Policy making structures in the EU and participating countries. Deliverable D2

The point of departure for the ARGONA project is that participation and transparency are key elements of effective risk governance. The acronym ARGONA stands for 'Arenas for Risk Governance' and the project investigates how approaches of transparency and deliberation relate to each other and also how they relate to the political system in which decisions, for example on the final disposal of nuclear waste, are ultimately taken. The project then turns to study the role played by mediators, who facilitate public engagement with nuclear waste management issues, and the 'conduct of the conduct' of public consultations. By the latter is meant the communication of models used for deliberation and transparency. Furthermore, the project investigates how good risk communication can be organized taking cultural aspects and different arenas into account. In a central part of the project major efforts are made to test and apply approaches to transparency and participation by making explicit what it would mean to use the RISCOM model and other approaches within different cultural and organizational settings. Finally, the ARGONA partners develop guidelines for the application of novel approaches that will enhance real progress in nuclear waste management programmes. The project consists of six work packages that logically starts with a description of the policy making structures that exist within the EU and in the participating countries, including EU Directives, such as Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives, as well as national nuclear safety and environmental legislation. This work package (WP 1) forms the point of departure for the project, in determining the framework within which new arenas can be formed and within which the mediators are acting. A questionnaire was issued and sent to key organizations at national and local levels. The intention was that the work package should be focused on issues that set the scene for e.g. site selection and involvement of stakeholders. One issue is the requirements for, but also if there are any limitations of, the use of novel public participation approaches (as compared to traditional minimal participation such as receiving information, asking questions at public meetings and submitting written comments) within the legal systems. Initially, the basic method of the work package was thus to analyze information gathered by the questionnaire survey. It was later decided to include more of external sources of information in the review such as other governance projects supported by DG Research of the European Commission. Furthermore, a study made on the legal aspects of information and participation in the nuclear sector made by the University of Aberdeen in a contract with DG TREN in 2005-2006 gave starting point for the WP 1 work Paterson et al. This study stays with strict legal requirements and in the discussion in this report we go deeper into how they are practiced with regard to participation and transparency. The decision to complement the survey by taking other sources of information into account and referring to them was made partly to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and partly as the questionnaire responses were fewer than expected. In the end, it is believed that this approach made the work and thus this report richer than otherwise would been the case. This report was concluded with a combination of efforts from Karita and the Joint Research Centre (JRC). In Chapter 2 we give more details on the relevant international agreements, thus mainly referring to the DG TREN report when it comes to national legislation. In chapter 3 we summarize the results from the survey with regard to driving forces behind efforts for participation and transparency, current practices and future needs. Finally, in Chapter 4 we discuss the situation taking both formal requirements, as described in chapter 3 and in the DG TREN report, and the survey responses into account. Appendix 1 provides the questionnaire itself and Appendix 2 lists the responding organizations