Report of the Working Group "Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems". Gerold, R., Liberatore, A., Bjorklund, M., Bossenmeyer, G., Cotter, C., Cross, A., Fallon, C., Franca, F., Funtowicz, S., Hurst, R., Kraemer, L., Lebessis, N., Miège, R., Pedersen, L. M., Rogers, M., Shotter, M., & Wagstaffe, P. White paper on Governance, work area 1, Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters. ![Report of the Working Group "Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems" [pdf]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/pdf.svg "pdf")
Paper abstract bibtex [Excerpt: Executive summary] [::1] 'Experts' are consulted by policy makers, the media and the public at large to explain and advise on such diverse issues as climate change, employment policy, BSE ('mad cow disease'), and genetically modified organisms. However, many recent cases have shown that expertise, while being increasingly relied upon, is also increasingly contested. [::2] Furthermore, in the interplay between different levels of governance in the European Union, expertise must be credible across a variety of national scientific and policy cultures. It should be sufficiently robust to support policy proposals both at the Community level and in international arenas. Enlargement presents additional opportunities and challenges: greater diversity and knowledge, but also the need for adaptation and potential for broader societal questioning. [::3] Community institutions have already responded to the demands for increased accountability and transparency in its policy making process, including the use of expertise. General provisions concerning public access of documents of Community institutions have been adopted. The advisory scientific committees of the Commission were reformed in 1997, and criteria of excellence, independence and transparency were consolidated. The European Commission consults widely by making use of 'Green Papers' on a variety of issues, and makes increasing use of the Internet. [::4] While building on such positive developments, more is needed to improve the interactions between expertise, policy making and public debate. A number of important issues were identified by the Working Group: the definitions of 'expertise'; the meaning of 'democratising' in this context; the identification of needs and features of European reference systems; uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle; 'independence' and 'integrity'; the factors leading to effectiveness; and the role of the media. In all of these issues, important lessons can be drawn from past and ongoing experience. [::5] Seven aims were agreed, corresponding to 'democratisation' criteria: access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning and foresight; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. To implement these aims, five action lines were identified as promising avenues for further exploration - at this stage, no assessment has been made of the resource implications. [::6] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination). The desired outcome is both better quality decisionmaking, and restored trust in the use of expertise in European policy-making. [::7] Some action lines complement activities foreseen to implement the European Research Area, and may form part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”. [::8] The action lines are outlined below. A common feature throughout is the need for clear communication strategies to be integrated into the process: [::8.i] A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at EU level. An inventory of those sources (committees, agencies, institutes, etc.) currently providing expert advice to EU policy making will add transparency, and will provide a service to policy-makers and those parties, including the media, requiring rapid access to acknowledged expertise. The inventory would initially be limited to EU bodies, but could be expanded to build upon existing national and international databases and networks. [::8.ii] Establishing guidelines for the selection and functioning of expertise in the policy-making processes. These would implement the previously cited aims of access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. More specific rules for individual officials and experts could be enshrined at a later stage in 'codes of conduct'. This action line is expected to act also as a catalyst for the implementation of the following three. [::8.iii] More openness of expertise and greater opportunity for informed participation by society in policy-making. A number of measures should better connect experts, policy makers and society at large, and make this process more transparent: · Attendance by the public and by stakeholders at meetings where expert advice is developed and transmitted. The objective is to improve access to meetings to the greatest extent possible. The favoured approach calls for all meetings generally to be open with the possibility of restricting access for duly motivated and published reasons. [::Publication of expert evidence and how it is used in reaching political decision] The objective is to enhance accountability by providing the public and stakeholders with a 'trace' of the path to a particular decision. Implementation rules should be aligned with the recent institutional agreement on public access to documents. [::Promotion of participatory procedures] The principles of access and accountability demand public debate, knowledge-sharing and scrutiny of policy makers and experts at the grass-roots level. Citizens' juries, consensus conferences, participatory foresight are among the mechanisms implemented on specific topics at local and national level. Drawing on past experiences, steps could be taken to foster these throughout the EU Member States and accession countries. [::Establishment of intermediary platforms] The objective is to provide more permanent and effective interfaces between experts, policy-makers and the public. This will involve the identification of key bodies capable of synthesising expert material in forms understandable to the public and policy-makers, and/or helping experts better formulate their advice in such a form. [::8.iv] Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making. The objective is to deliver knowledge for decision making that is 'socially robust'. This implies a notion of expertise that embraces diverse forms of knowledge (plurality). Expertise should be multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral and should include input from academic experts, stakeholders, and civil society. Procedures must be established to review expertise beyond the traditional peer community, including, for example, scrutiny by those possessing local or practical knowledge, or those with an understanding of ethical aspects. This is sometimes referred to as 'extended peer review'. [::8.v] Greater integration in risk governance processes. The objective is to have wider and deeper integration of expertise during the full cycle of risk governance (identification, assessment, evaluation, management and communication). This will enhance early warning and encompass plurality. The key objective is to ensure an effective interface and networking between risk assessment and risk management at various levels, whilst recognising the iterative nature of the process. An essential element is knowing the capacity in which the actors participate, requiring clear procedures and objectives. [\n][...] [Recommended action lines] [::Aims] The international work and the consultation highlighted the fact that making expertise more accessible is important, but that this has to go hand-in-hand with other more fundamental changes. Among these, there was clear call for more accountability and procedures to provide a 'trace' of sources and uses of expertise; procedures to acknowledge minority views; involvement of 'stakeholders' at early stage; and better management of uncertainty. With regard to options for establishing European sientific reference systems, there was a consensus on the need to avoid bureaucratic and overly-centralised modes of operation; to focus on networking (including virtual networking); to allow for review and fexibility; and to develop such systems consistently within the overall 'democratising' approach. Taking acount of all this, a number of options aimed at 'democratising' expertise and establishing European reference systems were explored. Out of the large pool of possible actions, five action lines were identified as particularly promising within the context of the White Paper on Governance. These action lines concern an inventory network on expertise, guidelines on expert advice, procedures to guarantee access and participation, 'extended peer review', integrated procedures for risk governance. Strands of all the action lines are closely interlinked; for this reason they should be treated as related components of an overall strategy. They evolve from existing mechanisms and should be regarded as a contribution to the experimental, open process of learning with which the Commission is particularly engaged at the moment, for example, in the Reform Process. The proposed action lines should help to improve the 'input legitimacy' of the process through which expertise is developed, selected and used and, at the same time, the 'output legitimacy' through the quality and effectiveness of policy decisions as well as public debate. More specifically, the main aims of the action lines include: [::] access to, and transparency of, the process of the development, selection and use of expertise for policy making; [::] accountability to citizens and representative institutions of those who provide and use expertise for policy making; [::] effectiveness in providing expertise - helping to 'deliver' policy decisions that meet citizens' needs and demands; [::] early warning and foresight to help identify new issues and threats; [::] 'independence' and 'integrity' (for example, experts should be required to make and update prior declaration of interest); [::] plurality of sources and types of expertise consulted for policy making and public debate, including acknowledgement of minority views; [::] quality of expertise (including scientific excellence and policy and social relevance). [\n] The action lines complement and reinforce each other. The Guidelines, depending on the actual content, could meet all the aims and act as the 'catalyst' for the other action lines. The Inventory network can be regarded as a 'service' to the other options by mapping the 'jungle' of sources of expertise. The action line on Access, Participation and Intermediary Platforms focuses on different aspects of transparency. Procedures for 'Extended peer review' aim to reconcile quality, access and accountability (sometimes perceived as conflicting with each other). Finally Integrated Procedures of Risk Governance intend to ensure accountability and effectiveness. [\n] Initially the action lines could be implemented within the Commission. Many of the strands of the action lines could be taken up within other EU institutions. They could also be further exploited at national, regional or local level within the EU through appropriate dialogue with Member States. This could be achieved, for example, through the open method of co-ordination, taking account of national diversities and circumstances. The report does not propose single solutions to be applied in a uniform manner at all these levels. More work will be required for any implementation within the Commission and will certainly be needed for extensions to the other levels. The proposed action lines should be regarded as topics for the start of such a process. [\n] An assessment of the resources (budget, personnel, etc.) needed to eventually implement these action lines, and the comparative analysis between such costs and the expected benefits, are beyond the mandate of this group. Such an assessment would clearly be required before embarking on concrete implementation steps. [\n][...] [Conclusion] The working group has made five recommendations that, in its collective view, will contribute to the dual goal of better quality policy-making, and restored trust in the use of expertise. These recommendations are in the form of action lines, representing promising avenues for further exploration. [\n] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination). [\n] Further development and implementation of these action lines will be done in the context of the follow-up to the White Paper, and, as far as the European Research Area is concerned, as part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”.
@book{geroldReportWorkingGroup2001,
title = {Report of the Working Group "{{Democratising}} Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems"},
author = {Gerold, Rainer and Liberatore, Angela and Bjorklund, Mona and Bossenmeyer, Grete and Cotter, Colette and Cross, Alan and Fallon, Catherine and Franca, Francesco and Funtowicz, Silvio and Hurst, Roderick and Kraemer, Ludwig and Lebessis, Notis and Miège, Robin and Pedersen, Lars M. and Rogers, Michael and Shotter, Michael and Wagstaffe, Peter},
editor = {Gerold, Rainer and Liberatore, Angela},
date = {2001},
publisher = {{White paper on Governance, work area 1, Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters}},
url = {https://web.archive.org/web/20120117060220/http://ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf},
abstract = {[Excerpt: Executive summary] [::1] 'Experts' are consulted by policy makers, the media and the public at large to explain and advise on such diverse issues as climate change, employment policy, BSE ('mad cow disease'), and genetically modified organisms. However, many recent cases have shown that expertise, while being increasingly relied upon, is also increasingly contested.
[::2] Furthermore, in the interplay between different levels of governance in the European Union, expertise must be credible across a variety of national scientific and policy cultures. It should be sufficiently robust to support policy proposals both at the Community level and in international arenas. Enlargement presents additional opportunities and challenges: greater diversity and knowledge, but also the need for adaptation and potential for broader societal questioning.
[::3] Community institutions have already responded to the demands for increased accountability and transparency in its policy making process, including the use of expertise. General provisions concerning public access of documents of Community institutions have been adopted. The advisory scientific committees of the Commission were reformed in 1997, and criteria of excellence, independence and transparency were consolidated. The European Commission consults widely by making use of 'Green Papers' on a variety of issues, and makes increasing use of the Internet.
[::4] While building on such positive developments, more is needed to improve the interactions between expertise, policy making and public debate. A number of important issues were identified by the Working Group: the definitions of 'expertise'; the meaning of 'democratising' in this context; the identification of needs and features of European reference systems; uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle; 'independence' and 'integrity'; the factors leading to effectiveness; and the role of the media. In all of these issues, important lessons can be drawn from past and ongoing experience.
[::5] Seven aims were agreed, corresponding to 'democratisation' criteria: access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning and foresight; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. To implement these aims, five action lines were identified as promising avenues for further exploration - at this stage, no assessment has been made of the resource implications.
[::6] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination). The desired outcome is both better quality decisionmaking, and restored trust in the use of expertise in European policy-making.
[::7] Some action lines complement activities foreseen to implement the European Research Area, and may form part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”.
[::8] The action lines are outlined below. A common feature throughout is the need for clear communication strategies to be integrated into the process:
[::8.i] A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at EU level. An inventory of those sources (committees, agencies, institutes, etc.) currently providing expert advice to EU policy making will add transparency, and will provide a service to policy-makers and those parties, including the media, requiring rapid access to acknowledged expertise. The inventory would initially be limited to EU bodies, but could be expanded to build upon existing national and international databases and networks.
[::8.ii] Establishing guidelines for the selection and functioning of expertise in the policy-making processes. These would implement the previously cited aims of access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. More specific rules for individual officials and experts could be enshrined at a later stage in 'codes of conduct'. This action line is expected to act also as a catalyst for the implementation of the following three.
[::8.iii] More openness of expertise and greater opportunity for informed participation by society in policy-making. A number of measures should better connect experts, policy makers and society at large, and make this process more transparent: · Attendance by the public and by stakeholders at meetings where expert advice is developed and transmitted. The objective is to improve access to meetings to the greatest extent possible. The favoured approach calls for all meetings generally to be open with the possibility of restricting access for duly motivated and published reasons.
[::Publication of expert evidence and how it is used in reaching political decision] The objective is to enhance accountability by providing the public and stakeholders with a 'trace' of the path to a particular decision. Implementation rules should be aligned with the recent institutional agreement on public access to documents.
[::Promotion of participatory procedures] The principles of access and accountability demand public debate, knowledge-sharing and scrutiny of policy makers and experts at the grass-roots level. Citizens' juries, consensus conferences, participatory foresight are among the mechanisms implemented on specific topics at local and national level. Drawing on past experiences, steps could be taken to foster these throughout the EU Member States and accession countries.
[::Establishment of intermediary platforms] The objective is to provide more permanent and effective interfaces between experts, policy-makers and the public. This will involve the identification of key bodies capable of synthesising expert material in forms understandable to the public and policy-makers, and/or helping experts better formulate their advice in such a form.
[::8.iv] Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making. The objective is to deliver knowledge for decision making that is 'socially robust'. This implies a notion of expertise that embraces diverse forms of knowledge (plurality). Expertise should be multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral and should include input from academic experts, stakeholders, and civil society. Procedures must be established to review expertise beyond the traditional peer community, including, for example, scrutiny by those possessing local or practical knowledge, or those with an understanding of ethical aspects. This is sometimes referred to as 'extended peer review'.
[::8.v] Greater integration in risk governance processes. The objective is to have wider and deeper integration of expertise during the full cycle of risk governance (identification, assessment, evaluation, management and communication). This will enhance early warning and encompass plurality. The key objective is to ensure an effective interface and networking between risk assessment and risk management at various levels, whilst recognising the iterative nature of the process. An essential element is knowing the capacity in which the actors participate, requiring clear procedures and objectives.
[\textbackslash n][...]
[Recommended action lines]
[::Aims] The international work and the consultation highlighted the fact that making expertise more accessible is important, but that this has to go hand-in-hand with other more fundamental changes. Among these, there was clear call for more accountability and procedures to provide a 'trace' of sources and uses of expertise; procedures to acknowledge minority views; involvement of 'stakeholders' at early stage; and better management of uncertainty. With regard to options for establishing European sientific reference systems, there was a consensus on the need to avoid bureaucratic and overly-centralised modes of operation; to focus on networking (including virtual networking); to allow for review and fexibility; and to develop such systems consistently within the overall 'democratising' approach. Taking acount of all this, a number of options aimed at 'democratising' expertise and establishing European reference systems were explored. Out of the large pool of possible actions, five action lines were identified as particularly promising within the context of the White Paper on Governance. These action lines concern an inventory network on expertise, guidelines on expert advice, procedures to guarantee access and participation, 'extended peer review', integrated procedures for risk governance. Strands of all the action lines are closely interlinked; for this reason they should be treated as related components of an overall strategy. They evolve from existing mechanisms and should be regarded as a contribution to the experimental, open process of learning with which the Commission is particularly engaged at the moment, for example, in the Reform Process. The proposed action lines should help to improve the 'input legitimacy' of the process through which expertise is developed, selected and used and, at the same time, the 'output legitimacy' through the quality and effectiveness of policy decisions as well as public debate. More specifically, the main aims of the action lines include:
[::] access to, and transparency of, the process of the development, selection and use of expertise for policy making;
[::] accountability to citizens and representative institutions of those who provide and use expertise for policy making;
[::] effectiveness in providing expertise - helping to 'deliver' policy decisions that meet citizens' needs and demands;
[::] early warning and foresight to help identify new issues and threats;
[::] 'independence' and 'integrity' (for example, experts should be required to make and update prior declaration of interest);
[::] plurality of sources and types of expertise consulted for policy making and public debate, including acknowledgement of minority views;
[::] quality of expertise (including scientific excellence and policy and social relevance).
[\textbackslash n] The action lines complement and reinforce each other. The Guidelines, depending on the actual content, could meet all the aims and act as the 'catalyst' for the other action lines. The Inventory network can be regarded as a 'service' to the other options by mapping the 'jungle' of sources of expertise. The action line on Access, Participation and Intermediary Platforms focuses on different aspects of transparency. Procedures for 'Extended peer review' aim to reconcile quality, access and accountability (sometimes perceived as conflicting with each other). Finally Integrated Procedures of Risk Governance intend to ensure accountability and effectiveness.
[\textbackslash n] Initially the action lines could be implemented within the Commission. Many of the strands of the action lines could be taken up within other EU institutions. They could also be further exploited at national, regional or local level within the EU through appropriate dialogue with Member States. This could be achieved, for example, through the open method of co-ordination, taking account of national diversities and circumstances. The report does not propose single solutions to be applied in a uniform manner at all these levels. More work will be required for any implementation within the Commission and will certainly be needed for extensions to the other levels. The proposed action lines should be regarded as topics for the start of such a process.
[\textbackslash n] An assessment of the resources (budget, personnel, etc.) needed to eventually implement these action lines, and the comparative analysis between such costs and the expected benefits, are beyond the mandate of this group. Such an assessment would clearly be required before embarking on concrete implementation steps.
[\textbackslash n][...]
[Conclusion]
The working group has made five recommendations that, in its collective view, will contribute to the dual goal of better quality policy-making, and restored trust in the use of expertise. These recommendations are in the form of action lines, representing promising avenues for further exploration.
[\textbackslash n] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination).
[\textbackslash n] Further development and implementation of these action lines will be done in the context of the follow-up to the White Paper, and, as far as the European Research Area is concerned, as part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11730512,democracy,epistemology,participatory-modelling,post-normal-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"ZngGXT4DYmhrbhzBE","bibbaseid":"gerold-liberatore-bjorklund-bossenmeyer-cotter-cross-fallon-franca-etal-reportoftheworkinggroupdemocratisingexpertiseandestablishingscientificreferencesystems","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Gerold, R.","Liberatore, A.","Bjorklund, M.","Bossenmeyer, G.","Cotter, C.","Cross, A.","Fallon, C.","Franca, F.","Funtowicz, S.","Hurst, R.","Kraemer, L.","Lebessis, N.","Miège, R.","Pedersen, L. M.","Rogers, M.","Shotter, M.","Wagstaffe, P."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"book","type":"book","title":"Report of the Working Group \"Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems\"","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gerold"],"firstnames":["Rainer"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Liberatore"],"firstnames":["Angela"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bjorklund"],"firstnames":["Mona"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bossenmeyer"],"firstnames":["Grete"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Cotter"],"firstnames":["Colette"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Cross"],"firstnames":["Alan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fallon"],"firstnames":["Catherine"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Franca"],"firstnames":["Francesco"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Funtowicz"],"firstnames":["Silvio"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hurst"],"firstnames":["Roderick"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kraemer"],"firstnames":["Ludwig"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Lebessis"],"firstnames":["Notis"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Miège"],"firstnames":["Robin"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Pedersen"],"firstnames":["Lars","M."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Rogers"],"firstnames":["Michael"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Shotter"],"firstnames":["Michael"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Wagstaffe"],"firstnames":["Peter"],"suffixes":[]}],"editor":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gerold"],"firstnames":["Rainer"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Liberatore"],"firstnames":["Angela"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2001","publisher":"White paper on Governance, work area 1, Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters","url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20120117060220/http://ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf","abstract":"[Excerpt: Executive summary] [::1] 'Experts' are consulted by policy makers, the media and the public at large to explain and advise on such diverse issues as climate change, employment policy, BSE ('mad cow disease'), and genetically modified organisms. However, many recent cases have shown that expertise, while being increasingly relied upon, is also increasingly contested. [::2] Furthermore, in the interplay between different levels of governance in the European Union, expertise must be credible across a variety of national scientific and policy cultures. It should be sufficiently robust to support policy proposals both at the Community level and in international arenas. Enlargement presents additional opportunities and challenges: greater diversity and knowledge, but also the need for adaptation and potential for broader societal questioning. [::3] Community institutions have already responded to the demands for increased accountability and transparency in its policy making process, including the use of expertise. General provisions concerning public access of documents of Community institutions have been adopted. The advisory scientific committees of the Commission were reformed in 1997, and criteria of excellence, independence and transparency were consolidated. The European Commission consults widely by making use of 'Green Papers' on a variety of issues, and makes increasing use of the Internet. [::4] While building on such positive developments, more is needed to improve the interactions between expertise, policy making and public debate. A number of important issues were identified by the Working Group: the definitions of 'expertise'; the meaning of 'democratising' in this context; the identification of needs and features of European reference systems; uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle; 'independence' and 'integrity'; the factors leading to effectiveness; and the role of the media. In all of these issues, important lessons can be drawn from past and ongoing experience. [::5] Seven aims were agreed, corresponding to 'democratisation' criteria: access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning and foresight; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. To implement these aims, five action lines were identified as promising avenues for further exploration - at this stage, no assessment has been made of the resource implications. [::6] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination). The desired outcome is both better quality decisionmaking, and restored trust in the use of expertise in European policy-making. [::7] Some action lines complement activities foreseen to implement the European Research Area, and may form part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”. [::8] The action lines are outlined below. A common feature throughout is the need for clear communication strategies to be integrated into the process: [::8.i] A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at EU level. An inventory of those sources (committees, agencies, institutes, etc.) currently providing expert advice to EU policy making will add transparency, and will provide a service to policy-makers and those parties, including the media, requiring rapid access to acknowledged expertise. The inventory would initially be limited to EU bodies, but could be expanded to build upon existing national and international databases and networks. [::8.ii] Establishing guidelines for the selection and functioning of expertise in the policy-making processes. These would implement the previously cited aims of access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. More specific rules for individual officials and experts could be enshrined at a later stage in 'codes of conduct'. This action line is expected to act also as a catalyst for the implementation of the following three. [::8.iii] More openness of expertise and greater opportunity for informed participation by society in policy-making. A number of measures should better connect experts, policy makers and society at large, and make this process more transparent: · Attendance by the public and by stakeholders at meetings where expert advice is developed and transmitted. The objective is to improve access to meetings to the greatest extent possible. The favoured approach calls for all meetings generally to be open with the possibility of restricting access for duly motivated and published reasons. [::Publication of expert evidence and how it is used in reaching political decision] The objective is to enhance accountability by providing the public and stakeholders with a 'trace' of the path to a particular decision. Implementation rules should be aligned with the recent institutional agreement on public access to documents. [::Promotion of participatory procedures] The principles of access and accountability demand public debate, knowledge-sharing and scrutiny of policy makers and experts at the grass-roots level. Citizens' juries, consensus conferences, participatory foresight are among the mechanisms implemented on specific topics at local and national level. Drawing on past experiences, steps could be taken to foster these throughout the EU Member States and accession countries. [::Establishment of intermediary platforms] The objective is to provide more permanent and effective interfaces between experts, policy-makers and the public. This will involve the identification of key bodies capable of synthesising expert material in forms understandable to the public and policy-makers, and/or helping experts better formulate their advice in such a form. [::8.iv] Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making. The objective is to deliver knowledge for decision making that is 'socially robust'. This implies a notion of expertise that embraces diverse forms of knowledge (plurality). Expertise should be multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral and should include input from academic experts, stakeholders, and civil society. Procedures must be established to review expertise beyond the traditional peer community, including, for example, scrutiny by those possessing local or practical knowledge, or those with an understanding of ethical aspects. This is sometimes referred to as 'extended peer review'. [::8.v] Greater integration in risk governance processes. The objective is to have wider and deeper integration of expertise during the full cycle of risk governance (identification, assessment, evaluation, management and communication). This will enhance early warning and encompass plurality. The key objective is to ensure an effective interface and networking between risk assessment and risk management at various levels, whilst recognising the iterative nature of the process. An essential element is knowing the capacity in which the actors participate, requiring clear procedures and objectives. [\\n][...] [Recommended action lines] [::Aims] The international work and the consultation highlighted the fact that making expertise more accessible is important, but that this has to go hand-in-hand with other more fundamental changes. Among these, there was clear call for more accountability and procedures to provide a 'trace' of sources and uses of expertise; procedures to acknowledge minority views; involvement of 'stakeholders' at early stage; and better management of uncertainty. With regard to options for establishing European sientific reference systems, there was a consensus on the need to avoid bureaucratic and overly-centralised modes of operation; to focus on networking (including virtual networking); to allow for review and fexibility; and to develop such systems consistently within the overall 'democratising' approach. Taking acount of all this, a number of options aimed at 'democratising' expertise and establishing European reference systems were explored. Out of the large pool of possible actions, five action lines were identified as particularly promising within the context of the White Paper on Governance. These action lines concern an inventory network on expertise, guidelines on expert advice, procedures to guarantee access and participation, 'extended peer review', integrated procedures for risk governance. Strands of all the action lines are closely interlinked; for this reason they should be treated as related components of an overall strategy. They evolve from existing mechanisms and should be regarded as a contribution to the experimental, open process of learning with which the Commission is particularly engaged at the moment, for example, in the Reform Process. The proposed action lines should help to improve the 'input legitimacy' of the process through which expertise is developed, selected and used and, at the same time, the 'output legitimacy' through the quality and effectiveness of policy decisions as well as public debate. More specifically, the main aims of the action lines include: [::] access to, and transparency of, the process of the development, selection and use of expertise for policy making; [::] accountability to citizens and representative institutions of those who provide and use expertise for policy making; [::] effectiveness in providing expertise - helping to 'deliver' policy decisions that meet citizens' needs and demands; [::] early warning and foresight to help identify new issues and threats; [::] 'independence' and 'integrity' (for example, experts should be required to make and update prior declaration of interest); [::] plurality of sources and types of expertise consulted for policy making and public debate, including acknowledgement of minority views; [::] quality of expertise (including scientific excellence and policy and social relevance). [\\n] The action lines complement and reinforce each other. The Guidelines, depending on the actual content, could meet all the aims and act as the 'catalyst' for the other action lines. The Inventory network can be regarded as a 'service' to the other options by mapping the 'jungle' of sources of expertise. The action line on Access, Participation and Intermediary Platforms focuses on different aspects of transparency. Procedures for 'Extended peer review' aim to reconcile quality, access and accountability (sometimes perceived as conflicting with each other). Finally Integrated Procedures of Risk Governance intend to ensure accountability and effectiveness. [\\n] Initially the action lines could be implemented within the Commission. Many of the strands of the action lines could be taken up within other EU institutions. They could also be further exploited at national, regional or local level within the EU through appropriate dialogue with Member States. This could be achieved, for example, through the open method of co-ordination, taking account of national diversities and circumstances. The report does not propose single solutions to be applied in a uniform manner at all these levels. More work will be required for any implementation within the Commission and will certainly be needed for extensions to the other levels. The proposed action lines should be regarded as topics for the start of such a process. [\\n] An assessment of the resources (budget, personnel, etc.) needed to eventually implement these action lines, and the comparative analysis between such costs and the expected benefits, are beyond the mandate of this group. Such an assessment would clearly be required before embarking on concrete implementation steps. [\\n][...] [Conclusion] The working group has made five recommendations that, in its collective view, will contribute to the dual goal of better quality policy-making, and restored trust in the use of expertise. These recommendations are in the form of action lines, representing promising avenues for further exploration. [\\n] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination). [\\n] Further development and implementation of these action lines will be done in the context of the follow-up to the White Paper, and, as far as the European Research Area is concerned, as part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11730512,democracy,epistemology,participatory-modelling,post-normal-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface","bibtex":"@book{geroldReportWorkingGroup2001,\n title = {Report of the Working Group \"{{Democratising}} Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems\"},\n author = {Gerold, Rainer and Liberatore, Angela and Bjorklund, Mona and Bossenmeyer, Grete and Cotter, Colette and Cross, Alan and Fallon, Catherine and Franca, Francesco and Funtowicz, Silvio and Hurst, Roderick and Kraemer, Ludwig and Lebessis, Notis and Miège, Robin and Pedersen, Lars M. and Rogers, Michael and Shotter, Michael and Wagstaffe, Peter},\n editor = {Gerold, Rainer and Liberatore, Angela},\n date = {2001},\n publisher = {{White paper on Governance, work area 1, Broadening and enriching the public debate on European matters}},\n url = {https://web.archive.org/web/20120117060220/http://ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf},\n abstract = {[Excerpt: Executive summary] [::1] 'Experts' are consulted by policy makers, the media and the public at large to explain and advise on such diverse issues as climate change, employment policy, BSE ('mad cow disease'), and genetically modified organisms. However, many recent cases have shown that expertise, while being increasingly relied upon, is also increasingly contested. \n\n[::2] Furthermore, in the interplay between different levels of governance in the European Union, expertise must be credible across a variety of national scientific and policy cultures. It should be sufficiently robust to support policy proposals both at the Community level and in international arenas. Enlargement presents additional opportunities and challenges: greater diversity and knowledge, but also the need for adaptation and potential for broader societal questioning. \n\n[::3] Community institutions have already responded to the demands for increased accountability and transparency in its policy making process, including the use of expertise. General provisions concerning public access of documents of Community institutions have been adopted. The advisory scientific committees of the Commission were reformed in 1997, and criteria of excellence, independence and transparency were consolidated. The European Commission consults widely by making use of 'Green Papers' on a variety of issues, and makes increasing use of the Internet. \n\n[::4] While building on such positive developments, more is needed to improve the interactions between expertise, policy making and public debate. A number of important issues were identified by the Working Group: the definitions of 'expertise'; the meaning of 'democratising' in this context; the identification of needs and features of European reference systems; uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle; 'independence' and 'integrity'; the factors leading to effectiveness; and the role of the media. In all of these issues, important lessons can be drawn from past and ongoing experience. \n\n[::5] Seven aims were agreed, corresponding to 'democratisation' criteria: access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning and foresight; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. To implement these aims, five action lines were identified as promising avenues for further exploration - at this stage, no assessment has been made of the resource implications. \n\n[::6] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination). The desired outcome is both better quality decisionmaking, and restored trust in the use of expertise in European policy-making. \n\n[::7] Some action lines complement activities foreseen to implement the European Research Area, and may form part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”. \n\n[::8] The action lines are outlined below. A common feature throughout is the need for clear communication strategies to be integrated into the process: \n\n[::8.i] A more complete understanding of the expertise currently used at EU level. An inventory of those sources (committees, agencies, institutes, etc.) currently providing expert advice to EU policy making will add transparency, and will provide a service to policy-makers and those parties, including the media, requiring rapid access to acknowledged expertise. The inventory would initially be limited to EU bodies, but could be expanded to build upon existing national and international databases and networks. \n\n[::8.ii] Establishing guidelines for the selection and functioning of expertise in the policy-making processes. These would implement the previously cited aims of access and transparency; accountability; effectiveness; early warning; independence and integrity; plurality; and quality. More specific rules for individual officials and experts could be enshrined at a later stage in 'codes of conduct'. This action line is expected to act also as a catalyst for the implementation of the following three. \n\n[::8.iii] More openness of expertise and greater opportunity for informed participation by society in policy-making. A number of measures should better connect experts, policy makers and society at large, and make this process more transparent: · Attendance by the public and by stakeholders at meetings where expert advice is developed and transmitted. The objective is to improve access to meetings to the greatest extent possible. The favoured approach calls for all meetings generally to be open with the possibility of restricting access for duly motivated and published reasons. \n\n[::Publication of expert evidence and how it is used in reaching political decision] The objective is to enhance accountability by providing the public and stakeholders with a 'trace' of the path to a particular decision. Implementation rules should be aligned with the recent institutional agreement on public access to documents. \n\n[::Promotion of participatory procedures] The principles of access and accountability demand public debate, knowledge-sharing and scrutiny of policy makers and experts at the grass-roots level. Citizens' juries, consensus conferences, participatory foresight are among the mechanisms implemented on specific topics at local and national level. Drawing on past experiences, steps could be taken to foster these throughout the EU Member States and accession countries. \n\n[::Establishment of intermediary platforms] The objective is to provide more permanent and effective interfaces between experts, policy-makers and the public. This will involve the identification of key bodies capable of synthesising expert material in forms understandable to the public and policy-makers, and/or helping experts better formulate their advice in such a form. \n\n[::8.iv] Broadening and integrating the expertise used in policy-making. The objective is to deliver knowledge for decision making that is 'socially robust'. This implies a notion of expertise that embraces diverse forms of knowledge (plurality). Expertise should be multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral and should include input from academic experts, stakeholders, and civil society. Procedures must be established to review expertise beyond the traditional peer community, including, for example, scrutiny by those possessing local or practical knowledge, or those with an understanding of ethical aspects. This is sometimes referred to as 'extended peer review'. \n\n[::8.v] Greater integration in risk governance processes. The objective is to have wider and deeper integration of expertise during the full cycle of risk governance (identification, assessment, evaluation, management and communication). This will enhance early warning and encompass plurality. The key objective is to ensure an effective interface and networking between risk assessment and risk management at various levels, whilst recognising the iterative nature of the process. An essential element is knowing the capacity in which the actors participate, requiring clear procedures and objectives.\n\n[\\textbackslash n][...]\n\n[Recommended action lines]\n\n[::Aims] The international work and the consultation highlighted the fact that making expertise more accessible is important, but that this has to go hand-in-hand with other more fundamental changes. Among these, there was clear call for more accountability and procedures to provide a 'trace' of sources and uses of expertise; procedures to acknowledge minority views; involvement of 'stakeholders' at early stage; and better management of uncertainty. With regard to options for establishing European sientific reference systems, there was a consensus on the need to avoid bureaucratic and overly-centralised modes of operation; to focus on networking (including virtual networking); to allow for review and fexibility; and to develop such systems consistently within the overall 'democratising' approach. Taking acount of all this, a number of options aimed at 'democratising' expertise and establishing European reference systems were explored. Out of the large pool of possible actions, five action lines were identified as particularly promising within the context of the White Paper on Governance. These action lines concern an inventory network on expertise, guidelines on expert advice, procedures to guarantee access and participation, 'extended peer review', integrated procedures for risk governance. Strands of all the action lines are closely interlinked; for this reason they should be treated as related components of an overall strategy. They evolve from existing mechanisms and should be regarded as a contribution to the experimental, open process of learning with which the Commission is particularly engaged at the moment, for example, in the Reform Process. The proposed action lines should help to improve the 'input legitimacy' of the process through which expertise is developed, selected and used and, at the same time, the 'output legitimacy' through the quality and effectiveness of policy decisions as well as public debate. More specifically, the main aims of the action lines include:\n\n[::] access to, and transparency of, the process of the development, selection and use of expertise for policy making;\n\n[::] accountability to citizens and representative institutions of those who provide and use expertise for policy making;\n\n[::] effectiveness in providing expertise - helping to 'deliver' policy decisions that meet citizens' needs and demands;\n\n[::] early warning and foresight to help identify new issues and threats;\n\n[::] 'independence' and 'integrity' (for example, experts should be required to make and update prior declaration of interest);\n\n[::] plurality of sources and types of expertise consulted for policy making and public debate, including acknowledgement of minority views;\n\n[::] quality of expertise (including scientific excellence and policy and social relevance).\n\n[\\textbackslash n] The action lines complement and reinforce each other. The Guidelines, depending on the actual content, could meet all the aims and act as the 'catalyst' for the other action lines. The Inventory network can be regarded as a 'service' to the other options by mapping the 'jungle' of sources of expertise. The action line on Access, Participation and Intermediary Platforms focuses on different aspects of transparency. Procedures for 'Extended peer review' aim to reconcile quality, access and accountability (sometimes perceived as conflicting with each other). Finally Integrated Procedures of Risk Governance intend to ensure accountability and effectiveness.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Initially the action lines could be implemented within the Commission. Many of the strands of the action lines could be taken up within other EU institutions. They could also be further exploited at national, regional or local level within the EU through appropriate dialogue with Member States. This could be achieved, for example, through the open method of co-ordination, taking account of national diversities and circumstances. The report does not propose single solutions to be applied in a uniform manner at all these levels. More work will be required for any implementation within the Commission and will certainly be needed for extensions to the other levels. The proposed action lines should be regarded as topics for the start of such a process.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] An assessment of the resources (budget, personnel, etc.) needed to eventually implement these action lines, and the comparative analysis between such costs and the expected benefits, are beyond the mandate of this group. Such an assessment would clearly be required before embarking on concrete implementation steps.\n\n[\\textbackslash n][...]\n\n[Conclusion]\n\nThe working group has made five recommendations that, in its collective view, will contribute to the dual goal of better quality policy-making, and restored trust in the use of expertise. These recommendations are in the form of action lines, representing promising avenues for further exploration.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] In the first instance these action lines would apply to the work of the Commission and its departments. As part of this process, discussions would take place with other EU institutions and agencies, and with Member State administrations. This should not only build a common understanding of current practises and priorities, but should also help identify opportunities for eventually adapting and implementing linked actions more widely across the EU (e.g. through the open method of co-ordination).\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Further development and implementation of these action lines will be done in the context of the follow-up to the White Paper, and, as far as the European Research Area is concerned, as part of the action plan foreseen by the end of 2001 following the Commission services' working document ” Science, Society and Citizens in Europe”.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-11730512,democracy,epistemology,participatory-modelling,post-normal-science,science-ethics,science-policy-interface}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Gerold, R.","Liberatore, A.","Bjorklund, M.","Bossenmeyer, G.","Cotter, C.","Cross, A.","Fallon, C.","Franca, F.","Funtowicz, S.","Hurst, R.","Kraemer, L.","Lebessis, N.","Miège, R.","Pedersen, L. M.","Rogers, M.","Shotter, M.","Wagstaffe, P."],"editor_short":["Gerold, R.","Liberatore, A."],"key":"geroldReportWorkingGroup2001","id":"geroldReportWorkingGroup2001","bibbaseid":"gerold-liberatore-bjorklund-bossenmeyer-cotter-cross-fallon-franca-etal-reportoftheworkinggroupdemocratisingexpertiseandestablishingscientificreferencesystems","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://web.archive.org/web/20120117060220/http://ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-11730512","democracy","epistemology","participatory-modelling","post-normal-science","science-ethics","science-policy-interface"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"book","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:08.152Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-11730512","democracy","epistemology","participatory-modelling","post-normal-science","science-ethics","science-policy-interface"],"search_terms":["report","working","group","democratising","expertise","establishing","scientific","reference","systems","gerold","liberatore","bjorklund","bossenmeyer","cotter","cross","fallon","franca","funtowicz","hurst","kraemer","lebessis","miège","pedersen","rogers","shotter","wagstaffe"],"title":"Report of the Working Group \"Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems\"","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}