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.
center of Paris has led to a complete reconsideration of the<br />
project originally planned.<br />
The public debate for infrastructure projects has in fact<br />
three different functions. Firstly, it enables a debate about<br />
the various general concerns that are associated with<br />
the project, such as its economic benefits and its harm<br />
to the environment or biodiversity. Secondly, it enlightens<br />
representative democracy on the meaning of the decision<br />
that must be taken, by presenting all the arguments<br />
and suggestions expressed during the debate. Finally, it<br />
contributes fully to the design and development of the<br />
project (whose ideal is the co-production of a number of its<br />
elements).<br />
Since the adoption of these laws, more than seventy public<br />
debates have been held. Without doubt, public debate has<br />
now become a kind of routine, and has served its purpose.<br />
Fifteen years after its initiation, we can say that it is a<br />
success 6 . Public debate, rooted in the large public protests<br />
that took place in the early 1990s, is indeed a good tool<br />
to help representative democracy to make decisions: it<br />
makes it possible for people to express their arguments and<br />
provides the CNDP with a snapshot of the public opinion<br />
on a particular topic to inform the decision maker.<br />
Yet, is it possible today to apply the same procedure<br />
that has been proven successful for implementing new<br />
infrastructures to new technologies and their regulatory<br />
framework? The answer, as we shall see below, seems<br />
unfortunately to be negative.<br />
2. Citizen-participation procedures that have not<br />
succeeded in establishing regulatory frameworks for<br />
new technologies<br />
2.1. Public debates meet some difficulties when used<br />
for the development of new technologies<br />
It is tempting to apply to debates on new technologies the<br />
same organization as the one that is used in public debates<br />
for infrastructure. In fact, this procedure was already used<br />
twice: first for a debate in 2009 about nanotechnologies,<br />
and more recently, at the end of 2013, for a debate on<br />
radioactive waste (more precisely on the plans for a deep<br />
disposal center for French radioactive waste). However,<br />
both of those debates unfortunately suffered from the<br />
radicalization of the protest, leading opponents to prevent<br />
the debate from being held. Some people would say that<br />
these events have been the result of actions carried<br />
out by a minority of the population (in the case of both<br />
nanotechnologies and nuclear power, this opposition arose<br />
prior to the debate) and that the organization of this public<br />
debate has offered them an opportunity to make their<br />
radical opposition (to the project and to the associated<br />
technology) heard at a national level. Still, that opposition<br />
remains real and prevents the public meetings from being<br />
held.<br />
This threat may be also viewed as a result of a movement<br />
of distrust of institutions and their public decisions.<br />
The debate on nanotechnologies 7<br />
In France, the public authorities, following a national<br />
stakeholder debate about environmental issues organized<br />
by the Ministry of Environment and known as the Grenelle<br />
de l’environnement (2007-2008), asked the National<br />
Commission for Public Debate to organize a consultation<br />
on how to promote responsible development of<br />
nanotechnologies. This debate was held from October 2009<br />
to February 2010 8 and highlighted several items, although<br />
it was disrupted by radical opposition from some groups.<br />
First, public knowledge about nanotechnologies and their<br />
related societal challenges was very weak. Moreover, the<br />
vast majority of stakeholders expressed the need for more<br />
transparent and more open governance.<br />
Public debate was a first step, which needed a response<br />
to be useful and called for sticking to a nanotechnology<br />
development policy that included consultation with<br />
various components of civil society in its operating<br />
mode. The many challenges raised by nanotechnologies<br />
— competitiveness, <strong>risk</strong> management, ethical issues and<br />
social acceptability — called for an innovative form of<br />
governance, in which governments and components of<br />
society interact dynamically to collectively determine the<br />
desired trajectory of development for nanotechnologies.<br />
This approach presupposes that some popular wisdom<br />
can be set aside, like the belief (largely shared by public<br />
decision makers) that information and scientific training<br />
are enough to ensure the support of the general public for<br />
technological developments. Actually, studies tend to show<br />
that laymen’s opinions are based less on understanding<br />
and being informed of the special characteristics of<br />
nanotechnologies, than on the prejudices they have about<br />
technologies and the institutions that manage these.<br />
Here we can see the full importance of transparency<br />
in consultation and decision-making procedures for<br />
obtaining informed trust from citizens: transparency on<br />
how decisions are made (i.e. governance), R&D funding,<br />
ethics, the end objectives of development, <strong>risk</strong> management,<br />
and so on. Citizen involvement at a very early stage,<br />
based on procedures that must still be developed to a<br />
large extent, would allow nanotechnologies to develop in<br />
accordance with societal expectations. In this spirit, the<br />
European Commission launched on 13 May 20<strong>14</strong> a “public<br />
consultation on transparency measures for nanomaterials<br />
on the market”. If, in the short term, regulation can be<br />
regarded as a barrier to developing markets, there is no<br />
doubt that in the longer term it will be the main factor of<br />
companies’ competitiveness in nanotechnologies by creating<br />
a more stable and secure environment for investment and<br />
consumption.<br />
The debate on radioactive waste<br />
The public debate on radioactive waste (more precisely on<br />
the plans for a deep disposal center for French radioactive<br />
waste, at Bure in eastern France) was held from 15 May to<br />
15 December 2013. The fourteen public meetings that were<br />
initially planned have been all cancelled: the first two public<br />
meetings, in May and June, were prevented by opponents of<br />
the projects. The National Public Debate Commission then<br />
<strong>14</strong>7