Survey Introduction/Overview
Almost 50 contributions from about 100-150 active UK-based GDFWatch followers represents a 30-50% response rate, which is outstanding. A thank you to all those who took time to reply.
The survey does not purport to be ‘scientific’ but does provide a powerful indicator of sentiment amongst the wide range of stakeholders closest to the GDF siting process. Respondents are self-selecting, and the numbers responding are too small to satisfactorily extrapolate results. While the numbers may be small, the respondents represent informed opinion across about the GDF process the stakeholder spectrum.
Survey Results
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
64% of respondents said: Will undermine the principle of “community consent” and thus make communities less confident or willing to enter the siting process.
83% of respondents said: Recreates the same conflict between different levels of government which ended the last attempt to find a GDF site, and thus likely lead to the same failed result.
50% of respondents said: It is a power that could prevent an interested or willing community from even thinking about or discussing the issues, let alone actually enter the siting process
Only 1 respondent (2%) said: It will have no impact on the confidence and willingness of a community to enter the siting process
Additional respondent comments include:
Concerns for the impact on the siting process and the willingness of communities to enter dominate comments:
What seems to be a clear Cumbrian voice, with a Cumbrian perspective:
Other comments are either difficult to interpret because the comments lack context (and could be read in a way unintended by their author) or are making separate/unrelated points:
This final comment looks as if it is referring to the Welsh Government’s own plans to retain the Welsh Assembly’s oversight of the GDF siting process if it occurs in Wales:
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Our misunderstanding of the functionality of the MonkeySurvey tool meant that instead of being able to provide a “+ve” or “-ve” reading to each of the criteria, respondents were only able to select one +ve and one -ve option. This appears to have forced people to determine the single most important -ve (risk) factor and the single most important +ve (opportunity) factor. This has changed the intended outcome for this question, but does provide some insight into stakeholder views on risk factors.
The Top 3 -ve (risk) factors were:
The Top 3 key +ve (opportunity) factors were:
Interesting to note that the opposing negative/positive views expressed about the level of political will and Ministerial commitment. Most people doubt there is Ministerial will to progress the siting process – though respondents from the nuclear industry were more likely than any other stakeholder group to favourably view the political willingness to proceed.
It is unclear whether the 24% of respondents who viewed RWM’s active stakeholder engagement as a positive were referring to past activity, or as a necessary requirement going forward to underpin siting process success.
Though it is clear that a significant minority (19%) believe retaining the proposed community-consent approach is vital to success.
Additional respondent comments pointed out the inability to choose more than one option. No comments otherwise of note.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Cross-referencing these responses by stakeholder sector reveals a clear correlation between those who have long-standing and established relationships with RWM (“Old” stakeholders like the nuclear industry and other public bodies) and those “New” stakeholders such as civil society and non-nuclear commercial interests.
“Old” or traditional stakeholders unsurprisingly report higher levels of contact, while “new’ stakeholders report little or no contact.
This divide between traditional and new stakeholders also reflected in responses to the ‘Yes’/’No’ question about whether respondents felt they had sufficient contact with RWM – with old stakeholders reporting ‘yes’ and new stakeholders reporting ‘no’.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Q6 We’ve had phenomenally positive informal feedback about GDFWatch and the newsletter. But after six months we’d like to know more formally your thoughts about our newsletter, so that we can keep improving its content and making it more relevant and useful to you. Please select as many options as you’d like.
There were 5 clear lead responses:
There were some very positive additional comments posted by respondents:
Some respondents offered advice, or made specific requests:
And there was a lone voice of criticism:
Q7 How would you rate the newsletter’s usefulness to you?
Qs 8 & 9 were about future funding options and potential commercial services which could be provided by GDFWatch. We will return with further analysis of these responses later in the summer.
Q10 Finally, it would be helpful to reflect diversity of opinion across the varied stakeholder base. Your answers are all confidential and anonymous, but we would be grateful of you could ascribe yourself to one of the following sectors:
In descending order, respondents assigned themselves to the following stakeholder groups:
Central Government, NGOs and non-nuclear commercial sector each had 2 respondents. With 1 response from a professional association.
This is a reasonable and even spread of respondents across the stakeholder spectrum. The largest single category was ‘individual’ – since GDFWatch does not attract a mass public following, this does not mean random individuals but appears to indicate that these respondents are likely to be activists/campaigners, graduate students, or are informed professionals offering their personal opinion rather than expressing opinion on behalf of their organisation.
Stakeholder groups: cross referencing opinion
Although the numbers are too small to be statistically reliable, these are stakeholders who are closely following the GDF process, so the results do indicate a substantive level of market sentiment.
The short analyses below are summaries of the responses to each question within the separate stakeholder segments:
Commercial (non-nuclear)
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
No responses provided.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Not very confident.
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Negative re RWM being prepared and positive on the timely availability of engagement and other funding.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Occasional or little/no contact with RWM.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Not very confident.
Civil Society/Community Orgs (inc TUs)
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
All respondents concerned about possible local authority ‘veto’.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
No confidence at all or not very confident.
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
All respondents see the socioeconomic value of the GDF as a +ve factor, but -ve about RWM preparedness and -ve about political/Ministerial commitment to progressing the siting process.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Ad hoc or occasional contact with RWM – all respondents felt they had not had enough contact.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Mostly have no confidence (though one respondent ‘uncertain’).
Other Public body
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
All respondents concerned about possible local authority ‘veto’.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Even split between respondents who were confident and those having no confidence.
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Even spread of positives; negatives focused on Ministerial/political commitment and on RWM’s
readiness.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Not sure how to interpret this. Given these are other public bodies involved in the siting process, only 2 respondents noted regular contact – with 3 respondents only reporting little/no, infrequent or occasional contact. However, they all respondents provide a consistent positive response to question below.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Somewhat positive.
Individuals
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
Of 13 respondents only one said the decision would have no impact on the success of the siting process – all the other respondents expressed concern.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Little confidence. Responses split between “uncertain” or “no confidence”.
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Two main negatives — Ministerial commitment and RWM readiness; two main positives –
advanced engagement with stakeholders and IF consent-based process is allowed to continue.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Only ad hoc, occasional or infrequent contact with RWM reported. 2 respondents felt they had not seen enough of RWM, and one said they had had sufficient contact with RWM.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Overwhelming not confident (only 2 somewhat confident, and 3 uncertain)
Academia
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
Only 2 answers given by this group: either ‘recreates problem” or “undermines consent
principle”
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Uncertain or lacking confidence (no ‘confident’ responses submitted).
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Responses too diverse to draw any group conclusions.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Mainly little/no or occasional contact reported, but one respondent in this group did feel they had had enough contact with RWM.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Either responded they had no confidence at all, or were not very confident. One respondent said they had had insufficient contact to make a judgement.
Local Government
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
All respondents concerned about the ‘veto’ power. Remarkable given they would be recipients/beneficiaries of such a power – but do not want it.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
All respondents either uncertain or somewhat confident (distinct positivity at odds with other stakeholder groups).
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Answers evenly spread and cancel each other out -ve & +ve – so no overall group position can be sensibly deduced.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Mainly ad hoc/occasional or infrequent contact reported. One respondent in this group said they did not feel they had had enough contact with RWM.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Either responded they had confidence, or were uncertain. These are the most positive respondents, by stakeholder group.
NGOs
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
No clear view.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Not very confident or uncertain.
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
No clear view, small number of respondents, diverse replies.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Little/no or infrequent contact.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Not v confident or uncertain.
Commercial nuclear sector
Q1 Local authorities will have a major role to play in GDF siting process. However, Ministers are thinking about providing local authorities with additional ‘veto’ powers. If Ministers do decide to grant such ‘veto’ powers how do you think this will impact on the success of the GDF siting process? (You can select more than one option below)
Universal concern about impact on success of siting process.
Q2 How confident are you that the GDF siting process will be relaunched by Summer 2019?
Split between confident and not confident.
Q3 What factors influence your level of confidence, positively or negatively, that the siting process will relaunch? You can select more than one option. Select “positive” if factor gives you confidence, or “negative” if the factor causes you concerns.
Nuclear sector feels there is positive political/Ministerial will (at odds with everyone else);
concerned about awareness levels in potential host communities; think positively on
advanced stakeholder engagement (though unclear whether that refers to work already done by RWM, or if RWM now engage in advance); but negatively on RWM’s readiness.
Q4 How much contact and engagement with the delivery body RWM have you had?
Regular contacts with RWM reported. Respondents also answered supplementary ‘Yes/No’ question about whether they felt they’d had enough contact with RWM – consistently said ‘Yes’, and their responses account for 90%+ of all stakeholder ‘Yes’ responses.
Q5 Based on your level of contact with RWM, are you confident they will be ready to successfully relaunch the siting process and engage with communities effectively?
Balanced between those confident about RWM and those not confident.
General observations
“Traditional’ RWM stakeholders feel more positive and feel more engaged than “new” stakeholders.
Local authority stakeholders (apart from veto concerns) more positive than any other grouping.
Perhaps more worryingly is that even amongst closest and oldest stakeholders, still significant confidence concerns about RWM’s ability to deliver (academia, nuclear sector, other public bodies) – these are people who work regularly with RWM. You can account for scepticism in those who don’t know RWM as well, but it is less understandable amongst those who work regularly and/or closely with RWM.