Workshop Moderator: Ann MacLachlan

Transcription

1 Workshop Moderator: Ann MacLachlan

2 Keynotes: OECD Secretary General Angel Gurría: other sectors can learn from the nuclear community on how to engage stakeholders in decision making. The main challenge for the nuclear community is how to involve the general public in a highly technical area and avoid letting the loud minority capture the debate NEA Director General William D. Magwood IV: Experts cannot act alone to solve difficult problems, but stakeholder Involvement has not gotten the attention it deserves in the nuclear world USNRC Chairman Stephen G. Burns: Trust is fundamentally important in relation to risk. When regulators respect and listen to all stakeholders, we build rings of trust across the world French M.P. Julien Aubert: Too much [public] debate kills the debate those with responsibility for governing must decide in the end Argentina's Undersecretary for Nuclear Energy, Julian Gadano: reaching agreement requires a sustainable relation with stakeholders, including regional governments. This is important because in the end, the best project is the one you can finish!

3 Session 1: In the past, public authorities typically took an authoritative approach to decision making in the nuclear domain. The legal framework for stakeholder involvement has progressed tremendously since the 1950s Legal requirements for stakeholder involvement in the nuclear domain are determined by international conventions and by regional (e.g., EU directives) and national law International nuclear conventions (Convention on Nuclear Safety, Joint Convention...) are concerned primarily with intergovernmental notification, with basic public information obligations The Aarhus and Espoo Conventions (governing public information, public participation and Environmental Impact Assessments in a transboundary context) require notification of and opportunity for comment by all those potentially affected by a decision In the legal context, stakeholder is not synonymous with the public. The Aarhus/Espoo privileges for the public do not extend to other stakeholder categories such as the implementer Conflicts between obligations under different legal instruments can be a source of confusion, notably in Europe Stakeholder involvement is not a vote : for the decision making body in the US, one informed comment may carry more weight than many unsubstantiated and/or repetitive comments Stakeholder involvement has a cost in terms of resources and time, and must be designed so as not to compromise security nor inject too much uncertainty

4 Session 2: Regulators must balance the need to involve stakeholders against their need to remain independent, for example in safety reviews. But some regulators consider stakeholder involvement the key to their organisation s independence Regulators have different tools and actions to involve stakeholders, including those imposed by formal legal requirements, but also societal tools (social media, meetings) Stakeholder involvement is resource intensive (personnel, financial, time), especially when the process includes formal questions requiring formal answers Stakeholder involvement can directly impact the regulatory body s credibility, positively or negatively. Credibility can be lost quickly, while regaining it will take time and effort Examples presented showed the diversity of practices between countries according to legal framework, nuclear control organisation, nuclear history, national culture Crucial to understand the expectations of stakeholders, to adapt answers to their needs Stakeholder involvement is a means to build mutual trust. Its success can be measured in different ways, there is no one metric Trust is not a goal, but a means for regulatory effectiveness. Stakeholder involvement is not a goal, but a means toward quality decisions

5 Session 3: Radiological protection (RP) aspects should be integrated into societal decisions, rather than integrating societal decisions into radiological protection decisions Decisions are informed by science, but are driven by societal considerations Local knowledge is a resource to be actively used in stakeholder involvement in nuclear decision making SI should start by listening to concerns, then addressing these. Should start with plain language, but be prepared to give more detail if asked for details Achieving stakeholder understanding of radiation effects and RP aspects is a long term process. For this, education is needed, start with young students Trust is essential. Long-term interaction and understanding of local circumstances can assist in building trust Take your time, recognize that SI can be a resource-intensive process

6 Session 4: A consensus exists that the burden of radioactive waste management should not be transferred to future generations but rather a long term solution found now. This is inherently a political issue Time is not the enemy, but an ally to reach a solution that is stable over time and built on trust Younger generations need to be more involved - they are ultimately the ones who will need to address waste management in the future. Not easy but Forum for Stakeholder Confidence was successful in attracting young public to dialogue Canada has strategy of adaptive phased management, step by step approach to involving stakeholders in decisions on geological disposal : 1) listening and learning, 2) dialogue and deliberation, 3) collaboration and partnership Among challenges presented by Switzerland : ensuring cross-border cooperation when siting regions contain foreign populations); addressing the possibility that participants in dialogues might be stigmatized; recognizing need to react to public comments Swedish Östhammar municipality (proposed repository site): local public less concerned with long term, more with concrete impacts from the facility construction and operation

7 Session 5 & 6: Nuclear power proponents understand that stakeholder involvement at some level is very important; they struggle with how (and how much) EDF: even if public meetings are dominated by opponents asking the same questions time after time, it s still an opportunity to tell your story Cameco s example of bringing civic leaders from Australia to stay with and talk with local families around their Canadian mining facilities (native populations in both cases) showed the advantage of seeking to meet stakeholder needs, as opposed to controlling the information and messages The importance of local participation throughout the process was stressed repeatedly. In Fennovoima s case the measure of success was the community s reaction upon hearing they had won the site selection There are always good ideas from stakeholders to upgrade projects mainly not technical, but about economic benefits and continuous information Ways can be found to involve expert stakeholders in answering questions involving confidential information One lesson from experience : Seeking mutual agreement with stakeholders is more effective than trying to convince them of your viewpoint (they should not feel pushed )

8 Session 7: Stakeholder involvement concerning other technologies (carbon storage, high-voltage lines) presents similar challenges as for nuclear Public acceptance is a proxy for availability of clear information, procedural justice, trust in company/authorities, socio-economic impact, environmental impact, and distributive justice (risks vs. benefits). This goes beyond NIMBY A project/entity must establish legitimacy rather than just meeting legal requirements Need for project is a very frequent concern among public : how decision was taken, is it lowest-cost deployment. They want to know about alternatives. Compensation is not the public s main aim. Benefits should go beyond compensation to making community a better place to live Can policy decisions (= social license) can be divorced from technology decisions (= facility license)? This works in Finland, but research elsewhere suggests stakeholders want discussion to remain open on all aspects

9 Session 8: Social media is a tool to complement existing information and traditional media tools Rapidity of social media is both advantage and disadvantage : more vulnerability to communication crises, but also more opportunity to counter criticism and/or put out correct information Integrate social media into outreach to stakeholders : invite public input. Be part of the conversation in real time Monitor social media to learn what stakeholders are thinking ; comments can be solicited via organisation s blog post Social media can be used to strengthen existing relationships Live tweeting about/from major events with quotes from credible individuals gives realtime information to stakeholders and allows control of the message Provide dedicated resources/staff to adapt to specific rules of social media and maintain vigilance on multiple platforms, with support from senior management; internal network of experts to quickly respond to questions on social media appears to be a good practice

10 Dialogue Sessions (a few highlights) : High level of stakeholder involvement is the fundament of democracy The objective of stakeholder involvement should be: To achieve/reach a better-informed, sound decision To create value/benefit for all To build stakeholders knowledge level and trust Need to differentiate the licensing decision (regulatory authority) from the overall project when reflecting on stakeholder involvement The general public is more heterogenous than other stakeholder groups more difficult to determine their expectations, intentions - what they want from the decision making process and what they want the decision to be. Even though the ultimate decision may not agree with what some stakeholders want, each stakeholder must be able to express him- or herself and to feel that decision makers listened, acknowledged his/her views, considered them and are able to explain how the decision was reached This approach not only reinforces trust but ultimately fosters the best decisions and improves the project. Involving stakeholders brings benefits for both decision makers and stakeholders.

11 What we learned together (1) : There is no one-approach-fits-all: SI process needs to be adapted to country-specific context. But some effective practices seem to be universal, such as face-to-face meetings/personal engagement/local engagement The process must be inclusive of all stakeholders, even if in public engagement, a bottomup approach has proved successful in many countries and circumstances Take the time to engage and debate. Start very early in the process. It will be time and resources well-spent Younger generations must be included early in the process to ensure a sustainable dialogue with the public. Education can be part of this over the long periods of time involved in nuclear activities. Stakeholder Involvement is not static. The world is evolving and innovation is needed to adapt and improve : e. g. adapting international methods to home country context, or learning to use new tools like social media

12 What we learned together (2): A need for common understanding of terms We found a broad range of meanings associated with basic terms like Stakeholder, Public, Affected, Concerned, Involvement, Engagement, Confidence, Trust etc. We always need to clarify. Agreement on the objective of Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder involvement is more than public consultation, public engagement. Take all stakeholders into account. This improves the quality of decision making and improves chances for success of a project Some commonalities Face-to-face/personal interaction/learning how to listen is useful everywhere A vast body of experience exists Best practices, concepts. No need to re-invent the wheel! Including long NEA experience in areas of waste (FSC) and radiation protection (Villigen workshops)

13 Thank you for the attention Please find all presentations and other materials on this link