Advertisement

Effective Dialogue and Broad Societal Support

Stakeholder Dialogues on Radioactive Waste Management in the Czech Republic and Spain: A Review
  • Meritxell MartellEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Energiepolitik und Klimaschutz. Energy Policy and Climate Protection book series (EPKS)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to shed some light on the conversation exploring how different types of dialogue were implemented in Spain and in the Czech Republic to involve stakeholders in setting policy regarding the siting of a radioactive waste management facility. Both the Communities Waste Management Spain project (COWAM Spain) and the Working Group for Dialogue on Deep Geological Repository in the Czech Republic were the follow up of two European research projects and as such, they were useful to build a safe space for establishing a dialogue between stakeholders regarding acceptable methods and criteria for selecting a suitable site for a radioactive waste management facility. However, the extent to which the results of such dialogues have been taken up in the decision making process is dubious.

The Working Group for Dialogue was established in 2010 and ran until 2017, whereas COWAM Spain operated for a year and a half, from August 2004 until February 2006. One could argue that in neither Spain nor the Czech Republic is there a sustained commitment to dialogue in policy-making. The initiatives undertaken seem to have arisen for instrumental reasons. They hypothetically guarantee a higher degree of legitimacy to decisions made since a wider range of concerned actors influence the process instead of having decisions imposed upon them.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bello Paredes, S. A. (2015). El ATC de Villar de Cañas: ese oscuro objeto del deseo. In: Revista de Administración Pública (198), 331-359.  https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rap.198.10.
  2. Brans, M.; Ferraro, G. and von Estorff, U. (2015). The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s Forum on Stakeholder Confidence, radioactive waste management and public participation. A synthesis of its learnings and guiding principles. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Energy and Transport. Petten.Google Scholar
  3. Bursik, M. (2015). The Challenges of Nuclear Waste Governance in the Czech Republic. In: Brunnengräber, A.; Di Nucci, M. R.; Isidoro Losada, A. M.; Mez, L. and and Schreurs, M. A. (Eds.) (2015). Nuclear Waste Governance. An International Comparision, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 249-264.Google Scholar
  4. Costa, P. and Baños, P. (2010). Sociología e ideología de los residuos radiactivos: La sociedad contra la técnica. In: Argumentos de Razón Técnica, 13, 137-158.Google Scholar
  5. Durdovic, M. (2016). A Guide to Communication and Participation in Decision-Making on Siting the Deep Geological Repository. The Case of the Czech Republic. Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Prague.Google Scholar
  6. EC (2010). Europeans and Nuclear Safety – Special Eurobarometer 324. TNS Opinion & Social. Belgium.Google Scholar
  7. Elam, M. and Sundqvist, G. (2007). Six Domains of Decision for Stakeholder Involvement in Nuclear Waste Management. CARL Thematic Report No. 4. Available at www.carl-research.org.
  8. ENRESA (2010). Revista Estratos, Nº 93. Invierno 2010. Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos.Google Scholar
  9. Fernández, J. and Palacio, T. (2010) Un proceso transparente y abierto. Estratos. In: ENRESA, 93, 10- 15.Google Scholar
  10. Fiorino, D. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. In: Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence. In: Inquiry, 13, 363-372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. II: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon press, Boston.Google Scholar
  13. Hamilton, J.D. and Wills-Toker, C. (2006). Reconceptualizing Dialogue in Environmental Public Participation. In: The Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 755-775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horlick-Jones, T. et al. (2007). The GM Debate: risks, politics and public engagement, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Innes, J.E. (1996). Planning Through Consensus Building. A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal. In: Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999). Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage. Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning. In: Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 9- 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isidoro Losada, A.M. (2015). Subject to Political Capture? Nuclear Waste Governance in Spain. In: Brunnengräber, A.; Di Nucci, M. R.; Isidoro Losada, A. M.; Mez, L. and and Schreurs, M. A. (Eds.) (2015). Nuclear Waste Governance. An International Comparision, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 323-342.Google Scholar
  18. Jonsson, J.P; Andersson, K.; Bolado; R.; Sjöberg, B.D.; Elam, M.; Kojo, M.; Meskens, G.; Pritrsky, J.; Richardson, P.; Soneryd, L.; Steinerova, L.; Sundqvist, G.; Szerszynski, B.; Wene, C and Vojtechova, H. (2010). Towards implementation of transparency and participation in radioactive waste management programmes. ARGONA Final Summary Report.Google Scholar
  19. Kallenbach-Herbert, B.; Brohmann, B.; Simmons, P.; Bergmans, A.; Barthe, Y. and Martell, M. (2014). Addressing the Long-Term Management of High-level and Long-lived Nuclear Wastes as a Socio-Technical Problem: Insights from. InSOTEC. Deliverable 4.1.Google Scholar
  20. Konopasek, Z. and Svacina, K. (2014). Siting the Nuclear Waste Repository in the Czech Republic: Twists and Turns towards Technical Democracy. InSOTEC Working Paper.Google Scholar
  21. Martell, M. (2012). Identifying remaining socio-technical challenges at the national level: Spain. InSOTEC working paper. www.insotec.eu.
  22. NEA (2003). The Regulator’s Evolving Role and Image in Radioactive Waste Management. Lessons Learnt within the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence. OECD/NEA: Paris.Google Scholar
  23. NEA (2004). Learning and adapting to societal requirements for radioactive waste management. OECD/NEA: Paris.Google Scholar
  24. NEA (2007). Radioactive Waste Management in Spain: Co-ordination and Projects. FSC Workshop Proceedings L’Hospitalet de l’Infant, Spain, 21-23 November 2005.Google Scholar
  25. NEA (2011). More than just concrete realities: the symbolic dimension of radioactive waste and its management. OECD/NEA: Paris.Google Scholar
  26. NEA (2013). Stakeholder Confidence in radioactive waste management: an annotated glossary of key terms. OECD/NEA: Paris.Google Scholar
  27. NEA (2014). Deliberating together on geological repository siting: expectations and challenges in the Czech Republic. Synthesis and International Perspective of the 9th Community Visit and National Workshop of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Forum on Stakeholder Confidence, Czech Republic, 24-26 October 2012.Google Scholar
  28. Oels, A. (2006). Evaluating Stakeholder Dialogues. In: Welp, M. and Stollkleemann, S. (Eds.) (2006). Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management. Theory and Practice, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 117-152.Google Scholar
  29. Prades, J.; Gonzalo, J.L; de la Varga, A. and Farré, J. (2015). Participación pública en la gestión de residuos radiactivos. El emplazamiento del ATC. Papers, 100(4), 493-526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in an age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public sector decision making. In: Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163-170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Renn, O. and Schweizer, P. (2009). Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. In: Environmental policy and governance, 19(3), 174-185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Renn, O.; Webler, T. and Weidemann, P. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  33. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. In: Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soneryd, L. (2016). Technologies of participation and the making of technologized futures. In: Chilvers, J. and Kearnes, M. (Eds.) (2016). Remaking Participation. Science, environment and emergent publics, London: Routledge, 144-161.Google Scholar
  35. Svacina, K. and Konopasek, Z. (2012). Identifying remaining socio-technical challenges at the national level: Czech Republic. InSOTEC Working Paper.Google Scholar
  36. Sumberova, V. and Vojtěchová, H. (2011). Critical evaluation of transparency and public participation in the process of deep geological repository siting in the Czech Republic. IPPA Deliverable 2.1.Google Scholar
  37. Ustohalova, V.; Akinsara-Minhans, A. and Kallenbach-Herbert, B. (2013). Lessons learnt from implementing participatory processes. IPPA Deliverable 5.3.Google Scholar
  38. Vari, A. and Pescatore, C. (2006). Forum on Stakeholder Confidence: Spain, NEA News: 2006. No. 24.1.Google Scholar
  39. Vila d’Abadal, M. (2005). La gestión democrática de los residuos radiactivos: Programa COWAM España. Madrid: Asociación de Municipios en Áreas de Centrales Nucleares (AMAC).Google Scholar
  40. Vojtěchová, H. and Steinerová, L. (2013). Critical Evaluation of Knowledge and Experience from RISCOM Implementation and Proposal Changes in the Communication Strategy in the Czech Republic. IPPA project. http://www.ippaproject.eu/sites/default/files/deliverables/IPPA-Deliverable-2_2-2_3.pdf.
  41. Webler, T. (1995).’Right’ Discourse in Citizen Participation: an Evaluative Yardstick. In: Renn, O.; Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (Eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 35-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MerienceOlèrdolaSpain

Personalised recommendations