The importance of trust in environmental risk communication: the case of LILW repository site selection in Slovenia Darinka Drapal, Mojca Drevenšek (PR’P Communications Consultancy) Metka Kralj (ARAO - Agency for Radwaste Management) Draft paper for the SRA–Europe conference: “Innovation and Technical Progress: Benefit without Risk?” Ljubljana 11 – 13 September 2006

A three-part presentation  Part 1: environment, perception of environmental issues…  Part 2: Slovenia and radioactive waste  Part 3: case study - local partnership in the LILW repository site selection

The attitudes towards the environment Q: “In general, how informed do you feel about environmental issues?” 71% of Slovene citizens feel ‘very well’ or at least ‘well’ informed about environmental issues What does that mean? What is the definition of ‘being informed’? Source: Eurobarometer - “The attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, 2005

The attitudes towards radioactive waste Q: “How well informed do you think you are about radioactive waste?” 46% of Slovenes feel very well informed about radioactive waste Source: Eurobarometer - “Radioactive waste”, 2005

Who do you trust most when it comes to (a) environmental issues and (b) radioactive waste management in your country?  Most: Environmetal protection associations Scientist TV  Least: Companies Trade unions Radio Sources: Eurobarometer - “The attitudes of European citizens towards the environment”, 2005, and Eurobarometer – “Radioactive waste”, 2005

What is so different today? Trust in organizations (companies, decision- makers, media etc.) is declining. Publics have better access to information. Publics have a right to participate in environmental decision-making… Charlie Chaplin: Modern Times (1936)

Three components of trust The components of trust Expertise (knowledge, competency etc.) Caring (empathy, consistency etc.) Honesty (openess, objectivity etc.) Covello (1992) Kasperson (1991) Peters et al. (1997) Renn and Levine (1991)

Slovenia and radioactive waste  Sources of radioactive waste 1 NPP: Krško Nuclear Power Plant small producers: medicine, research activities, industry  Role of ARAO  Public opinion researched since 1995…

Short chronological overview  First preliminary studies: before NPP went into operation  1990 – 1993: the siting process suspended in its final phase; strong dissaproval within local communities – mainly due to lack of information/communication  Project continuation estimated as not feasible!  ARAO assigned to start a new site selection process  Key lesson learned: public acceptance = crucial element

Q1: “People in Slovenia benefit from the use of nuclear technologies.” Source: ARAO/Ninamedia, 2005.

Q2: “Dealing with radioactive waste is a serious problem in Slovenia.” Source: ARAO/Ninamedia, 2005.

Q3: “In Slovenia, we have to take care for the repositing of our own radioactive waste.” Source: ARAO/Ninamedia, 2005.

Q4: “Because we produce radioactive waste in Slovenia, we urgently need an appropriate repository for them.” Source: ARAO/Ninamedia, 2005.

Q5: Who should make the final decision regarding the construction of radioactive waste repository in Slovenia? Source: ARAO/Ninamedia, 2005.

How to establish and maintain trust? The components of trust Expertise (knowledge, competency etc.) Caring (empathy, consistency etc.) Honesty (openess, objectivity etc.) Covello (1992) Kasperson (1991) Peters et al. (1997) Renn and Levine (1991)

Possible answer: through a local partnership  Principles: Equality of partners Transparency Opennes Honesty Professional credibility Tolerance Respecting the opinions of others etc.

Local partnership – goals  Three groups of goals: Information and communication Public participation in the decision- making process Building and increasing trust and facilitating dialogue

Local parnership – partners  Three partners: local community – citizens, everyone interested to directly or indirectly take part in the local partnership, ARAO - Agency for Radwaste Management (as the representative of the investor, the Republic of Slovenia), Municipality Krško - the local decision- makers.

Organizational structure The coordinating committee (5 working groups) The national advisory board The secretariat Sustainable development Aarhus Convention Restricted land use Technical cooperation Environment Assembly of all (5) working groups

Cross-cutting themes  Internal communication  External communication ( local media etc.)  Financial viewpoint  How can we (really) participate in the decision-making process? To what extent?  Respect for minority opinions  Collision of interests (Who are you?, Where do you come from?)

Thank you for your attention!  Comments,  ideas,  comparisons,  suggestions… …are more than wellcome! Mojca Drevenšek Darinka Drapal Metka Kralj