The Role and Functions of Community Benefit Schemes

A Comparison of the Finnish and French Nuclear Waste Disposal Projects
  • Markku LehtonenEmail author
  • Matti Kojo
Part of the Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection book series (EPKS)


Various types of community benefit schemes have been implemented in order to mitigate potential harmful effects and facilitate the construction of nuclear installations, to compensate for real or potential damage (e.g. harmful distributive effects), and to incite communities to volunteer in planning and construction. This chapter draws on examples from Finland and France in order to illustrate the challenges associated with community benefit schemes in nuclear waste disposal policy. Drawing on interview and documentary material, and earlier literature concerning typologies of benefit measures, the chapter explores the role of benefit schemes in the relatively smoothly advancing Finnish waste disposal project and the more conflict-ridden French project. The mitigation and compensation functions of benefit schemes have primarily served the overarching objective of obtaining local acceptance for the repository projects. In France, the benefit schemes have occupied more space in public debate and have arguably played a greater role in winning local support for the project than in Finland. The schemes also differ in their success of minimising the accusation that the schemes would constitute illegitimate bribery. The reasons include the differences between the host regions – a nuclear community in Finland and a ‘nuclear-virgin’ region in France; a single municipality in Finland and a patchwork of small communities in the French host area – and in the approaches to nuclear and nuclear waste policy (the state-led approach in France and industry-led approach in Finland).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aitken, M. (2010). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities. In: Energy Policy, 38(10), 6066-6075. Scholar
  2. Andra (2015). Gestion foncière pour le projet Cigéo. CLIS, 23/11/2018., last accessed 09 July 2018.
  3. Andra (2017). Information sur les actions de parrainages et les dons. Exercice 2016. Conseil d’administration du 24 février 2017. SG/DIR/17-0015., last accessed 12 July 2017.
  4. Assemblée nationale (2016). Proposition de loi précisant les modalités de création d’une installation de stockage réversible en couche géologique profonde des déchets radioactifs de haute et moyenne activité à vie longue. TEXTE ADOPTÉ n° 789, « Petite loi ». Assemblée nationale, Paris, 11 juillet 2016., last accessed 12 July 2017.
  5. Barthe, Y. (2006). Le pouvoir d’indécision. La mise en politique des déchets nucléaires, Paris: Economica, collection Études politiques.Google Scholar
  6. Barthe, Y. (2009). Les qualités politiques des technologies: Irréversibilité et réversibilité dans la gestion des déchets nucléaires. In: Tracés. Revue de sciences humaines, 16(1), 119-137.Google Scholar
  7. Bertrand, A.; Chateauraynaud, F. and Fourniau, J.-M. (2005). Nucléaire et démocratie délibérative. Les technologies nucléaires à l’épreuve du débat public, Rapport de l’étude GRETS/GSPR., last accessed 07 January 2019.
  8. Bergmans, A. (2010). International Benchmarking of Community Benefits Related to Facilities for Radioactive Waste Management. Report commissioned by EDRAM, NIROND 2010–01.Google Scholar
  9. Blowers, A. (2016). The Legacy of Nuclear Power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bristow, G.; Cowell, R. and Munday, M. (2012). Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion of ‘community’ in community benefit provisions from wind farms. In: Geoforum, 43(6), 1108– 1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carnes, S. A.; Copenhaver, E. D.; Sorenson, J. H.; Soderstrom, E. J.; Reed, J. H.; Bjornstad, D. J. and Peele, E. (1983). Incentives and Nuclear Waste Siting: Prospects and Constraints. In: Energy Systems and Policy, 7(4), 323-351.Google Scholar
  12. Cass, N.; Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Good Neighbours, Public Relations and Bribes: The Politics and Perceptions of Community Benefit Provision in Renewable Energy Development in the UK. In: Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(3), 255-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chambre régionale des comptes de Lorraine (2011). Rapport d’observations definitives, Groupement d’Intérêts Public “Objectif Meuse”. Epinal, le 20 juillet 2011., last accessed 12 December 2018.
  14. Chopin, T. (2006). La France, l’Europe et le libéralisme. In: Commentaire, 115(3), 669-678.Google Scholar
  15. Cowell, R.; Bristow, G. and Munday, M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(4), 539–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Allens, G. and Fuori, A. (2017). Bure, la bataille du nucléaire. Paris: Seuil & Reporterre.Google Scholar
  17. Darst, R. and Dawson, J. (2010). Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe. In: Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1(4), 49-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denoun, M. (2014). Le débat public sur le projet d’enfouissement des déchets radioactifs - La longue trajectoire d’une controverse à l’épreuve du temps court du débat public. Paris: Master mention Sociologie générale – EHESS.Google Scholar
  19. Descamps, É. (2011). A Bure, la manne controversée du stockage nucléaire. La Croix, le 27/04/2011., last accessed 07 January 2019.
  20. Descamps, O. (2017). Cigéo: le gouvernement a-t-il voulu acheter les consciences? Journal de l’environnement, 07 December 2017.,88675, last accessed 07 January 2019.
  21. Di Nucci, M. R. (2016). NIMBY oder IMBY: Akzeptanz, Freiwilligkeit und Kompensationen in der Standortsuche für die Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle. In: Brunnengräber, A. (Eds.) (2016). Problemfalle Endlager. Gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Atommüll. Baden-Baden: edition sigma.Google Scholar
  22. Di Nucci, M. R.; Brunnengräber, A. and Isidoro Losada, A. M. (2017). From the “right to know” to the “right to object” and “decide”. A comparative perspective on participation in siting procedures for high level radioactive waste repositories. In: Progress in Nuclear Energy, 100(2017), 316-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Di Nucci, M. R and Brunnengräber, A. (2017). In Whose Backyard? The Wicked Problem of Siting Nuclear Waste Repositories. In: European Policy Analysis, 3(2), 295–323.Google Scholar
  24. EDF, CEA, Areva (2016). Accompagnement économique de Meuse et Haute-Marne. Laboratoire Andra de Bure-Saudron. Rapport d’activités 2016., last accessed 02 July 2018.
  25. Energiateollisuus (2015). Suomalaisten Energia-asenteet 2015., last accessed 23 June 2018.
  26. Energiateollisuus (2016). Suomalaisten Energia-asenteet 2016., last accessed 22 June 2018.
  27. Eurajoki (2011). Decision by the Turku Administrative Court concerning the property tax percent of Onkalo. Protocol of Eurajoki municipal board. Khall §29. 25 January 2011.Google Scholar
  28. Eurobarometer (2006). Europeans and Nuclear Safety. Special Eurobarometer 271, February, European Commission.
  29. Gallagher, L.; Ferreira, S. and Convery, F. (2008). Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure: Comprehension before compensation. In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(2), 233-257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gazette debout (2017). Bure, une année déterminante contre le projet CIGÉO. Blog Mediapart, 4 January 2017.
  31. GIP Objectif Meuse (2016). Rapport d’activités 2016.
  32. Häkli, L. (2002) Kaupankäynti ydinjätteistä – Posiva Oy:n ja Eurajoen sopimusuutisoinnin tulkintaa Eurajoen ja muiden ehdokaspaikkakuntien lehdissä. In: Raittila, P. (Eds.) (2002) Mediat ydinjätettä hautaamassa. Eri intressiryhmien julkisuuteen pääsy, dialogi ja argumentointi ydinjätteen loppusijoitusta koskevassa keskustelussa 1999 – 2001. Tampere: Journalismin tutkimusyksikkö, Tiedotusopin laitos, Tampereen yliopisto, 101–114.Google Scholar
  33. Hannis, M. and Rawles, K. (2013). Compensation or Bribery? Ethical Issues in Relation to Radwaste Host Communities. In: Oughton, D. & Hansson, S.O. (Eds.) (2013). Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management. London: Elsevier, 347-374.Google Scholar
  34. Hecht, G. (2009). The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II, Cambridge & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Helsingin Sanomat (2000). Eurajoki rahasti ydinjäteriskillä. 26 January 2000. Editorial.
  36. Hokkanen, P. (2002). Kansalaisosallistumisen muodot ydinjäte-YVA:ssa. In: Raittila, P.; Hokkanen, P.; Kojo, M. and Litmanen, T. (Eds.) (2002). Ydinjäteihme suomalaisittain. Tampere: Tampere University Press, 22–35.Google Scholar
  37. Hokkanen, P. (2007). Kansalaisosallistuminen ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyssä. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1285. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
  38. Hokkanen, P., and Kojo, M. (2003). Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn vaikutus päätöksentekoon (Influence of EIA on decision-making). Suomen ympäristö (Finnish Environment) 612 Helsinki, Ministry of the Environment.Google Scholar
  39. Hytönen, J. (2016). The problematic relationship of communicative planning theory and Nordic legal culture. In: Planning Theory, 15(3), 223–238.Google Scholar
  40. IRSN (2017). Baromètre IRSN: La perception des risques et de la sécurité par les Français. Fontenayaux- Roses: Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire.Google Scholar
  41. Kerr, S.; Johnson, K. and Weir, S. (2017). Understanding community benefit payments from renewable energy development. In: Energy Policy, 105, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kojo, M. (2002). Lahjomattomien haukansilmien valvonnassa. Ydinjätteen loppusijoitushankkeen hyväksyttävyyden rakentaminen Posiva Oy:n tiedotusmateriaalissa. In: Raittila, P.; Hokkanen, P.; Kojo, M. and Litmanen, T. (Eds.) (2002). Ydinjäteihme suomalaisittain. Tampere: Tampere University Press, 36–66.Google Scholar
  43. Kojo, M. (2005). Changing approach: local participation as a part of the site selection process of the final disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste in Finland. The 10th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management – ICEM’05, 4–8 September, Glasgow, Scotland. ICEM05-1239.Google Scholar
  44. Kojo, M. (2009). The Strategy of Site Selection for the Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Finland. In: Kojo, M. and Litmanen, T. (Eds.) (2009). The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 161-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kojo, M. (2014). Ydinjätepolitiikan osallistava käänne. PhD Thesis. University of Tampere. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1987, Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kojo, M. and Hokkanen, P. (2004). YVA-menettely ympäristökonfliktin hallintakeinona: kansalaisosallistuminen ydinjätteen loppusijoitushankkeessa. In: Alue ja ympäristö, 33(2), 33–42.Google Scholar
  47. Kojo, M. and Litmanen, T. (Eds.) (2009). The Renewal of Nuclear Power in Finland. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Kojo, M. and Richardson, P. (2012). The Added-Value Approach in Siting Nuclear Waste Facilities. In: Radwaste Solutions, January–April, 38-50.Google Scholar
  49. Kojo, M. and Richardson, P. (2014). The use of community benefits approaches in the siting of nuclear waste management facilities. In: Energy Strategy Reviews, 4(August 2014), 34-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kojo, M.; Kari, M. and Litmanen, T. (2010). The socio-economic and communication challenges of spent nuclear fuel management in Finland: the post site selection phase of the repository project in Eurajoki. In: Progress in Nuclear Energy, 52(2), 168-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kojo, M.; Kari, M. and Litmanen, T. (2012). Nuclear community considering threats and benefits of final disposal. Local opinions regarding the spent nuclear fuel repository in Finland, In: International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 15(2), 124–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. (1996). The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities. In: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(4), 601-662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lacroix, N. (2018). TV programme “Dimanche en Politique”, France 3 régions, 11/03/2018.Google Scholar
  54. Länsi-Suomi (2017). Eurajoen väkiluku nousi viime vuonna ainoana Satakunnassa. 30 March 2017., last accessed 07 January 2019.
  55. La Tribune (2017). L’Etat bientôt actionnaire à 100% d’Areva SA. 20 August 2017., last accessed 07 January 2019.
  56. Le Billon, V. (2017). Nucléaire: le partage local de la manne fiscale de Cigéo en débat. Les Echos, 19 December 2017., last accessed 07 January 2019.
  57. Lehtonen, M. (2010a). Deliberative decision-making on radioactive waste management in Finland, France and the UK: Influence of mixed forms of deliberation in the macro discursive context. In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7(3), 175-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lehtonen, M. (2010b). Opening up or Closing Down Radioactive Waste Management Policy? Debates on Reversibility and Retrievability in Finland, France, and the United Kingdom.In: Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1(4), 139-179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lehtonen, M.; Kojo, M. and Litmanen, T. (2017). The Finnish success story in the governance of a megaproject: the (minimal) role of socioeconomic evaluation in the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In: Lehtonen, M.; Joly, P.-B. and Aparicio, L. (Eds.) (2017). Socioeconomic evaluation of megaprojects: Dealing with uncertainties, London: Routledge, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  60. Lindgaard, J. (2013). Déchets radioactifs contre argent frais: l’équation de Bure. Mediapart, 23/05/2013.Google Scholar
  61. Litmanen, T. and Kojo, M. (2011). Not excluding nuclear power: the dynamics and stability of nuclear power policy arrangements in Finland. In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 8(3), 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Litmanen, T.; Kari, M.; Kojo, M. and Solomon, B.D. (2017a). Is there a Nordic model of final disposal of spent nuclear fuel? Governance insights from Finland and Sweden. In: Energy Research and Social Science, 25, 19-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Litmanen, T.; Kojo, M.; Kari, M. and Vesalainen, J. (2017b). Does technical risk dialogue entail socioeconomic evaluation? The case of scientific dispute over copper corrosion in a spent nuclear fuel disposal project. In: Lehtonen, M.; Joly, P.-B. and Aparicio, L. (Eds.) (2017). Socioeconomic evaluation of megaprojects: Dealing with uncertainties, London: Routledge, 134–158.Google Scholar
  64. Lukkari, J. (2017). Olkiluoto 3 tekee Suomesta yhä riippuvaisemman ydinvoimasta – Ranska vielä kaukana edellä. Tekniikka ja Talous, 7 September 2017.Google Scholar
  65. Mabi, C. (2013). Peut-on débattre de tout et avec tout le monde? Étude des débats CNDP et de leurs publics. In: GIS Démocratie et Participation, Actes des 3èmes journées doctorales sur la participation et la démocratie participative, Bordeaux, 22-23 novembre 2013,
  66. NEA (2002). Stepwise Decision Making for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in Finland, Workshop Proceedings, Turku, Finland, 14–16 November, 2001. Paris: OECD/NEA.Google Scholar
  67. NEA (2007). Fostering a Durable Relationship Between a Waste Management Facility and its Host Community. Adding Value Through Design and Process. NEA No. 6176. Paris: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  68. NEA (2010). Partnering for long-term management of radioactive waste: Evolution and current practice in thirteen countries. Paris: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  69. NWTRB (2016). Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: Update. A Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Washington, D.C. February 2016.
  70. Parotte, C. (2016). L’art de gouverner les déchets radioactifs: analyse comparée de la Bélgique, la France et le Canada. Doctoral dissertation. Université de Liège.Google Scholar
  71. Rosenberg, T. (1999). Turhauttavaa teatteria—loppusijoitus-YVA Loviisaliikkeen näkökulmasta (Frustrating Theater – The EIA on Final Disposal from the Perspective of the Loviisa Movement). In: Litmanen, T.; Hokkanen, P. and Kojo, M. (Eds.) (1999). Ydinjäte käsissämme: Suomen ydinjätehuolto ja suomalainen yhteiskunta (Nuclear Waste in our Hands: The Finnish Nuclear Waste Management and the Finnish Society), University of Jyväskylä, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, SoPhi 44, 266-282.Google Scholar
  72. Satakunnan Kansa (1998). Enemmistö sanoo Eurajoella KYLLÄ ydinjätteiden loppusijoitukselle ja uudelle ydinvoimalalle. News published on 7 June 1998.Google Scholar
  73. Saurugger, S. (2007). Democratic ‘Misfit’? Conceptions of Civil Society Participation in France and the European Union. In: Political Studies, 55(2), 384-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sénat (2017). Projet de loi, [Second] projet de loi de finances rectificative pour 2017, 1ère lecture, n° 155, 158. N° 77 rect, 14 décembre 2017. Amendement présenté par MM. Sido et Guené., last accessed 29 June 2018.
  75. SIDT (2013). Schéma Interdépartemental de Développement du Territoire Meuse – Haute-Marne. Projet de schéma, document pour le débat public. Préfecture de la Meuse; version 2.6, 21 mars 2013, Comité de Haut Niveau du 4 février 2013.Google Scholar
  76. Strauss, H. (2010). Involving the Finnish public in nuclear facility licensing: participatory democracy and industrial bias. In: Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 7(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Taebi, B. (2017). Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability. In: Risk Analysis, 37(10), 1817-1827. Scholar
  78. Teräväinen, T.; Lehtonen, M. and Martiskainen, M. (2011). Climate change, energy security and risk – Debating new nuclear build in Finland, France and the UK. In: Energy Policy, 39(6), 3434- 3442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Terres de Bure (2016). Etat des lieux de l’appropriation foncière de l’ANDRA à Bure: Une contribution à la lute contre la poubelle nucléaire CIGEO et la nucléarisation du Grand Est.Google Scholar
  80. Upham, P.; Oltra, C. and Boso, À. (2015). Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems. In: Energy Research and Social Science, 8, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vilhunen, T.; Kojo, M,; Litmanen, T. and Taebi, B. (under review). Perceptions of Justice influencing Community Acceptance of Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal. A Case Study in Two Finnish Nuclear Communities.Google Scholar
  82. Vira, J. (2006). Winning Citizen Trust: The Siting of a Nuclear Waste Facility in Eurajoki, Finland. In: Innovations, Fall 2006, 65-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vira, J. (2017). Geological repository for high-level nuclear waste becoming reality in Finland. In: Apted, M. J. and Ahn, J. (Eds.) (2017). Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, 645-666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vuori, S. (2014). Research and development activities related to management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel in 2001-2013. VTT Technology 190, viewed 6 May 2016.
  85. Walker, G. (2010). Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: The implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. In: Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 312-318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walker, B.J.A.; Wiersma, B. and Bailey, E. (2014). Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: An experimental study in England. In: Energy Research & Social Science, 3, 46-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walker, B.J.A.; Russel, D. and Kurz, T. (2017). Community Benefits or Community Bribes? An Experimental Analysis of Strategies for Managing Community Perceptions of Bribery Surrounding the Siting of Renewable Energy Projects. In: Environment and Behaviour, 49(1), 59-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wolfe. A.K.; Bjornstad, D.J.; Russell, M. and Kerchner, N.D. (2002). A Framework for Analyzing Dialogues over the Acceptability of Controversial Technologies. In: Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(1), 134–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yli-Kauhaluoma, S. and Hänninen, H. (2014). Tale taming radioactive fears: Linking nuclear waste disposal to the “continuum of the good”. In: Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 316–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Sussex, Brighton and University Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations