Applying the Risk Governance FrameworkInstitutional Requirements for Dealing with Nuclear Waste

Applying the Risk Governance FrameworkInstitutional Requirements for Dealing with Nuclear Waste

Managing Radioactive WasteGothenburg, Dec. 16, 2009

Ortwin Renn

University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK Institute

Managing Radioactive WasteGothenburg, Dec. 16, 2009

Ortwin Renn

University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK Institute

Part 1Part 1

What is special about nuclear waste risks?

What is special about nuclear waste risks?

Common risk problemsThree challenges of risk governanceCommon risk problemsThree challenges of risk governance

Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships

Uncertaintyvariation among individual targetsmeasurement and inferential errorsgenuine stochastic relationshipssystem boundaries and ignorance

Ambiguity in interpreting results

Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships

Uncertaintyvariation among individual targetsmeasurement and inferential errorsgenuine stochastic relationshipssystem boundaries and ignorance

Ambiguity in interpreting results

Nuclear Waste RepositoryNuclear Waste RepositoryComplexity

Multitude of causal and intervening factorsInterdisciplinary approach necessaryHowever – not more complex than other technologies

UncertaintyModeling over very large time intervals No historic precedent for such long time management High relevance for system boundaries and non-knowledge

AmbiguityExtremely high mobilization potential

Direct link with debate about future of nuclear power

Complexity Multitude of causal and intervening factorsInterdisciplinary approach necessaryHowever – not more complex than other technologies

UncertaintyModeling over very large time intervals No historic precedent for such long time management High relevance for system boundaries and non-knowledge

AmbiguityExtremely high mobilization potential

Direct link with debate about future of nuclear power

Nuclear wasteThree major challengesNuclear wasteThree major challenges

Dissent among experts on most appropriate disposal method

High potential for social amplificationLong term threatStigma effect of “nuclear”Typical “creeping danger” risk perceptionHigh potential for social mobilization

Symbolic connotation for large centralized technologies

Dissent among experts on most appropriate disposal method

High potential for social amplificationLong term threatStigma effect of “nuclear”Typical “creeping danger” risk perceptionHigh potential for social mobilization

Symbolic connotation for large centralized technologies

Part IIPart II

Risk Perception(Nuclear Waste Repository)

Risk Perception(Nuclear Waste Repository)

Principles of Risk PerceptionPrinciples of Risk Perception

Human behavior depends on perceptions, not on facts

Perceptions are a well-studied subject of social science research: they differ from expert assessments, but they follow consistent patterns and rationales

There are four genuine strategies to cope with threats: fight, flight, plying dead, experimentation

Human behavior depends on perceptions, not on facts

Perceptions are a well-studied subject of social science research: they differ from expert assessments, but they follow consistent patterns and rationales

There are four genuine strategies to cope with threats: fight, flight, plying dead, experimentation

Five dominant risk perception clustersFive dominant risk perception clusters

Emerging danger: randomness as threat

Creeping danger: confidence or zero-risk

Surpressed danger: myth of cycles

Weighing risks: only with betting

Desired risks: personal challenge

Emerging danger: randomness as threat

Creeping danger: confidence or zero-risk

Surpressed danger: myth of cycles

Weighing risks: only with betting

Desired risks: personal challenge

Application to nuclear wasteApplication to nuclear wasteEmerging Danger

Fear of catastrophic potential (large scale contamination)

Randomness of occurrence as source of perceived threat

Inequity of distribution between risks and benefits

Creeping DangerNo possibility to sense and acknowledge exposure

Reliance on third parties (risks is communicated not experienced)

Central factor: trust in information and management

Emerging DangerFear of catastrophic potential (large scale contamination)

Randomness of occurrence as source of perceived threat

Inequity of distribution between risks and benefits

Creeping DangerNo possibility to sense and acknowledge exposure

Reliance on third parties (risks is communicated not experienced)

Central factor: trust in information and management

Empirical evidenceEmpirical evidenceAlmost all surveys worldwide demonstrate that a large majority of the population judges risk of nuclear waste repositories as highly serious and threatening while the majority of experts estimates the risks of being fairly low compared to other risks of daily life.

Surveys also reveal that opposition and mobilization potentials reach figures of above 80% when people are asked whether they would accept a nuclear waste repository in their back yard.

With respect to risk management, communication and siting procedures there are major differences between countries (Finland, USA, GB, Switzerland), which are good sources for institutional learning

Almost all surveys worldwide demonstrate that a large majority of the population judges risk of nuclear waste repositories as highly serious and threatening while the majority of experts estimates the risks of being fairly low compared to other risks of daily life.

Surveys also reveal that opposition and mobilization potentials reach figures of above 80% when people are asked whether they would accept a nuclear waste repository in their back yard.

With respect to risk management, communication and siting procedures there are major differences between countries (Finland, USA, GB, Switzerland), which are good sources for institutional learning

Part IIIPart III

Risk GovernanceRisk Governance

DecidingUnderstanding

Pre-assessment

ManagementCommunication

Characterisation and evaluation

Appraisal

IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKIRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

Who needs to do what,

when?

Who needs to know

what, when?

Is the risk tolerable, acceptabl

e or unaccept

able?

Getting a broad

picture of the risk

The knowledge needed for judgements

and decisions

Need for different risk management strategiesNeed for different risk management strategies

dealing with routine, mundane risks

dealing with complex and sophisticated risks (high degree of modeling necessary)

dealing with highly uncertain risks (high degree of unresolved uncertainty)

dealing with highly controversial, ambiguous risks (high degree of ambiguity)

dealing with eminent dangers or crisis(need for fast responses)

dealing with routine, mundane risks

dealing with complex and sophisticated risks (high degree of modeling necessary)

dealing with highly uncertain risks (high degree of unresolved uncertainty)

dealing with highly controversial, ambiguous risks (high degree of ambiguity)

dealing with eminent dangers or crisis(need for fast responses)

Application to waste repository IApplication to waste repository I

Routine risk managementDetermining appropriate safety standards (thresholds)Meeting technical construction and mining requirementsApplying classic instruments such as BACT (best available control technology)

Complex risk modelingGeological behavior over long time periodsExposure pathways modeling over long time periodsModeling of events that are unlikely but still to be expected given the long time frame

Routine risk managementDetermining appropriate safety standards (thresholds)Meeting technical construction and mining requirementsApplying classic instruments such as BACT (best available control technology)

Complex risk modelingGeological behavior over long time periodsExposure pathways modeling over long time periodsModeling of events that are unlikely but still to be expected given the long time frame

Application to waste repository IIApplication to waste repository II

Precautionary and resilience-oriented management

Resilient measures: multi-barrier system, diversity of safety devices, redundant systems, increase of passive safetyHigher tolerance with respect to human errors and ignorance Institutional safeguarding of long-term monitoring

Application of the deliberation principleConsensus or arrangement about future nuclear policy options

Agreement on procedural mechanisms for conflict resolution and participation

Precautionary and resilience-oriented management

Resilient measures: multi-barrier system, diversity of safety devices, redundant systems, increase of passive safetyHigher tolerance with respect to human errors and ignorance Institutional safeguarding of long-term monitoring

Application of the deliberation principleConsensus or arrangement about future nuclear policy options

Agreement on procedural mechanisms for conflict resolution and participation

Part VIPart VI

Institutional Arrangements for

Public Involvement

Institutional Arrangements for

Public Involvement

Why is participation necessary?Why is participation necessary?

Increase of uncertainty and ambiguity with the widening of time horizonsIntegration of systematic, analytic, interdisciplinary and experiential knowledge essentialLoss of trust and confidence in the problem solving capacity of the political sector, in the fairness and „common good“ orientation of the economic sector and in the impartiality of the scientific sectorPrevalence of new Governance structures (including governments, industry, science, civil society)Improvement of procedural legitimizationAcceptance surplus with participation

Increase of uncertainty and ambiguity with the widening of time horizonsIntegration of systematic, analytic, interdisciplinary and experiential knowledge essentialLoss of trust and confidence in the problem solving capacity of the political sector, in the fairness and „common good“ orientation of the economic sector and in the impartiality of the scientific sectorPrevalence of new Governance structures (including governments, industry, science, civil society)Improvement of procedural legitimizationAcceptance surplus with participation

Participatory requirementsParticipatory requirementsComplexity

Knowledge-oriented strategy (epistemic discourse)State-of-the art characterization of risks (scenarios)

UncertaintyReflective discourse (weighing pros and cons)Balancing too much precaution against too little precautionInvestment in resilience

AmbiguityParticipatory discourseEvaluation of different options and locationsRisk-benefit packages (compensation)

ComplexityKnowledge-oriented strategy (epistemic discourse)State-of-the art characterization of risks (scenarios)

UncertaintyReflective discourse (weighing pros and cons)Balancing too much precaution against too little precautionInvestment in resilience

AmbiguityParticipatory discourseEvaluation of different options and locationsRisk-benefit packages (compensation)

Complexity induced

Epistemological

Agency StaffExternal Experts

Cognitive

Risk Problem

Type of Discourse

Actors

Conflict

Probabilistic Risk Modelling

Remedy

Agency StaffExternal ExpertsStakeholders

– Industry– Directly affected

groups

Uncertainty induced

Reflective

Risk Problem

Type of Discourse

Actors

CognitiveEvaluative

Conflict

Risk BalancingNecessary+Probabilistic

Risk Modelling

Remedy

Agency StaffExternal ExpertsStakeholders

– Industry– Directly affected

groups– General public

Ambiguity induced

Participative

Risk Problem

Type of Discourse

Actors

CognitiveEvaluativeNormative

Conflict

Risk Trade-offAnalysis & Delib-eration necessary+Risk Balancing+Probabilistic

Risk Modelling

Remedy

Simple

Instrumental

Risk Problem

Type of Discourse

Agency Staff

Actors

Statistical Risk Analysis

Remedy

Function: Allocation of risks to one or several of the four routesType of Discourse: Design discourse

Participatory requirement for dealing with complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity(IRGC Model)

Siting Decision Making ISiting Decision Making IComplexity:

Objective: Scientific-technical agreement about suitability of potential sites (Technical, geologic, political, economic, social)

Procedures: Consensus-oriented procedures for scientific characterization of risks

Instruments: Meta-Analysis Consensus-conferences, Delphi, Group-Delphi

Institutional requirements: neutral platform, delegation right for stakeholders, professional moderation. Experts from national and international context

Complexity: Objective: Scientific-technical agreement about suitability of potential sites (Technical, geologic, political, economic, social)

Procedures: Consensus-oriented procedures for scientific characterization of risks

Instruments: Meta-Analysis Consensus-conferences, Delphi, Group-Delphi

Institutional requirements: neutral platform, delegation right for stakeholders, professional moderation. Experts from national and international context

Siting Decision Making IISiting Decision Making II

Uncertainty: Objective: fair (intra- and intergenerational) and robust solution of dealing with uncertainties

Procedures: Alternate conflict resolution mechanisms for finding fair and acceptable solutions

Instruments: Mediation, Round Table, Stakeholder Consensus Conferences

Institutional requirements: neutral platform, participants from affected populations, experts as sources of knowledge, then deliberation about acceptability, professional mediator, combination of national and regional stakeholders

Uncertainty: Objective: fair (intra- and intergenerational) and robust solution of dealing with uncertainties

Procedures: Alternate conflict resolution mechanisms for finding fair and acceptable solutions

Instruments: Mediation, Round Table, Stakeholder Consensus Conferences

Institutional requirements: neutral platform, participants from affected populations, experts as sources of knowledge, then deliberation about acceptability, professional mediator, combination of national and regional stakeholders

Siting Decision Making IIISiting Decision Making IIIAmbiguity:

Objective: Common arrangement about energy future(s) and fair siting decisions

Procedures: deliberative methods for societal energy policy making and for site selection incl. risk-benefit packages

Instruments: Citizen juries, panels, public consensus conferences, Round Tables

Institutional requirements: neutral platforms: two levels: national (energy policies) and regional (siting, risk-benefit package). Participants: local populations (organized and not-organized), input from stakeholders and scientists

Ambiguity: Objective: Common arrangement about energy future(s) and fair siting decisions

Procedures: deliberative methods for societal energy policy making and for site selection incl. risk-benefit packages

Instruments: Citizen juries, panels, public consensus conferences, Round Tables

Institutional requirements: neutral platforms: two levels: national (energy policies) and regional (siting, risk-benefit package). Participants: local populations (organized and not-organized), input from stakeholders and scientists

Siting Decision Making IVSiting Decision Making IVIntegration

Objective: Combination and integration of the three discourse activities

Procedure: Hybrid constructions

Instruments: Analytic-deliberative approaches, cooperative discourse (Important: independent supervisory board)

Institutional requirements: Integration requires the establishment of a board of supervisors with high national esteem and reputation

Integration

Objective: Combination and integration of the three discourse activities

Procedure: Hybrid constructions

Instruments: Analytic-deliberative approaches, cooperative discourse (Important: independent supervisory board)

Institutional requirements: Integration requires the establishment of a board of supervisors with high national esteem and reputation

Operation and monitoringOperation and monitoring

Establishment of a public (or private) non-profit foundation with sufficient funds to live from the interests

The foundation needs: a scientific-technical committee (complexity), a regional-political committee (uncertainty) and a citizen advisory committee (ambiguity)

The foundation should supervise , control and monitor operation and could also be the broker for the benefit package

Establishment of a public (or private) non-profit foundation with sufficient funds to live from the interests

The foundation needs: a scientific-technical committee (complexity), a regional-political committee (uncertainty) and a citizen advisory committee (ambiguity)

The foundation should supervise , control and monitor operation and could also be the broker for the benefit package

Part VPart V

ConclusionsConclusions

Conclusions I Conclusions I Nuclear waste repositories are risk sources characterized by medium complexity, high uncertainty and extreme ambiguity

Worldwide high potential for negative risk perceptions and social mobilization

The procedures for siting that have been employed until today do not reflect the explosive situation and will not be able to resolve the conflicts

One procedure by itself will not be sufficient to deal with the difficult situation

Nuclear waste repositories are risk sources characterized by medium complexity, high uncertainty and extreme ambiguity

Worldwide high potential for negative risk perceptions and social mobilization

The procedures for siting that have been employed until today do not reflect the explosive situation and will not be able to resolve the conflicts

One procedure by itself will not be sufficient to deal with the difficult situation

Conclusions IIConclusions IINew institutional and participatory forms of decision making are needed

Inclusion of a broad governance representation: Political economic, scientific and civil society actors

Three types of discourse procedures:Complexity: Scientific modeling (epistemic discourse)Uncertainty: Balance between precaution and innovativeness (reflective discourse)Ambiguity: Building trust and consensus (participatory discourse)

Necessity of a neutral platform for designing, organizing and moderating these discourses under the umbrella of a impartial and highly esteemed supervisory board.

New institutional and participatory forms of decision making are needed

Inclusion of a broad governance representation: Political economic, scientific and civil society actors

Three types of discourse procedures:Complexity: Scientific modeling (epistemic discourse)Uncertainty: Balance between precaution and innovativeness (reflective discourse)Ambiguity: Building trust and consensus (participatory discourse)

Necessity of a neutral platform for designing, organizing and moderating these discourses under the umbrella of a impartial and highly esteemed supervisory board.