100 likes | 217 Views
CARL Workshop Antwerp. Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA. Current process of SI. Object of SI in “SLOVENIA” Kind of waste: LILW Scope of SI: site selection and investigations, disposal options Subject of dialogue: both technical and socio-economical aspects. Current Process of SI.
E N D
CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA
Current process of SI • Object of SI in “SLOVENIA” • Kind of waste: LILW • Scope of SI: site selection and investigations, disposal options • Subject of dialogue: both technical and socio-economical aspects SLOVENIA
Current Process of SI • Organization of SI in “SLOVENIA” • Who has initiated the process? ARAO on the base of relevant legislation (2002); in 2004 issue invitations for local communities to enter the search process • Is the SI process built on a legal basis? On the base of Environmental Protection Act, Spatial Planning Act, Aarchus convenction • Who are the pioneers, which groups/persons take a lead in the process? ARAO due to earlier failures recognized the need for SI process and stimulate it • Who ‘guards’ the process? ARAO • Who funds the process? State (NPP decomissioning fund) through ARAO • Has the SI real decision power? Due to the fact that main stakeholders are local communities with veto power, SI power is real SLOVENIA
Current Process of SI • SI in SLOVENIA • ARAO lead first disscusions on national level – very general with all interested parties • SI are organized on the local level. The principal arena of SI is site selection. • PARTIES: Local communities, NGO, media, regulatory bodies and ARAO • Voluntarism (forced for local community if it apply for paricipation in search process, not so for others) • Only direct veto power have local communities, others can only influence public opinion (indirect power) SLOVENIA
Stakeholder Identification • Stakeholders in SLOVENIA - 3 partnerships for the moment, 2 LC on waiting list - Beside official representatives of targeted local community and ARAO, other stakeholders are more or less invited on the base of their mere existence - Very lax structure, depending on location and interest - ROLE OF SI: Arena and facilitator for open dialogue: clarifying problems, negotiating , SLOVENIA
Re-Framing process • Technocratic [crisis] Socio-technical - Failure of the first search for location in nineties (1990 - 1993) - Non-transparent procedure, local community was not involved; greater sensitivity to nuclear issues due to Chernobil and Green movements - In parts of the administration and nuclear lobby there are still preferences toward technocratic solutions. SLOVENIA
Current Framing • Framing of current SI program • At the moment there is a dominant socio-technical frame, but technocratic inertia in administrative/technical structures on all levels is tearing it up especially due to the rather great public opposition toward repository in ones locality • Socio-technical solution is existing mainly due to the failure of other approaches as only guarantee of possible success • Socio-technical frame is perhaps the most evident in radwaste issue, but is present on other similar issues, so it has some generality SLOVENIA
Overview Slovenia • Socio-technical approach as the only efficient way of dealing with this kinds of problems proved itself successfully • Tendencies toward technocratic solutions appearing periodically are sapping it • SI need a lot of facilitation from the side of the state, otherwise only different kinds of opposition groups could appear SLOVENIA
Concluding Remarks • Definition of stakeholders and methods of SI • Partnership organisation SLOVENIA
CARL WorkshopAntwerp Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA