Presentation on theme: "CARL Workshop Ljubljana, 10-11/02/2005. Country Studies (1) Arena Arena : institutional framework and external factors that shape participatory decision."— Presentation transcript:
CARL Workshop Ljubljana, 10-11/02/2005
Country Studies (1) Arena Arena : institutional framework and external factors that shape participatory decision making in RWM
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana3 Approach Listing background information Draw picture of context Set the scene BUT Not a static exercise Context elements in itself are dynamic
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana4 Key Issues Types of waste and their “legal” status Legal framework: (inter)national –RWM and nuclear activity –Environmental protection, EIA/SEA and Sustainable development –Participatory decision making National political context and general practises in decision making
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana5 … Familiarity with participatory decision making processes Key players in RWM: –Their roles and responsibilities –Relation to other players –Mobility of personnel between different institutional players – … Financing mechanisms for RWM
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana6 Other Elements that Shape Context Public confidence in authorities –Politics and administration –Science Dependence on nuclear energy (NE) and public opinion regarding NE (Inter)national debate on climate change International policy context –RWM –Participatory decision making
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana7 Two Questions for this Afternoon Formalization of stakeholder involvement: a good or a bad thing ? Expectations from “internationalization” of stakeholdership issues: networking, research, regulations, …
Country Studies (2) Frames and Framing
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana9 Frames ‘Bundles’ of beliefs and values that act as frames of reference for making sense of events Frames identify what is at issue: problems, solutions, protagonists and antagonists Framing processes may be deliberate and goal directed or implicit and unconscious
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana10 Framing Frames are not fixed and stable More plastic and constantly subject to processes of reframing Shaped by dynamic social, political and cultural influences
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana11 Example: framing nuclear power 1. Progress frame: Resistance to nuclear energy development is the latest version of an irrational fear of progress and change, the expression of nuclear Luddites. Nuclear energy development is not problem free, but problems can be solved as the history of technological progress shows.
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana12 2. Devil’s bargain frame: Nuclear power turns out to be a bargain with the devil. There are clear benefits, such as inexhaustible electricity and an energy supply that doesn’t depend on the whims of OPEC. But sooner or later, there will be a terrible price to pay.
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana13 3. Energy independence: Nuclear power must be understood in the context of the larger problem of energy independence. Nuclear energy, plus domestic oil, natural gas, and coal remain the only practical alternatives to a dangerous and humiliating dependence on foreign, particularly Middle Eastern sources.
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana14 Types of framing process Boundary framing: differentiates between good/bad Adversarial framing: positions actors as protagonists and antagonists Counter framing: refutes the logic or efficacy of claims made by opponents
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana15 Frames need to have ‘resonance’ To gain support, framing of the problem and of the solution needs to be: credible –Consistency of beliefs, claims and actions –Credibility of the frame articulator (group, organisation, etc.) meaningful to the target audience –Consistency with the personal, everyday experiences of the targets
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana16 Framing and acceptability The framing of a problem is central to the acceptability of its management in different communities (Wynne and Hunt 2000) “The framing of issues as scientific – to the exclusion of moral, political and emotional dimensions – can be the reason for public resistance” (House of Lords, 2000)
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana17 Addressing stakeholder conflict Conflicting values and perspectives as conflicting frames of reference Resolving conflict therefore involves reconciling differences in framing A first step is to identify the ways in which different stakeholders frame the issue
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana18 From reflection to reframing Reflection on assumptions and frames as a possible basis for reframing? Reframing as finding common ground? Questions we need to ask: –Has there been any reframing and, if so, what has caused positions to change? –Has reframing produced new frames or linked elements of existing frames? –What are the impacts of reframing on the resolution of the RWM problem?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana19 Two Questions for this Afternoon How does the framing of the issue of radioactive waste management produced by your group or organisation differ from that of other key groups or organisations involved in the issue? Has anything caused your group/other groups to reframe the way that you view the issue? If not, what might do so?
Country Studies (3) Stakeholder Involvement (SI)
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana21 Comparing National Patterns of SI Need to achieve analytical distance from domestic practices to open up for cross- national comparisons Need to explore three basic dimensions –How –How is SI framed and organized in each national context? –What –What are the issues currently subject to SI and how have they been decided upon? –Who –Who are the stakeholders and how have they gained recognition as such?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana22 How How : Framing and Organization of SI in National Context formalized legal requirement SI may be more or less formalized. May be a legal requirement. RWM in generalsiting decisions in particular Focus SI may be on developments in RWM in general or limited to siting decisions in particular? Is SI conceived firstly as national, regional or local forum and activity?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana23 … Different modes of SI may co-exist in same national context. coordination fragmentation Does this imply national coordination or fragmentation of SI? Procedures for SI may also function as opportunities to openly abstain and withdraw from involvement in RWM issues?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana24 What What : Issues Currently Subject to SI SI may be initiated around a concrete issue (e.g. siting issue) or its particular focus may be conceived as something that will emerge out of its own pursuit. If SI is already focussed, what is it focussed on? High level vs low level waste? Siting a final repository or an interim facility?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana25 … Are questions relating to the future of NE integrated with or divorced from RWM issues throughout process of SI? Are siting issues only something of local SI? Are broader RWM issues always best discussed within national and international forums? Is there a clear tendency to separate ‘technical’ issues from ‘social’ issues in the design of SI processes?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana26 Who Who : Stakeholders and How they Gained Recognition How have stakeholders come to recognize themselves as stakeholders? Do some stakeholders play an important role in defining, or even representing, others? production May SI be understood as dedicated to the production of stakeholders involved in RWM programmes?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana27 … incentivesdisincentives Underlying incentives or disincentives that help an actor accept or refuse a stakeholder identity? already hosting reluctant Local communities already hosting nuclear facilities clearly find it easier to identify themselves as stakeholders in the siting of new waste facilities. Why are they not more reluctant to do so?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana28 … geology The role that geology plays in defining stakeholders in the siting of waste facilities appears to fluctuate over time. When does geology make a stakeholder into a stakeholder and when does it not? What are the expectations that SI in RWM will be further broadened in the different national contexts? How might such a broadening proceed?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana29 Two Questions for this Afternoon Does hosting a nuclear facility automatically make a community into a stakeholder in the siting of future waste facilities? Is SI only something to be practiced in response to concrete issues (e.g. siting decisions) or can it serve to set the agenda more broadly for RWM programmes in different national contexts?
CARL - Workshop Ljubljana30 Six Questions for this Afternoon Are “nuclear host communities” automatically stakeholders in the siting of future waste facilities? Is SI only something to be practiced in response to concrete issues? Formalization of stakeholder involvement: a good or a bad thing? Expectations from “internationalization”? Does your framing of the issue of RWM differ from that of other key groups/organisations? Has anything caused you(r group) to reframe your view? What might cause you to reframe?