Page d'accueil

Claude Fischer, Director, Les Entretiens européens – I am delighted to welcome you to this third edition of Les Entretiens européens, in a “royal” hall made available to us by Reims Town Council to whom I should like to express our very special thanks.

We are not standing on ceremony here and I will not list the VIPs present, especially as all of you are important people. You are all players, from different socio-professional backgrounds, with differing political beliefs and, more importantly, from various countries. I should like to thank our Canadian friends (who probably found our climate milder than theirs whereas for us it has hindered attendance – as have our railway workers who are still on strike!) and our friends from Germany, Belgium, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, the UK, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland – all of whom have come to Reims to give us the benefit of their experience.

This is a European debate and, this year, it is part of the National Public Debate launched by the French Government in the run-up to the parliamentary debate.

As we all know, 2006 is of major importance after 15 years of research into the most efficient possible management of the most dangerous nuclear waste, the high-level, long-lived waste. Three areas of research have been considered – storage, separation/transmutation and deep geological disposal. We would like to emphasise the efforts made and the results achieved at this juncture.

Les Entretiens européens were set up to launch a debate on a subject that was taboo in 2003 and since then our meetings have acquired credibility. We have done our work well. It is true that we have not become scientific experts but we are political experts with knowledge of civil society. Is that a pretentious claim to make? We arrange monthly meetings for a working party, publish a twice-yearly newsletter and organise an annual conference. Our aim is to provide information and clarify the issues, move away from the all-French debate and make a contribution to the decision-taking process.

In 2003 in Nogent, we concentrated on national choices within a European perspective; in 2004 in Bar-Le-Duc, we focussed on economic issues.

This year in Reims, we will look at two difficult topics. In the first round table, we shall consider how to involve the general population in the decision-making process. It is easy to be in favour of disposal but not so easy when it is in one’s own “back yard”. Yet we will have to reach a decision and assume our responsibilities. And, if possible, we should look at our own guidelines and strategies in the light of what other people are doing in other countries.

If a decision is to be effective and the results sustainable, we have to involve citizens in projects. Andra, producers of waste (whom I should like to thank for being present and sponsoring the Entretiens), have worked hard and provided information. But more remains to be done. They must become partners in sustainable development, linking it with the management of waste. We shall hear our European and Canadian friends. How do they deal with this issue? That is the subject of our second round table.

Our ambition is to establish a direction for future progress, propose an agenda and keep to it despite successive changes in government. Work will then be required to achieve our aims, based on research and international discussion. As to the choice of site, we propose to reverse the top-down approach (i.e. the Government proposes and the people say “Yes” or “No”) and replace it by a bottom-up approach, with the people proposing and the Government having the final say[1].

I am convinced that our work will be useful and I should now like to hand over to Jean-Louis Schneiter, Mayor of Reims. François Lamoureux will then remind us of Europe’s role as a driving force for the safety and management of nuclear waste in Europe, a role about which too little is known in France.

Jean-Louis Schneiter, Mayor of Reims: I am delighted to welcome you to Reims, a forward-looking town whose development will be accelerated by the East European high-speed train service and a town that is as resolutely turned towards Europe as it is towards the Paris Basin. The subject that you are about to discuss is one that arouses a great deal of feeling and debate is essential. The starting point must be information and discussion for, as Mrs. Fischer has so rightly said, it is no longer appropriate to decide first and inform afterwards. All politicians, at every level, are well aware of this. We have to convince the people before we take a decision. Nuclear energy in particular frightens people because they know little about it. A common European policy on waste management is necessary, vital even if we are to avoid distortion and use the experience gained by some to the mutual benefit of all. In France, there is an urgent need to allay the fears that are created by uncertainty. The 2006 law will therefore have to establish a guideline for the future. Collective responsibility must be brought into play because it is the future of nuclear energy that is on the line – and the future of our people. I hope that you will have time to visit Reims, a town of peace, and that we shall be able to reach a peaceful agreement with the nuclear industry.

Paper

Director General, DGTREN (Directorate General, Energy & Transport), European Commission

I took part in the first Entretiens européens, in Nogent in 2003, and I am equally interested in the present conference, here in Reims. I should like to congratulate the organisers of this third conference, in particular Claude Fischer, and I congratulate her for her determination to stimulate debate and relaunch consideration of all the possible solutions to an issue which is central to the concerns expressed by citizens.

1-The importance of nuclear power for the independence of Europe as regards energy supplies

We have never produced as much nuclear power as we are at present, but nobody mentions this. And we will be producing a lot more of it in the years to come. Already more than one-third of all electricity used in Europe comes from nuclear power. It is true that Europe remains one of the world’s largest importers of energy from fossil fuels but nuclear energy allows to save an additional 250 million tonnes of oil equivalent, thereby reducing its oil bill by about 100 billion.

This has to be said because the question of independence as regards energy is essential to this debate. The European Union’s imports of energy cover 50% of its requirements. If nothing is done, they will cover 70% of requirements in ten years’ time. Can the EU be independent in conditions such as these? It is something of a paradox to see Europeans taking time to debate which is the best source of energy for them when they are all equally good, as the European Commission has pointed out time and again. Europe, unlike the USA, has very little room for manoeuvre as far as supply is concerned and it is logical for the EU to want to keep control of demand. The United States have decided to increase the offer at all costs but the Union has no choice but to define an energy policy based on energy efficiency and control of demand. These considerations subtend the Commission’s Green Paper entitled “Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply”, which we had the satisfaction of seeing Heads of State and Government support during the last European Council meeting after four decades during which nothing had been done. The need to control demand means that all of us, industrialists and citizens alike, will have to change the way we behave.

As far as promoting supply is concerned, what possibilities are open to the European Union? It can promote renewable energy sources. An ambitious objective has been laid down in this respect, a long time ago when it was said that this type of energy should represent 12% of the total energy used in 2010. However, we have hardly reached 8% and the trends are not good because these are the only sources of energy which do not receive enough aid, unlike coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel, all of which have received massive amounts of aid. The same effort has not been put into renewable energies. In its Green Paper, the Commission has therefore included a number of proposals in this respect and I am delighted to say that they have received support from the European Parliament. Why should we not use part of the huge profits made by the oil and nuclear industries to provide a minimum of solidarity? Moreover, the emphasis has been put on the production of biomass and biofuel. Restrictive measures are now required, even on mixes to traditional fuel.

Turning to nuclear power, an essential source of energy. The current problems will become increasingly acute in the years to come because of the scheduled development of production. What is happening in the Union at the present time? Finland has begun building new reactors. France will be building some and, if Mr. Blair is to be believed, the United Kingdom will be following suit. Portugal has become aware that, because of its isolation and the increase in the price of gas, it has no other solution. Slovakia, which has been forced to close obsolete power stations, is considering the possibility of beginning production again and the Czech Republic has already decided to do so. Romania and Poland each have a development plan for reactors and Bulgaria is in the process of completing two. Turkey has announced its intention to build two as well. In other words, whether or not we are in favour of it, the spread of nuclear power is already a reality and a solution must be found to the problem of waste.

Although the European Commission is not very good at communication, it has a good instrument at its disposal – the Eurobarometer, a statistical tool which reflects the opinion of a sample of the European population to whom the same questions have been put over the past thirty years. When questioned recently, Europe’s citizens now seem to be mostly in favour of nuclear power on condition that a solution is found to the problem of waste, a subject about which three-quarters of them consider that they are inadequately informed.

The European Commission proposed EU leadership and more coordinated efforts. I presume, without much risk of being mistaken, that I am the only person in this room, apart from Mr. Rolf Linkhor, who read regularly the Euratom Treaty, despite the fact that it was remarkably well written and that it is used every day without the general public being aware of it. Under the watchful eye of the European Commission and its body of 300 specially-designated inspectors, it organises the control, accounting and transport of dangerous materials. This is a very efficient system and if there is one place in the world in which there is no proliferation, it is Europe.

The Euratom Treaty also provides for the Commission’s monitoring of investments in nuclear power plants to ensure that the investments are acceptably safe and comply with the legislation on competition since this is now a financially viable industry. It is required to authorise projects, which it did two years ago for Finland. The Treaty also provides for internationnal agreements with other countries. This is why, for example, Community inspectors are present in the reprocessing plant in La Hague when American waste arrives there, as planned in the Euratom-United-States Agreement. The Treaty also requires all national research programmes to be coordinated although this clause is actually not implemented at the present time. On the basis of the Treaty, a competence in safety issues has been developped, which explains why, during the enlargement of the European Union, Community inspectors went and checked the reactors in countries applying for EU membership. However, the Treaty also allows for the granting of loans from the European budget, with a view to improving the nuclear industry in countries which do not have the necessary resources themselves. Romania and Bulgaria are both benefiting from this. Finally, the Euratom Treaty organises the funding of the decommissioning of plants.

In one, relating to the safety of plants, it envisaged a restrictive single European framework. This will take time but, one day, we will have to apply common standards.

In the other, on the management of nuclear waste, it proposed that each Member State should draw up a long-term management programme. The Commission considers reversible deep geological disposal as the best solution but it does not propose to make it obligatory. The draft directive is still under discussion by the Council. It has the backing of the European Parliament but, to date, has not received a qualified majority. Nevertheless, by tabling it for discussion, it relaunched the debate on the management of nuclear waste and I very much hope that it will be adopted by the Council. It is a simple text requiring, as I said, each State to define a waste management programme.

A common research enterprise

This draft directive also states the need for European efforts in the field of research. Research and technologic development of the European Union are set within a formal framework of a communautary programm. A programm is specially dedicated to research in the nuclear field. This second framework provides for the co-funding of ITER. The Commission has envisaged, but has not yet reached, a final decision on a proposal to set up a common enterprise for research into nuclear waste, cofounded by the Framework Programme and the industry itself. For the moment, nobody knows how much money each State and each business devotes to research into waste. According to the Euratom Treaty, States are required to supply this information. This has not been done but we shall pay attention to the issue in the future.

This common research enterprise is based on a model that works well viz. the joint enterprise set up as part of the Galileo programme to combine research work on satellite navigation. It would also be funded from the Community budget and topped up by contributions from the States that considered it a more useful solution than working alone. There would also be funding from the private sector or, more precisely, from the producers of waste, in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” policy. They would pay a royalty based on the production of electricity or the volume of waste, which are the two measurable criteria. A common enterprise will be able to coordinate, integrate and direct the efforts of Member States, research organizations and entities involved in the waste management in a single structure in order to make this research more effective and efficient.

At present, there is one obstacle in our way. Certain rumourmongers, who are against this enterprise, are telling people, even before the Commission has tabled a precise project, that the aim is to store all the European Union’s nuclear waste in a single site. This is not at all its purpose. Each country can keep its own waste or reach agreement with a second country for a joint disposal or storage facility. We are in the same situation as we were for Galileo. Initially, there were those who claimed that the existence of a free American satellite navigation system meant that a fee-paying European system would have no chance of success but eventually everybody admitted the worthwhile nature of the development for us. I would therefore ask you to advance this idea, if you can, in those States which are pretending not to understand why they should pool their efforts in this field as they have done, for example, in the fight against serious illnesses. The choice of location for a national or European disposal facility certainly is difficult. But that is quite another matter. And each State can draw up its own national plan, based on its preferred solution.

In short, we have to establish high safety standards (hesitations on this subject have finally been overcome). We have to adopt a directive on the processing of nuclear waste and advance research on a European level. If we do not make progress in these three areas, possibly in a different form to the one proposed by the Commission which is keeping an open mind, three-quarters of Europe’s citizens will continue to say in surveys that they are concerned about this issue and they will then not support us.

It is not my place to take part in the French debate launched after the Bataille Law. I can see that great consideration has been given to the subject. However, mere consultation and debate are not enough. Politicians must now reach a decision and defend the general interest. Based on the information at my disposal, I should like the politicians to choose the solution which is coming to the fore, i.e. underground disposal of waste. This is the solution retained by Finland. And I should like the decision to set an example for other countries in the European Union and, eventually, become mandatory.

The debate instigated as a result of the Bataille Law highlighted the complexity of the problems. It is easy to say “they should do this” or “they should do that”. It is also easy to demand the organisation of public consultation. However, it is more important to design forms of consultation that do not lead to an instinctive refusal, with everybody rejecting the idea of waste disposal in their own back yards. In preparing for the debate, it is important to make a clear distinction between the roles of the various parties involved i.e. those who are responsible for producing the waste, those who will one day suffer the consequences of its storage or disposal, and those who are responsible for explaining that the production of waste corresponds to an increase in nuclear energy that is avoiding a huge oil bill. Based on the technical elements that must be included in the debate, we have to convince the opinion leaders that a straight Yes/No vote is not appropriate and remind them repeatedly that this is a fundamental issue for the future of Europe.

Debate with the Floor

François Dosé, M.P. for Meuse: My questions will perhaps be annoying. I fully understand what you have said on the reception received by the draft directive. However, I am ready to forward to you a four-page letter that Commissioner Loyola de Palacio sent me in response to one of my statements. It is obvious that she was working as if Europe had already reached a decision in favour of deep geological disposal. So telling us about debates and discussions when the matter already seems to have been decided seems ambiguous at the least. In fact, I can also forward to you a letter from Mrs. Nicole Fontaine, then a government minister, who found Mrs. de Palacio’s views on the various options rather hasty. Personally, I am a European. I voted in favour of the Constitution and I am pleased that a common research enterprise is being envisaged. However, the way in which things are being presented is already a denial of democracy.

François Lamoureux: Perhaps Mrs. de Palacio did not express herself very well in her letter. I can assure you that she has always been careful, when presenting this topic, to state that, although the Commission favoured one of the possibilities, it was keeping an open mind on the others. You must understand that its responsibilities go far beyond France. For example, when the former USSR moved out of Eastern Europe, it left nuclear waste behind, in particular in Ignalina in Lithuania. And it was the European Commission which was asked to find a solution. Having to manage a large number of complex problems sometimes prevents it being sufficiently attentive to the situation in a particular country.

Moreover, the debate on nuclear waste has suddenly changed. Four or five years ago, ther was no clear vision of the best processing technique. We were therefore obliged to rely on experts or use what was happening elsewhere as a guideline. Mrs. de Palacio and I were very impressed by the Finnish solution where the waste processing facility is a sort of Disneyland which the people of Helsinki visit on Sundays. But you were probably right that, as far as communication is concerned, the Commission is not always very skilful.

Olivier Laffitte, UNSA trade union representative, Cogema: It has been said, quite correctly, that the nuclear and oil industries should contribute to the funding of research into renewable energies. But how are we to achieve this? Will it require legislation on a European or national level?

François Lamoureux: We have to distinguish between the various types of renewable energies. Some of them no longer require any aid. Others, such as photovoltaic energy, solar power and some of the biomass-based energies will not be financially viable for another few generations yet, if ever. However, it is not really the research area that requires assistance. It is adequately funded, even if more could still be done. It is really the promotion of these technologies that is required, in order to create a real market for them. For example, we have to provide grants for installation or operation, in differing ways depending on the renewable energy. Wind power does not require assistance once it is operational. At present, the States tend to give their citizens tax allowances. People would be suspicious of a European fund but could we not use national funds built up from some of the profits achieved by the nuclear or oil industry? This is not my own idea; it is contained in the European Commission’s Green Paper but it has not been put into effect. Yet if you read the Press you will see that such and such a government has decided to extend the life of a power plant from thirty to fifty years and that oil company profits are reaching billions because of the rising prices. Rather than granting tax allowances to each citizen, would it be so very abnormal to use some of this “income” for a national fund? It would take only a very small amount from each person. Moreover, it would be very worthwhile in political terms because Europe does not have enough resources to allow the different energy sources to jockey for position. Those who are not in favour of nuclear power must be prepared to compromise, especially as regards waste, and the nuclear industry has to understand that it is in its own interest to promote the development of renewable energy sources. The involvement of all in the question of waste, Greens and nuclear supporters alike, would help to achieve an essential objective and ensure that the European Union develops all forms of energy.

Olivier Laffitte: So in fact, it is up to each national Parliament to take action?

François Lamoureux: - Within a Community framework. The European Parliament has regular debates on this subject and a number of parliamentarians have already asked why the Commission was not taking the initiative and leading the way in the creation of national funds.

Monique Sené, President of GSIEN (Group of Scientists for Information on Energy from Nuclear fuel): All that is very well but I should like to come back to the problem of citizen consultations. As part of the European COWAM programme, I was involved in monitoring the situation in Belgium, the UK, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain, and I observed a total lack of democracy in all these countries. The population is always consulted – but not until the storage facility is about to be dug! By then, it’s too late! And if we really want the general public to be involved, we have to define how we are going to take account of their comments and how we will pass them on to the decision-making authorities. We have to know how representative democracy can feed on participative democracy, and I have not seen this happen anywhere.

At present, in France, there is public debate on waste but only in a few towns and cities. There is also a public debate on the EPR, which is posing many problems. Yet, depending on the choices made, the quantity of nuclear waste will vary widely and this will affect the solution retained for its processing. For the moment, it is difficult to say what we will do. Should we choose deep geological disposal? It has not been proven, and will not be as long as the research in the various laboratories has not been completed. This is why the general public is still asking questions about the issues.

It is in Europe’s interest to ensure that the issues are debated in every country, including the new Member States. You mentioned the programmes that may be launched in various countries but no decisions have yet been taken, except in Finland. There is a need to discuss the subject with the general public. The problem of waste is unavoidable but, at present, nobody knows how to deal with it efficiently.

François Rollinger, CFDT trade union representative, CSSIN: Most European countries, like the European Union itself, ratified the Aarhus Agreement which required upstream discussion for this type of project. This led to European directives on the Seveso sites. If we want to give a strong signal, we must also introduce governance obligations into the “nuclear package” covering the nuclear industry in general.

François Lamoureux: - I would refer you back to the nuclear package which already contains references to all these texts. However, it is Member States which are responsible for this, not the Commission’s General Directorate for Energy.

Claude Fischer: I should like to begin by coming back to the draft directive currently under discussion. Some States have rejected it. Does the project still contain a timetable or not?

On the subject of the common research enterprise, you said that we have to fight the rumours that are going round. But they come from certain States. In the ministries in France, after the vote rejecting the European Constitution, there were those who went so far as to claim that there is no place for Europe in the public debate. And this idea of a common enterprise is particularly frightening for the Ministry of Research. François Loos said that he did not know whether a decision would be taken in 2006 but, whatever happens, we will have to continue research for another ten years yet. I fear that the decision may be adjourned and that research work may not be shared. We will lobby on this issue but it will not be effective without massive support.

As to the commitment, in France, from the producers of waste and instigators of development, EDF and the CEA, like Cogema, have all proposed to take part in the development of areas that have agreed to a research laboratory. We shall come back to this point in the second round table.

François Lamoureux: I am used to the objections that have just been raised. We are drafting a directive and people say to us, “Have you thought about democracy though?” I am asking for only one thing – that people read the text carefully before judging it. In fact, the same could have been said for the draft Constitutional Treaty because it was obvious that it was not the text submitted to the people in a referendum that was posing a problem. (Expressions of disapproval in the hall). What have we just been talking about here? We have been reminding Member States of the constraints inherent to providing information to the general public. This, though, is not the Commission’s role! I would remind you of the quality of the debate in Finland, a country in which even the Greens are divided. In Portugal, Mr. Barroso, the then Prime Minister, wanted to see a reactor built. He commissioned an enquiry and, when it became obvious that the project would constitute a danger for a river, he abandoned the plan. When the President of Lithuania wanted a power plant to replace the one in Ignalina, he launched a debate and was supported by the general public, who do not want to remain dependent on their Russian “big brother”. The Commission respects all choices and if France prefers vitrified above-ground storage because it is more acceptable to its people, then so be it.

I remain unhesitatingly optimistic when it comes to the joint management of nuclear waste. Is it worth repeating? Nobody wanted a European energy policy. Norway wanted to retain the profits from its oil industry to finance its retirement fund. The United Kingdom wanted to keep control of its share of North Sea oil. France had its own nuclear industry and did not want anybody else interfering with it. Italy was busy with its own business in Russia and Algeria. Yet it is the countries who were the most hostile at the outset that are now leading the way in the European Council and demanding that the Commission should lay down the bases for a future energy policy in just three months. Well, the first thing to remind them of is the existence of the nuclear package!

Claude Fischer: And we are determined to continue this fight at your side, whatever your future functions.

Speaker : Thomas Flüeler, Principal Scientific Associate, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland

Discussion : Jean-Luc Bouzon, County Councillor for Haute-Marne, Vice-President of the Association of Meuse and Haute-Marne Deputies against disposal (AEMHM); Torsten Carlsson, former Mayor of Oskarshamn, Member of KASAM, Sweden; Michel Demet, Advisor, Nationale Association of Commissions locales d’information (ANCLI); Ghislain de Marsily, Professor of Geology, Member of CNE, Académie des Sciences and Académie des Technologies; Serge Gadbois, Sociologist, Mutadis, coordination of the european project COWAM (Community Waste Management); Claude Gatignol, Member of Parliament for Manche, Member of the Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (OPECST); Evelyn Hooft, spokeswoman, ONDRAF, Belgium; Romana Jordan Cizelj, Member of the European Parliament, Slovenia; François Rollinger, CFDT Trade Union Representative at CSSIN (Conseil supérieur de la sûreté et de l’information nucléaires)

Peter Haug: I should like to express my warmest thanks to the organisers of the Entretiens européens. This conference has established a benchmark in France and, indeed, for all European players. In my capacity as representative of the nuclear industry, I have to say that I am delighted with this.

Everybody is well aware that the population’s acceptance of a process is essential for any sustainable solution. Even if the technology can still be improved in certain areas, there is now increasing international consensus on the techniques used to process radioactive waste. The main solutions are deep geological disposal and, possibly at a later stage, separation-transmutation which could be used for waste produced by the future generations of nuclear power plants. The key question is whether citizens and, therefore, the decision-makers are ready to take their responsibilities and choose the best possible solutions for today’s societies at this point in time.

Political determination is an essential condition for success

As I am the only German taking part in this round table, I will give you my personal impressions of the past and present situations in my country. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, Germany was a world leader in this sector, with a complete system for waste management. After more than ten years of research in Asse, salt was selected as the disposal medium and Gorleben was chosen from a shortlist of more than one hundred possible sites, after extensive local and national consultation and after all political parties had agreed on both the procedures and the site itself. The deep geological disposal site was due to open in 1995, or by the year 2000 at the latest. However, the process was suddenly brought to a halt when the SPD-Green coalition took power. All previous agreements were broken, to satisfy the Greens. Since then, the federal government makes vague mentions of possibly opening the site in or around the year 2050, even though it would only take us about ten years to get it up and running.

What new prospects do the recent elections in Germany open up? In my opinion, very few. The government agreement signed by the new coalition in power mentions “differences of opinion” on the use of nuclear energy and this is apparently why the legislation allowing for the gradual closure of nuclear power plants will not be changed, like the contract signed in June 2000 with power producers. However, recent statements suggest that the new governement may eventually face up to reality again. As I have said, the technical solutions exist and can be applied and the suitability of the Gorleben site was carefully studied over several decades. It is time to do what can be done, with all the relevant parties. This is not easy, of course. In fact, it is even more complicated now than it was a few years ago – and political will is the essential condition for success. We hope that this determination will become apparent again and allow for open, constructive debate with a view to promoting a sustainable solution for the management of nuclear waste in Germany.

The political stability of the decision

Given what I have just said on the changes that have occurred in Germany, I would like to make a few controversial remarks that should ensure lively discussion from the start. It seems to me that the approach retained at the present is slightly theoretical, not to say naive.

Of course, information is crucial and we must all do our utmost to improve it. However, the anti-nuclear lobby has all necessary information at its disposal – they simply do not draw the same conclusions from it as we do.

Of course the involvement of the general public and local authorities is essential and we must do our utmost to strengthen it. However, the “general public” is an anonymous group with no continuity, stability or constraint. It can change its mind at any time between the present and the moment at which the project is launched.

Of course a legislative process is worthwhile and obviously necessary for a subject as complex as the management of radioactive waste. However, as we can see from what has happened in Germany, even a well-prepared, well-designed draft law does not guarantee the stability of the decision in the long term.

In my opinion, the basic question is as follows : how can we organise the stability of the political decision to ensure that it remains valid for several decades? I should like our discussions to find an answer to this question.

Thomas Flüeler, Senior Research Associate, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland: I am honoured to have been invited to speak to you on the participative tools used in the context of nuclear waste governance. I shall wear a number of different hats – as a researcher but also as a member of several advisory committees set up on the federal or cantonal level and in my capacity as a former director of an NGO, the Swiss Energy Foundation.

Based on a “ladder of citizen participation” defined in the 1960s by the American sociologist S. Arnstein, we know that gradation exists, from information to consultation, to involvement, collaboration and, finally, empowerment. What is the use of involvement? To inform decision makers because it enables them to enhance their investigations. To inform citizens about a project and the corresponding procedure. To monitor public governance. To provide legal protection and strengthen civil rights. To represent the diversity of all the interests. And to strengthen the legitimacy of the decisions taken.

How can we consult citizens? There are dozens of procedures ranging from consensus conferences, discussion forums, workshops, future search conferences, advisory groups, negotiations, etc. And this is far from a comprehensive list of techniques.

But, as a conclusion of assessing the procedures used, it becomes obvious that design and framing are more important than the choice of methods and that it is essential to ensure that groups right across the lines are represented. We have to go beyond the actual decision making and see its output, outcome and impact.

Proposing several options

In Switzerland, the application for waste disposal in a single site (Wellenberg) was rejected twice. Learning from this experience, it appeared that proposing a single option is not sufficient – indeed, this had already been obvious during public consultations in Canada and it was succinctly translated as “A choice of one is not a choice”. The government of the Swiss Confederation thereupon asked to draw up a sectorial plan including a selection procedure (based on the law of spatial planning).

In conclusion, the population is asking to be actively involved in the decision-taking process in this case and it is essential to define a framework for participation. We have to admit that controversy may arise. When it comes to the management of nuclear waste, much remains to be done to ensure that the general public agrees to the inclusion of toxic materials in a regional development plan. However, since management cannot be undertaken without the interested parties, their views have to be taken into account.

Peter Haug: Thank you. In addition to your paper, anybody interested will find the scientific part of your exposé on the website[2].

We shall begin by describing experiences in Europe. I shall ask one simple question of our speakers – what is the best way of involving the general public in the decision-making process?

Romana Jordan Cizelj, Member of the European Parliament, Slovenia: Thank you for your invitation. I must say at the outset that I totally support your approach and your efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation. There must be dialogue between those who work in the nuclear industry, politicians and the general public, just as there must be dialogue between countries. This is essential for the future of nuclear power in Europe – and I believe in nuclear power. To ensure that dialogue exists, we have to be able to answer the questions posed by the decommissioning of power plants on the one hand and the management of waste on the other – in technical terms, of course, but also as regards its acceptance by the general public, an issue which seems to me to be particularly crucial during the present stage.

Communication on a disposal project

Slovenia has a nuclear power plant, a research reactor, a central facility for low-level waste and a uranium mine which is now closed. Our aim is to reach a decision in 2008 as regards a site for the disposal of low- and medium-level waste; it would be operational in 2012. We have already had one fairly bitter experience at the end of the 1980’s and beginning of the 1990’s when we were unable to communicate effectively with the general public while selecting a site for the disposal of waste. This led us to introduce a new approach in the middle of the 1990’s, providing the public with information on every aspect of the project more efficiently and from the outset.

The main stages in our approach included a preliminary study in the country to identify the regions where it would be possible to envisage disposal, then to inform the various towns and villages of the results. Of the 194 towns or villages concerned, eight declared themselves willing to play host to a disposal facility. We then launched a process which allowed us to shortlist three sites. By the way, one of the non-shortlisted sites complained about the selection procedure! Why were we so successful? Because we supplied the general public with information from the outset and provided extensive information not only on the technical aspects of the project but also on the entire procedure so that the public could take part in the decision-making process. The success of this method is reflected in the Eurobarometer referred to by Mr. Lamoureux. While only 29% of Europeans believe they are well informed about the management of nuclear waste, the figure rises to 46% in Slovenia. As to real knowledge of what waste management entails, the Slovenes top the polls at 65% compared to a European average of 44%.

In my opinion, the fundamental factor for success is taking account of the differences between countries, between regions, from one community to another and even between two sites within the same community. In the three shortlisted sites, for example, we carried out a very detailed in situ analysis. In the next stage, we will be concentrating on the acceptance of the project by the public and on people’s expectations so that we can establish a common objective.

Thomas Carlsson, former Mayor of Oskarshamn, member of KASAM, Sweden – I am delighted to be taking part in your work as a member of the national council in Sweden responsible for the management of nuclear waste. Sweden built nuclear facilities in the early 1970’s and had 12 reactors. One of them was shut down this year and a second one is due to be decommissioned shortly. We have a site for the disposal of spent fuel and a spent fuel research laboratory in Oskarshamn, as well as a storage site for low- and medium-level waste in Forsmark.

It was in 1995 that we considered the possibility of storing spent fuel in the two localities of Oskarshamn and Ostana, and we have looked at all the possibilities including deep geological storage. We intended to have the facility up and running between 2006 and 2008. We fully recognised the environmental importance of the correct management of spent nuclear fuel and highly radioactive waste and for a long time national legislation and politicians supported the idea of deep geological disposal. However, a project of this type also aroused controversy given that everybody wanted the facility to be built elsewhere than in their own back yard. The crux of the matter was the need to provide the general public with enough information to allay their fears.

A right of veto for local players

I will simply describe a few of the steps in our approach, which has resulted in a solution that is acceptable to the general public. Firstly, the person responsible for implementing a project must have a clear mandate and, as a safety net, a strict definition of the necessary safety standards. He has to implement a transparent process and ensure that all the information is available all the time. It is also essential to ensure that local players can exercise their right of veto so that they do not feel that they have been taken hostage by the process in which they have become involved. It is vital to carry out a national assessment of the environmental consequences of the project; this is a decision-making aid for all those involved. Finally, we have to plan to make external financial resources available to local partners whose involvement is, in my opinion, an essential factor for success. It also allays long-term fears about nuclear power. However, there is no quick fix. We have to find the most appropriate solution and implement the best available practices in each case - this will change depending on the country, the culture and the programme envisaged.

Peter Haug: It is especially interesting to listen to somebody with practical experience given that Sweden has launched a process aimed at gradually abolishing the use of nuclear power.

Evelyn Hooft, spokesperson for ONDRAF, Belgium: I should like to describe the Belgian experience of the management of short-lived low- and medium-level waste. Long-term management of radioactive waste requires a set of balanced responses to both the technical and social issues and, initially, we concentrated solely on the technical aspects of finding an appropriate site. This was an immediate failure. All the towns and villages with a geological structure suitable for such a site refused to countenance such a proposal. We realised that we had to change our methods and involve local players in the design of a concept.

Partnership in an integrated project

The basic principle is one of partnership, with the proviso that every partnership is representative of the town or village from which it comes, functions democratically with totally independent decision-making, has its head office in the relevant locality, has a budget which is also independently managed and adopts a systemic rather than a criterion-based approach.

To ensure that the local people feel more involved in this partnership, it is based on a not-for-profit association, a system which is extremely common in Belgium. However, within this structure, there must be a bottom-up approach. Because of this, it is based mainly on four working parties focussing respectively on safety, the environment and public health, location and concept, and local development. The Board of Management has as its members representatives of the town, politicians, representatives of associations, and economic stakeholders, both trade unions and industrialists. In all, a total of 70 or 80 people. All of them are volunteers except two people recruited for the coordination unit.

The aim is to define an integrated project i.e. to find a waste storage site but with local support so that the project represents added value for the town. The systemic approach is not therefore limited to the search for a location and it necessarily involves consideration of local fears.

At present, three partnerships of this type have been set up, in Dessel, Mol and Fleurus-Farciennes. Preliminary projects have been drafted, integrating the conditions under which the local people would agree to a waste storage facility. Two councils have already agreed to the project as presented and we are awaiting the reaction from Fleurus-Farciennes. ONDRAF will then remit a file to the federal government which will have to reach a decision in 2006. Based on the conditions defined locally, we will then begin a discussion and negotiation phase involving all the players before finalising the project.

It is possible to conclude, based on the Belgian experience, that decision-taking in this sector is a dynamic process requiring on-going dialogue. Belgium does not claim to be offering a method that will suit everybody everywhere. It merely shows that the method has to be defined on the basis of the scale of the problem.

Serge Gadbois, european Project COWAM – The COWAM network, which was set up in the late 90’s as part of the European Commission’s research programme, is required to reconsider the governance of nuclear waste management. As we have been reminded in the cases of Slovenia, Belgium and Sweden, purely technical solutions prposed in the 90’s have proved unacceptable. COWAM based its solution on the fact that the quality of governance in waste management was a problem common to all, whatever the future of the nuclear industry in any given country. If the industry continues to operate, the volume of waste will increase; if we abandon it, we still have to manage the backlog of waste. In all cases, we have to improve the quality of management.

Secondly, there was a need to take account of the experience of local players. Networks of regulators, industrialists and experts have been in existence for some time. For their part, the local players faced with this problem, i.e. politicians and associations, had also developed experience, expertise even in decision process. Yet they remained fairly isolated in Europe, with little possibility of handing their experience on to decision-takers. One of COWAM’s objectives is to ensure that they meet for discussions and exchange experiences with themselves and with the other relevant parties (operators, regulators, experts) and to transmit together recommendations from a local point of view.

Local democraty and influence on national policies

COWAM led to the setting up of networks of local players and to the instigation of a framework for dialogue with the other parties involved. From 2000 to 2003, as part of the Commission’s research programme, an initial stage called COWAM 1 played a crucial role in redefining the governance of nuclear waste management. From the analysis of COWAM, it was clear that local democracy is essential but that it cannot be the only dimension in players’ involvement. Non-experts have to access available expertise, take it on board and help to expand it by adding what they know of their own area. We have to set up a national framework of governance for radioactive waste management so that local players can influence the definition and application of national policy. They must also have the means of becoming involved before the location is selected. Moreover, we can’t think of the development of the areas that play host to the facilities only in terms of short-term economic compensation. We have to wonder how the local community can contribute to the vigilance around the site for long-term. Finally, it is essential to question decision-making process through quality criteria such as transparency, readability, clarity of roles and responsibilities of the players involoved. That was COWAM 1. COWAM 2, which is now in progress, includes several modules that study thoroughly, in close cooperation between parties involved and researchers, each theme indentified in COWAM1 : local democracy, influence of local players, quality of the decision-making process and long-term governance. It is a research process in which we are careful to ensure ongoing dialogue with communities and organizations concerned.

François Dosé, M.P. for Meuse: I am the M.P. for the constituency that includes the Laboratory in Bure and I should like to know whether other countries have used the method adopted in France with other local and regional authorities i.e. “File an application and you will receive money”.

Georges Waysand, physicist, underground low-noise laboratory in Rustrel: Quite apart from declarations of good intentions, what will happen if there is disagreement in the future? To be more precise, if a decision is taken to use the disposal solution, can we reverse the decision? If not, this means that we are seeking an initial, irrevocable “Yes” and that, thereafter, we will have to “put up with it” whatever happens.

Jean-Pierre Chaussade, former Director of Public Debate, EDF: Certain examples from other countries indicate the involvement of the local people in the decision-making process. But what percentage of the population is involved? A few carefully-selected people or the majority of the population?

Torsten Carlsson: The town of Oskarshamn received money from the Nuclear Fund so that those who wished to do so could consult available documents two days a month. And all those who are involved in the project receive, from the Town Council, funds that the Council itself receives from the Nuclear Fund. This system works very well. The most difficult aspect at local level is to involve as many people as possible. To achieve this, we have to reverse the traditional approach. Instead of saying to people, “Come and listen to us”, we have to go out and meet the people on their own ground, in sports clubs for example, even in kitchens. Some of us have toured the entire town to try and contact everybody. It is difficult but it has to be done before we move on to the following stage in the process, at national level. The most difficult questions are not technical in nature; they are human. They relate to the decision-making process. In fact, we are in discussion with NGOs which have also received money from the Nuclear Fund to launch public debate, in an attempt to bring politicians into the debate at a national level instead of allowing them to hide away as they are at the present time. I hope that this national debate will spread.

Romana Jordan Cizelj: In Slovenia, there is a fund that covers 50% of decommissioning costs and waste management since the power plants belong jointly to Slovenia and Croatia. As far as public participation in decision-making is concerned, the main task of the ad hoc public agency is communication. It has, for example, organised workshops designed mainly for mayors and town councillors but anybody who wants information can be given it. The nuclear industry has also worked hard to provide information for politicians, researchers and NGOs.

Peter Haug: I am not sure that the question asked by François Dosé has been answered.

François Dosé: You are right and, since I prefer not to think that the question has been avoided, I will clarify my point. In France, money was offered to towns that filed an application even if they were not then selected. I was in favour of the experiment being carried out in Meuse but I was opposed to the payment of money if the site was not selected because I believed that financial considerations would damage the debate and make it lopsided. Three of us held this position but we were in the minority. Did the same situation arise in other countries? Was money offered to towns who filed an application even if the site was not selected at a later stage of the process?

Evelyn Hooft: Belgium is not looking for a site for the disposal of long-lived high-level waste. The annual budget of 250,000 euros was not paid to attract applications but was designed to stimulate local partnerships and allow towns to call in independent experts, recruit staff and undertake studies defining the manner in which they intend to develop.

Claude Gatignol, M.P. for Manche, Vice-Chairman of OPECST: The question raised by François Dosé is an ethical question. Should we encourage applications by offering money to applicant towns or should we tend towards a local assessment of a project of national interest so that everybody can see the worthwhile nature of their involvement?

From La Hague to EPR: thinking through development in the long term

I am the M.P. for Manche, which includes the Cherbourg naval base (where nuclear submarines are built), the Flamanville plant, a storage facility, the reprocessing plant in La Hague and the rail terminal in Valognes. This industrial complex was created 40 years ago with the construction of the Cogema plant and when the project for the construction of the Flamanville nuclear power plant was mooted in the 1970’s, it was supported by the local population which had suffered as a result of the closure of the iron mines that once used to give employment to all. There was no ideological conflict and everybody considered that the building of the power plant in the peninsula would have excellent consequences, with the then Mayor of Flamanville, himself a former iron mine worker, the first to support the project. There was some controversy but it fell away as successive extensions were built onto the Cogema plant, which processes spent fuel. The extensions included sorting, optimisation and recycling plants since almost 97% of waste can be recycled.

In each of the 180 towns and villages in the constituency, there are workers from EDF or Cogema, two excellent corporations with a very rigorous approach to their work. And although these plants are indeed a source of income for the local authorities, since Cogema pays 129 million in “taxe professionelle”, the annual tax paid to the local authorities and calculated on the basis of the wages bill, they are much more than that. The opening of these plants led to technological advances such as the manufacture of the first positon camera. They have created employment, led to the opening of institutes of higher education, technical universities, engineering colleges and a health and diagnosis network at the University of Caen.

In Normandy, people are good at weighing things up and everybody takes part in the debate at his or her own level, while placing their trust in their politicians. Decisions on the third stage of the Flamanville power plant, for example, were taken calmly and, yes, we are impatient to see it completed because we see it as a structuring element for our area. By agreeing to it, we are playing our part in the country’s development and future wealth and we are involved in a great French and European adventure. In all, 18.5 billion kW/hr. are produced in the Cherbourg Peninsula and thousands of jobs are linked to this sector of activity, a source of very real wealth for Manche.

Peter Haug: To come back to the question of reversibility, I would emphasise that any above-ground storage is reversible but that the aim of deep geological disposal is irreversibility.

Georges Waysand: Hence my question – what happens if people change their minds after disposal has been completed?

Peter Haug: We will come back to these questions once all the speakers have finished. We are now beginning the second part of this round table, with our French speakers. I would ask all of them one thing – will the current debate lead to consensus in 2006?

Ghislain de Marsily, geologist, member of CNE: Although I am a member of the National assessment committee (Commission nationale d’évaluation), I am expressing a purely personal opinion of the changes that have taken place over the past fifteen years, after the Bataille Law resolved a situation that had been blocked at the end of the 1980’s because of a decision taken by the Rocard government to stop the process then underway.

In technical terms, the Bataille Law allowed for three areas of research – transmutation (which I shall not go into because, as François Lamoureux said, it must become central to European research and this will be long and costly), storage and disposal.

Again in my personal opinion, I believe that storage does not pose any technical problems. It is possible to envisage safe storage that constitutes no danger and that could be monitored for 300 or 400 years, with the possibility of destruction and reconstruction every 300 years. However, I am speaking as a scientist. The question is also a political one and the main problem in France is that we do not have a site willing to implement this policy.

The usefulness of Bure must be confirmed within 10 to 15 years

It is in the area of disposal that our knowledge has increased the most. Bure has a number of positive characteristics. As a geologist, I initially feared that there might be faults but, having carried out a survey, there does not seem to be any danger in the area surveyed. Can we now decide to select deep geological disposal for our waste and implement this method in Bure? From my point of view, stating that disposal is preferable to storage means nothing as long as there is no agreement on a site in which to implement the method, using techniques that are now ready.

The usefulness of Bure is generally acknowledged. Now it has to be confirmed thanks to the underground laboratory that exists 450 metres down, and this will take 10 to 15 years. A second phase will involve questions on the adjacent area (what ANDRA calls “the transposition zone”) i.e. a possible disposal site because we will never store waste in the laboratory.

We know that the Bataille Law allowed for a comparison between several sites. For the moment, there has only been one. This is a difficulty that must be raised in Parliament.

Finland has been spoken about at length, as an example. Finland is operating two, and soon will be operating three, nuclear power plants and the waste that they produce is currently stored on site. It just so happens that the local geology allows for disposal beneath the reactor. The question that was raised in Finland was whether the waste would be stored above ground for 200 or 300 years or whether it would be disposed of, at depth, in the same location. A decision has been reached. In France, we are not that far advanced.

Michel Demet, Advisor, ANCLI: Firstly, I have to say that, as I listened to Mr. Gatignol earlier, I wondered if I was not at the wrong round table. I thought I was taking part in a citizen’s debate and I listened to a plea for nuclear power because it brings in money in the form of local business tax! If you don’t mind, I should like to return to the citizen dimension of our discussions and talk about the local information committees, and I would point out that the information relates to issues other than waste such as as the transport of radioactive materials, and the ageing and decommissioning of power plants. According to the Eurobarometer, three-quarters of citizens claim to lack information and Claude Fischer has suggested the need for new institutions. In my opinion, it is more important to recognise those which exist already viz. the CLI (Commissions locales d’information, local information committees) set up in 1981 and federated by ANCLI since 2000. These institutions have legitimacy and pluralism on their side since they include politicians, representatives of associations, independent experts and representatives of CHSCT[3], Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the media, operators and government departments. Some of them have experience dating back more than 25 years and they relay objective information thanks to the scientific committee of ANCLI which can provide expertise on a range of topics. However, they do lack legal legitimacy and, since 1998, we have been waiting for a vote on a law on transparency and nuclear safety. They also lack the additional resources which would enable them to start making use of this expertise.

The international dimension is also present. At a European level, we are currently considering a “EuroCLI” with the British and Spanish, and the Japanese have come to study the workings of the CLI in Gravelines. Why, then, should we not consider the possibility of firm European directives that would oblige States to set up CLIs and give them legitimacy and the necessary resources? There are more than thirty CLIs in France and, after real debate with their representatives and with our partners in DGSN[4] and IRSN[5], ANCLI drafted a White Paper on the local governance of nuclear activities and tabled concrete proposals.

Reaching consensus is not the objective

The Chairman asked us about the possibility of reaching a consensus at the end of the current debate. I believe that this is not the aim. The objective is to ensure that everybody is involved, that we answer the questions put to us and that we put forward proposals so that it becomes possible to take a decision at some point in time. It is up to representative democracy to take the decision but it has to listen to what is said by participative democracy.

Jean-Luc Bouzon, “County Councillor” of Haute-Marne and Vice-Chairman of AEMHM: We have mentioned the Eurobarometer. Let me tell you about the barometer for Meuse and Haute-Marne. We have also emphasised democracy. But which type of democracy? As far as Bure is concerned, we are told about a laboratory. For we who are opposed to the project, we say that it is a nuclear dump in which there is an intention to bury the most toxic waste. I am the Vice-Chairman of an association of 250 politicians from Meuse and Haute-Marne opposed to Bure. Yet we are constantly given a simplistic label. You do not have to be against nuclear power to wonder about nuclear waste – because waste is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing issue! In any case, Parliament will have to reach a decision in 2006 and our action is therefore good for democracy.

51,000 signatures in favour of a local referendum

I have lived in Haute-Marne for the past 55 years. What is its future? We are told that we are kept informed. However, the information only goes in one direction; we are bombarded with information by ANDRA. This is why we have taken the bull by the horns and launched a major citizens’ petition in Haute-Marne and Meuse. Even if local politicians play a merely consultative role, they have an opinion to express and the local people must also be able to give their views. To date, we have collected 51,000 signatures thanks to the citizens’ petition demanding a referendum in our two départements. And it’s no use telling us that this is a national decision when the waste will be in our back yard! Of course, it is normal for Parliament to take the final decision but there are very few politicians who have raised the question in their electoral programmes and the Rapporteur for the Bataille Law himself was careful to propose his département as a possible site. We would be grateful if other people would stop deciding what is good for us. I can assure you that nobody will force us to accept it against our will. Our watchword is “Neither Bure nor elsewhere, but differently”.

Haute-Marne has 532 towns and villages. In December 2004, we decided to tour each of them and knock on every door. A dozen of us spend two days doing just that, every week. That is a real barometer, the real work of citizens. We distribute a review then we knock on people’s doors. We have relays in three-quarters of the towns and villages. We have already visited 408 of them and collected 31,000 signatures from Haute-Marne alone.

We have to remember that the 1991 Law provided for several laboratories – a fact that has been forgotten. It provided for popular consultation – that was swept straight under the carpet. This area was selected because each of the “counties” or départements has a population of 195,000 giving it a density of only seven inhabitants per km². Moreover, the “County Councils” of Haute-Marne and Meuse each receive 65 million francs a year for five years, and this period is about to be extended. In short, money is pouring in. This skews discussions yet the local people do not support the concept. This is why we have launched the petition. Among those who have signed, there are some who are in favour of Bure as a choice of site but, like the others, they are demanding a referendum on the future of the area in which we live. Nobody can take a decision on our behalf. So it’s only a consultative opinion? Yes, that’s true. But I see that, while Mr. Dosé, M.P. for Meuse, is among us today, the two M.P.’s from Haute-Marne are noticeable by their absence. As to their 570 colleagues, they are undoubtedly very pleased that the site is not in their back yard!

This situation confirms, in my opinion, that democracy is a fine thing, and a source of enthusiasm. I would never have believed that the search for signatures could take on such proportions. As we travel around, people wait for us, meet up at the Town Hall. We leave letters in their boxes and they send their replies. This must come as quite a surprise for politicians from right and left alike. The Chairman of the “County Council”, Bruno Sido, spoke of economic back-up in the Senate. But when were the people ever asked for their opinion? Never. And we politicians should not decide for the 400,000 people who live here. I am not a technician yet we ask the question of politicians. If the referendum continues to be refused, we will be heading straight for conflict. We want a referendum!

Peter Haug: I am sorry to say that this position reflects undoubted enthusiasm but also, in my opinion, a sort of fanaticism. Let us now turn to the trade unions, who also represent the opinion of the general public.

François Rollinger: At the risk of closing the door after the horse has bolted, I will begin by asking this question – why should the man in the street be involved in the decision-making process? After all, Mr. Gatignol for example reminded us that he had been elected by the people and that he therefore has carte blanche during his five-year mandate. So is popular consultation merely a passing fad? Is it a case of “political correctness”? Or is it the only solution to a situation that has currently reached stalemate? This is our opinion at the CFDT and I will go even further, at the risk of becoming somewhat grandiloquent. We believe that the issue is how to reinvent democracy in a risk-based society, to build a means of living together despite disagreements.

The question of the governance of waste is part of a more general debate on energy, GMOs and health with, for example, bird flu. In short, it is a question of sustainable development and this forms the basis on which we have to learn to build democracy. I would remind you of the contribution to the public debate on nuclear waste drafted by the CFDT– we have also drafted a publication on the EPR. We are therefore involved in consideration of the energy policy.

The time when truth lay in the hands and minds of experts, the cupbearers of a new religion, has long gone. Equally gone are the days of policies that do not really attack the problems. As far as waste in concerned, the basic issue is not to provide “back-up” in order to make it acceptable. Mr. Lamoureux mentioned a draft directive to create the conditions for agreement. Personally, I fear that this is pie in the sky. The real problem is how to give power back to local players when it comes to the future of their area. How can we ensure that, in a territorial project, the technical and environmental issues are given equal weight? There will not be sustainable development without participative democracy.

Organising a process in several stages

Let us look at the example set by Belgium and others. It is obvious that, whatever its quality, a debate lasting a few months is not sufficient. Real discussions must be ongoing before any decision is taken, during the design stage and throughout the monitoring stage. This implies a process in several stages, with the possibility of returning to an earlier stage if necessary. It also requires meetings during periods of major decision-taking and the possibility for players to express their points of view at each stage. The final decision-takers will of course retain their decision-making power but we have to try and introduce greater equity between participants. This requires freedom of speech first and foremost and, to come back to the question asked, the abandonment of the idea that we have to reach consensus. Participants must also have access to expertise and to all the public documents. For the past 25 years, for example, the CFDT has been asking for CHSCT to be entitled to access documents on safety and the problem has still not been solved. Then there is another form of equity that must be considered – that is time itself. When the Prefect or representatives from industry take part in discussions, it is during their working day whereas the representatives of associations give up their time as volunteers. It would no doubt be appropriate to consider a sort of allowance like the union allowance to cover their costs.

In conclusion, I would be fairly tempted to reverse the proportions of the ingredients in the pie in the sky. Let us just say that, as far as the governance process is concerned, since this is the main issue in the 2006 law, if the proportions are balanced out, we shall already have made some progress. This is why I would say to parliamentarians, “in 1991, you were audacious enough to set up the national assessment committee and the local information committees. Show even greater courage today and give the general public a chance to express its points of view. Leave time for discussion. Apart from the fact that the brain always works better in a group than alone, this is the way to reconcile the general public with policy. Expertise cannot be limited to mere technical expertise. In a way, everybody is an expert as far as their own personal lives are concerned. Trade unions are experts within their particular field. Local players are experts as regards the future of their area. Discussions between technical and local experts can only improve the decision taken.

Claude Fischer: We hear a lot about democracy and Jean-Luc Bouzon has explained that he wants to organise a referendum but, as far as the management of nuclear waste is concerned, what elements should be submitted to the population for consultation?

André Ferron, Confrontations Europe: “Neither Bure nor elsewhere, but differently”, said Jean-Luc Bouzon. But what about this “differently”? There is no further explanation of what is meant. Should it not be located somewhere all the same? The system that suits me best is the Belgian one. People come and visit you, you set up a not-for-profit association with all interested parties, and they have three years to draft a project. To do this, they are given a specific budget. In my opinion, this way of going about things is an example of democracy par excellence since it brings people into the decision-making process by creating a solution based on partnership. This is true involvement, not just a chance to say “yes” or “no”. I should therefore like to know how Jean-Luc Bouzon defines “differently” when he asks for signatures for his petition and what he thinks of the Belgian solution.

Cécile Massart, artist: Over the past ten years or more, my work has concentrated on sites for the disposal of radioactive waste. I have had exhibitions in various art galleries, cultural centres and private galleries in Tokyo, Paris and Brussels, photos and, especially projects for the marking of these sites, which I find very beautiful. I am in favour of works of art to indicate the existence of these sites. They will be the archives of the future, reminders of the consumer society.

Claude Fischer: Bure has “The Watchful Eye” at the entrance to the Laboratory.

Fernand Antonioli, Adviser at the CSC RISE (Réseau intersyndical de sensibilisation à l’environnement, environmental awareness network): In my opinion, the debate on consultation should focus on the question of knowing who should be consulted. I live in Liège, 30 kilometres from a nuclear power plant, but no discussions have taken place. Yet if an accident happens, the people of Liège will also be affected! An interesting example has been given to us of participative democracy with regard to waste management but is it appropriate to do this at community level? Should consultation not be made much wider? And what about the management of risks over time, whether in terms of funding or the involvement of the population concerned?

Catherine Veglio, Editor-in-Chief, Confrontations Europe: Consensus has twice been mentioned, in a negative manner. Why, though, should it be refused in a participative democracy? The Scandinavians talk of “conflictual consensus”, meaning that all opinions are expressed. Whether one is for or against nuclear power, the waste exists and a solution must be found.

Claude Ayache, Director Delegate for European Affairs, CEA: Mr. Bouzon expressed his personal opinion and I shall express mine. I noted from his observations that he totally disregards scientists and that the consultation that he is proposing is reminiscent of some of the worst experiences known to the 20th century (Protests in the hall). Our European friends have given us an example of what real consultation can be. We are not in a position to teach the Swiss the way in which the general public should be involved but Mr. Flüeler stated categorically that a framework is necessary. For my part, I demand the right for scientists to give their opinions. You, in your Agit-prop, terrorise people, close down discussion and leave no room for it. (Protests in the hall). This is serious because the current issue, for Europe, is to develop a science-based society of knowledge. All the players must have some notions of scientific and technical knowledge.

Peter Haug: Many questions have been asked and require concise answers. Firstly, how can we reconcile the scientific and democratic aspects within the decision-making process?

Michel Demet: We cannot teach anybody anything and we do not require any lessons from anybody else. The Belgian example is not unlike our system of CLIs, except for the fact that the CLIs have much more limited resources. However, they do involve players from many different fields and independent experts. That is why I, as I have said, support the idea of sharing experiences by creating a “EuroCLI” system. I should also like to come back to the notion of consensus and mention that participative democracy and representative democracy have their limits and that there comes a time when we require a law which must then be upheld. This does not mean that politicians should not leave time for discussion. Why, since 1998, has there not been any law on nuclear safety? Why have we not done, for nuclear facilities, what has already been done for plants classified as “Seveso”?

Jean-Luc Bouzon: These days, there are words that are best left unsaid! I am trying to act as a relay in my own way, by telling you what I hear from other people. I trust scientists but they cannot reach a decision on their own. One of these days, if they are given adequate resources to do so, they will find another solution. This is why we are against deep geological disposal and in favour of research and diversification. This is the area in which I live and I am entitled to say what I want, just like the other 400,000 people who live here. Allow us to say what we want in support of the land that we love!

François Rollinger: If we want debate, there must be some substance and this means providing a real ability to influence decisions i.e. the possibility of asking questions and formulating recommendations. Let us look at the legislation applied to companies. If a corporate boss decides to restructure his company, the law requires him or her to submit a final project to the works committee. It is then entitled to seek a second opinion from independent experts. The committee gives its opinion, with its reasons, and the law requires the boss, as the decision-maker, to state the extent to which he or she has taken account of the recommendations put forward. In the same way, the general public wants to have the ability to make up its own mind at each stage of the disposal process. It is ongoing consultation that is required and not a once and for all referendum or the exercise of a single right of veto.

Jean-Luc Bouzon: In two decisions taken by a majority of councillors, Haute-Marne “County Council” demanded that, when the time was right (and it is right, now) the local population should be consulted. It’s a question of common sense.

Torsten Carlsson: I don’t know what should be done in France but we know that it is important to build a project up from the local level, without constraint from central government.

Peter Haug: The aim of this round table was very ambitious. France has launched the consultation process at a very late stage. The process demands intensity, honesty and political courage. Whatever the result, decision-makers must comply with the decisions taken. France has 58 nuclear power plants; it needs a clear decision. Do not delay – and find a solution that will withstand the passage of time.

Claude Fischer: I should like to hand over to Christian Bataille, M.P., father of the law of 30th December 1991 on the management of radioactive waste, and member of the Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (OPECST), the parliamentary body responsible for assessing scientific and technological choices.

I shall begin by describing the organisation of public authorities in France, which has seen many innovations such as the setting up of the Commission nationale du débat public (CNDP, national committee for public debate), the strengthening of decentralisation and the inclusion of the Environmental Charter in the Constitution. I will describe how, since 1990, Parliament has played a major role in the strategy for the management of radioactive waste. Finally, I will go over the conclusions of the OPECST report, focussing on the role of Parliament and the government in the decision-making process.

A topic of national interest

What is the institutional context? Parliament drafts and votes on laws (an expression of the general will) defining the conditions under which we “live together as a community”. Among the fundamental principles is environmental conservation. In 1990, Parliament began looking at the question of the management of high-level, long-lived radioactive waste and laid down a 15-year period of fundamental research, followed by a decision-making process in 2006. Rarely has a public decision in the scientific field been taken with such care.

Can local and regional authorities be involved in the decision to introduce disposal or storage? The State is organised in such a way that competence is divided between public authorities. Article 72 of the Constitution states that “local and regional authorities should take decisions on all matters that can best be implemented at their level. However, the principle of the attribution of competence to the level at which it can best be exercised also comes into play and the subject under discussion here is obviously of national interest. Indeed, the Constitutional Council gave just such a ruling on 7th July 2005. Article L.O. 1112-1 of the Code général des collectivités territoriales (general code on local and regional authorities) gives the deliberating assembly of a local or regional authority the possibility of “submitting to a local referendum any draft deliberation tending to settle a matter falling within the competence of the said authority”. In this case, the authorities are not competent to rule on the legal conditions for the setting up of a facility for the management of radioactive waste. Neither the town, nor the département nor the region can therefore organise a local referendum on this matter.

As to the environmental charter enclosed as a Schedule to the Constitution in 2004, it is not really an innovation as regards environmental protection. The best-known condition in the charter is the introduction of the principle of precaution. Its application requires the best possible solution to be found for the storage of radioactive waste and, in particular, the provision of reversibility. In Article 6, the charter also states that “public policies must promote sustainable development. To this end, they reconcile environmental protection with environmental enhancement, economic development and social progress”. It reinforces the right to access information on the environment. However, before this charter, the Barnier Law of 1995 had introduced the possibility of public debate on major development projects of national interest and the 2002 law on democracy of proximity entitled the Ministry of the Environment, jointly with the relevant Ministry, to bring before the CNDP any projects relating to the environment and development. The decree which took the 2002 law onto the statute books also gives a right to information within the framework of this public debate. The CNDP, which does not express a view on the actual substance of the question, publishes a report and is given the resources to do so. A delegation from the Commission also reported back to OPECST on the results of the public debate – the minutes are available to all.

Parliament asked our Office, which consists of equal numbers of M.P.s and senators, from the majority and from the opposition (who jointly sign reports) to work on the management of radioactive waste. I have written two reports myself, one on civilian waste and the other on military waste. I have also worked on the fuel cycle and storage.

Continuing research after 2006 does not mean putting off waste management ad vitam aeternam

At the request of the four group presidents, I recently joined with M.P. Claude Birraux to write a report on “Progress in, and Prospects for Research into, the Management of Radioactive Waste” which includes recommendations for Parliament. The report is designed to pave the way for discussions of the law scheduled to be passed in 2006. The report was taken on board by the Government and the Ministries of Research and Industry accepted its conclusions. The management of nuclear waste is, of necessity, an issue that has to be dealt with in the long term. However, in politics, time is short since there are elections every five years. Moreover, having recourse to the notion of sustainable management is based on the idea of ongoing progress in research, which must continue after 2006. Nevertheless, the fact that research is still ongoing does not mean that we should adjourn the decision ad vitam aeternam. Finally, sustainable management of waste must also show respect for our fellow citizens, in particular those who live in the regions affected by the management of radioactive waste.

The report describes research in six leading countries, in Europe and the USA, and details the dialogue in France. We questionned a number of internationally-acclaimed researchers, including two Nobel prizewinners. We also spoke with the directors of the Regional Councils in Champagne-Ardenne and Lorraine and of the “County Councils” of Haute-Marne and Meuse. Our hearings covered all sides of the question and were open to the media.

What recommendations were made in the report? On a scientific level, the research undertaken since 1992 shows that the three methods of waste management complement each other over time by their very nature. Method 1, transmutation, cannot be used for existing waste because it will not become industrially available until 2040 and it cannot reduce the period of radioactivity of the minor actinides to less than one thousand years. This being so, method 2, reversible disposal, is essential. We estimated that long-term storage was also useful for non-reprocessed spent fuels and spent Mox fuels. It also gave a measure of flexibility in deciding between transmutation and reversible disposal.

Secondly, on a political level, the report emphasised the importance of information and dialogue and there is room for improvement in the instruments used to this end. The Local Information and Surveillance Committee in Meuse and Haute-Marne (CLIS) had resources that were markedly different to the poverty suffered by most of the CLIs. However, we suggest that circulation of research should be improved and, more importantly, that the CLI should be chaired by the Chairman of the “County Council” in the future. The work of the national assessment committee (CNE) should be extended beyond 2006. The CNDP’s brief, on the other hand, does not correspond to its brief, which covers actual projects for territorial layout and development and not the definition of a policy such as waste management. Dialogue with politicians must also be improved.

Whatever happens, the research launched by the 1991 law must be extended by the 2006 law so that it can advance further towards the solutions confirmed for each of the three methods. Research into separation must be continued to achieve the separation of all the minor actinides and long-lived nuclear products. As to research into Generation IV reactors, which will not exist until 2040, it is obviously essential and it will require investment that should be planned for and made secure. This is also true for separation-transmutation. With regard to deep geological disposal, research must be completed to show the containment properties of the clay at Bure and detail the engineering and storage concepts. As to long-term storage, the studies have yet to be finalised with a view to the construction of an operational centre above or below ground. For this, the report suggests the Marcoule area.

Given a financial investment of 2.2 billion euros over the 1992-2003 period, the research into the management of radioactive waste must be optimised on a scientific, technical and industrial level, both locally and nationally. The 1991 law reactivated research teams which were being closed down. As far as fundamental research into transmutation and separation is concerned, France is now a world leader, with the United States of America and, possibly, Japan. The financial measures introduced by the 1991 law must be applied over the planned 15-year period. In Sweden and Finland, nuclear activities are grouped together on sites that include several parts of the nuclear industry. In France, industrial players must act as a driving force for determined economic development in the départements concerned by the management of radioactive waste. In the field, this type of development is inadequate. The management of nuclear waste is a matter of national interest but it receives only a local response. Solidarity must come into play, in both directions, and the producers of waste (EDF, CEA and AREVA) must shoulder their responsibilities in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” policy.

Parliament decides on the timetable and type of management; the Government selects the site

As far as the timetable is concerned, it spreads over approximately 40 years. Research into the three methods must now lead to a decision in principle to use all three management methods in the future. It should be up to Parliament to take transmutation as the final objective for waste management, to take a decision in principle on reversible deep geological disposal and to decide on the setting up of long-term storage above or below ground. In accordance with the principle of the separation of powers, it would then be up to the Government to apply these decisions and comply with a timetable of objectives laid down in the law. We suggest that a long-term storage facility should become operational within approximately ten years, deep geological disposal in 20 years i.e. towards 2025 and industrial transmutation in about 2040.

To implement these recommendations, the Office suggests that a national plan for the management of radioactive waste and optimisable products, the PNGDR-MV, should be included in the 2006 law. The nuclear safety authority would finalise its preparation, based on the national inventory of radioactive waste, in order to ensure that waste management is exhaustively and coherently implemented. We also suggest that the law should set up a dedicated government fund for the management of radioactive waste. For the moment the sums collected, one-thousandth per kWh, are included in EDF’s cashflow. Without wishing to launch a political debate, the fact that the company has been privatised now makes it necessary to ensure the independence of the funds used for the management of nuclear waste. The new Fund, which would be managed by a committee with a guarantee from central government, would have a separate cashflow that could be operated by the Caisse des dépôts. It would provide long-term management of research, investments and the multi-annual plan. The sums managed would be large enough to prevent any increased contribution from consumers. It goes without saying that this proposal did not please EDF. It is up to the Government to decide whether or not to implement it.

Finally, we propose that the law should widen ANDRA’s brief. Before 1991, it was merely a management level in the CEA; now it has grown significantly. The law could simplify the structures and, in addition to the management of waste disposal, give it responsibility for long-term storage to ensure consistency between decisions and minimise costs for the local or regional authority.

Parliament will have to reach a decision in 2006. It will not be hurried because there are many documents to be studied, documents from operators, the CNE and the CNDP. Actually, these documents are available to all. It is up to the Government to draft the project that it will then submit to politicians. However, a decision must be taken. We cannot leave future generations with the burden of deciding how to process the waste that we are producing. I repeat, continuing research is not contradictory with the taking of a decision. It is part of a long-term ongoing process which will outlast a single generation. By taking a decision in principle on the management of nuclear waste in 2006 and monitoring of its application, Parliament will be taking its responsibility vis-à-vis environmental protection.

Claude Fischer: Everybody will have realised just how much work has been done. It deserves discussion and we shall come back to it. I would now like to hand over to Kathryn Shaver, Managing Director of the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organisation.

Kathryn Shaver

Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada

The issue of long-term management of used nuclear fuel has been studied extensively for decades in Canada. One of these approaches – that of burial deep in the granite of the Canadian Shield – had been the subject of an extensive ten-year environmental assessment through much of the 1990s – known as the Seaborn panel – which conclusion was that the concept of deep geological disposal had been adequately demonstrated from a technical perspective, but the same was not true from a social perspective. A federal legislation was then enacted that led to the creation of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). We were required to conduct a study of options for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. Consultation with the general public and Aboriginal Peoples was also an explicit part of our mandate. Through our study, we sought to develop a way forward that would allow us to benefit from technology while reducing the risks and respecting the values of Canadians.

Citizens, while respectful of science, believe they have a right to participate in these important decisions that affect them. Scientific and technical knowledge is essential. But the exquisite logic of an analytical process, alone, may not prove convincing, as values and deeply held beliefs matter a great deal on this issue. Therefore, we did not hire “experts” to tell us what the answer was. Rather, we designed a collaborative process that would bring specialists and citizens together to help to direct decisions taken, for a dialogue with both science and society. A key vision for our study was to allow for a dynamic and interactive study plan, with multiple

points for public engagement, so that our ultimate recommendations would be arrived at through input and direction from Canadians. As this issue was one that elicits strong and polarizing reactions, to make progress, we needed: real engagement – not just participation; dialogue – not just debate; and thoughtful deliberation – not just one-way consultation. We designed all of our dialogues in way that would bring the greatest possible diversity of perspectives around the table. One of the important deliberative exercises we undertook early on was a National Dialogue on Citizen Values to know what matters most to people. We brought together over 450 Canadians for day-long meetings in 12 cities coast to coast. This dialogue identified overarching requirements and values that Canadians felt should be key characteristics of a long-term management approach. A remarkable degree of consensus emerged on the key values concepts that should guide the NWMO’s recommendations. Through subsequent dialogues with Canadians, the research questions, assessment methodology and key decision points were discussed, fully contemplated and validated – before proceeding with the next key strategic direction for the study. This process of validation was instrumental if we were to arrive at a recommendation that would be ethically acceptable to Canadian society.

Our study is really a tribute to the 18,000 citizens who participated in our work, including 500 specialists from scientific and technical disciplines. Through this we came to know that both fairness and safety were overriding requirements: Canadians conveyed with passion that they expect this generation to assume responsibility for the waste which has been produced; they did not want an approach that was irreversible, not to close the door to new learning; they were absolutely clear that safety and security are pre-eminent and must take precedent over other objectives.

In assessing the management options, we were required by legislation to compare the risks, costs and benefits of three technical methods: deep geological disposal; centralized storage above or below ground; and storage at nuclear reactor sites. The legislation made explicit a requirement that we include ethical and social considerations. We developed an assessment framework that reflected the ethical principles and objectives identified by citizens: health and safety, fairness, community well-being, security, environmental integrity, economic viability and adaptability.

Towards an adaptative management

The view of our specialists and general public alike was that while each of the approaches had distinct advantages, no one method, on its own, perfectly addressed all objectives which citizens said were important. This led us to consider a fourth option, one that would build upon these three methods. The recommendation that we have submitted to Government is an alternative approach that we call “Adaptive Phased Management”. It provides clear direction and an end point: ultimate centralized containment and isolation of used fuel, deep underground in a suitable geological formation. It includes phased decision-making, to adapt to new social learning and technological innovation; flexibility in the pace and manner of implementation; genuine choice; continuous monitoring; ongoing citizen engagement and collaborative decision-making.

While we were not mandated to proceed with site selection, this was an area of great interest to Canadians. We responded with some basic declarations: a commitment to an open, inclusive and fair siting process, that builds on best practices in other countries and sectors; and our intention to seek an informed, willing host community.

Finally, we note that we arrived at our recommendation of a deep geological repository in a very different way. The original disposal option advanced in Canada years ago was developed and proposed almost exclusively by scientific and engineering specialists. In contrast, our recommendation – a true product of collaboration – was arrived at through a process of engagement with citizens – as well as specialists – as they thoughtfully considered the options. Specialists provided technical information. The social and ethical platform derived directly from citizens.

Since our recommendations were first published in draft form in May, we have heard many views on the proposal and related issues, as some who would like to see this issue of waste management deferred, to be addressed in the context of a broader national debate on the future of nuclear power. But fundamentally, most Canadians we engaged with believe our recommendation to be reasonable and appropriate.

In concluding, we know that earning trust on such a potentially divisive issue takes time. We know enough now to take the first steps, and we have an ethical obligation to do so.

Chairman : Rolf Linkohr, nuclear physicist, President of C.E.R.E.S. (Centre for European Energy Strategy), Germany

Angelo Castellan, Director Nuclear Waste programming and Environmental Assessment, Ontarion Power Generation (OPG), Canada; Daniel Collard, CEO of Cristal Union; Jean-Guy Devezeaux, Deputy Manager BUT/DPP, AREVA; François Dosé, Member of Parliament for Meuse, Member of the Comité local d’information et de suivi (CLIS); Bernard Dupraz, Senior Executive Vice President, Generation, EDF; François-Michel Gonnot, Member of Parliament for Oise, Chairman, Andra; Robert Leclere, General Coordinator for environment, Electrabel, Belgium; Philippe Pradel, Director, Nuclear Energy, CEA; Simon Webster, Head of Unit, Energy Department, DG Research, European Commission.

Rolf Linkohr, Nuclear Physicist, Chairman of C.E.R.E.S.: I should like to start by paying homage to our host city and reminding you of the theme of Il viaggio a Reims, a comic opera by Gioachino Rossini. While on their way to the coronation of Charles X, a cosmpolitan group of VIPs is forced to stop at the Golden Lily Inn in Plombières because there are no horses available. They never arrive in Reims. Instead, they enjoy a feast and celebrate the accession of the new king, each in his own national way. We, on the other hand, have arrived at our destination but our aim is to find a solution to a European problem that is unsuitable for either poetry or satire.

Linking waste and science

The facilities used for the disposal of radioactive waste are often perceived as “dumps”. Yet these laboratories are high-tech facilities and their presence can act as a driving force for the creation of other business activities. I remember the bad reputation of coal – yet, one generation later, its disadvantages had become benefits. A new enviromental industry was born and yesterday’s waste became a source of new jobs. And what about the water industry, in which France is a leader. It is nothing more than the processing, by a highly competitive industry, of polluted water which is initially undrinkable. Linking waste and science can turn the waste into a raw material or give rise to technologies that can be exported. It is a source of inconvenience, true, but if it is properly processed, it can be useful. Remember rags which were used to produce relatively cheap paper in the Middle Ages. This allowed the development of printing. In that case, waste was the source of a whole new business sector and, arguably, a whole new culture. I am certain that nuclear waste can result in the emergence of a new, non-polluting industry which will produce new jobs. I also think that, if the corresponding region is inventive, it can create a whole new identity for itself, based on its skills and landscapes. And it is with a view to considering the various possibilities that Les Entretiens européens have invited experts from sectors other than the nuclear industry.

I should now like to hand over to Angelo Castellan, from Ontario Power Generation.

Angelo Castellan, Director of the programme on “ Nuclear waste and Environmental Assessment”, OPG, Canada: Kathryn Shaver has given you good insight into the Canadian approach to the long-term management of low-level radioactive waste. The general principle is that the producer of the waste is responsible for its management but this is not part of our legislation. In Kincardine, we also have a site with 8 reactors and a waste storage facility. In 2002, the federal government voted in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act under which, quite apart from a study of the technical options, the authority responsible for the waste was required to consider the links between the management of low-level waste, development and the local economy. The town has a population of 2,500 with stable, highly-skilled jobs and the nuclear industry has more or less been part of the landscape for many years now. This familiarity breeds an obligation to become involved in the long-term management of waste. In this case, we are lucky not to be faced with the commonest hurdle at the outset, quite simply the finding of a site willing to host the facility. Here, it was the site itself which launched a positive approach.

Three options with an excellent effect on jobs

The first stage, in 2002, was the signature of a memorandum of understanding with the local authority. A monitoring committee was set up with members drawn from Ontario Power Generation and the town council. Consultation with several independent experts led to the drafting of recommendations on the main issues. We took account of examples from other countries such as France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and the USA to look at the technical feasibility of the three disposal options, in particular the safety conditions and the effects on the environment. We also took account of the possible impact on the economy and tourism and considered any necessary compensation. Finally, the report drawn up in 2004 concluded that all three technical options were feasible and would comply with national safety standards, without any major residual effect on the environment or problems for the tourism industry. However, the benefits would be obvious in the employment sector. This is, nevertheless, a project costing 800 million Canadian dollars, almost 500 million euros, with wide-ranging consequences. Further to this, the town council voted in a resolution asking us to consider the option of deep geological disposal and in October 2004 we signed an agreement with the Council. In particular, the agreement requires 35 million dollars to be devoted to sustainable development over the next thirty years. It also requires the creation of new jobs in the nuclear industry, an industry of excellence. Lastly, property would be protected if any problem arose.

With regard to acceptance by the local people, no real referendum was organised but the people were consulted in February 2005 after a major campaign in which no effort was spared to make contact with them. The efforts paid off – 70% of people became involved, compared to an average of 30% of voters in local elections. 22% were against the setting up of a waste management facility, 13% took a neutral stance and 1.5% had no opinion. This left a large majority in favour of the development and it was then possible to launch the second phase. It involves regulatory matters and we are currently engaged in this part of the project.

Rolf Linkohr: You have been able to launch an ambitious project costing a lot of money, but in a community that has agreed to its location. A similar process took place in South Korea and four towns volunteered as the site for a waste management facility. This leaves the government with choice.

I should like to turn now to Mr. Collard, Chairman of Cristal Union, a company specialising in the production of sugar and alcohol, and ask him what sectors of business might be developed in addition to waste disposal.

Daniel Collard, Chairman of Cristal Union: Actually, I feel slightly marginalised here because my initial expertise lies in agriculture and I chair a cooperative which turns beet into sugar, food products and ethanol. This, though, is where the link lies, since we are part of a movement that has been developing over the past ten years to move away from fossil fuels and encourage the use of renewable sources of energy.

In this area, there are some interesting prospects and they could certainly be equally interesting for the Bure area in the future. Biofuels have become an essential issue in our fight to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming. However, we have to ensure an economic balance when developing these new industries. At present, they are in their infancy. They have to pay off investments and bear the costs of research while the mature fossil fuel industries have already paid off most of their facilities. It will doubtless take another seven or eight years before we are competitive and in about ten years ethanol could be competing with oil, through local production based on cereal crops, timber and biomass.

A lot remains to be done in the research field. Like Picardy, the Champagne-Ardenne region has been recognised as a competitiveness cluster for agri-resources and among the research topics of the cluster are all the renewable energy sources and the development of non-food products. In the long term, sugar refineries will output by-products, as they do in the petrochemicals sector, and these by-products will be usable in the cosmetics industry or will serve to make biodegradable washing powders. Our research centre in Bazancourt, ARD, is working on the fermentation and division of plants. If we want to optimise plant production and timber, this is the direction we must take. Sweden has done it, and it cuts timber to produce ethanol. If we follow the same route, the classification as a competitiveness cluster is a good tool in the development of research. The ARD centre and the plant optimisation centre in Somme must become European leaders in the production of bioenergies and the non-food use of agricultural products.

Rolf Linkohr: Biofuels are another technology used in the transformation of waste into products with high added value and their development is completely in line with the European philosophy since we have decided to increase their share of our energy production to 5.75%. Mr. M. Devezeaux, Director Delegate of the Processing Unit in AREVA, may perhaps have some suggestions on the setting up of a competitiveness cluster around the site under discussion here.

Jean-Guy Devezeaux, Deputy Director BUT/DPP, AREVA: I would like to talk about the use of biomass rather than nuclear fuel. AREVA is already involved in the Bure area where it makes an essential contribution to the structure set up with EDF and the CEA, i.e. the waste producers. Our first concern is to mobilise our skills and expertise. AREVA specialises in the production of high-tech energy, using nuclear fuel and new sources of energy such as wind farms, but we also have expertise in project management and the ability, as a major economic player in certain regions, to supply and develop the local economy. At present, we have six people working full-time around Bure – project leader, engineer, developer, financial economist etc. Our primary aim is to concentrate on biomass as well as developing other potential in this geographical area.

With regard to biomass, the idea is to develop local advantages such as straw and timber, as well as the cultivation of oil-producing plants such as canola. We will then optimise them as part of the national biofuels programme which offers excellent prospects for the future. Within this national framework, there could also be a programme centring on Bure. In fact, an interministerial committee is scheduled to discuss this shortly.

The aim of this development is to create jobs in operations, transport and energy production. The areas being studied around Bure are mainly concerned with biofuels (not bio-ethanol but bio-diesel), with the production of electricity from timber and straw, and with research into bioproducts that could be optimised locally. This commitment will lead to a long-term programme corresponding to the life of the facility. We are currently at the stage of consultation, studies and diagnosis in order to structure projects with local partners.

Moreover, AREVA is involved, with EDF and the CEA, in the optimisation of areas of local excellence around Bure, with skills such as metalworking, casting, forging and tooling. I did not intend to develop this aspect but am willing to do so if you wish.

In favour of development contracts based on expertise and determination

We have, then, a very real involvement but we do not claim to be the sole decision-takers. We want to work with local players in sustainable, viable projects. The main key to success is undoubtedly the use of biomass. There is joint determination to build on this concept within a framework and we fully support it. Indeed, incentives have already been mooted at governmental level. However, it will take a great deal of work. We therefore propose to join forces in considering the setting up of a development strategy, possibly in the form of a territorial development contract. That will also require some thought. Whatever happens, a joint view is necessary if we are to combine the area’s advantages coherently with the skills that we can provide.

Rolf Linkohr: It is now the turn of a local politician, François Dosé, M.P. for Meuse. I would ask him to give us his vision for his region.

François Dosé: I was a “County Councillor” (conseiller général) when we politicians were offered a chance to have a laboratory in our area. We unanimously voted in favour. Having said this, the criticisms contained in my words today are also a recognition of past errors.

Reinvigorating the area through work

The most important thing here is not only the economic development of an area; it is also the credibility of the nuclear industry. We accept a risk close to home when it is linked to life and development; we do not accept it when we are heading for death. And the choice of a fragile area as a suitable location in which to store waste gives credence to the idea that this is a dangerous business. We put the waste there because very few people live there. And, ten years later, when a lot of money may possibly have been paid but there is no longer anybody there at all because there are no jobs, the reasoning will be confirmed – there was indeed a danger and they brought money but not life in the form of economic development. This is the challenge facing not only a geographical area, which is expecting life and a livelihood, but also the nuclear industry which cannot simply sweep aside the consequences of its future actions.

Added to this is the fact that the chosen location is rural with a tradition for trades and crafts but not industry. Yet I have heard that elsewhere, in Belgium or Sweden, this is a viable proposition. Nevertheless the remaining image, rightly or wrongly, is one of an empty rural area – and this is why it was chosen. This poses the question of the possible forms of economic development. If we merely hand out grants and distribute incentives to local artisans, for example, and if things then go as planned, the artisans will no longer be there in a few years’ time but they will not have been replaced by any other form of business activity. It will therefore take much more than a sprinkling of grants.

I want to be totally honest. We are responsible for organising the nuclear industry. Personally I do not believe in the end of nuclear power even though an energy “mix” needs to be looked at again. We are also responsible for managing the waste from the past and I assume my share of these responsibilities. Why, though, should we bring all the responsibility to bear on a single site? It is the whole of France which has benefited from nuclear energy. Inversely, this small area will not even become a “dump”, to use the word preferred by some; it will be a graveyard if we do not bring life into it through jobs. And by bringing life into it and ensuring that a collective watch is kept on safety aspects (no need for mercenaries to do that), we will give jobs to security guards, like their fathers and for their children, providing a sense of citizenship. As an M.P. this is the message I would like to pass on.

Bernard Dupraz, Deputy Director, Engineering Production, EDF: How can we give impetus to economic development? Our companies can offer financial resources – and that is what we do, in accordance with the 1991 law. We are treading a narrow path, trying to combine our skills, which are not only nuclear but also scientific and industrial. People seem to have forgotten that energy is a rare commodity. Yet the doubling of the oil price over the past year increased France’s oil bill by 15 billion between the first half of 2004 and the first semester 2005.

In France, the aim is to reduce CO₂ emissions to one-quarter of their current level. There is no doubt that EDF has expertise in renewable energies, especially biomass, but to reach this objective we also have to change demand. I know that energy-saving is no longer fashionable and it may seem paradoxical for EDF to be promoting the idea. This is nevertheless one of our priorities. We are under an obligation in this respect, like other energy producers, because of the guideline law on energy. I am well aware of the scepticism that was expressed, particularly in Joinville, but I am convinced that, in Meuse and Haute-Marne, 100,000 homes may well lie within the pilot area. The idea still has to be finalised because, by increasing our skills and the agricultural and timber-based advantages of the area, we will succeed in developing biofuels, timber-energy and cogeneration, while encouraging energy savings. There is plenty here to employ a geographical area. The basic question is not one of resources, for they exist. The question is to know how to overcome hurdles and work together to find the narrow path that we are required to tread.

François-Michel Gonnot, M.P. for Oise, Chairman of ANDRA: It is indeed a difficult path but we have to follow it. If we look at what is happening in the dozen countries concerned, we see three types of situation. Certain countries succeed in building disposal facilities in the desert and there nobody asks for any compensation. Elsewhere, in Sweden and Finland, there are populations that already have nuclear facilities and refuse compensations, since they consider that they are involved in a plan in the national interest. Then there are countries such as France where incentives are part and parcel of acceptance.

Two sections to a contract with the local authorities

Whatever happens, we do not have the right to make a mistake. In 1991, it was decided that financial incentives were necessary and huge amounts of money were paid for this purpose – more than 9 million euros every year to the départements concerned. An economic development has also been mentioned. I would remind you that the purpose was then to set up a research laboratory and that nobody knew what the conclusions from the laboratory would be. To date, the research is not conclusive but we know that there is a feasibility in priciple of a site in an area in the south of Meuse and north of Haute-Marne. The 2006 law will have to state whether a new period of fundamental research is required or whether we can pass on to the industrial phase, in accordance with a timetable that remains to be drafted. The back-up system has to be entirely renegotiated, along with the conditions for economic development. The future law will have considerable importance for research and, of course, for the future of Andra’s laboratory. The law will also provide an opportunity for new commitments and a new contract with the relevant local and regional authorities. This contract could have two sections. Firstly, since fundamental research must continue, the Andra laboratory will remain in place. This means that there will be a need for at least some incentives with regard to the laboratory.

500 to 800 jobs for the operation of a disposal facility over 4 generations

Beyond this, if the research produces conclusive results and we go on to the industrial phase, the possible setting up of an industrial activity within the legal and fiscal framework of the nuclear sector must be taken into account. At present, it is up to the local people and their politicians to indicate what they want because everything is negotiable and we can put all the cards on the table. The problem raised by François Dosé and Bernard Dupraz is a very real one and Andra is giving it consideration. The Bure laboratory currently employs 350 people, working for Andra and outsourcers, and all of them live within 20 kilometres of the site. 40% of them are local. When, in a second phase after an other decade of study, we think about the setting up of an industrial project, we come to a whole new scale of things. We will then require between 500 and 800 people to dig the site, and 400 to 550 people will be employed to operate the storage site. Everybody will realise that any project of this type presupposes sustainable development. It would have taken more or less one generation to validate the site. If we move on to the industrial stage, the work will unfold on four generations since such a site will remain in operation for approximately a century. Andra, as project manager, has to work with this in mind.

Robert Leclere, Director of Environment, Electrabel, Belgium: I note that the discussion has focalised on acceptance. Yet the title of the conference is “Managing our nuclear waste: selecting safety and sustainable development” and if we are talking “sustainability” we have to consider organisation and funding. Mr. Christian Bataille tabled a number of proposals on this subject which are not unanimously supported by the nuclear sector in France. What organisation did Belgium choose? Some 25 years ago, the government set up ONDRAF. By giving a public agency responsibility for the management of nuclear waste, it showed its determination to take the time factor out of the equation and it gave the body an extensive brief e.g. to draft an inventory of the radioactive substances present within Belgium and list the various producers of radioactive waste; to set up a safe system for the management of waste; to coordinate the decommissioning of nuclear facilities after shutdown; and to manage enriched fissile matter. More recently, ONDRAF has also been asked to give its opinion on the existence of adequate provisions.

The mechanism used for this purpose is traditional; it forces financial equilibrium based on the “Polluter Pays” principle. Everybody makes a contribution and there is ongoing discussion. Calculations are based on the cost price of services in the short term but take account of estimates of future expenditure on waste storage and removal. With major producers, these agreements are reviewed every ten years but an “all in” price has been developed for small producers. The waste is transferred to ONDRAF if there has been acceptance and a fifty-year guarantee has been given by the packer to cover hidden defects. For Category A waste, the choice will probably go to above-ground storage. No decision has been taken on Category B and C waste but there is a movement towards deep geological disposal. The volumes of waste differ depending on whether or not it is reprocessed. The actual cost of nuclear fuel is not very high and there is therefore no urgency as regards reprocessing. However, the possibility remains open since spent fuel is stored on site.

Various solutions are envisaged and the authorities are expected to reach a decision next year. We hope that a decision will actually be taken in 2006 because additional studies are not justifiable in scientific terms. Undertaking more and more studies makes the ecologists very happy since they can then say, “You see, you don’t have a solution”. I would add that, with regard to Category B and C waste, the Mol laboratory is located below the research centre, in a region where the nuclear industry is well represented and widely accepted.

In conclusion, the long-term management of waste is provided in Belgium by a public authority. The traditional system developed is totally acceptable and it allows for effective financial management. Large producers must be consulted on an ongoing basis but fiscal decisions must be left to central government. To date, there has not been any conflict on this topic.

Philippe Pradel, Director of Nuclear Energy, CEA: The CEA is best-known for its technologies but it also specialises in the transfer of research to industry for forms of energy that do not emit greenhouse gases. It can therefore be involved in the economic incentive for such a project.

The CEA is working on hydrogen and biomass, the latter being very suitable for local economic incentives. Since the entire nation will benefit from the geology specific to a given region, it is quite normal for the region itself to benefit from it and this is possible through agriculture and forestry. We are currently faced with major issues. We have to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to one-quarter of their current level by 2050 and, in the distant future, change over to a 30% use of biofuels.

There is possible synergy between an agri-resource skills cluster and the competitiveness clusters in the south of France in which the CEA is involved. We should be making this region a centre of national excellence for energies with no greenhouse gas emissions and for biomass. The CEA has developed techniques that it is ready to transfer here.

Simon Webster, Head of Unit, Directorate-Energy, Directorate General for Research, European Commission: I can speak with authority on only one aspect of Community support – the Framework Programme for Research and Development (FPRD) on nuclear fission and radiation protection. Representatives of the Commission's services dealing with regional policy would be better-placed to discuss issues of local development and the support from the structural funds . However, it should be pointed out that the research programme can impact on sustainable and local development though support for major infrastructure projects, for which the structural funds can also provide complementary financing.

In the seventh FPRD, the two driving forces are, firstly, the creation of a veritable research zone so that Europe can become a leading research market like Japan and the USA and overcome the current dispersion; and secondly, the Lisbon Agenda in which the Heads of State and Government declared their desire to create a knowledge-based society in Europe and the most advanced zone in this respect by 2010. Though progress to date has been disappointing, the new Commission is showing a markedly dynamic approach and Mr. Barroso has declared it to be a key element in his mandate. A knowledge society in Europe means research and creativity and these are the keywords for the seventh Framework Programme, which is targeting excellence, the strengthening of research, training and knowledge.

In favour of technology platforms

The nuclear sector and waste management are directly concerned. The sharing of knowledge and the transmission of this knowledge from one generation of researchers to the next requires an integrated policy and this will be more efficiently implemented at a European level. This is one of the primary objectives of the seventh Framework Programme, an objective which had already begun with the sixth Framework Programme. The aim is also to set up networks and centres of excellence and, here, the results have been encouraging. The Framework Programme sees the management of radioactive waste as a core issue but with one slight difference i.e. there is a wish to see more concentration on underground laboratories. Support for such laboratories, like the one in Mol, is important for the development of national research programmes.

To capitalise on the knowledge gained through the fifth and sixth programmes, research must now focus more on users, those who manage the waste. Like other sectors, it would be useful to set up research platforms for waste management. The Framework Programme will provide an opportunity to launch a call for proposals with this type of objective, given that efforts at deep geological disposal are tending to concentrate more and more on underground laboratories. The seventh Framework Programme will begin early in 2007. One important unknown is the budget and it will only be viable if credits are maintained. The programme, which acts as a catalyst for national efforts, is expected to continue for six or seven years.

Discussion with the Hall

Claude Fischer: I should like to come back to sustainable development and the development of our regions, thinking of Haute-Marne and Meuse – where I was born in fact. François Dosé had no hesitation in talking of life and death for these areas and it is true that there has been an exodus from both départements since the 1980’s. It was even said that, once the population had dropped below 200,000 in each of these départements, it would be very difficult to reverse the trend. Can we nevertheless try to make these areas dynamic again and, if so, how? Is a research laboratory an advantage? François-Michel Gonnot advanced the figure of 400 or 500 jobs for a storage facility and 600 to 800 jobs during the construction phase. That’s all well and good. But can a research laboratory create new sectors of business linked to the research itself? For example, can we develop skills in the use of tunnelers, expertise on containment methods and, in doing so, create a European centre of skill and expertise? If so, who should be thinking about this? Central government, say the local people, since it is the decision-maker. Central government, though, says that demand should be bottom-up. We must therefore take an overall view and consider the conditions for partnership between players and the responsibilities of the various parties. François Lamoureux mentioned a common research enterprise for which shared efforts will be required. Can Bure put itself forward as a common European research enterprise specialising in waste disposal and transformation? Are the players willing to mobilise for this purpose? Mr. Webster mentioned a call for proposals as part of the seventh Framework Programme for research and alluded to European funding through the structural funds – how can we take up this idea?

Personally, I am a strong “defender” of the development of biomass energy but this only corresponds to some thirty jobs. We should think along other lines because we have to achieve change in areas that are losing jobs at an alarming rate. In Gondrecourt, jobs have dropped from 400 to 70 and we have very recently learnt that, in Saint-Dizier, MacCormick is about to lose 200 jobs while the local foundry will be laying off 60 workers. We have, therefore, to acquire a general view of territorial development. Is it worthwhile? Are we ready to fight? If so, we will lobby the Government and Europe to ensure that Haute-Marne and Meuse again acquire skills and people, through this centre and the wealth that it can create.

Jacques Frot, Association des écologistes pour le nucléaire (association of ecologists in favour of nuclear power): I should like those who have talked about the use of biomass to give us the overall energy results. How many tonnes of oil equivalent does it take to make one tonne of bioenergy? The answer is certainly not very encouraging. It is true that this sector is still in its infancy but what hope is there of improvement in the future?

Philippe Guignard, Industrie Environnement: I will express the same reservations as the two previous speakers - biomass does not constitute a very large driving force for development. Agriculture employs fewer and fewer people and generates very little employment. On the other hand, there is a high-tech industrial project with high added value – the EPR. How about an EPR in Bure? It would be like Finland or Sweden, where areas that accept waste are then given positive projects rather than grant-aided projects with little capacity to attract further development.

François Rollinger: It is obvious that there is money and that there are ideas. Yet we are talking about compensation and incentives rather than an integrated approach such as the one in Belgium, combining national action and territorial development. Would the political and economic leaders be prepared, as ONDRAF has done in Belgium, to set up a partnership with Bure and other applicants to build an integrated project together for economic development?

François-Michel Gonnot: We have to be sure what we are talking about. A job is a job, and each job is important, especially for anybody who does not have one. I am sure that, for the men and women who live there, there are no major or minor jobs; there are simply jobs that enable them to live locally. François Dosé spoke of a question of life or death. Personally, I believe that decline is never unavoidable. It simply takes determination, projects and also opportunities. The laboratory is just one such opportunity. We can of course toy with all sorts of ideas, discuss the EPR etc. but what is acceptable to the men and women in this area? No use talking about jobs that will be taken by engineers in Cadarache or Saclay; let’s find work for the people of Meuse and Haute-Marne. The biomass operation is a possible. Now we have to know whether it is attractive to the local people and whether the chambers of agriculture will give it their support, for example.

The main difficulty is that, according to some people, since central government makes the decisions, it should also supply the project. This is not true! We should not overturn local equilibrium and import a labour force. We have to offer work to the men and women of Bure and Saudron. Yes, ANDRA and the producers of waste must change their methods and find a procedure. If I am to believe Claude Fischer, Europe should see Bure as a shop window. However, there are rules on tenders and we cannot sign contracts with local companies simply because they are local. A call for tenders is not an instrument used for local development. Within the next six or twelve months, a vote will have been taken on the law. There is, therefore, not enough time. The worst thing we could do would be to dangle bright prospects for the future today but not follow them up tomorrow. We should not say and promise anything and everything; we should state what is possible on a local level.

François Dosé: We are not really replying; we are contributing to a possible answer. I should like to emphasise that the areas concerned are not Haute-Marne and Meuse in the administrative sense but an area in which people live and which has little to do with these general entities. Bure lies right in the south of the département. Helping the north, which did not vote in favour of the laboratory, would be a mistake. We therefore have to carefully define the area in which action is required (and there is no question of left-wing or right-wing politics here) otherwise we will have been on a fool’s errand.

Secondly, is there a threshold below which we cannot reverse the trend? I do not think so otherwise I would not have fought for a town that was losing 600 jobs in the metalworking industry. You can always get back on your feet, even if not at the level you would really like. I am thinking of Pagny-sur-Meuse where the population dropped from 4,000 to 3,000 when the cement works closed. Later, the opening of a central warehouse for the Intermarché supermarket chain brought in so much local tax (taxe professionnelle) that the town’s income has been capped. My personal belief is that life brings life with it. Of course we will not be building the EPR in Bure – that’s fantasy land. But we should not only think of the laboratory and everything that goes with it. I am speaking now as a citizen (I will not be seeking re-election) and I really believe that we will get back on our feet if we create wider networks for economic activity than the laboratory. And if we do restrict ourselves to the laboratory, it is the nuclear sector that will lose credibility. People will say that it took over an area to dig a burrow in which to hide its waste. We want to live in an area that remains open but we do not have enough strength locally; we need some help.

Jean-Guy Devezeaux: This is a serious, long-term project on a very large scale and it can undoubtedly be achieved if it receives political support.

Bernard Dupraz: The main risk for everybody, including the nuclear industry, is that a bright future may be dangled in front of the community for a year or two in order to win acceptance for the project and that we may then fail to deliver. As Mr. Gonnot said, a job is a job, whatever it is and we have to work together to define a project for territorial development.

Daniel Collard: In my capacity as Chairman of a District Council representing 2,700 people, I admit to two errors – firstly, to having launched a project for the setting up of a chip factory. The Prefect of the Region did not believe in the project at all but the plant exists and it created 180 jobs. Secondly, biofuels. Since the adoption of the agricultural guideline law, therre was a noticeable move towards renewable energies but the output from bio-ethanol had to be taken into consideration. With one hectare of beet, you can produce 80 hectolitres of ethanol and this can be used to produce 100, 000 kWh. It is true that the energy results from such production are still only 1 TOE[6] of fossile fuel used to produce 0.83 TOE of biofuel but we are in the early days of the use of this technique and, in a few years, the ratio will be 1:2.9 or even 1:3 according to the data supplied by ADEME. If you believe in the resources of your area and if you take things in hand, you will find the means to success. Personally I have to operate four sugar refineries. We decided to invest 100,000 euros to produce 1.5 million hectolitres of ethanol initially, rising to 3 million hectolitres in a second stage which will enable us to produce our own electricity and our steam. Why would you not begin producing biomass (di-ester for example)? You have to be convinced that you will succeed! It is not because you lack numbers that you will not achieve what you set out to do!

Torsten Carlsson: With its 12 reactors, Sweden has 8,000 tonnes of spent fuel. What is the volume in France? The discussion on employment is interesting. There is no such discussion in Sweden where we focus on safety issues. For example, recurrent questions relate to what would happen if there were an earthquake or if radioactive substances were dispersed into the underground water table.

Bernard Dupraz: Given the reprocessing of spent fuel, France will have 6,000 m³ of long-lived high-level waste and 40,000 m³ of medium-level waste when the 58 existing nuclear reactors reach the end of their lives.

Cécile Massart: I am convinced that we can develop very safe projects but, again, I would call for artistic signage on these sites because it would be sad if future generations found nothing there other than nuclear waste. Architects could work with scientists on development projects.

Rolf Linkohr: All scientific activity also includes social, cultural and artistic aspects. Simon Webster mentioned the activities of the European Union in this respect, and the European experience. Europe could very usefully contribute to the success of such a project, not so much through the allocation of funding, because resources are not unlimited, as by comparison of all the experiments carried out in this respect in Europe and elsewhere. This is our advantage: comparing what has been done and using the best of it. This will help to make our continent successful.

My congratulations to Claude Fischer, whose legendary “obstinacy” mentioned by François Lamoureux has enabled us to meet here. I include in this, of course, her colleagues André Ferron and Marie-Ange Schilling, and I should like to thank all our sponsors who have supported us despite the vicissitudes of public debate. My opinion is that of a political observer and, having attended three successive Entretiens européens conferences, I note that the questions are gaining scope and precision with each year that passes.

Choosing nuclear power presupposes stability in the choice of waste management

We must take up an in-depth debate again for nuclear power cannot be imposed without more social and political action. The questions of security of supply and climate changes are now keenly significant. I am delighted that the European Union ratified the Kyoto Agreement and I note that, if the States do not comply with the commitments made, the cost will be twofold – financial because of the price of electricity and environmental because of the continuance of high levels of CO² emissions. These reasons tend to support nuclear power, a vital source of supply within an “energy mix”. However, this choice presupposes a long-term perspective and decision-making stability for, as Peter Haug explained, the nuclear industry, which makes heavy, costly investments, acts against a background of long-term cycles.

The question of social acceptance is connected with safety and, therefore, with the processing of waste. On this point, a number of European countries such as Finland and Belgium have provided spectacular examples. I should like to congratulate the European Commission on its efforts because, although it is not up to the Commission to define the methods used in the public debate, a Community framework helps in its organisation. We may well regret the departures of Mrs. Loyola de Palacio and Mr. Lamoureux, departures which may put the energy policies in Europe in a less favourable situation. This in turn will increase our own responsibilities. The Commission has done some good work in creating a framework and maintaining the debate, but we cannot expect Europe to do everything. France in particular should be a driving force in this respect.

In its day, the Bataille Law was a remarkable piece of legislation. We know that the French nuclear programme only got underway thanks to sustained civic work during the 1970’s. If the same efforts are not made now, we risk a number of major failures. The 1991 law got research off to a good start and enabled it to pave the way for the future. I listened to François Dosé talking about “errors” whereas I would use the term “necessary corrections” whether we are talking about the democratic method used or the need for greater complementarity with geographical areas in order to gain more confidence.

As far as the method is concerned, contrary to Christian Bataille’s hopes, everything centred on a single site. Should we not open up the issue, especially, as François Dosé said, as Bure has no industrial history? Whatever the case, we shall have to review the connection with territorial development.

A democractic issue to lead us out of an impasse

Are we going to continue, as suggested by Christian Bataille, using a timetable which may well be fictional by 2015? This would be similar to a lack of decision and this leads me to wonder whether the method of acceptance is the best one and whether it would not be preferable to rectify the current method. I leave the question open but I note that consensus has not progressed over the last few years. I do not want to take a decision. The M.P.s will make choices but, apparently, they are not concerned by the choice of site, which surprises me somewhat given that local consultation is apparently not permitted under the Constitution. What happens if the question cannot be decided at local level either? There remains some time before politicians are required to vote and we will see whether certain solutions come to light in the meantime. France has a problem of democracy and a considerable problem of methodology because the public debate is set within a formal framework. And when everything is given a framework in advance – for example, when the choice is restricted to a single site – the response is a foregone conclusion. It will be “No”. Yet we have already seen, with the vote on the Constitution, that people were fed up being told “Take it or leave it”. Having said this, I do not consider the concept of democracy apparently put forward by Jean-Luc Bouzon to be legitimate: taking part solely to be able to say “No” is not very constructive.

Opennes towards others

I am also disappointed to see that more store is not being set on experience gained elsewhere in Europe. We are following the same path as Belgium, said a representative of ANCLI. This is untrue. In Belgium, the people in the relevant area are involved in the preparation phase as well as having decision-making power through their vote. The same is true of Canada. Local players can be involved in the drafting of a project in the very early stages. They are not consulted, as is the case in France, on the eve of the decision to be taken by Parliament. The lack of interest in what is happening in Europe is equally true with regard to other subjects. We are told it is because of our inherent Jacobin tendencies. True. But if excessive delegation leads to people feeling that they are not involved and automatically replying “No”, we are in a political cul-de-sac. This morning’s debate leads me to think that, in the final analysis, we are not capable of renewing and changing our democratic methods.

Assuming our responsibilities in the choice of site and lending support to development projects

A decision has to be taken in 2006 and the politicians will take it. However, given this situation, is it possible to envisage a participative approach to the choice of site? After all, there are also Marcoule and La Hague. Marcoule was rejected because of the vineyards. In Bure, we could also highlight the proximity of the champagne vineyards and the lack of any industrial tradition. We could say, “Leave us to die in peace”. Well, the question of the site seems to be settled. I find this amazing. I do not mean that we should go back to the beginning again and there are already a number of outstanding experiments that have been carried out in Haute-Marne. But if it takes another five years, taking us to 2015, why not? In the end, we will save time and achieve greater efficiency.

In particular, before making decisions in 2015 or 2025, could we find a partnership method similar to the one used in Belgium and Canada, to enable the local people and local politicians to draft a common disposal project (this goes much further than the proposed assistance) in more integrated conditions. In Belgium, they call this a systemic approach, with corrections when mistakes have been made. Taking another look at the question of sites and inventing a methodology based on the Belgian model seem to me to be two ways of involving local players.

Secondly, as we have done this afternoon, there is a need to review the question of territorial development. It is totally true to say that the administrative territory is different to the actual territory concerned and that this is a trap. If there is to be local involvement, we need skills and they can be acquired with outside support. However, I am struck by the negative attitudes of local politicians. During the meeting in Nogent, they came in large numbers and were open to discussion. In Bar-le-Duc, there were still 31 of them at the conference and they were against the project. Today, very few have come to Reims. We have to help them become a driving force for new projects; it is not something that just happens. And giving them external support is all the more the State’s responsibility given that the administrative boundaries are not right.

I understand the remarks made by François-Michel Gonnot and there is no question of denigrating what has been proposed. However, we have to clarify the scale of the industrial project linked to waste disposal and experimentation. For his part, I hope that he will also understand what is being said by François Dosé and others. There can only be a climate of trust if there are prospects for business activity other than those linked to the nuclear industry, especially as an industrial project based on engineers fits uncomfortably into the local culture. Let us use our imaginations, as Rolf Linkohr asked us. I do not much like the recommendation to “avoid giving people dreams that will not come true”. We may need realism and reality but we also need to dream. And while on the subject, there are solutions that were not mentioned, relating to geological work and underground operation. And if you see other possibilities, it’s up to you to take the necessary steps.

The dynamics of the nuclear industry in a European research enterprise?

Is it possible to participate in a common enterprise? François-Michel Gonnot says that the decision is taken at quite a different level, and not at his level. He is right. A European common enterprise (remember Galileo) is decided upon by States, with participation from leading players in the private sector. This goes far beyond the capacities available through local initiatives although local players can also make a contribution and take part in the dynamics. A common enterprise specialising in the processing of waste would be wonderful.

It is undoubtedly the dynamics of the nuclear industry that are being played out on this point. Everything depends, of course, on other issues such as the replacement of power plants in the future. But ensuring that the industry is accepted is a considerable issue and it involves the acceptance of waste processing. If we do not win this battle, our economic development will be held back.

It is an important issue for other Europeans as well. The countries in Eastern Europe badly need emulation. They are emerging from a State-controlled culture in which civil society was very weak and we have a duty towards them. We can ask the European Commission to encourage comparisons but we can also encourage them ourselves. To come back to an idea put forward by Rolf Linkohr, I suggest that we give greater depth to the Franco-German dialogue next year in Berlin on nuclear issues in the widest sense of the term. In doing so, we will contribute to a good solution for Haute-Marne and Meuse and to the success of France as regards the problem of waste processing.

Claude Fischer – This is the end of the Entretiens. The papers[7] will be published in January. They are always full of information and we will have to work again on the subjects which have aroused the greatest discussion in order to table a contribution for the government and national politicians on the eve of the draft law of 2006. We shall also lobby the European Commission.

The Entretiens européens will continue. We are planning other topics such as the ethics of responsibility in the choices made for the management of nuclear waste but Rolf Linkohr has launched the idea of continuing the debate in Germany. In France, opponents of nuclear power take a fairly low profile in discussions; in Germany, their involvement is much stronger. But we support his idea and there will undoubtedly be a place for a round table on the processing of waste. Whatever is decided, the Entretiens européens would be delighted to organise the meeting.

In conclusion, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in our discussions. I should also like to present Bruno Sido’s apologies. He was unable to be with us because of the social events that have occurred in his département.

[1] Enclosed is the article by Claude Fischer and André Ferron published in Les Echos on 25th November 2005.

[2] On www.uns.ethz.ch/people/staff/thomasfl/publ (under “Presentations, Various”)

[3] Comité d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail (Committee on health & safety in the workplace)

[4] Direction générale de la sûreté nucléaire et de la radioprotection (Department for nuclear safety and radioprotection)

[5] Institut de Radioprotection et de Sécurité Nucléaire (Institute of radioprotection and nuclear safety)

[6] Tonne of Oil Equivalent

[7] We should like to thank analysts Joël Michel and Catherine Schwartz who have copied the discussions based on the quality translations provided by Paul Dodinval and Isabelle Vandenplas.

The sixth edition of the Lettre des Entretiens européens, which will be published in March 2006, will be based on these papers.

Opening