Skip to main content
Go to the home page of the European Commission (opens in new window)
English English
CORDIS - EU research results
CORDIS
Content archived on 2024-06-16

EVALUATING THE DEMOCRATIC QUALITY OF RISK GOVERNANCE PROCEDURES IN EUROPEAN FOOD POLICY

Objective

With a view to the alleged democratic deficit of the EU this project is concerned with the democratic quality of risk governance in the field of food safety. The guiding question is: How democratic is the procedure of risk regulation in the newly establish ed European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)? To answer this question the EFSAs procedures are compared with those of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK and the Bundesinstitut fur Risikobewertung (BfR) in Germany. These institutions are of equally recent o rigin and were also established in response to the food scandals of the 1990s and the concomitant loss in public trust. At the level of principles, all these agencies, to various degrees, put emphasis on scientific expertise, transparency, independence and openness. In all three cases, however, there is a gap between principles and actual practice. The aim of this project is to assess the democratic quality of these practices through empirical research. Democratic quality is defined here as the degree to wh ich procedures of risk assessment and policy-making are responsive to the concerns and interests of all governance stakeholders, with a particular focus on consumers. It is operationalised through a set of indicators derived from a model of deliberative de mocracy: stakeholder engagement, transparency, responsiveness and inclusion. The study is designed to deliver a comparative evaluation of existing deliberative practices and participation mechanisms in food policy regimes. Drawing on this evidence it will be possible to assess whether there is a democratic deficit of EU practices when compared with advanced models of risk regulation in its member states. Finally, the proposed research intends to provide some realistic and feasible proposals on how to better integrate risk governance and democratic participation.

Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)

CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.

You need to log in or register to use this function

Keywords

Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)

Topic(s)

Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.

Call for proposal

Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.

FP6-2002-MOBILITY-5
See other projects for this call

Funding Scheme

Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.

EIF - Marie Curie actions-Intra-European Fellowships

Coordinator

CENTRE OF EUROPEAN LAW AND POLITICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN
EU contribution
No data
Total cost

The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.

No data
My booklet 0 0