VZCZCXRO6877
RR RUEHIK
DE RUEHBS #1474/01 3031056
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 301056Z OCT 09 ZDK CTG RUEHSD 0076 3060123
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
RUEAEPA/HQ EPA WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHSS/OECD POSTS COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001474 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/ERA KESSLER, WILLIAMS, BEH 
STATE PASS TO OMB FOR AHUNT, NBECK, DMANCINI, WLIBERANTE 
DEPT PASS TO US FDA 
DEPT PASS TO NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
STATE PASS TO CPSC FOR ROBRIEN, PBITTNER 
STATE PASS TO USTR FOR WEINER, YANG, MCCONNAHA 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EIND ETRD SENV EUN ECON TPHY TSPL
SUBJECT: EUROPEAN RISK FORUM: HELP WANTED: EU CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR 
 
BRUSSELS 00001474  001.4 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY: A vibrant debate on the role of science in decision 
making took place at the October 13 quarterly meeting of the 
European Risk Forum (ERF) in Brussels.  In a roundtable session on 
"Revisiting Science and Decision Making", private sector 
representatives, European Commission and Parliament interlocutors, 
regulators, and academics discussed "a dislocation between the 
scientific advisory process and the political process" in the 
crafting of EU policy.  The putative role of a Chief Science Advisor 
within the executive was briefly raised, with agreement that the 
position and its responsibilities were quite vague, but had 
potential.  The meeting also included a presentation by Dow Europe 
on the impact of the EU biocides directive, and a session on a 
Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals 
(REACH) baseline study compiled by Eurostat to monitor the impact of 
REACH as the first stage of implementation takes place over the next 
few years.  END SUMMARY 
 
---------- 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
¶2. (U) The ERF bills itself as an "expert-led and not-for-profit 
think tank" with the aim of promoting "high quality risk assessment 
and risk management decisions by the EU institutions, and raising 
the awareness of risk management issues at EU-level."  It receives 
financial support from the private sector, but is ideologically 
neutral.  The ERF produces a number of risk-related and regulatory 
themed policy papers, and is highly regarded by academia, EU and 
regulatory policy wonks alike.  In addition to quarterly meetings, 
the ERF holds occasional luncheon dialogues, the next being October 
26 with DG for Health and Consumer Protection Robert Madelin. 
(NOTE: At the October 13 meeting, ERF Chairman Dirk Hudig asked USEU 
Econoff about the possibility of OMB Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator Cass Sunstein as a potential 
luncheon speaker when next in Brussels.  Econoff will pass request 
on to OMB.  END NOTE) 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
ROUNDTABLE: SCIENTISTS SHOULD BE ON TAP, BUT NOT ON TOP 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶3. (U) With an aim towards considering the quality, credibility, and 
role of scientific advice in EU decision-making, the speakers 
plunged into a discussion that ranged from the vibrant to the 
academic and with no simple conclusions.   MEP Malcolm Harbour 
(United Kingdom, European Conservatives and Reformers) called 
attention to European Commission (EC) President Jose Manuel 
Barroso's policy statement to the European Parliament (EP) ahead of 
his reelection and Barroso's emphasis on the need for a focal point 
on the role of science with regard to EU regulation.  Harbour called 
the risk assessment process "arbitrary" in its use of science, 
particularly around the area of impact assessments.  He said that if 
a committee makes an amendment to a piece of legislation, it should 
be obligated to do an impact assessment on the amendment and/or the 
amended legislation. 
 
¶4. (U) In discussing the role of scientific advisory committees, 
James Bridges, chairman of the EC's Scientific Committee on Emerging 
and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), stressed the provision 
of sound scientific advice to EU policy makers as "a public service 
and responsibility".  He suggested the BSE crisis of the 90s 
"changed the parameters" of the risk conversation in general and led 
to the growing range of domains in which risk assessments were 
required, a range, he said, that would only expand.  Although he 
cited a number of constraints on risk assessors, one being the 
inability to quantify and assess benefits, he said the process was 
largely working and was in fact "progressing towards increased 
harmonization of risk assessment procedures" globally.  Bridges said 
another way to improve risk assessments would be for EC committees 
to forge stronger links with scientific committees in the EU member 
states. 
 
¶5. (U) Robert Hoppe, Professor of Policy and Knowledge at the 
University of Twente in the Netherlands made an argument that a 
process of hybridization of science and politics in assessing risk 
is "what is actually happening" in the crafting of EU policy.  Hoppe 
said the role of science is as a "mediator and clarifier of 
information and data" on risks and hazards, but, at the end of the 
day, risk management "is a local thing and local politics matter." 
 
BRUSSELS 00001474  002.4 OF 002 
 
 
 
¶6. (U) In the ensuing open discussion, Harbour quoted Winston 
Churchill: "Scientists should be on tap, but not on top" and 
suggested there was a dislocation between the scientific advisory 
process and political considerations in that science generally does 
not account for benefits.  Therefore, he said, scientific panels 
provide sound, scientific advice to politicians, who weigh that 
advice on risk against benefits that are social or scientific in 
nature.  The notion of an EU Chief Science Advisor was also raised, 
with a consensus expressed that the job description is still wide 
open and would be useful to weigh in with the Commission on possible 
roles. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
BIOCIDES DIRECTIVE: ENTRY INTO FORCE DELAYED TO 2014 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶7. (U) Richard Further of Dow Europe presented on the impact of the 
revision of the EU Biocidal Product Directive (BPD).  According to 
Further, the Directive, which harmonizes the European market for 
biocidal products with the goal of protecting human and animal 
health and the environment, is being revised to close gaps from the 
original legislation, to extend its scope to include all potential 
biocides, and to converge with the EU's REACH legislation.  He said 
the revision also includes an extension of the transitional period 
to May, 2014 (and entry into force) for member states to apply 
existing national laws and to continue to review biocides already on 
the market, as the original May 2010 deadline did not provide 
sufficient time for implementation and compliance.  The revised BPD 
will require extensive testing of biocides before authorization, 
market approval by the European Union, and final authorization by 
member states before a product can be placed on the market. 
 
----------------------- 
SPEAKING OF REACH 
----------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) The outline of a REACH baseline study performed by Eurostat, 
the statistical office of the EU, was presented by Christian 
Heidorn, Senior Statistician.  Heidorn said the Commission asked 
Eurostat to produce the study and to monitor the impact of REACH as 
its implementation proceeded.  He stressed the study does not take 
into account socio-econmic impacts; nor does it look at benefits of 
substances or enforcement of REACH, the responsibility of the member 
states.  The study will follow 237 substances by assigning an 
overall risk score depending on exposure and toxicity and will 
review the indicators again in 2012 to see whether REACG "has 
actually reduced the risk caused by chemicals" and how the data have 
evolved.  The study can be found at 
 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/ portal/ 
eurostat/home/. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9. (U) The notion that politics trumps science in EU decision-making 
is by now well known.  But as the USG continues to push for 
science-based policy making as a sensible best practice, the 
appointment of a Chief Science Advisor within the executive may 
bring scientific rigor and leadership to a process often guided by 
emotion and member state foibles.  With the job description yet 
unwritten, we see an opportunity for U.S. interlocutors to weigh in 
with the Commission to help shape the role of a better shepherd of 
science within the EU legislative process. 
 
MURRAY