Advertisement

Stakeholder Experience

The Example of the UK’s CoRWM
  • Gordon MacKerronEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection book series (EPKS)

Abstract

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) was set up in late 2003 by the UK Government as an ‘independent’ committee. It was charged with developing a new policy for the management of the UK’s higher-activity radioactive wastes (CoRWM 2006, p. 2) and was required to make its recommendations by July 2006. CoRWM’s terms of reference gave it two major objectives in developing a new policy: ‘to protect people and the environment’, and ‘to inspire public confidence’ (CoRWM 2006, Annex 1). For this latter objective, CoRWM was explicitly required to engage extensively with both the public and stakeholders (see discussion below on the distinction between these two categories). In practice, a larger share of both CoRWM’s time and money was spent on engagement activity than on the ‘scientific’ objective of ensuring protection for people and the environment. This chapter reflects on the experience of that engagement, which has been widely regarded as a relatively successful process (Simmons and Bickerstaff 2006).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burgess, J, Stirling, A. and Clark, J. (2007) ‘Deliberative mapping: a novel analytical-deliberative methodologyto support contested science-policy decisions’ Public Understanding of Science 16£, 299-322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) (2006) Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely – CoRWM’s recommendations to Government November (PB11825B).Google Scholar
  3. DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2003) Our Energy Future – creating a low carbon economy CM 5761, February.Google Scholar
  4. Irwin, A. (2006) ‘The politics of talk’ Social Studies of Science 36:2, 299-320 April.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Renn, O. (1999) ‘A model for an analytical-deliberative process in risk management’ Environmental Science and Technology 33:18, 3049-3055.Google Scholar
  6. Simmons, P. and Bickerstaff, K. (2006) CARL country report UK Summary, March.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations