Stakeholder Involvement performance evaluation, research and methodologies Horst Monken-Fernandes Waste Technology Section - NEFW

Transcription

1 Stakeholder Involvement performance evaluation, research and methodologies Horst Monken-Fernandes Waste Technology Section - NEFW Technical Meeting on Developing Public Communication, Consultation and Participation in Nuclear Power Programmes Vienna September/2016

2 How do we define stakeholders? A group or individual with an interest in or a role to play in a project, or a decision making process. Why may stakeholders be interested in what you do? They may be potentially affected by a decision you will make. Decisions always result in a trade off of positive and negative issues. A decision may lead to harm to human health and the environment. They may wish to see funds spent elsewhere.

3 What is stakeholder engagement? Stakeholder engagement is the process of informing and involving individuals and organizations that may be affected by decisions being made for a project.

4 Why undertake stakeholder engagement? It is important to never assume that you know what people care or worry about. It is only through actually asking them that you will understand their concerns, aspirations and open up opportunities for partnerships and dialogue.

5 Why undertake stakeholder engagement? You may wish to demonstrate that what you are proposing is correct and gain community buy-in to your ideas or work programmes. You may need someone's approval for what you wish to implement. You or your company may not be trusted and you may wish to build trust. Your company may for historical reasons have been secretive, and you wish to change this policy. Your decisions will undoubtedly have an impact on others. People may have concerns about your work or they may be afraid of the consequences of your actions.

6 What do we need to communicate? The nature of the situation. Different options and solutions. Impacts/benefits that a selected option might have on the community. Negative impacts, positive impacts and benefits Risks to human health and the environment. Determine the impact of a particular decision or option on human health and the environment. Risk communication. We are generally communicating technical information. This is itself a great challenge!

7 Ten Principles for Communicating Technical Information in Relation to Nuclear and Radiological Matters Develop TRUST! Educating people and providing information in a transparent manner is crucial. Develop an engagement process that is truly a two way process. Openly discuss risk perception and risk communication. Never try to trivialise risk. Where possible simplify the language you use. Explain how radioactive materials are often used in everyday life. Try to demonstrate that you too are a member of the public. Walk the talk Try to undertake what you wish others to undertake.

8 Typical stakeholders Residents Independent Experts Other Authorities Competent Authorities Problem Holders Companies Consultants Contractors Interest Group Government Environmental Department Worker Welfare

9 What Makes A Source Credible Assessed in First 30 Seconds Empathy and/or Caring Competence and Expertise Honesty and Openness Commitment and Dedication

10 Evolution in Stakeholder Dialogue Decide Announce Defend Use technical and political criteria to make a decision in secret. Stakeholder communication Essentially a one way process. Stakeholder engagement Two way process. Active participation Stakeholders may assist in the decision making process via attendance at workshops.

11 Mechanisms for engagement Public Meetings, Workshops and Open House policy. Site visits. Internet based meetings. Newsletters. Technical forums and training sessions. Project Information Centres. Opinion Surveys. Focus Groups and Citizen Advisory Boards. Community Liaison Groups.

12 Why is engagement around nuclear/radiological issues often difficult? There is a general lack of trust of the nuclear industry. The peaceful production of energy through nuclear power plants is still often linked to defence related issues and the production of nuclear weapons. The lack of trust in the nuclear industry unfortunately affects mining industries too. The ability of the media to influence the public. Rightly or wrongly! The stockpiling of long lived and highly active waste materials and no perceived solutions for such wastes People cant see radioactivity and radiation so don t understand its potential impact. People don t trust the language used by scientists and our explanation or even dismissal of risk.

13 Responses to a survey on trusted sources of information about nanotechnology SOURCE: Based on data from Scheufele et al., 2009.

14 Public confidence in institutional leaders SOURCE: NSB, 2014.

15 WHAT IS EVALUATION? A set of techniques used to: judge the effectiveness or quality of an event; improve its effectiveness; and inform decisions about its design, development, and implementation Evaluation can occur before, during, and after an activity. Three stages of evaluation are front end, formative, and summative (Michalchik, 2013).

16 WHY EVALUATE? Evaluation can make communication events more effective at meeting their intended goals. Evaluation enables organizing an activity to learn about: intended participants, receive advanced feedback about communication design, and determine whether the goals and outcomes are met. A well-designed evaluation improves the quality of an experience by helping better define goals, identify important milestones and indicators of success, and support ongoing improvements. Evaluation provides valuable information to stakeholders that support communication.

17 DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION PLAN Planning for evaluation is different from planning the communication event itself. Evaluation planning integrates a clear understanding of the intent and context of the communication event with the purposes of the evaluation. A preliminary step is to provide the evaluator with background information about the project to provide the necessary context for the evaluation work.

18 Project Goals and Outcomes Inputs: the initial resources of the project Outputs: the direct products or services of the experience, which are typically easy to quantify: the number of workshops, the number of people that participate in a project, the number of web pages that a project produces. Outcomes: the changes to individuals, groups, or communities as a result of project participation, Short term: occurring within a few years of the event; Midterm: occurring 4 to 7 years after the event; or Long term: occurring many years after the event has commenced.

19 Evaluation Questions, Indicators, and Measures Evaluation Evaluation is driven by questions that focus on the intended outcomes. The evaluation questions should establish both what is and what is not to be evaluated. To be useful, evaluation questions must be answerable. Evaluation questions should be developed for different stages of the project and should reflect different ways that evaluation can inform each stage. Indicators. Indicators are measured when performing the evaluation. They provide evidence related to the targeted outcomes for participants. Indicators should directly align with the outcomes and should be clear and measurable in the same way that a good evaluation question must be answerable. Measurement. counting the number of participants; recording the length of time participants stay; observing participants facial expressions and degree of attentiveness; logging the types of questions participants ask of the presenter; collecting participants descriptions of why they attended, what they liked, what they learned that was new, and what they might do next or differently based on their experience; identifying any unexpected activities

20 DATA COLLECTION Data collection methods should be determined after developing the targeted outcomes, evaluation questions, indicators, and evaluation design. When planning how to collect data for each indicator, consider the following questions: Who are the intended participants, and what specific information do you hope to get from them? What method of data collection is best suited to obtain the needed information from these participants? When will the information be collected, and by whom?

21 Possible Measurement Approaches Public Presentations Length of time present, questions asked, information seeking, follow-on interviews; Websites, videos, broadcasts data analytics, participation information follow-on interviews Involvement with and after-school program participant level of involvement, observation of participants engaging in questioning, follow-on interviews

22 Project Goals and Outcomes Basic logic model for evaluating chemistry communication experiences. SOURCE: Michalchik, 2013.

23 Summary There is not necessarily one single approach communication with stakeholders is nation, culture and even project specific. The level of stakeholder engagement should reflect the complexity of the problem in hand. Proper identification of stakeholders and their interests/concerns is the key to success. Effective dialogue needs time and money (it may lead to delays in your project). Listen to your stakeholders by establishing a two way process and establish trust.

24 Summary Evaluation can seem intimidating at first. Simple evaluation techniques may be appropriate for a small-scale communication activity, but it may be preferable to collaborate with a professional evaluator or knowledgeable colleague when evaluating larger-scale, extended events. The primary purpose of evaluation is to gather and analyse participant data that will help the events (both the current event and future iterations) achieve their intended outcomes. Because evaluation is evidence based, carrying out at least some evaluation is more likely to lead to effective communication than not employing evaluation at all.

25 Thank you!

26 Annex I What is the IAEA doing in the field of Environmental Remediation? 26

27 Publications NE-Series Reports

28 The CIDER Project Objective: to improve current levels of performance on decommissioning and environmental remediation projects, by: o o o Raising awareness at a policy level and promote greater cooperation amongst Member States dealing with disused facilities and sites; Developing a baseline report for use by policy makers that provides a global overview of liabilities, discusses constraints and provides recommendations on how these may be overcome (Phase 1); and Proposing specific actions (at national, regional or international levels) to address constraints to progress

29 CIDER Phase I Survey to identify main common barriers for D&ER Finance Lack of infrastructure for waste management Lack of technology Lack of regulatory framework Lack of national policy Lack of qualified personnel Stakeholder opinion / resistance Uncertainty over the end state (environmental remediation) 29

30 The Baseline Report Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Overarching principles and constraints related to programme implementation 3. Technological Issues 4. Resource constraints 5. Societal issues 6. Summary 7. General conclusions 8. References

31 Objectives of CIDER phase II To enable dynamic support to facilitate Member States to implement D&ER programmes; To contribute to improved efficiency and effectiveness of D&ER programmes; Through the development and implementation of specific initiatives aligned with national, regional and/or international arrangements, undertaken to overcome constraints impeding the implementation of D&ER programmes.

32 CIDER Phase II D&ER Strategy Support Working Group Stakeholder Support Service Working Group Capacity Building Working Group D&ER Inventory Development Working Group

33 Stakeholder Support Service Working Group Support to MS on stakeholder communication and engagement; Build capacity and case studies on effective stakeholder engagement in implementation of D&ER programmes; Platform for collaborative work to strengthen stakeholder engagement; Projects to demonstrate good practice; Facilitate a community of practice, through web-based system; Create simple and complex tools for use by missions (e.g. identification of stakeholder groups, social network analysis, structured decision making, etc.).

34 Annex II Environmental Remediation and Decommissioning: A Focus on Uranium Mining and Processing Facilities and Legacy Sites 34

35 Potential Exposures of Members of the Public Local citizens destroyed the observational wells. Kadji-Say

36 Four main groups of issues Long term issues: uranium mines remain dangerous after closure Burden to indigenous people Influence of historical legacy sites and lack of regulatory regime Scientific evidence to propagate fear 36

37 Long term issues: uranium mines remain dangerous after closure One problem globally is the clean up and maintenance of sites. Communities are often left to foot the bill ; Despite efforts made in cleaning up uranium sites, significant problems stemming from the legacy of uranium development still exist today Tailings dam all over the world have leakage problems and there are many documented instances of increased exposure to radiation in people living downstream from these tailings dams

38 Burden to indigenous people (1/3) The burden from the effects of uranium production, driven by a few countries seeking nuclear weapons and nuclear power, has been disproportionately carried by indigenous, colonised and other dominated peoples Globally the nuclear industry has a history of developing their operations on indigenous peoples land against their wishes.

39 Burden to indigenous people (2/3) Claims that lack of infrastructure and investment in remote areas, has allowed mining companies to pressure indigenous communities to permit mining on their sacred lands in exchange for basic services like school and hospitals Inequity of the burden to restore the environment - "These communities don't have as many resources as urban centers do to clean up the pollution." Because of the location of the mines, there have been a disproportionate number of aboriginal workers as compared to those in other industries

40 Burden to indigenous people (3/3) Mining took place throughout the Navajo Nation, and there are at least one thousand abandoned and unreclaimed uranium mines within the Navajo Nation. The extent of toxic waste that came from the mills and plants that processed uranium and other products is still unknown. People talk about using Indian lands to store nuclear waste. What is the peace dividend for Navajo people?

41 Influence of historical legacy sites and lack of regulatory regime In Canada there was no regulatory upper limit to radiation exposure for Canadian miners from 1940 s until The Soviet Union operated East German mines with no radiation protection measures until 1954; they continued to be a radioactive disaster area for decades.

42 Scientific evidence to propagate fear (1/2) 4 out of 9 people screened had radioactive chemicals in their bones after living near a uranium processing facility Uranium mining creates risks to workers and communities through radioactive dust, radon released from different sources); Uranium enters the body by ingestion or inhalation of airborne uraniumcontaining dust particles or aerosols;

43 Scientific evidence to propagate fear (2/2) Inhalation of radon and radon progeny lead to radiation exposure of the bronchial tissue of the lung with a resultant risk of cancer Residents living near uranium mining operations have a higher risk of genetic damage than people living further away; Workers exposed to uranium are at increased risk of various degrees of genetic damage