IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirpro/2003rp-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Communication des risques industriels au public - Les expériences aux États-Unis et en France

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin
  • Ingrid Peignier
  • Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné

Abstract

In many domains, opinion plays a very significant role which will not stop growing. It is true more than ever in the environmental and health domains, but also in industrial risks. Is it necessary to worry about it? Won't today's mindset become tomorrow's regulation? We show the characteristics of the communication of industrial risks, then we analyze several models illustrating the current regulations that govern information to the public, the various means of communicating, the conveyed messages, their useful contributions and their limits, in particular in the United States and in France. First of all, we describe general notions of the communication of industrial risks. We highlight how the communication of risks to stakeholders is an important part of each step in the risk management decision process. In a second part, we study the American experience. We focus on the information that is actually transmitted to citizens and on the transmission resources used. We examine more closely the example of "Local Emergency Planning Committees"" (LEPCs), which are very significant entities, pivotal in the formal link between citizens, the industry and the government. In a third part, we examine the administrative responsibilities of the various actors implicated in the industrial risk management in France. We consider the questions of communication, namely which are the general principles of the communication, which is the information actually transmitted to the citizens, which are the means set up to enhance the public participation. Concerning this last point, we describe in more details the example of a local commission of information in the town of Strasbourg (East of France). To conclude, we will also examine how the new French bill approved by the Senate on February 6th 2003 relating to the prevention of technological and natural hazards and compensation for damages will require the creation of mandatory local commissions of information and discussion (CLIC) around each site at risk. These committees will address all questions concerning the risks, in view of improving the information and discussion about these risks, and the means of preventing them." Dans de nombreux domaines, l'opinion joue un très grand rôle qui ne cessera de grandir. C'est surtout vrai dans les domaines de l'environnement et de la santé, et plus encore dans celui des risques industriels. Faut-il s'en préoccuper, s'en inquiéter ? L'opinion d'aujourd'hui n'est-elle pas la réglementation de demain ? Nous montrons les caractéristiques de la communication des risques industriels puis analysons plusieurs expériences illustrant les réglementations en vigueur sur l'information du public, les divers moyens de communiquer, les messages véhiculés, leurs apports bénéfiques et leurs limites, en particulier aux États-Unis et en France. Dans une première partie, nous abordons des notions générales de la communication des risques industriels. Nous montrons comment la communication fait partie intégrante de toutes les étapes de la gestion du risque. Dans une deuxième partie, nous étudions l'expérience américaine en matière de communication des risques industriels. Nous regardons quelle est l'information qui est effectivement transmise aux citoyens et enfin, nous recensons les moyens de transmission utilisés. Nous examinons de plus près l'exemple des « Local Emergency Planning Commitees » (LEPCs), entité très importante, pivot entre les citoyens, l'industrie et le gouvernement. Dans une troisième partie, nous étudions les responsabilités administratives des différents acteurs impliqués dans la gestion des risques industriels en France. Nous nous penchons sur les questions de communication, à savoir quels sont les principes généraux de communication, quelle est l'information effectivement transmise aux citoyens, quels sont les moyens mis en place pour favoriser la participation du public. Concernant ce dernier point, nous décrivons plus en détail l'exemple d'un comité d'information de la ville de Strasbourg (Est de la France). En conclusion, nous verrons également comment le nouveau projet de loi français relatif à la prévention des risques technologiques et naturels et à la réparation des dommages, voté par le Sénat le 6 février 2003, permettra la création obligatoire de commissions locales d'information et de concertation (CLIC) autour de chaque site à risque. Ces comités seront saisis de toutes questions relatives aux risques en vue d'améliorer l'information et la concertation sur ces risques, et les moyens de les prévenir.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2003. "Communication des risques industriels au public - Les expériences aux États-Unis et en France," CIRANO Project Reports 2003rp-02, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirpro:2003rp-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2003RP-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konar, Shameek & Cohen, Mark A., 1997. "Information As Regulation: The Effect of Community Right to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 109-124, January.
    2. Beierle, Thomas, 2000. "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-56, Resources for the Future.
    3. Beierle, Thomas C., 2000. "The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions: Lessons from the Case Study Record," Discussion Papers 10686, Resources for the Future.
    4. Isadore Rosenthal & Patrick J. McNulty & Lyse D. Helsing, 1998. "The Role of the Community in the Implementation of the EPA's Rule on Risk Management Programs for Chemical Accidental Release Prevention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 171-179, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sami Mahroum & Simon Bell & Yasser Al-Saleh & Nasser Yassin, 2016. "Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 335-353, August.
    2. James Korku Agbodzakey, 2017. "Ryan White CARE Act and Collaborative Governance Re-Examined: the South Florida Experience," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-314, June.
    3. Christopher Bruce & Jeremy Clark, 2015. "Collaborative environmental negotiation with private non-verifiable information: an experimental test," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 82-104, March.
    4. Jessica Reisert & Clare M. Ryan & Johann Köppel, 2015. "Stakeholder Participation in Collaborative Watershed Planning in Washington State," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 1-23.
    5. Juliette Mcdonald & Martin Hession & Anna Rickard & Mark Nieuwenhuijsen & Michaela Kendall, 2002. "Air Quality Management in UK Local Authorities: Public Understanding and Participation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(4), pages 571-590.
    6. James Agbodzakey, 2012. "Collaborative Governance of HIV Health Services Planning Councils in Broward and Palm Beach Counties of South Florida," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 107-126, June.
    7. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    8. Allen Blackman, 2010. "Alternative Pollution Control Policies in Developing Countries," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 234-253, Summer.
    9. Dorit Kerret & George M. Gray, 2007. "What Do We Learn from Emissions Reporting? Analytical Considerations and Comparison of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers in the United States, Canada, England, and Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 203-223, February.
    10. Coria, Jessica & Sterner, Thomas, 2008. "Tradable Permits in Developing Countries: Evidence from Air Pollution in Santiago, Chile," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-51, Resources for the Future.
    11. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    12. Linda T. M. Bui & Christopher J. Mayer, 2003. "Regulation and Capitalization of Environmental Amenities: Evidence from the Toxic Release Inventory in Massachusetts," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(3), pages 693-708, August.
    13. Mary F. Evans, 2016. "The Clean Air Act Watch List: An Enforcement and Compliance Natural Experiment," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(3), pages 627-665.
    14. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    15. Maxwell, John W & Lyon, Thomas P & Hackett, Steven C, 2000. "Self-Regulation and Social Welfare: The Political Economy of Corporate Environmentalism," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 583-617, October.
    16. Patrick Richard, 2010. "Financial market instability and CO2 emissions," Cahiers de recherche 10-20, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    17. Darnall, Nicole & Henriques, Irene & Sadorsky, Perry, 2008. "Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting?," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 364-376, December.
    18. Bi, Xiang & Mullally, Conner & Gaonkar, Shweta, 2017. "Does Peer Adoption Increase the Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Practices?," SocArXiv 95xbj_v1, Center for Open Science.
    19. Sean Lonnquist & Deborah Gallagher, 2021. "Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 326-346, May.
    20. Delmas, Magali A. & Grant, Laura E., 2008. "Eco-Labeling Strategies: The Eco-Premium Puzzle In The Wine Industry," Working Papers 37325, American Association of Wine Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirpro:2003rp-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.