1. Localisation of Decisions To what extend can the localisation of decisions help to attain publicly supported collective decisions on troublesome siting issues in RWM? BelgiumStakeholder engagement is primarily focused on the siting of a LILW repository and realised through the setting up of local partnerships in volunteering communities. The decisions taken in the partnerships are related to a specific locality. The municipalities involved have a right to veto (but this is not legally rooted). The decision on the siting issue is first taken by the partnerships, followed by the municipal councils. The final decision is still to be taken by the federal government. CanadaThe NWMO has recommended that: the siting process be collaboratively designed with affected “communities of interest” (including interest-based and site-based communities of interest); an informed willing host community be sought; it is up to the potential host community to determine how it will demonstrate its willingness to host the facility and invite its citizens to express their views. FinlandFirst Posiva applied for the Decision in Principle (DiP) in May 1999. The municipal council of Eurajoki approved this in Jan 2000, then the government made the DiP in Dec 2000, ratified by Parliament in May 2001. The local struggle over the siting started in the 1970’s when the nuclear power plant was build (Eurajoki accepted the plant, but not the waste) and intensified in the early 1990’s (council decision in 1992 against hosting the HLW). However in 1993 the same council voted in favour of hosting the waste (possible reasons: export and import of RW meanwhile prohibited by law + chances for repository to be sited in neighbouring community, without any benefits for Eurajoki). According to the Nuclear Energy Act candidate municipalities have a right of veto. SloveniaThe decisions taken in the partnerships are related to a specific locality. The municipalities involved have a legal right to veto. The decision on the sitting issue is first taken by the partnerships, followed by the municipal councils. The final decision is to be taken by the government. SwedenMunicipal powers of veto have been essential to the formation of local stakeholder identities in Swedish municipalities. In a national siting process for a deep repository for spent fuel, local powers of veto also enable local stakeholders to 'move up a league' and exert influence on the national level helping to shape government decisions. UKThe current national policy process is still at the options appraisal stage and has not yet begun to consider implementation or siting questions. The current stage involves both national stakeholder groups and local representatives from communities with an existing interest. At present what local decision making powers exist in relation to siting lie with the local planning authority but these can be overruled by the Secretary of State.  Could the localisation of decisions empower local communities (through for instance voluntarism, veto powers and compensations or incentives)?  In your experience, does stakeholder engagement entail a kind of local decision power?  Does the local empowerment affect the decision-making process? What role can for instance a local right to veto play in a siting process?  Can stakeholder engagement in a voluntary siting process lead to a genuine partnership in decision-making? Or are volunteering stakeholders simply being co-opted by more powerful interests?  What could be the advantages and disadvantages of formalizing stakeholder engagement? Is this a realistic and feasible procedure?  Do SI and step-wise decision-making (providing for regular updates and decision alternatives at key stages) inevitably go hand in hand? Can the one spur on the other? How long should certain decisions be kept open (e.g. the choice of a siting place or the repository concept)?  Is there sufficient cooperation or interaction between different decision making levels?  Can SI work without some relation to a location? Are national identifications regarding nuclear issues as strong as local identifications?  What is the relation between the local level and the international level? Is there interaction in one way or another? Should there be and what should this imply? Context CARL Workshop Antwerp Discussion November 30 – December 1, 2005