EESC, Trèves building 2015 September 7 EESC Workshop on Public Participation in RWM

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) - radioactive waste management and public participation A synthesis of its learnings & guiding principles Jan Van Damme BOOM Policy Research & KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

1.Introduction 2.Guiding principles & confidence factors 3.Key drivers for public trust (framework) 4.Integrating key drivers in an overall approach 5.Conclusion

Introduction E-TRACK (DG ENER & JRC): transparency and public participation in the implementation of policies on multiple energy sources First E-TRACK project: public participation in RWM KU Leuven Public Governance Institute has reviewed the work developed by Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD  JRC Report

Introduction FSC established in 2000: 15 years of experience based on direct stakeholder exchange Review focuses on insights FSC regarding key trust drivers in RWM Document analysis of FSC flyers and reports JRC and NEA Feedback on draft reports

Guiding principles & confidence factors Take into account subjective assesment of RW and its risks (non- experts) Control and familiarity important components of safety Establishing feelings of control and familiarity contributes to trust and confidence Overarching principles for decision-making in RWM identified by FSC: flexibility, social learning and public involvement (NEA, 2004a) as well as accountability (2013c) (! Balancing these principles is important but not always easy)

Guiding principles & confidence factors Confidence factors for developing feelings of control and familiarity: openness, transparency, technical competence & procedural equity (NEA, 2010b) Openness refers to an attitude that includes a willingness to listen, to change and to adapt. Transparency refers to the process of making actions visible and enabling people to access and understand information. 4 confidence factors contribute to confidence, trust & consent (and, ownership)

Key trust drivers in RWM

Level 1: Roles and structures: -Firm national commitment -Clear and widely supported policy framework (e.g. Open debate; status quo unacceptable, clear roles, benefit packages and community oversight, etc.) -Trustworthy RWM institution as committed driver of policy processes (e.g. Robust to survive changes in political orientation) -Citizen participation and empowerment (e.g. Driving role for local communities; volunteerism, veto right,..)

Key trust drivers Level 2: The decision-making process: -Balanced process (e.g. Balance between fairness and competence or transparency and flexibility) -Facilitating (social) learning (e.g. Allowing time) -Allowing added value for host communities (e.g. Financial resources, hiring experts,..)

Key trust drivers Level 3: RWM Institutions: -Demonstrate competence, transparency and willigness to listen to and involve others (e.g. At the level of the organisation: mission, organisational featues & behaviour)

Key trust drivers Level 4: RWM facilities: -Robust and flexible (e.g. Facility design) -Transparent (e.g. “Do not hide these facilities”) -Part of local development scheme offering substantial local benefits -Allowing community oversight and stewardship

Integrating trust drivers in overall approach Stepwise approach: -“a plan laying out policy development and implementation by steps or stages that are, to some extent, reversible and adjustable, within the limits of practicality” (NEA, 2013c) -Cyclical approach allows stakeholders to gain familiarity and control -Commonly adopted in NEA member countries -Challenges e.g. clear roles, sufficient time, committed driver,..

Integrating trust drivers in an integral approach Partnership approach: -Focuses on the relations between stakeholders -a practical method for effective collaboration with local communities and informed consent with regard to siting RWM facilities (NEA, 2013c). -Formal or informal agreement -Key components: voluntarism, right of veto, collaboration with affected communities in facility design and implementation, and provision of community benefits.  empowerment of local communities -Challenges e.g. sufficient time and resources

Conclusion Confidence factors > control and familiarity> trust Openness, transparency, competence and procedural equity in everyday practice Framework with confidence factors at 4 levels: roles and structures; the decision-making process; RWM institutions, and; RWM facilities FSC findings in line with public policy literature (regarding other ‘wicked issues’) on developing public trust and policy consent Input, process and output legitimacy of policy Balancing sometimes conflictual principles such as accountability and flexibility

1624 June 2016 Questions? Functional mailbox