Geological disposal of radioactive waste as a megaproject : a tentative framework for socio-economic evaluation of the French disposal project

Transcription

1 Geological disposal of radioactive waste as a megaproject : a tentative framework for socio-economic evaluation of the French disposal project Markku Lehtonen IFRIS, Université de Paris Est Marne-la-Vallée SPRU, University of Sussex REFORM group meeting August 2012, Salzburg

2 The project person-years - from June 2012 until November financed by Andra - home base at IFRIS, Université de Paris Est Marne-la-Vallée

3 Objectives & justification of the project 1. Provide tools for evaluation of the socio-economic impacts of the French radioactive waste disposal project (Cigéo) 2. Help Andra reach beyond the technico-economic analysis and evaluation of Cigéo integrate economic and other social science analysis ex ante, ex post, ex nunc; internal & external 3. Governance: strengthen reflexivity and proactivity at Andra 4. The social as the missing/weak link of SD

4 Timetable for Cigéo 2006: Radioactive Waste Law reversible geological disposal as the reference; further research on transmutation and interim storage 2010: validation by the government of the zone of limited size (30 km2, zone de taille restreinte ZIRA) for the site in Meuse & Haute-Marne 2013: Public debate organised by CNDP 2014/2015: application by Andra for a construction licence statements by competent authorities (safety) and local municipalities 2016: law defining the specific conditions for reversibility 2017: beginning of construction work 2025: start of disposal

5

6 What is (socio-economic) evaluation? Relevant strands of literature Impact assessment -EIA, SA, IA, TA, SIA, HIA -Participation & empowerment -Role of assessment in governance Policy evaluation -From experimental through constructivist and pragmatic to theorybased & multi-method evaluation -Role of evaluation in policymaking Environmental economics -Ecological and institutional economics -Valuation studies: (problems of) monetisation and aggregation -(e)valuation as a process for formation of values and preferences Management of megaprojects -Megaproject pathologies : appraisal optimism -Beyond pathologies: reflexive governance

7 Cigéo as a megaproject

8 Megaproject characteristics Uniqueness; no precedents Considerable temporal and spatial scales Evolution and dynamism Complexity Uncertain knowledge Strong potential of disagreement and value conflicts Multiple actors at multiple levels

9 How does Cigéo differ from ordinary megaprojects? The need for the project (almost) never called into question: the waste problem needs to be resolved Cigéo not primarily justified by the benefits to the local and regional populations, but by the imperative to solve a nationallevel problem Extremely long temporal scale -> ethics Reversibility integrated as a mandatory requirement for Cigéo

10 Multiplicity of players, at different levels National Andra CEA CNE (national commission for evaluation) CNEF (national commission charged for evaluating the financing and tarification of radioactive waste management) Ministerial task force on radwaste management Opecst (parliamentary science & technology committee) ASN (safety authority) La Commission des Finances Local and regional Departmental authorities: Meuse & Haute-Marne Groupement d intérêt public Project on territory, led by the prefecture of Meuse CLIS (representing local communities) NGOs (Stop Bure!)

11 Megaproject pathologies negative uncertainties Appraisal optimism (cf. nuclear new-build) Systematic tendency of project developers (and govts) to overestimate the advantages of the project, and underestimate their costs, harmful impacts and time needed for completion the theory of strategic misrepresentation the survival of the unfittest The old literature on megaprojects: Flyvbjerg et co.

12 Reversibility and positive uncertainties: learning and reflexivity Technical and political reversibility Uncertainty as a tool for advancing reflexive governance The new literature on the management of megaprojects: e.g. van Marrewijk; Leheis (2009); Osland & Strand (2010); van der Velts & Altes (2011) Governance at the centre of attention Evaluation as a means of introducing reflexivity into the governance of Cigéo: plan for change over the life time of the project (Sagalyn, 2007: 14).

13 The social

14 The social as a missing link, & the suggestions of CNE Economic Costs of disposal and interim storage Impact of waste management costs on the price of kwh ; Socio-economic impacts at national and local level Trade balance of France Distribution of costs in case of privatisation Financing of nuclear activities Social Social acceptability Information to be given to the local populations (esp. concerning health effects) Current evaluation practice dominated by technical and to a certain extent economic evaluation (e.g. carbon balance, ecological footprint, real options, financing and tarification of waste management, LCA, mandatory EIA)

15 But what is meant by the social? Impacts of Cigéo on: Social networks Participation of citizens and communities Sense of belonging and (territorial) identity Stability and feeling of security Quantification? Opposed by the SIA community, but recommended by e.g. the EU Commission Can the social be captured through quantitative indicators? Power?

16 Key challenges for the evaluation of Cigéo

17 1. Functions and objectives of evaluation Four functions 1. Accountability 2. Learning, improvement of the project 3. Knowledge-production 4. Strategic/political purposes Tensions between - Accountability and learning - Control and collaboration, sectoral integration, strategic perspective Combining the different purposes and objectives? - Redefining accountability - Theory-based evaluation

18 2. Role and influence of evaluation in policymaking: actor repertoires Multiple interests, perspectives, expectations, objectives Repertoires: stabilised ways of thinking and acting (on the individual level) or stabilised codes, operations and technology (on other levels) (van der Meer 1999) empirical analysis of repertoires: Oct 2012 March 2013 Roles of evaluation (& scientific knowledge) in policymaking: Instrumental Conceptual Political

19 3. Who should evaluate? The role(s) of the evaluator Multiple types of evaluation - Ex ante, ex post, ex nunc - internal vs. external (learning vs. accountability) - Various theoretical approaches Roles of the evaluator Scientist Pragmatic evaluation: Pielke s science arbiter? Co-construction of knowledge: plural and conditional expertise Ethnoventionist (van Marrewijk 2010) Could minimise the risk of conclusions/recommendations being rejected because the evaluator portrayed as ignorant Commissioning the evaluations: how to ensure the plurality of perspectives? Participation: who should participate and at which stages?

20 4. Implementation of the policy & cause-effect relationships Intervention theory as a means of evaluating implementation processes Theory-based (and realistic) evaluation: outcome = context + mechanism Megaproject literature: conditions for successful implementation of megaprojects

21 5. The result problem How to define performance? Which aspects to consider? Definition of what counts Unintended effects (positive and negative, direct and indirect) -local, territorial, regional, national level impacts -Short, medium and long term -Culture, democracy, practices, routines, habits, legitimacy of actors and policies -Distribution of costs and benefits

22 7. The criteria of performance The criteria of evaluation -Different types of effectiveness -Process criteria (transparency, justice, equity ) -Relevance Aggregation vs. disaggregation; monetise or not?

23 Conclusions & questions (I) Introducing reflexivity in a megaproject involving high political stakes? Evaluation: a tool for knowledge-production and governance Beyond the techno-economic, towards the truly social Beyond dichotomies: integrating the technical, economic and social rationalistic-instrumental and post-positivist/constructivist approaches analytic-deliberative methods? Socioeconomic evaluation faces institutional and cultural obstacles changes in attitudes, skills and competences needed

24 Conclusions II Match the the approach and the methods with the purpose of evaluation How to ensure plurality of types and approaches of evaluation? Evaluation process as a source of influence and learning Evaluation champions? Internal agents of change? International comparisons which megaprojects? which experiences of radwaste management? What role for the evaluation planner in the governance of Cigéo?