The Challenges of Nanotechnology Policy Making PART 2. Discussing Voluntary Frameworks and Options
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00160.x |
| Date | 01 February 2013 |
| Author | Claire A. Auplat |
| Published date | 01 February 2013 |
The Challenges of Nanotechnology
Policy Making PART 2. Discussing
Voluntary Frameworks and Options
Professor Claire A. Auplat
Advancia School of Entrepreneurship, Paris, France
Abstract
In the context of the development of nanotechnologies, policy making faces specific challenges, because of the
nature of the technologies themselves, and because of the evolution of international governance. Policymakers need
to integrate these parameters, but their task is made difficult by the number of different coexisting frameworks and
by the way stakeholders use them. This survey outlines these frameworks and draws from new institutional theory as
well as from the policy and innovation literatures, to discuss the challenges of nano policy making. In a first part, the
survey introduces nano policy making and the reasons for its complexity, and offeres a panorama of mandatory tools
used to regulate nanotechnologies. In this second part, the focus is on the additional governance devices that some
stakeholders decide to adopt on a voluntary basis. This outline is followed by a discussion of the use of all tools –
mandatory and voluntary – by the different stakeholders. The paper concludes by debating two major directions
which nano policy making may follow.
Voluntary frameworks
Alongside the array of mandatory pieces of regulation
detailed in the first part of the survey, all other devices of
governance specifically designed for nanotechnologies
are considered voluntary schemes and can be divided
into three broad categories, voluntary reporting schemes,
codes of conduct and certifications.
Voluntary reporting schemes
The Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Manufactured
Nanomaterials (VRS) was set up in the UK in September
2006 as a temporary experiment, expected to last two
years. It was run by DEFRA, the Department for Environ-
ment, Food and Rural Affairs. The scheme aimed to pro-
vide an indication of the kinds of nanomaterials currently
in development and production to help inform policy
making decisions and to focus efforts and funding on
areas which were relevant to the UK’s current nano manu-
facturing and research base. The program asked for data
that could be provided on manufactured nanomaterials
from anyone involved in the manufacture or use of engi-
neered nanomaterials, or anyone involved in nanoscience
research or managing wastes consisting of engineered
nanoscale materials. The program included regular
updates to assess its implementation (DEFRA, 2008).
In 2008, the seventh such quarterly report indicated
that after 22 months, a total of 11 submissions had been
received since the scheme’s launch in September 2006,
nine from industry and two from academia. These results
appeared quite poor in view of the UK estimated nano-
technology production. For example, QinetiQ - said to
be the UK’s first production facility dedicated to the
volume production of specialist nanomaterials - stated
on its website that it had two production rigs which
were each capable of producing up to several kilos of
material an hour, and that it was looking at over 25 key
nanomaterial projects (retrieved from: http://www.
qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/
2003/1st_quarter/nanomaterials0.html, accessed July 2007).
In January 2008 the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) launched the Nanoscale Materials
Stewardship Program (NMSP), a similar voluntary report-
ing scheme covering engineered nanoscale materials
manufactured or imported for commercial purposes
(EPA, 2007). The NMSP program invited interested parties
to participate in a ‘basic’ program by submitting existing
data on the engineered nanoscale materials they manu-
factured, imported, processed, or used. The EPA also
invited interested parties to participate in an ‘in depth’
program to test engineered nanoscale materials they
manufactured, imported, processed, or used. This
scheme seemed to meet the same fate as the UK
Voluntary Reporting Scheme. When it launched the
NMSP program, the EPA said it expected to receive 240
submissions from 180 companies under the basic
program, and to attract 15 participants in the in depth
Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 1 . February 2013
Global Policy (2013) 4:1 doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00160.x ª2013 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Survey Article
101
To continue reading
Request your trial