the engage project...catrinel turcanu, caroline schieber, nadja zeleznik, christiane pölzl-viol,...

This project has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 under grant agreement No 662287.

Catrinel Turcanu, Caroline Schieber, Nadja Zeleznik,

Christiane Pölzl-Viol, Tatiana Duranova, Robbe Geysmans

www.engage-concert.eu

ENhancinG stAkeholder participation in the GovernancE of radiological risks

forimproved radiation protection

and informed decision-making

CONCERT Final Meeting, Madrid, 11.03 – 13.03.2020

The ENGAGE Project

http://www.engag-concert.eu/


Summary

ENhancinG stAkeholder participation in the GovernancE of radiological risks for improved radiation protection and informed decision-making

November 2017 – December 2019 (24 months + 1 month extension)

Total cost: EUR 777,442.00. Funded by EU: EUR 475,640.00 (62%)

Part of CONCERT


Consortium

13 partners and a 14th organisation subcontracted

Diversity in: type of organisation, expertise, geographical coverage

• nuclear safety and radiation protection authorities, research institutes in radiation protection, public health organisations and academia

• multidisciplinary expertise including public participation, stakeholder engagement in nuclear and non-nuclear areas, ethics of radiation protection, science and technology studies, sociology, risk perception and risk communication, and all technical aspects of radiation protection

• 10 European countries


Project entry points

The importance of stakeholder engagement for the governance of radiological risks is recognised.

This is reflected in legislation, guidelines, recommendations, research.

However,

1. There are challenges in the practical implementation of policy and legal requirements related to stakeholder engagement

• E.g. divergences on who to involve, at which stage, what the outcome of engagement should be and what type of legal basis is needed.

2. Considerably more attention given to invited participation initiated by governmental actors or research institutions, than to bottom-up or citizen-led engagement

3. Characterisation of radiation protection culture in different contexts and for different stakeholders, and its interaction with stakeholder engagement have not been addressed in a systematic way


Objectives

ENGAGE investigated the formal or informal demands and expectations for stakeholder engagement, and how these are translated into practices at national & local levels.

Objectives:

a) Clarify why, when and how are stakeholders engaged in radiation protection (RP) issues;

b) Develop novel approaches to analyse stakeholder interaction and engagement and, provide guidance for meeting challenges and opportunities identified in response to (a);

c) Investigate the processes for enhancing RP culture and their role in facilitating stakeholder engagement, and provideguidance for building RP culture;

d) Develop a knowledge base concept for stakeholder engagement in RP

e) Co-develop recommendations for more robust stakeholder engagement in radiation protection.

ENGAGEMENT

P R A C T I C E S

Prescribed

Enacted


Structure

What are the prescriptions and expectations for stakeholder engagement?

Which forms of participationcan beobserved in practice?

How can we share experiences and enhance learning?

MEDICAL EXPOSURE

INDOOR RADON

EMERGENCY & RECOVERY

PREP. & RESPONSE

What is the role of Radiation ProtectionCulture?

WP1: Rationales and frameworks

WP2: Practices

WP3: Radiation protection culture

WP4: Mutual learning, dissemination, co-development of recommendations

WP

5: C

oo

rdin

atio

n

Sta

keh

old

er

ad

vis

ory

bo

ard


WP 1 Rationales and frameworks for stakeholder

engagement in radiation protection

Methods:

• Document analysis

• Legal requirements, guidelines, reviews

• Semi-structured interviews with key actors

• International level and national level

7

Research questions: i) how are

“stakeholders” and engagement

defined in regulations and guidelines

and mobilised by different actors?

ii)what is included or excluded from

these frames?; iii)what are the

underlying rationales for engagement?

D9.85

• Medical

• EP&R

• Radon

D9.86

• Transversal issues


WP2Stakeholder engagement in practice

Research questions: i) how are legal requirements, guidelines and recommendationstranslated into practice?; ii) which (other) real or potential forms of stakeholder engagement can be observed in practice?

Key elements: Who is (not) engaged? In which ways? For what reasons? What is the impact? What are the main challenges and opportunities?

D9.82

• Challenges, best practice (also RWM, non-nuclear)

D9.89, D9.90, D9.91

• Case studies for medical, EP&R, radon

Survey in EU

countries (EP&R)

Mapping formal &

informal participation

(EP&R, in BE)

15 National case studies

3 exposure contexts

NOVEL

Analysis of radon websites

from a stakeholder engagement

perspective (8 EU countries)


WP3Development of radiation protection (RP) culture

to support the governance of radiological risks

Research focus: i) how is RP culture characterised and evaluated; ii) what is its role and potential benefit for supporting stakeholder engagement; and iii) what are the processes to build and transmit RP culture, adapted to specifics of different exposure situations.

9

Stakeholder

workshop

(Athens, Feb. 2019)

D9.83

• Preliminary report RP culture case studies

D9.84

• Stakeholder workshop

D9.87

• Final report RP culture case studies

• Recommen-dations for the development of RP culture

10 National case studies

3 exposure contexts


WP4Competence building and dissemination (1)

Objective: Engage with radiation protection stakeholders, disseminate project results, enhance mutual learning and co-develop recommendations

Knowledge base concept developed andexemplified with ENGAGE case studies

Project recommendations co-developedin the final project workshop (Bratislava, 11-13 September 2019)

Opportunities for engagement created at differentlevels

Final project workshop Bratislava, 2019

D9.92

• Knowledge base

D9.44

• Final project report


WP4Competence building and dissemination (2)

Open access to reports on CONCERT website and conference presentations atwww.engage-concert.eu

Special issue with open access in Radioprotection (Vol. 55(HS2) – May 2020) + other articles (2 accepted)

Interactions with radiation protection researchers and practitioners through roundtables and participatory mapping exercises: RPW 2018 and NERIS 2018

RICOMET: special sessions in 2018 and 2019, workshop in 2019

Presentations at various conferences

Involvement of young researchers in data collection and analysis

RP Week 2018 RICOMET 2019

http://www.engage-concert.eu/


Results

ENGAGE analysed rationales and frameworks for stakeholder engagement and participation practices in three radiation protection contexts: emergency preparedness, indoor radon and medical exposures

Specificities were highlighted, as well as similarities and lessons to be learned across the three exposure contexts

Challenges and opportunities illustrated with case studies, in different national settings.

A number of novel research methodologies were developed and/or used

Radiological protection culture, including its aims, target stakeholders and potential role were characterised in different exposure contexts; its connection to stakeholder engagement was explored

A knowledge base concept was proposed and exemplified

Recommendations for enhanced stakeholder engagement were formulated per field and cross-field in the final project report

12


Results

ENGAGE analysed rationales and frameworks for stakeholder engagement and participation practices in three radiation protection contexts: emergency preparedness, indoor radon and medical exposures

Specificities were highlighted, as well as similarities and lessons to be learned across the three exposure contexts

Challenges and opportunities illustrated with case studies, in different national settings.

A number of novel research methodologies were developed and/or used

Radiological protection culture, including its aims, target stakeholders and potential role were characterised in different exposure contexts; its connection to stakeholder engagement was explored

A knowledge base concept was proposed and exemplified

Recommendations for enhanced stakeholder engagement were formulated per field and cross-field in the final project report

13


Selected transversal findings (1)

Radiation protection would benefit from:

More systematic approaches to stakeholder engagement in national policies, with proper and clear allocation of responsibilities and resources.

• In many national regulatory frameworks, stakeholder engagement –if prescribed- is less elaborated upon, leading to uncertainty and potential mismatch of expectations, e.g. when to initiate stakeholder engagement, who to involve at which stage and what to expect from it, as well as which (legal or not) basis can foster the participatory process.

Recognition of the normative and substantive rationales for engagement, in both prescriptions and practices. • If stakeholder engagement is only used as a tool to secure particular end points (e.g.

gaining acceptance for specific radiological protection actions), it becomes lessimpactful and sustainable.

• Those who initiate engagement processes should recognise the ethical values underlying engagement (e.g. transparency in emergency preparedness and response, or patients’ right for information in the medical field), and the contribution of stakeholder engagement to the quality of decision making .

14




Broadening the understanding on how stakeholders can contribute to improved radiation protection• A distinction is often made in both prescriptions and formal practices between

professional / institutional stakeholders and other stakeholders, notably citizens, which implies different levels of engagement: the former are involved in collaborations and join decision making, while the latter are mostly engaged through awareness raising actions and, less frequently, consultations.

Identifying and explicitly considering all stakeholders stemming from integrating of radiation in broader frameworks, recognising their potential roles and responsibilities in radiological risk governance. • E.g. integrating radon risk mitigation in a broader environmental and public health

protection approach focused on indoor air quality; integrating radiological protection into the general, patient-centred healthcare in the medical sector; or integrating nuclear emergency and recovery management in multi-hazard approaches broadens the view on who the radiation protection stakeholders are.

• Integration should be considered both vertically, at different governance levels, as well as horizontally, corresponding to different fields.

15




Strong commitment from authorities for stakeholder engagement, while maintaining the stakeholder engagement processes open and flexible

• Stakeholders should have opportunities to participate according to their needs and interests

• The process of engagement should be flexible and adapted to the needs of those involved

Development of radiation protection culture in a participatory way for the various stakeholders involved in the management of the exposure situations.

• Besides being developed through the participation of stakeholders, this also takes stakeholder engagement as a central condition of the implementation of the radiological protection system.

• Professional associations play an important role in dissemination of radiation protection culture for the different stakeholders

16


Additional findings for emergency preparedness, response and recovery

(1)

The forms of stakeholder engagement analysed in the case studies are mostly initiated in a top-down manner, by the radiation safety authority. This is most effective when:

• Engagement is organised in an open and flexible way, accompanied by a strong commitment from the authority

• The objective of the engagement process, and how the input from different stakeholders will (or not) be taken into account, are transparent

Bottom-up engagement is a valuable complement to institutional initiatives, as it provides additional insights, frames and resources

• Examples include citizens monitoring networks, information campaigns on emergency actions organised by civil society organisations, assessment studies by NGOs

• The outcomes of bottom-up engagement should be taken into account in policies and strategies

17


Additional findings for emergency preparedness, response and recovery

(2)

ENGAGE demonstrated the existence and importance of informal engagement of citizens (e.g. through citizen science initiatives), experts (e.g. through informal networks) and other stakeholders.

The importance of informal engagement should be recognised and supported by institutional stakeholders

Informal engagement might play a role also in other exposure contexts (e.g. citizen science in radon management), and would benefit from further exploration.

Joint reflection needed on the aim of RP culture in the preparedness for emergency and recovery management. • It should allow stakeholders to reflect on what is at stake in case of a nuclear

accident from a broader than purely radiological perspective.

More attention is needed to engaging stakeholders in the preparedness for recovery

18


Additional findings for radon risk management (1)

ENGAGE substantiated the need to develop comprehensive and participatory, environmental and public health protection approaches to radon risk management

• Integrate radon action plans into public environmental and health policies, with particular focus on indoor air quality

• Include stakeholder engagement plans in the radon action plans or related policies

• Create spaces (e.g. dedicated committees) for interaction among stakeholders involved in all these fields and for the development of a common reference frame

• Building and disseminating radiation protection culture is essential for the different stakeholders relevant to these fields

• Long-term perspective, open for adaptation and regular evaluation

• Flexible communication mechanisms between different levels of authorities

19


Additional findings for radon risk management (2)

There is a need to strengthen the engagement of local and regional stakeholders

• Development of context-specific approaches with sufficient support at the local/regional level (access to technical and financial resources)

• Systemic approach in radon action plans, with consideration of all levels of public authorities

• Joint approaches with local and regional stakeholders for radon risk assessment, management and communication

• E.g. developing and testing the effect of communication tools such as radon maps, mutualisation of resources, etc.

• Increasing engagement of the population beyond awareness raising actions, and broader than only in areas classified as having highest risk

• Adapt radon risk communication to be more conducive to higher levels of engagement

• E.g. use the full potential of social media and websites to enable engagement

20


Additional findings for medical exposures to ionizing radiation (1)

Radiation protection (RP) culture should be developed and promoted not only for medical professionals directly involved in medical procedures using ionizing radiations, but also for those who are not directly involved, but may be occupationally exposed and/or interact with patients and/or prescribe medical exams.

• This includes e.g. nurses, general practitioners or other referrers.

The aims of developing RP culture differ depending on

• the specialty of the medical professionals,

• the direct or indirect involvement in medical procedures using ionising radiation

• their roles and responsibilities in the implementation of RP principles

RP should be included in the initial, as well as the continuous training for health professionals

21


Additional findings for medical exposures to ionizing radiation (2)

The risk-benefit dialogue with patients could be improved by

• Collaboration on risk communication between different health professionals, including also nurses, and referrers, notable general practitioners

• Including radiation risk communication in the education of health professionals

• Giving due attention to the involvement of patients in decision-making processes, particularly for those procedures involving higher risks

• Providing opportunities for patients and caregivers to obtain written and oral information before and after the procedure

22


Future research and development (1)

Emergency and recovery management

• Research which stakeholders are ”in” or “out” of stakeholder engagement and why?

• Development of citizen science projects to build radiological protection culture in the preparedness phase

• Challenges and opportunities for stakeholder engagement through the use of new information technologies

• Role of participation of local communities in the preparedness phase

• Inclusion of ethical considerations into emergency and recovery actions

Radon

• Action research on improving radon measurement and mitigation at local level with stakeholder engagement

• Further elaboration of training materials for, and together with, building professionals

• Potential of informal engagement in radon risk management23


Future research and development (2)

Medical field

• Develop open access sources of information on RP in the medical field to complete initial training of the health professionals who are not directly involved in medical procedure using ionizing radiations but may be occupationally exposed and/or interacting with patients

• Develop risk communication strategies and materials tailored to the needs of patients

• Further explore the needs and possibilities to engage patients in informed decision-making

Other

• Testing and validation of the novel methods used in ENGAGE (e.g. mapping formal and informal participation, or analysis of websites from a stakeholder engagement viewpoint) in other fields

• Further development of the ENGAGE knowledge base

• Analysis the impact of implementing ENGAGE recommendations

24


Thank you!

SAB members:

Mrs. Yeonhee Hah / Mr. Edward Lazo, OECD-NEA

Dr. Clara Carpeggiani, Italian National Research Council

Mrs. Ciara McMahon, EPA, Ireland, and ENSREG

Dr. Jason Chilvers, University of East Anglia

Mr. Igor Gogora, community Kalna nad Hronom, Slovakia

Mr. Yves L’hereux, ANCCLI, France

http://www.engage-concert.eu/

the engage project...catrinel turcanu, caroline schieber, nadja zeleznik, christiane pölzl-viol,...

Documents