Societal and Communication Challenges in Decision Aiding Tools

1. First NERIS Platform Workshop: Bratislava 6-8th February 2012 Topic 4: Societal and communication issues and how decision aiding tools might support this Moderator: Deborah Oughton, UMB 0

2. Questions for Discussion While some of the social and political challenges were similar to those seen after Chernobyl, what were the most important differences? How can we improve the definition of stakeholders and the framing of the problems, recognising the complexity of the stakeholder networks and relationships? The issue of trade of goods and foodstuffs from contaminated territories clearly illustrates the interaction of technical, management, as well as social concerns. If consumers lose trust in a product this can have serious economic consequences. How might stakeholder and communication processes support the improvement of strategies to address this issue? In Japan, the citizens started to carry out their own decontamination. How can this be addressed in management strategies. What opportunities are there for exploitation of social media and networking within emergency preparedness? How to best approach the issue of contradictory information?

3. Overarching Aims • Identify the stakeholder and communication dimensions of the challenges • Highlight issues of most relevance to the ICRP recommendations • Provide input on how these may be best addressed in decision aiding tools (tools presented at the meeting plus alternatives)

4. Communication and Information General Challenges • Differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl. Amount and availability of information. Trust in authorities • The basic need for information , at all stages • Communication of difficult and complex issues (mSv/mGy/Bq – even professionals find these difficult) • Time to deal with false rumors and contradictory information – language barriers • ”Radiophobia” - misunderstanding Different stakeholders • Public • Affected persons • Physicians and health workers (and other professionals or their representatives) • Journalists (not all sensationalists – want to give a balanced report ) • Experts (complaint on lack of information from experts rather than public)

5. Communication and Information Different challenges in pre, early and existing situations. Differences in actual emergency and emergency preparedness Differences in situations requiring basic knowledge and facts ; and those where people want concrete advice on actions Common issues and guidance • Listen – to learn what they want to know; to understand the questions they have; and to learn what they know • Build up networks during ”peace time”. Science journalists; stakeholder dialogue (emergency preparedness) - opportunities to listen and learn. Possibly easier with populations in the vicinity of a nuclear installation • Be sensitive to both harmonization and pluralism • Comparison with other risks (natural, medical) • Not all people want the same information ; not all are interested in participation in dialogue; most would rather know that plans are in place rather then know what those plans are • KISS

6. Social Media • Twitter and Facebook (To date - use to analyse publicconcernsratherthatprovideinformation) Up to date websites ”Ask an ExpertBlogs” Blogsonnewspapercommentarypages You tube For NERIS: Find out what was done re social media after Fukushima Plans of radiation protection and authorities communication departments. Organise a session at the next Neris platform workshop

7. Overarching Aims • Identify the stakeholder and communication dimensions of the challenges • Highlight issues of relevance to the ICRP recommendations • Provide input on how these may be best addressed in decision aiding tools (tools presented at the meeting plus alternatives)

8. ICRP and ”Decision Aiding Tools” Whatconcreteactionscanweproposeto putintopracticethenew ICRP approachregardingsocialchallenges and stakeholder engagement? Three directions: Preparedness: development and input to models and scenarios. Simple scenarios that can be used in dialogues to identify areas of vulnerability and general ”social” challenges. Can foster dialogue between local actors. Examples: produce for export; impacts on tourism, demographic and ecosystem information; location of schools, hospitals, areas of cultural or social importance …. Emergency: development of tools and information on self-help actions, measurements, decontamination, criteria for evaluation of stakeholder engagement, …

9. ICRP and ”Decision Aiding Tools” Whatconcreteactionscanwepropose to realisethe ICRP recommendationof stakeholder engagement? Three directions: • Post emergency and existing situations: use Fukushima (and other accidents /situations) to characterise and analyse the human dimension of the emergency situation. Reduce the gap between local and affected populations and authorities. • NERIS Platform • Build on the ICRP dialogue initiative; Invite Japanese colleagues and stakeholders to share their experience at the ERIS workshop

10. Questions for Discussion While some of the social and political challenges were similar to those seen after Chernobyl, what were the most important differences? Information – availability and mechanisms, trust in authorities, gaps between local affected populations and authorities (in FSU) How can we improve the definition of stakeholders and the framing of the problems, recognising the complexity of the stakeholder networks and relationships? Problem and case specific. But some criteria for general evaluation and guidance on stakeholder engagement processes The issue of trade of goods and foodstuffs from contaminated territories clearly illustrates the interaction of technical, management, as well as social concerns. If consumers lose trust in a product this can have serious economic consequences. How might stakeholder and communication processes support the improvement of strategies to address this issue? Incorportation of economic factors in models – direct and indirect. Illuminated through stakeholder dialogue

11. Questions for Discussion In Japan, the citizens started to carry out their own decontamination. How can this be addressed in management strategies. Not necessarily a bad thing; Need for better focus on providing advice for self-help What opportunities are there for exploitation of social media and networking within emergency preparedness? Clear opportunities in communication – different type of stakeholder engagement – they are already organised How to best approach the issue of contradictory information? Contradictory information will always exist. Foster links and trust with journalists. Be aware of the difference between “cranks” and misleading information, true expert disagreement and issues that are simply politically or ethically debatable.