The Scottish Government

Listen

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE CENTRAL RESEARCH UNIT

Environment Group Research Findings No.20

Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Engaging Scotland

Deirdre Elrick, Linda Boyes and James McCormick
Scottish Council Foundation

This document is also available in pdf format (64k)

Main Findings

• Generally participants had low levels of awareness of radioactive waste management issues and felt they did not have the necessary knowledge, but they were interested in finding out about the issues and solutions.
• Participants considered it essential for the public to become better informed and to have opportunities to become involved in decision-making processes, specifically those affecting the safe management of radioactive waste.
• They expressed a clear desire for full disclosure of relevant information from the industry, government and the media: "the whole story - the good news as well as the bad".
• Participants felt that the issue of radioactive waste management should be considered by decision-makers at all levels; from the local and national levels, to international agreements, as well as over time.
• They expressed a shared sense of responsibility, alongside government and the industry, for finding the safest possible approaches to managing radioactive waste available at any time.
• Participants felt that organisations undertaking engagement processes should make clear their reasons for engagement and their expectations of participants. This should be followed by decisions on appropriate tools and techniques of engagement, when and how they should be applied, forms of feedback and links into future dialogue and action.
• Effective engagement was thought to emerge from a continuing process of involvement rather than a series of snapshot consultation events.
• Participants identified a need for an independent advisory body, with expert advisers 'from all sides' working together to find the most effective solutions. It was thought that such a group should have responsibility for ensuring the language is understandable, that levels of expertise are explicit and processes are open and accountable.

Introduction

In December 2001 the Scottish Executive Central Research Unit commissioned Scottish Council Foundation to explore the views of the general public and stakeholders on engaging the public in decision-making about safe management of radioactive waste in Scotland. This formed part of the UK wide consultation process on Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) ¹. The Scottish Executive considered it important to establish the basis of an engagement process by gauging the level of awareness and interest in radioactive waste management issues.

Methodology

The research was based on three phases of work, each phase shaping the next.

Phase 1 involved 4 focus groups with the general public to explore participants' understanding and experience of engagement processes and their level of understanding of and interest in radioactive waste management issues. The focus groups were held with the 'affected public' drawn from the communities near Dounreay nuclear installation, the 'unaffected public' in Glasgow, young people from west-central Scotland (14-17 year olds) participating in youth activities and adult community activists from Stirling.

Phase 2 involved 1 focus group and 16 in-depth interviews with stakeholders. The findings from Phase one of the research were used to stimulate discussion about the possibilities and issues raised around engagement and decisions about managing radioactive waste, focusing on why the public should be engaged and how to engage them. Stakeholders included people from regulatory bodies, the nuclear industry, environmental NGOs, individuals who have previously undertaken consultation, members of Community Planning Partnerships and environmental journalists.

Phase 3 involved a review of literature and written material on radioactive waste management and Scottish, UK and international approaches to public engagement.

Engaging the public

Phase 1 Findings

Participants in all of the public focus groups spent some time on 2 or 3 questions from the MRWS consultation document to discuss the questions about engaging the public in decision-making about managing radioactive waste. Participants concluded that their responses could only be tentative and uninformed given their levels of awareness of the issues and the nature of the engagement. The main findings of the research therefore refer to the process of engagement rather than responses to the management options proposed.

The participants identified the following issues:

• language
• access to the document and to information on radioactive waste management
• trust in government, the nuclear industry and 'independent' expertise
• the role of experts in engaging the public and in developing solutions to the problem
• the role of the media
• education about the issues
• presentation of information

In all decision-making processes, participants in Phase 1 identified some key elements to consider when engaging the public:

• recognising that engagement ought to be an ongoing process
• awareness of the time and resources needed for engaging with the public
• being clear about the purpose of the engagement
• using the most appropriate methods
• using different approaches at local and national level
• providing feedback on decisions made
• providing independent information (neither government nor industry)
• ensuring that information is available, easy to find and easy to understand
• telling the whole story - good and bad
• awareness of the level of trust in decision makers and information providers
• understanding the role of the media
• using experts 'from all sides' and being aware that they may have differences of opinion on solutions needed

Phase 2 Findings

The stakeholder participants identified some fundamental questions and the basis of an engagement framework for future consultation on this issue:

• why involve the public?
• what do bodies organising engagement processes expect to learn?
• what can the engagement process achieve - and what can it not achieve?
• what is the difference between process and practice?
• what are the implications of engagement?
• who should be involved?
• is the purpose of the engagement clear to all participants?
• where can people access public information?
• is there a commitment in the long term, including appropriate feedback?

Phase 3 Findings

The literature review demonstrated that an extensive body of knowledge exists on developing engagement processes. Findings from the literature on engaging the public reinforced the main findings from the research, that there is a need for clarity of process, transparency, trust and sufficient time. However, the literature review did not reflect the high level of interest and commitment of the research participants to become engaged in such a process and the desire for responsibility for action to be shared between government, the industry and citizens.

Figure 1. Engaging the public: a framework to guide decisions on engagement procedures.

Conclusion

Public engagement encompasses information provision, consultation and involvement leading to ongoing participation and delegation. The research findings point towards an engagement framework composed of 7 key elements for consideration when deciding on whether and how to undertake an engagement process (Figure 1).

The research demonstrated a strong interest in public engagement generally among participants across the groups, as well as a commitment to becoming engaged in decision-making processes about the safe management of radioactive waste. Decisions about purpose, method, commitment to feedback and follow-through are essential elements when engaging the public. Investing in public engagement needs to cover the costs involved, in time, money and skills development. It is important to develop a culture of engagement based on the 'values' described, knowledge, relevance, transparency, dialogue, trust and full disclosure rather than focusing only on structures for engagement. Strengthening relations between citizens and government is recognised as a sound investment in building civil society.

¹ DEFRA (2001) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Proposals for developing a policy for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK