action Group web page [Internet]. Available from:
www.bsag.fi [Accessed November 2010].
CBD web, (2010) Convention on Biological Diversity web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml [Accessed November 2010].
CBSS web, (2010) Council of the Baltic Sea States web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.cbss.org/ [Accessed November 2010].
CCB web, (2010) Coalition Clean Baltic [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ccb.se/
[Accessed October 2010].
CEFIC web, (2010) European Chemical Industry Council [Internet]. Available from:
www.cefic.be [Accessed December 2010].
ChemSec web (2010) International Chemical Secreteriat web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.chemsec.org [Accessed November 2010].
DUCC web (2010) Downstream Users of Chemical Co-ordination group [Internet]. Available
from: www.duccplatform.org [Accessed December 2010].
EB web, (2011), Ecology and Business [Internet]. Available from: http://www.helcom.ru/
[Accessed January 2011].
ECHA web, (2010) European Chemicals Agency web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://echa.europa.eu/ [Accessed September 2010].
Ecology and business, web (2010) web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.helcom.ru/ [Accessed October 2010].
EEA web, (2010) European Environment Agency web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/ [Accessed October 2010].
EEB web (2010) European Environmental Bureau [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.eeb.org/ [Accessed October 2010].
FB Friends of Baltic (2010) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.baltfriends.ru [Accessed
October 2010].
FoE web, (2010) Friends of the Earth web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.foe.co.uk/ [Accessed November 2010].
64
RISKGOV report
FSNRMS web, (2011) The Federal Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service of
Russia web page [Internet]. Available from: http://rpn.gov.ru/ [Accessed January 2011].
FWRA web, (2011) The Federal Water Resources Agency of Russia[Internet]. Available
from: http://voda.mnr.gov.ru [Accessed January 2011].
GHS web, (2011) [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_welcome_e.html [Accessed January 2011].
Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
Greenpeace, Sweden, web (2010) web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.greenpeace.org/sweden/ [Accessed October 2010].
GW, web (2010) Green World web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.greenworld.org.ru [Accessed September 2010].
HELCOM web, (2010) web page [Internet]. Available from: http://www.helcom.fi/ [Accessed
September 2010].
ICCA web, (2010) International Council of Chemical Associations web page [Internet].
Available from: http://www.icca-chem.org/ [Accessed November 2010].
ICES web, (2010) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea web page [Internet].
Available from: http://www.ices.dk [Accessed November 2010].
IPCP web, (2010) International Panel on Chemical Pollution web page [Internet]. Available
from: http://www.ipcp.ch/ [Accessed October 2010].
JRC web, (2010) Joint Research Centre web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm [Accessed September 2010].
KEMI web, (2010) Swedish Chemical Agency web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.kemi.se/ [Accessed October 2010].
MNRE web (2011) The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russia web page
[Internet]. Available from: http://www.mnr.gov.ru [Accessed October 2010].
OECD web, (2010) Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development web page
[Internet]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/ [Accessed October 2010].
OSPAR web, (2010) web page [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ospar.org/ [Accessed
September 2010].
RTN web, (2011) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.gosnadzor.ru/ [Accessed September
2011].
SCHER web, (2010) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks web page
[Internet]. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/index_en.htm
[Accessed September 2010].
Swedish EPA web, (2010) Swedish Environmental Protection Agency web page [Internet].
Available from: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/ [Accessed October 2010].
UBC web, (2010) Union of the Baltic Cities web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.ubc.net/ [Accessed October 2010].
65
RISKGOV report
UNEP web, (2010) United Nations Environmental Programme web page [Internet]. Available
from: http://www.unep.org/ [Accessed November 2010].
UNESCO web,( 2000), United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization web
page web page [Internet]. Available from: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=3500&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed September
2010].
WWF Sweden web, (2010) World Wide Fund web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.wwf.se/ [Accessed September 2010].
WWF web, (2010) World Wide Fund web page [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.wwf.org/ [Accessed September 2010].
66
RISKGOV report
Annex I. List of Interviews
Nr
1
Actor
Scientist
EU expert
Scientist
Authority
Authority
Country
Sweden
Organisation
EU expert group and academia
Date
March 2010
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Marine Research Organisation
National Chemicals Authority
National Environmental Authority
March 2010
April 2010
April 2010
Sweden
EU
EU
Sweden
Finland
EU
National Chemicals Authority
ECHA
ECHA
National Environmental Authority
National Environmental Authority
EU Expert and Academia
May 2010
May 2010
Sweden
Belgium
Russia
Russia
15
16
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Authority
Scientist
EU expert
Politician
Industry
Science
Science,
Industry
Media
Authority
Russia
Regional
Green Party
CEFIC
Academia
Scientific Expert in the Industry
Organisation
Newspaper
HELCOM
17
Authority
Regional
HELCOM
18
Authority
19
NGO
Regional,
Nordic
Sweden
Authority for Local Implementation
of WFD
Environmental NGO
20
NGO
Nordic
Environmental NGO
21
EU
Commission
NGO
EU
DG Environment
Regional
Environmental NGO
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
22
67
May 2010
May 2010
September
2010
May 2010
May 2010
June 2010
May 2010
May 2010
August
2010
August
2010
October
2010
October
2010
October
2010
October
2010
October
2010
RISKGOV report
Annex II. Governmental and non-governmental Organisations and Networks
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND NETWORKS
International Non-Governmental Actors
Organisation
Description
Webpage
UNEP
United Nations
Environment
Programme
UNEP deals with chemical issues through its Chemical www.unep.org
programme that reflects global priorities identified by
governments. The organisation works directly with
countries to build national capacity for the clean
production, use and disposal of chemicals, and promotes
and disseminates state-of-the-art information on
chemical safety. UNEP Chemicals, as a non-regulatory
division of UNEP, has several global and regional
chemicals assessment and policy initiatives, including:
The UNEP Mercury Program; regionally Based
Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS)
program; the UNEP Pollution Release and Transfer
Register.
WHO
The World
Health
Organization
WHO is the UN organization that is involved in the www.who.int/ip
health aspects of chemicals. The organisation is the cs
executing agency of the International Program on
Chemical Safety (IPCS) which is a joint program with
ILO and UNEP. It is implementing activities related to
chemical safety and WHO’s main roles “are to establish
the scientific basis for safe use of chemicals and to
strengthen national capabilities and capacities for
chemical safety”.
ILO
International
Labour
Organization
ILO is mainly working with chemicals issues related to www.ilo.org
the safety of workers. Together with UNEP and WHO,
ILO is implementing International Program on Chemical
Safety (IPCS) which is related to chemical safety. They
have produced together with the EU and other bodies the
International Chemical Safety Cards (ICSCs) which is
information about chemical compounds to be used by
workers handling these chemicals. ILO presents a
“Chemicals Convention” (from 1990) which provides a
coherent policy on safety in the use of chemicals at work,
which includes the production, the handling, the storage,
and the transport of chemicals as well as the disposal and
treatment of waste chemicals, the release of chemicals
resulting from work activities, and the maintenance,
repair and cleaning of equipment and containers of
chemicals. In addition, it allocates specific
68
RISKGOV report
responsibilities to suppliers and exporting states.
UNECE
United Nations
Economic
Commission for
Europe
UNECE is one of five regional commissions of the www.unece.org
United Nations. Its major aim is to promote panEuropean economic integration. It provides analysis,
policy advice and assistance to governments; it gives
focus to the United Nations global mandates in the
economic field, in cooperation with other global players
and key stakeholders, notably the business community.
The UNECE also sets out norms, standards and
conventions to facilitate international cooperation within
and outside the region.
OECD
Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and
Development
OECD is committed to democracy and market economy www.oecd.org
from around the world in order to support sustainable
economic growth; boost employment, raise living
standards, maintain financial stability, assist other
countries' economic development and contribute to
growth in world trade. Economic development and trade
might also mean chemicals development and trade. The
OECD has a number of programmes relating to
chemicals policy, including work on alternative methods,
chemical test guidelines and hazard assessment of
selected substances. It is very important to mention that
OECD assists member countries in developing and
harmonising methods for assessing chemicals risk.
European
Commission
European Union Actors
DG Enterprise works to improve the business http://ec.europa.
environment and to support the development of a strong eu/enterprise/
and sustainable industrial base able to compete globally,
as well as improving the framework conditions and
access to finance for research and innovation. It is a
central actor within the European Commission that
supports chemicals development and trade. It is
responsible for internal markets, competitiveness and
sustainable development topics in chemicals policy.
DG Environment ensures that member states correctly http://ec.europa.
apply the EU environmental law. Its objective is to eu/dgs/environm
protect, preserve and improve the environment for ent/
present and future generations. It suggests policies that
aim at protecting the environment in the EU and that
preserve the quality of life of EU citizens. DG
Environment gives a lot of attention on chemicals safety
concerning environment and health.
69
RISKGOV report
European
Parliament
The European Parliament is the only directly-elected www.europarl.e
body of the European Union. The 736 Members of the uropa.eu
European Parliament are there to represent the citizen.
The parliament plays an active role in legislation,
including on environmental protection and chemicals.
ECHA
European
Chemicals
Agency
Another central actor in chemicals policy is the www.echa.europ
European Chemicals Agency. The agency manages the a.eu
registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction
processes for chemical substances to ensure consistency
across the European Union. In its decision-making the
agency takes the best available scientific and technical
data and socio-economic information into account. It
also provides information on chemicals and technical and
scientific advice.
SCHER
Scientific
Committee on
Health and
Environmental
Risks
SCHER provides opinions in health and environmental
risks related to pollutants in the environmental which
may have a negative impact on health and the
environment. The committee also provides opinions in
life cycle environmental assessment. It shall also address
health and safety issues related to the toxicity and ecotoxicity of biocides. In addition, the committee addresses
questions relating to methodological aspects of the
assessment of health and environmental risks of
chemicals (including mixtures) for providing sound and
consistent advice in its areas of competence and to
contribute to relevant issues in close cooperation with
other European agencies.
EEA
The European
Environment
Agency
EEA is an agency of the EU and play important role in www.eea.europa
environmental
reporting
and
monitoring.
By .eu
commissioning studies on certain topics, the EEA has the
possibility to influence policy evaluation, agenda-setting
and policy formulation. In recent years, the EEA has
published extensive data on chemicals in the EU, several
reports and studies on chemicals policy in general and on
specific substances in particular. In short, EEA is part of
the ‘green’ coalition contributing to the scientific and
political discourse, but with limited influence over
decision-making.
JRC
Join research
centre
JRC provides additional scientific and technical support ec.europa.eu/dgs
in focusing on; the continuing role of the European /jrc/index.cfm
Chemicals Bureau in the assessment of chemicals until
the European Chemicals Agency is ready. They give
support to the implementation of current and new
European chemicals policy and also give support in
developing chemical risk assessment.
70
http://ec.europa.
eu/health/scienti
fic_committees/
environmental_r
isks/index_en.ht
m
RISKGOV report
HELCOM
Helsinki
Commission
Regional Actors
The most influential regional actor is HELCOM, the www.helcom.fi
responsible body under the Helsinki Convention, which
is a regional cooperation designed to protect the Baltic
Sea from pollution (including hazardous chemicals)
since over 30 years. HELCOM has developed to become
an important centre of both regional scientific and
policymaking activities. HELCOM consists of delegates
from the 10 member countries. All HELCOM decisions
are taken by consensus under the principle of one Party,
one vote. HELCOM meets at least annually, occasionally
at the ministerial level which generally attracts regional
media attention and result in announcements of common
goals in the form of Ministerial Declarations (see more
information about the HELCOM Ministerial meeting at
Annex 1), they also give recommendations which are not
legally binding but member states are expected to fully
incorporate them into domestic law, regulation and
procedures.
National Actors
Sweden
The Ministry of the Environment works to ensure www.sweden.go
The
sustainable development.
Priority areas for the v.se/sb/d/2066
Government
Government's environmental policy are measures to
and the
Ministry of the tackle climate change and to preserve biological
diversity, as well as efforts to ensure a non-toxic
Environment
environment and to safeguard the Baltic and the
Skagerrak and Kattegat as living seas.
Kemi is a central supervisory authority under the www.kemi.se
KEMI
The Swedish
Ministry of the Environment, responsible for the efforts
Chemicals
to attain a non-toxic environment.
Agency
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA presents proposals for environmental policy and www.naturvards
legislation to the Swedish Government and ensures that verket.se
environmental policy decisions are implemented. One of
the EPA’ responsibilities is to reduce the environmental
impact associated with the use and distribution of
chemicals and chemical products, as well as the
discharge of unintentionally produced or extracted
compounds.
Russia
71
RISKGOV report
MNR
The Ministry of
Natural
Resources of the
Russian
Federation
www.mnr.gov.r
MNR of Russia is a federal executive body performing
u
the functions related to state policy formulation and
normative and legal regulation in the sphere of the study,
renewal, and conservation of natural resources.
The Ministry has 5 agencies under its supervision. 3 of
them are working with the chemicals in the water bodies.
The Federal
Supervisory
Natural
Resources
Management
Service
The Federal Supervisory Natural Resources www.rpn.gov.ru
Management Service ensures environmental and
economic security of Russia, compliance management,
continuous, sustainable, environmentally sound wildlife
management, protection of all components of the
environment from degradation and destruction. The main
tasks of state control and supervision are the detection,
suppression and prevention of crime associated with
illegal and unsustainable use of natural resources, with
negative impacts on the environment.
The Federal
Water
Resources
Agency
The Federal Water Resources Agency is a federal www.voda.mnr.
executive body performing the functions related to gov.ru
rendering state services and federal property
management in the sphere of water resources.
RTN
Federal
Environmental
Industrial and
Nuclear
Supervision
Service under
the Russian
Government
RTN is the supervisory body of Russia on ecological, www.gosnadzor.
technological and nuclear issues. Its functions include ru
the passage of regulatory legal acts, supervision and
oversight in the field of environmental protection.
There are several RTN’s regional units that facilite
annually store or dispose of more than 10 000 tonnes of
hazardous waste; discharge over 15 million m3 of
wastewater, and produce more than 500 tonnes of air
emissions. The North-West regional unit of RTN covers
the area of the Baltic Sea.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND NETWORKS
ICCA
The
International
Council of
Chemical
Associations
Greenpeace
International Level
ICCA is a world-wide organisation, representing 80 www.iccapercent of global manufacturing operations. ICCA is also chem.org
the main channel of communication between the industry
and various international organisations that are
concerned with health, environment and trade-related
issues.
Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning www.greenpeac
organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, e.org
to protect and conserve the environment and to promote
72
RISKGOV report
peace. The organisation is present in 40 countries and
has earlier led a campaign to show the widespread in the
environment of hazardous chemicals; in household
products, electronic goods and children's clothes, and
detectable in house dust, rain water, food and, ultimately,
our own bodies. To spur innovative solutions,
Greenpeace has in recent years approached brand
product manufacturers and asked them to commit to
substitute harmful chemicals in their products with safer
alternatives.
Friends of the Earth is an NGO that seeks to influence www.foe.co.uk/
the government to make changes to policies in favour of
people and planet. It informs about the importance of
safer chemicals, the health threats and how to make the
future safer. FoE is challenging industry, retailers and the
EU to support REACH. Read more here:
http://www.foeeurope.org/safer_chemicals/safer_future.h
tm
WWF is an independent foundation where its mission is www.wwf.org
WWF
World Wide
to stop the degradation of the planet's natural
Fund for Nature environment and to build a future in which humans live
in harmony with nature. They aim for conserving the
world's biological diversity, ensuring that the use of
renewable natural resources is sustainable, as well as
promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful
consumption.
Friends of the
Earth
IPCP
International
Panel on
Chemical
Pollution
The IPCP represents an international network of www.ipcp.ch
scientists working on various aspects of chemical
pollution. Its goal is to collect scientific knowledge about
chemical pollution problems and to provide summaries
and interpretations of the available knowledge for
decision makers and the public.
ICES
The
International
Council for the
Exploration of
the Sea
ICES coordinates and promotes marine research on www.ices.dk
oceanography, marine environment, marine ecosystem,
and on living marine resources in the North Atlantic.
Members of the ICES community now include all coastal
states bordering the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea,
with affiliate members in the Mediterranean Sea and
southern hemisphere. It is a network of more than 1600
scientists from 200 institutes. Scientists are gathering
information about the marine ecosystem. Besides filling
gaps in existing knowledge, this information is
developed into unbiased advice. ICES has a specific
marine chemistry working group (MCWG) that deals
with hazardous chemicals in the marine environment.
73
RISKGOV report
ChemSec
The
International
Chemical
Secretariat
CEFIC
The European
Chemical
Industry Council
ChemSec is a non-profit organisation dedicated to work www.chemsec.o
towards a toxic free environment. ChemSec was founded rg
in 2002 by four Swedish environmental organisations;
SSNC, WWF, Nature and Youth, and Friends of the
Earth. ChemSec strives to bridge the gap between
decision-makers, industry, NGOs and scientists; and
offer expertise and guidance on chemical management
policies in order to get progressive chemical legislation.
It also works together with companies to reduce their use
of hazardous chemicals and to get their support for
progressive chemicals legislation. Primarily it is focused
on promoting and monitoring EU chemicals legislation,
but also follows global chemicals issues, for example
SAICM.
EU Level
CEFIC is representing the European chemical industry www.cefic.org
and consists of 25 national federations of chemicals
producers, 30 corporate members and approximately 700
business members. Acting as an umbrella organisation,
CEFIC has also recognised about 100 sector groups and
affiliated associations such as Eurochlor and European
Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel (EBFRIP).
DUCC
Downstream
Users of
Chemicals Coordination group
DUCC is an organisation founded in 2001 with the www.duccplatfo
specific purpose of influencing the development of rm.org
REACH. It comprises seven organisations representing
about 3,700 companies that use chemicals, such as paint
and ink producers, perfume producers, chemicals
distributors and producers of detergents.
EEB
European
Environmental
Bureau
EEB is Europe's largest federation of environmental www.eeb.org
organisations with more than 140 member organisations
who gain their membership from the general public.
They are guided by the voices of 15 million European
citizens, and act as the ears and voice of its members
towards the EU decision makers. The organisation works
on a large number of environmental issues, including
chemicals, and the policy officers use experts, scientists,
members and politicians to work toward development
and protection of environmental policies.
BEUC
European
Consumers
Organisation
BEUC informs about dangerous chemical substances www.beuc.org
which can be found in everyday products, the
organisation aims at raise awareness with decision
makers of the risks posed by chemical substances on
health and the environment, as well as minimise the
exposure of consumers and the environment to
74
RISKGOV report
dangerous chemicals in particular from consumer
products.
BSAG
Baltic Sea
Action Group
CCB
Coalition Clean
Baltic
Regional Level (Baltic Sea)
BSAG operates throughout the entire Baltic Sea area and www.en.bsag.fi
is an independent foundation that does concrete work on
behalf of the Baltic Sea. Behind the operations of BSAG
is the Foundation for a Living Baltic Sea. The foundation
is an independent actor with a vast network of
professionals for help and guidance. BSAG aims to
accelerate the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action
Plan by HELCOM. Operations are carried out with
comprehensive co-operation between the private and
public sectors throughout the entire Baltic Sea area.
CCB is a politically independent, non-profit association. www.ccb.se
It unites 26 member organisations from Finland, Russia,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark,
and Sweden. Together the member organizations of CCB
have over half a million members in all countries around
the Baltic Sea. The main goal of CCB is to promote the
protection and improvement of the Baltic Sea
environment and natural resources.
Baltic 21 is an initiative and process to develop and
implement a regional agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea region
in order to attain sustainable development in the region.
An agenda for the Baltic Sea Region Baltic 21 is a joint,
long-term effort by the 11 countries of the Council of the
Baltic Sea States (CBSS).
BONUS is a newly established independent organisation
BONUS
Baltic
that is established as the European Economic Interest
Organizations'
Grouping, so that it can be a contractor with the
Network for
European Commission and other possible parties. Its
Funding Science members are either funding agencies directly, or
EEIG
organisations managing national funding allocations for
the joint calls under the Joint Baltic Sea Research
Programme.
Baltic 21
UBC
Union of the
Baltic Cities
www.baltic21.or
g
www.bonusport
al.org
UBC is a network of 100 member cities from ten Baltic www.ubc.net
Sea countries, aiming to develop co-operation and
exchange between the UBC-members, to contribute to
democratic,
economic,
social,
cultural
and
environmentally sustainable development of the Baltic
Sea region and to follow closely the developments of the
EU and prepare its Eastern member cities to smooth
transition to the prospective EU membership.
75
RISKGOV report
National Level
Sweden
SSNC is an organisation active since 1909 that picked up
SSNC
Swedish Society on pesticides already in the 1950s and has since then
for Nature
worked on the negative impact chemicals have on
Conservation
environment and human (among the other environmental
issues).
The organization was founded in 1971. The primary
Swedish
focus for its work is to preserve biodiversity and to
branch of
ensure the sustainable use of natural resources. Baltic sea
WWF
(Världsnaturfon and Marine environment are among the priorities of the
den WWF)
conservation work in Sweden.
The Swedish branch of Greenpeace is actively involved
Swedish
in the environmental work. It is working with chemicals
branch of
issues in the frame of the Greenpeace international action
Greenpeace
“Eliminate toxic chemicals”.
Green World
St. Petersburg
Public
Organization
"Ecology and
Business”
FB
Friends of the
Baltic
www.naturskyd
dsforeningen.se
http://www.wwf
.se
www.greenpeac
e.org/sweden
Russia
Green world (GW) is the single non-governmental, non- www.greenworl
profit environmental organisation that covers the area of d.org.ru
80 km to the west from St. Petersburg on the south coast
of the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. One of their aims is to
save marine ecosystem of the Baltic Sea; the unique
nature reserves of the south coast of the Gulf of Finland.
The main task of the St. Petersburg Public www.helcom.ru
Organization "Ecology and Business" is to promote
the implementation of programmes, projects and
decisions of HELCOM, as well as provide information to
all interested parties about the activities of the Helsinki
Commission.
FB is an environmental NGO. More than 300 residents www.baltfriends
of the Gulf of Finland coasts (Russian part) are involved .ru
to the FB projects and programmes. The NGO works in
St. Petersburg, small towns and villages on the South and
North shores of the Gulf of Finland.
76
RISKGOV report
Annex III. Major Governance Structures and actors
Case
Component
Regulatory framework
International Global
International Regional
EU
National
Institutional Structures
(Legislative bases and decision
and decision-making
procedures)
International Global
International Regional
EU
National
77
Chemicals
CLRTAP, Stockholm, Basel and
Rotterdam Conventions
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan,
HELCOM Ministerial Declaration,
HELCOM recommendations,
Helsinki Conventions
MSFD, Maritime Policy, WFD,
REACH and BSS
National laws and regulations
Treaties, International law,
unanimous (mostly)
Unanimous consent (mostly)
Qualified Majority Voting (QMV),
Unanimous consent; Co-decision
National law
RISKGOV report
Annex IV. Timelines of regulatory framework development
Before
• 1960s - 1970s industrialized countries domestic regulations
• 1974 HELCOM Convention
• 1985 International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides
• 1987 London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International
Trade
• 1992 UNCED
UNCED
Post-UNCED
• 1992 HELCOM Convention
• 1989 Basel Convention;
• 1998 Rotterdam Convention;
• 1998 CLRTAP;
• 2001 Stockholm Convention.
• 2003 Globally Harmonised System (GHS)
• 2006 Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM)
1. The timelines and the international regulatory framework development
Specific
chemicals
• First directive on dangrous substances, 1967
• Directive on restrictions, 1976
• Directive on preparations, 1988
• Separate laws on pesticides, biocides, waste, integrated pollution prevention and controll,
pharmaceuticals, and cosmetic and hygienic products, etc
• EU REACH regulation, 2006 - one system for all industrial substances, with great
exceptions for e.g. lower volumes, but for all forms of hazard
All hazards
Ecosystem
approach
• WFD, 2000
• MSFD, 2005
2. Timelines and the EU regulatory framework development
RISKGOV report
Specific
chemicals
All hazards
• 1974 Convention
• 1980s Recomendations for DDT, PCBs and PCTs; mercury, cadmium, and lead
• 1988 Ministerial Declaration
• 1992 Convention
• 1998 Recommendation 19/5
• The new Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP)
Ecosystem
approach
3. The timelines for HELCOM regulatory framework development
Specific
chemicals
All hazards
Ecosystem
approach
• Law of 1734 - those selling venomous substances must have adequate knowledge.
• Ordinance on Arsenic, 1876 - group classification of substances
• Ordinance on toxic substances, 1906 - classification and restrictions for some substances and
products.
• Notification on occupational health, 1949 - substitution requirements
• Pesticide regulations, 1962 - various regulations
• Environmental Protection Act, 1969 - covered all pollution from point sources, e.g. industries,
precaution
• Act on products hazardous to health and the environment, 1973 - preventive measures and
precaution
• Act of chemical product, 1985 - prevention and precaution, substitution; Chemicals Agency set up
• Environmental Code, 1998 - covering all pollution and activities, including chemicals
• advocates it within the EU and internatonally, and considers it important in e.g. the Baltic Sea
Action Plan (BSAP) and in relevant EU directives etc.
4. The timelines for the Swedish regulatory framework development
RISKGOV report
USSR
Russia
• 1972 Stockholm
• 1974 HELCOM
• 1986 Chernobyl
• 1991 the Law "On Environmental Protection"
• 1992 HELCOM2
• 1992 Rio
• 2002 "Federal Law of Russia on Environmental Protection "
• 2003 State policy in the field of chemical and biological safety to 2010
• 2008 Water strategy of Russia for the period up to 2020
5. The timelines for the Russian regulatory framework development