Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:51:57.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science and Law in Environmental Law and Policy: The Case of the European Commission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2020

Aleksandra Čavoški
Aleksandra Čavoški*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham (United Kingdom (UK)). Email: A.Cavoski@bham.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article draws on empirical research conducted with European Commission officials in three Directorates-General and its other services on their perception of how the legislative and policy-making process facilitates the interaction of science and environmental law. This article deploys Sheila Jasanoff's theoretical framework of co-production as an important lens to examine how the European Commission creates this interaction of science and law in environmental policy making and identifies how the Commission incorporates different voices and stakeholders in this policy area. The Commission can be seen as a vehicle of co-production of science and law in EU environmental policy by building strong expert identities, putting in place institutional processes and instruments, and creating discourse between scientists and lawyers leading to outputs of co-production. It is argued that in actively facilitating co-production, the Commission underpins the legislative and policy-making process with its institutional values.

Keywords

European CommissionCo-productionJasanoffEnvironmental law and policyInteraction of science and law
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 263 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

Footnotes

I am grateful to Steven Vaughan, Fiona de Londras, Robert Lee, and Conor Murphy for their comments. I am also thankful to the anonymous TEL reviewers for their feedback.

References

1 Jasanoff, S., ‘Serviceable Truths: Science for Action in Law and Policy’ (2015) 93(7) Texas Law Review, pp. 1723–49Google Scholar.

2 Jasanoff, S., ‘The Idiom of Co-production’, in Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, 2006), pp. 1–12Google Scholar, at 3.

3 Jasanoff, n. 1 above, p. 1730.

4 Ibid., pp. 1724–5.

5 Ibid., p. 1723.

6 Jasanoff, n. 2 above, p. 2.

7 Ibid., p. 3.

8 Ibid, pp. 2–3. See also Keller, A.C., Science in Environmental Policy: The Politics of Objective Advice (The MIT Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 See more in Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, rev'd edn (Sage, 2001)Google Scholar.

10 Weimer, M. & de Ruijter, A. (eds), Regulating Risks in the European Union: The Co-production of Expert and Executive Power (Hart, 2017)Google Scholar.

11 Lee, M. et al. , ‘Techniques of Knowing in Administration: Co-production, Models, and Conservation Law’ (2018) 45(3) Journal of Law and Society, pp. 427–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 The work recognizes the significant empirical research by political scientists with regard to environmental policy and EU institutions, including the European Commission, as well as work on compliance and effectiveness of EU environmental policy. Examples include Weale, A. et al. , Environmental Governance in Europe: An Ever Closer Ecological Union (Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Knill, C., Heichel, S. & Arndt, D., ‘Really a Front-runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond: A Quantitative Policy Perspective’ (2012) 48 Energy Policy, pp. 36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Gornitzka, Å. & Sverdrup, U., ‘Who Consults? The Configuration of Expert Groups in the European Union’ (2008) 31(4) West European Politics, pp. 725–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Boswell, C., ‘The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge: Knowledge and Legitimation in European Union Immigration Policy’ (2008) 15(4) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 471–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Egeberg, M., Schaefer, G. & Trondal, J., ‘The Many Faces of EU Committee Governance’ (2003) 26(3) West European Politics, pp. 19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 See Rimkutė, D. & Haverland, M., ‘How Does the European Commission Use Scientific Expertise? Results from a Survey of Scientific Members of the Commission's Expert Committees’ (2015) 13(4) Comparative European Politics, pp. 430–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 3–4; S. Jasanoff, ‘Afterword’, in Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 274–82, at 277.

18 See M. Lynch, ‘Circumscribing Expertise: Membership Categories in Courtroom Testimony’, in Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 161–80, at 162–3.

19 M.S. McDougal & H.D. Lasswell, ‘The Relation of Law to Social Process: Trends in Theories about Law’ (1976) 37 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, pp. 465–85, at 465.

20 Ibid., p. 469.

21 S. Jasanoff, ‘Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society’, in Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 13–45, at 18–9.

22 Ibid., p. 19.

23 Ibid., p. 38.

24 Ibid., pp. 39–40.

25 Ibid., p. 40.

26 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT.

27 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:FULL:EN:PDF.

28 See N. Nugent & M. Rhinard, The European Commission, 2nd edn (Red Globe Press, 2015).

29 For more about the development, operation and functions of the European Commission see Nugent & Rhinard, n. 28 above, and Jordan, A. & Adelle, C. (eds), Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes, 3rd edn (Routledge, 2012)Google Scholar.

30 See Kingston, S., Heyvaert, V. & Čavoški, A., European Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 38.

32 See Bellier, I., ‘A Europeanized Elite? An Anthropology of European Commission Officials’ (2000) 14 Yearbook of European Studies, pp. 135–56Google Scholar.

33 Jasanoff, n. 2 above, p. 3.

34 The Joint Research Centre is the Commission's in-house provider of independent scientific knowledge, see EU Science Hub, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en.

35 See more in Dumay, S. Qu & J., ‘The Qualitative Research Interview’ (2011) 8(3) Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, pp. 238–64Google Scholar.

36 Vaughan, S., ‘Elite and Elite-lite Interviewing: Managing our Industrial Legacy’, in Franklin, A. & Blyton, P. (eds), Researching Sustainability (Earthscan, 2011), pp. 105–19Google Scholar, at 106.

37 Vaughan, ibid., p. 110.

38 Significant empirical work has already been conducted with regard to agencies, e.g., E.I.L. Vos, ‘EU Agencies on the Move: Challenges Ahead’, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS), Report No. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 1–49, available at: http://www.sieps.se/globalassets/publikationer/2018/sieps-2018_1-web.pdf?; E.I.L. Vos, ‘EU Agencies and Independence’, in D. Ritleng (ed.), Independence and Legitimacy in the Institutional System of the European Union: The Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 206–27.

39 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 39.

40 V. Rabeharisoa & M. Callon, ‘Patients and Scientists in French Muscular Dystrophy Research’, in Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 142–60, at 142.

41 Ibid.

42 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 39.

43 Ibid.

44 Lynch, n. 18 above, p. 161.

45 Ibid.

46 Egeberg, M., ‘Organization and Nationality in the European Commission Services’ (1996) 74(4) Public Administration, pp. 721–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tóth, E., ‘National Cultures and European Identity: The Process of Engrenage among European Commission Civil Servants’ (2007) 29(3) Society and Economy, pp. 413–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bellier, n. 32 above.

47 Wodak, R., ‘National and Transnational Identities and Other Identities Constructed in Interviews with EU Officials’, in Herrmann, R.K., Risse-Kappen, T. & Brewer, M.B. (eds), Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), pp. 97–128Google Scholar, at 99.

48 See more in Putnam, R.D., ‘Elite Transformation in Advanced Industrial Societies: An Empirical Assessment of the Theory of Technocracy’ (1977) 10(3) Comparative Political Studies, pp. 383–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Ibid., p. 384.

50 Ibid., p. 404.

51 B. Laffan, ‘The European Union and its Institutions as “Identity Builders”’, in Herrmann, Risse-Kappen & Brewer, n. 47 above, pp. 75–96, at 78.

52 W.R. Scott, Institutions and Organizations, 4th edn (Sage, 2014), p. 138.

53 Alvesson, M., ‘Organisational Culture: Meaning, Discourse and Identity’, in Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M. & Peterson, M.F. (eds), Handbook of Organisational Culture and Climate (Sage, 2011), pp. 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 21.

54 Ibid.

55 (R10).

56 (R4).

57 (R17).

58 (R3) and (R17).

59 For more about foresight in research and innovation see European Commission, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/support-eu-research-and-innovation-policy-making/foresight/about-foresight-research-and-innovation_en.

60 See J.-C. Juncker, ‘A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change – Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission’, 15 July 2014, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/juncker-political-guidelines-speech_en.pdf; and European Commission, ‘Trust at Risk: Implications for EU Policies and Institutions’, 2017, available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e512c11b-e922-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1.

61 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 39.

62 (R10).

63 (R8).

64 J. Hawkins, ‘The Legitimisation of Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation: Power, Prejudice and Public Participation’, PhD Thesis, University of Bristol (UK), 2012, Ch. Three.

65 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 29.

66 A. Lawton, ‘Environmental Taxation as a Form of Environmental Protection: Exploring the Carbon Reduction Commitment’, PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham (UK), Apr. 2018, p. 121.

67 European Commission, n. 60 above, p. 7.

68 (R4).

69 (R11).

70 Peter Dear explains how the term ‘expertise’ designates a particular kind of authority: P. Dear, ‘Mysteries of State, Mysteries of Nature: Authority, Knowledge and Expertise in the Seventeenth Century’, in Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 206–24, at 207.

71 Lynch, n. 18 above, p. 161.

72 (R14).

73 Alvesson, n. 53 above, p. 22.

74 (R4).

75 (R4).

76 (R4).

77 See European Commission, Scientific Advice Mechanism, ‘Rules of Procedure of the High Level Group of Scientific Advisors’, 29 Jan. 2016, Art. 7, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/sam-hlg_rules_of_procedure.pdf; and ‘Guidelines: How SAM Produces Scientific Advice’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/guidelines_how_sam_produces_scientific_advice.pdf#view=fit#pagemode=none.

78 In particular, it has a rapid response capacity, which it used, e.g., with the CO2 report ‘Closing the Gap’. This opinion provided ‘added value’ to an already lengthy legislative process on CO2 emissions from vehicles: European Commission, Scientific Advice Mechanism, ‘Closing the Gap between Light-Duty Vehicle Real-World CO2 Emissions and Laboratory Testing’, Nov. 2016, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/closing-gap-between-light-duty-vehicle-real-world-co2-emissions-and-laboratory-testing_en.

79 Commission Decision on the Setting up of the High Level Group of Scientific Advisors, 16 Oct. 2015, C(2015) 6946 final. DG Research and Innovation provides technical and administrative support to SAM.

80 (R9).

81 Lynch, n. 18 above, p. 163.

82 Ibid., p. 165.

83 See L.S. Shalom, H. Schwartz & S. Arieli, ‘Personal Values, National Culture, and Organizations: Insights Applying the Schwartz Value Framework’, in Ashkanasy, Wilderom & Peterson, n. 53 above, pp. 515–37, at 515.

84 (R5).

85 (R2).

86 (R7).

87 (R4).

88 (R16) and (R14).

89 European Commission, Guidance on the Application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure for Large-scale Transboundary Projects (European Union, 2013), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Transboundry%20EIA%20Guide.pdf.

90 (R18).

91 (R16).

92 (R15).

93 (R16).

94 (R15). This was partly rectified with the establishment of SAM, which comprises social scientists, as indicated by (R9).

95 (R16).

96 See Scott, W.R., ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’ (1987) 32(4) Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 493–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 493–94.

97 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, pp. 39–40.

98 Ibid., p. 40.

99 Ibid.

100 See W.R Scott, ‘Institutional Theory’, in G. Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory (Sage, 2005), pp. 408–14.

101 Scott, ibid., p. 408.

102 See P. Selznick, Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation (Harper & Row, 1957), p. 16.

103 See more in V.A. Schmidt, ‘Institutional Theory’, in B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser & L. Morlino (eds), International Encyclopedia of Political Science (Sage, 2011), pp. 1188–99.

104 See J. McCormick, Environmental Policy in the European Union (Palgrave, 2001).

105 Single European Act, Luxembourg (Luxembourg), 17 Feb. 1986, and The Hague (The Netherlands), 28 Feb. 1986, in force 1 July 1987, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:11986U/TXT&from=EN.

106 E.g., Council Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste [1975] OJ L 194/39, and Council Directive 80/779/EEC on Air Quality Limit Values and Guide Values for Sulphur Dioxide and Suspended Particulates [1980] OJ L 229/30.

107 See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Better Regulation for Better Results: An EU Agenda’, 19 May 2015, COM(2015) 215 final; Commission Staff Working Document, ‘Better Regulation Guidelines’ 7 July 2017, SWD(2017) 350 final; and Commission, ‘European Governance: A White Paper’, 25 July 2001, COM(2001) 428 final.

108 Anne Glover was the EU Chief Scientific Adviser until 2014.

109 (R9).

110 See COM(2015) 215 final, n. 107 above; see also ‘Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making’ [2016] OJ L 123/1. This is how interviewee (R14) explains the legislative process: ‘The legal drafting starts with the planning phase where a set of priorities are set out in the Working Programme, followed by a relatively short inception impact assessment which must be published for feedback. This is followed by the establishment of the interservice group, which will steer the preparation of the impact assessment. In parallel, all three DGs conduct a very detailed internal analysis of scientific evidence, workshops with Member States, working with JRC or external experts. In all those phases, the DGs are supported by the Legal Service of the Commission. After the proposal is adopted, the Commission is responsible for the implementation and evaluation of the legislation, which is always externalized. Finally, the science permeates the enforcement process which is within the competences of the Legal Service in close cooperation with DG Environment and other DGs responsible for cross-cutting issues’. For more on the Better Regulation Agenda, see C.M. Radaelli, ‘Halfway through the Better Regulation Strategy of the Juncker Commission: What Does the Evidence Say?’ (2018) 56(S1 Annual Review) Journal of Common Market Studies, pp. 85–95, and Alberto, A., ‘How Much Better is Better Regulation? Assessing the Impact of the Better Regulation Package on the European Union: A Research Agenda’ (2015) 6(3) European Journal of Risk Regulation, pp. 344–56Google Scholar.

111 (R5). Similar conclusions were raised by (R6).

112 See COM(2015) 215 final, n. 107 above: ‘the Commission will invite citizens or stakeholders to provide feedback within eight weeks: to feed these views into the legislative debate, the Commission will collect them and present them to the European Parliament and the Council’.

113 (R6).

114 Scientists are also part of the implementation and enforcement process; they are also free to suggest new policy approaches based on the monitoring of how the legislation is implemented: see European Commission, ‘Guidelines on Impact Assessment’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-guidelines-impact-assessment.pdf.

115 (R4).

116 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 40.

117 (R2).

118 (R1) and (R2).

119 (R5).

120 See Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 40.

121 Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 2–4.

122 (R15) and (R1).

123 (R1).

124 Ibid.

125 Rykiel, E.J., ‘Scientific Objectivity, Value Systems, and Policymaking’ (2001) 51(6) BioScience, pp. 433–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and R. Costanza, ‘Visions, Values, Valuation, and the Need for an Ecological Economics: All Scientific Analysis is Based on a “Preanalytic Vision” and the Major Source of Uncertainty about Current Environmental Policies Results from Differences in Visions and World View’ (2001) 51(6) BioScience, pp. 459–68.

126 SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) is a consortium which consists of the 5 European Academy Networks: Academia Europaea, ALLEA, EASAC, Euro-CASE, and FEAM: see European Commission, ‘Group of Chief Scientific Advisors’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/scientific-support-eu-policies/group-chief-scientific-advisors_en.

127 (R7) and (R8).

128 (R8).

129 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 40.

130 B.G. Peters, Institutional Theory: Problems and Prospects (Institute for Advanced Studies, 2000), p. 5.

131 Ibid., p. 10.

132 Tömmel, I., ‘The Presidents of the European Commission: Transactional or Transforming Leaders?’ (2013) 51(4) Journal of Common Market Studies, pp. 789–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

133 See European Commission, Communication from the President to the Commission, ‘The Working Methods of the European Commission 2014–2019’, 11 Nov. 2014, C(2014) 9004.

134 Environment has been placed in the ‘project team’ Energy Union, which was the responsibility of Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič of Slovakia, and was very much focused on energy rather than the environment: Čavoški, A., ‘A Post-Austerity European Commission: No Role for Environmental Policy?’ (2015) 24(3) Environmental Politics, pp. 501–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 502.

135 (R16). See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, ‘Better Regulation: Delivering Better Results for a Stronger Union’, 14 Sept. 2016, COM(2016) 615 final.

136 (R16).

137 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 40.

138 (R3).

139 On foresight in the European Commission see ‘About Foresight in Research and Innovation’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/support-eu-research-and-innovation-policy-making/foresight/about-foresight-research-and-innovation_en.

140 (R17).

141 See more at European Commission, EU Science Hub, ‘Foresight and Horizon Scanning’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research/crosscutting-activities/foresight.

142 See (R3). See Decision No. 1386/2013/EU on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living Well, Within the Limits of Our Planet’ [2013] OJ L 354/171, para. 72.

143 (R3).

144 (R17).

145 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, pp. 40–1.

146 Ibid., p. 41.

147 Alvesson, n. 53 above, p. 19.

148 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 41.

149 (R3).

150 (R2).

151 (R9).

152 (R10), (R11) and (R12).

153 (R10). See R. Brownsword & K. Yeung, Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes (Hart, 2008).

154 (R4).

155 (R2).

156 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 41.

157 Ibid., pp. 40–1.

158 H.E.S. Mattila, Comparative Legal Linguistics (Ashgate, 2006), p. 3.

159 (R2), (R4) and (R9).

160 (R10).

161 (R9).

162 European Court of Auditors, ‘The EU's Response to the “Dieselgate” Scandal’, Briefing Paper, Feb. 2019, available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/brp_vehicle_emissions/brp_vehicle_emissions_en.pdf.

163 (R9).

164 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 41.

165 Art. 258 TFEU.

166 (R12).

167 See Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 41.

168 Ibid.

169 See SWD(2017) 350, n. 107 above; see (R10).

170 (R5).

171 (R2).

172 (R1), (R4) and (R9).

173 (R14) and (R16). E.g., one of the interviewees pointed out that DG Agriculture struggles to recruit agro-economists.

174 (R10).

175 See European Commission, ‘Strengthening Evidence Based Policy Making through Scientific Advice: Reviewing Existing Practice and Setting Up a European Science Advice Mechanism’, May 2015, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/strengthening_evidence_based_policy_making.pdf.

176 (R8).

177 More information about reports and opinions of SAM is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/index.cfm.

178 (R8).

179 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 41.

180 Jasanoff, n. 1 above, p. 1730.

181 Jasanoff, n. 2 above, p. 3.

182 For more about the value of soft law as a source of EU law see L. Senden, Soft Law in European Community Law (Hart, 2004).

183 Jasanoff, n. 1 above, p. 1724.

184 (R4).

185 Jasanoff, n. 1 above, p. 1730.

186 Ibid.

187 Ibid.

188 See SWD(2017) 350, n. 107 above; Communication from the Commission on the Collection and Use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines – ‘Improving the Knowledge Base for Better Policies’, 11 Dec. 2002, COM(2002) 713 final; and V. Reillon, ‘Scientific Advice for Policy-makers in the European Union’, European Parliamentary Research Service, June 2015, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/559512/EPRS_BRI%282015%29559512_EN.pdf.

189 Reillon, ibid., p. 2.

190 Jasanoff, n. 1 above, pp. 1724–5.

191 (R4) and (R6).

192 (R15).

193 (R4).

194 Jasanoff, n. 21 above, p. 41.

195 (R14) and (R16).

196 (R6).

197 (R3).

198 (R2).

199 (R5).

200 See Y. Ezrahi, ‘Science and the Political Imagination in Contemporary Democracies’, in Jasanoff, n. 2 above, pp. 254–73.

201 See Rimkutė & Haverland, n. 16 above (the authors consider some similar questions in relation to external experts).