Short AbstractThis presentation suggests a comparison between public invited critics and their integrations in Belgian, Canadian and French institutionalized processes to highlight the different combinations of opening up and closing down appraisals and commitments. This comparison reveals the closing up strategy of government to move forward with nuclear wastes.Since the 90’s onwards, Canadian, Belgian and French nuclear establishment (Durant 2009) have developed several different strategies to involve the public at each constitutive steps of the siting process of nuclear wastes management. Each of them has divided the decision-making process in distinct phases to focus first on the conceptual phase (go for an option) before the operational phase (go for siting). Each country has its own dynamic managed by different actors. For example, in Canada, the nuclear waste organization (NWMO) has provided iterative and permanent experts and public consultations since 2002. In France, it is the French PTA (OPECST) and National Commission of Public Debate (CNDP) who have periodically provided punctual public consultations before every important commitment. Meanwhile in Belgium, only two important punctual debates have been provided by the nuclear waste organization (ONDRAF) and an independent foundation (FRD) and are still waiting for the “go for an option”. This presentation suggests a comparison of the public invited critics (Wynne 2007) who have accepted the invitation of nuclear wastes managers, following their integrations in three different institutionalized processes (in Belgium, in France and in Canada) and the change their integrations produced in terms of closing down and opening up appraisals and commitments (Stirling 2008). It highlights how the different governments finally chosen a closing “up” commitment in order to manage the right of public to continue to shape partially the commitment as well the right of expert to continue to develop the option (geological disposal) they support since the 70’s. Data used include a combination of theoretical and empirical materials – i.e. participatory observations of consultation processes, 90 semi-directive interviews with policy makers, nuclear waste agencies, nuclear regulators in France, Belgium and Canada and local actors such as members of local information and monitoring council (CLIS) and members of community liaison committee of four volunteer collectivities (CLC).Durant, Darrin. 2009. "Radwaste in Canada: a political economy of uncertainty." Journal of Risk Research 12 (7-8):897-919. doi: 10.1080/13669870903126127.Stirling, Andy. 2008. ""Opening Up" and "Closing Down" Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology." Science, Technology & Human Values 33:262-294.Wynne, Brian. 2007. "Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake." East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1 (1):99-110.
展开▼
