Abstract
The Team Syntegrity Meeting is a special part of the project. It aims for increased awareness among key stakeholder groups in Europe about how nuclear waste decision processes should be developed in order to increase transparency and trust. Team Syntegrity is conducted with a special meeting format. The self-organisation of the meeting is a strong positive feature of the format. Instead of having a project leader setting the agenda, the participants formulate their own topics of relevance starting from an opening question. This report documents the meeting that was held in Lanaken, Belgium on 14-17 May 2002. The opening question for the meeting was: What are communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? There are different opinions about how communication on nuclear waste issues should be done. There are differences between stakeholder groups, and there are different approaches taken in various countries. Still it should be possible to reach a deeper understanding of social communications, that is, understanding the requirements to have effective communications between policy makers, experts and stakeholders. The aim was thus not to develop common views on the nuclear waste problem as such, but rather common grounds
More>>
Andersson, Kjell;
[1]
Espejo, Raul;
[2]
Wene, Clas-Otto
[3]
- Karinta-Konsult, Taeby (Sweden)
- Syncho Ltd., Birmingham (United Kingdom)
- Wenergy, Lund (Sweden)
Citation Formats
Andersson, Kjell, Espejo, Raul, and Wene, Clas-Otto.
What are the communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? Report from a Team Syntegrity Meeting. The European Project RISCOM-II. Work Package 3.
Sweden: N. p.,
2003.
Web.
Andersson, Kjell, Espejo, Raul, & Wene, Clas-Otto.
What are the communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? Report from a Team Syntegrity Meeting. The European Project RISCOM-II. Work Package 3.
Sweden.
Andersson, Kjell, Espejo, Raul, and Wene, Clas-Otto.
2003.
"What are the communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? Report from a Team Syntegrity Meeting. The European Project RISCOM-II. Work Package 3."
Sweden.
@misc{etde_20500994,
title = {What are the communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? Report from a Team Syntegrity Meeting. The European Project RISCOM-II. Work Package 3}
author = {Andersson, Kjell, Espejo, Raul, and Wene, Clas-Otto}
abstractNote = {The Team Syntegrity Meeting is a special part of the project. It aims for increased awareness among key stakeholder groups in Europe about how nuclear waste decision processes should be developed in order to increase transparency and trust. Team Syntegrity is conducted with a special meeting format. The self-organisation of the meeting is a strong positive feature of the format. Instead of having a project leader setting the agenda, the participants formulate their own topics of relevance starting from an opening question. This report documents the meeting that was held in Lanaken, Belgium on 14-17 May 2002. The opening question for the meeting was: What are communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? There are different opinions about how communication on nuclear waste issues should be done. There are differences between stakeholder groups, and there are different approaches taken in various countries. Still it should be possible to reach a deeper understanding of social communications, that is, understanding the requirements to have effective communications between policy makers, experts and stakeholders. The aim was thus not to develop common views on the nuclear waste problem as such, but rather common grounds for developing procedures for effective communication. Hopefully, this meeting made some progress in this direction. The call for the Team Syntegrity (TS) Meeting resulted in 105 Statements of Importance given in Appendix 2. Following the TS format the meeting then formed its own agenda by first producing 30 Aggregated Statements of Importance (Appendix 3), which were grouped into 12 Consolidated Statements of Importance or topics. The group discussions were thus held under the twelve topics of: Consultation, communication and participation; Mutual learning; Roles and arenas; Heritage; Transparency; Wider context; Process; Risk; Institutional cultures; Resourcing; Facts and values; and Siting. In this summary the discussions and conclusion of these groups are brought together under eight themes or conclusions: 1) Consultation and mutual learning, 2) Trust, 3) The expert role, facts and values, 4) Transparency and consensus, 5) Institutional structures, 6) Resourcing, 7) Sustainable development, and 8) Nuclear debate. The main conclusions that can be summarised from the group discussions are as follows: For consultation and learning a stepwise process is important. People need to know where you are in the process and where you are going, how and when they can be involved and how their views will be used. Dialogue and public involvement must be given time enough so that each step in the process in well grounded. For good communication, trust between the actors is necessary. There is a mutual relationship between transparency and trust. Starting the transparency process requires some initial trust and when the process is successful, it deepens and widens this trust. Transparency is the outcome of a process and trust describes relations between actors. Trust so created is a social good needed for a participative decision process, and one benefit is that you free resources from all involved to deal with other issues One should strive for clarification about the factual versus the value-laden domain of an issue. This will increase transparency and set limits of the experts professional area e.g. by revealing hidden values in expert investigations. In distinguishing between facts and values you are able to reduce the power differences between experts and other stakeholders and empower the lay people in a decision-making process. Transparency is more important than consensus. A transparent and democratic decision-making process may not always lead to the acceptance of a proposed project. However, it should still be possible to present a coherent view on the impacts of the planned project. There is a need for strong institutional frameworks to underpin local and national policy processes. Policy for nuclear waste management requires well-defined processes and procedures, and policy outcomes must be driven by the will of the people through democratic processes. The definition and recognition of roles and arenas is critical for these purposes. The arenas should emerge on an early stage in communication with stakeholders since building confidence between the public and the producer takes a long time. A nuclear waste management programme must be resourced to allow for citizen participation and to encourage the disempowered to participate. Proper resourcing will encourage positive engagement, improve decision-making and increase public confidence. In addition to money, resources can include training, expertise and other methods of empowerment. In any case the amount of resourcing to enable participation will be small compared to the total cost of a programme. [abstract truncated]}
place = {Sweden}
year = {2003}
month = {Sep}
}
title = {What are the communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? Report from a Team Syntegrity Meeting. The European Project RISCOM-II. Work Package 3}
author = {Andersson, Kjell, Espejo, Raul, and Wene, Clas-Otto}
abstractNote = {The Team Syntegrity Meeting is a special part of the project. It aims for increased awareness among key stakeholder groups in Europe about how nuclear waste decision processes should be developed in order to increase transparency and trust. Team Syntegrity is conducted with a special meeting format. The self-organisation of the meeting is a strong positive feature of the format. Instead of having a project leader setting the agenda, the participants formulate their own topics of relevance starting from an opening question. This report documents the meeting that was held in Lanaken, Belgium on 14-17 May 2002. The opening question for the meeting was: What are communication challenges for politicians, experts and stakeholders in order to enhance transparency in nuclear waste management decisions? There are different opinions about how communication on nuclear waste issues should be done. There are differences between stakeholder groups, and there are different approaches taken in various countries. Still it should be possible to reach a deeper understanding of social communications, that is, understanding the requirements to have effective communications between policy makers, experts and stakeholders. The aim was thus not to develop common views on the nuclear waste problem as such, but rather common grounds for developing procedures for effective communication. Hopefully, this meeting made some progress in this direction. The call for the Team Syntegrity (TS) Meeting resulted in 105 Statements of Importance given in Appendix 2. Following the TS format the meeting then formed its own agenda by first producing 30 Aggregated Statements of Importance (Appendix 3), which were grouped into 12 Consolidated Statements of Importance or topics. The group discussions were thus held under the twelve topics of: Consultation, communication and participation; Mutual learning; Roles and arenas; Heritage; Transparency; Wider context; Process; Risk; Institutional cultures; Resourcing; Facts and values; and Siting. In this summary the discussions and conclusion of these groups are brought together under eight themes or conclusions: 1) Consultation and mutual learning, 2) Trust, 3) The expert role, facts and values, 4) Transparency and consensus, 5) Institutional structures, 6) Resourcing, 7) Sustainable development, and 8) Nuclear debate. The main conclusions that can be summarised from the group discussions are as follows: For consultation and learning a stepwise process is important. People need to know where you are in the process and where you are going, how and when they can be involved and how their views will be used. Dialogue and public involvement must be given time enough so that each step in the process in well grounded. For good communication, trust between the actors is necessary. There is a mutual relationship between transparency and trust. Starting the transparency process requires some initial trust and when the process is successful, it deepens and widens this trust. Transparency is the outcome of a process and trust describes relations between actors. Trust so created is a social good needed for a participative decision process, and one benefit is that you free resources from all involved to deal with other issues One should strive for clarification about the factual versus the value-laden domain of an issue. This will increase transparency and set limits of the experts professional area e.g. by revealing hidden values in expert investigations. In distinguishing between facts and values you are able to reduce the power differences between experts and other stakeholders and empower the lay people in a decision-making process. Transparency is more important than consensus. A transparent and democratic decision-making process may not always lead to the acceptance of a proposed project. However, it should still be possible to present a coherent view on the impacts of the planned project. There is a need for strong institutional frameworks to underpin local and national policy processes. Policy for nuclear waste management requires well-defined processes and procedures, and policy outcomes must be driven by the will of the people through democratic processes. The definition and recognition of roles and arenas is critical for these purposes. The arenas should emerge on an early stage in communication with stakeholders since building confidence between the public and the producer takes a long time. A nuclear waste management programme must be resourced to allow for citizen participation and to encourage the disempowered to participate. Proper resourcing will encourage positive engagement, improve decision-making and increase public confidence. In addition to money, resources can include training, expertise and other methods of empowerment. In any case the amount of resourcing to enable participation will be small compared to the total cost of a programme. [abstract truncated]}
place = {Sweden}
year = {2003}
month = {Sep}
}