CARL Workshop Antwerp

1
CARL WorkshopAntwerp

• Results of the Country Studies
• BELGIUM

2
Institutional Context

• Federal State Structure
• federal and regional level on equal footing
• Nuclear energy and RW are competences of the
  Federal government
• NIRAS/ONDRAF semi-governmental organisation
  tutelage with Minister of Energy
• FANC government agency tutelage with Minister
  of Interior Affairs
• Responsible administration Federal Public
  Service on Energy
• Regions are competent for a.o. environment and
  town and country planning
• Provinces secondary administrations with
  competences concerning a.o. licensing of
  hazardous activity
• Municipalities communal autonomy competent for
  everything that is in the communal interest

3
Institutional Context

• About 55 of electricity generated in nuclear
  reactors 2 nuclear power plants (4 reactors in
  Doel, 3 in Tihange)
• 80 of radwaste originates from energy production
• But relatively small nuclear programme
• Short-lived LILW / long-lived LILW / HLW
• Spent fuel (? RW) stored at reactor sites
• Nuclear phase out by 2020
• Moratorium on reprocessing of spent fuel
• Government relatively passive role

4
Current process of SI

• Object of SI Belgium
• short-lived LILW
• site investigations and disposal option
• subject of dialogue both technical and
  socio-economical aspects
• Concerning HLW
• social elements in the SAFIR II report (2001)
• declaration of intent to integrate technical and
  social dimension in background document

5
Current Process of SI - LILW

• Organization of SI in Belgium
• occasion Federal Government decision (1998) in
  favour of final disposal of LILW, focus on
  existing nuclear areas and opening for
  participatory approach
• same year NIRAS/ONDRAF sends out invitation to
  municipalities to enter into a local partnership
• stepwise engagement
• cooperation with two universities to develop
  method

6
Current Process of SI - LILW

• Local partnerships
• aim develop an integrated repository project
  proposal
• voluntary siting process (but somewhat imposed on
  the nuclear areas)
• ? Mol, Dessel, Fleurus Farciennes
• introduction of municipal right to veto
• focus on local level (municipalities)
  partnerships located on site
• programme financed by NIRAS/ONDRAF

7
Current Process of SI - LILW

• Local partnerships
• 3 partnerships STOLA (Sept 1999) MONA (Feb
  2000) PaloFF (Feb 2003)
• formal organisational structure

Executive Committee
General Assembly
Project coordinators
Working groups
8
Current process of SI - LILW

• Local partnerships
• both arena and facilitator for open dialogue
  platform for interaction
• communication with the local population
• decision partnership municipal council -
  government

• Current situation
• STOLA approves of project proposal (9/04) and
  municipal council of Dessel decides to candidate
  for hosting a repository (1/05) STOLA becomes
  STORA (4/05)
• MONA approves of project proposal (1/05) and
  municipal council of Mol decides to candidate for
  hosting a repository (4/05) MONA adapts bylaws
  and continues (11/05)
• PaLoFF to decide 12/05 municipal councils of
  Fleurus and Farciennes likely 01/06

9
Stakeholder identification

• Main stakeholders active in this process
• NIRAS/ONDRAF initiator, sponsor, architect
• broad local stakeholder representation (local
  politicians, representatives from civil society
  and individuals)
• SCK?CEN both partner in MONA and supplier of
  experts (although not in PaLoFF)
• local nuclear companies some quite active most
  keeping a relative distance

10
Stakeholder identification

• Main players remaining on the sideline
• Federal government final decision maker
• FANC local antenna participated solely as
  observer not willing to take positions
  concerning project proposition in this phase
• NGOs only occasionally invited as experts by
  partnerships occasionally commenting on approach
  as buying out the locals and trading in
  technical experts for sociologists
• (sub)regional players and neighbouring
  municipalities

11
Current Framing

• Framing of need for SI by NIRAS/ONDRAF
• Sustainable development and the precautionary
  principle
• Principles of good governance
• Social acceptance / Legitimacy and stability of
  the decisions taken
• Increasing the knowledge base (to a lesser extent)

• Most crucial
• acceptance
• stable political decision

12
Re-Framing process

• Management of LILW
• a technical answer to a technical problem (1984
  1994)
• 1994 98 potentially suitable sites
• ? broad contestation by all communities involved
• a technical question with social implications
• ? still holding on to the 98 sites
• a socio-technical question
• ? starting with a clean slate

13
Re-Framing process

• Discrepancy between approach for LILW and
  approach for HLW
• Discrepancy between principle and practice
• background document introducing social
  dimension BUT
• over 25 years of research into final disposal in
  underground facility have implicitly led to
  choice of option and possibly of site
• how far can and will all players go in engaging
  stakeholders as soon as possible in the
  decision making process

14
Re-Framing process

• Bulk of RWM remains fairly technical in approach,
  but as far as intentions go a shift in framing is
  lurking
• Critical events leading to shifts in framing seem
  mainly linked to siting efforts
• Socio-technical framing only just breaking
  through and already under threat
• rearguard action by in-crowd of traditional
  decision-making process
• NGOs as early champions of SI turning sides
• institutional framework not designed for this
• no firm political backing
• high expectations from local partnerships that
  are not always matched

15
Overview Belgium

• SI programme focuses on the siting of a LILW
  repository
• Local Partnerships have led to 2 (potentially 3)
  candidates to host a repository conditional
  acceptance
• ? conditions relating to both the content of the
  project and the decision-making process
• Other issues remain subject to a more
  technocratic approach
• Could continuation of partnerships lead to
  tearing down some more walls?

16
Concluding Questions

• Institutional Context
• When the institutional context does not easily
  allow for integration of social and technical
  how to sustain emerging engagement process?
• Could a localisation of decisions contribute to
  more sustained decisions?
• Could a localisation of decisions enforce
  institutional change?
• To what extent are different/isolated approaches
  (concerning SI) within a national RW policy
  acceptable?

17
Concluding Questions

• Stakeholder Involvement
• Should SI be linked to particular events, or is
  it possible to achieve (semi-) permanent and
  sustainable stakeholder engagement in RWM?
• How can the parties involved be kept interested
  in such a process?
• Are people in nuclear areas predestined to be
  stakeholders? To what extent is their fate bound
  to that of the RWM agency and the RW producers?

18
Concluding Questions

• Framing
• Has a socio-technical framing truly superseded a
  technocratic framing?
• How sustainable is this new framing?
• Apparent consensus on the principles of
  stakeholder engagement but very divergent views
  on how to put those in practice. How to overcome
  this?

19
CARL WorkshopAntwerp

• Results of the Country Studies
• BELGIUM