Return home page
Context & Objectives ~ Network ~ Methodology ~ Case Studies ~ Conclusions & Recommendations
    

Recommendation Group reports

 

The recommendation groups developed conclusions on the five issues. For each topic are mentioned the groups which delivered more specific contributions.

Local democracy : Groups 1, 3, 5, 8

Local involvement is often only called for so that “acceptance” of a given project can be found in accordance with “good standards” of democracy. COWAM participants view local democracy as a necessary step not to address “acceptance” issues but to improve the governance of nuclear waste management. This includes the empowerment of local involved people and an active participation of the wider population. A local partnership embodied by a local organisation, involving the various categories of the community representatives and other local concerned actors is expected to play a major role in gathering and disseminating information, interacting with the available sources of expertise, dialoguing and informing the regional and national levels.

Expertise in the local decision-making process : Groups 4, 7, 8

Among the issues to be considered in nuclear waste management are the more technical ones, as for instance, the performance and safety assessment, the impact assessment, the details of the technical options, etc. Expertise on these issues often raises suspicion from the actors, not directly involved in assessment studies. Multidisciplinarity and pluralism of views and their integration in expertise are key elements in this perspective. Because knowledge does not just “objectively” exist but is interest bound, expertise independent of the applicant has to be built up to reach a pluralistic perspective. A specific role for expertise was also highlighted in supporting local democracy and local actors’ involvement in nuclear waste management.

Influence of the local people on the national nuclear waste management framework : Groups 2, 3, 5, 6

Local communities aim primarily at discussing and influencing the impact of and conditions for the siting of a nuclear waste management facility on their land. However, because local people are directly affected by the decisions, they need to partake in the preparation of the national policy. The involvement of local people should begin as early as a national policy is being discussed even before the site selection process starts. Since nuclear waste management is a national issue looking for a local solution, cooperation is most requested between the different levels of governance. National and local players must work together to take a shared responsibility for their waste.

Regional development policy : Groups 2, 4, 7

The socio-economic dimension of the siting of a nuclear waste management facility in some countries is seen as an issue of compensation. It seems actually difficult to site a nuclear facility without considering the positive and negative impact it will have for the concerned territory. Nevertheless compensation appears as a narrow approach to the siting issue when it comes to local development. The integration and development of the site within a regional development policy which encompasses a prospective view on the future of the area is seen as a key factor to improve the governance of nuclear waste management in the short as well as in the longer term.

The site selection process : Groups 2, 4, 7

Many approaches in the past appear to have failed either because they were based on technical criteria alone and didn’t consider economic, social and political aspects, or because they dealt with these aspects but without enough transparency. A preliminary discussion on site selection criteria - both at national and local level - should make clear how economic and political factors are included in the decision beside safety. The site selection process is questioned because of a lack of transparency, but also because some problems were not addressed or solved in the early phases of the decision-making process. The difficulties met in site selection point at the interaction between this phase and the earlier preparation of the national policy framework on the one hand, and the subsequent steps which are expected to take place after site selection on the other hand. Anchoring site selection in a wider and consistent step-wise process with clear defined steps will strengthen the robustness of nuclear waste management siting.

Below are the reports of the eight recommendation groups.

 RG1 

Report (140 Ko)

Summary (70 Ko)
 

 RG5

Report (160 Ko)

 RG2

Report

Summary (150 Ko)
 

 RG6

Report (160 Ko)

Summary (120 Ko)
 

 RG3

Report (80 Ko)

Summary (130 Ko)
 

 RG7

Report (100 Ko)

 

 RG4

Report (230 Ko)

Summary (90 Ko)
 

 RG8

Report (130 Ko)

Report - fr
(140 Ko)

Report - nl (140 Ko)

 

 

The reports may refer to the framing paper which was the basis for discussions during recommendation groups’ meetings. The framing paper is available below in english, french, german, spanish and swedish.

Framing paper : 

- Download the final report (including the summary of all Recommendation Groups’ reports)



  Contact 

  Last update - February 2005
  Copyright © Cowam 2005 - All rights reserved.
  COWAM SECRETARIAT c/o MUTADIS CONSULTANTS
  
3 rue de la fidélité - 75010 Paris - France - TÚl: +33 1 48 01 88 77 - Fax: +33 1 48 01 00 13