1 / 16

CARL - SLOVENIA

CARL - SLOVENIA. Drago Kos University of Ljubljana Faculty of Social Science 1. INTRODUCTION: Willingness to learn from past failures?. First “ technocratic ” approach to site selection (1990 to 1993). Specific social and political situation at the time;

rina-vang
Download Presentation

CARL - SLOVENIA

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 - SLOVENIA Drago Kos University of Ljubljana Faculty of Social Science 1.INTRODUCTION: Willingness to learn from past failures?

  2. First “technocratic” approach to site selection (1990 to 1993) • Specific social and political situation at the time; • Specific participatory culture; • Lack of public information and public participation in decision-making process; • Strong political support to close NPP; • Rather strong green movement/party; • No waste management policy at the time; • High estimated risk from nuclear waste;

  3. The most dangerous waste

  4. Field work (1993): “Searching for oil” • specific local situation not considered • communicative dilettantism • underestimation of perceived risk • no participation of community • »Naive« confidence in efficiency of rational (expert) argumentation Result: shocking failure of the technocratic site selection in 1993

  5. 2.BASIC FACTS ABOUT PRESENT SITUATION Too slow progress? • No disposal facility for any type of waste in Slovenia; • Present storage capacities:on site of NPP Krško, RIM at the research centre in Ljubljana; • Limited and no final solution; • Local community and local authorities on site so far tolerate provisional storage; • Rather high compensation aspiration; • Low level of trust inauthorities, expert, governmental agency, ...

  6. TRUST

  7. Good points: • Founding of ARAO; • Consent on participatory approach; • Removing the LILW waste from improvised building and illegal location; and • Reconstruction of LILW (from MIR) storage at Research Reactor Center near Ljubljana

  8. 3. NEW SITE SELECTION (from 1996) Dis/continious process of confidence building? • New process for the LILW repository siting started in 1996 • New approach, two main criteria: • 1. a safe disposal solution proved by technical safety assessment, and • 2. site selection in agreement with the host community. • Balanced technical and social criteria: 50 : 50 • Main social strategy: consistent and continuous process of confidence building:

  9. BUT: “Diligent and hard work of many is easily spoiled by few”. • The shock effect has almost disappeared, technocratic temptations on horizont: • Not all activities are consistent with confidence building; • Basic facts still not known to general public • Local – national political disputes: love hate local national relation • Local community formally cannot veto but in fact it can! • Small country, everybody knows everybody: Local specific formal/informal parallelism!

  10. Want to know more about RW

  11. Who should decide?

  12. Low rank of the issue on the national political agenda; • Difficulties in coordination of main actors Unstable administrative system (untransparent local national competences) • Unstable political arena: discontinuity; • Sporadic counter activism of NGO; • Unsustainable dialog between stakeholders; • Inconsistentinformation process;

  13. ARAO – unknown agnecy !

  14. NE is useful to people

  15. RW in SLO is serious problem

  16. SLO has to find location

More Related