Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion
- PDF / 657,099 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 91 Downloads / 261 Views
Risk regulation and precaution in Europe and the United States: the case of bioinvasion Ronit Justo‑Hanani1 · Tamar Dayan2 Accepted: 15 October 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract The precautionary nature of risk regulation in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) is an ongoing debate. Theoretical contentions over ‘who is more precautionary’ confirm that the degree of relative precaution may lead to different levels of protection, but also suggest that precaution needs to be evaluated against different parts of the regulatory process. This paper addresses a new case of transatlantic split which has occurred with the adoption of the EU regulation on alien invasive species. This regulation aims to drive important changes at the trade–environment nexus and reflects Europe’s integrated policy approach to environmental, health, and safety risks. We have carried out a comparative analysis by examining parts of the regulatory process. We argue that differences in legal and policy frameworks, risk assessment, and risk management structures have left the EU and the US wide apart as to their risk governance ambitions. The EU exhibits more pre‑ cautionary approach with regard to these parts, as compared to the US. Our finding sug‑ gests that policy divergence, as reflected in this case, is true for both stringency and regula‑ tory process, expanding literature discussions on precaution in these systems. Yet, with the EU’s regulation being relatively new, there are still implementation issues up for debate. Keywords Risk regulation · Precautionary principle · European union · Transatlantic policy divergence · Invasive species · Trade–environment nexus
Introduction The role of the precautionary principle (PP) in driving or understanding risk regulation in the EU and the US is an ongoing debate (e.g., Botos et al. 2018; Burgess 2013; Chris‑ toforou 2004; Lieberman and Zito 2012; Löfstedt 2004; Tosun 2013; Vogel 2012). At the heart of this debate is the contentions over ‘who is more precautionary’ in addressing * Ronit Justo‑Hanani [email protected] Tamar Dayan [email protected] 1
The Department of Public Policy, Tel Aviv University, 6997801 Tel Aviv, Israel
2
The George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, and the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Israel National Center for Biodiversity Studies, Tel Aviv University, 6997801 Tel‑Aviv, Israel
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Policy Sciences
environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks. A central claim is that there has been an overall shift from greater American to greater European relative precaution and stringency in risk regulation (Schreurs et al. 2009; Kelemen and Vogel 2003, 2010, 2012). A contra‑ dictory claim asserts that there is a complex mix of parity and particularity between Europe and US in their application of precaution (IRGC 2017; Wiener et al. 2011). In the discus‑ sions on the nature of their risk regulation, it has been argued that precaution needs to be evaluated against different
Data Loading...
