1. Stakeholder Competence What sort of input can citizen stakeholders have in a decision-making process? Should their input be mainly focused on the ethical and societal aspects, or should they also be given the possibility to have a firm say on technical issues? BelgiumObjective of the local partnerships: Work together on an integrated siting project (integrating socio-economic and technical issues). Critical reflection of technical issues in the working groups did not lead to rejection of the basic NIRAS/ONDRAF proposals, but did provoke a number of changes to the projects. CanadaObjective of the NWMO study: To develop collaboratively with Canadians a management approach for the long-term care of Canada’s used nuclear fuel that is “socially acceptable, technically sound, environmentally responsible and economically feasible”. All citizens considered stakeholders in the approach taken to reaching a public policy decision. Collaborative process involved dialogue among specialists and citizens to identify objectives for the RWM approach and then assessment of possible approaches against these objectives. FinlandEIA process focused on socio-economic issues whereas the Decision in Principle (DiP) process gave more room for safety and technical issues. EIA was carried out in four municipalities where as DiP only in one municipality (Eurajoki). Local referendum was discussed in each candidate municipality. In the nuclear communities (Eurajoki and Loviisa) a local referendum was rejected, whereas in non-nuclear communities (Kuhmo and Äänekoski) the local referendum would have been organized if Posiva had included the municipalities in the DiP application. SloveniaObjective of the partnership: Involve interested public mainly from the local community in the integrated sitting process. Social acceptability is an important part of this process, and is considered to present sufficient criteria for accepting/rejecting the location on the base of technical acceptability. Technical issues are discussed in partnership. SwedenIn 2002, the siting process for a deep repository for HLW moved from a feasibility study phase to a site investigation phase. This move poses new challenges for the municipalities of Östhammar and Oskarshamn. If they want to remain active stakeholders during this phase sustaining the EIA process, they will have to develop new technical competences. UKDuring the 1996 public inquiry into the construction of a rock laboratory at Sellafield, local stakeholders challenged the proposal on technical grounds, contributing to its eventual rejection. At a later stage, stakeholder and public concern that waste should be monitored and be retrievable once emplaced in a repository has led Nirex, the RWM organisation, to modify its technical repository concept to incorporate both monitoring and retrievability. Currently stakeholders and members of the public are being consulted by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) as part of the process of RWM options appraisal. Their views will inform CoRWM’s final recommendation.  Should the input of stakeholders be limited to social and ethical aspects, compensations and incentives or should they also have a voice in technical matters?  Can citizens take decisions in technical matters or are they restricted to give advice?  If lay people should be involved in technical matters, what resources (information, training, funding) do they need to engage competently? How should they access these resources?  To what extent do citizen stakeholders want to be profoundly involved in technical discussions? Have they enough time to fully engage themselves?  What could provoke something like ‘consultation fatigue’? Have you experienced this at some point?  Did you experience a difference between stakeholders and experts concerning a technical matter?  What to do if there is a lasting disagreement between stakeholders and experts concerning a technical matter?  Have you experienced a difference in the way lay people and experts deal with uncertainties? Did this pose problems? How could such differences be overcome?  Given the tendency towards the formation of an international stakeholder network, how could this be used to exchange experiences? Should this be focused on social and ethical issues, or primarily on technical issues? How could this work for you? Context CARL Workshop Antwerp Discussion November 30 – December 1, 2005