1 / 19

CARL Workshop Antwerp

CARL Workshop Antwerp. Results of the Country Studies BELGIUM. Institutional Context. Federal State Structure federal and regional level on equal footing Nuclear energy and RW are competences of the Federal government

coy
Download Presentation

CARL Workshop Antwerp

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies BELGIUM

  2. Institutional Context • Federal State Structure • federal and regional level on equal footing • Nuclear energy and RW are competences of the Federal government • NIRAS/ONDRAF = semi-governmental organisation; tutelage with Minister of Energy • FANC = government agency; tutelage with Minister of Interior Affairs • Responsible administration: Federal Public Service on Energy • Regions are competent for a.o. environment and town and country planning • Provinces: secondary administrations with competences concerning a.o. licensing of hazardous activity • Municipalities: communal autonomy; competent for ‘everything that is in the communal interest’ Belgium

  3. Institutional Context • About 55% of electricity generated in nuclear reactors: 2 nuclear power plants (4 reactors in Doel, 3 in Tihange) • 80% of radwaste originates from energy production • But relatively small nuclear programme • Short-lived LILW / long-lived LILW / HLW • Spent fuel ( RW) stored at reactor sites • Nuclear phase out by ± 2020 • Moratorium on reprocessing of spent fuel • Government: relatively passive role Belgium

  4. Current process of SI • Object of SI Belgium • short-lived LILW • site investigations and disposal option • subject of dialogue: both technical and socio-economical aspects • Concerning HLW • ‘social’ elements in the SAFIR II report (2001) • declaration of intent to integrate technical and social dimension in ‘background document’ Belgium

  5. Current Process of SI - LILW • Organization of SI in Belgium • occasion: Federal Government decision (1998) in favour of final disposal of LILW, focus on existing nuclear areas and opening for participatory approach • same year: NIRAS/ONDRAF sends out invitation to municipalities to enter into a local partnership • stepwise engagement • cooperation with two universities to develop method Belgium

  6. Current Process of SI - LILW • Local partnerships • aim: develop an integrated repository project proposal • voluntary siting process (but somewhat imposed on the nuclear areas)  Mol, Dessel, Fleurus & Farciennes • introduction of municipal right to veto • focus on local level (municipalities): partnerships located ‘on site’ • programme financed by NIRAS/ONDRAF Belgium

  7. Current Process of SI - LILW • Local partnerships • 3 partnerships: STOLA (Sept 1999); MONA (Feb 2000); PaloFF (Feb 2003) • formal organisational structure Executive Committee General Assembly Project coordinators Working groups Belgium

  8. Current process of SI - LILW • Local partnerships • both arena and facilitator for open dialogue: platform for interaction • communication with the local population • decision: partnership – municipal council - government • Current situation: • STOLA approves of project proposal (9/04) and municipal council of Dessel decides to candidate for hosting a repository (1/05); STOLA becomes STORA (4/05) • MONA approves of project proposal (1/05) and municipal council of Mol decides to candidate for hosting a repository (4/05); MONA adapts bylaws and continues (11/05) • PaLoFF to decide 12/05; municipal councils of Fleurus and Farciennes likely 01/06 Belgium

  9. Stakeholder identification • Main stakeholders active in this process: • NIRAS/ONDRAF: initiator, sponsor, ‘architect’ • broad local stakeholder representation (local politicians, representatives from civil society and individuals) • SCK·CEN: both partner in MONA and supplier of experts (although not in PaLoFF) • local nuclear companies: some quite active; most keeping a relative distance Belgium

  10. Stakeholder identification • Main players remaining on the sideline: • Federal government: final decision maker • FANC: local ‘antenna’ participated solely as observer; not willing to take positions concerning project proposition in this phase • NGOs: only occasionally invited as experts by partnerships; occasionally commenting on approach as ‘buying out the locals’ and ‘trading in technical experts for sociologists’ • (sub)regional players and neighbouring municipalities Belgium

  11. Current Framing • Framing of need for SI by NIRAS/ONDRAF • Sustainable development and the precautionary principle • Principles of good governance • Social acceptance / Legitimacy and stability of the decisions taken • Increasing the knowledge base (to a lesser extent) • Most crucial: • acceptance • stable political decision Belgium

  12. Re-Framing process • Management of LILW • a technical answer to a technical problem (1984 – 1994) • 1994: 98 potentially suitable sites  broad contestation by all communities involved • a technical question with social implications  still holding on to the 98 sites • a socio-technical question  starting with a clean slate Belgium

  13. Re-Framing process • Discrepancy between approach for LILW and approach for HLW • Discrepancy between principle and practice • ‘background document’ introducing social dimension BUT • over 25 years of research into final disposal in underground facility have implicitly led to choice of option and possibly of site • how far can and will all players go in engaging stakeholders ‘as soon as possible’ in the decision making process Belgium

  14. Re-Framing process • Bulk of RWM remains fairly technical in approach, but as far as intentions go a shift in framing is lurking • Critical events leading to shifts in framing seem mainly linked to siting efforts • Socio-technical framing only just breaking through and already under threat: • rearguard action by in-crowd of traditional decision-making process • NGOs as early champions of SI turning sides • institutional framework not designed for this • no firm political backing • high expectations from local partnerships that are not always matched Belgium

  15. Overview Belgium • SI programme focuses on the siting of a LILW repository • Local Partnerships have led to 2 (potentially 3) candidates to host a repository: conditional acceptance  conditions relating to both the content of the project and the decision-making process • Other issues remain subject to a more technocratic approach • Could continuation of partnerships lead to tearing down some more walls? Belgium

  16. Concluding Questions • Institutional Context • When the institutional context does not easily allow for integration of social and technical: how to sustain emerging engagement process? • Could a localisation of decisions contribute to more sustained decisions? • Could a localisation of decisions enforce institutional change? • To what extent are different/isolated approaches (concerning SI) within a national RW policy acceptable? Belgium

  17. Concluding Questions • Stakeholder Involvement • Should SI be linked to particular ‘events’, or is it possible to achieve (semi-) permanent and ‘sustainable’ stakeholder engagement in RWM? • How can the parties involved be kept interested in such a process? • Are people in nuclear areas predestined to be stakeholders? To what extent is their fate bound to that of the RWM agency and the RW producers? Belgium

  18. Concluding Questions • Framing • Has a socio-technical framing truly superseded a technocratic framing? • How sustainable is this new framing? • Apparent consensus on the principles of stakeholder engagement; but very divergent views on how to put those in practice. How to overcome this? Belgium

  19. CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies BELGIUM

More Related