CIP

1. Cowam In Practice CIP PROPOSAL To make a “map” of the Slovenian DECISION MAKING PROCESS and to perform a PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION

2. “Stepwise” decision making • In radioactive waste management (RWM), and specifically for planning, constructing and implementing a storage facility: • many decisions of different natures (technical and societal) must be made • The decisions are of different sizes or importance, large and small • The entire decision making process (DMP) make take many years or even generations • In past times, technicians and officials often considered that the DMP was simple and straightforward, that a small group of people could decide, and that no consultation was needed • Today it is recognized in most countries that some kind of “stepwise” DMP is best, so that: • the basis for decisions can be checked by the involved actors • decisions are made in proper order, building up from what is learnt • it is possible to “back up” one step (or more) if this is found to be necessary

3. Why make a “map”of the decision-making process for LILW storage? • All CIP NSG will produce a “prospective case study”: • a forward-looking description of their country’s radioactive waste management governance, and recommendations • As part of this, the Slovenian NSG may wish to better understand and reflect on the official LILW decision-making process (DMP) • CIP investigators propose to facilitate this by providing a “map” of DMP steps and criteria

4. Howwill a “map” be used by the NSG? • In a structured discussion, NSG members can use a map to increase their understanding of the LILW governance: • clarify the decision steps which are foreseen by the laws • verify the requirements which must be met at each step to allow the DMP to move forward • identify the steps at which consultation takes place, and how local voices can be heard within the DMP • NSG members can also evaluate the DMP: • produce common criteria shared by NSG participantsto assess their own DMP • compare the Slovenian DMP with that in other countries • discuss whether parts of the DMP are satisfactory or unsatisfactory according to different stakeholders • discuss how to better use the formal DMP and informal opportunities • make recommendations for how certain steps might be improved

5. When could this discussion take place? • At the third NSG meeting - One half-day could be used for this discussion (compare to the SWOT discussion today) • Very likely a second session would be needed at fourth NSG meeting • Alternatively, a seminar could be organised in parallel with the third NSG meeting • One full day, or 1 ½ days if desired • Involving more local stakeholders • Structured small groups to analyse closely the DMP and to produce recommendations (COWAM method)

6. What will be prepared for this discussion? • The CIP investigators will work with the National Facilitators and Chairmen to develop: • Graphic schemes to represent the Slovenian LILW DMP or a chosen part of the DMP • NOTE: ARAO has already developed such “maps” for the Slovenian process, concentrating on public involvement - these can be completed or refined • Maps to present DMP from other contexts, for comparison • Criteria to help evaluate a chosen DMP phase

7. Criteria for inclusive evaluation of national DMP Example of criteria to be proposed to NSG by CIP MTF on the basis of COWAM results • Discrepancies between formal (in principle) process and actual (practical) facts - eg: what is under/on the table in the process so far ? • Influence of local stakeholders on DMPs - eg: at the end of the day what has actually changed as a result of local actors’ influence? • Safety and Participation - eg: Have local actors & citizens contributed to increasing safety of RWM ? What was the meaning of local actors’participation ? • Expertise - eg: Has the DMP enabled pluralistic informed debates on RWM risks at local/national levels ?

8. Two short examples - 1 • ARAO prepared a simplified map of the Slovenian site selection process (pictured on next slide) • Even in a simplified map there are many aspects that could be discussed, for instance: • How do the technical investigations and the public hearings and participation fit together? Is there mutual learning between the scientific and social sides? • Building on local partnership work, the NSG could review and prepare recommendations for what should be considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment • Added value: clarify formal (opposable) steps and characteristics of the legal process

9. mediator Local partnership Potential locations (max 3) LOCATION Potentially suitable areas Workshops for stakeholders Applications from local communities Field studies Conditions and provisions for spatial planning activitiy Environmental impact assessment 1st public hearing Strategic impact assessment 2nd public hearing Slovenia: site selection process for LILW repository I n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s 9

10. Two short examples - 2 • The next slide shows how the national French law about how to handle high-level long-lived waste received three different sorts of input: scientific /technical research results, political hearings, and broader public concerns • A discussion might focus on how the different types of input were reflected (or not) in law • CIP investigators can seek country examples that are more directly comparable to Slovenian decision-making • Discussion could focus on how stakeholders in those countries influenced the decisions, which legal decisions were made, what can be learnt from these experiences that can shape the Slovenian context • Added value: bring elements of evaluation of actual DMP, notably from the local actors’ point of view

11. Very simplified chart of preparation of 2006 law (a step in French DMP) From DUPUIS (2007) presentation at ICGR (Berne) 18