The concept of precautionary risk regulation is embedded in the framework of overarching democratic principles which are understood as essential to accomplishing a "good? European governance. Four principles should be particularly taken into account:
? Mediation of interests between those who govern and those who are governed ? Public accountability which incorporates freedom of information, transparency of political actions as well as responsibility and legitimisation of decision making procedures to the public
? Effectiveness of political decision making processes and regulatory measures; balancing adequate risk management instruments and the chosen level of protection to avoid over- as well as under-regulation
? Efficiency which means selecting the regulatory action which will cause the least costs for the private and/or public sector, provided that this action is as effective as the other alternatives.
In the course of applying the principle it is essential to to have stakeholders and public interest groups participate in the appraisal process in order to include the knowledge, values and interpretations of all relevant actors and to honor the principles of democratic governance. In order to organize participation in a way in which valuable input is provided without overwhelming issue and process and without allocating too many resources to it, we have developed a gradual model of involvement that includes different actors only if such an involvement is likely to improve the regulatory process or seems fair and appropriate from a normative democratic viewpoint.
The first principal opportunity for different actors to become involved is the screening procedure. This process rests on a set of assumptions and normative conditions. Among them are the reference to the respective protective goal, the choice of endpoints for the risk appraisal and the choice of significance levels. As a result of the screening process, the following five different appraisal models may be pursued (sequentially or exclusively). Each of the five models demands different levels of involvement:
- Case 1: Standard risk assessment: No need to involve additional actors.
- Case 2: Extended risk assessment: High degree of seriousness and/or complexity of a specific risk requires additional involvement of external experts to provide an appropriate risk reduction option. Such an exercise is called epistemological discourse.
- Case 3: Precautionary appraisal: Characterizing and balancing threats under high uncertainty requires an evaluative-reflective discourse including other experts from universities and stakeholder groups. The aim of such a reflective discourse is to find regulatory measures that help to assure adequate protection against potential hazards, but support innovations in technologies and products. Instruments such as stakeholder hearings, mediation, negotiated rule making and others may serve this purpose.
- Case 4: Discursive process: Coping with a situation of high ambiguity demands an overall participatory discourse involving major stakeholders and affected citizens. The main objective is to search solutions which resolve conflicts among actors. Established procedures of parliamentary decision making, but also novel procedures, such as citizen action committees, citizen advisory panels and citizen juries, are potential instruments to deal with ambiguities.
- Case 5: Presumption of Prevention: Should the discourse come to the result that a proposed activity or substance is intolerable due to its hazardous characteristics or its potential risks, the activity is banned or at least restricted. In some cases, however, a social discourse may be needed if stakeholders claim that the benefit of the activity outweighs the potential problems. The presentaion addressed these five cases and demonstrate how they can be applied to the example of chemicals.
