1 / 23

IAEA Moscow – Obninsk Conference 27 June – 2 July 2004

IAEA Moscow – Obninsk Conference 27 June – 2 July 2004 How to achieve a better acceptance of nuclear power ? Some lessons from french experience Fanny BAZILE – Forecast and Communication Director Nuclear Energy Division Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique.

turbeville
Télécharger la présentation

IAEA Moscow – Obninsk Conference 27 June – 2 July 2004

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IAEA Moscow – Obninsk Conference 27 June – 2 July 2004 How to achieve a better acceptance of nuclear power ? Some lessons from french experience Fanny BAZILE – Forecast and Communication Director Nuclear Energy Division Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  2. THE FRENCH CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE Since the 80’s / 90’s, an erosion of nuclear public acceptance : which explanations ? IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  3. THE FRENCH CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE (1) • In the 70’s the building of nuclear programme is well-accepted by the French people, except by few far-leftists : • Oil crisis • High legitimacy of science and technology • Confidence towards institutions • Strong communication from EDF and the government • In the 80’s and moreover the 90’s the confidence towards science and technology decreases • Rise of ecological trends • Accident of Chernobyl : discredit of French Safety and Health Authorities • Left-oriented governments • Shut down of Superphenix in 1998 • Health scandals (contaminated blood, mad cow…) IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  4. THE FRENCH CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE (1) • At the end of the 90’s, there is a relative loss of confidence in nuclear industry • But the most important fact is that a majority of people are hesitating or ambivalent • About 20% of people claim to be opposed to the use of nuclear power • About 20-25% of people claim to be in favour of the nuclear power • About 50 to 60 % claim to be hesitating, ambivalent or without precise opinion IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  5. THE FRENCH CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE (2) • People consider themselves as not well informed on energy topics : • 70% of the French people claim to be « poorly informed » on energy topics (source : Ministry of Industry, 2003) • Nuclear opponents denounce a « lack of transparency » in the French energetic policy • 50% declare being « interested » by these questions (source : Ministry of Industry, 2003) • But qualitative opinion polls show in fact the poor interest of a large public on these questions IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  6. THE FRENCH INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTIONS Towards a better distinction between technical and political responsibilities ? IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  7. THE FRENCH INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTIONS (1) • Since the 90’s, several institutional evolutions tend to : • Separate the authorities in charge of control from the operators • Distinguish the political responsability from the technical one, and clarify the relationship between the political decision and technical expertise. • Creation of « local committees of Information » near the nuclear sites • Creation, of the CSSIN (independence from operators and government) to improve the public information on nuclear safety • « Bataille Act », on R&D to manage the high level radioactive waste. • Creation of « National Commission for Public Debate » • Independence of « IRSN » (ex IPSN) from CEA During all this period, high visibility of « Nuclear Safety Authority » : in the media, on a web-site open to the public… IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  8. THE FRENCH INSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTIONS (2) • 2003 : « National Debate on Energies », launched by the Ministry of Industry • 2004 : Blueprint Law on Energies, discussed by the Parliament (definitive vote by July, 2004) • Assigns 4 objectives to the French energy policy : • Contribute to security of supply and energetical independance, • Preserve the environment and reinforce the prevention of greenhouse effect, • Guarantee a competitive price of energy • Guarantee a equal access to energy for all the citizens • Reaffirms the necessity of nuclear power, authorizes the building of a first EPR and encourages the R&D for the future nuclear systems. IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  9. THE FRENCH NATIONAL DEBATE ON ENERGIES Can rational arguments convince a large public ? IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  10. CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE • There is a growing demand for a more participative democracy. • Since the 90’s, the left and green parties claim the necessity of a better transparency in the nuclear policy. • In 2003, the Government decides to launch a national debate, before passing a law governing the French energy policy : • Taking into account long term issues (2030 / 2050) and new elements about the environment (climate change, natural resources…) • Giving a new legitimacy to the main energetic choices, including nuclear program and other « big equipments ». IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  11. STAKES OF SETTING UP A NATIONAL DEBATE ON ENERGIES • Avoiding a debate « in favour or against nuclear power » • Giving to a large public the elements to understand energetic choices : • Balance supply / demand in each sector and the question of security of supply • Environmental goals : greenhouse effect, limited natural resources in oil and gas • Economical and geopolitical data (deregulation, globalization, emergence of European union, conflicts for oil and gas…) IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  12. PRINCIPLES OF THE DEBATE : PLURALISM, TRANSPARENCY, EDUCATION • Transparency : an « Advisory Committee » and a group of energy sector representatives guaranteed the fairness of the whole process. • Pluralism : • 6 national symposia in Paris and province, with different energy experts and professionals, and decision-makers. • « Partners’ initiatives » : NGOs, institutions, local community requested to set up pluralistic debates open to everybody. • Education : • Creation of a website by the Ministry of Industry : information, forum, partner initiatives and symposia reports. • Creation of a leaflet, delivered in schools, and in big towns subway. IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  13. THE SCOPE OF NATIONAL SYMPOSIA : ALL THE ENERGIES (MARCH – MAY 2003) « What new challenges for the energy policy ? » « Energy and everybody life, how to consume better ? » « Energy, companies and transport : how to combine competitivity and responsability ? » « Coal, gas, oil, strengths and weaknesses : until when ? » « Renewable energies : alternative or complement ? » « Nuclear power : energy of the future or wrong solution ? » Concluding symposium : « Towards a sustainable energy policy » IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  14. « PARTNER INITIATIVES » • More than 250 labelled « partner initiatives », organized by academic and scientific societies (SFEN, …), by NGOs, local institutions, environmentalists… • Tangible pluralism of each event • Many participants, particularly people who were already concerned by the topic (professionnals, members of NGOs…) • Opponents to nuclear energy • first, participated in the local debates, • then, denounced the lack of pluralism and refused to participate, • tried to organize a « counter-debate », unsuccessfully. IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  15. CEA CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE • In-house formation and information to allow the CEA’s agents to be implied in the debate • Creation of a website within the CEA intranet (information, forum) • Organization of an internal training on energies at the INSTN • Information meetings in every CEA center • Publication of special editions of in-house Newspapers. • Participation in many local or national symposia • Meetings at « Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie », on energies and greenhouse effect • Symposium at the Senate on energy prospective • Symposium on Innovation and Research with the other French Research organisms • Meetings in the CEA centers • Website dedicated to the Debate. IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  16. WHICH IMPACT ON THE FRENCH PUBLIC OPINION ? (1) • Few impact of the debate in the media • « Cold » topic • vs. Other news in spring 2003 : war in Iraq, social questions… • Newspapers and TV did not relay the debate as an event. • But the experts and governments’ stances have had a great impact in the general perception of the topic • New issues were discussed (greenhouse effect problems, balance supply/demand, sustainable energy mix…) : arguments were renewed. • Advantages and drawbacks of each energy were discussed as they never were before. IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  17. WHICH IMPACT ON THE FRENCH PUBLIC OPINION ? (2) • General attitude towards nuclear energy has changed in 2003 • 28 % of the french population claim to be favourable to it, (vs 20 % in 2002) • 17 % are against it (vs 25 % in 2002) (source : A. Bucaille, Areva, ENS-PIME, Feb. 2004) • Scenarios which postulate maintaining or increasing nuclear capacity receive 54 % of the vote (versus 42 % in 2002) (source : A. Bucaille, Areva, ENS-PIME, Feb. 2004) • Amongst the reasons of changing their opinion towards nuclear, people evoke : • Concerns about climate change (84%) • Concerns about oil spills (75%) • Better information concerning advantages and risks of nuclear energy (65%) • The war in Iraq and the Middle East (63%) (Source : Ibid) IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  18. WHICH IMPACT ON THE FRENCH PUBLIC OPINION ? (3) • CO2 emissions, climate change and energy : the consciousness of problems of greenhouse effect has progressed significantly… (9 out of 10 people believe that we have something to do to prevent climate change, and most of them know that CO2 emissions are responsible for the phenomenon) (source : A. Bucaille, Areva, ENS-PIME, Feb. 2004) … But the knowledge of nuclear power’s advantage on this topic has done few progress. • Only 52% people, versus 44 % in 2002, think that nuclear energy gives off practically no CO2 ; • Only 38 %think that nuclear energy does not contribute to climate change). (source : A. Bucaille, Areva, ENS-PIME, Feb. 2004) IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  19. WHICH IMPACT ON THE FRENCH PUBLIC OPINION ? (4) • The decisions-makers’ discourse on nuclear power (experts, politicians, even opponents) have changed significantly The question now is not «For or against nuclear power ?» but « Which nuclear power for the next 50 years ? » • Technical issues « Generations » of nuclear systems (III, IV…) : a new debate has appeared, not only between experts but also in the media and between the politicians. • Political issues • What kind of local or national debates on the energetic choices ? • What kind of control of the nuclear actors by the elected representatives ? • What kind governmental responsibility on the long-term R&D ? • Which international rules to prevent proliferation ? • Etc.. IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  20. THE NEXT STEPS • The Blueprint Law on Energies, currently discussed at the french Parliament (including EPR, but many other kinds of measures, as economy certificates…) • The « National Public Debates » on the big equipments (EPR, JHR…) • The Parliament’s decision on High Level Long Life Waste in 2006 : deep storage, disposal, partitioning…? IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  21. CONCLUSION : INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN NUCLEAR ACTORS AND SOCIETY(1) • The French National Debate on Energies has taken place in France in a context of trying to build more confidence in nuclear actors and public authorities, by identifying technical and political levels of responsability. • The institutional evolution has gone in the same direction and gives proofs of transparency • Local Information Commissions • Independence of safety authorities • Legal framework for the R&D on nuclear waste • Opening nuclear sites • Visibility of nuclear R&D • Public debate on the law… IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  22. CONCLUSION : INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN NUCLEAR ACTORS AND SOCIETY(2) • Public opinion on energies can change, and highly depends on events on the one hand, communication and information processes on the other hand. • Many factors can influence these dynamics : • Political discourses • International events • Evolution of environmental concerns • Evolution of political and administrative organization of control on safety (perceived degree of independence) IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

  23. CONCLUSION : INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN NUCLEAR ACTORS AND SOCIETY (3) • One must not accept as a fatality the impression of « poor public acceptance of nuclear » Such an impression amongst decision-makers creates a vicious circle ( « the 3rd man » vision). IAEA international conference, Moscow - Obninsk, 27 June - 2 July

More Related