1

Multi-level Governance perspective on nuclear waste management

Achim Brunnengräber, M. Rosaria Di Nucci,

Lutz Mez and Miranda Schreurs

17th meeting of the REFORM Group

Salzburg, August 31, 2012

2

Contents

Analytical approach - Multi-level Governance

Complexity and uncertainty

Nuclear waste disposal: a wicked problem?

The search for the “right” site in Germany: a brief history

Structure of the planned project

3

Initial assumptions

• Political Science is not yet prepared for the analysis of multiple problem dimension and its regulation especially because of the increasing social complexities

• New analytical approaches are needed in order to understand socially strongly “politicized“ problems and conflicts

• Multi-level Governance can represent for a number of grounds a suitable analytical framework

4

Multi-level Governance • Complex, trans boundary configurations: intra-extra, local-

global, private-public, poor-rich

• Absence of a paramount sovereign instance: responsibilities, competencies and resources are distributed across tiers

• New mode of governance

• Participation of NGOs, TNCs or knowledge-networks at local, national and international level

• Generation of norms through non-state actors

5

Complexity and uncertainty

• Interdependencies between technical, political, ecological, economic and societal problem areas => increased need for regulation and claim for participation

• High concentration of rules and regulations next to strategic fragmentation

• Disordered plurality and diversity of actors

• Blurred transition between hard, codified law and soft law

• Interconnection of top down- and bottom up-processes

(multiple) crisis of governance?

6

• The issue of nuclear waste storage can be considered what in the literature is referred to as a “messy” or “wicked problem”

• Wicked problems are particularly difficult problems to solve as they are complex and characterized by many uncertainties

• They tend to generate conflict due to deep differences in the values and preferences of stakeholders who usually have different views on desirable outcomes (Ney 2009; Balint, Stewart, Desai, Walters 2011)

• They are problems that tend to lead to veto players that work to block policy change (Tsebelis 2002)

Nuclear waste storage: a wicked problem?

7

How to?

• In order to deal with this kind of “wicked policy problem”

→ it is important to understand how different actors perceive and “frame” problems and solutions (Snow & Benford 1988)

→ their interests and core beliefs (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith 1988), and how policies change (Baumgartner & Jones 1993)

• It is also necessary to consider what kinds of networks and learning processes can help to overcome these kinds of wicked problems (Balint, Stewart, Desai, Walters 2011)

8 Forschungszentrum für Umweltpolitik. Lutz Mez

The German case

9

Nuclear waste in Germany: a short history

• The Atomic Energy Act of 1959 stated that West Germany had to dispose its nuclear waste geologically

• Both West Germany and East Germany operated "test” disposal sites for non-heat-generating waste, at the Asse mine in West Germany and at the Morsleben Mine in East Germany

• Both mines are located in a salt-dome. Rock instabilities have led to problems of mechanical stability

• As potential locations for a final disposal site for heat-generating waste, several salt domes have been under discussion since the early 1970s

• In 1977, the West German and Lower Saxony governments decided to explore the salt dome in Gorleben

• Two interim storage units for radioactive waste at Gorleben were operated until the moratorium in 2000

10

Responsibilities for final disposal of radioactive waste in Germany

• Federal Republic responsible for the arrangement of final disposal since 1976

• Execution of tasks Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS)

• Since establishment of BMU (1986) BfS belongs to this ministry

• The Nuclear Waste Management Commission (ESK) – 11 independent experts – since 2008 advises BMU

• DBE has cooperation treaty with BfS and is responsible for planning , construction and operation of federal final nuclear waste disposal facilities

• Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) has geo-scientific and –technical expertise – BGR belongs to BMWi

• Planning approval by the relevant Supreme State Authority

11

Nuclear storage facilities in Germany

Nuclear waste is stored at:

dry interim storage facilities at reactor sites

four additional sites in Gorleben, Ahaus, Jülich and Greifswald

Source: Ökoinstitut

12

Complexity of decision processes

• Political debate and harsh opposition in Gorleben since 1979

• Continued elaboration of a site-selection procedures and criteria for the selection

• “Nuclear Consensus” between red-green Government and operators of NPPs in 2000

• Establishment of the advisory group "AkEnd “ 1999

• AkEnd final report in December 2002

• No consensus on a particular option

• „Endlagersuchgesetz“

• Difficult search for a non-partisan compromise at political level

13

Framing of Problems and Solutions

• In the public perception Gorleben stands as the HL nuclear waste disposal

• No real, constructive dialogue between the governments (Federal and Länder), relevant stakeholders and the general public

• BMU wishes “radioactive waste management to be settled in consensus”… but

• Rigidity of the positions of the various actors (DAtF, NGOs, local administrations, political parties etc.)

DAtF – „Bis heute gibt es keine wissenschaftlich-technischen Erkenntnisse, die gegen eine Eignung des Standorts Gorleben sprechen“

Greenpeace – „Endlagersuchgesetz is unconstitutional“

Anti-Nuclear Fora – “Comparative search for a final storage site needs to be mandatory”

14

Roadmap for final nuclear waste disposal

Shutdown of German NPPs according the Atomic Energy Act by 2022

Atomic Energy Act Amendment in 2011

Interim storage

Start of final storage about 2030

Completion of final storage activities –> 2100

Geological period for secure disposal of nuclear waste

15

Structure of the planned project

• FFU Project part of a large

interdisciplinary research platform

with major German institutes

• FFU contribution: MLG perspective

• Analysis of the actors

• Acceptance and conflicts

• Multi-level governance

• International comparison of nuclear

waste storage concepts

• Instruments and institutions

126.000 barrels of nuclear waste

at Asse II

16

Actors´ interests, beliefs and perceptions

The first work package sets to identify key actors and interests and analyses:

→ their value systems and beliefs

→ how they frame issues

→ where there may be avenues for constructive dialogue and problem solving

17

Acceptance and conflicts

• Classical acceptance conflicts in a number of relevant, democratic industrialised countries

• Analysis of their formation, structure and development in democratic countries from the angle of their transferability to the German context

• Secondary analysis of quantitative and qualitative surveys on acceptance of nuclear waste disposal in selected European countries, Japan, USA and South Korea

• Eventually face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders

18

Decision processes

• Investigation with the multi-level governance approach of decision processes in the nuclear waste disposal and roles of participating actors in the various decisions levels in German Länder, Federal State and the EU

• The various options to be discussed in individual interviews with stakeholders and their positions examined with help of a SWOT analysis

• Discussion with selected stakeholders in a workshop esp. on how risks can be minimized und threats counteracted with the strengths identified in the SWOT analysis

• Systematisation of answers to questions such as which decision processes can be considered legitimate and which ethical, legal, regional and socio-economic problems need to be considered in decision processes

19

Nuclear Waste concepts and options in international comparison

• Analysis of relevant waste disposal and storage options

• Analysis of relevant governance concepts

• Screening of international experiences on forms of public participation and community relations in Europe (UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Sweden), USA, Japan, South Korea and Canada

• Comparative analysis of six representative cases

20

Policy-Instruments

• Analysis of policy-instruments (e.g. regulation of retrievability, safety criteria, monitoring systems, compensation solutions)

• Analysis and assessment of technical and institutional processes connected with nuclear waste disposal

• In the various political systems there are different experiences and path dependencies in the deployment of policy instruments

• Focus on instrument mix and related institutional configurations

21

Which instruments?

• Which instruments and institutions for safety and monitoring systems and processes are appropriate?

• Views and preferences of the various stakeholders

• Comparative analysis investigating the determinants for success and failure of the scrutinized instruments

• Key issue: legitimation, feasibility and operability in various configurations

23

.

Thank you for your attention

Environmental Policy Research Centre