|
Work plan
The work plan is divided into five different work packages spread over the 30 month duration of the project:
- Work package 1 - Common interdisciplinary analysis framework: elaboration of a common framework, based on the TRUSTNET findings, to prepare the analysis of the risk governance systems.
- Work package 2 - Case studies on risk governance for environmental discharges of installations:
- Task 1: description and analysis of the decision making processes at the local, national and European levels for the management of radioactive and chemical discharges from industrial installations,
- Task 2: development of specific case studies related to innovative experiences of risk governance around nuclear and non nuclear installations.
- Work package 3 - Common interdisciplinary assessment of the risk governance systems:
- Task 1: comparative analysis of the case studies on the management of ionising radiation and toxic chemicals, at the local, national and European levels,
- Task 2: assessment of the quality of the different risk governance systems.
- Work package 4 - Synthesis and recommendations: elaboration of recommendations and conclusions for the improvement of the governance systems of radiological risks.
- Work package 5 - Project management: the Project Management Committee will meet at least six times to monitor progress, ensure consistency of approach between the teams, exercise a challenge function to ensure the quality and the validity of the project outcomes and deliverables.
The project organisation chart is presented below. It describes the key roles in the management of the project as well as interactions and interfaces between the work packages. For each work package, the leading organisation is also mentioned
Work progress
During the first year of the project, it was planned to develop a Common Interdisciplinary Analysis Framework (Work Package 1) to define common way of performing the analysis of the case studies, and to start the development of cases studies on risk governance (Work Package 2).
Common Interdisciplinary Analysis Framework (WP1)
The objectives of this first part of the project was to set a common framework to ensure the consistency of the analysis of the different decision making processes. This framework was discussed by all the teams during the first two meetings, and was completed by Mutadis, leader of this work package.
It was first decided to adopt a common presentation of the project. The following title for the project was adopted : "improve governance of industrial activities giving rise to risks to people and the environment from radioactive and chemical discharges during normal operations". It was also clearly stated that "the goal of RISKGOV is to develop, in discussion with stakeholders, a set of criteria to characterise the governance of risk activities".
Based on the previous results of the TRUSTNET project, a set of criteria characterizing the quality of governance of hazardous activities was elaborated (see Annex 1 in Section 8). Though these different criteria are much interlinked, it is possible to identify different dimensions.
- Some criteria relate to basic principles in risk governance, such as prevention, precaution and justification. Others point the complexity of the decision-making process and consider in a comprehensive way the various factors which are often at stake in risk governance (risk, sustainable development...) and the different goals the decision-making process is expected to meet (protection, agreement, equity...).
- A set of criteria relate to a specific part of the process, i.e. expertise. The purpose of these criteria is to clarify the role of expertise in the decision-making process, and the ways it informs the process taking into account uncertainties, value-judgements, and controversies.
- Another range of criteria deals with stakeholder involvement to specify the various ways the decision making process can integrate – beside scientific aspects – society needs all along the decision path. In this respect, some important criteria assess the relevance of risk governance decisions with regard to local context.
- Eventually the decision-making process in itself will be evaluated in its ability to convey the different dimensions of risk governance, but also to follow up and review decisions against change.
These criteria are purposely widely defined to embrace the various national contexts of the case studies while providing research teams with common references to carry out their analysis and to make at the end of the project a relevant and consistent synthesis towards common conclusions and recommendations.
Case Studies on Risk Governance (WP2)
The potential case studies have been largely discussed during the second meeting of the team. It appeared that it would be useful to adopt the same way of presenting their characteristics, to facilitate their comparison. A list of characteristics of the studies was elaborated. Investigations have then been performed to test the feasibility of the case studies (interest of Stakeholders, documents available,…). The following case studies have been selected (the teams are indicated into brackets):
Radioactive releases - local context:
- The reauthorisation of radioactive discharges from the Devonport Royal Dockyard in UK
- Dialogue process around the liquid and gaseous releases of the COGEMA-La Hague facility in France
- Risk communication and dialogue procedures with the local populations around a nuclear power plant in Sweden
- Control of radioactive discharges around the Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant by the Local Commission of Information in France
Chemical releases - local context:
- The dialogue forum established by a chemical industry in Sweden
- Management of air quality around the industrial site of Etang de Berre in France
Chemical and radioactive releases - international context:
- Implementation of the OSPAR Convention for chemical and radioactive releases
- The abandonment of the Brent Spar offshore installation
|
