14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>14</strong>6<br />
HOW TO BUILD REGULATORY<br />
FRAMEWORKS FOR NEW<br />
TECHNOLOGIES<br />
Dominique Auverlot, Marie-Françoise Chevallier - Le<br />
Guyader, Françoise Roure, Jean-Luc Pujol, Aude Teillant,<br />
Clélia Godot 1<br />
Introduction<br />
French citizens’ vision of <strong>innovation</strong> and progress has<br />
deteriorated significantly: technical <strong>innovation</strong> is no longer<br />
synonymous with progress. As highlighted in the final report<br />
of France ten years from now: Priorities for the Coming Decade 2 :<br />
“the French keep trust in science but its applications are often<br />
considered with suspicion. Their distrust is not expressed as<br />
doubt about scientific contributions but with respect to the<br />
ability of public and private institutions to distinguish between<br />
real progress for our society and those that induce excessive<br />
<strong>risk</strong>. Our ambivalence about scientific and technical progress<br />
ultimately results mainly in broader distrust and doubt about<br />
our collective ability to use its results in the service of human<br />
progress.”<br />
Moreover, according to public surveys conducted as part<br />
of the exercise France ten years from now, French citizens are<br />
now particularly pessimistic: in October 2013, only 5% were<br />
confident about the future economy of the country. Thus,<br />
France ranks last among the 24 countries surveyed. This<br />
distrust extends to politics and institutions, to their regulatory<br />
frameworks and to the processes for <strong>managing</strong> <strong>risk</strong>s coming<br />
from new technologies.<br />
In this climate of distrust, the current procedures for citizen<br />
participation in public decisions promote “a more active<br />
citizen sovereignty,” according to Pierre Rosanvallon, but they<br />
no longer allow for building standards recognized by society<br />
for the development of new technologies. Yet the industrial<br />
sector needs, now more than ever, a clear vision on the future<br />
regulatory framework in order to invest.<br />
In short, as highlighted by the President of the National<br />
Commission for Public Debate (CNDP 3 ) in an op-ed on<br />
July 25, 20<strong>14</strong>: “The challenge today is to invent a new model<br />
[of citizen participation in public decisions] that combines<br />
participation and efficiency”. Applying this model for building<br />
a regulatory framework for new technologies, including <strong>risk</strong><br />
management, is needed all the more.<br />
This working paper will present first the current French<br />
procedures for citizen contributions to infrastructure projects<br />
that can be seen as successful; then, with a few examples, the<br />
difficulties encountered in public debates on new technologies.<br />
In a third section, we’ll see that the deterioration of relations<br />
between science and society can probably explain these<br />
difficulties to some extent. Finally, it will outline some ways<br />
forward for establishing regulatory frameworks for new<br />
technologies based on public participation.<br />
1. Public debate on infrastructure projects: a wellfunctioning<br />
response to public outcry<br />
In 1992, following large public protests during several<br />
infrastructure projects (TGV Mediterranean, TGV<br />
Nord, motorways A<strong>14</strong>, A16, A1 bis, Nantes-Niort), an<br />
administrative report 4 stressed that citizens should be<br />
recognized as key players in public decision-making and that<br />
it should be a necessity to involve them continuously, well<br />
ahead of the decision, in particular at a regional scale.<br />
Following its conclusions, laws adopted in 1995 5 and<br />
in 2002 created public debate procedures for local and<br />
regional development and infrastructure projects (roads,<br />
railways, power lines, and so on) and an independent<br />
administrative authority — the National Commission for<br />
Public Debate — to organize it. Some characteristics of the<br />
public debate procedure can be underlined:<br />
• It lasts for four months (six in the case of additional<br />
expertise), and is conducted by a neutral third party —<br />
called a Particular Commission for Public Debate — which<br />
does not give any personal conclusion at the end of the<br />
debate. It has only to present the arguments exchanged<br />
during the debate for enlightening public decision-makers. It<br />
highlights in particular the pros and cons.<br />
• The (public or private) project manager is required to give<br />
his decision about whether the project continues or not,<br />
and to provide possible changes resulting from the debate<br />
within three months after the publication of the report on<br />
the debate.<br />
• The principle of equivalence: the same treatment is given<br />
to each participant in the public meeting, and more generally,<br />
in the public debate. Everyone, regardless of status, is<br />
encouraged in the same way to contribute to the debate.<br />
• The ‘upstream position’ in the project design: the public<br />
debate is especially interesting when it occurs early enough<br />
in the operational schedule of the project, so that its design<br />
and its options may be questioned and changed if necessary<br />
at the end of the debate.<br />
• An initial report, describing the project, its goals and its<br />
options, written by the project team (and verified by the<br />
Particular Commission for Public Debate), must be given to<br />
each participant (and is available on a dedicated website).<br />
This procedure leads to a double improvement for the<br />
projects. Even before the debate, the project team has to reexamine<br />
its project and to present in a clear and pedagogical<br />
way its goals and the set of possible solutions for fulfilling<br />
them from a sustainable development perspective, knowing<br />
they will be submitted to public scrutiny. Following the<br />
debate, the project team is asked to reconsider its plan.<br />
It may well change it in the direction of the arguments<br />
set forth (by a majority or a minority of participants) or<br />
even abandon it. For instance, the debate on a new rail<br />
infrastructure from Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle airport to the