Transcript Presentation Belgium

CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
CARL Workshop
Antwerp
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
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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’
Belgium
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
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
Belgium
4
Current process of SI
• Object of SI Belgium
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
– short-lived LILW
– site investigations and disposal option
– subject of dialogue: both technical and socioeconomical aspects
• Concerning HLW
– ‘social’ elements in the SAFIR II report (2001)
– declaration of intent to integrate technical and
social dimension in ‘background document’
Belgium
5
Current Process of SI - LILW
• Organization of SI in Belgium
– occasion: Federal Government decision (1998)
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
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
Belgium
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)
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
 Mol, Dessel, Fleurus & Farciennes
– introduction of municipal right to veto
– focus on local level (municipalities):
partnerships located ‘on site’
– programme financed by NIRAS/ONDRAF
Belgium
7
Current Process of SI - LILW
• Local partnerships
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
– 3 partnerships: STOLA (Sept 1999); MONA
(Feb 2000); PaloFF (Feb 2003)
– formal organisational structure
General
Assembly
Executive Committee
Project coordinators
Working groups
Belgium
8
Current process of SI - LILW
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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
Belgium
9
Stakeholder identification
• Main stakeholders active in this process:
– NIRAS/ONDRAF: initiator, sponsor, ‘architect’
– broad local stakeholder representation (local
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
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
Belgium
10
Stakeholder identification
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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
Belgium
11
Current Framing
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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
Belgium
12
Re-Framing process
• Management of LILW
– a technical answer to a technical problem
(1984 – 1994)
– 1994: 98 potentially suitable sites
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
 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
Belgium
13
Re-Framing process
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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
Belgium
14
Re-Framing process
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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 decisionmaking 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
Belgium
15
Overview Belgium
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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?
Belgium
16
Concluding Questions
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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?
Belgium
17
Concluding Questions
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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?
Belgium
18
Concluding Questions
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
• 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?
Belgium
CARL Workshop Antwerp
November 30 – December 1, 2005
CARL Workshop
Antwerp
Results of the Country Studies
BELGIUM