Nuclear waste disposal, risk governance and decision –making

1. Nuclear waste disposal, risk governance and decision –making Kjell Andersson, Karita Research CEFOS Conference Gothenburg, December 15-17, 2009

2. Points of departure Nuclear waste disposal is about risk governance It is also a decision – making process Should be of high quality Includes awareness, clarity, democratic procedures and accountability

3. Clarity Factual issues Facts, uncertainties, importance of uncertainties Science is not a democratic process Value-laden issues Time scales, retrievability, acceptable risk , etc … Democracy is not science Political decisions must be based on both Clarity is needed Bridging the gap between science and policy is critical

4. The reality We all have information over flow We all have a limited attention span We have a ”market democracy” - a market of arguments Clarity is not necessarily the result Narrow framing and fragmentation can impact the policy making ”environment”

5. decision making processes Early phase: issues need to be opened up to avoid a too narrow framing - different perspectives are needed There is a ”closing down” phase when decisions are to be taken – the implications of different alternatives should be transparent

6. CARGOComparison of Approaches to Risk Governance Clarification of the roles of the risk informed decision making (RIDM), use of the precautionary principle (PP) and deliberative approaches in risk governance, thereby assisting an integrated approach

7. CARGO participants Karita Research BMD Research Joint Research Centre University of Lancaster Stockholm University

8. The three approaches need each other In applying the PP there must be elements of risk informed decision-making (RIDM) but also deliberation In RIDM - consider if the PP should be applied, and involve stakeholders to avoid narrow framing (open up) In deliberation of risk management, experts should be involved (to avoid “social narrow framing”) In all cases, risk governance should be transparent – clarity about both factual and value-laden issues

9. a proper balance A key element of risk governance is to take all the relevant factors into account so that for each issue being dealt with there is a proper balance between the three approaches treated in the CARGO project; risk-informed decision-making, precaution and deliberation. To find that balance a number of factors should be taken into account in any risk governance process (e.g. level of uncertainty, level of complexity).

10. The ARGONA Project A European Commission 6th research framework project Start: November 1, 2006 End: October 31, 2009 14 organizations from 8 countries Coordination: Swedish Radiation Safety Authority Management: Karita Research, Sweden

11. Why ARGONA? The ARGONA project intends to demonstrate how participation and transparency link to the political and legal systems and how new approaches can be implemented in nuclear waste management programmes.

12. What has ARGONA done? • 6 sub projects, called work packages • 25 reports, published on the ARGONA web site   • Studies of the context within which processes of participation and transparency take place - to understand how the processes can be used in the real world • Studies of theory – in order to build participation and transparency on a firm ground • Case studies – to understand how different processes work • Implementation – to make a difference, learn and demonstrate

13. Implementation in the Czech Republic Nuclear Research Institute (NRI) is the leader SURAO as ARGONA Partner Czech stakeholders Karita and Wenergy Hana Vojtěchová, later today

14. Stretching Central actors in a decision making process get together in a public arena to let their arguments be challenged in a structured way – a process for clarity and mutual learning In the RISCOM Model, stretching is a means to get transparency – this needs to be organized ina ”transparency arena”

15. this is how its done Working group – ”pre understanding” and organization Reference group with stakeholders (e.g. industry, communities, academia, authorities, NGO:s) – Formal agreement The reference group discusses the activities – sets the principles into action Knowledge building activities Hearings with stretching Documentation This is a transparency arena – a ”safe space”

16. What is a safe space? An arena for dialogue where different stakeholders can move forward together to increase their understanding of the issues and also of their respective views without being felt like hostages for a certain purpose.

17. ARGONA results (1:2) It is possible to ”make a difference” – time to implement! There is a need to bridge the gap between between research and policy. Research gives guidance and provides pathways There should be a balance between the force of legal instruments and an informal process offering creativity and flexibility Important to ensure a safe space for open and meaningful dialogue

18. ARGONA results (2:2) A certain degree of institutionalisation seems necessary National politicians need to be more involved Involving the public and stakeholders must be sincere - if not they will feel manipulated and they withdraw ARGONA has produced guidelines for the application of approaches to participation and transparency.

19. Conclusions High quality decision making demands clarity about factual and value – laden issues Clarity requires a broad perspective – focus in the early opening – up phase Clarity requires stretching of arguments – focus in the closing down phase

20. Conclusions Stakeholders can together, in “a safe space”, find ways for increasing clarity Such procedures must be organized so that they are trusted by all participants. Clarity comes before consensus, but does not come by polarization either Clarity should increase the quality in decision making

21. www.cargoproject.eu www.argonaproject.eu