A new opinion poll revealing the depth of public despair at how our current democracy operates is published on the same day as GDFWatch argues in a leading community sector magazine that the GDF siting process could also be a major social infrastructure change programme to help address the local democracy deficit.
The opinion poll was published in The Guardian, while the GDFWatch article (reprinted below) was published in New Start magazine.
Communities in Control: a local democracy laboratory
A Government policy announced without fanfare just before Christmas potentially has implications for everyone working to enhance local democracy and empower local decision-making, writes Roy Payne, executive director of GDFWatch.
The new policy, called Working With Communities, provides a framework — and more critically, the funding – to help communities exert more influence over, and be more involved in, long-term social, environmental and economic planning in their area.
Although created to support delivery of a major nationally-significant energy infrastructure programme, the new policy is effectively a huge social infrastructure change project.
It establishes a new and unique Community Partnership framework designed to proactively and pragmatic solutions to some fundamental issues of community representation and engagement. For example, how do we best:
The Government has also made significant commitments to fund a wide range of activities, including:
The policy framework and funding might be in place, but the project currently lacks any flesh for these barebone principles. That’s where the localism, local wealth creation, local democracy and community development sectors might now have a role to play.
Cynics will observe this all seems too good to be true. To be sure, there are inevitable caveats. But what makes this policy different from anything that has gone before, and why it might pique the sector’s interest, is that the Government requires a community’s ‘consent’ throughout this process.
Let that sink in for a moment. The Government requires your consent. You can walk away, without obligation, at any time. That changes the whole negotiating and power-balance dynamic. It provides the community sector with new and unique leverage to secure an equitable and meaningful partnership with central and local governments.
So, what are the caveats and constraints? First of all, over the 10-30 year lifecycle of the project, it is likely that no more than 10-12 areas will be involved. Any area in the country could be involved, but only a handful are likely to be actually involved. This offers the opportunity to create ‘mega pilot projects’ in which new ideas and techniques around community participation and empowerment can be trialled and evaluated. The lessons learned applied to other areas of public policy. The evidence built to show central government that local people can be trusted with decision-making responsibilities.
But the biggest hurdle is the subject matter. Nuclear waste. The international scientific consensus, on a par with that behind climate change, is that every country needs to build a specialised facility deep underground. The international political consensus is that any site must have the approval of the local community. These are huge projects. The UK’s facility is likely to cost around £20 billion, with an operating life in excess of 150 years. Wherever it is sited it will have profound long-term implications for the surrounding communities and economy.
Finland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada are all well ahead of us in securing community consent to build such a facility. The UK has learned from their experiences. The requirement to gain a community’s consent is the driving force behind the Working With Communities policy. It is a radical and new approach in the UK to how communities can shape and determine infrastructure projects. But the principles of ‘consent’, and experience learned from direct community involvement, could be applied across a wide range of public policy challenges.
We live in the most centralised ‘democracy’ in Europe. Despite paying lip-service to devolved decision-making, Westminster does not yield power easily. The Government have been required to introduce the ‘community consent’ principle because it is international best practice. The consent principle offers a foot in the door to wider local democracy reform, if we can show Government hard evidence that people can actually be trusted to evaluate complex issues and make pragmatic decisions.
Rebalancing power and bringing decision-making closer to those affected is one of the key challenges we face as we look to a society beyond Brexit. Nuclear waste may not be the issue you would choose to engage with. But if we are to develop new and more democratic ways to govern our affairs in the 21st Century, perhaps resolving one of our ‘dirtiest’ intergenerational problems is the best place to start.
A community’s frustration at not being allowed to even consider hosting a geological repository (a GDF) is amply demonstrated in this interview on Nevada Public Radio.
Dan Schinhofen is vice chairman of the Nye County Commission. It is his community which would host the US’ geological disposal facility at the proposed Yucca Mountain site. He and his fellow residents are angry that their community’s concerns, aspirations and interests are being ignored by a distant urban-based political and commercial elite.
During the interview he makes the following key points:
The written article accompanying the audio interview can be read here.
Bizarrely, an obscure government consultation may hold the key to advancing true Localism. Odd as it may sound, but nuclear waste management policy could be a vehicle for turning recommendations of the Commission on the Future of Localism into reality, by supporting the creation of a radical new democratic model that empowers communities to shape their own future.
Localism & WWC: the parallels
Parallels between the Localism Commission’s Report and the ‘Working With Communities’ (WWC) consultation document are not immediately obvious. That’s not surprising: they may have been published in the same week, but the two documents come from very different worlds. However, take a closer look, and if you try to “translate” the WWC text into the language of localism, it becomes clearer that while the documents started in different places, they’ve arrived at very similar destinations.
Locality Chief Executive Tony Armstrong recently said,”power starts with people. It lies in our communities. The task of the political system and our local leaders is to harness this power through ongoing relationships, engagement and co-
creation.” Vidhya Alakeson, Chief Executive of Power to Change added, “localism should enable local solutions through partnership and collaboration around place.” These sentiments, though articulated differently in the WWC document, are central to its proposals.
The Community’s Consent: a radical solution
They are central because government needs a community’s ‘consent’ in order to construct the waste repository. It cannot simply just impose a solution, it needs to negotiate. Previous attempts to find a consenting community have foundered on the flaws of local authority and short-term decision-making. So government has been fundamentally reassessing what it needs to do to gain a community’s ‘consent’. They’ve reached a radical conclusion: you need to work collaboratively in equal partnership with the community, in a process that works alongside of, but is independent from, local authority governance.
The WWC proposals may have accidentally stumbled into a reimagining of localism, but they certainly give substance to what Lord Bob Kerslake calls “the four domains of localism”: institutions, powers, relationships, and community capacity.
Institutionally, the WWC proposes that the key decision-making body would be a ‘Community Partnership’. Membership, roles, responsibilities, powers, and dispute resolution would be set out in a ‘Community Agreement’. Negotiations for this Agreement would necessarily involve discussing a rebalanced relationship between local authorities and the affected community. The Agreement would also set out how the wider community engaged and participated in the decision-making process.
More importantly, the WWC proposals recognise the critical requirement to build community capacity. Community participation and engagement costs would be borne by government, with the community able to fashion how their capacity needs were met. And there would be “significant” additional short and long-term funding to help the community invest in and realise it’s ambitions.
A localism laboratory?
The reasons why the waste repository may never be built in a particular community are legion. It might be decades before a final decision could even be made. But during those years, the WWC proposals, if implemented, could be used as a ‘localism laboratory’, testing ideas and learning lessons that could be applied more widely, to create case studies that showcase the effectiveness of community-led local democracy.
Much depends now, given other pressures, on whether the community sector has the capacity to assess this unexpected opportunity. From a localism perspective, the WWC proposals are ‘raw’ and do need informed shaping while they’re still out for consultation. Supporting the interpretation and implementation of the proposals will also be welcome, especially by those communities already with an interest in entering the process. Because those communities which do become involved will need the counsel and support of the wider sector, to help protect and promote their interests as the terms of this new and unique community partnership model are bartered and rolled-out. The subsequent experience of operating the process would undoubtedly help inform and advance the wider localism agenda in very practical ways.
Better ideas: a localism legacy?
The Localism Commission concluded that “we need radical action to strengthen our local institutions; devolve tangible power resources and control to communities; ensure equality in community participation; and deliver change in local government behaviour and practice to enable local initiatives to thrive.” Reading through the WWC proposals with a localism lens, you can begin to see the possibility of achieving those objectives.
The Commission observed that until the Brexit furore settles down, there is little expectation of the localism agenda being advanced. In the absence of any immediate alternatives, the WWC proposals may merit a look. If you want to find out more about the WWC proposals, open public workshops are being held around the country in February and March. These may be a helpful starting point for considering how the WWC proposals can be developed. Even if we don’t ultimately solve our nuclear waste problem, on the journey there we might still create a localism legacy.
As BEIS and RWM develop a consent-based community partnership framework within the context of radioactive waste management policy, there is a danger of a wheel being reinvented. There are already multiple initiatives, funded and led by other Whitehall Departments, on enhancing local democracy and increasing community involvement in planning local, sustainable well-being and wealth creation.
We have previously looked at how the Working With Communities policy dovetails with the work of a wide range of local government and civil society organisations, eg:
More recently the New Local Government Network (NLGN) supported by Local Trust published a report based on research about the experiences of residents, volunteers, councillors and officers in Big Local areas. The report provides new insight into how the relationship between the citizen and the state can be recalibrated in practice — shifting away from a traditional paternalistic role with the council as provider and community as recipient, to one which involves communities themselves playing a more active role. Such analysis is at the heart of the GDF siting process and Working With Communities policy.
The research summarises five core principles in establishing effective partnerships with communities:
These principles are at the very heart of the GDF Working With Communities policy. As RWM interprets and implements policy and turns it into a practical and workable framework, it needs to engage with and embrace the skills, knowledge and ambitions of those involved in advancing local democracy, local wealth creation, and local well-being.
The problem for the community sector, is that many of these initiatives stall through lack of funding. The Government have committed to funding the GDF community partnership programme. This means the GDF programme could become a local democracy laboratory, funding activities from which learning could be applied to other social and policy contexts.
Finding a GDF site depends on suitable geology and a willing community. There is a risk that by not fully embracing what is already happening on the ground in communities, with a siting process led by technical and procedural considerations rather than community needs and aspirations, that a golden opportunity is missed not only to resolve a major environmental problem (radioactive waste) but also to create a wider socioeconomic and democratic legacy.
As another signal of its intent to continue evolving, RWM has appointed Andy Wong to the newly-created position of Director of Transformation.
Andy Wong has significant experience leading organisational and cultural change programmes, having worked at the Olympic Delivery Authority, across the rail sector, and in other leading public bodies. He has been appointed to provide “leadership and vision for the RWM Transformation Programme to ensure transformation and organisational development objectives are met, to deliver demonstrable change and positive organisational culture.”
With Ann McCall (RWM Siting Director) having left the organisation at Christmas, and current Managing Director Bruce McKirdy retiring at the end of March, Andy Wong will be supporting RWM’s new leadership to continue remodelling the organisation in preparation for inevitably-contentious waters, as the organisation enters into engagement with communities, anticipated during 2020.
The role of local authorities, and the relationship with a Community Partnership, are central to the GDF siting process. The issues at stake were brought under the spotlight this week with the publication of a report and a day-long conference co-produced by the Local Government Association (LGA) and National Association of Local Councils (NALC).
The report is a ‘must-read’ for anyone involved or interested in the GDF siting process. As BEIS and the nuclear sector have wrestled with the issues, the community and local government sectors have been busy finding solutions. But neither side has yet worked closely with the other. That must be remedied.
More importantly, Ministers are inclined to introduce a local authority ‘veto’ over the GDF siting process, but this report makes clear such a power should not be needed nor would it be helpful.
From a GDF siting perspective, the LGA/NALC Report makes some very pertinent points, eg:
The similarity in language and sentiment between this report and the Working With Communities consultation document is striking. And while nobody would suggest the world of local governance is perfect, this activity to improve how communities and local government work better together does provide a framework for the GDF siting process to work through, rather than attempt to reinvent.
But it is just as important for the civil society and local government sectors to understand how the GDF siting process may provide the funding and impetus to deliver many of their ambitions and objectives. GDFWatch has previously cited these opportunities in our analysis of how the GDF siting process might help deliver the recommendations of the Localism Commission.
There have been examples this week of work underway in the civil society and trades union sectors which not only would the GDF siting process benefit from by embracing, but also indicate how the GDF siting process might help those sectors realise their ambitions, eg:
Civil Society Strategy
The Government’s consultation on civil society strategy closed this week. In a joint letter to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which ran the consultation, a group of charities called on the government to seize the opportunity to transform the government’s relationship with the sector, saying: “It is critical that the strategy focuses on how government can not only better enable the sector, but also provide a blueprint for long-lasting engagement. It should not be focused on what government thinks the sector should do; this is for the sector to determine with their beneficiaries. Instead, the strategy should set out how the government can support and enable civil society to achieve its potential.” The letter also called for both sides to “move beyond transactional relationships between the sector and the government” and instead work to “build understanding, trust and respect, to inform better decision-making and to ensure people can access the support they need”.
How far the Government will heed this advice is yet to be seen, but again there is a clear resonance between the aspirations and ambitions of the civil society sector and the principles underpinning the GDF siting process. This alignment has not yet been fully explored by either side.
Locality: How to establish a neighbourhood planning forum
Locality have published a toolkit to help communities develop their own neighbourhood development plan. These plans are at the core of community development and will be in the foundations of any socioeconomic plans developed in partnership between the GDF delivery body and a community considering hosting a GDF.
House of Lords set up Select Committee to consider the Rural Economy
The House of Lords has set up an ad hoc Select Committee to consider and report on the Rural Economy. The GDF is likely to be one of Europe’s (let alone Britain’s) largest infrastructure and construction projects. It will have a profound long-term impact on the host area’s economy. It will potentially have a greater impact if the host community is in a rural area.
CLES and new Community Wealth Building Unit
The Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) is the UK’s leading, independent think and do tank realising progressive economics for people and place. This week it was announced that they would be advising a new Community Wealth Building Unit that has been established bringing together councillors, unions, think tanks, and independent experts to stimulate sustainable economic community development. Given the GDF’s potential long-term impact on local and regional economies, there is much to share and learn from each other.
ETUC Report on Climate Change Transition
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) this week produced a report highlighting the role Trades Unions can play in helping communities transition their economies. Although the report is focused on the socioeconomic impact of changes required to mitigate climate change, the issues are directly relevant to the GDF siting process in how Trades Unions can help as communities transform their economy and society in a “just” way that more equitably manages the process of change.
Interim Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England
Ex-Housing Minister Nick Raynsford led a review commissioned by the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA). An interim report was published this week, and amongst its recommendations to government were to regulate development based on its potential for achieving ‘social, economic and cultural wellbeing’ and to set a legal obligation to plan for the needs of future generations. Intergenerational equity and long-term community well-being development are at the core of the GDF siting process. The Raynsford Report is now seeking further public response to its recommendations, and the GDF delivery body may well have views on future planning legislation.
Want to find out whether your region, geologically, could host a GDF? Then check out this information from RWM, the public body responsible for overseeing the GDF process.
I’d suggest watching the video for your area before reading the pamphlet. The videos, in a weather-forecast format, present the same information as the associated leaflet, but in a much more understandable way. The more detailed text in the leaflets can be a little daunting (even off-putting) for the non-geologists amongst us (in whom I include myself). But the videos will help you grasp the overall picture and key issues for your area.
Anyone expecting to determine whether a GDF could be built under their garden, village or town are going to be disappointed. But that has been the case from the very start. RWM and the wider expert geological community have been at pains over the past 4 years of consultation and data collection to make clear that there is insufficient geological information to provide detailed location-specific analyses at this time.
The videos provide simple summaries which indicate the likelihood and ease of finding a suitable GDF location in your area. In some places, like South Wales, RWM make clear it is less likely that a suitable geology can be found — in part because previous coal mining allows groundwater to move more easily through the rock, in part because some areas in the region have mineral resources that might be commercially exploitable, and the presence of thermal springs indicates water flowing from depth. Conversely, there is a broad band of rock running right across southern-central England, from the Severn Estuary to the coasts of Suffolk and Essex, which looks more promising in terms of being able to host a GDF.
Essentially, with the information currently available, most parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland could host a GDF, geologically-speaking. But as RWM make clear, a lot more detailed localised investigation will be required wherever a site is proposed. What looks like good geology now may prove to be unsuitable.
From a community perspective, the information is most useful in starting a conversation with RWM about the implications and impact of prolonged, detailed geological investigations in your area. In some areas the physical intrusion of deep borehole drilling rigs, and securing the required planning permissions, may be easier to do compared with another place. In other areas, the presence of National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) may complicate investigations. Coastal communities can look to potential undersea sites for the GDF, easing the need for intrusive land-based local geological investigations in populated areas.
There will be those who question the validity and truthfulness of the geological information. But the data has been collated and prepared by Britain’s world-leading expert institution, the British Geological Survey (BGS); the issues have been extensively debated by the Geological Society learned society; and the process has been overseen and interrogated by an independent international expert panel of geologists — some of whose work was conducted in public and streamed live.
If you go to the RWM website, you will find all the regional summaries and videos. From the maps provided, select your region (based on the BGS’s geological regions of the UK), which will then take you to the sub-regions within each region. This is where you will find information most relevant (but not specific) to your village or town. RWM have said they are planning to update the webpages, so that it is easier for you to find the sub-region video and summary which interests you.
There are many sources of additional information and advice to help you make sense of these analyses. Contact GDFWatch at info@gdfwatch.org.uk for assistance in sourcing further information.
Last week we shared a report from one of Japan’s leading newspapers, The Mainichi, that claimed geological disposal would be discussed at the forthcoming G20 Summit. We also said we’d seek to find out further information.
What we have found out:
We keep a watching brief. Even if the conference proposal does not get raised at the G20 this time, the need to globalise the debate does not recede. The Japanese will certainly keep banging their drum.
However, the nature of any conference and subsequent global debate is important. If it is just the same nuclear sector faces speaking only to each other, “the converted”, then little progress is likely to be made. It is time to include community voices in the debate. There is a sound basis to build upon the initial work of the ground-breaking IAEA technical workshop from last November, at which municipalities and community representatives from around the world gave a common message to the nuclear sector – listen to us, don’t lecture us.
The IAEA workshop revealed the many, largely unheard, community voices that provide powerful and relatable testimony in favour of geological disposal. And in a world of fake news, faux science and information overload, these communities can create ashared repository of knowhow and experience which is more publicly trusted than anything a government, agency or NGO can ever hope to achieve.
With Britain in sensitive Brexit discussions about the Irish border ‘backstop’, the GDF may have inadvertently become a new diplomatic point of contention between the two countries.
This is one of several running stories in the UK media this week, that underline the complexities and sensitivities of finding a site for a geological disposal facility:
There is a common thread running through these stories, of people rushing to judgement and hyperbole before checking their facts. For example, the reaction in Northern Ireland was driven by an otherwise-innocuous RWM information video describing geological features of the County Armagh area. There are similar short videos for every region of England, Wales and N Ireland.
A local newspaper decided to fact-check the allegations that the British government was considering an area near Newry for nuclear waste disposal. The newspaper concluded that while the claims have elements of truth, they also have elements of falsehood, saying: “Preliminary work has been carried out to see if the site in Northern Ireland could work, but we are far, far away from a GDF in the North being a reality given how much would have to happen before it could be built.”
This, more nuanced view, was also expressed by an Irish politician living just across the border. Fine Gael councillor for Dundalk, John McGahon, said the initial report was likely nothing more than a “fishing expedition”, that the probability of any plan being approved was “extremely remote”, that it was important politicians on both sides of the Border were not “asleep on the issue”, but equally that local representatives did not engage in “scaremongering”.
The reactions, particularly in Wales and in N Ireland, were predictable, and are wholly understandable, particularly in the context of nationalist politics. However, they also underline some other common themes underpinning media coverage and political reaction, eg:
This week has seen the first salvos in what will become a prolonged period of media, public and political discussion. The initial media and political reaction was to be expected. It will now be interesting to see how RWM accommodates anticipatable reactions and moves forward to construct a more positive environment in which to nurture informed public debate.
A full list of UK media articles can be found in our international news pages.
Weighting of evaluation criteria to allow more effective comparison between potential sites, and taking account of wider statutory obligations, are amongst the common key themes from a wide range of stakeholders’ responses to RWM’s Site Evaluation public consultation.
Now closed, it is thought that the two parallel public consultations in England and in Wales have attracted about 90-100 responses. Some of those responses are published below, with permission of their authors. If you would like to add your response submission to our list, please contact us at editorial@gdfwatch.org.uk
Context
It is important to place a ‘health warning’ on the following analysis of responses to the consultation, because:
Key issues raised
Although we have only read about 10-15% of responses submitted, there are certain key issues or themes which appear across the stakeholder spectrum, from industry and local authorities to environmentalists and local activist groups. They also reflect issues raised at each of the regional stakeholder workshops which GDFWatch attended. These include:
General concerns
In addition to these specific key issues, the responses also express more general concerns, primarily about ‘public trust’ — in the GDF siting and evaluation processes, and in RWM itself. These general expressions of concern include:
From a narrow administrative perspective it is perhaps true that many of the comments made do not directly address the consultation questions. However, the wider concerns expressed underline continuing anxiety about how the unique, new and untested complex siting process will be implemented. Before asking the public about technical site evaluation criteria, there is a body of work to be conducted to explain and build confidence in the siting process. There is widespread cynicism that communities will have the final say, or can walk away at any time without obligation. Previous negative community experiences of the planning process for major infrastructure projects, and general exasperation with our political and democratic decision-making processes, mean that RWM will probably have to address these fundamental concerns before any community is ready to discuss technical details, like site evaluation criteria.
Responses published
Many organisations only responded to the England consultation, but those that have submitted a response to the Wales consultation have generally made both responses available on their website (and are easily visible when you click on the hyperlink below.
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM)
Dr David Lowry — member of Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates (NWAA) & Nuclear Transparency Watch
Friends of the Earth — West Cumbria & North Lakes branch
Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)
Nuclear Industry Association (NIA)
Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum (NuLeAF) — special interest body of the Local Government Association (LGA)
Prospect — the Trades Union
To see GDFWatch’s responses to the two consultations, please scroll down.
___________
A Public consultation related to the search for a suitable site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in England
Response Form
| Question 1: Are there any other sources of high level Requirements other than Siting Process, National Policy Statement and Legal Requirements identified that you think should be reflected in the Site Evaluation and why? |
| See Q4 below |
| Question 2: Do you agree with the Siting Factors we have identified? Are there any other Siting Factors that should be included and why? |
| See Q4 below |
| Question 3: Do you agree with the Evaluation Considerations we have identified? Are there any other Evaluation Considerations that should be included and why? |
| See Q4 below |
| Question 4: Is there anything else that you think we should consider in our site evaluations and why? |
| We have never been entirely sure why this formal public consultation is being held. Judging by discussions with other attendees at the regional workshops, this is a widely held view. There is nothing ‘new’ in the consultation document. It simply contextualises existing requirements, which cannot be changed.
However, if it’s an early indication of a more inclusive approach by RWM to taking wider civil society opinion with it, then it is to be welcomed. And by bringing together all the existing legal, regulatory, environmental, planning and other requirements RWM is obliged to fulfil during the GDF siting process, the document also reads more like a ‘roadmap’ for communities. It helps:
At this stage, the six headline siting factors appear sufficiently broad and flexible to encompass a wide range of more detailed and location-specific issues. But in providing a basis which helps give shape and structure to community discussions, the evaluation consideration criteria will need to be continually updated. The 31 March public consultation deadline therefore seems a little arbitrary, since these issues will continue to evolve, not least to include issues of particular relevance to a specific community. We hope that, where possible, RWM will continue to keep these issues open as the siting process progresses, rather than a draw a line when this public consultation ends. We do have some specific additional observations: Meaningful consultation Those attending the workshops appeared to represent stakeholder sector and organisations that are already well-versed and engaged in the GDF programme. While their expertise and knowledge is undoubtedly of value to RWM in helping refine the site evaluation criteria, RWM cannot reasonably claim that they have satisfactorily reached out to and engaged with those whose consent is required to initiate and sustain a local discussion – ie, community and civil society organisations. If the site evaluation criteria are to have any credibility or usefulness, they need to be understood and accepted at least by those representing the community and civil society sector. To press ahead with only the input of ‘technical’ stakeholders creates risks for RWM in terms of securing broader public acceptance to the site evaluation criteria. This concern was aired at the start of the consultation process, and has sadly been realised: “A more basic concern is that civil society and community organisations will not have the capacity to make meaningful responses to the consultation by the end of March… experience from regional workshops for the National Geological Screening, National Policy Statement and Working With Communities consultations suggest that it is the same organisations which tend to attend these events. While useful for those attending, the workshops are not always the most effective means of reaching out beyond historical core-engaged stakeholders.” [GDFWatch, 15/01/19] The post-consultation revised site evaluation criteria should be subjected to further socialisation with and feedback from those representing the wider and community and civil society sectors. Measurability/Objective Comparative Analysis RWM state that a key purpose of the evaluation criteria is to support comparative assessment of different sites. But there is little in the document to indicate how ‘objective’ comparative assessments are to be made. There are clearly difficulties and constraints in relying purely on quantitative assessment methodologies, but there seems too little emphasis in the current proposals on how the different criteria might be objectively compared or weighted across different sites under investigation. Nor does the consultation address the issue of comparing sites which are at different stages of investigation. Being able to compare sites in a transparent and understandable way will be essential to the wider task of building communities’ confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the siting process. More importantly, RWM will need robust objective indicators in order to defend and justify their actions, to Parliament and the National Audit Office, to the Courts in the event of a Judicial Review, as well as to the affected communities. There seems to be a widely-held view that RWM will almost certainly be challenged in Court at some point in the next 30 years, most likely by a community which RWM decides should no longer remain within the siting process. The basis on which any such decision is made by RWM therefore needs to be built on a robust comparative evaluation. The complexity of the project, the varied characteristics of each community, and availability of common data sources across all participating communities, make defining specific quantifiable comparative data a difficult task. However, there are examples and precedents (eg environmental assessments) in which robust comparative analyses can be made and which can withstand public, regulatory and legal scrutiny. While recognising the difficulty for RWM in defining and developing methodologies for objective comparative assessment, this is an issue on which further work is clearly required. Local Authority/Statutory Obligations Local Authorities have been allotted a specific role within the siting process and Community Partnership framework. This reflects their responsibility to deliver statutory obligations, and the potential impact (positive or negative) of a GDF and related investments on their capacity and capability to meet those obligations. The consultation document lists at length the legal and regulatory obligations RWM will need to meet, but is mute on how the siting process may need to be observant of the impact of RWM’s activities on the statutory obligations of affected local authorities (or any other third parties). In different circumstances and scenarios, the effect of a GDF could drive efficiencies, or drive costs up, in the delivery of public and social services by the local authority. This is both a ‘community’ and a ‘cost’ issue, of great significance to local taxpayers and public service users. The key point here, is that the site evaluation criteria currently focus on RWM’s legal and regulatory obligations, and we believe further thought should be given to including an assessment of the impact of RWM’s activities on the statutory obligations of other parties within the affected communities. National Policy Statement (NPS) As we understand, the final NPS will, by necessity, be ‘generic’ – as there is no specific site to which a GDF NPS can currently be applied. It will set out the key issues to be addressed and included within any site-specific planning application. Such a flexible approach is required to be able to account for the potentially varied environmental impact and obligations in different parts of the country. In our view, this underlines the need for the site evaluation criteria to be kept under review, and for the adoption by RWM in their site comparison analyses of similar measures to those used currently when assessing environmental impacts. Language/Tone RWM have clearly gone some way to making the text of the document much more accessible to lay and non-technical audiences. But there are still improvements that can be made, and there is value in engaging the community/civil society sector to help continually improve the use of plain English (or Welsh). The most obvious example of this is the ‘Cost’ evaluation criteria. “Cost” is a laden term. If the public believe that cost is a primary determinant, they will fear that the programme will be ‘cutting corners’ and not placing safety as a key determinant. ‘Value for money’ is a suggested alternative. It is true that costs to the taxpayer will be one of the deciding issues. However, it does not flow from that that the cheapest option will automatically be the preferred option. There are other key influencing criteria to weigh alongside cost. Given the scale of impact a GDF will have on a regional economy and infrastructure over a long period, it is not inconceivable that a Secretary of State in 30-50 years time evaluates two very similar potential sites, and chooses the site which maximises the impact of and return on the taxpayers investment. That may not be the lowest cost option, but one which realises optimal benefits for that region of the UK. Given that a key audience for these criteria are local communities, it is recommended that RWM conduct further analysis of the use of language with those who represent the community/civil society sector. For example, would lay people refer to “Engineering Feasibility”, or would the more simple “Construction” be more meaningful and accessible to them? Geology During the workshops there were repeated comments that there was too little specific mention of ‘geology’. We would agree with RWM that this issue should be woven through all the criteria, and not be a standalone criteria in its own right. We welcome RWM’s commitment given at several workshops that they will be more explicit about the role of geology when revising the text of the document after the consultation. |
A Public consultation related to the search for a suitable site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in Wales
Question 1:
Are there any other sources of high level Requirements other than Siting Process, National Policy Statement and Legal Requirements identified that you think should be reflected in the Site Evaluation and why?
The consultation document makes no mention of the Future Generations Act (FGA) despite this being a foundation piece of legislation which all public sector organisations must comply with when developing or implementing Welsh Government policy.
The FGA’s 7 well-being goals, and the Act’s requirements that public bodies in Wales think about the long-term impact of their decisions, to work better with people, communities and each other, all appear very relevant to site evaluation, and to wider geological disposal policy. Although RWM is not a ‘listed’ organisation under the Act, Welsh Ministers, local authorities and Natural Resources Wales are covered by legislation. Since, in Wales, RWM is in effect implementing Welsh (not UK) Government policy, we understand failure to incorporate the FGA goals could invalidate all or part of RWM’s approach to the siting process in Wales.
Not only is radioactive waste management policy a devolved issue, but land use planning, environmental permitting, and local authority, socioeconomic and communities policies are also devolved issues. The legal, regulatory, policy and institutional framework in Wales is no longer a replica of England. There is a distinctly different social, political and cultural environment in Wales. None of this is adequately reflected in the consultation document for Wales.
Although the FGA is not in operation in England, its sustainability principles, 7 well-being goals and approach to collaborative working provide a positive framework for the GDF siting process. Embracing the Act on a pan-UK basis might not only enhance implementation of the siting process, but would help provide a consistent basis for comparing Welsh and English communities.
Question 2:
Do you agree with the Siting Factors we have identified? Are there any other Siting Factors that should be included and why?
See Q4 below
Question 3:
Do you agree with the Evaluation Considerations we have identified? Are there any other Evaluation Considerations that should be included and why?
See Q4 below
Question 4:
Is there anything else that you think we should consider in our site evaluations and why?
We have never been entirely sure why this formal public consultation is being held. Judging by discussions with other attendees at the regional workshops, this is a widely held view. There is nothing ‘new’ in the consultation document. It simply contextualises existing requirements, which cannot be changed.
However, if it’s an early indication of a more inclusive approach by RWM to taking wider civil society opinion with it, then it is to be welcomed. And by bringing together all the existing legal, regulatory, environmental, planning and other requirements RWM is obliged to fulfil during the GDF siting process, the document also reads more like a ‘roadmap’ for communities. It helps:
• begin to explain broad timelines and how the different siting, planning and regulatory processes interweave with each other, and
• provides the bare bones of a potential work programme for engaged communities, by focusing on six broad factors — Safety, Community, Environment, Engineering feasibility, Transport, and Cost.
At this stage, the six headline siting factors appear sufficiently broad and flexible to encompass a wide range of more detailed and location-specific issues. But in providing a basis which helps give shape and structure to community discussions, the evaluation consideration criteria will need to be continually updated. The 31 March public consultation deadline therefore seems a little arbitrary, since these issues will continue to evolve, not least to include issues of particular relevance to a specific community. We hope that, where possible, RWM will continue to keep these issues open as the siting process progresses, rather than a draw a line when this public consultation ends.
We do have some specific additional observations:
Meaningful consultation
Those attending the workshops appeared to represent stakeholder sector and organisations that are already well-versed and engaged in the GDF programme. While their expertise and knowledge is undoubtedly of value to RWM in helping refine the site evaluation criteria, RWM cannot reasonably claim that they have satisfactorily reached out to and engaged with those whose consent is required to initiate and sustain a local discussion – ie, community and civil society organisations.
If the site evaluation criteria are to have any credibility or usefulness, they need to be understood and accepted at least by those representing the community and civil society sector. To press ahead with only the input of ‘technical’ stakeholders creates risks for RWM in terms of securing broader public acceptance to the site evaluation criteria.
This concern was aired at the start of the consultation process, and has sadly been realised:
“A more basic concern is that civil society and community organisations will not have the capacity to make meaningful responses to the consultation by the end of March… experience from regional workshops for the National Geological Screening, National Policy Statement and Working With Communities consultations suggest that it is the same organisations which tend to attend these events. While useful for those attending, the workshops are not always the most effective means of reaching out beyond historical core-engaged stakeholders.” [GDFWatch, 15/01/19]
The post-consultation revised site evaluation criteria should be subjected to further socialisation with and feedback from those representing the wider and community and civil society sectors.
Measurability/Objective Comparative Analysis
RWM state that a key purpose of the evaluation criteria is to support comparative assessment of different sites. But there is little in the document to indicate how ‘objective’ comparative assessments are to be made. There are clearly difficulties and constraints in relying purely on quantitative assessment methodologies, but there seems too little emphasis in the current proposals on how the different criteria might be objectively compared or weighted across different sites under investigation. Nor does the consultation address the issue of comparing sites which are at different stages of investigation.
Being able to compare sites in a transparent and understandable way will be essential to the wider task of building communities’ confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the siting process. More importantly, RWM will need robust objective indicators in order to defend and justify their actions, to Parliament and the National Audit Office, to the Courts in the event of a Judicial Review, as well as to the affected communities.
There seems to be a widely-held view that RWM will almost certainly be challenged in Court at some point in the next 30 years, most likely by a community which RWM decides should no longer remain within the siting process. The basis on which any such decision is made by RWM therefore needs to be built on a robust comparative evaluation.
The complexity of the project, the varied characteristics of each community, and availability of common data sources across all participating communities, make defining specific quantifiable comparative data a difficult task. However, there are examples and precedents (eg environmental assessments) in which robust comparative analyses can be made and which can withstand public, regulatory and legal scrutiny. While recognising the difficulty for RWM in defining and developing methodologies for objective comparative assessment, this is an issue on which further work is clearly required.
Local Authority/Statutory Obligations
Local Authorities have been allotted a specific role within the siting process and Community Partnership framework. This reflects their responsibility to deliver statutory obligations, and the potential impact (positive or negative) of a GDF and related investments on their capacity and capability to meet those obligations. The consultation document lists at length the legal and regulatory obligations RWM will need to meet, but is mute on how the siting process may need to be observant of the impact of RWM’s activities on the statutory obligations of affected local authorities (or any other third parties).
In different circumstances and scenarios, the effect of a GDF could drive efficiencies, or drive costs up, in the delivery of public and social services by the local authority. This is both a ‘community’ and a ‘cost’ issue, of great significance to local taxpayers and public service users.
The key point here, is that the site evaluation criteria currently focus on RWM’s legal and regulatory obligations, and we believe further thought should be given to including an assessment of the impact of RWM’s activities on the statutory obligations of other parties within the affected communities.
National Policy Statement (NPS)
As we understand, the final NPS will, by necessity, be ‘generic’ – as there is no specific site to which a GDF NPS can currently be applied. It will set out the key issues to be addressed and included within any site-specific planning application. Such a flexible approach is required to be able to account for the potentially varied environmental impact and obligations in different parts of the country. In our view, this underlines the need for the site evaluation criteria to be kept under review, and for the adoption by RWM in their site comparison analyses of similar measures to those used currently when assessing environmental impacts.
Language/Tone
RWM have clearly gone some way to making the text of the document much more accessible to lay and non-technical audiences. But there are still improvements that can be made, and there is value in engaging the community/civil society sector to help continually improve the use of plain English (or Welsh).
The most obvious example of this is the ‘Cost’ evaluation criteria. “Cost” is a laden term. If the public believe that cost is a primary determinant, they will fear that the programme will be ‘cutting corners’ and not placing safety as a key determinant.
‘Value for money’ is a suggested alternative. It is true that costs to the taxpayer will be one of the deciding issues. However, it does not flow from that that the cheapest option will automatically be the preferred option. There are other key influencing criteria to weigh alongside cost. Given the scale of impact a GDF will have on a regional economy and infrastructure over a long period, it is not inconceivable that a Secretary of State in 30-50 years time evaluates two very similar potential sites, and chooses the site which maximises the impact of and return on the taxpayers investment. That may not be the lowest cost option, but one which realises optimal benefits for that region of the UK.
Given that a key audience for these criteria are local communities, it is recommended that RWM conduct further analysis of the use of language with those who represent the community/civil society sector. For example, would lay people refer to “Engineering Feasibility”, or would the more simple “Construction” be more meaningful and accessible to them?
Geology
During the workshops there were repeated comments that there was too little specific mention of ‘geology’. We would agree with RWM that this issue should be woven through all the criteria, and not be a standalone criteria in its own right. We welcome RWM’s commitment given at several workshops that they will be more explicit about the role of geology when revising the text of the document after the consultation.