Final Report Summary - IPPA (Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal)
Executive Summary:
The IPPA project aimed to establish safe spaces in Central and Eastern European countries where stakeholders can join together to increase their understanding of the issues involved in radioactive waste disposal and also of their respective views. In IPPA a number of processes for stakeholder participation have been implemented in the radioactive waste management programmes in the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. Experiences from these activities are described within the project, and as part of this the experiences made in IPPA and some earlier projects have also been used to build a Knowledge Base for participation processes, as well as a web based Toolbox. The project also addressed cross border issues such as the possibility for regional repositories and the application of the Aarhus Convention. Furthermore, IPPA considered how negotiations on compensation and added value can be implemented at the local level.
The IPPA project had the following objectives:
1. To test and implement novel approaches to risk communication and public participation related to repository development programs
2. To provide guidance to further progress by illustrating a way forward and suggesting concrete schemes for establishing a “safe space” for participation and transparency
3. To explore how the processes for participation and transparency used at national level can be used in a cross-country and international context to make progress with issues of common interest.
4. To clarify different added value approaches in order to empower stakeholders, including implementers and communities, and to increase their awareness about how such approaches can be used
5. To structure and analyze a broad spectrum of processes for participation and transparency in order to provide a framework for building a knowledge base and a tool box for its use
6. To further develop and implement new methods for bridging the gap between research and implementation
Experiences from the implementation activities in IPPA bring about some observations to consider for future activities. There are indications that some stakeholders hesitate to take part in participative activities. Not all stakeholders have the same interests and most often consensus between them cannot be expected, although some of them may agree to cooperate to reach common goals. There are a number of possible reasons for stakeholders not to take part in informal approaches to public participation. One reason could be that some stakeholders, who want quick results positive for their own sake, may not regard the process as meaningful as it takes more time than they consider relevant. A second reason might be that some need to maintain their autonomy, in which case they cannot be part of a process in which also the developer takes part. Even if autonomy can be guaranteed, a stakeholder can have tactical or strategic reasons to stay outside - not even to be associated with a process in which their “opponents” take part. Another reason can be lack of trust in the neutrality of the process or its organizer. Any public participation process must take these factors into account in order to be sustainable and successful.
Project Context and Objectives:
The IPPA Project (Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal) started in January 2011 and ended in December 2013. The consortium was made up of 16 organizations from 12 countries. Together they represented academic research, other research institutions, consultant companies, nuclear waste management organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The core aim with the project was the establishment of arenas where stakeholders can join together to increase their understanding of the issues involved in radioactive waste disposal and of their respective views. The project was not limited to national programmes but includes also the multi-national context, as issues such as Environmental Impact Assessment and the Espoo Convention, the regional repository option and implementation of the Aarhus Convention have been examined. The project also investigated how negotiations on compensation and added value can be implemented at the local level. As overall objectives, IPPA aimed to enhance the quality of decision-making processes in radioactive waste management and the research and implementation of “safe spaces”.
The IPPA project was focused on enhancing the quality of decision-making processes in nuclear waste management through clarity, awareness, fairness and trust. A key measure was the implementation of participative processes and transparency, and the involvement of stakeholders in “safe spaces”. The RISCOM model and other approaches to public involvement were implemented in five radioactive waste management programmes in central and eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia). The intention was to find ways to 'vaccinate' decision-making processes against unnecessary narrow framing and fragmentation that may later become serious obstacles to decision-making. Experience has shown that restrictive framing is often the result of technological experts failing to acknowledge broader societal perspectives, but it could also come about in part due to social sciences neglecting 'hard facts'.
In IPPA a step was taken to build a knowledge base for participation processes which may be an important contribution to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the use of participation processes, not only in the nuclear waste management sector but also in a much more general sense. Furthermore, a Toolbox was developed where it is possible on-line to explore participation tools, methods or processes in order to find suitable approaches for future implementation of public participation in specific situations of a possible user.
Project Results:
1 Implementing methods and approaches of public involvement
Implementation of novel dialogue and participatory approaches was done in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia and Romania. 1.1
1.1 Czech Republic
The long-term policy of the Czech state includes the construction of a deep geological repository for spent fuel and other HLW, as this is currently considered the only realistic solution for final storage. RAWRA (the Radioactive Waste Repository Authority) acts as promoter and implementer of a geological repository in the Czech Republic, and with the process currently in the siting phase, one of the main tasks for RAWRA is to ensure that geological surveys are resumed in potential host localities. This requires the involvement of the communities concerned. Further work also requires the permission of the Ministry of Environment (MoE). In the year 2010, the Working Group for Dialogue on DGR” was established “as advisory group of Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) and MoE. This Working Group was a continuation of the initial RISCOM implementation of the previous ARGONA project (contract number FP6-036413), which had acted as the catalyst for the activities of the Working Group. The main objectives of the Working Group is to define acceptable ways and criteria for selecting a suitable locality for a deep repository and to establish a transparent process that would adequately respect the public interests.
The IPPA project originally aimed at the establishment of an IPPA RISCOM Reference Group in the Czech Republic in parallel to the already existing Working Group for Dialogue on Geological Repository, which was established before the start of the IPPA project. However, taking into account the similarity of the goals and activities of the already existing Working Group and the proposed Reference Group, the potential involvement of the same actors and even persons, and the problem of ensuring the legitimacy of a new group, it was concluded that the establishment of a new Reference Group would not be reasonable or meaningful. Therefore, the Working Group (WG) for Dialogue became formally the RISCOM Reference Group, and assumed all its tasks and obligations in relation to this project. This enabled the Working Group to expand the scope of its activities.
In addition to its efforts in the design and implementation of relevant legislative changes in the context of strengthening the position of municipalities in the process of the deep repository siting and constructing, the Working Group could also focus on application of the RISCOM model on a wider scale. This meant that the Working Group worked to improve transparency of the decision-making processes, and to build a safe space for meaningful long-term communication between all stakeholders at each level of the structured dialogue, and their adequate participation in all stages of the siting and building of a DGR. For this purpose, a number of communication events at relevant levels of a structured dialogue have been organized:
• Seminar at the Senate of the Czech Parliament - “The Position of Local Communities in the Site Selection Process for DGR”;
• Round table discussion at national level - "Site Selection Process for DGR";
• Public debates at five preselected localities - "Role of Local Communities in Site Selection Process for DGR";
• National Seminar on "Aarhus Convention Implementation into the Czech Legislation and Practice";
• Seminar on Barriers of the Deep Geological Depository - inter-branch discussion of research activities in various areas of the DGR development in the Czech Republic.
In connection with re-evaluating legislation, the Working Group for Dialogue also prepared and submitted to the competent ministries a draft Law on Involvement of Communities in the Process of Site Selection for DGR in order to strengthen the role of municipalities in the process of DGR siting. Unfortunately, there was no adequate answer or reaction from relevant institutions. The Working Group for Dialogue decided for the moment to suspend its activities due to lack of interest of the MIT to discuss and deal with the results of the work and recommendations of the WG.
Overall, the involvement of the WG in the dialogue should be understood as very positive. Through the project a safe space has been created for dialogue between all stakeholders. However, despite all efforts, the gradual building of trust between stakeholders was repeatedly disturbed by unexpected actions of responsible state institutions. Due to frequent personnel changes in relevant ministries, there is no continuity in negotiation with the municipalities concerned. The WG cannot completely fulfil the role of an advisory body of MIT and MoE, because it lacks sufficient legitimacy. It was not clearly defined in the frame of institutional infrastructure of the relevant ministries/state institution and according to current legislation. For the WG to serve an effective role, its legitimacy must be more formalized (e.g. through new legislation, institutionalization of WG under one of the parliamentary committees). The WG would also need to become sufficiently independent and have its own financial resources.
For the efforts of the WG to continue, there are several additional challenges for the future which must to be met; policy makers must be made aware of the need for long-term stability in their relation to the WG, and the role of the WG needs to be more formalized (e.g. through new legislation, institutionalization of WG under one of the parliamentary committees). Communities must be provided with the tools and powers to efficiently support their interests, which may involve the adoption of appropriate legislative changes. Further, suitable motivation programs for increasing public willingness to actively participate in the process must be developed.
The IPPA project has served as the catalyst for all the activities of the Working Group to exchange in international feedback and insight. The project also allowed for the establishing of international cooperation with foreign colleagues and experts. Sharing experiences is an important part of the further development of the on-going process of a deep geological repository siting in the Czech Republic, especially at this time when the process is being reassessed. Thanks to the IPPA project, members of the Working Group were also able to participate in international workshops and conferences organized under the IPPA project (e.g. IPPA European workshop on Aarhus and Nuclear issues, IPPA End Users Conference). The project and its international reach has become one of the unifying elements of the Working Group in some critical situations, when the working groups continued existence was threatened, as a result of non-standard decisions of responsible state institution. Its involvement in the IPPA project helped the Working Group to find a new purpose and objectives of its activities and continue to work.
1.2 Slovakia
The goal of RISCOM implementation in Slovakia was defined as to improve public awareness and understanding of risks associated with NWM (with a focus on a long term geological repository) and to create favorable conditions for wide and effective public participation in future decision making processes related to a Slovak geological repository. The original intention of the RISCOM implementation in Slovakia was meant to be applied to the deep geological repository (DGR) project and a group of local stakeholders from affected regions. However, the expected restart of the siting activities related the DGR by the official authorities did not happen during the 2009-2012 period. This caused a number of uncertainties concerning the future of that project, and the continuity of a potential DGR RISCOM RG could not be guaranteed. As it was not possible to focus on a DGR development in potential new host localities, focus was shifted to existing host localities connected to storage of RW and spent nuclear fuel.
To prepare for the RISCOM implementation a report was made that summarized the opportunities and obstacles for effective risk communication and public participation in decision making processes in the Slovak nuclear waste management sector. Basic barriers of public participation in the Slovak nuclear EIA and SEA procedures were identified as transparency, legal standing of the public in EIA and SEA procedures and cultural barriers between the state officials and NGOs. Thereafter, the selection of RISCOM reference group participants was made on the basis of the report and the current situation. At current all existing storage and disposal facilities were located close to the NPP sites Mochovce and Jaslovské Bohunice. A group of stakeholders had previously been formed during the EIA process for a near surface repository at Mochovce, and as a requirement to improve the communication and cooperation between the nuclear waste management organization JAVYS and stakeholders rose up, this stakeholder group was selected for the RISCOM RG implementation in Slovakia.
As a first step all potential stakeholders interested in participation in decision making processes were identified and through structured bilateral interviews with them and other experts the feedback was received on topics and issues identified as being relevant for successful implementation of the RISCOM model. Finally, the first meeting of stakeholders from local municipalities, activists, NGOs and implementer was organized and a small survey on the expectations and needs was prepared. As a result of this survey a selection of topics for further meetings was prepared. Unfortunately, despite bilateral consultation with various partners there was decreasing interest in participation from various participants as well as some waste management organization JAVYS representatives.
Aside from RISCOM group implementation at Mochovce local level, a national seminar on the management of radioactive waste and the public (with the sub-title Experiences and challenges of international commitments in Slovakia) was successfully held in Bratislava with broad participation of representatives from various state and private institutions. From conclusions of this seminar, the need for more discussion on Aarhus convention implementation and education in understanding and fulfilling the three basic pillars of the convention in practice was expressed. Another achievement of the IPPA project was to provide an appreciated safe space for open discussion on the added value for municipalities surrounding nuclear facilities, and on proposals for legislative changes concerning community benefits from RWM.
1.3 Poland
A key component of the project was the formation of the RISCOM reference group which could organize a dialogue in Poland concerning selection of the site for the near surface repository. As a rule in the RISCOM reference group all possible groups of stakeholders should be represented to be listened by others and to avoid future misunderstandings and claims. Wide participation of stakeholders allowed the appropriate design of participation process from the beginning and could bring the good-quality decisions in the future. On 1st of July 2011, the Polish RISCOM reference group (RG) was established as a result of agreement of 12 institutions, among them representatives of governmental institutions, experts from research institutions, representatives of the municipality hosting the repository for low- and intermediate radioactive waste, and non-governmental organizations.
The RG works on the basis of a written agreement accepted by all participants. The group prepared the common agreement of cooperation in which the principal objective of the implementation of the RISCOM process in Poland was an increased awareness of all aspects concerning the choice of a suitable site for a new repository for low and medium level radioactive waste in order to improve the conditions for transparency and active involvement of the general public into the decision-making process. This was to be seen within the context of the plans to introduce nuclear power in Poland, thus possibly making the low and medium level radioactive waste repository a part of a larger radioactive waste management system including the possibility of deep disposal of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel in future.
The rules of the reference group functioning were described in the agreement; the governing representatives of the group and other matters of principal importance were specified. The group changed in time: the representative of General Directorate of Environmental Protection left the group in the third year and in 2013 two academic institutions joined the RG. Finally the group was formed of 12 institutions and one observer.
During three years of the project the reference group organized one hearing, three workshops and two trainings, which topics were decided in agreement of all participating organisations. The aims of the workshops and trainings were education of stakeholders on social aspects of radioactive waste management, models of public involvement, RISCOM methodology and legal matters relating to the existing international conventions signed by Poland.
The project was beneficial for the stakeholders in Poland. It was appreciated by the institutions, which are responsible for the construction of the new repository for low and intermediate radioactive waste repository and nuclear power plants in the future. They considered IPPA very constructive and helpful. Not all problems were dissolved; it looks that building trust is not easy and similarly to other countries, which entered this problem earlier, the creation of the safe space will be a step-wise process.
The main conclusions derived from the RG activities during IPPA project, also addressed during the concluding meeting were as follows:
– The siting and construction of the new repository for low- and medium level radioactive waste need extensive participation of the society from the beginning to ensure that its concerns will be addressed,
– The implementation of the proven schemes of public involvement in decision-making, such a RICOM process, seems reasonable.
– The RISOM process needs further adaptation to Polish conditions and needs (e.g. modification of added value approach, finding the way of engagement of wider representation of NGOs)
– Hearing seems a very useful form of public debate, which will be necessary after potential site selection
– It is expected that the Reference Group initiating the discussion of RW related issues will continue its work and become a permanent advisory body for the decision-makers,
– The RG is open for all stakeholders addressing their concerns and expectations; it should be extended by new members
1.4 Slovenia
In Slovenia IPPA activities have been focused on reviewing and analysing the past experiences, as well as to make suggestions on how to create an open and democratic discussion about radioactive waste management. The partnerships and participative processes which were initiated in relation to the siting of a LILW repository siting formally ended at the end of the site selection in 2010, prior to the IPPA project. Analyzing the past experience with participation has thus been a main goal, as well as investigating new options for public involvement as all stakeholders demanded further participation and inclusion of the public in the repository project. A central aim was also to closely follow the process of new developments related to NPP and solutions for HLW, and to review the conditions for effective public participation, with special regards to EU directives and international conventions.
Activities have included the establishing of contacts with existing stakeholders from Local Partnerships, culminating in the of organization of four stakeholder workshops/conferences, as well as minor meetings with particular smaller groups of stakeholders. The four workshops/conferences concerned different aspects of public participation in radioactive waste issues, the status of local partnerships, implementation of Aarhus Convention in Slovenia, and possibilities of future participation of interested public in the control of construction and operation of LILW repository (especially in the view of formal ending of local partnerships). On all these workshops/meetings, stakeholder experiences, opinions and proposals for possible future participation were collected. Besides helping in carrying out questionnaires on implementation activities and added value approach with stakeholders, also a questionnaire was applied on a sample of nuclear experts (from NPP Krško, Institutes, Regulators, etc.) to establish their perception of nuclear issues in comparison with general public, as well as their perception of general public and their participation in these issues
Two methods were applied to gather feedback and input, leading to similar conclusions: group meetings and questionnaires which participants answered individually and anonymously. Answers to the questionnaire confirmed findings from the workshops, meetings and other contacts with the stakeholders, e.g. that the goals of participation had not been achieved, a wish for greater transparency, a need to establish trust, public worries not being adequately treated, interactions with e.g. government and regulator, were not good, and there was a lack of influence on decision making, which participants perceived as a necessity for a future stakeholder groups. It was evident from discussions and contacts with local stakeholders that activities should not be organized only to fulfil some formal obligations, but as a sincere attempt to involve people in important issues deeply concerning their lives. The opinion that the local partnerships had been ended too soon was also clearly expressed.
It was clearly established that the most important step in the siting of the LILW repository procedure was the transition from a purely technical approach to the approach that involves people in the decision processes. People demand this participation and feel this is the right way to reach adequate solutions to the siting problem. While the introduction of the participation process through Local Partnerships presented an important move in the more democratic and successful solution of the LILW repository siting procedure, it appeared that images of participation were different between local people and NGOs on one side and local and state administration as well as technical sector on the other.
Great interest for participation and prolongation of the Local partnerships on the side of public and NGOs was perceived, as well as relative lack of interest on the side of state and local community authorities, regulators and implementers. On the stakeholder meetings usually two sides with different opinions appeared, one with local inhabitants and NGOs, and the other with state administration, representatives of NPP, Community Council Krško, etc. The main sources of barriers to efficient public participation are problem segmentation by implementers and authorities, instrumentalization of participation, fear of nuclear in public and lack of trust between parties. On these issues IPPA research has recognized tendencies toward technocratic solutions and suggested ways for their abandonment.
IPPA reviewed the conditions for effective public participation and opportunities for improvements in Slovenian practice in risk communication, and public participation in repository siting processes have been clarified with special attention to the present lack of trust between key actors and the local public. A renewed form of local partnership was proposed which would be legitimized as an institution which enables argumentative confrontation and decision making.
It was also emphasized that local nuclear issues are embedded in a wider context of nuclear, energy and political issues such as the common ownership of NPP Krško with Croatia, opposition to NPP from Austria and internationally important events like Fukushima, global warming and global economic crises. All these influences are of different degree and direction and need to be taken into account in the process of nuclear issues decision making.
Besides lessons learned, IPPA activities in Slovenia also helped to maintain stakeholders’ activity, and appeared as a safe arena for mutual interaction and opinion exchange between different parties.
The overall main problem in Slovenia lay in the inability to establish and maintain a safe place for discussion (e.g. as proposed by RISCOM model), for confrontation of different opinions about sustainable production of nuclear energy in the frame of socio-technical approach. Such an approach appeared only occasionally and for short periods (such as within this project), mainly because of formal regulatory needs (e.g. because of EU Directives, Aarhus convention and concrete need to get local public approval for the siting of LILW repository).
1.5 Romania
During the IPPA project work was made to create a basis of knowledge and to gather representatives of local communities, implementer of disposal program, politicians and civil society as partners in a democratic participation process on radioactive waste disposal. The aim was to build an open and transparent dialogue, on equal terms, in order to produce a change in the perception with regards to the necessity of public participation in the future decision making process for geological disposal.
The initiatives during the IPPA project linked to the siting of a LILW facility in the local community Saligny, and to the Romanian Stakeholder Group (RSG) created in the earlier CIP (Cowam In Practice) project. The Romanian Stakeholder Group (RSG) consisted of representatives of the local communities from Cernavoda and Saligny, nuclear waste producer (Cernavoda NPP), national agency for waste disposal, regulatory body, and a few local NGOs from Cernavoda. Fulfilling one of the project aims of IPPA, this group was enlarged with new members representing national environmental NGOs (Terra Mileniul III, ARIN), national authorities for health and environment (Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, Institute for Public Health) and the repository owner for LIL institutional waste (IFIN-HH Bucharest).
The RSG had 5 meetings, with an agenda agreed by all group members, in support to the objectives established in the kick-off meeting. Discussions in the group addressed both social and technical aspects of geological disposal and LILW disposal. A number of aspects were investigated and accounted for: the Romanian legal framework, the potential of efficient democratic debate, current and future population needs, financial resources, and environmental requirements. The methodologies were intended to accommodate the national and European requirements and proven practices regarding information, transparency and participation. In order to develop the methodological support for the local communities, IPPA reviewed the available methods, established a set of criteria to analyze their suitability to the Romanian context, assessed each method and ranked them accordingly. The development of the methodologies incorporated the meaningful output of the debates in the sessions of RSG. Two kinds of methodologies were developed: one dedicated to LILW repository context (and applied for Saligny community case) and another for geological disposal.
The set of the most appropriate methods were to be applied in Saligny during March-April 2012 with the support of the acting Mayor but local elections from June 2012 brought unexpected changes. Discussions with the new elected Mayor paved the way for their implementation during November 2012 – June 2013. For the geological disposal issues a methodology to elaborate a national strategy was developed with the main focus on public participation. Taking into account the current national context, the RSG highly recommended the Implementer to develop a Strategy on public participation in geological disposal. Recommendations for this development were produced by RSG and sent to the Implementer.
The proposed methodology for public participation in the siting of Saligny repository which included exploratory research based on focus-groups was recommended to the implementer. The results from the analysis were presented and discussed in the RSG. Based on the conclusion obtained incorporating also the comments and suggestions of the stakeholders participating in RSG meetings a set of recommendations for the national Implementer were produced:
(1) The community seems to agree the siting of the LILW repository in the area of Saligny village, in condition of real benefits for the community; these benefits are expected in the form of a Programme for Local Development aimed to improve local infrastructure and also by effects such as creation of jobs, increasing the quality of life, and contribution by taxes to the local budget
(2) The final decision to approve the site should be obtained by a large consultation of the population, but first a communication and information programme should be implemented in order to bring to the citizens the needed knowledge
(3) A written Agreement is needed to build an effective partnership based on mutual trust and confidence in the process
(4) A stepwise approach is appropriate to build confidence in the process; the robustness of the results for each step and the responsibility of the national authorities are crucial factors since the community needs practical results
(5) The problem of financial compensations is a marginal one, only in the case of the limitation on the use of the land it is seen as appropriate
(6) Community from Saligny has a limited experience in the negotiation process, therefore a careful treatment is recommended in order to avoid misunderstandings and disappointments
(7) There is a positive perception on the investment of all the counsellors and also for a part of the public
(8) A Communication Programme should be developed by the Implementer. It must be adapted to the local context. It should include audio-video applications, public meetings, and also printed materials to be accessed whenever the citizens want.
(9) The citizens wish to participate, they perceive their important role in the decision process, and also they understand that large uncertainties are present. A continuous process and adequate information for all citizens is needed.
(10) The community needs support for the development or modernization of the infrastructure. Any support offered by the Implementer or policy-makers will contribute to the creation of the citizens’ confidence in the process.
INR and AREN prepared a proposal for public participation in the geological waste disposal debate. The action plan is based on the current requirements of the national legislation, available knowledge basis from successful practices proved in the developed waste management EU Member States’ programs and not lastly on the experience from the local work with Saligny community. In some cases, knowledge and experience from more advanced Central and East European countries programs was found to be more appropriate. The RSG recommended the following approach:
(1) The Implementer should elaborate a vision document for the strategy on public participation in geological disposal.
(2) The Romanian Stakeholders Group (RSG) should debate the vision and produce recommendations for improvement of the document and transform it in a strategy
(3) Facilitator – an independent organization should moderate the debate on the proposed documents
(4) Public debate will follow the legal framework at the moment of implementation
A national Aarhus Convention seminar was also organized which gathered a large number of participants beside the RSG members. Presentations and discussions during the Aarhus Convention seminar revealed the existence of the legal provisions, their application in the most nuclear investments planned in Romania as well as the drawbacks of this process.
2 Common crosscutting issues
One work package in IPPA consisted of three sub work packages addressing cross border issues dealing with a) risk communication in transboundary procedures for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), b) application of the Aarhus Convention, and c) regional repositories and public involvement. This chapter describes this part of IPPA including a European workshop that was held on the topic “Aarhus and Nuclear issues”.
2.1 Risk communication in transboundary SEA and EIA procedures
This part of IPPA explored past experiences and state of the art of risk communication in transboundary SEA and EIA (TSEA and TEIA) procedures for nuclear sector projects with the intention to propose measures aimed at fostering implementation of novel approaches in risk communication linked to the formal procedures. The intention was that such approaches would take the form of safe spaces where different stakeholders agree on which would be the most important issues to deal with in SEA and EIA without taking common position on these issues with regard to the acceptability of proposed nuclear strategies or projects.
As a first step, a literature review was done and email questionnaires were sent to the designated Espoo Convention contact points. The aim was to identify topics, questions, problematic issues, etc. and procedural issues (i.e. selection of stakeholders and EIA/SEA procedures) for further research in IPPA. The resulting report (Mihok, 2012) contains a summary of theoretical knowledge on TEIA/TSEA procedures such as legal issues (e.g. relationships between the Aarhus and the Espoo Conventions, the Kiev Protocol and EU Directives, and jurisdiction applying to transboundary EIA and SEA procedures in the EU) and procedural issues (e.g. translations, the timing of public consultations, the complexity of alternatives and the zero alternative); Other specific issues deal with determining areas of potential impact and the involvement of minorities and disadvantaged groups in TEIA and TSEA.
After having made the first mapping of issues, questionnaire research and bilateral interviews were carried out in order to get stakeholder views on current procedures and their comments to the idea of safe space events to complement the formal procedures. The responding stakeholders raised some critical concerns about the EIA and SEA procedures (Mihok, 2013). Regarding the content of the procedures, issues that the stakeholders saw most problems with included the complexity of alternatives being considered, all the alternatives that had to be evaluated including the zero alternative, and the full length of the nuclear fuel cycle. There were problems raised regarding implementer willingness to make changes in projects or plans, and information about the right to appeal decisions made during or after the procedure. Key obstacles were identified, such as intentional change of focus of the procedure together with flooding of information, and examples of facilitation which clearly favoured the promoters or authorities.
Despite scepticism about the current TEIA/TSEA legislation and practice as presented by several respondents, there seemed to be an agreement between the majority of them that safe space events should be aimed at fostering effectiveness of TEIA/TSEA procedures and official decision-making procedures in source countries. In other words, safe space events should not be stand-alone events for the sake of academic communication of nuclear risks. Instead, safe space events with a particular relation to near future decision-making procedures seem to be preferred.
The respondents in IPPA research have often pointed out that transboundary risk Communication concerning nuclear risks should start with an agreement on what data and methods should be used to determine areas of potential negative impacts of proposed nuclear sector activities. The aim of safe space events preceding TEIA would be to eliminate the risk that potentially significant transboundary negative impacts of a SNF final repository located near national borders would be insufficiently taken into account in TEIA documentation and decision-making procedures. Secondly, the aim would be to avoid potential delays in future TEIA and decision-making procedures caused by omission of one or more potentially significant negative impacts which would be a sufficient reason for a time consuming revision of the TEIA documentation in rather late phases of already pending procedures.
The IPPA respondents often stressed that one of the key issues which they would like to discuss with stakeholders in the source countries prior to TEIA/TSEA procedures relate to a proper length and structure of TEIA/TSEA documentation. The interviewed often mentioned recent negative experiences due to the fact that TEIA/TSEA documentation for nuclear sector projects were often as long as 1000 pages, and at the same time insufficiently or improperly structured.
Indirectly, the improper length and/or structure of documentation decreased trust towards honest interests of source countries authorities to benefit from affected countries stakeholders’ interest and capacities to support the identification and elimination of potential negative transboundary impacts. A vision here is that safe space events would be organised prior to decisions concerning structuring of nuclear risk information in TEIA/TSEA documentation, with an aim to agree on a structure which would be acceptable for both source and affected countries´ stakeholders.
In contrast with the TEIA/TSEA procedures which typically do not cover all the possible scenarios including potential accidents, safe space events should not be topically limited only to environmental impacts under ‘normal circumstances’, but should also include a) health impacts and b) impacts under circumstances of low probable accidents or natural disasters. Safe space events on this topic might be devoted to the relevance of potential accidents, natural disasters and other events with a very low probability in order propose whether data and methods to calculate potential transboundary negative environmental and health impacts should also be collected and processed by source countries authorities. An issue highlighted was unclear information on which data and methods have been used to determine the areas of impact for cases of the most serious potential accidents.
Finally, the integration of ‘back-end cycle issues’ into TEIA procedures for new nuclear uilds/units was raised as an important issue.
2.2 The Aarhus Convention
While the Aarhus Convention (AC) has been signed by most EU member states, the application, and knowledge about its meaning, varies to a great degree between countries. The Aarhus Convention is significant for the stakeholders involved in IPPA because these public rights and governmental obligations are specifically applicable in the area of nuclear energy, and thereby in regard to plans, projects, policies and specific activities in radioactive waste management. As part of its support for effective participation, IPPA therefore organized a session for each national reference group to investigate the practical fulfillment of this treaty in their RWM context.
The AC sessions took place in the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. The discussion sessions were prepared by breaking down the Aarhus Convention into its major areas, were concrete implications, challenges and potential benefits for more inclusive RWM governance were outlined. Different reference group members then identified the most relevant issues and cases for their reviews. In some contexts the reference group was de facto not experienced as a "safe space" by all potential stakeholders. IPPA facilitators therefore reached out to NGOs in order to offer them a parallel opportunity to discuss and analyze the application of the Aarhus Convention. Such NGO seminars took place in 2013 in Poland and Slovenia. Overall, a wide range of stakeholders were invited to the sessions, which served both to discuss the individual national cases, and to inform about how the treaty can function as a tool to improve the governance of RWM.
Issues that were found to be common to several IPPA countries can be briefly summarized in relation to the three pillars of the convention:
INFORMATION
- Lack of coordinated system for information flow
- Low level of knowledge in the public due to limited access to information (confidentiality claims due to copyright, protection of business secrets, fees for information requests, etc.)
- Lack of access to independent expertise and lack of debates amongst experts representing different viewpoints
- Inadequate financing of information and education plans.
PARTICIPATION
- Ineffective information dissemination to support public participation
- Unclear definition of the “affected” or “concerned public”
- Lack of legal and administrative framework to guide proceedings.
JUSTICE
- Length and complexity of procedures; court decision often not available in a timely manner
- Public not protected from authorities’ lack of interest and action.
The main conclusions underline the empowerment of civil society as a key to enable the public to exercise their role as provided under the Aarhus Convention. This requires:
- Creating background conditions & resources, support,
- Building expertise, supportive structures, continuity
- Implementing inclusive decision-making processes
- Involving all stakeholders, and at least “most concerned”
- Practicing access to justice when rights are infringed
- Recognizing the benefits and effective gains in using the convention – as there is potential for improving the implementation in IPPA countries
- Identifying and implementing the conditions under which IPPA countries can go beyond simple, time-limited consultations on RWM, using the Aarhus Convention and the 2011/70/Euratom Directive, to create a working, multi-level, long-term civil participation and quality assurance process around a shared goal of environmental & health protection & nuclear safety.
2.3 A European workshop
In September 2012, IPPA organized a European-level workshop. Among its aims were to:
- Share findings and investigate key issues raised by the implementation of the Aarhus Convention and Espoo Convention in radioactive waste management
- Present and discuss the "Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste", and tools proposed by the PIPNA study for possible use in its implementation
- Improve knowledge and skills on public participation in RWM
- Discuss draft recommendations as input to guidance processes under DG Energy, the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) Transparency Working Group, and the Aarhus Secretariat.
National contact persons presented the available Aarhus Convention session findings in a standard format, largely facilitating comparison. Further food for thought was provided from France (recounting a strong recent tradition of democratization of nuclear-related decision making) and from Bulgaria (with the example of emerging “nuclear” democracy through bottom-up championing by civil society). A special strategy-building session examined PIPNA tools specific to improving public information and participation in RWM. In parallel, some stakeholders attended a short training on participation process design and practical facilitation skills.
In total, the European-level workshop gathered 52 individuals. The workshop discussions engaged NGOs, operators, public authorities, regulators, technical support organisations, research organisations, representatives of local partnerships, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) and a representative of European Commission-DG ENER. Some had participated directly in IPPA country-based sessions, and others were joining IPPA proceedings for the first time, invited by facilitators. All gained insight into the large similarities and some differences among IPPA countries regarding actual access to information, participation and justice in the RWM area – as framed domestically by the Aarhus Convention or across national borders by the Espoo Convention. The frank exchange uncovered good will on all sides but nonetheless, the need for intensive effort to foster and enforce the rights under these conventions was highlighted.
Indeed, the discussion on establishing a strategy to bring IPPA countries closer to effective broad-based participation in RWM revealed that beyond structural or administrative issues there is a long way to go to change attitudes among those who have the most power to rectify the situation. Education and practice are needed for all stakeholders, but particularly again for those in positions of authority and power, in order to attain respect for not only the letter but also for the spirit of the Aarhus Convention. This shall repose in part on clarifying the persistent ambiguities in regard to the purpose and the value of public participation in environmental decision-making in the nuclear domain.
2.4 Multinational options
Within the IPPA project multinational solutions were explored, with the aim of identifying and analyzing commonalities and differences in public participation in radioactive waste disposal developments between national and multinational options. Further, proposals on how to approach public participation and transparency in the case of a multinational solution were investigated, and recommendations were created with regards to national and regional public involvement programmes.
Previous initiatives for international solutions for waste management disposal were summarised, from the Pangea project, which was an early initiative for international disposal based on a commercial approach, up to present day conditions. Activities of international organizations such as IAEA and WNA (World Nuclear Association) were analysed, and US and Russian steps towards international solutions were briefly described. Finally, EC SAPIERR I and II projects, pilot initiatives for European regional repositories, were described. The overall objective of these efforts was to submit to relevant government bodies a complete proposal for the establishment of a European Repository Development Organisation, including specification of its size and structure, work programme for the initial years, together with budget and cost allocation proposals.
Alongside the reports, roundtables about international solutions for waste management disposal were also held, first with participation of various experts from Slovakia, and then with students. As a main conclusion from these roundtables, a need for national projects running alongside with the international initiatives was highlighted.
Recommendations were created, with regards to national and regional (international) public involvement programmes. These recommendations were discussed at the draft stage at roundtables and personal consultations with experts from various backgrounds. Information from Eurobarometer surveys, and already studied “pro’s and con’s” relating to public involvement was also studied as background research. The results of these studies highlighted the most critical issues, which included sensitivity on this topic for general people and a lack of political support. Open dialogue and transparent information processes together with real public involvement in the decision making process is essential for any future progress in this area.
To sum up, for successful public involvement in any international project further development is needed to:
• Study former experiences with international environmental projects;
• Continue in harmonising of EIA and other procedural legislation on European level with regard to international environmental project ;
• Clearly identify stakeholders on each level / local, national and in addition international;
• Select public participation approaches acceptable for each partner of the project and be flexible to use various approaches on different decision making level ;
• Appoint responsibilities of actors with regard to particular stages of the project and decision making level ;
• Keep in mind higher requirements on transparency and harmonise publishing and access to information ;
• Consider long term issues as sustainability of decissions, record keeping and intergenerational factors.
2.5 A cross border safe space initiative
Considering achievements made in national contexts, it makes sense to explore the feasibility for a safe space approach in a multinational context in Central Europe. Evidently, for example, plans for the siting of nuclear waste repositories raise issues of concern between neighbouring countries, especially in the relatively densely populated regions of Central Europe. Therefore it was proposed that a group of stakeholders join to discuss such issues within an informal framework the safe space approach can offer. The aim was to explore what are the issues that could be dealt with across the borders, and to suggest contents and format for activities within IPPA and perhaps also for a longer time frame outside the project. In order to explore the feasibility of this approach within IPPA, a memorandum was prepared for discussion at an IPPA project meeting. Then contacts were taken with potential participants in Austria and Slovakia with the idea to organize an exploratory meeting. This meeting took place in Bratislava on September 19, 2012 and was reported at the IPPA European workshop. The meeting was useful as an exploratory meeting and continued activities were foreseen. Due to lack of time and resources needed for involving a relevant group of officials and NGOs from both Austria and Slovakia, however, such a continuation could not be organized within the scope of IPPA.
3 Added value approaches
The term “added value approach” as working definition in the IPPA project is given as “an umbrella covering different elements of institutional mitigation, compensation and incentives in the site selection process”. This broad definition was applied to allow sufficient flexibility in order that stakeholders could express their understanding of the issue. The added value approach is an attempt to foster multiple siting measures tailored, through multiparty negotiations, to meet the interests of the involved stakeholders. In IPPA it was investigated how an added value approach could be applied to radioactive waste management in the different societal and political contexts that exist in the participating countries.
The objectives of the IPPA work on added value approaches were:
• To consider possible added value approaches as part of a wider basic approach to the acceptability of contentious facilities, including public participation and risk communication
• To help stakeholders understand the main purposes of different compensation concepts
• To further clarify the main concepts, the differences in meaning and their limitation in the practical implementation of economic compensation theory, and
• To help stakeholders consider different views concerning possible added value packages.
The work on added value approaches involved development of the concept itself, mapping different forms of approaches, an overview of the situation in the three IPPA countries Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia , and finally new research into actual stakeholder attitudes towards added value approaches in the three countries. To begin with, the typologies on incentives were reviewed, dating back to the 1970s, and compensation theory was presented and described. Case studies presented examples of how benefits have, and were currently being, used in the three countries. An overall discussion gave a holistic picture of the different kinds of arrangements related to benefits and their drawbacks, and served to raise consciousness about the differences between key concepts.
In the second part of the work, a two-stage questionnaire survey was designed and conducted in the same three countries. Before the circulation of the second questionnaire in 2013, it was introduced at meetings of the national stakeholder groups. In the first questionnaire an open-ended question was used to ask the main question, namely what kind of added value measures should be available to a possible host community in different stages and in the second one multiple-choice questions were posed, offering a menu of benefit types. In both of the questionnaires four repository development stages were recognised, i.e. siting, construction, operation and post-closure.
From the questionnaires and the background research, it was concluded that although all three countries currently utilise a ‘legally-mandated’ approach to the provision of community benefits, there does appear to be a desire for greater use of a ‘locally-negotiated’ approach and the involvement of local actors in the process. These approaches were defined as follows:
(1) The ‘Legally-imposed approach’: here the type of incentives and benefits, their amount and any associated preconditions are generally determined beforehand in legislation.
(2) The ‘Locally-negotiated approach’: here the type of incentives and benefits, their amount and any associated preconditions are negotiated between the key players at the local level without a legislative procedure. They are then often subject to formal agreement between the negotiating parties.
In all three countries additional forms of benefits were suggested in the responses to the first questionnaire to be made available during the operational phase of a repository. There was less support for benefits during the post-closure and siting stages respectively. This finding seemed almost counter intuitive, given that experience generally suggests that most concerns regarding repository safety etc. seem to be expressed during the siting stage, and tend to reduce once a site has been selected and approved by the regulator. It would therefore appear that local stakeholders feel that benefits associated with a facility are not simple ‘one-off’ items, but should be designed to be available throughout its life and even beyond, and recognise the likely disturbance to be expected during facility construction and operation. Many of the benefits suggested were long-term, such as provision of improved infrastructure, health services and employment.
The challenge here can be a need to develop a mixed approach that provides flexibility taking into account local interests, which at the same time ensures for the local actors long-term guarantees on implementation of the negotiated approach and its benefits. The variety of stakeholders’ opinions and interests expressed is a reminder of the importance of involving stakeholders early in the design phase of a siting approach in order to ensure their support for the package, suggesting the need of flexibility in benefit package design to meet their aspirations.
Further analysis of the questionnaire results categorized the respondents into the three groups “NGOs”, “Locals” and “Others” based on the organizational affiliation of the respondent. Asked to prioritise a menu of possible benefits, the NGOs preferred most frequently mitigation of possible health and environmental impacts and citizen control on the governing board of the planned facility, as well as guaranteed job opportunities for local people. The Locals group preferred job opportunities for local people and earmarked funding for local infrastructure. Locals also preferred earmarked funding for local citizen participation. The Others group most frequently preferred earmarked funding for citizen participation as well as earmarked funding of local welfare issues and for local infrastructure. A conclusion drawn from the variety of stakeholder views is that it could be preferable to use several added value measures side by side, in a benefit package, rather than a single measure. Potentially, added value approaches may also need to be developed in stages, as there are different kinds of needs at the beginning of a project compared with later stages.
In designing an added value approach the need to demonstrate safety and discuss it with stakeholders from the beginning should be noted, otherwise benefits will hardly be accepted. Another challenge is the risk that offering benefits might be perceived as an attempt to buy off opposition. If this materializes it can be difficult to argue against an accusation of bribery. Furthermore, sometimes offering benefits upsets people’s altruistic feelings, and can even create opposition where previously there was support.
4. The IPPA Knowledge base and Toolbox
To address the need to gather and disseminate information about processes and tools usable for public participation and stakeholder involvement, the IPPA Project has developed a knowledge base and a related Toolbox. The Knowledge Base was built from case studies of public participation on contentious issues, which also included fields outside of RWM. Initially earlier projects within the EU countries provided the material, which was subsequently expanded with learning from the IPPA project implementation activities. This Knowledge Base then formed the starting point for the Toolbox, a user-oriented interactive website for public participation processes, methods and tools.
The main goals of the Knowledge Base have been to gather and share experiences from different initiatives, as well as to formalize terms and comparisons between participatory processes. The Toolbox was built sharing these same goals, and also with the specific aim of being directly usable as a “how-to guide” to select and use appropriate tools, methods and processes for public participation. Both the Knowledge Base and the Toolbox thus presents concrete sources of information, which have already, and will continue to be used for the implementation of public participation.
Development of the initial version of the Knowledge Base was based on a number of case studies which were selected because of their coverage of a number of contentious issues and use of various tools, methods and processes for public participation. These ranged from the expansion of airports and highways in Austria and Germany, through examination of public attitudes to GM foods in the United Kingdom and mobile phone radiation in Sweden, to a number of projects related to radioactive waste management in Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany and the United Kingdom. This breadth of coverage was intended to ensure that a suitable range of participation tools would be identified in this first stage. It was also important that sufficient information of the projects involved was available in the open literature in order to allow the case studies to be described in enough detail.
In order to structure the identification and description of the types of tools that were used for stakeholder involvement in the different case studies, a variation on the “Arnstein Participation Ladder” was used. It classifies the level of participation according to five levels, from the interactive “Consult/Exchange”, “Collaborate” and “Joint decision-making” to the non-interactive “Inform” and “Listen” levels. While the Knowledge Base initially focused on interactive tools, the Toolbox also included non-interactive tools, to allow for a complete range of different tools, methods and approaches to be covered.
To assess the usefulness of the various tools used in the selected case studies, it was necessary to evaluate them in terms of a range of representative properties. The properties were divided into three main groups which characterised them as:
• “Instrumental” (those properties concerned with enhancing the quality of decision-making, finding acceptable outcomes and the integration of these into a legitimate process),
• “Procedural” (those properties concerned with the conduct of the process, for example whether it provides conditions that assure equal rights for all participants) and
• “Constitutive” (those properties that refer to the benefits implied by participation, such as for example the development of understanding and capacity building).
As the Knowledge Base was intended to act as a main resource for the subsequent development of the Toolbox, it was made in the form of an Access database to make it easily searchable. The way that the Knowledge Base acted like a natural “stepping-stone” towards the Toolbox also meant that generic descriptions of tools needed to be developed and used already when describing the case studies. In effect, this also meant that the two resources can easily be combined and used together. While the Knowledge Base also used criteria to describe the use of a tool in a specific case, both the Knowledge Base and the Toolbox shared the same criteria for describing the tools themselves in a more generic manner.
The final set of criteria provide a suitable description of a tool on a generic level and form the starting point for the tool selection in the Participation Toolbox, and comprise the following:
• Level of decision-making (referring to the administrative levels national, regional or local).
• Phase of decision-making (referring to the phases “plans/programmes” or “projects” as defined in the Aarhus Convention).
• Number of stakeholders involved.
• Combination of stakeholders (e.g. public, scientific experts, elected representatives).
• Participation Level (as defined in the modified Participation Ladder).
• Frequency of meetings.
• Implementer of the tool.
The Toolbox itself is an online tool accessible at the project web site www.ippaproject.eu. At its core is the search function, which can search based on several criteria (mentioned above), selected via drop-down boxes. Furthermore a free search is offered which allows the user to search for any term. To support the understanding and use of each criterion an explanation is provided in an info box. The welcome page is provided in several European languages such as e.g. Czech, Slovenian, German, and Slovakian.
For each tool a detailed description, a set of attributes and further links and references are included. For most tools from the interactive participation levels, case studies are provided which describe use of the tool in a particular context. The case studies cover several examples from the field of radioactive waste management including the experiences from the implementation of participation processes within the IPPA project. The case studies are provided as pdf-files which can easily be saved or printed by interested users.
In order to offer a user a quick overview of potentially suitable tools, the toolbox provides the opportunity to directly compare the attributes of up to five tools. The chosen tools are displayed in a tabular format which presents the attributes side by side.
Additional information is provided to guide and support the use of the toolbox as follows:
- The “Guiding Principles” summarise some basic information on participatory processes that should be taken into account before searching for potentially appropriate tools. Even though the issue of shaping participatory processes adapted to the framing conditions of a specific case is a very sensitive area the “Guiding Principles” are intentionally kept brief. They aim to advise the user of the most crucial points, not to elaborate on the state of the art of dealing with each of these points under specific conditions.
- A help page provides a “Users’ Manual” which describes in detail the structure, individual functions and use of the toolbox.
The Participation Toolbox will be online for at least five years after the end of the IPPA project. A continuation after that period might be reasonable. The toolbox is programmed in such a way that further tools and case studies could be easily amended at later stages.
During development of the Knowledge Base and Participation Toolbox it was realised that in the context of radioactive waste management or other controversial issues examined in the initial project phase, no tools could be identified corresponding to the the highest Arnstein participation level ”joint decision-making“. One reason for this appears to be the high complexity of processes related to the planning and realisation of radioactive waste disposal. Therefore, highly regulated frameworks for decision making exist which require specific institutions (in many countries including the Parliament) to make the final decision.
Potential Impact:
Long-term and proactive public involvement in decision-making processes makes them more stable, because participation empowers key actors such as municipalities and protects them from harmful fragmentation in sensitive phases of political decision-making. Processes of participation and transparency should link to existing political decision-making structures and IPPA showed the way forward by demonstrating this in practical reality.
Testing and implementing novel approaches to public participation and transparency in direct connection with repository development programmes gave guidance for further progress, by showing ways forward and suggesting concrete schemes for establishing a safe space for participation and transparency; this will lead to increasing awareness of the issues involved among decision-makers, stakeholders and the general public.
The IPPA networking and exchange of experience at national and international levels will help making progress with issues of common interest between stakeholders. Furthermore, new methods were honed to bridge the gap between research and successful implementation of processes for participation and transparency. This should be valuable for both social and natural sciences and be of interest for the clarification of the meaning of research in many areas, not just within the realm of nuclear waste management.
Progress beyond state of the art
The IPPA project was designed to make significant progress towards implementing geological disposal by meeting social and political challenges in a proactive way. A number of countries are at different stages in nuclear energy and rwm programmes, and the intention was to introduce to these a range of existing and novel methods of participation and transparency. This is in line with views heard from a local political level at the ARGONA End Users Conference in Uppsala on March 17-18, 2009 who stressed that there is a need for immediate action, implying the implementation of existing knowledge and research results in national and local settings. This means that the practical applicability of research results in the area of participation and transparency must be clarified in an effective way. The project also extended from simply national to cross-country implementation. The project thus assisted rwm programmes across the EU in taking steps beyond the existing state of the art in several ways:
1. The project took significant steps in applying existing knowledge, coming both from research and practical experiences, within the context of actual rwm programmes.
2. IPPA assisted rwm programmes at different stages to make progress and to advance through the decision making process by increasing awareness among decision makers, stakeholders and the general public of the issues involved. It was the intention that decision making processes will be thereby to some degree “vaccinated” against unnecessarily narrow framing and fragmentation that later may become serious obstacles. Guidance will be provided to assist further progress in participating IPPA countries.
3. IPPA broadened the areas of application for certain methods of public participation and transparency. These methods themselves will therefore be tested in terms of their general applicability, and be enriched and enhanced so as to be able to cope with different types of situations in the future.
4. IPPA took a step in further broadening and structuring a European “knowledge base” of processes of transparency and participation beyond the COWAM and RISCOM approaches by structuring and analysing a broad spectrum of processes that have been used to address issues other than rwm.
5. IPPA went beyond the application of approaches to participation and transparency on the national level. It also exploreed how approaches such as RISCOM and COWAM can applied on the cross-border and international levels so as to enrich the application of EIA and SEA. Steps in this direction were taken with regard to the sensitive issue of multinational repositories.
6. The progress made by applying methods on the national level in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovenia were discussed and analysed in the light of international agreements, especially the Aarhus convention, EIA and SEA Directives.
8. The uses of “compensation” to overcome the so called NIMBY effect has been discussed for a long time and practices differ between countries due to cultural and other factors. With time it has become evident that the issue of “compensation” needs to be dealt with using new approaches. Using the term “added value” instead of “compensation” is not only a matter of utilising a more acceptable term but also reflects a new philosophy and new practices. This was also an area where IPPA made a significant contribution.
By means of these intended achievements, and because applications will be brought forward to new areas, the project generated new knowledge about the effective implementation of processes for participation and transparency that should be of great value for the future of rwm programmes in Europe, including in particular the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technological Platform (IGD-TP).
The IPPA knowledge base and Toolbox for participatory processes and tools
An important feature of the development of the knowledge base, and subsequently the Toolbox, was the intention to incorporate learning and experience from the ongoing engagement activities in the five WP 2 countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). The political reality caused changes to be made in the ongoing repository siting processes in the five countries, which delayed or even prevented some of the planned activities from taking place on the expected timescales. Although this was difficult in terms of the proposed work plan, it was also important, in that it demonstrated the “real-life” situations being addressed in the IPPA project. This has served to make the project clearly distinct from other more theoretical projects and has allowed participants to adapt and amend their efforts to carry out meaningful stakeholder engagement in response to real situations. In this way the knowledge base has been able to reflect real situations, and this in turn has helped WP 1 participants recognise the way in which the subsequent Participation Toolbox could and should be structured in order to be of most use to future users. In summary, this work was successful, and has contributed to the development of the Participation Toolbox as planned.
The Toolbox is an online tool accessible at the project web site www.ippaproject.eu. At its core is the search function, which can search based on several criteria, selected via drop-down boxes. Furthermore a free search is offered which allows the user to search for any term. To support the understanding and use of each criterion an explanation is provided in an info box. The welcome page is provided in several European languages such as e.g. Czech, Slovenian, German, and Slovakian.
The benefit of the IPPA toolbox is that it provides an easily managed and structured search engine for identifying relevant tools, methods and processes for use in a range of participation processes. Through use of the case studies, practical experience in particular contexts – especially in radioactive waste management - is integrated into the Toolbox. This makes it especially valuable for use in the waste management context. The Toolbox serves as a good source for those organisations who have the overall responsibility for the management (governance) of a decision-making process, are responsible for planning or implementing public participation or who are (or want to be) stakeholders in a decision-making process.
The development of the Knowledge Base and Toolbox can be seen as an important contribution to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the use of participation processes, not only in the NWM sector but also in a more general sense. It is also worthwhile to reflect further on the processes within which they are used (the overall decision-making context) and this raises a number of important issues. For example, the “higher up” on the Arnstein ladder a process or a tool is, the more active the participants become in terms of collaboration, and the more directly they may influence decision-making. Stakeholders thus take on a higher degree of responsibility and accountability. This may be a motivating factor for some stakeholders who seek a high degree of influence on the planning or realisation of the respective project. However, a participation process which places a high degree of responsibility on stakeholders may also prove to be an obstacle to broad involvement of all relevant stakeholder groups – this is why the RISCOM Safe Space approach is so important. When beginning a public participation process it is crucial that the overall framework and objectives are clear to all participating stakeholders.
Implementation of participatory processes and tools
IPPA has equipped participating country teams with processes and tools for how to set up dialogue and design participatory processes and these skills could be used further on in their nuclear waste management programmes. There have been many practical experiences where IPPA process implementation activities have taken place directly within real decision making processes. In some cases political influence and intervention had an impact of the work which has raised the question if reference groups in the IPPA/RISCOM meaning in the long term should be more independent and institutionalized. For some IPPA countries efforts have been given to exploring the conditions for public participation and methodology development for future application.
Experiences from the implementation activities in IPPA so far also bring about some observations to consider for future activities. There were indications that some stakeholders hesitate to take part in participative activities. Not all stakeholders have the same interests and most often consensus between them cannot be expected, although some of them may agree to cooperate to reach common goals. There are a number of possible reasons for stakeholders not to take part in informal approaches to public participation. One reason could be that some stakeholders, who want quick results positive for their own sake, may not regard the process as meaningful as it takes more time than they consider relevant. A second reason might be that some need to maintain their autonomy, in which case they cannot be part of a process in which also the developer takes part. Even if autonomy can be guaranteed, a stakeholder can have tactical or strategic reasons to stay outside - not even to be associated with a process in which their “opponents” take part. Another reason can be lack of trust in the neutrality of the process or its organizer. Any public participation process must take these factors into account in order to be sustainable and successful.
IPPA deliverable 2.16 describes the results of the practical implementation of RISCOM model and other participatory approaches in the implementation countries. It contains a short description of the initial and current situation, description of tools and methodology and reasons for what and how they were used. Then it includes main conclusions and lessons learned from their application and also recommendations for further development in the context of ensuring adequate public participation and transparency in decision-making processes in radioactive waste disposal. It could serve as inspiration for all the actors and stakeholders, which are or may be involved in decision-making processes in relating to nuclear waste management, especially in the field of siting and building radioactive waste repository in various European countries. Here significant results from each one of the five countries are summarized.
In Czech Republic, the Working Group for Dialogue (which has functioned as the IPPA Reference Group) has continued its existence after the suspension of activities and its members have expressed optimism towards the future of the process, although there have been some obstacles in the implementation. It has become clear that for the WG for Dialogue to fulfil its function as an advisory body to the state ministries (Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Environment) it needs sufficient legitimacy, and its role needs to be more clearly defined. The IPPA experiences has helped to identify where improvements are needed in the participatory process, it has extended the dialogue to more interested parties, and the recommendations of the WG for Dialogue will be extremely useful for any future steps of the siting process.
In Slovakia, regarding the decreasing interest towards participation in the RISCOM Reference Group, the conclusion was drawn that the idea of fully implementing RISCOM methodology for public participation was perhaps a larger jump for the present society in Slovakia than what was currently applicable by stakeholders and experts. It is possible that it is too early to implement RISCOM methodology in the present Slovak condition, seeing that understanding of public participation in decision making processes needs to be raised to higher levels, as public participation is a relatively new concept in Slovakia. More is needed in the form of education towards an open society, transparency and participation among civil society and especially among decision makers. Despite these facts, the idea of a Safe Space for open discussion was deemed a good step towards supporting participation not only in the nuclear sector and waste management, but in civil society in general. Further, even though the trial attempt to implement the RISCOM model of communication in Slovakia was not fully successful in terms of establishing the Reference Group at this time, research results regarding the specific context of Slovakia will be useful to inform future processes. The increased understanding of the social and technical environment, and the needs for communication, has been considered as very useful to the future of the Deep Geological Disposal siting process.
The success of the project in Poland was that supporters and opponents of the nuclear power managed to meet, shared opinions and experience, and initiated discussions in the area which most participants considered safe. The educational role of the project was emphasized, i.e. opportunity to learn not only from trainers but also from one another by creating a platform to share opinions and possessed knowledge. The project was aimed at sharing opinions, getting to know one another, gaining trust and holding discussions using substantive arguments in "safe area" where nobody feels marginalized.
The Ministry of Economy, Department of Energy, expressed its interest in continuation of RG activities in future. The results of IPPA project are seen in a wider perspective of implementation of nuclear programme in Poland. The representatives of ME assured that the Ministry supports further works of the Group as far as organizational matters are concerned. All organizations participating in the RG expect the continuation of the socially oriented activities within the future national or European programs. The validity of the measures towards increasing the public confidence and participation of the society in decision-making was appreciated. It is certain that the Euratom projects may create an opportunity for the realization of this approach and may well contribute to the implementation of national nuclear programs introduced in the Member States.
In Slovenia, a great interest for participation and prolongation of the Local partnerships on the side of public and NGOs was perceived, however also a relative lack of interest on the side of state and local community authorities, regulators and implementers. In spite of the formal termination of the local partnerships in Brežice and Krško, their activities continue, partly thanks to activities organized by IPPA. The lesson learned is that stakeholders’ activities should not be organized only to fulfil some formal obligations, but as a sincere attempt to involve people in important issues deeply concerning their lives.
In Romania the main purpose of the methodologies developed during IPPA project has been to offer a practical solution. Progress and results include better understanding about the realities in order to prepare the premises for a sustainable participation in geologic disposal, increasing awareness of representatives of authorities that there is a necessity of a participative involvement of the public, and in general increasing interest in methods and tools used in other Central and East European countries for involvement of the public. In the Saligny community, steps have been taken to create within the project framework a realistic methodological support for the local communities aiming at reinforcement of their voices.
Cross border issues
For successful public involvement in any international project aimed to find common solutions for the disposal of radioactive waste a number of recommendations were made. It seems clear that an unavoidable condition for a multinational repository is that participating countries are at similar level of development in all areas - technical, structural, processes and behavioural. Liability of the waste producer, roles of authorities, governmental and nongovernmental bodies has to be clearly defined, adequate coordination and cooperation at appropriate level is needed. Networking between participating countries on various institutional levels would be an advantage. Well developed and successful public involvement in the repository host country is crucial. With respect to developing and implementing a programme for international geologic disposal, the distribution of power between central and local or regional authorities can affect public acceptance even more strongly as in the case of national repository. The main conclusions underline the empowerment of civil society as a key to enable the public to exercise their role as provided under the Aarhus Convention.
Added value approaches
In IPPA Deliverable 4.2 it was concluded that although all three countries involved currently utilise a ‘legally-mandated’ approach to the provision of community benefits, there seems to be a desire for greater use of a ‘locally-negotiated’ approach and the involvement of local actors in the process. That said, there is also a desire amongst the stakeholders to have any approach based around the principles of fairness and equity, with the use of a legal framework if necessary to ensure this. The results therefore seem to suggest that the coercive top-down approach tends, in real life, to require ‘softening’ by a voluntary market approach, in order to make progress. Legal controls offer a framework in which to operate, but within it negotiation seems to be a preferred method, with local conditions providing an additional perspective.
In Slovenia, Poland and Czech Republic, more forms of benefits were suggested to be made available during the operational phase of a repository, followed closely by the construction phase. Many of the benefits suggested were long-term, such as provision of improved infrastructure, health services and employment. There was less support for benefits during the post-closure and siting stages respectively. The challenge here seems to be a need to develop a mixed approach that provides flexibility taking into account of local interests but which at the same time ensures for the local actors long-term guarantees on implementation of the negotiated approach and its benefits.
In Deliverable 4.3 it was concluded that the use of several added value measures side by side would be a good thing to address the variety of stakeholders’ interests. Therefore, benefit packages may also be more effective than a single measure. It is also possible that the added value approach would need to evolve within a project, as there are different kinds of needs at the beginning of a project compared with later stages.
Dissemination and further use
The IPPA project is well known in the nuclear waste management community in Europe as the project has been presented for example in the ENEF Transparency Group and for the Aarhus Convention & Nuclear Steering Committee, at a OECD/NEA Forum for Stakeholder Confidence meeting and a FSC Czech workshop, in the Euradwaste conference, at the InSOTEC workshop and the SRA World Congress. IPPA Results have been fed into a status report for the JRC E-TRACK project. In the context of IPPA activities, the project has been given attention in participating countries such as the Polish hearing that took place as part of the RISCOM implementation in Poland. Also in the IAEA context parts of the IPPA project have been presented. Finally, in can be expected that the IPPA Toolbox will continue to be of interest for stakeholders interested in public participation processes and tools, and that the presence of the Toolbox on the IPPA web site will continue to draw attention to IPPA in its entirety.
List of Websites:
http://ippa-toolbox.oeko.de/
The IPPA project aimed to establish safe spaces in Central and Eastern European countries where stakeholders can join together to increase their understanding of the issues involved in radioactive waste disposal and also of their respective views. In IPPA a number of processes for stakeholder participation have been implemented in the radioactive waste management programmes in the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. Experiences from these activities are described within the project, and as part of this the experiences made in IPPA and some earlier projects have also been used to build a Knowledge Base for participation processes, as well as a web based Toolbox. The project also addressed cross border issues such as the possibility for regional repositories and the application of the Aarhus Convention. Furthermore, IPPA considered how negotiations on compensation and added value can be implemented at the local level.
The IPPA project had the following objectives:
1. To test and implement novel approaches to risk communication and public participation related to repository development programs
2. To provide guidance to further progress by illustrating a way forward and suggesting concrete schemes for establishing a “safe space” for participation and transparency
3. To explore how the processes for participation and transparency used at national level can be used in a cross-country and international context to make progress with issues of common interest.
4. To clarify different added value approaches in order to empower stakeholders, including implementers and communities, and to increase their awareness about how such approaches can be used
5. To structure and analyze a broad spectrum of processes for participation and transparency in order to provide a framework for building a knowledge base and a tool box for its use
6. To further develop and implement new methods for bridging the gap between research and implementation
Experiences from the implementation activities in IPPA bring about some observations to consider for future activities. There are indications that some stakeholders hesitate to take part in participative activities. Not all stakeholders have the same interests and most often consensus between them cannot be expected, although some of them may agree to cooperate to reach common goals. There are a number of possible reasons for stakeholders not to take part in informal approaches to public participation. One reason could be that some stakeholders, who want quick results positive for their own sake, may not regard the process as meaningful as it takes more time than they consider relevant. A second reason might be that some need to maintain their autonomy, in which case they cannot be part of a process in which also the developer takes part. Even if autonomy can be guaranteed, a stakeholder can have tactical or strategic reasons to stay outside - not even to be associated with a process in which their “opponents” take part. Another reason can be lack of trust in the neutrality of the process or its organizer. Any public participation process must take these factors into account in order to be sustainable and successful.
Project Context and Objectives:
The IPPA Project (Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal) started in January 2011 and ended in December 2013. The consortium was made up of 16 organizations from 12 countries. Together they represented academic research, other research institutions, consultant companies, nuclear waste management organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The core aim with the project was the establishment of arenas where stakeholders can join together to increase their understanding of the issues involved in radioactive waste disposal and of their respective views. The project was not limited to national programmes but includes also the multi-national context, as issues such as Environmental Impact Assessment and the Espoo Convention, the regional repository option and implementation of the Aarhus Convention have been examined. The project also investigated how negotiations on compensation and added value can be implemented at the local level. As overall objectives, IPPA aimed to enhance the quality of decision-making processes in radioactive waste management and the research and implementation of “safe spaces”.
The IPPA project was focused on enhancing the quality of decision-making processes in nuclear waste management through clarity, awareness, fairness and trust. A key measure was the implementation of participative processes and transparency, and the involvement of stakeholders in “safe spaces”. The RISCOM model and other approaches to public involvement were implemented in five radioactive waste management programmes in central and eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia). The intention was to find ways to 'vaccinate' decision-making processes against unnecessary narrow framing and fragmentation that may later become serious obstacles to decision-making. Experience has shown that restrictive framing is often the result of technological experts failing to acknowledge broader societal perspectives, but it could also come about in part due to social sciences neglecting 'hard facts'.
In IPPA a step was taken to build a knowledge base for participation processes which may be an important contribution to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the use of participation processes, not only in the nuclear waste management sector but also in a much more general sense. Furthermore, a Toolbox was developed where it is possible on-line to explore participation tools, methods or processes in order to find suitable approaches for future implementation of public participation in specific situations of a possible user.
Project Results:
1 Implementing methods and approaches of public involvement
Implementation of novel dialogue and participatory approaches was done in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia and Romania. 1.1
1.1 Czech Republic
The long-term policy of the Czech state includes the construction of a deep geological repository for spent fuel and other HLW, as this is currently considered the only realistic solution for final storage. RAWRA (the Radioactive Waste Repository Authority) acts as promoter and implementer of a geological repository in the Czech Republic, and with the process currently in the siting phase, one of the main tasks for RAWRA is to ensure that geological surveys are resumed in potential host localities. This requires the involvement of the communities concerned. Further work also requires the permission of the Ministry of Environment (MoE). In the year 2010, the Working Group for Dialogue on DGR” was established “as advisory group of Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) and MoE. This Working Group was a continuation of the initial RISCOM implementation of the previous ARGONA project (contract number FP6-036413), which had acted as the catalyst for the activities of the Working Group. The main objectives of the Working Group is to define acceptable ways and criteria for selecting a suitable locality for a deep repository and to establish a transparent process that would adequately respect the public interests.
The IPPA project originally aimed at the establishment of an IPPA RISCOM Reference Group in the Czech Republic in parallel to the already existing Working Group for Dialogue on Geological Repository, which was established before the start of the IPPA project. However, taking into account the similarity of the goals and activities of the already existing Working Group and the proposed Reference Group, the potential involvement of the same actors and even persons, and the problem of ensuring the legitimacy of a new group, it was concluded that the establishment of a new Reference Group would not be reasonable or meaningful. Therefore, the Working Group (WG) for Dialogue became formally the RISCOM Reference Group, and assumed all its tasks and obligations in relation to this project. This enabled the Working Group to expand the scope of its activities.
In addition to its efforts in the design and implementation of relevant legislative changes in the context of strengthening the position of municipalities in the process of the deep repository siting and constructing, the Working Group could also focus on application of the RISCOM model on a wider scale. This meant that the Working Group worked to improve transparency of the decision-making processes, and to build a safe space for meaningful long-term communication between all stakeholders at each level of the structured dialogue, and their adequate participation in all stages of the siting and building of a DGR. For this purpose, a number of communication events at relevant levels of a structured dialogue have been organized:
• Seminar at the Senate of the Czech Parliament - “The Position of Local Communities in the Site Selection Process for DGR”;
• Round table discussion at national level - "Site Selection Process for DGR";
• Public debates at five preselected localities - "Role of Local Communities in Site Selection Process for DGR";
• National Seminar on "Aarhus Convention Implementation into the Czech Legislation and Practice";
• Seminar on Barriers of the Deep Geological Depository - inter-branch discussion of research activities in various areas of the DGR development in the Czech Republic.
In connection with re-evaluating legislation, the Working Group for Dialogue also prepared and submitted to the competent ministries a draft Law on Involvement of Communities in the Process of Site Selection for DGR in order to strengthen the role of municipalities in the process of DGR siting. Unfortunately, there was no adequate answer or reaction from relevant institutions. The Working Group for Dialogue decided for the moment to suspend its activities due to lack of interest of the MIT to discuss and deal with the results of the work and recommendations of the WG.
Overall, the involvement of the WG in the dialogue should be understood as very positive. Through the project a safe space has been created for dialogue between all stakeholders. However, despite all efforts, the gradual building of trust between stakeholders was repeatedly disturbed by unexpected actions of responsible state institutions. Due to frequent personnel changes in relevant ministries, there is no continuity in negotiation with the municipalities concerned. The WG cannot completely fulfil the role of an advisory body of MIT and MoE, because it lacks sufficient legitimacy. It was not clearly defined in the frame of institutional infrastructure of the relevant ministries/state institution and according to current legislation. For the WG to serve an effective role, its legitimacy must be more formalized (e.g. through new legislation, institutionalization of WG under one of the parliamentary committees). The WG would also need to become sufficiently independent and have its own financial resources.
For the efforts of the WG to continue, there are several additional challenges for the future which must to be met; policy makers must be made aware of the need for long-term stability in their relation to the WG, and the role of the WG needs to be more formalized (e.g. through new legislation, institutionalization of WG under one of the parliamentary committees). Communities must be provided with the tools and powers to efficiently support their interests, which may involve the adoption of appropriate legislative changes. Further, suitable motivation programs for increasing public willingness to actively participate in the process must be developed.
The IPPA project has served as the catalyst for all the activities of the Working Group to exchange in international feedback and insight. The project also allowed for the establishing of international cooperation with foreign colleagues and experts. Sharing experiences is an important part of the further development of the on-going process of a deep geological repository siting in the Czech Republic, especially at this time when the process is being reassessed. Thanks to the IPPA project, members of the Working Group were also able to participate in international workshops and conferences organized under the IPPA project (e.g. IPPA European workshop on Aarhus and Nuclear issues, IPPA End Users Conference). The project and its international reach has become one of the unifying elements of the Working Group in some critical situations, when the working groups continued existence was threatened, as a result of non-standard decisions of responsible state institution. Its involvement in the IPPA project helped the Working Group to find a new purpose and objectives of its activities and continue to work.
1.2 Slovakia
The goal of RISCOM implementation in Slovakia was defined as to improve public awareness and understanding of risks associated with NWM (with a focus on a long term geological repository) and to create favorable conditions for wide and effective public participation in future decision making processes related to a Slovak geological repository. The original intention of the RISCOM implementation in Slovakia was meant to be applied to the deep geological repository (DGR) project and a group of local stakeholders from affected regions. However, the expected restart of the siting activities related the DGR by the official authorities did not happen during the 2009-2012 period. This caused a number of uncertainties concerning the future of that project, and the continuity of a potential DGR RISCOM RG could not be guaranteed. As it was not possible to focus on a DGR development in potential new host localities, focus was shifted to existing host localities connected to storage of RW and spent nuclear fuel.
To prepare for the RISCOM implementation a report was made that summarized the opportunities and obstacles for effective risk communication and public participation in decision making processes in the Slovak nuclear waste management sector. Basic barriers of public participation in the Slovak nuclear EIA and SEA procedures were identified as transparency, legal standing of the public in EIA and SEA procedures and cultural barriers between the state officials and NGOs. Thereafter, the selection of RISCOM reference group participants was made on the basis of the report and the current situation. At current all existing storage and disposal facilities were located close to the NPP sites Mochovce and Jaslovské Bohunice. A group of stakeholders had previously been formed during the EIA process for a near surface repository at Mochovce, and as a requirement to improve the communication and cooperation between the nuclear waste management organization JAVYS and stakeholders rose up, this stakeholder group was selected for the RISCOM RG implementation in Slovakia.
As a first step all potential stakeholders interested in participation in decision making processes were identified and through structured bilateral interviews with them and other experts the feedback was received on topics and issues identified as being relevant for successful implementation of the RISCOM model. Finally, the first meeting of stakeholders from local municipalities, activists, NGOs and implementer was organized and a small survey on the expectations and needs was prepared. As a result of this survey a selection of topics for further meetings was prepared. Unfortunately, despite bilateral consultation with various partners there was decreasing interest in participation from various participants as well as some waste management organization JAVYS representatives.
Aside from RISCOM group implementation at Mochovce local level, a national seminar on the management of radioactive waste and the public (with the sub-title Experiences and challenges of international commitments in Slovakia) was successfully held in Bratislava with broad participation of representatives from various state and private institutions. From conclusions of this seminar, the need for more discussion on Aarhus convention implementation and education in understanding and fulfilling the three basic pillars of the convention in practice was expressed. Another achievement of the IPPA project was to provide an appreciated safe space for open discussion on the added value for municipalities surrounding nuclear facilities, and on proposals for legislative changes concerning community benefits from RWM.
1.3 Poland
A key component of the project was the formation of the RISCOM reference group which could organize a dialogue in Poland concerning selection of the site for the near surface repository. As a rule in the RISCOM reference group all possible groups of stakeholders should be represented to be listened by others and to avoid future misunderstandings and claims. Wide participation of stakeholders allowed the appropriate design of participation process from the beginning and could bring the good-quality decisions in the future. On 1st of July 2011, the Polish RISCOM reference group (RG) was established as a result of agreement of 12 institutions, among them representatives of governmental institutions, experts from research institutions, representatives of the municipality hosting the repository for low- and intermediate radioactive waste, and non-governmental organizations.
The RG works on the basis of a written agreement accepted by all participants. The group prepared the common agreement of cooperation in which the principal objective of the implementation of the RISCOM process in Poland was an increased awareness of all aspects concerning the choice of a suitable site for a new repository for low and medium level radioactive waste in order to improve the conditions for transparency and active involvement of the general public into the decision-making process. This was to be seen within the context of the plans to introduce nuclear power in Poland, thus possibly making the low and medium level radioactive waste repository a part of a larger radioactive waste management system including the possibility of deep disposal of high level waste and spent nuclear fuel in future.
The rules of the reference group functioning were described in the agreement; the governing representatives of the group and other matters of principal importance were specified. The group changed in time: the representative of General Directorate of Environmental Protection left the group in the third year and in 2013 two academic institutions joined the RG. Finally the group was formed of 12 institutions and one observer.
During three years of the project the reference group organized one hearing, three workshops and two trainings, which topics were decided in agreement of all participating organisations. The aims of the workshops and trainings were education of stakeholders on social aspects of radioactive waste management, models of public involvement, RISCOM methodology and legal matters relating to the existing international conventions signed by Poland.
The project was beneficial for the stakeholders in Poland. It was appreciated by the institutions, which are responsible for the construction of the new repository for low and intermediate radioactive waste repository and nuclear power plants in the future. They considered IPPA very constructive and helpful. Not all problems were dissolved; it looks that building trust is not easy and similarly to other countries, which entered this problem earlier, the creation of the safe space will be a step-wise process.
The main conclusions derived from the RG activities during IPPA project, also addressed during the concluding meeting were as follows:
– The siting and construction of the new repository for low- and medium level radioactive waste need extensive participation of the society from the beginning to ensure that its concerns will be addressed,
– The implementation of the proven schemes of public involvement in decision-making, such a RICOM process, seems reasonable.
– The RISOM process needs further adaptation to Polish conditions and needs (e.g. modification of added value approach, finding the way of engagement of wider representation of NGOs)
– Hearing seems a very useful form of public debate, which will be necessary after potential site selection
– It is expected that the Reference Group initiating the discussion of RW related issues will continue its work and become a permanent advisory body for the decision-makers,
– The RG is open for all stakeholders addressing their concerns and expectations; it should be extended by new members
1.4 Slovenia
In Slovenia IPPA activities have been focused on reviewing and analysing the past experiences, as well as to make suggestions on how to create an open and democratic discussion about radioactive waste management. The partnerships and participative processes which were initiated in relation to the siting of a LILW repository siting formally ended at the end of the site selection in 2010, prior to the IPPA project. Analyzing the past experience with participation has thus been a main goal, as well as investigating new options for public involvement as all stakeholders demanded further participation and inclusion of the public in the repository project. A central aim was also to closely follow the process of new developments related to NPP and solutions for HLW, and to review the conditions for effective public participation, with special regards to EU directives and international conventions.
Activities have included the establishing of contacts with existing stakeholders from Local Partnerships, culminating in the of organization of four stakeholder workshops/conferences, as well as minor meetings with particular smaller groups of stakeholders. The four workshops/conferences concerned different aspects of public participation in radioactive waste issues, the status of local partnerships, implementation of Aarhus Convention in Slovenia, and possibilities of future participation of interested public in the control of construction and operation of LILW repository (especially in the view of formal ending of local partnerships). On all these workshops/meetings, stakeholder experiences, opinions and proposals for possible future participation were collected. Besides helping in carrying out questionnaires on implementation activities and added value approach with stakeholders, also a questionnaire was applied on a sample of nuclear experts (from NPP Krško, Institutes, Regulators, etc.) to establish their perception of nuclear issues in comparison with general public, as well as their perception of general public and their participation in these issues
Two methods were applied to gather feedback and input, leading to similar conclusions: group meetings and questionnaires which participants answered individually and anonymously. Answers to the questionnaire confirmed findings from the workshops, meetings and other contacts with the stakeholders, e.g. that the goals of participation had not been achieved, a wish for greater transparency, a need to establish trust, public worries not being adequately treated, interactions with e.g. government and regulator, were not good, and there was a lack of influence on decision making, which participants perceived as a necessity for a future stakeholder groups. It was evident from discussions and contacts with local stakeholders that activities should not be organized only to fulfil some formal obligations, but as a sincere attempt to involve people in important issues deeply concerning their lives. The opinion that the local partnerships had been ended too soon was also clearly expressed.
It was clearly established that the most important step in the siting of the LILW repository procedure was the transition from a purely technical approach to the approach that involves people in the decision processes. People demand this participation and feel this is the right way to reach adequate solutions to the siting problem. While the introduction of the participation process through Local Partnerships presented an important move in the more democratic and successful solution of the LILW repository siting procedure, it appeared that images of participation were different between local people and NGOs on one side and local and state administration as well as technical sector on the other.
Great interest for participation and prolongation of the Local partnerships on the side of public and NGOs was perceived, as well as relative lack of interest on the side of state and local community authorities, regulators and implementers. On the stakeholder meetings usually two sides with different opinions appeared, one with local inhabitants and NGOs, and the other with state administration, representatives of NPP, Community Council Krško, etc. The main sources of barriers to efficient public participation are problem segmentation by implementers and authorities, instrumentalization of participation, fear of nuclear in public and lack of trust between parties. On these issues IPPA research has recognized tendencies toward technocratic solutions and suggested ways for their abandonment.
IPPA reviewed the conditions for effective public participation and opportunities for improvements in Slovenian practice in risk communication, and public participation in repository siting processes have been clarified with special attention to the present lack of trust between key actors and the local public. A renewed form of local partnership was proposed which would be legitimized as an institution which enables argumentative confrontation and decision making.
It was also emphasized that local nuclear issues are embedded in a wider context of nuclear, energy and political issues such as the common ownership of NPP Krško with Croatia, opposition to NPP from Austria and internationally important events like Fukushima, global warming and global economic crises. All these influences are of different degree and direction and need to be taken into account in the process of nuclear issues decision making.
Besides lessons learned, IPPA activities in Slovenia also helped to maintain stakeholders’ activity, and appeared as a safe arena for mutual interaction and opinion exchange between different parties.
The overall main problem in Slovenia lay in the inability to establish and maintain a safe place for discussion (e.g. as proposed by RISCOM model), for confrontation of different opinions about sustainable production of nuclear energy in the frame of socio-technical approach. Such an approach appeared only occasionally and for short periods (such as within this project), mainly because of formal regulatory needs (e.g. because of EU Directives, Aarhus convention and concrete need to get local public approval for the siting of LILW repository).
1.5 Romania
During the IPPA project work was made to create a basis of knowledge and to gather representatives of local communities, implementer of disposal program, politicians and civil society as partners in a democratic participation process on radioactive waste disposal. The aim was to build an open and transparent dialogue, on equal terms, in order to produce a change in the perception with regards to the necessity of public participation in the future decision making process for geological disposal.
The initiatives during the IPPA project linked to the siting of a LILW facility in the local community Saligny, and to the Romanian Stakeholder Group (RSG) created in the earlier CIP (Cowam In Practice) project. The Romanian Stakeholder Group (RSG) consisted of representatives of the local communities from Cernavoda and Saligny, nuclear waste producer (Cernavoda NPP), national agency for waste disposal, regulatory body, and a few local NGOs from Cernavoda. Fulfilling one of the project aims of IPPA, this group was enlarged with new members representing national environmental NGOs (Terra Mileniul III, ARIN), national authorities for health and environment (Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, Institute for Public Health) and the repository owner for LIL institutional waste (IFIN-HH Bucharest).
The RSG had 5 meetings, with an agenda agreed by all group members, in support to the objectives established in the kick-off meeting. Discussions in the group addressed both social and technical aspects of geological disposal and LILW disposal. A number of aspects were investigated and accounted for: the Romanian legal framework, the potential of efficient democratic debate, current and future population needs, financial resources, and environmental requirements. The methodologies were intended to accommodate the national and European requirements and proven practices regarding information, transparency and participation. In order to develop the methodological support for the local communities, IPPA reviewed the available methods, established a set of criteria to analyze their suitability to the Romanian context, assessed each method and ranked them accordingly. The development of the methodologies incorporated the meaningful output of the debates in the sessions of RSG. Two kinds of methodologies were developed: one dedicated to LILW repository context (and applied for Saligny community case) and another for geological disposal.
The set of the most appropriate methods were to be applied in Saligny during March-April 2012 with the support of the acting Mayor but local elections from June 2012 brought unexpected changes. Discussions with the new elected Mayor paved the way for their implementation during November 2012 – June 2013. For the geological disposal issues a methodology to elaborate a national strategy was developed with the main focus on public participation. Taking into account the current national context, the RSG highly recommended the Implementer to develop a Strategy on public participation in geological disposal. Recommendations for this development were produced by RSG and sent to the Implementer.
The proposed methodology for public participation in the siting of Saligny repository which included exploratory research based on focus-groups was recommended to the implementer. The results from the analysis were presented and discussed in the RSG. Based on the conclusion obtained incorporating also the comments and suggestions of the stakeholders participating in RSG meetings a set of recommendations for the national Implementer were produced:
(1) The community seems to agree the siting of the LILW repository in the area of Saligny village, in condition of real benefits for the community; these benefits are expected in the form of a Programme for Local Development aimed to improve local infrastructure and also by effects such as creation of jobs, increasing the quality of life, and contribution by taxes to the local budget
(2) The final decision to approve the site should be obtained by a large consultation of the population, but first a communication and information programme should be implemented in order to bring to the citizens the needed knowledge
(3) A written Agreement is needed to build an effective partnership based on mutual trust and confidence in the process
(4) A stepwise approach is appropriate to build confidence in the process; the robustness of the results for each step and the responsibility of the national authorities are crucial factors since the community needs practical results
(5) The problem of financial compensations is a marginal one, only in the case of the limitation on the use of the land it is seen as appropriate
(6) Community from Saligny has a limited experience in the negotiation process, therefore a careful treatment is recommended in order to avoid misunderstandings and disappointments
(7) There is a positive perception on the investment of all the counsellors and also for a part of the public
(8) A Communication Programme should be developed by the Implementer. It must be adapted to the local context. It should include audio-video applications, public meetings, and also printed materials to be accessed whenever the citizens want.
(9) The citizens wish to participate, they perceive their important role in the decision process, and also they understand that large uncertainties are present. A continuous process and adequate information for all citizens is needed.
(10) The community needs support for the development or modernization of the infrastructure. Any support offered by the Implementer or policy-makers will contribute to the creation of the citizens’ confidence in the process.
INR and AREN prepared a proposal for public participation in the geological waste disposal debate. The action plan is based on the current requirements of the national legislation, available knowledge basis from successful practices proved in the developed waste management EU Member States’ programs and not lastly on the experience from the local work with Saligny community. In some cases, knowledge and experience from more advanced Central and East European countries programs was found to be more appropriate. The RSG recommended the following approach:
(1) The Implementer should elaborate a vision document for the strategy on public participation in geological disposal.
(2) The Romanian Stakeholders Group (RSG) should debate the vision and produce recommendations for improvement of the document and transform it in a strategy
(3) Facilitator – an independent organization should moderate the debate on the proposed documents
(4) Public debate will follow the legal framework at the moment of implementation
A national Aarhus Convention seminar was also organized which gathered a large number of participants beside the RSG members. Presentations and discussions during the Aarhus Convention seminar revealed the existence of the legal provisions, their application in the most nuclear investments planned in Romania as well as the drawbacks of this process.
2 Common crosscutting issues
One work package in IPPA consisted of three sub work packages addressing cross border issues dealing with a) risk communication in transboundary procedures for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), b) application of the Aarhus Convention, and c) regional repositories and public involvement. This chapter describes this part of IPPA including a European workshop that was held on the topic “Aarhus and Nuclear issues”.
2.1 Risk communication in transboundary SEA and EIA procedures
This part of IPPA explored past experiences and state of the art of risk communication in transboundary SEA and EIA (TSEA and TEIA) procedures for nuclear sector projects with the intention to propose measures aimed at fostering implementation of novel approaches in risk communication linked to the formal procedures. The intention was that such approaches would take the form of safe spaces where different stakeholders agree on which would be the most important issues to deal with in SEA and EIA without taking common position on these issues with regard to the acceptability of proposed nuclear strategies or projects.
As a first step, a literature review was done and email questionnaires were sent to the designated Espoo Convention contact points. The aim was to identify topics, questions, problematic issues, etc. and procedural issues (i.e. selection of stakeholders and EIA/SEA procedures) for further research in IPPA. The resulting report (Mihok, 2012) contains a summary of theoretical knowledge on TEIA/TSEA procedures such as legal issues (e.g. relationships between the Aarhus and the Espoo Conventions, the Kiev Protocol and EU Directives, and jurisdiction applying to transboundary EIA and SEA procedures in the EU) and procedural issues (e.g. translations, the timing of public consultations, the complexity of alternatives and the zero alternative); Other specific issues deal with determining areas of potential impact and the involvement of minorities and disadvantaged groups in TEIA and TSEA.
After having made the first mapping of issues, questionnaire research and bilateral interviews were carried out in order to get stakeholder views on current procedures and their comments to the idea of safe space events to complement the formal procedures. The responding stakeholders raised some critical concerns about the EIA and SEA procedures (Mihok, 2013). Regarding the content of the procedures, issues that the stakeholders saw most problems with included the complexity of alternatives being considered, all the alternatives that had to be evaluated including the zero alternative, and the full length of the nuclear fuel cycle. There were problems raised regarding implementer willingness to make changes in projects or plans, and information about the right to appeal decisions made during or after the procedure. Key obstacles were identified, such as intentional change of focus of the procedure together with flooding of information, and examples of facilitation which clearly favoured the promoters or authorities.
Despite scepticism about the current TEIA/TSEA legislation and practice as presented by several respondents, there seemed to be an agreement between the majority of them that safe space events should be aimed at fostering effectiveness of TEIA/TSEA procedures and official decision-making procedures in source countries. In other words, safe space events should not be stand-alone events for the sake of academic communication of nuclear risks. Instead, safe space events with a particular relation to near future decision-making procedures seem to be preferred.
The respondents in IPPA research have often pointed out that transboundary risk Communication concerning nuclear risks should start with an agreement on what data and methods should be used to determine areas of potential negative impacts of proposed nuclear sector activities. The aim of safe space events preceding TEIA would be to eliminate the risk that potentially significant transboundary negative impacts of a SNF final repository located near national borders would be insufficiently taken into account in TEIA documentation and decision-making procedures. Secondly, the aim would be to avoid potential delays in future TEIA and decision-making procedures caused by omission of one or more potentially significant negative impacts which would be a sufficient reason for a time consuming revision of the TEIA documentation in rather late phases of already pending procedures.
The IPPA respondents often stressed that one of the key issues which they would like to discuss with stakeholders in the source countries prior to TEIA/TSEA procedures relate to a proper length and structure of TEIA/TSEA documentation. The interviewed often mentioned recent negative experiences due to the fact that TEIA/TSEA documentation for nuclear sector projects were often as long as 1000 pages, and at the same time insufficiently or improperly structured.
Indirectly, the improper length and/or structure of documentation decreased trust towards honest interests of source countries authorities to benefit from affected countries stakeholders’ interest and capacities to support the identification and elimination of potential negative transboundary impacts. A vision here is that safe space events would be organised prior to decisions concerning structuring of nuclear risk information in TEIA/TSEA documentation, with an aim to agree on a structure which would be acceptable for both source and affected countries´ stakeholders.
In contrast with the TEIA/TSEA procedures which typically do not cover all the possible scenarios including potential accidents, safe space events should not be topically limited only to environmental impacts under ‘normal circumstances’, but should also include a) health impacts and b) impacts under circumstances of low probable accidents or natural disasters. Safe space events on this topic might be devoted to the relevance of potential accidents, natural disasters and other events with a very low probability in order propose whether data and methods to calculate potential transboundary negative environmental and health impacts should also be collected and processed by source countries authorities. An issue highlighted was unclear information on which data and methods have been used to determine the areas of impact for cases of the most serious potential accidents.
Finally, the integration of ‘back-end cycle issues’ into TEIA procedures for new nuclear uilds/units was raised as an important issue.
2.2 The Aarhus Convention
While the Aarhus Convention (AC) has been signed by most EU member states, the application, and knowledge about its meaning, varies to a great degree between countries. The Aarhus Convention is significant for the stakeholders involved in IPPA because these public rights and governmental obligations are specifically applicable in the area of nuclear energy, and thereby in regard to plans, projects, policies and specific activities in radioactive waste management. As part of its support for effective participation, IPPA therefore organized a session for each national reference group to investigate the practical fulfillment of this treaty in their RWM context.
The AC sessions took place in the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. The discussion sessions were prepared by breaking down the Aarhus Convention into its major areas, were concrete implications, challenges and potential benefits for more inclusive RWM governance were outlined. Different reference group members then identified the most relevant issues and cases for their reviews. In some contexts the reference group was de facto not experienced as a "safe space" by all potential stakeholders. IPPA facilitators therefore reached out to NGOs in order to offer them a parallel opportunity to discuss and analyze the application of the Aarhus Convention. Such NGO seminars took place in 2013 in Poland and Slovenia. Overall, a wide range of stakeholders were invited to the sessions, which served both to discuss the individual national cases, and to inform about how the treaty can function as a tool to improve the governance of RWM.
Issues that were found to be common to several IPPA countries can be briefly summarized in relation to the three pillars of the convention:
INFORMATION
- Lack of coordinated system for information flow
- Low level of knowledge in the public due to limited access to information (confidentiality claims due to copyright, protection of business secrets, fees for information requests, etc.)
- Lack of access to independent expertise and lack of debates amongst experts representing different viewpoints
- Inadequate financing of information and education plans.
PARTICIPATION
- Ineffective information dissemination to support public participation
- Unclear definition of the “affected” or “concerned public”
- Lack of legal and administrative framework to guide proceedings.
JUSTICE
- Length and complexity of procedures; court decision often not available in a timely manner
- Public not protected from authorities’ lack of interest and action.
The main conclusions underline the empowerment of civil society as a key to enable the public to exercise their role as provided under the Aarhus Convention. This requires:
- Creating background conditions & resources, support,
- Building expertise, supportive structures, continuity
- Implementing inclusive decision-making processes
- Involving all stakeholders, and at least “most concerned”
- Practicing access to justice when rights are infringed
- Recognizing the benefits and effective gains in using the convention – as there is potential for improving the implementation in IPPA countries
- Identifying and implementing the conditions under which IPPA countries can go beyond simple, time-limited consultations on RWM, using the Aarhus Convention and the 2011/70/Euratom Directive, to create a working, multi-level, long-term civil participation and quality assurance process around a shared goal of environmental & health protection & nuclear safety.
2.3 A European workshop
In September 2012, IPPA organized a European-level workshop. Among its aims were to:
- Share findings and investigate key issues raised by the implementation of the Aarhus Convention and Espoo Convention in radioactive waste management
- Present and discuss the "Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste", and tools proposed by the PIPNA study for possible use in its implementation
- Improve knowledge and skills on public participation in RWM
- Discuss draft recommendations as input to guidance processes under DG Energy, the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) Transparency Working Group, and the Aarhus Secretariat.
National contact persons presented the available Aarhus Convention session findings in a standard format, largely facilitating comparison. Further food for thought was provided from France (recounting a strong recent tradition of democratization of nuclear-related decision making) and from Bulgaria (with the example of emerging “nuclear” democracy through bottom-up championing by civil society). A special strategy-building session examined PIPNA tools specific to improving public information and participation in RWM. In parallel, some stakeholders attended a short training on participation process design and practical facilitation skills.
In total, the European-level workshop gathered 52 individuals. The workshop discussions engaged NGOs, operators, public authorities, regulators, technical support organisations, research organisations, representatives of local partnerships, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) and a representative of European Commission-DG ENER. Some had participated directly in IPPA country-based sessions, and others were joining IPPA proceedings for the first time, invited by facilitators. All gained insight into the large similarities and some differences among IPPA countries regarding actual access to information, participation and justice in the RWM area – as framed domestically by the Aarhus Convention or across national borders by the Espoo Convention. The frank exchange uncovered good will on all sides but nonetheless, the need for intensive effort to foster and enforce the rights under these conventions was highlighted.
Indeed, the discussion on establishing a strategy to bring IPPA countries closer to effective broad-based participation in RWM revealed that beyond structural or administrative issues there is a long way to go to change attitudes among those who have the most power to rectify the situation. Education and practice are needed for all stakeholders, but particularly again for those in positions of authority and power, in order to attain respect for not only the letter but also for the spirit of the Aarhus Convention. This shall repose in part on clarifying the persistent ambiguities in regard to the purpose and the value of public participation in environmental decision-making in the nuclear domain.
2.4 Multinational options
Within the IPPA project multinational solutions were explored, with the aim of identifying and analyzing commonalities and differences in public participation in radioactive waste disposal developments between national and multinational options. Further, proposals on how to approach public participation and transparency in the case of a multinational solution were investigated, and recommendations were created with regards to national and regional public involvement programmes.
Previous initiatives for international solutions for waste management disposal were summarised, from the Pangea project, which was an early initiative for international disposal based on a commercial approach, up to present day conditions. Activities of international organizations such as IAEA and WNA (World Nuclear Association) were analysed, and US and Russian steps towards international solutions were briefly described. Finally, EC SAPIERR I and II projects, pilot initiatives for European regional repositories, were described. The overall objective of these efforts was to submit to relevant government bodies a complete proposal for the establishment of a European Repository Development Organisation, including specification of its size and structure, work programme for the initial years, together with budget and cost allocation proposals.
Alongside the reports, roundtables about international solutions for waste management disposal were also held, first with participation of various experts from Slovakia, and then with students. As a main conclusion from these roundtables, a need for national projects running alongside with the international initiatives was highlighted.
Recommendations were created, with regards to national and regional (international) public involvement programmes. These recommendations were discussed at the draft stage at roundtables and personal consultations with experts from various backgrounds. Information from Eurobarometer surveys, and already studied “pro’s and con’s” relating to public involvement was also studied as background research. The results of these studies highlighted the most critical issues, which included sensitivity on this topic for general people and a lack of political support. Open dialogue and transparent information processes together with real public involvement in the decision making process is essential for any future progress in this area.
To sum up, for successful public involvement in any international project further development is needed to:
• Study former experiences with international environmental projects;
• Continue in harmonising of EIA and other procedural legislation on European level with regard to international environmental project ;
• Clearly identify stakeholders on each level / local, national and in addition international;
• Select public participation approaches acceptable for each partner of the project and be flexible to use various approaches on different decision making level ;
• Appoint responsibilities of actors with regard to particular stages of the project and decision making level ;
• Keep in mind higher requirements on transparency and harmonise publishing and access to information ;
• Consider long term issues as sustainability of decissions, record keeping and intergenerational factors.
2.5 A cross border safe space initiative
Considering achievements made in national contexts, it makes sense to explore the feasibility for a safe space approach in a multinational context in Central Europe. Evidently, for example, plans for the siting of nuclear waste repositories raise issues of concern between neighbouring countries, especially in the relatively densely populated regions of Central Europe. Therefore it was proposed that a group of stakeholders join to discuss such issues within an informal framework the safe space approach can offer. The aim was to explore what are the issues that could be dealt with across the borders, and to suggest contents and format for activities within IPPA and perhaps also for a longer time frame outside the project. In order to explore the feasibility of this approach within IPPA, a memorandum was prepared for discussion at an IPPA project meeting. Then contacts were taken with potential participants in Austria and Slovakia with the idea to organize an exploratory meeting. This meeting took place in Bratislava on September 19, 2012 and was reported at the IPPA European workshop. The meeting was useful as an exploratory meeting and continued activities were foreseen. Due to lack of time and resources needed for involving a relevant group of officials and NGOs from both Austria and Slovakia, however, such a continuation could not be organized within the scope of IPPA.
3 Added value approaches
The term “added value approach” as working definition in the IPPA project is given as “an umbrella covering different elements of institutional mitigation, compensation and incentives in the site selection process”. This broad definition was applied to allow sufficient flexibility in order that stakeholders could express their understanding of the issue. The added value approach is an attempt to foster multiple siting measures tailored, through multiparty negotiations, to meet the interests of the involved stakeholders. In IPPA it was investigated how an added value approach could be applied to radioactive waste management in the different societal and political contexts that exist in the participating countries.
The objectives of the IPPA work on added value approaches were:
• To consider possible added value approaches as part of a wider basic approach to the acceptability of contentious facilities, including public participation and risk communication
• To help stakeholders understand the main purposes of different compensation concepts
• To further clarify the main concepts, the differences in meaning and their limitation in the practical implementation of economic compensation theory, and
• To help stakeholders consider different views concerning possible added value packages.
The work on added value approaches involved development of the concept itself, mapping different forms of approaches, an overview of the situation in the three IPPA countries Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia , and finally new research into actual stakeholder attitudes towards added value approaches in the three countries. To begin with, the typologies on incentives were reviewed, dating back to the 1970s, and compensation theory was presented and described. Case studies presented examples of how benefits have, and were currently being, used in the three countries. An overall discussion gave a holistic picture of the different kinds of arrangements related to benefits and their drawbacks, and served to raise consciousness about the differences between key concepts.
In the second part of the work, a two-stage questionnaire survey was designed and conducted in the same three countries. Before the circulation of the second questionnaire in 2013, it was introduced at meetings of the national stakeholder groups. In the first questionnaire an open-ended question was used to ask the main question, namely what kind of added value measures should be available to a possible host community in different stages and in the second one multiple-choice questions were posed, offering a menu of benefit types. In both of the questionnaires four repository development stages were recognised, i.e. siting, construction, operation and post-closure.
From the questionnaires and the background research, it was concluded that although all three countries currently utilise a ‘legally-mandated’ approach to the provision of community benefits, there does appear to be a desire for greater use of a ‘locally-negotiated’ approach and the involvement of local actors in the process. These approaches were defined as follows:
(1) The ‘Legally-imposed approach’: here the type of incentives and benefits, their amount and any associated preconditions are generally determined beforehand in legislation.
(2) The ‘Locally-negotiated approach’: here the type of incentives and benefits, their amount and any associated preconditions are negotiated between the key players at the local level without a legislative procedure. They are then often subject to formal agreement between the negotiating parties.
In all three countries additional forms of benefits were suggested in the responses to the first questionnaire to be made available during the operational phase of a repository. There was less support for benefits during the post-closure and siting stages respectively. This finding seemed almost counter intuitive, given that experience generally suggests that most concerns regarding repository safety etc. seem to be expressed during the siting stage, and tend to reduce once a site has been selected and approved by the regulator. It would therefore appear that local stakeholders feel that benefits associated with a facility are not simple ‘one-off’ items, but should be designed to be available throughout its life and even beyond, and recognise the likely disturbance to be expected during facility construction and operation. Many of the benefits suggested were long-term, such as provision of improved infrastructure, health services and employment.
The challenge here can be a need to develop a mixed approach that provides flexibility taking into account local interests, which at the same time ensures for the local actors long-term guarantees on implementation of the negotiated approach and its benefits. The variety of stakeholders’ opinions and interests expressed is a reminder of the importance of involving stakeholders early in the design phase of a siting approach in order to ensure their support for the package, suggesting the need of flexibility in benefit package design to meet their aspirations.
Further analysis of the questionnaire results categorized the respondents into the three groups “NGOs”, “Locals” and “Others” based on the organizational affiliation of the respondent. Asked to prioritise a menu of possible benefits, the NGOs preferred most frequently mitigation of possible health and environmental impacts and citizen control on the governing board of the planned facility, as well as guaranteed job opportunities for local people. The Locals group preferred job opportunities for local people and earmarked funding for local infrastructure. Locals also preferred earmarked funding for local citizen participation. The Others group most frequently preferred earmarked funding for citizen participation as well as earmarked funding of local welfare issues and for local infrastructure. A conclusion drawn from the variety of stakeholder views is that it could be preferable to use several added value measures side by side, in a benefit package, rather than a single measure. Potentially, added value approaches may also need to be developed in stages, as there are different kinds of needs at the beginning of a project compared with later stages.
In designing an added value approach the need to demonstrate safety and discuss it with stakeholders from the beginning should be noted, otherwise benefits will hardly be accepted. Another challenge is the risk that offering benefits might be perceived as an attempt to buy off opposition. If this materializes it can be difficult to argue against an accusation of bribery. Furthermore, sometimes offering benefits upsets people’s altruistic feelings, and can even create opposition where previously there was support.
4. The IPPA Knowledge base and Toolbox
To address the need to gather and disseminate information about processes and tools usable for public participation and stakeholder involvement, the IPPA Project has developed a knowledge base and a related Toolbox. The Knowledge Base was built from case studies of public participation on contentious issues, which also included fields outside of RWM. Initially earlier projects within the EU countries provided the material, which was subsequently expanded with learning from the IPPA project implementation activities. This Knowledge Base then formed the starting point for the Toolbox, a user-oriented interactive website for public participation processes, methods and tools.
The main goals of the Knowledge Base have been to gather and share experiences from different initiatives, as well as to formalize terms and comparisons between participatory processes. The Toolbox was built sharing these same goals, and also with the specific aim of being directly usable as a “how-to guide” to select and use appropriate tools, methods and processes for public participation. Both the Knowledge Base and the Toolbox thus presents concrete sources of information, which have already, and will continue to be used for the implementation of public participation.
Development of the initial version of the Knowledge Base was based on a number of case studies which were selected because of their coverage of a number of contentious issues and use of various tools, methods and processes for public participation. These ranged from the expansion of airports and highways in Austria and Germany, through examination of public attitudes to GM foods in the United Kingdom and mobile phone radiation in Sweden, to a number of projects related to radioactive waste management in Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany and the United Kingdom. This breadth of coverage was intended to ensure that a suitable range of participation tools would be identified in this first stage. It was also important that sufficient information of the projects involved was available in the open literature in order to allow the case studies to be described in enough detail.
In order to structure the identification and description of the types of tools that were used for stakeholder involvement in the different case studies, a variation on the “Arnstein Participation Ladder” was used. It classifies the level of participation according to five levels, from the interactive “Consult/Exchange”, “Collaborate” and “Joint decision-making” to the non-interactive “Inform” and “Listen” levels. While the Knowledge Base initially focused on interactive tools, the Toolbox also included non-interactive tools, to allow for a complete range of different tools, methods and approaches to be covered.
To assess the usefulness of the various tools used in the selected case studies, it was necessary to evaluate them in terms of a range of representative properties. The properties were divided into three main groups which characterised them as:
• “Instrumental” (those properties concerned with enhancing the quality of decision-making, finding acceptable outcomes and the integration of these into a legitimate process),
• “Procedural” (those properties concerned with the conduct of the process, for example whether it provides conditions that assure equal rights for all participants) and
• “Constitutive” (those properties that refer to the benefits implied by participation, such as for example the development of understanding and capacity building).
As the Knowledge Base was intended to act as a main resource for the subsequent development of the Toolbox, it was made in the form of an Access database to make it easily searchable. The way that the Knowledge Base acted like a natural “stepping-stone” towards the Toolbox also meant that generic descriptions of tools needed to be developed and used already when describing the case studies. In effect, this also meant that the two resources can easily be combined and used together. While the Knowledge Base also used criteria to describe the use of a tool in a specific case, both the Knowledge Base and the Toolbox shared the same criteria for describing the tools themselves in a more generic manner.
The final set of criteria provide a suitable description of a tool on a generic level and form the starting point for the tool selection in the Participation Toolbox, and comprise the following:
• Level of decision-making (referring to the administrative levels national, regional or local).
• Phase of decision-making (referring to the phases “plans/programmes” or “projects” as defined in the Aarhus Convention).
• Number of stakeholders involved.
• Combination of stakeholders (e.g. public, scientific experts, elected representatives).
• Participation Level (as defined in the modified Participation Ladder).
• Frequency of meetings.
• Implementer of the tool.
The Toolbox itself is an online tool accessible at the project web site www.ippaproject.eu. At its core is the search function, which can search based on several criteria (mentioned above), selected via drop-down boxes. Furthermore a free search is offered which allows the user to search for any term. To support the understanding and use of each criterion an explanation is provided in an info box. The welcome page is provided in several European languages such as e.g. Czech, Slovenian, German, and Slovakian.
For each tool a detailed description, a set of attributes and further links and references are included. For most tools from the interactive participation levels, case studies are provided which describe use of the tool in a particular context. The case studies cover several examples from the field of radioactive waste management including the experiences from the implementation of participation processes within the IPPA project. The case studies are provided as pdf-files which can easily be saved or printed by interested users.
In order to offer a user a quick overview of potentially suitable tools, the toolbox provides the opportunity to directly compare the attributes of up to five tools. The chosen tools are displayed in a tabular format which presents the attributes side by side.
Additional information is provided to guide and support the use of the toolbox as follows:
- The “Guiding Principles” summarise some basic information on participatory processes that should be taken into account before searching for potentially appropriate tools. Even though the issue of shaping participatory processes adapted to the framing conditions of a specific case is a very sensitive area the “Guiding Principles” are intentionally kept brief. They aim to advise the user of the most crucial points, not to elaborate on the state of the art of dealing with each of these points under specific conditions.
- A help page provides a “Users’ Manual” which describes in detail the structure, individual functions and use of the toolbox.
The Participation Toolbox will be online for at least five years after the end of the IPPA project. A continuation after that period might be reasonable. The toolbox is programmed in such a way that further tools and case studies could be easily amended at later stages.
During development of the Knowledge Base and Participation Toolbox it was realised that in the context of radioactive waste management or other controversial issues examined in the initial project phase, no tools could be identified corresponding to the the highest Arnstein participation level ”joint decision-making“. One reason for this appears to be the high complexity of processes related to the planning and realisation of radioactive waste disposal. Therefore, highly regulated frameworks for decision making exist which require specific institutions (in many countries including the Parliament) to make the final decision.
Potential Impact:
Long-term and proactive public involvement in decision-making processes makes them more stable, because participation empowers key actors such as municipalities and protects them from harmful fragmentation in sensitive phases of political decision-making. Processes of participation and transparency should link to existing political decision-making structures and IPPA showed the way forward by demonstrating this in practical reality.
Testing and implementing novel approaches to public participation and transparency in direct connection with repository development programmes gave guidance for further progress, by showing ways forward and suggesting concrete schemes for establishing a safe space for participation and transparency; this will lead to increasing awareness of the issues involved among decision-makers, stakeholders and the general public.
The IPPA networking and exchange of experience at national and international levels will help making progress with issues of common interest between stakeholders. Furthermore, new methods were honed to bridge the gap between research and successful implementation of processes for participation and transparency. This should be valuable for both social and natural sciences and be of interest for the clarification of the meaning of research in many areas, not just within the realm of nuclear waste management.
Progress beyond state of the art
The IPPA project was designed to make significant progress towards implementing geological disposal by meeting social and political challenges in a proactive way. A number of countries are at different stages in nuclear energy and rwm programmes, and the intention was to introduce to these a range of existing and novel methods of participation and transparency. This is in line with views heard from a local political level at the ARGONA End Users Conference in Uppsala on March 17-18, 2009 who stressed that there is a need for immediate action, implying the implementation of existing knowledge and research results in national and local settings. This means that the practical applicability of research results in the area of participation and transparency must be clarified in an effective way. The project also extended from simply national to cross-country implementation. The project thus assisted rwm programmes across the EU in taking steps beyond the existing state of the art in several ways:
1. The project took significant steps in applying existing knowledge, coming both from research and practical experiences, within the context of actual rwm programmes.
2. IPPA assisted rwm programmes at different stages to make progress and to advance through the decision making process by increasing awareness among decision makers, stakeholders and the general public of the issues involved. It was the intention that decision making processes will be thereby to some degree “vaccinated” against unnecessarily narrow framing and fragmentation that later may become serious obstacles. Guidance will be provided to assist further progress in participating IPPA countries.
3. IPPA broadened the areas of application for certain methods of public participation and transparency. These methods themselves will therefore be tested in terms of their general applicability, and be enriched and enhanced so as to be able to cope with different types of situations in the future.
4. IPPA took a step in further broadening and structuring a European “knowledge base” of processes of transparency and participation beyond the COWAM and RISCOM approaches by structuring and analysing a broad spectrum of processes that have been used to address issues other than rwm.
5. IPPA went beyond the application of approaches to participation and transparency on the national level. It also exploreed how approaches such as RISCOM and COWAM can applied on the cross-border and international levels so as to enrich the application of EIA and SEA. Steps in this direction were taken with regard to the sensitive issue of multinational repositories.
6. The progress made by applying methods on the national level in the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovenia were discussed and analysed in the light of international agreements, especially the Aarhus convention, EIA and SEA Directives.
8. The uses of “compensation” to overcome the so called NIMBY effect has been discussed for a long time and practices differ between countries due to cultural and other factors. With time it has become evident that the issue of “compensation” needs to be dealt with using new approaches. Using the term “added value” instead of “compensation” is not only a matter of utilising a more acceptable term but also reflects a new philosophy and new practices. This was also an area where IPPA made a significant contribution.
By means of these intended achievements, and because applications will be brought forward to new areas, the project generated new knowledge about the effective implementation of processes for participation and transparency that should be of great value for the future of rwm programmes in Europe, including in particular the Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technological Platform (IGD-TP).
The IPPA knowledge base and Toolbox for participatory processes and tools
An important feature of the development of the knowledge base, and subsequently the Toolbox, was the intention to incorporate learning and experience from the ongoing engagement activities in the five WP 2 countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). The political reality caused changes to be made in the ongoing repository siting processes in the five countries, which delayed or even prevented some of the planned activities from taking place on the expected timescales. Although this was difficult in terms of the proposed work plan, it was also important, in that it demonstrated the “real-life” situations being addressed in the IPPA project. This has served to make the project clearly distinct from other more theoretical projects and has allowed participants to adapt and amend their efforts to carry out meaningful stakeholder engagement in response to real situations. In this way the knowledge base has been able to reflect real situations, and this in turn has helped WP 1 participants recognise the way in which the subsequent Participation Toolbox could and should be structured in order to be of most use to future users. In summary, this work was successful, and has contributed to the development of the Participation Toolbox as planned.
The Toolbox is an online tool accessible at the project web site www.ippaproject.eu. At its core is the search function, which can search based on several criteria, selected via drop-down boxes. Furthermore a free search is offered which allows the user to search for any term. To support the understanding and use of each criterion an explanation is provided in an info box. The welcome page is provided in several European languages such as e.g. Czech, Slovenian, German, and Slovakian.
The benefit of the IPPA toolbox is that it provides an easily managed and structured search engine for identifying relevant tools, methods and processes for use in a range of participation processes. Through use of the case studies, practical experience in particular contexts – especially in radioactive waste management - is integrated into the Toolbox. This makes it especially valuable for use in the waste management context. The Toolbox serves as a good source for those organisations who have the overall responsibility for the management (governance) of a decision-making process, are responsible for planning or implementing public participation or who are (or want to be) stakeholders in a decision-making process.
The development of the Knowledge Base and Toolbox can be seen as an important contribution to a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the use of participation processes, not only in the NWM sector but also in a more general sense. It is also worthwhile to reflect further on the processes within which they are used (the overall decision-making context) and this raises a number of important issues. For example, the “higher up” on the Arnstein ladder a process or a tool is, the more active the participants become in terms of collaboration, and the more directly they may influence decision-making. Stakeholders thus take on a higher degree of responsibility and accountability. This may be a motivating factor for some stakeholders who seek a high degree of influence on the planning or realisation of the respective project. However, a participation process which places a high degree of responsibility on stakeholders may also prove to be an obstacle to broad involvement of all relevant stakeholder groups – this is why the RISCOM Safe Space approach is so important. When beginning a public participation process it is crucial that the overall framework and objectives are clear to all participating stakeholders.
Implementation of participatory processes and tools
IPPA has equipped participating country teams with processes and tools for how to set up dialogue and design participatory processes and these skills could be used further on in their nuclear waste management programmes. There have been many practical experiences where IPPA process implementation activities have taken place directly within real decision making processes. In some cases political influence and intervention had an impact of the work which has raised the question if reference groups in the IPPA/RISCOM meaning in the long term should be more independent and institutionalized. For some IPPA countries efforts have been given to exploring the conditions for public participation and methodology development for future application.
Experiences from the implementation activities in IPPA so far also bring about some observations to consider for future activities. There were indications that some stakeholders hesitate to take part in participative activities. Not all stakeholders have the same interests and most often consensus between them cannot be expected, although some of them may agree to cooperate to reach common goals. There are a number of possible reasons for stakeholders not to take part in informal approaches to public participation. One reason could be that some stakeholders, who want quick results positive for their own sake, may not regard the process as meaningful as it takes more time than they consider relevant. A second reason might be that some need to maintain their autonomy, in which case they cannot be part of a process in which also the developer takes part. Even if autonomy can be guaranteed, a stakeholder can have tactical or strategic reasons to stay outside - not even to be associated with a process in which their “opponents” take part. Another reason can be lack of trust in the neutrality of the process or its organizer. Any public participation process must take these factors into account in order to be sustainable and successful.
IPPA deliverable 2.16 describes the results of the practical implementation of RISCOM model and other participatory approaches in the implementation countries. It contains a short description of the initial and current situation, description of tools and methodology and reasons for what and how they were used. Then it includes main conclusions and lessons learned from their application and also recommendations for further development in the context of ensuring adequate public participation and transparency in decision-making processes in radioactive waste disposal. It could serve as inspiration for all the actors and stakeholders, which are or may be involved in decision-making processes in relating to nuclear waste management, especially in the field of siting and building radioactive waste repository in various European countries. Here significant results from each one of the five countries are summarized.
In Czech Republic, the Working Group for Dialogue (which has functioned as the IPPA Reference Group) has continued its existence after the suspension of activities and its members have expressed optimism towards the future of the process, although there have been some obstacles in the implementation. It has become clear that for the WG for Dialogue to fulfil its function as an advisory body to the state ministries (Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Environment) it needs sufficient legitimacy, and its role needs to be more clearly defined. The IPPA experiences has helped to identify where improvements are needed in the participatory process, it has extended the dialogue to more interested parties, and the recommendations of the WG for Dialogue will be extremely useful for any future steps of the siting process.
In Slovakia, regarding the decreasing interest towards participation in the RISCOM Reference Group, the conclusion was drawn that the idea of fully implementing RISCOM methodology for public participation was perhaps a larger jump for the present society in Slovakia than what was currently applicable by stakeholders and experts. It is possible that it is too early to implement RISCOM methodology in the present Slovak condition, seeing that understanding of public participation in decision making processes needs to be raised to higher levels, as public participation is a relatively new concept in Slovakia. More is needed in the form of education towards an open society, transparency and participation among civil society and especially among decision makers. Despite these facts, the idea of a Safe Space for open discussion was deemed a good step towards supporting participation not only in the nuclear sector and waste management, but in civil society in general. Further, even though the trial attempt to implement the RISCOM model of communication in Slovakia was not fully successful in terms of establishing the Reference Group at this time, research results regarding the specific context of Slovakia will be useful to inform future processes. The increased understanding of the social and technical environment, and the needs for communication, has been considered as very useful to the future of the Deep Geological Disposal siting process.
The success of the project in Poland was that supporters and opponents of the nuclear power managed to meet, shared opinions and experience, and initiated discussions in the area which most participants considered safe. The educational role of the project was emphasized, i.e. opportunity to learn not only from trainers but also from one another by creating a platform to share opinions and possessed knowledge. The project was aimed at sharing opinions, getting to know one another, gaining trust and holding discussions using substantive arguments in "safe area" where nobody feels marginalized.
The Ministry of Economy, Department of Energy, expressed its interest in continuation of RG activities in future. The results of IPPA project are seen in a wider perspective of implementation of nuclear programme in Poland. The representatives of ME assured that the Ministry supports further works of the Group as far as organizational matters are concerned. All organizations participating in the RG expect the continuation of the socially oriented activities within the future national or European programs. The validity of the measures towards increasing the public confidence and participation of the society in decision-making was appreciated. It is certain that the Euratom projects may create an opportunity for the realization of this approach and may well contribute to the implementation of national nuclear programs introduced in the Member States.
In Slovenia, a great interest for participation and prolongation of the Local partnerships on the side of public and NGOs was perceived, however also a relative lack of interest on the side of state and local community authorities, regulators and implementers. In spite of the formal termination of the local partnerships in Brežice and Krško, their activities continue, partly thanks to activities organized by IPPA. The lesson learned is that stakeholders’ activities should not be organized only to fulfil some formal obligations, but as a sincere attempt to involve people in important issues deeply concerning their lives.
In Romania the main purpose of the methodologies developed during IPPA project has been to offer a practical solution. Progress and results include better understanding about the realities in order to prepare the premises for a sustainable participation in geologic disposal, increasing awareness of representatives of authorities that there is a necessity of a participative involvement of the public, and in general increasing interest in methods and tools used in other Central and East European countries for involvement of the public. In the Saligny community, steps have been taken to create within the project framework a realistic methodological support for the local communities aiming at reinforcement of their voices.
Cross border issues
For successful public involvement in any international project aimed to find common solutions for the disposal of radioactive waste a number of recommendations were made. It seems clear that an unavoidable condition for a multinational repository is that participating countries are at similar level of development in all areas - technical, structural, processes and behavioural. Liability of the waste producer, roles of authorities, governmental and nongovernmental bodies has to be clearly defined, adequate coordination and cooperation at appropriate level is needed. Networking between participating countries on various institutional levels would be an advantage. Well developed and successful public involvement in the repository host country is crucial. With respect to developing and implementing a programme for international geologic disposal, the distribution of power between central and local or regional authorities can affect public acceptance even more strongly as in the case of national repository. The main conclusions underline the empowerment of civil society as a key to enable the public to exercise their role as provided under the Aarhus Convention.
Added value approaches
In IPPA Deliverable 4.2 it was concluded that although all three countries involved currently utilise a ‘legally-mandated’ approach to the provision of community benefits, there seems to be a desire for greater use of a ‘locally-negotiated’ approach and the involvement of local actors in the process. That said, there is also a desire amongst the stakeholders to have any approach based around the principles of fairness and equity, with the use of a legal framework if necessary to ensure this. The results therefore seem to suggest that the coercive top-down approach tends, in real life, to require ‘softening’ by a voluntary market approach, in order to make progress. Legal controls offer a framework in which to operate, but within it negotiation seems to be a preferred method, with local conditions providing an additional perspective.
In Slovenia, Poland and Czech Republic, more forms of benefits were suggested to be made available during the operational phase of a repository, followed closely by the construction phase. Many of the benefits suggested were long-term, such as provision of improved infrastructure, health services and employment. There was less support for benefits during the post-closure and siting stages respectively. The challenge here seems to be a need to develop a mixed approach that provides flexibility taking into account of local interests but which at the same time ensures for the local actors long-term guarantees on implementation of the negotiated approach and its benefits.
In Deliverable 4.3 it was concluded that the use of several added value measures side by side would be a good thing to address the variety of stakeholders’ interests. Therefore, benefit packages may also be more effective than a single measure. It is also possible that the added value approach would need to evolve within a project, as there are different kinds of needs at the beginning of a project compared with later stages.
Dissemination and further use
The IPPA project is well known in the nuclear waste management community in Europe as the project has been presented for example in the ENEF Transparency Group and for the Aarhus Convention & Nuclear Steering Committee, at a OECD/NEA Forum for Stakeholder Confidence meeting and a FSC Czech workshop, in the Euradwaste conference, at the InSOTEC workshop and the SRA World Congress. IPPA Results have been fed into a status report for the JRC E-TRACK project. In the context of IPPA activities, the project has been given attention in participating countries such as the Polish hearing that took place as part of the RISCOM implementation in Poland. Also in the IAEA context parts of the IPPA project have been presented. Finally, in can be expected that the IPPA Toolbox will continue to be of interest for stakeholders interested in public participation processes and tools, and that the presence of the Toolbox on the IPPA web site will continue to draw attention to IPPA in its entirety.
List of Websites:
http://ippa-toolbox.oeko.de/