Consensus shaping and safe space public participation processes

Stakeholder involvement and public participation is recognized as a necessary part of nuclear waste management. It is possible to see three driving forces behind this development: (1) a deliberative movement with its roots in the 1960s leftish movement (a philosophical argument), (2) the need for public acceptance of proposed solutions (a practical argument), and (3) the need for awareness and clarity before crucial decisions are made (a practical and democratic argument). Depending on which driving force dominates an initiative for public participation, the initiator is likely to prefer certain public participation processes before others. The initiator has to select among a large number of processes already having been implemented or design a new one tailored for the specific situation. The process choice is crucial for which stakeholders are able to join and which goals can be reached. Much of the debate about public participation has referred to the ''Arnstein ladder'' (Arnstein, 1969) or its modernized versions, such as the participation ladder used in the IPPA Project (Richardson et.al. 2011) building on work by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP, 2008). The various forms of ladders have in common an increasing level of ambition for participation from low to high. The higher up on the ladder, the better it is often anticipated. However, with this should follow more responsibility and accountability of all participants, which in practice is often lacking. There are also practical problems in using the ladder to map public participation processes. For example the step 'collaboration' is ambiguous as it can mean different things. In the RISCOM Process, participants collaborate to improve clarity and awareness but not for finding common solutions. Therefore, the RISCOM Process (Vojtechova, 2009) does not fit into the ladder structure. To avoid these and other problems it is suggested to use three basic approaches to map public participation - consultation, consensus shaping processes and safe space. In contrast to consensus shaping processes, in the safe space approach there is no intention to develop solutions together between the implementer and other stakeholders. In comparison with the ladder, the basic approaches offer advantages for the mapping of public participation processes: If you strive for consensus or ''only'' clarity and awareness is a crucial question to be answered before a process is launched as it determines which stakeholders can join and which goals are feasible to reach. It is easier to use in assigning properties to a process, as it more straight-forward to understand if a process is consensus shaping or a safe space than where it is on the ladder. It clarifies better the links between the participation processes and the actual political and/or legal decision-making process. A consensus shaping process should produce real advice (or even decisions) but a safe space is limited to improving the decision making base with enhanced clarity.