Transcript WPDD

Public Information, Consultation and
Involvement in Radioactive Waste
Management
A review of history, issues, and approaches
from an NEA perspective
Claudio Pescatore, Claire Mays
[email protected]
PIME, Barcelona, 10 February, 2004
Outline of the presentation
Stakeholder activities have been ongoing
at the NEA at least since the early 90’s.
 Pre-FSC work at the NEA (1990-1999)



First phase 1990-1995
Second phase 1995-2000
FSC work (2000 - ongoing)
FSC = Forum on Stakeholder Confidence
2
1990-1995 activities
 … responded to a wish to increase the
understanding by decision-makers regarding issues of
public information and public participation.
 Four




major workshops:
Public information on Nuclear Energy (1991)
Public Participation in Nuclear Decision-Making (1992)
Informing Parliamentarians on Nuclear Energy (1994)
Informing the Public About RWM (1995)
3
Informing the Public About RWM (1995)

“Social and ethical issues are at least as important as technical
issues” There is a difficult balancing problem to be resolved
between local ethical desirables and national ethical imperatives.

“We must include the economic dimension in our communication
programmes, including setting out the funding methods that will
ensure that costs will be met when they are incurred, which may
well be far in the future.”

“Public involvement, at the earliest possible stage, is perhaps the
most vital requirement, although it will not necessarily be enough.
The public deserves and should have our respect. We cannot
expect their trust if we do not trust them. Without them we are
lost.”
4
Collective Opinion of 1995
 The
RWM community had been taking up
the issue of ethics
 The
C.O. of 1995 concluded that:


geologic disposal meets the ethical
imperatives
“stepwise implementation of plans for
geologic disposal leaves open the
possibility of adaptation, in the light of
scientific progress and social acceptability,
over several decades, and does not exclude
the possibility that other options could be
developed at a later stage”
5
Through 1995 ...



Public relations and communication folks had
raised the non-technical issues to the technical
decision makers
... the RWM community started by taking up the
ethical aspects but not the social aspects,
although these were understood to be pivotal.
The need to take up social issues re-enforced in
1996 and 1997 by
 the demise of the Canadian programme - one of the
major findings was that “social safety” had not been
demonstrated –
 plus difficulties in other national programmes
6
(1988-2000)
10-YEAR STUDY

Most organisations saw it as their duty to reach
out

Even where there was no strong constraint on
institutions to consult with the public, the
tendency was seen to be seeking a dialogue

The means that had been used to build a dialogue
had not been successful, which argued “for
increased attention to be devoted by the (RWM)
community to the issues involved, even if these
issues do not strictly fall with traditional areas of
science and engineering”
7
(1988-2000)
10-YEAR STUDY

“Where respondents to the NEA questionnaire did cite
national requirements for progressing repository
programmes, the emphasis was on policy and
organisational aspects, and the mechanisms for public
acceptance of current technical solutions, rather than
development of improved technical solutions”.

Major needed development:
– Clear procedures for staged siting studies and repository
development, and methods for communicating effectively and
for gaining public acceptance in the stepwise development of
appropriate national solutions

Stakeholder issues become part of the RWMC strategic areas
8
Over 5 years ...

Many important conclusions: Societal
aspects are pivotal; adaptation; stepwise
development; involve public at early
stage; communication beyond technical
aspects

… shift to active role of RWM
institutions, but still a lot had to be learnt
…
learning needs to be done “in the field”
besides from closed-access workshops

Launching of the FSC initiative (2000 -
ongoing)
9
FORUM ON STAKEHOLDER
CONFIDENCE (FSC)

Initiative to improve understanding of the principles
of stakeholder interaction and public participation in
decision-making related to radioactive waste
management

A wider representation of civil society is obtained
through workshops held in national contexts,
including national and local stakeholders.
Not everybody can be invited all the time as we move
from nation to nation, but a relationship can be
maintained with all participants and with other
organisations/individuals that wish to be kept abreast

10
MAIN EXPECTATIONS OF PHASE - 1

To improve ourselves

Create an atmosphere of trust for the discussion of
issues. Document these discussions

Create a working environment conducive to tangible
results, e,g., to produce advice that strengthens
confidence in decision-making processes

Produce, in later stage, a widely agreed upon document
on the principles, implications, practices, and issues in
involving technical and non-technical stakeholders in
long-term waste-management projects
11
AUGUST 2000 FSC WORKSHOP;
INTERNATIONAL SURVEY


Two parallel initiatives to scope the work
Two publications available today
TRUST
AND
INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORKS
2
CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT
1
DIALOGUE
DYNAMICS
HOW CAN
INSTITUTIONS
ADAPT?
4
NEW
SOLUTIONS
5
STAKEHOLDERS
AND PUBLIC
3
12
WORKSHOP THEMES AND LEARNING - 1


Changing environment

Technology is no longer perceived as the bright future

Stronger involvement of local authorities

Projects not trusted and possibly rejected when stakeholders
have not been actively involved
Dynamics of dialogue


The technical side is no longer of unique importance : ability
to communicate, to negotiate and to adapt is necessary
Need to "engage, interact and co-operate” rather than
"decide, announce, defend"
13
WORKSHOP THEMES AND LEARNING - 2

Institutions must adapt.

A list of relevant features :

Organisational features : clarity of role position,
dedicated sufficient funding, learning capacity, ethical
behaviour …

Mission features : clear mandate and goals, a grounded
identity…

Behavioural features : openness, willingness to be
"stretched", freedom from arrogance, recognition of
limits, proactive practices...
14
WORKSHOP THEMES AND LEARNING - 3

The stakeholder : anybody with an interest or role to
play


Major issues :

the interactions amongst groups and their respective roles

stakeholders change with time
Trust : implies that an individual is willing to give up a
certain measure of control to another person. Trust must be
given in order to make it possible to receive it.

Oversight and an active role of governments and regulators
contribute to keep up trust.

Waste retrievability and programme reversibility alleviate
mistrust of technology, and help in decision making..
15
INTERNATIONAL SURVEY: “INFORM,
CONSULT, INVOLVE” (2000-2003 publication)




Factual reports on the situations in which RWM
institutions engaged with the public
The methods and efforts invested
The results: successes and failures
A selection of outstanding observations on which
the FSC will reflect further…
– There is legislation for involving stakeholders
– Environmental Impact Assessment: a decision and
planning tool becomes a vehicle for public participation
– Engaging with the public has profound impacts on the
image and role of RWM players [and produces insight
on changes needed inside and outside their institutions]
16
Legislation is in place to support
engagement with stakeholders in RWM




Requirements on national and international level reflect
growing awareness of the need to involve public in
environmental and long-term decision making
These frameworks furnish legitimacy but cannot furnish
methods and guidance for every situation. To some extent
these are still experimental tools (e.g., the EIA in Europe...)
Forms of participatory democracy are something recent in
our societies.
Engaging with stakeholders implies not only new
procedures but also:
–
–
–
–
More clarity in roles across the board
Change in mentality
New skills and resources
Partnership arrangements
17
“Partnership” Arrangements



RWM institutions need to encounter their public
Needed: multi-partner forums for examining and
deciding on complex topics with technical and
societal, national and local dimensions
Such arrangements are being created or realised with or
without
– a legislative frame
– financial provisions and assistance to communities


A challenge to traditional, representative
democracy and expert delegation
Stretches traditional, typical public relations or
community relations approaches
18
EIA: MECHANISM AND OPPORTUNITY
FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION


Difficult to mobilise persons when RWM issues remain
general; only when issues become local (siting) does public
participation kick in– in a positive or negative manner
People want to talk of more than just technical aspects. EIA
is originally a “technical” assessment:
– It may not be a good vehicle when pressed into service to
evaluate social or ethical aspects.
– Current developments in the areas of Strategic EIA, Social
Impact Assessments, and Ethical Assessments.


Need to explain, distinguish the role and function of EIA.
Traditional “written comment” format does not always allow
the public to become engaged. New formats, new bodies,
invented to fill in the gaps.
19
EVOLVING ROLE AND IMAGE of
REGULATOR





Some players, like the regulator, are
emerging in a new light and pressed into
new role
Higher visibility – by societal demand and
by choice
“Peoples’ Expert” , Guarantor of Safety
Educational and confidence-building role
Need for neutrality and transparency
20
ON-SITE LEARNING
Finland Workshop (2001)

Strong example and inspiration for use of Environmental Impact
Assessment tool and for Stepwise Approach to Decision Making

Role of the regulator as “defender” of people’s health

The municipality right of veto is a confidence factor

Confirmation that important commonalities exist across diverse
cultural settings.
21
ON-SITE LEARNING
Canada Workshop (2002)


The important role of local communities and municipalities; the
special place of nuclear municipalities
The importance of at least an informal right of veto

A different optimum may be reached when local aspirations are
taken into account when considering technical solutions

The importance to have a legal framework for negotiation and
reaching decisions

The importance to have a (government) body that is active in
driving the process of dialogue towards taking a decision

The large, positive experience of performing EIAs and SIAs in
Canada

Innovation of ethical assessment
22
ON-SITE LEARNING
Belgium Workshop (2003)

A working model for multi-actor, long-lasting study group
partnerships – set up informally

High determination and mobilisation of local persons who
deliberate on aspects of facility safety, method, design, and
integration into an economic and social context

Implementer is a peer member of the study groups

Impact on implementer’s own organisation and mentality

Will to follow up the facility project through subsequent phases

Need for regulator to take its place in national constellation
23
MAKING LEARNING SYSTEMATIC


The FSC notices that all issues and situations
encountered raise questions about POLICY –
PROCESS – STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT –
ORGANISATIONAL ADAPTATION
Reflection on how to integrate these levels in
– A context of mutual learning within the FSC
– An orderly forward progression towards safe and secure
management of wastes in the societal context

Stepwise Decision Making project
24
Why Stepwise
Decision Making ?

A decision is made of many sub-decisions

In long-term radioactive waste management:
 there will many decisions,
 progress will be made in steps, and
 there will be many opportunities for stakeholders to
influence the path of development.

“What are the steps?” seems to be the wrong
question

“How do we approach decision making ? On what
basis?” seem better-posed questions
25
Three general principles ...



Decision-making should be performed through
iterative processes, providing the flexibility to
adapt to contextual changes, e.g., by
implementing stepwise approach that assures
sufficient time for developing a competent and fair
discourse
Social learning should be facilitated, e.g., by
promoting interaction between the various
stakeholders and the experts
Public involvement in decision-making processes
should be facilitated, e.g., promote constructive and
high-quality communication between individuals with
different knowledge, beliefs, interests, values, and
worldviews
26
… the aim being
 To
increase familiarity and control by the
stakeholders
 Trust
and confidence in the institutional actors
 Increased
legitimacy and supportability of the
decision
27
Ideally, for RWM, these principles ought to be
applied in 4 governance areas: the national
systems of

Energy production


Radioactive waste management


responsible for the strategic directions on how waste is to be
managed
Waste facility siting


responsible for decisions on nuclear power/industry
responsible for identifying a site, as well as
benefits/compensation packages and oversight schemes for
communities
Implementation of decisions

responsible for keeping to the process that was entered into,
including decisions on facility construction, operation,
monitoring, and potential closure
28
Action Goals

Energy production Openly debating of national policy on
energy production, the future of nuclear energy, and the
impact of RWM;

Radioactive waste management. Change to status quo is
needed; define scope and end-points; define technically
and societally acceptable WM approach;

Waste facility siting. Identifying one or more technically
suitable sites where acceptability is possible; tailor-made
community benefit packages and community oversight
schemes;

Implementation of decisions. Keep to the process that was
entered into, including decisions on facility construction,
operation, monitoring, and potential closure.
29
Conclusions…
A
more complex interaction is now taking place at
national, regional, and especially at local levels
A
more realistic understanding of decision making, in
steps, involving a range of actors is emerging
Positive
outputs of the FSC :
a forum for mutual exchanges, mutual respect and learning

a unique standing forum where technicians, civil servants, social
scientists and other stakeholders can interact

promote cultural changes in, and stimulate new approaches by,
participating organisations

30
Publications
for download or purchase
 August
2000 Workshop
 Inform, Consult, Involve Stakeholders (E & F)
 Evolving Role and Image of Regulator (E & F)
 Proceedings: Finland, Canada Workshops
 Stepwise Decision Making (conference
presentations)
 Exec

Summary: Belgium Workshop (soon)
Available here at PIME: List of
FSC activities and publications
31
Contact

Many documents for download :
http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/fsc.html
Join
our list for updates:
[email protected]
 Cynthia
Picot of NEA Publications
and Public Affairs is here
32