EESC Workshop
on Public
Participation in
RWM
EESC, Trèves building
2015 September 7
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) - radioactive waste
management and public participation
A synthesis of its learnings & guiding principles
Jan Van Damme
BOOM Policy Research &
KU Leuven Public Governance Institute
[email protected]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction
Guiding principles & confidence factors
Key drivers for public trust (framework)
Integrating key drivers in an overall approach
Conclusion
Introduction
• E-TRACK (DG ENER & JRC): transparency and public participation in
the implementation of policies on multiple energy sources
• First E-TRACK project: public participation in RWM
• KU Leuven Public Governance Institute has reviewed the work
developed by Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) of the Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD  JRC Report
Introduction
• FSC established in 2000: 15 years of experience based on direct
stakeholder exchange
• Review focuses on insights FSC regarding key trust drivers in RWM
• Document analysis of FSC flyers and reports
• JRC and NEA Feedback on draft reports
Guiding principles & confidence factors
• Take into account subjective assesment of RW and its risks (nonexperts)
• Control and familiarity important components of safety
• Establishing feelings of control and familiarity contributes to trust
and confidence
• Overarching principles for decision-making in RWM identified by
FSC: flexibility, social learning and public involvement (NEA, 2004a)
as well as accountability (2013c) (! Balancing these principles is
important but not always easy)
Guiding principles & confidence factors
• Confidence factors for developing feelings of control and familiarity:
openness, transparency, technical competence & procedural equity
(NEA, 2010b)
• Openness refers to an attitude that includes a willingness to listen,
to change and to adapt.
• Transparency refers to the process of making actions visible and
enabling people to access and understand information.
• 4 confidence factors contribute to confidence, trust & consent (and,
ownership)
Key trust drivers in RWM
Confidence
factors
Transparency
Competence
Levels
Key drivers
Roles and
structures
National commitment
RWM policy framework
RWM organization as committed driver
Citizens’ participation and empowerment
Decisionmaking
process
Balanced process
Facilitating (social) learning
Allowing added value for host communities
Openness
Procedural equity
RWM
institutions
RWM
facilities
Demonstrate competence, transparency
willingness to listen to and involve others
and
Robust and flexible
Transparent
Part of local development scheme offering
substantial local benefits
Allowing community oversight and stewardship
Key trust drivers in RWM
Level 1: Roles and structures:
-
Firm national commitment
-
Clear and widely supported policy framework (e.g. Open debate;
status quo unacceptable, clear roles, benefit packages and
community oversight, etc.)
-
Trustworthy RWM institution as committed driver of policy processes
(e.g. Robust to survive changes in political orientation)
-
Citizen participation and empowerment (e.g. Driving role for local
communities; volunteerism, veto right,..)
Key trust drivers
Level 2: The decision-making process:
-
Balanced process (e.g. Balance between fairness and competence or
transparency and flexibility)
-
Facilitating (social) learning (e.g. Allowing time)
-
Allowing added value for host communities (e.g. Financial resources,
hiring experts,..)
Key trust drivers
Level 3: RWM Institutions:
-
Demonstrate competence, transparency and willigness to listen to
and involve others (e.g. At the level of the organisation: mission,
organisational featues & behaviour)
Key trust drivers
Level 4: RWM facilities:
-
Robust and flexible (e.g. Facility design)
-
Transparent (e.g. “Do not hide these facilities”)
-
Part of local development scheme offering substantial local benefits
-
Allowing community oversight and stewardship
Integrating trust drivers in overall approach
Stepwise approach:
-
“a plan laying out policy development and implementation by steps
or stages that are, to some extent, reversible and adjustable, within
the limits of practicality” (NEA, 2013c)
-
Cyclical approach allows stakeholders to gain familiarity and control
-
Commonly adopted in NEA member countries
-
Challenges e.g. clear roles, sufficient time, committed driver,..
Integrating trust drivers in an integral
approach
Partnership approach:
-
Focuses on the relations between stakeholders
-
a practical method for effective collaboration with local communities
and informed consent with regard to siting RWM facilities (NEA,
2013c).
-
Formal or informal agreement
-
Key components: voluntarism, right of veto, collaboration with
affected communities in facility design and implementation, and
provision of community benefits. empowerment of local
communities
-
Challenges e.g. sufficient time and resources
Conclusion
• Confidence factors > control and familiarity> trust
• Openness, transparency, competence and procedural equity in
everyday practice
• Framework with confidence factors at 4 levels: roles and structures;
the decision-making process; RWM institutions, and; RWM facilities
• FSC findings in line with public policy literature (regarding other
‘wicked issues’) on developing public trust and policy consent
• Input, process and output legitimacy of policy
• Balancing sometimes conflictual principles such as accountability and
flexibility
Questions?
Functional mailbox
[email protected]
14 July 2017
16