Enfoque cognoscitivo

It is confirmed by projects such as the IAEA CIDER project [14] and the European Commission Seventh Framework Programe EAGLE project³ and Horizon 2020 ENGAGE⁴ and TERRITORIES projects that open, transparent and timely communication (for instance at the early stages of a remediation project) and stakeholder involvement are beneficial for industry, authorities, lay people and other stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement has been proven effective in bridging the gaps between opinions, views and expectations. Through stakeholder involvement, public concerns can be addressed in an open and transparent way, trust can be built between the different parties and mutual understanding can be increased. Furthermore, stakeholders contribute to better processes and better outcomes, developing during the process a certain ownership of the solutions to be implemented. Sound communication and stakeholder involvement lead to effective, democratic, ethical and transparent decisions, important for NORM related governance. Yet, stakeholder involvement is a complex process that demands a lot of time and human and financial resources [2, 14].

The Belgian site at Olen serves as an example to demonstrate the importance of the stakeholder engagement process. This site is taken as a case study of societal uncertainties in remediation projects under the European Commission Horizon 2020 TERRITORIES project⁵).

Quoting from Ref. [15]:

“Mixed contamination (chemical and radiological) at the site is due to the metallurgic industry, specifically radium extraction and production of radium sources from 1922 till 1969. This activity led to significant contamination, both inside the factory premises and outside: dumping sites, the banks of a nearby river and a few streets of the neighbouring town. The first environmental study was conducted in 1960 after which the mixed pollution (heavy metals and radioactive materials) was recognised. In the 1980’s the local community and green activists pressured the authorities to redo the study. In 1993 the report was made available and showed pollution in river banks, waste disposal….

“Subsequent to this, a press conference was organised by the local community. A committee of 20 people, including authorities and company, was established but decisions were postponed. It was not until 2000 that a company and nuclear waste agency (ONDRAS/NIRAS) came up with the BREAM project. This resulted in 2002 in the organisation of a first public meeting, after which a brochure was published with explanation of the project and timing. Additionally, a working group was established. In 2003 an outside company was appointed for the remediation and in 2004, OVAM took over the remediation based on the idea that mixed contamination leads to mixed responsibility. In 2004, there was also an agreement reached on the financial aspects and an external communication officer was hired. In 2006 the remediation started, in 2008 the remediation finished, and in 2009 new measurements were done which showed that not all sites were remediated due to for example land instability. In Olen the stakeholders involved comprise the local population, local authorities, government institutions, industry, concerned companies, media, private actors, politicians etc…

3 http://eagle.sckcen.be.

4 http://www.engage-h2020.eu/.

5 TERRITORIES – To Enhance unceRtainties Reduction and stakeholders Involvement TOwards integrated and graded Risk management of humans and wildlife In long-lasting radiological Exposure Situations.

49

“In general the public was happy that somebody explained the situation (including the risks and the remediation strategy) to them. The public was not necessarily aware of radioactivity and wondered why such dramatic interventions were needed. From this a working group with local population was established to create dialogue and consultation opportunities”.

The relevance of stakeholder engagement and communication in complex decision making is recognized by international organizations [16–19]. Stakeholder involvement in decommissioning and environmental remediation programmes is also set out in different academic and legal texts, such as the European Directives 97/11/EC [20] and 2003/35/EC [21].

In addition, the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters [22] states that the public should be involved at the earlier stages of the environmental impact assessment process, and thus also in remediation programmes [2]. Figure 1 illustrates the various groups of stakeholders and gives an idea of the decisions to be taken by stakeholders at various stages of the environmental remediation process.

The importance of early involvement of stakeholders in the remediation process is often acknowledged, but practice shows that this happens mainly at a later stage when remediation projects are jeopardized. The IAEA CIDER project [14] points out that involvement should start with listening to stakeholders’ concerns and demands, agreeing on the ground rules to establish a dialogue and, if possible, jointly framing the issue. Quoting from Ref. [2]:

“The involvement of an independent facilitator agreed by all parties and/or the international community can help to open up dialogue. In addition, providing stakeholders with financial resources to choose their own experts could be seen as a mechanism for building trust among the different parties”.

The European Commission Seventh Framework Programme project EAGLE recommended the selection of the following up to date and necessary communication practices for a successful involvement with stakeholders⁶:

(i) Participate in networks with active, empowered citizen communicators;

(ii) Establish ‘Science Media Centres’ as centralized scientific data services for journalists;

(iii) Translate, simplify and clarify content;

(iv) Use familiar reference points;

(iv) Create and/or support online banks of information that journalists and other stakeholders can consult;

(v) Adapt an institutional communication culture to the actual communication landscape;

(vi) Admit scientific uncertainties and provide balanced information;

(vii) Engage with stakeholders early;

(viii) Know your public’s needs and perceptions and how they receive and understand information.

6 http://eagle.sckcen.be/-/media/Files/EAGLE/EAGLE_recommendations.pdf?la=en&hash=0F6757 D218EE7FD448B440F62BA0FED0EF19A8A7.

50

FIG.1. Stakeholder involvement in different stages of the remediation process.

51 5. CONCLUSION

Governance of risks associated with NORM is challenged by the particularities of radiation (e.g. scientific and societal uncertainties, different perceptions of risks, societal trust issues, awareness issues) and the evolving societal landscape (e.g. social media, active citizenship). The assessment of health and other effects associated with NORM is confronted with the complexity of assessing causal and temporal relationships and uncertainty not only in terms of technical solutions, but even related to system boundaries and ignorance. In other words, better communication, early stakeholder involvement and inclusive decision making related to NORM issues are not only “mission possible” but also “mission unavoidable”.

REFERENCES

[1] PEPIN, S., BIERMANS, G., DEHANDSCHUTTER, B., SONCK, M., How will Belgium implement the European directive with regard to NORM?, Ann. Belgian Assoc. Radiat.

Prot. 41 (2016) 127.

[2] PERKO, T., MONKEN-FERNANDES, H., MARTELL, M., ZELEZNIK, N., O’SULLIVAN, P., Societal constraints related to environmental remediation and decommissioning programmes, J. Environ. Radioactivity (2017).

[3] SLOVIC, P., FISCHHOFF, B., LICHTENSTEIN, S., “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived risk”, Societal Risk Assessment (SCHWING, R.C., ALBERS, W.A., Eds), Springer, Boston, MA (1980) 181–216.

[4] SLOVIC, P., Perception of risk from radiation, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 68 3–4 (1996) 165–180.

[5] PERKO, T., Radiation risk perception: A discrepancy between the experts and the general population, J. Environ. Radioact. 133 (2014) 86–91.

[6] FISCHHOFF, B., SLOVIC, P., LICHTENSTEIN, S., READ, S., COMBS, B., How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences 91 (1978) 127–152.

[7] SLOVIC, P., Perception of Risk, Earthscan Publications, London (2000).

[8] RENN, O., “Concepts of risk: An interdisciplinary review – Part 2: Integrative approaches”, GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 17 2 (2008).

[9] TURCANU, C., PERKO, T., LATRÉ, E., The SCK·CEN Barometer 2015, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Mol (2016) 52–53.

[10] PERKO, T., ZELEZNIK, N., TURCANU, C., THIJSSEN, P., Is knowledge important?

Empirical research on nuclear risk communication in two countries, Health Phys. 102 6 (2012) 614–625.

[11] SANDMAN, P.M., EBLEN, R.A., “Risk Communication”, Encyclopedia of the Environment (EBLEN, R.W., Ed.), Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1994) 620–623.

[12] SJÖBERG, L., DROTTZ-SJÖBERG, B.M., Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees, Risk Anal 11 4 (1991) 607–618.

[13] TURCANU, C., EL JAMMAL, M.H.T.P., BAUMONT, G., LATRÉ, E., CHOFFEL DE WITTE, I.., Satisfaction with information about ionising radiation:

A comparative study in Belgium and France, J. Radiol. Prot. 36 (2016) 122–142.

[14] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advancing Implementation of Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation Programmes, CIDER Project:

Baseline Report, IAEA, Vienna (2016).

[15] PERKO, T., ABELSHAUSEN, B., Methodological Document for Case Studies:

Guidelines for researchers (2017).

52

[16] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Communication and Stakeholder Involvement in Environmental Remediation Projects, IAEA, Vienna (2014).

[17] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Advancing Implementation of Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation Programmes, IAEA, Vienna (2016).

[18] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making:

A Short Guide to Issues, Approaches and Resources, OECD–NEA, Paris (2015).

[19] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, Fostering a Durable Relationship between a Waste Management Faciltiy and its Host Community: Adding Value through Design and Process, OECD–NEA, Paris (2017).

[20] COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Official Journal of the European Communities No.

L 73/5 (1997).

[21] EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 156/17 (2003).

[22] UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE, Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters done at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998, UNECE, Geneva (1998)

53