nrpb © working in partnership with the health protection agency dynamics of stakeholder involvement...

NRPB© Working in partnership with the Health Protection Agency

Dynamics of stakeholder involvement in the development of a handbook on practical radiation protection for areas contaminated for prolonged periods

Anne Nisbet

Julie Mercer, Céline Bataille, Pascal Crouaïl, Irene Fiedler


Presentation Outline Background

The SAGE handbook

Why stakeholder engagement

Who are the stakeholders

The stakeholder consultation process

Feedback on the handbook

Evaluation of consultation process

Conclusions


Background

Former Soviet Union

ETHOS project

Inclusive radiation monitoring

Need for strategies & guidance


The SAGE handbook

The householder

The health professional

The measurement professional

The stakeholder advisory board

Radioactivity

Exposure routes

Radiation monitoring

Practical tools

Points of entry Technical sheets


Why stakeholder engagement?

Top down approaches can lead to loss of social trust

Innovative approaches involving stakeholders at national & local levels

UK Recovery Handbook

Rehabilitation in Stolyn district Belarus


Who are the stakeholders?

GOsRadiological protection

Health protection

Environmental protection

Medical doctors

Social services

Food control

NGOsTeachers

Consumer association

Monitoring laboratory

Farmers Union

Public pressure group

Public health group

Academics – experts in risk communication

Help for Gomel

Fireman


The stakeholder panels


Public pressure group

Public health group

Experts in risk communication

Health protection unit

Head teacher

The stakeholder panels


Stakeholder consultation process

Five meetings

Practical sessions

Presentations

Discussions & iterative feedback


Three meetings

Presentations




Three meetings

Presentations

Four/five satellite panels




‘The Questionnaire’ Format

structure, language, clarity, level of technical detail

General applicability of the handbook philosophy, fit with current systems, other contaminants

Practicability and appropriateness of information/ guidance provided

target audience, relevance, availability of equipment & training

Adapting the handbook irrelevant sections, missing topics



Stakeholder feedback on the handbook

1 Format, structure and content

Common language

Easily understood ‘front end’ & technical sheets at the back

Information & illustrations for Western Europe

Additional sections - reference situations, stochastic risks

Glossary



2 Concern over the role of doctors

Doctors would be overstretched

Extend role to all ‘health professionals’ (public health physicians, staff of hospitals, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, school doctors and company doctors)

Emphasise need for education & training



3 Concern over measurements Ambient dose rates, measurements in

food & whole body

How much to involve the people? Need for calibrated equipment, collection

& preparation of samples, training

Results should always discussed with experts

Importance of measurements from different sources (plurality)

Openness/availability of individual data


Final reflections on the handbook

Two years was insufficient to develop the handbook

Provides first principles of how to live in …

Generic, based on a ‘virtual’ territory

Biased to rural environments

Needs to be adapted to specific countries, territories and environments

Belarussian panel welcomed work of Western European panels re format & content & were keen to adapt to Belarussian context


Final reflections on the handbook

Useful reference tool – concepts generally applicable to other contaminants

Requires ‘political will’ and funding

Western European panels agreed to produce leaflets for members of the public

Requirement for other types of handbooks, strategies & guidance for management of early & late phases & these must be consistent with the principles set out for long-term rehabilitation



1st time for this type of consultation on rehabilitation

Successfully engaged all of the key stakeholders

Establishment of satellite panels efficient mechanism

Mix of practical sessions, presentations & discussion maintain interest

Stakeholders felt empowered



Stakeholders have had a significant influence on scope, format &

content of handbook

Process raised profile of rehabilitation issues

Authorities starting to understand issues

Some making plans for tackling deficiencies in national

infrastructure


Conclusions

Good example of participative inclusive governance

Dynamics of process – significant & positive influence on handbook

development

Good representation of GO and NGOs

Health professionals play key role

Need for training and investment essential


Acknowledgements

The contribution made by members of all the stakeholder panels

Financial support from the European Commission Fifth Framework Programme (Nuclear Fission, Radiation Protection) under Contract No: FIS5-2002-00040.

nrpb © working in partnership with the health protection agency dynamics of stakeholder involvement...

Documents