Final Draft - 13.08.2014.pdf

Energy Transparency Centre of

Knowledge E-TRACK

1st Open Seminar

Amsterdam, 23 October 2014

First Open Seminar

Amsterdam, 23rd October 2014

Location: ROOM MATE AITANA, IJDok 6, 1013 MM Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The role of public participation in radioactive waste management and other sectors

Lessons learnt from research and practice

09.00 Participants Arrival – Registration

09.30 Presentation of E-TRACK and its activity on Radioactive Waste Management (RWM)

Ulrik von Estorff, Scientific Officer, Joint Research Centre, European Commission

Gianluca Ferraro, Scientific Officer, Joint Research Centre, European Commission

10.00 Public participation in environmental decision-making

Fiona Marshall, Environmental Affairs Officer, Aarhus Convention Secretariat, United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe

10.30 Coffee break

11.00 Chairwoman's introduction

Saida Laârouchi Engström, Vice President, SKB, Sweden

11.15 High-Level Waste and the experience of Olkiluoto

Harri Hiitiö, Mayor, Eurajoki Municipality, Finland

11.45 Changes in RWM policy. The participatory turn in Sweden

Johanna Yngve Törnqvist, Analyst, Östhammar’s Municipality, Sweden

12.15 A case from Low- and Intermediate-Level Waste

Sébastien Farin, Deputy Director of Communication and Dialogue with Civil Society,

ANDRA, France

12.45 Buffet Lunch

13.45 Public Participation: lessons from academia

Dirk Scheer, Senior Researcher, University of Stuttgart, Germany

14.15 Public participation and dialogue beyond nuclear

Melanie Provoost, Consultant, Triarii, R&Dialogue (Building a low-carbon future together),

The Netherlands

Sergio Olivero, Head of Energy and Security Research Area, SiTI – Higher Institute on

Territorial Systems for Innovation, Italy

15.15 Close of meeting

15.30 End of day

List of Participants

Ms Michaela BIHARYOVÁ Nuclear Regulatory Authority SlovakiaMs Paula-Alexandra BOTEANU European Commission EUMs Christine BRUN-YABA IRSN FranceMr Gunnar BUCKAU European Commission EUMr Cesar CHENEL European Commission EUMrs Anne DE MAEYER SOERENSEN Dansk Dekommissionering DenmarkDr Annick DE VRIES Rathenau Institute NetherlandsMs Katleen DERVEAUX vzw STORA BelgiumMr Hugo DRAULANS vzw STORA BelgiumDr Martin DURDOVIC Institute of Sociology AS CR Czech RepublicMs Rigmor EKLIND Oskarshamn municipality SwedenMr Sebastian FARIN ANDRA FranceMr Gianluca FERRARO European Commission EUMr Ansi GERHARDSSON Swedish Radiation Safety Authority SwedenMrs Ester GOMEZ BELINCHON ENRESA SpainMr Benno HAVERKATE NRG NetherlandsMr Harri HIITIO Eurajoki Municipality FinlandMr Wolfgang HILDEN ex-European Commission GermanyMrs Gudrun JÄCKEL LPTK NetherlandsDr Victor KARG BMLFUW AustriaMr Ole KASTBJERG NIELSEN Dansk Dekommissionering DenmarkMrs Melina KLEANTHIDOU-LEENHOUTS not employed NetherlandsMs Charlotte KOOT Leiden University, PhD Student NetherlandsMs Aneta KORCZYC Radioactive Waste Management Plant PolandMs Kanerva KUISMA Posiva Oy FinlandMs Saida LAAROUCHI ENGSTROM SKB SwedenMr Robert LANGMUIR Europe Analytica BelgiumMr Geert LAUWEN vzw STORA BelgiumMs Charlotte LILIEMARK Oskarshamn municipality SwedenMr Grégoire LITS University of Louvain BelgiumMr Pierre Yves LOCHET Electricité de France – Nuclear Fuel Division FranceMs Fiona MARSHALL UNECE INTMs Meritxell MARTELL UAB SpainMr Philip MATTHEWS NuLeAF (Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum) United KingdomMs Melanie MBAH Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) GermanyMs Irena MELE IAEA INTMr Carlo MEYNANTS vzw STORA BelgiumDr Emma ter MORS Leiden University NetherlandsMr Sergio OLIVERO SITI ItalyMs Céline PAROTTE University of Liège, SPIRAL BelgiumMr Rolf PERSSON Oskarshamn municipality SwedenMr Claudio PESCATORE OECD-NEA INTMs Melanie PROVOOST TRARII NetherlandsMr Dirk SCHEER University Stuttgart GermanyMr Philipp SENN Nagra SwitzerlandMrs Heidi Sjølin SJOELIN THOMSEN Dansk Dekommissionering DenmarkMr Richard SMITH NuLeAF (Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum) United KingdomMs Maria STERGIOPOULOU European Commission EUMr Johan SWAHN Nuclear Transparency Watch INTMr Wojciech SWIDNICKI RadWaste Management Plant "ZUOP" PolandMr Christian TAILLEBOIS EDF France Mr Gert-Jan VAN DER PANNE Triarii BV NetherlandsMr A.H. M. (Arnoud) VAN WAES Rathenau Instituut NetherlandsMs Marlies VERHAEGEN University of Antwerp BelgiumMr Mariano VILA D'ABADAL GMF SpainMs Liesbeth VOEST Ministry of Economic affairs NetherlandsMr Ulrik VON ESTORFF European Commission EUMs Asta VON OPPEN NGO Gorleben GermanyMr Andreas VON SCHMALENSEE Swedish Radiation Safety Authority SwedenMs Daniela WAGNER DAtF (German Nuclear Forum) GermanyMs Johanna YNGVE TORNQVIST Östhammar municipality SwedenMr Samuel YOUNG Europe Analytica BelgiumMrs Dagmar ZEMANOVÁ Nuclear Regulatory Authority Slovakia

1st Open Seminar Amsterdam, 23 Oct 2014

E-TRACK and its activity on Radioactive Waste Management Ulrik VON ESTORFF Gianluca FERRARO

www.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation

Open S e m i n a r 2014 Ulrik von Estorff Gianluca Ferraro

2 29 October 2014

Welcome

E-TRACK Energy – TRAnsparency Centre of Knowledge

E-TRACK

• A joint initiative between DG ENER and JRC

• A knowledge centre

• Promoting public participation in energy policy implementation

• A reliable source of information

• Collection and dissemination of knowledge and experiences in the EU

• Projects on public participation in multiple energy sources

3

E-TRACK

4

E-TRACK

Actions needed

• Collecting the existing information

• Organization and simplification for the general public ("Complexity reduction")

• Connecting the actors ("An interacting RWM community")

• Sharing knowledge

• Provision of practical examples of implementation

• Knowledge dissemination and active communication

5

E-TRACK / RWM

6

E-TRACK / RWM

Secretariat

• Joint Research Centre

• Management and coordination

7

Ulrik VON ESTORFF

Project leader

Gianluca FERRARO

Project officer

Maria STERGIOPOULOU

Project assistant

Cesar CHENEL RAMOS

Web content

manager

Aris GIACHNIS

Webmaster

E-TRACK / RWM

Stakeholders Network

• National/subnational authorities and agencies

• Civil society (municipalities, NGOs)

• Nuclear industry

8

E-TRACK / RWM

Advisory Group (AG)

• General guidance

• It mirrors the whole network's milieus

• AG meetings twice a year

9

E-TRACK / RWM

10 29 October 2014

E-TRACK / RWM

Last Name First Name Organization Sector Country

AdvisorsAdams Richard EESC International Organizations *EUCharleton Daphné FORATOM Industry *EUFarin Sébastien ANDRA WMO FranceLaârouchi Engström Saida SKB WMO SwedenSwahn Johan NTW NGO *EUMartell Meritxell UAB Academia SpainMele Irena IAEA International Organizations *IOMinon Jean-Paul ONDRAF/NIRAS WMO BelgiumMolina Mariano ENRESA WMO SpainPescatore Claudio OECD-NEA International Organizations *IOSpangenberg Jacob ENWD Civil society *EUTaillebois Christian EDF Industry FranceVajdova Zdenka Academy of Science Academia Czech RepublicVila d'Abadal Mariano GMF Civil society *EU

Partenered DGsBoteanu Paula DG ENER European Commission *EUPtackova Katerina DG RTD European Commission *EU

11 29 October 2014

COLLECT Information

CONNECT Actors

SHARE Knowledge

Overview on actions

• Stakeholders map

• DB of actors and participation practices

12

Questionnaire Purpose E-TRACK objectives

1 Practice of public participation (summary – link – keywords)

• DB of practices COLLECT Information

2

Mission of the organisation • DB of actors CONNECT Actors

3 Open relevant questions • List of relevant questions SHARE Knowledge

4 Accord to be in the Stakeholders Network • Network building

Overview on actions

13 29 October 2014

Overview on actions

• Website

14

Website

15

Website

16

Website

17

Website

• Papers

• Articles

18

Overview on actions

• Lessons learnt from EURATOM projects (a synthesis of principles)

• Collection of initiatives of public participation in RWM in the EU • Overview per country • Database of practices per organization • Meetings with municipalities GMF/ENWD

• Annual Report 2014 (January 2015)

• Second annual Open Seminar (Autumn 2015)

19

Overview on actions

20 29 October 2014


Public participation in environmental decision-making Fiona MARSHALL

Ensuring effective public participation in decision-making on radioactive

waste management – the Aarhus way

1. Quick overview of the Aarhus Convention and its public participation requirements in the context of radioactive waste management

2. Some points of particular relevance for radioactive waste management

3. Tools to assist officials in ensuring effective public participation

1. Quick overview of the Aarhus Convention and its public participation requirements Some basic facts and figures: Full name: Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters As full name suggests, three interlinking “pillars”. Adopted in 1998, in Danish city of Aarhus. Entered into force on 30 October 2001. Currently has 47 Parties from across the UNECE region. Open globally. All EU Member States plus the EU itself are parties.

What is subject to public participation under the Convention?

Decisions on specific activities that may have

a significant effect on the environment – article 6 and annex I

Plans, programmes and policies relating to

the environment – article 7 Preparation of executive regulations and/or

generally applicable legally binding normative instruments that may have a significant effect on the environment– article 8

This means: Specific activities on radioactive waste

management (RWM). Plans, programmes and policies relating to

RWM. Legislation and other generally applicable

legally binding rules relating to RWM.

are all subject to the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.

Rights are granted to the public or public concerned: Public = one or more natural or legal persons, and in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organizations and groups. Public concerned = the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making; NGOs promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law deemed to have an interest.

Rights are granted to all persons irrespective of citizenship, residence or domicile (ie apply also across borders).

Which specific RWM activities are subject to article 6?

Installations designed: For the production or enrichment of nuclear fuel; For the processing of irradiated nuclear fuel or high-

level radioactive waste; For the final disposal of irradiated nuclear fuel; Solely for the final disposal of radioactive waste; Solely for the storage (planned for more than 10 years)

of irradiated nuclear fuels or radioactive waste in a different site than the production site (article 6(1)(a) and annex I, para. 1)

Any other RWM activity which may have a significant effect on the environment (article 6(1)(b))

Decisions on specific RWM activities - what does article 6 of the Aarhus Convention require?

1. Early, adequate and effective notice ↓ 2. Reasonable time-frames when all options are open ↓ 3. Access to all relevant information ↓ 4. Public entitled to comment/be heard ↓ 5. Due account to be taken of public participation

↓ 6. Prompt notice of decision ↓ 7. If operating conditions are updated or reconsidered, repeat as appropriate

Public to be promptly informed of the decision. Text of the decision shall be made accessible, along with reasons and considerations on which it is based

If conditions of activity are updated, the above requirements shall be applied mutatis mutandis and where appropriate

Early notice of the environmental decision-making procedure, in an adequate, timely and effective manner of, inter alia: • The proposed activity • Nature of possible decisions • Public authority responsible for making

the decision • The public participation procedure

envisaged (including timeframes and opportunities to participate)

Reasonable time-frames, allowing sufficient time for informing the public and for the public to prepare and participate effectively in the decision-making. Early public participation, when all options are open and effective public participation can take place

Public entitled to submit any comments, information, analyses or opinions it considers relevant to the proposed activity, in writing or, as appropriate at a public hearing or enquiry

Access to all information relevant to the decision-making, free of charge and as soon as it becomes available.

Parties shall ensure due account is taken of the outcome of the public participation

Plans, programmes and policies relating to RWM – what does article 7 require?

Plans and programmes: Practical and/or other provisions for the public to participate

during the the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment;

Within a transparent and fair framework; The necessary information must be provided to the public; Reasonable timeframes for the public to be informed, to

prepare and to participate effectively; Early public participation when all options are open and

effective public participation can take place; Due account to be taken of the outcome of the public

participation.

Policies Each Party shall endeavour to provide opportunities for

public participation in the preparation of policies related to the environment.

Preparation of executive regulations and other generally applicable legal rules relating to RWM – what does article 8 require?

Each Party must “strive to promote” effective public participation in the

preparation of executive regulations and other legally binding rules that may have a significant effect on the environment;

While options are still open;

Time-frames sufficient for effective participation should be fixed;

Draft rules should be published or otherwise made publicly available;

The public should be given the opportunity to comment, directly or through representative bodies;

The results of public participation should be taken into account as far as possible.

2. Some points of particular relevance for RWM Early public participation when all options are still open

Includes “zero option” of not engaging in activity at all.

Identification of the public concerned Includes not only public that may be affected on day-to-day basis, but also in

case of beyond design accident. Includes foreign public.

Access to all information relevant to the decision-making.

Any exceptions to be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and taking into account whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

Presumption that entire EIA will be made available to the public.

Obligation to take due account of the outcome of public participation. See Maastrict Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public Participation

in Decision-making in Environmental Matters (see slide 14)

Relevant findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee: ACCC/C/2009/41 (Slovakia)

Concerned, inter alia, the obligation to ensure early and effective public participation when all options are still open and when reconsidering/updating a nuclear permit’s operating conditions.

ACCC/C/2010/51 (Romania) Concerned, inter alia, the obligation to ensure sufficient time for the public to prepare and to

participate effectively in decision-making on the draft national energy strategy.

Communications currently under consideration concerning public participation in nuclear sector: ACCC/C/2012/71 (Czech Republic)

Concerns, inter alia, the obligations of a Party to ensure the effective public participation of the foreign public when deciding to permit a nuclear activity.

ACCC/C/2013/89 (Slovakia) Concerns, inter alia, the obligation of a Party to provide access to all information relevant to the

decision-making to permit a nuclear activity.

ACCC/C/2013/91 (United Kingdom) Concerns, inter alia, the obligations of a Party to ensure the effective public participation of the

public of another Party when deciding to permit a nuclear activity. ACCC/C/2013/92 (Germany)

Concerns, inter alia, the obligations of a Party whose public consider they are affected by a decision made by another Party to permit a nuclear activity.

3. Tools to assist officials in ensuring effective public participation

Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide

Maastricht Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public Participation in Decision-making in Environmental Matters

Relevant findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee

Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making

Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide Second edition June 2014 Interactive electronic version available online at

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/implementation_guide.html French and Russian versions forthcoming

Maastricht Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public

Participation in Decision-making in Environmental Matters May 2014 Prepared through consultative two year process led by Task Force

on Public Participation in Decision-making English version available online at

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/mop5/Documents/Category_II_documents/ece.mp.pp.2014.8.eng_adv_edited_copy_01.pdf

French and Russian versions forthcoming

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/implementation_guide.html





Relevant findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee All findings (and related documentation) available at

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/pubcom.html All findings available in English, French and Russian.

Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making Focuses on issues identified by Parties and stakeholders

to be of particular high priority Open forum for Parties, other States, experts, academics, NGOs,

international organizations and other stakeholders to exchange experiences regarding challenges and good practices to implement the Convention’s provisions on public participation

Next meeting Geneva, 23-24 February 2015 – all welcome! For more information, see http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ppdm.html

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/pubcom.html

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ppdm.html

Thank you!

For further information:

Website : http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html

Email: [email protected]

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html


High-Level Waste and the experience of Olkiluoto Harri HIITIÖ

FACTS OF EURAJOKI MUNICIPALITY • 6000 inhabitants • 53% works in industry, 41% in services and 6% in agriculture • State takes care of income distribution, municipalities of public services • 60% of costs to helthcare and social services, 20% to education and 12% to

infratructure • Municipalities have independent right to taxation • 78% of income from taxation, 14% from state and 8% from payments • Two power plant units in operation, one under construction, one under

planning • First power plant unit in operation 1979 • Interim storage for spent nuclear fuel, operating waste and decomissioning

and final disposal for spent fuel in operation 2020

40 YEARS JOURNEY 1978 Investigations for Geological sollution begins 1983 Government decided the schedule for final disposal Site investigations Site selection 2001 Parliament ratified the goverments positive decision Above-ground investigations in Onkalo 2009 Posivas capacity to apply for a construction lisence 2012 Construction licence Site construction 2018 Operation licence Test runs and comissioning 2020 Final disposal begins

ESSENTIAL FOR MUNCIPALITY • We have to take care of our own nuclear waste (fairness and responsibility) • No deed to delay final disposal with out important reason • Retrievability option, but with out safety risks • Effects in the future must not go over nowadays limits • Long term political commitment (several strategic decisions-in-principle) • Only safe final disposal is feasible • Sollutions have to be todays tecnology • Roles and responsibilities have to be clear • Up-to-date requirements and control over hole cycle • STUK verifyes suitability of site • STUK makes preparations, nominates and overlooks safety requirements • STUKs independence of subscriber, suplier and political decision making • Discipline on agreed issues

DECISION PROCEDURE EIA-LAW NUCLEAR ENERGY ACT Environmental programme Application for the decision-in-principle - announcment -general hearing -public opinions - public opinions and statements -ministrys statement - STUKs statement about safety Assessment report - muncipalitys statement (right of veto) -announcment - decision-in-principle (government) -public opinions - parliament ratification -ministrys statement Construction licence (government) Licence for each building (muncipality) Operating licence (government)

DECISION IN PRINCIPLE • Political decision

• Key issue is overall intrest of siciety

• Necessity of nuclear facility concerning energymaintenance • Site suitability and enviromental effects

• STUKs preliminary safety assessments • Final disposal facility = nuclear facility • Decisions-in-principle 2001 (OL1-2, LO1-2) 2002 (OL3) 2008 (OL4) 2009 (LO3) appication no decision • Total 12000 tU

CONSTRUCTION LICENCE • Verifyes qualifications to build safe nuclear facility • Licence to build deposition tunnels and encapculation plant • Not licence to handle or dispose spent fuel

• NEA specifyes content

• Statements and hearings according to NEA

• STUKs safety assessment is essential

• It can include reservations • Posivas capacity to apply for a construction licence is assessed 2009 • YEA 32§:n Reports and surveys for application according NEA 32§ 2012

OPERATING LICENCE • Licence to handle spent fuel and begin final disposal • Requirement to use safe nuclear facility • Safety ensurance and total time table • Licence official ministry, admits government • STUKs safety assessment is crucial • Reservations, for examble temporary assessment of safety

ACCEPTABILITY • Tvo:s and Posiva:s main policy is unconditional transparency which has

developed necessary confidence • Municipal cooperation committee since 1970 • Cooperation group of Eurajoki municipality, TVO and Posiva since 1995 • Seminars and public info sessions at the site • Visitor Centre (20 000 visitors every year) • Official information and public hearings organized by Ministry of

Employment and Economy, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority and Eurajoki municipality

• We relay on officials and authorities • All waste handling has been taken care of • Export or import of spent nuclear fuel is not allowed according legislation • Continuous improvement, new rulings after first licence

WELFARE • TVO and Posiva pays real estate taxes • Steady income, easy to make lonstanding plans • Employees and workers pay income taxes • Business opportunities for local companies • New jobs, a lot of local people works at the site • Cooperation with Posiva concernig Vuojoki mansion, economical benefit

straight away site selection


Changes in RWM policy. The participation turn in Sweden Johanna YNGVE TÖRNQVIST

1976-today Nuclear waste and the municipality

Östhammar municipality Johanna Yngve Törnqvist

The 1970’s

• Nuclear waste – a burden • Governmental study – the AKA investigation 1976

– All nuclear waste should be stored in the bedrock – Preferable if all types of radioactive waste is stored at

the same site – Preferable if the site allready have nuclear facilities

• Forsmark proposed site: -Already a nuclear site -Good infrastructure -”Good enough” bedrock

1982-83

• Application to build SFR 1982 – Swedish referendum on

nuclear power – Public opinion in the

Östhammar area • Decision over SFR

– Municipal VETO – 1982 – a Swedish election

year

1995

• Question to the municipality – ”can you accept pre-studies to build a final storage for spent nuclear fuel?”

• Changed legislation – New atomic energy act in 1984 – Building act ceased in 1987 >>> municipality veto

moved to the environmental code – New environmental legislation, changes made from 1984

to 1996, ceased in 1998 >>> the environmental code – In 1995 municipalities where SKB are investigating sites

for a final storage or are planning to build a final storage for any type of radioactive waste are able to get funding for their work with the question from the nuclear waste fund

Funding for the municipality’s work

• Given the municipality the opportunity to work with the issue • Municipal organization

Municipal assembly

Municipal executive board

Executive Board Sub-Committee

Safety Committee EIA-Committee Consultative

Committee

Consultative Sub-Committee

Administration

Statements

The dialogue tour

Keys to ”success”

• For us a trustworthy process is one of the most important things: – The municipality’s participation is voluntarily which

means that we have the right to say no at any time during the process and will finally be asked by the national government if we can accept the establishment or not,

– knowledge and awareness of the effects that a final storage located in the municipality could have

– openness and transparency of the process – secure financing by the nuclear waste fund – clearly defined roles for all actors involved

The future…

• Application to build final storage for spent nuclear fuel – ongoing process since 2011

• Waiting for application to expand SFR with a final storage for low and intermediate demolition waste

The expansion of SFR - a guiding process for how a possible extension of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel could be handled


A case from Low- and Intermediate-Level Waste Sébastien FARIN

The role of public part icipat ion in radioact ive waste management

A case from Low- and intermediate-Level Waste

E-Track – First Open Seminar

Amsterdam – 23rd october 2014

2 DICOD/ 14-0253

Andra’s sites

3 DICOD/ 14-0253

Andra sites

Manche disposal facilit y Aube disposal facilit y Indust rial facility for grouping, storage and disposal (Cires)

4 DICOD/ 14-0253

Andra sites

Manche disposal facilit y Aube disposal facilit y Indust rial facility for grouping, storage and disposal (Cires)

5

Public part icipat ion

During the site select ion process: Local elected representat ives, with a st rong support of the nat ional level Project owner Sit ing p rocess and Environm enta l in teg ra t ion of the facility Concep t ion of the facility, when it ’s p oss ib le In teg ra t ion of the p ro ject in the te rritory

During the op e ra t ion o f the facility and a fte r its closure :

Loca l In form at ion Com m it tee Loca l e lected rep resen ta t ives Pro ject owner Vis it s and op en house d ays , to crea te a rea l d ia log ue Environm enta l su rveys Mem ory keep ing (working g roup s )

Sites se lect ion in France

In the backyard of an exist ing facility Manche disposal facility (1960’)

Technical approach as a basis « No dialog approach » for a deep disposal facility(1980’) Strong support of local elected off icials and of nat ional representat ives (1980’)

Step by step approach as a basis Cires implantat ion « local mayors only » (2008) Cigéo project Low-level long-lived waste project

6 DICOD/ 14-0253


Public participation: lessons from academia Dirk SCHEER

6th international Conference of ESEE, Lisbon, 14-17 June 2005 Towards Environmental Governance: The Case of IPP 1 Participation: Lessons learnt « E-Track Seminar » 24. Oct. 2014 / Amsterdam

Dirk Scheer & Wilfried Konrad (IÖW) 1

INTERNATIONAL SUMMER ACADEMY

Public Participation: Lessons from academia

Dirk Scheer Research Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies (ZIRIUS) University Stuttgart

E-TRACK Open Seminar

– 24. October 2014 –


Basics

2

6th international Conference of ESEE, Lisbon, 14-17 June 2005 Towards Environmental Governance: The Case of IPP 3 Participation: Lessons learnt « E-Track Seminar » 24. Oct. 2014 / Amsterdam 3

Basics in risk & acceptance reserach

– 1: human behaviour:

• is based on perception – not on facts – 2: risk perception ≠ expert knowledge

• voluntariness, controllability, dread, familiarity etc. – vs. – scientific facts

– 3: external technology: crucial role of risk-benefit assessment

• relevant factors: trust, values/visions, cost-benefit distribution, risk profile, analogues,

– 4: social conflicts are based on dissent

• disagreement on assessing a topic („NORMAL CASE“)


Technology acceptance factors

Technology acceptance

Risk - Benefit considerations

Risks Benefits Knowledge

Risk profile

Trust in regulators/operators Technology alternatives

Distribution of costs/benefits

Values & visions

Individual risk type

Public perception & discourse

Frequency distribution of preferences and attitudes


Carbon Capture & Storage: Perception & Conflicts

Acceptance Factor Results of studies Leads to .. Knowledge Very limited Cognitive conflicts

Risk Profiling High uncertainty & ambiguity perception Interpretative conflicts

Trust in regulators Limited Intentional conflicts

Equity issues Perceived as important Distributional conflicts

Alternative solutions ..available?

Many think yes Normative conflicts

Associations with… Nuclear waste disposal Affective conflicts

Acceptance of CSS an on-going challenge


Conceptualizing Participation

6


A trend towards more participation: why?

• Conflict of interest between those who benefit and those who bear the risks. Why should risk-taker do this?

• Expert disagreement/dilemma becomes useless in mediation since every expert focuses on what he/she considers useful

• Discrepancy between risks calculated by specialists and subjectively perceived risk by the public leading to public mistrust

• People feel over-governed, thus defending themselves against everything they believe is being forced upon them

• Desire to participate in decision-making processes increases in line with education & economic affluence of the individuals

7


Potentials & added-values of participation

• Enhancement of knowledge base (learning from experience of the affected)

• Information on distribution of preferences and values among the affected public

• Instrument for fair-minded bargaining process on resource distribution

• Battle of arguments on normative secured collective decisions

• Instrument for arranging and designing one‘s own environment

8


What can we expect from participation?

• Focusing on „real“ conflicts instead of centering on „sham“ conflicts

• Opportunities for agreement even if there is a mix of knowledge, interests, preferences & judgments

• Enabling respect & understanding of contrary and opposed positions

• Potential for creatively exploring new options and recommendations for action

• Possibilities to find consensus and compromise • Enhancing acceptance and legitimacy of collective

binding decisions • Opportunity to increase longterm trust in the political

system

9


Meeting expectations? …well! The 4 concepts of participation –I-

10

Concept Main objective Rationale

Functionalist

To improve quality of decision output

Representation of all knowledge carriers; integration of systematic, experiential and local knowledge

Neo-liberal

To represent all values and preferences in proportion to their share in the affected population

Informed consent of the affected population; Pareto-rationality plus Caldor-Hicks methods (win–win solutions)

knowledge integration

bargaining


Concept Main objective Rationale

Deliberative To debate the criteria of truth, normative validity and truthfulness

Inclusion of relevant arguments, reaching consensus through argumentation

Emancipatory

To empower less privileged groups and individuals

Strengthening the resources of those who suffer most from environmental degradation

Meeting expectations? …well! The 6 concepts of participation –II-

11

education & inclusion

arguing


Implementing participation

12


Crucial Questions for Participation

• Inclusion – Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s) – What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferences – Scope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal) – Scale: space, time period, future generations

• Closure – What counts: acceptable evidence – What is more convincing: competition of arguments – What option is selected: decision making rule (consensus,

compromise, voting)


Candidates for Participation Models

• Organized stakeholders – Hearing – Round Tables (Forum, Dialogue Processes) – Negotiated Rulemaking – Mediation and Alternate Conflict Resolution

• General public

– Ombudsperson – Public Hearings – Citizen Advisory Committees – Citizen Forum, Planning Cells, Citizen Juries – Consensus Conferences (Danish Model)


Need for different management strategies

• Dealing with routine, mundane risks: – internal dialogue sufficient

• Dealing with complex and sophisticated risks (high degree of modeling necessary): – emphasis on analytic component

• Dealing with highly uncertain risks (high degree of second order uncertainty): – emphasis on link between analysis and deliberation

• Dealing with highly controversial risks (high degree of ambiguity): – emphasis on deliberative component


Application to participation –I-

• For routine management, communication should include: – Information on the process of environmental management – Information on routine management actions – If necessary, a hot-line for questions and observations

• For highly complex topics, communication and

deliberation should include: – All of the above – Discourse among experts on ranges of acceptable evidence – Additional effort for collecting feedback


Application to participation –II-

• For highly uncertain interventions, communication and deliberation should include – All of the above – Involvement of major stakeholders – Shift towards resilience approaches – Possibly, public hearings

• For highly ambiguous topics, communication and

deliberation should include – All of the above – Involvement of all parties affected by the decision


Complexity

Epistemic Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk

Uncertainty

Reflective Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward

Ambiguity

Participative Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences

Simple

Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable

Agency Staff

Dominant risk characteristic

Type of participation

Actors

Ladder of stakeholder involvment

Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff

Scientists/ Researchers

Affected stakeholders

« Civil society »



Affected stakeholders

As the level of knowledge changes, so also will the type of participation need to change


Evaluating participation

19


US National Research Council (2008)

− Overview on meta-studies in US and Europe − All located in the field of environment and infrastructre − High success rate: 70-85%

Success factors

− Sufficient ressources − Clear „commitment“ of contracting body − Constructive attitude among the participants − High transperency, but low media involvement − Adaptation of participation formats to the problem

Evaluation studies –I-

20


Dialogik/Universität Stuttgart: Goldschmidt u.a. 2008; 2014 − Four European deliberative projects with more than 1200

participants − Combination of national & international formats − Very high subjective satisfaction among participants (> 87%)

Success factors

− Fairness: ++ − Competence: + − Transparency: + (o) − Efficiency: o − Effectivity: o (+) − Legitimacy: +

Evaluation studies –II-

21


Nachgewiesene Erfolgskriterien

Willingness and adequate framework conditions for mutual learning processes

Clear mandate and sufficient, but limited time line Open and neutral moderator Transperancy of participation processes vis-à-vis outsiders Potentials for new and normative agreed win-win solutions Integration into legal decision-making processes Feedbacking the „decisions“ to all participants

22

Proven success factors


no summary – but a final note

23


Deliberative processes for involving stakeholders and the general public are

instruments of art and science:

They require a solid theoretical knowledge, a personal propensity to engage in group

interactions, and lots of practical experience

Final note


Konrad / Scheer (IÖW) 25

INTERNATIONAL SUMMER ACADEMY

Thank you:

Email: [email protected] Tel: ++49 (0)6221-6733986

Dirk Scheer University Stuttgart


Public participation and dialogue beyond nuclear (1) Melanie PROVOOST

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 288980 The views and opinions expressed in this publication reflect the authors' view and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

E-TRACK – 23 October 2014 Melanie Provoost


R&Dialogue Creating a dialogue on how to achieve a low-carbon society


R&Dialogue Objective

• Organise 10 dialogues between R&D organisations, civil society organisations, industries, governments and communities in 10 European countries


WO WE ARE A consortium of 17 partners in the field of energy in 10 European countries


PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

Focus on the role of dialogue in policy and project implementation ▪ The case study CCS Barendrecht and its

consequences for Europe ▪ Dialogue on wind power and different

attitudes Main message: Having a dialogue asks for an open and flexible attitude towards the outcomes. The vision needs to be clear and the process should allow change.


Implementation of a project CCS Barendrecht


CCS BARENDRECHT

▪ Top-down decision-making process and implementation process

▪ This process caused local and political unrest

▪ Information meetings / town hall meetings were held to educate and explain the project

▪ Dialogue in the form of protests and opposed positions


CCS BARENDRECHT

▪ Dialogue on policy measure CCS inexistent with public ▪ Political and legal framework for project implementation does not

require dialogue with local authorities and public

▪ Dialogue in an early stage could have prevented protests ▪ The public is very powerful in a democracy ▪ Deadlock in dialogue and policy implementation of CCS


An ongoing dialogue On wind power


ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE WIND POWER

The Netherlands: ▪ SER Energy Agreement (2013): 4450 MW offshore in 2023 and 6000 MW

onshore in 2020, important factor to reach 16% RES in 2023. ▪ Government appointed locations with lower authorities (Provinces)

responsible for the implementation. Both the technology (wind power) and the locations were not a focal point of dialogue / open process with the public.

▪ Leading to public protests up to the UN


ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Germany: ▪ Renewable Energy Act (2000) introducing feed-in tariff (set rate for kWh of

renewable power over a period of 20 years) stimulating renewable developments in onshore wind (2011: feed-in tariff wind power < €0.09 per kWh). Offshore wind targets set on 20 GW by 2020.

▪ To increase acceptance focus on community ownership and on Bioenergy regions: promoting economic development of rural areas.


DIFFERENT DECISION-MAKING APPROACHES

The Netherlands ▪ Top-down approach ▪ Government and stakeholders decide

on how to reach set targets ▪ Shared responsibility of local authorities ▪ Project developers apply at responsible

authority ▪ Consultation / participation mandatory

at implementation stage – e.g. at Council of State

Germany ▪ Facilitate bottom-up initiatives ▪ Federal Government sets the legal framework

and targets in e.g. the Renewable Energy Act ▪ Local or regional authorities decide on location

and implementation ▪ Project developers hand-in application at local

level ▪ Consultation / participation mandatory in

planning and decision-making process


ROLE OF DIALOGUE

But: ▪ Dialogue has consequences for the outcomes / results ▪ Dialogue is risky ▪ Dialogue is a part of a larger process


ROLE OF DIALOGUE Dialogue brings uncertainties and risks How to deal with this?

trust

Project developer

Public authorities at different

levels

Local communities

Sector itself

Financers / investors

Public


If you want an open and flexible dialogue The vision needs to be clear and the process should allow change


THANK YOU [email protected]


Public participation and dialogue beyond nuclear (2) Sergio OLIVERO

1 Amsterdam, October 23th, 2014

Public participation and dialogue beyond nuclear

Experience gained in EC-funded Projects with reference to the context of critical infrastructures

The role of public participation in radioactive waste management

and other sectors -Lessons learnt from research and practice-

Sergio Olivero

2 Amsterdam, October 23th , 2014

ICT technologies are today leading to a more participatory approach, where people need to trust

security bodies, building confidence through awareness.

SECURITY

Security

The OBSOLETE APPROACH: “someone else takes care”

WHAT IS THE CORRECTS “INFORMATION SUPPLY

CHAIN”?

WHAT IS COMMUNICATION IN SECURITY DOMAIN?

WHO WILL INFORM WHOM ACCORDING TO WHAT LANGUAGES

AND PROTOCOLS?


• Awareness raising starts from a selected group of persons (i.e. voluntary firemen), who are directly involved in rescuing people and/or performing exercises.

• The security and safety messages are therefore conveyed through personal commitment.

• The voluntaries become trusted people, who can more easily explain “what happens”, including uncomfortable issues.

Case 1

Involvement of citizens starting from people who

volunteer to serve in initiatives to cope with

natural disasters.

1

• To create capacities able to ensure CITIZENS’ SECURITY against threats such as natural disasters, accidents, human mistakes,etc.

• Active involvement of citizens during crisis events to maximize the potential of emergency response measures.

PICRIT Project (INTERREG-ALCOTRA, I-F Border

Protection of Critical Infrastructures, 2011-2013)


Map data sources available on the territory

Platform for cross-border communication

Training tools and cooperation Cross-border exercise

PICRIT Project


Case 2 Cascading effects related to interdependencies among

infrastructures: providing useful information at the right points along

service supply chains • In case of a disaster, impacts will propagate according to the so-called “domino

effect”, often causing major damage because of interdependencies among systems. • In order to reduce the magnitude of the impacts, information must be released at

the various points along service supply chains, being aware that every ring of the chains uses his own language and protocols. Unjustified scaremongering must be avoided.

FORTRESS Project (FP7, Foresight tools for responding to cascading effects in a crisis, 2014-2017)

2

• To identify cascading effects by using an analysis of systems and their mutual interconnectivity and (inter-)dependency.

• To bridge the gap between the over-reliance on unstructured information collection on one side and a lack of attention to structural, communication and management elements of cross-border and cascading crisis situations on the other.


Geodatabase

Interdipendencies Dam Simulation

FORTRESS Case Studies

FORTRESS Project


• The choice of a security technology must take into account three main factors: performances, financial cost, and social impact.

• Decision-makers must ensure that the chosen technologies do not trigger any infringement, (e.g. the legal, social, or cultural norms that might be intruded upon by a security measure).

Case 3

Definition of criteria to choose security technologies that are

compliant with the law (e.g. for privacy) and intrinsically acceptable

for the cultural heritage of different persons

• These criteria can be effectively used to write tenders for the acquisition of technology apparatus, avoiding suits and the risk of being forced to withdraw them after their implementation.

SIAM Project (7FP, Security Impact Assessment

Measure, 2011-2014)

3


STEP (Security-Trust-Efficiency-Privacy) metodology Case studies

SIAM Project

9 Amsterdam, October 23th, 2014

Thank you for your attention

Sergio Olivero

Head of Energy & Security Research Area SiTI

Via Pier Carlo Boggio 61 10138 Torino

ITALY

+39 335 12 73 521 [email protected]

www.siti.polito.it

for further information

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.siti.polito.it/