Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T19:32:37.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigation of the attitudes, needs, and expectations of the Saligny community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

A. Constantin*
Affiliation:
Institute for Nuclear Research, Campului Str, No. 1, Postal Code 115400 - Mioveni, Arges County, Romania
M. Constantin
Affiliation:
Institute for Nuclear Research, Campului Str, No. 1, Postal Code 115400 - Mioveni, Arges County, Romania
D. Diaconu
Affiliation:
Institute for Nuclear Research, Campului Str, No. 1, Postal Code 115400 - Mioveni, Arges County, Romania
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Many countries encourage national forums for transparency, dialogue and participation with regards to radioactive waste disposal. However, the local actors (authorities, non-government organisations and the public) often note a lack of public participation in the decision making process. Civil society is often frustrated with its limited involvement in the consultative process. Participation is regulated by national laws and rules and the right to participate in environmental decision-making is covered by the Aarhus Convention. Continuous dialogue amongst stakeholders is seen as important in building sustainable solutions in radioactive waste management. In addition, understanding public concerns and needs can increase the trust between the partners and build confidence in the process.

Different national and local contexts have contributed to the development of quite a broad set of approaches and tools for stakeholder engagement. This paper describes the use of such tools in the engagement with the Saligny community in the siting process of a repository for low- and intermediate-level wastes in Romania. Some specific issues are highlighted such as: the low level of interest amongst the public in relation to long-term projects; over-estimation of benefits in comparison to the negative aspects of hosting a repository; lack of a coherent public voice; and a perceived lack of information on the project from the authorities and the implementer. The present study describes the setting up of the participatory approach to engage with the public and the different methods employed (including citizen juries, workshops, open days, etc.). A number of criteria were developed for evaluating the effectiveness of these methods particularly with regards to their adaptability to a local context such as Saligny. The paper then focuses on the results of one of these methods – the use of focus groups covering a cross-section of civil society – including members of the general public, a group of professionals and a group of local councillors. The study has resulted in a number of recommendations to the implementer on how to build a new programme for public participation.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015. This is an open access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2015

References

IPPA (2014) Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste Disposal. http://www.ippaproject.eu/.Google Scholar
Constantin, M. and Diaconu, D. (2009) Prospective Case Studies: Country Reports on the Cooperative Investigation - Romania, Euratom-FP7-Cowam in Practice. http://www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_D1-9_FINAL_ROM_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar
Constantin, M. and Diaconu, D. and Constantin, A. (2013) Methodology for public involvement in local decision making processes. Euratom-FP7-IPPA, D2.14.Google Scholar