1. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT THE COWAM EUROPEAN PROJECT EURADWASTE, 29 March 2004

2. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 Nuclear Waste Management (NWM) a global problem looking for local solution Local - national linking, a very problematic issue for NWM in the last decades A need to address the issue from the local point of view An observed deficit in the networking of local actors in NWM at the European level The context in 1999

3. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 A Concerted Action based on a structured dialogue methodology (TRUSTNET) Supported by The EC DG Research - Radiation Protection-Nuclear Waste Management A 3 years programme in Europe with meetings hosted by local communities A 3 years collective learning process (2000-2003)

4. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 to carry out a collective reflection on the way to improve NWM decision making processes at local and regional levels in Europe to create the conditions for local actors to participate actively, to bring their views and concerns and to network at the European level to facilitate a fair, equitable dialogue of local actors with operators, public authorities and experts to issue recommendation for improving the quality of decision making in NWM, notably at local level in Europe Objectives of COWAM

5. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 Actors from Local Communities involved in NWM –Local governments and administration –NWM local commissions members –Local Trade Unions –Local NGOs and Local Action Groups –Concerned Individuals NWM Implementers National Authorities in NWM Experts The COWAM network categories

6. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 Local actors Implementers Public Authorities Experts 65% 7 % 18 % 10 % 230 participants

7. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004

8. To assess actual experiences of decision making at local level including different contexts of NWM The pluralistic case studies The single interest working groups The pluralistic recommendation groups To facilitate expression in native languages COWAM Methodological options

9. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The pluralistic case studies

10. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004

11. The Recommendation Groups reports in the Cordoba final seminar (March 2003) Conclusions rather consensual NWM is a common concern Common problematic of governance among various contexts of NWM Different innovations and difficulties in each national context Need for early involvement of local actors in the decision making process Several complementary areas for improving the governance of NWM

12. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 Identified areas for improving the governance of NWM National framework for NWM with capacity for local actors to influence it Sustainable development of the hosting communities Quality of the decision-making process Access of local actors to expertise Implementation of local democracy

13. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The implementation of local democracy Local democracy is not there to collect opinions but to allow people to discuss and establish their interest Local democracy requires a defined democratic process to work within at national level It must be clear from the start who takes the decision and on what basis Involved local actors need guarantees that : –their comments and questions are listen to –the project is likely to be modified and influenced by them –the final decision will be eventually explained and justified Final decision rests with elected representatives at local and national levels

14. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The implementation of local democracy Local democracy is enacted through a local partnership between the various concerned actors Principles of action and best practices are possible to identify but there is no one best solution Local democracy on RWM requires resources in order to : –Develop participatory processes and communication –Provide local actors with capacity building and training for meaningful participation –Give opportunities for additional expertise and means of local monitoring Through independent funding (polluter-pay principle, clearing mechanism)

15. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The access of non-experts to expertise in the local decision making process The need for expertise includes: technical, social, economic, ethical, law, public health, decision science expertise Access to diverse and pluralistic sources of expertise is a factor of confidence for local actors Access to pluralistic expertise supports local actors in : –Framing the technical and non technical dimensions of the project –Raising questions and making comments on the information provided by the implementers –Analysing impact and performance assessment Need for appropriate clearing house mechanisms for funding local access to expertise

16. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The existence of a national framework for NWM and the capacity of local actors to influence it Cooperation and shared responsibility between levels of governance are required : –Credibility of local democracy in NWM –Articulation of national and local interests A national framework is an essential basis : –Legislative framework –Clear definition of roles –Basic H&S standards –National solidarity with local communities Local actors should be provided with channels to influence the design, implementation and review of the national policy, including : –NWM policy within the broader energy policy –Technical options and concepts –Site selection process

17. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The sustainable development of the territories hosting the NWM facilities Hosting a NWM site must not become a handicap or a factor of dependency for a territory Diverging views on the relevance of compensation : –Bribery for accepting undesirable and hazardous activities –National contribution for local territories to host a NWM facility in relation with their future and long term sustainable development The sustainable development of the area should be considered and discussed early in the process involving the local community in a reflection on its future –Discussing alternative or complementary economic activities –Considering the operation but also the long-term monitoring and awareness of hosting communities

18. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 The quality of the decision making process from the short term to the long term From short term to long term, an integrated process involving: consistency, iterativity, option analysis, transparency, accountability and coherence A stepwise approach –Criteria for go/nogo decisions should be defined in advance for each step –Need for clear and definite alternative options with regard to potential failure –Criteria should be discussed and reviewed at national and local levels as the implementation progresses –Each step should define the role of local communities and their interaction with other parties It is more comfortable for local communities having a veto right to participate effectively in a site selection process: While safety remains a paramount criteria, voluntary and free participation is criteria of quality for the decision making process

19. EURADWASTE 29 March 2004 With a significant involvement of civil society, COWAM is a singular initiative in NWM The strong involvement of local actors in COWAM has contributed to reframe the understanding of NWM Implementation of COWAM recommendations should be considered at local, national or international levels Networking and empowerment of local actors is a key asset for improving governance in NWM Need for a strong effort of innovation and experimentation in Europe to effectively create new features of governance in NWM Conclusion