CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 CARL Workshop Antwerp Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 2 Current process of SI Object of SI in “SLOVENIA” –Kind of waste: LILW –Scope of SI: site selection and investigations, disposal options –Subject of dialogue: both technical and socio-economical aspects

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 3 Organization of SI in “SLOVENIA” –Who has initiated the process? ARAO on the base of relevant legislation (2002); in 2004 issue invitations for local communities to enter the search process –Is the SI process built on a legal basis? On the base of Environmental Protection Act, Spatial Planning Act, Aarchus convenction –Who are the pioneers, which groups/persons take a lead in the process? ARAO due to earlier failures recognized the need for SI process and stimulate it –Who ‘guards’ the process? ARAO –Who funds the process? State (NPP decomissioning fund) through ARAO –Has the SI real decision power? Due to the fact that main stakeholders are local communities with veto power, SI power is real Current Process of SI

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 4 Current Process of SI SI in SLOVENIA –ARAO lead first disscusions on national level – very general with all interested parties –SI are organized on the local level. The principal arena of SI is site selection. –PARTIES: Local communities, NGO, media, regulatory bodies and ARAO –Voluntarism (forced for local community if it apply for paricipation in search process, not so for others) –Only direct veto power have local communities, others can only influence public opinion (indirect power)

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 5 Stakeholder Identification Stakeholders in SLOVENIA - 3 partnerships for the moment, 2 LC on waiting list - Beside official representatives of targeted local community and ARAO, other stakeholders are more or less invited on the base of their mere existence - Very lax structure, depending on location and interest - ROLE OF SI: Arena and facilitator for open dialogue: clarifying problems, negotiating,

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 6 Re-Framing process crisisTechnocratic  [crisis]  Socio-technical - Failure of the first search for location in nineties ( ) - Non-transparent procedure, local community was not involved; greater sensitivity to nuclear issues due to Chernobil and Green movements - In parts of the administration and nuclear lobby there are still preferences toward technocratic solutions.

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 7 Current Framing Framing of current SI program –At the moment there is a dominant socio- technical frame, but technocratic inertia in administrative/technical structures on all levels is tearing it up especially due to the rather great public opposition toward repository in ones locality –Socio-technical solution is existing mainly due to the failure of other approaches as only guarantee of possible success –Socio-technical frame is perhaps the most evident in radwaste issue, but is present on other similar issues, so it has some generality

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 8 Overview Slovenia Socio-technical approach as the only efficient way of dealing with this kinds of problems proved itself successfully Tendencies toward technocratic solutions appearing periodically are sapping it SI need a lot of facilitation from the side of the state, otherwise only different kinds of opposition groups could appear

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 SLOVENIA 9 Concluding Remarks Definition of stakeholders and methods of SI Partnership organisation

CARL Workshop Antwerp November 30 – December 1, 2005 CARL Workshop Antwerp Results of the Country Studies SLOVENIA