Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance

This paper develops a critical perspective on the ‘new’ governance of science and the environment which is increasingly evident in practical attempts to build more constructive relations between science and democracy through hybrid ‘analytic–deliberative’ processes. The focus is on recent institutional and participatory experiments in the governance of nuclear waste, specifically the work of the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management and the trialling of a novel participatory, multicriteria, options appraisal tool called Deliberative Mapping undertaken by the authors as part of this process. Drawing on these attempts to build relations and make connections between citizens, specialists, stakeholders and policy makers, radioactive wastes, and possible courses of action for their long-term management, the methodological performance of analytic–deliberative practices and the contextual influences that frame and govern them is evaluated. The paper demonstrates powerful framing effects operated at the level of specific participatory practices, procedural politics surrounding the design of ‘new’ governance institutions, and institutional behaviour linked to wider politics of environmental risk and energy futures which narrowed down and marginalised particular discourses, knowledges, meanings, and forms of expression. Unless these often tacit power relations are acknowledged, accounted for, and exposed by all involved, but especially vested interests, analytic–deliberative institutions may well undermine public trust, credibility, and legitimacy rather than promote these democratic virtues as is widely claimed.

[1]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[2]  A. Irwin The Politics of Talk , 2006 .

[3]  Claire Waterton,et al.  Caught between the Cartographic and the Ethnographic Imagination: The Whereabouts of Amateurs, Professionals, and Nature in Knowing Biodiversity , 2005 .

[4]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nuclear Futures: Assessing Public Attitudes to New Nuclear Power , 2006 .

[5]  M Tewdwr-Jones,et al.  Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning , 1998 .

[6]  R. McKechnie,et al.  Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge , 2007 .

[7]  Margo Huxley,et al.  The Limits to Communicative Planning , 2000 .

[8]  A. Stirling Opening Up Or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation And Power In The Social Appraisal Of Technology , 2005 .

[9]  S. Owens ‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy , 2000 .

[10]  Bruno Latour,et al.  Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy , 1999 .

[11]  Jacquelin Burgess Situating knowledges, sharing values and reaching collective decisions , 2018, Cultural Turns/Geographical Turns.

[12]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[13]  U. Kothari Authority and Expertise: The Professionalisation of International Development and the Ordering of Dissent , 2005 .

[14]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[15]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Environmental Risk, Uncertainty, and Participation: Mapping an Emergent Epistemic Community , 2008 .

[16]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure , 1993, Policy Sciences.

[17]  T. Nyerges,et al.  Collaborative Water Resource Decision Support: Results of a Field Experiment , 2006 .

[18]  L. Pellizzoni The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. , 2001, The British journal of sociology.

[19]  W. Freudenburg,et al.  Nuclear Families and Nuclear Risks: The Effects of Gender, Geography, and Progeny on Attitudes toward a Nuclear Waste Facility. , 2007 .

[20]  M. Morris Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[21]  D. Bloomfield,et al.  Deliberation and Inclusion: Vehicles for Increasing Trust in UK Public Governance? , 2001 .

[22]  S. Healy Public Participation as the Performance of Nature , 2003 .

[23]  E. Carlson :Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2008 .

[24]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments , 2006 .

[25]  S. Stagl Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: the case of UK energy policy , 2006 .

[26]  Gail Davies,et al.  Mapping deliberation: calculation, articulation and intervention in the politics of organ transplantation , 2006 .

[27]  T. Webler,et al.  Public Participation in Impact Assess-ment: A Social Learning Perspective , 1995 .

[28]  Genevieve Fuji Johnson,et al.  The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy , 2007 .

[29]  G. Walker,et al.  Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning , 2005 .

[30]  G. Davies,et al.  Challenging the 'view from nowhere': citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process. , 2004, Health & place.

[31]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Deliberative and Participatory Approaches in Environmental Geography , 2009 .

[32]  J. Habermas,et al.  The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

[33]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions , 2007 .

[34]  P. Simmons,et al.  Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste , 2008, Public understanding of science.

[35]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Deliberative Mapping: appraising options for closing ‘the kidney gap' , 2003 .

[36]  G. Myers Applied Linguists and Institutions of Opinion , 2005 .

[37]  B. Cooke,et al.  Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. , 2001 .

[38]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making , 2003 .

[39]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[40]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe , 2006 .

[41]  S. Harrison Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice , 2001 .

[42]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Towards Analytic‐deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste , 2007 .

[43]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Democracy in the Risk Society - Learning from the Politics of Mobility in Munich , 1999 .

[44]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop , 2001 .

[45]  A. Irwin Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[46]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[47]  Britain’s Genetically Modified Crop Controversies: The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and the Negotiation of ‘Uncertainty’ , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[48]  David J Ball,et al.  The UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. , 2005, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[49]  Anna Vári,et al.  Stepwise Approach to the Long‐Term Management of Radioactive Waste , 2006 .

[50]  Ortwin Renn Participatory processes for designing environmental policies , 2006 .

[51]  S. Jasanoff Designs on Nature , 2005 .