Euratom Research Framework Programme Governance

1
Euratom Research Framework Programme-Governance
Radioactive Waste
Simon WebsterHead of Unit Nuclear Fission and
Radiation ProtectionDG-ResearchEuropean
Commission
2
Overview

• Euratom and EC programmes - overview
• Euratom support to RD in the field of radwaste
  management
• Research in the field of radwaste governance
• Past projects
• Current and future projects
• Conclusions

3
Euratom vs. EC programmes
Billion
5 years!
7 years!
EURATOM
EC
4
Euratom programmebudget breakdown
Million
4 years
5 years!
5
Current major FP6 projects on geological disposal
6
Basis for support to research on governance

• societal and governance issues recognised as
  being crucial in the development of geological
  disposal options
• In Euratom FP5, societal aspects introduced for
  first time as a research field under theme of
  radwaste management
• In FP6, under theme geological disposal
• research is also needed to develop decision
  processes that are perceived as fair and
  equitable by the stakeholders involved
• development and evaluation of better governance
  processes that properly address public concerns
  on waste disposal.
• Governance aspects also in scope of Euratom FP7

7
Euratom governance projects

• Governance projects under Euratom FP5
• RISCOM-II Risk Communication
• COWAM Community Waste Management
• TRUSTNET inclusive governance
• Governance projects under Euratom FP6
• COWAM-2 Community Waste Management
• ARGONA Arenas for Risk Governance
• CIP COWAM In Practice
• OBRA European Observatory for Long-term
  Governance on Radioactive Waste Management

completed
on-going
imminent
8
The RISCOM model how to make a technical
subject more transparent?
Truth/efficiency - Objective world - Scientific
methods and technology Are we doing things
right?
The driving force in transparency is
understanding and clarification this is through
communicative action
Are we doing theright thing?

• Authenticity
• - Personal integrity organisational identity
• Are we doing what we say?

Legitimacy - Social world - Is this right and
fair?
9
COWAM local communities
Experts
Local actors
Implementers
7
18
65
10
Public authorities
230 participants
10
COWAM vs. RISCOM

• COWAM
• 3-yr collective learning process
• Emphasis on local dimension
• Networking at local level and between official
  stakeholders
• Forum for reflection without confrontation
• Practical examples of citizen engagement
  sharing experience
• RISCOM
• Theoretical model to analyse aspects of decision
  making in radwaste management
• Test of applicability of this model
• Covered PA, citizen participation, organisational
  aspects
• Both emphasise that problem is not purely
  technical. Wider stakeholder concerns must be
  addressed. The decision-making process must be
  open, transparent, fair, participatory

11
COWAM-2 Community Waste Management - 2

• Builds on an important base provided by the
  community networking in first COWAM
• The COWAM name is now well known and becoming a
  byword for local stakeholder participation
• Many of the recent developments in MS in this
  field have the COWAM fingerprint

12
ARGONA

• Effective risk governance through implementation
  of transparency and participatory methods,
  involving
• analysis of the three arenas of (i) transparency
  (RISCOM Model), (ii) deliberation, and (iii)
  representative democracy
• analysis of role played by mediators
• important risk communication element
• SE, FI, CZ, SK, UK
• Combines research in social psychology with a
  more technical approach. Will test and apply
  approaches to transparency and participation
  using especially RISCOM model. Will also look at
  the challenges of governance after site selection.

13
CIP

• Assessment of ongoing processes in 5 Member
  States (France, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, UK)
  through two interrelated activities
• National Stakeholder Group (NSG) will review,
  from a local perspective, the inclusive
  governance approaches developed in their country,
  and elaborate a Prospective Case Study.
• Based on the national reviews, a core group of
  experts will draw lessons and bring out EU-level
  guidelines for inclusive governance of
  radioactive waste management.

14
OBRA

• OBRA will contribute to better governance of
  radwaste by providing mechanisms for all
  stakeholders to have access to knowledge
  generated by successive EU research programmes
• knowledge resides not only in published material,
  but also in the experience of experts.
• most appropriate forms of interaction with
  experts will be identified and promoted
• will provide feedback on best practice regarding
  how RD and education / training in radioactive
  waste is formulated and managed
• close interaction among the different
  stakeholders is necessary to build up trust and
  create a critical mass

15
Overview of new governance projects

• Total Euratom FP6 funding 2.3M
• Projects will be clustered and will build on
  past and current actions
• Contracts negotiated to ensure complementarity
  and avoid overlap
• Regular newsletter, common Web portal, common
  annual meeting, exchange of reports
• Resulting guidance should be harmonised and must
  be practicable, pragmatic and respond to the
  Euratom programme objectives
• Important synergies with other forums and
  experience, e.g. FSC, EC programme Science
  Society

16
Conclusions

• This is soft science, but not with soft
  impacts
• Strong synergies with decision making for other
  controversial projects and with the EIA process
• Key objective is to facilitate real progress
  towards deployment of the geological disposal
  option
• However, situation varies from country to country
  no one size fits all (e.g. issue of
  retrievability) and must be wary about
  backfitting solutions / decision-making processes