Franz Seifert: “National recalcitrance…” ESA conference 8 (3 rd – 6 th September 2007) Governing the Risk Society Stream. Work in progress – the usual caveats apply. 1 National recalcitrance and scientific risk-assessment. The case of Austria’s GMO-policy. Franz Seifert Abstract The governance of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) assigns a pivotal role to physical - i.e. environmental and human health - risk: Multi-level, regulatory frameworks, embodying international free trade disciplines, rule out any restrictive criterion other than physical harm emanating from GMOs to restrict their trans-boundary movement. As the assessment of risks is a prerogative of science, scientific risk debates become principal arenas of political conflict. Thus, the fact that risk governance takes the decisive part in a country’s GMO policy is a function of biotechnology’s multi-level governance. Yet, contrary to expectations, allocating risk decisions to science does not end controversy, rather it protracts controversy by translating it into its own contested language. Furthermore, contextual factors rather than ongoing scientific risk debates become decisive in GMO controversies between States and superordinate governance-levels. The presentation in point will illustrate these statements by highlighting Austria’s recalcitrant GMOs policy: For political reasons Austria seeks to pre-empt the cultivation of GMOs on national ground. It is, however, constrained by EU and WTO law that requires any country to demonstrate the existence of physical risks warranting national prohibitions. Therefore, the mobilization of scientific risk expertise constitutes a central element in Austria’s defence of its “GMO-free” status vis-à-vis the EU and WTO. The presentation will point out the reasons for the fact that Austria’s anti-GMO stance could be upheld in spite of continuous EU and WTO pressure. Introductory Remarks What I present today derives from my current research work which, first, is still in progress, and, second, constitutes a reflection on a policy process that is still in progress: Austria’s “GMO-free” policy in the EU and WTO context. Austria position as to GMOs is very particular. Since more than ten years, Austria disallows any cultivation of GMOs on its territory. This is remarkable regarding the fact that, at a global scale, the cultivation of GMOs is well under way and steadily on the rise (James 2006) And it is also astonishing for the fact that GMO cultivation is a matter that is being regulated at the level of the EU which started to approve various transgenic species since the mid 1990s. These EU regulations aim at harmonizing the framework for biotechnological products and therefore in principle deny single countries the right to enact additional restrictions or reverse approval decisions that once have been taken at the Community level. Why, in spite of these constraints, Austria nevertheless remained “GMO free” and what role actual or alleged GMO risks played, is the