Impact Assessment for a Sustainable Energy Future

Jean Hugé, Tom Waas & Gilbert Eggermont

Stockholm Spring Talks ‘Societal Approaches to Nuclear Waste Management’, May 3, 2011

This presentation

• Introduction• Outline• Sustainable development• Sustainable Energy• SD as a decision-making strategy• Impact assessment: theory & practice• Sustainability assessment for energy policy• Case study• Nuclear energy & sustainability• Conclusion

1. Introduction

• Energy issues are complex

• Current energy pathway is unsustainable (IEA, 2009)

• Decision-makers need guidance

• Implementation challenge?

-> What’s the potential of impact assessment for sustainable development?

• Impact assessment (IA): the process of identifying future consequences of a current or proposed action

2. Outline

• Design and application of IA in support of sustainable energy policy requires a:

o Conceptualisation of sustainable development (SD);o Conceptualisation of sustainable energy;o Conceptualisation of impact assessment for SD;o Practical application of IA in energy issues;

3. Sustainable development

• Numerous authors and documents suggest SD principles (a.o. WCED Rio 1992; Gasparatos, 2005; Gibson, 2005)

• Belgian Federal Planning Bureau’s SD principles -common groundo Global responsibilityo Integrationo Equityo Precautiono Participation

• To be useful, SD must be a strategy to achieve a desired future

• Principles are guiding rules of action to achieve that future

• While IA supports decision-makers in implementing these principles

4. Sustainable energy

• Tangible sub-definitions of SD

• Risk of -conscious- reductionism & re-shaping discourse

• Examples of definitions: o IEA 2010: balance between energy security, economic development &

environmental protectiono EU Green Paper on Energy 2006: sustainability, competitiveness & security

of supplyo Verbruggen 1997: conservation; priority to renewables; reduction of

environmental impacts; low vulnerability; no threats to international security;o Midilli et al. 2006: low environmental impacts, reliable supply of renewables;

decentralization & local solutionso Rosen, 2009: social component

• Yet general principles (slide 3) set interpretational limits

5. SD as a decision-making strategy

• Translating SD discourse into action

• How can SD be operationalized?• How can knowledge be structured?• How can SD exert an impact on decision-making?

➙Three challenges:

• Interpretation challenge• Information-structuring challenge• Influence challenge

6. IA: theory

• IA has various functions in decision-making: perspectives or discourses

• The information discourseo IA as a tool / process to generate information

• The deliberative discourseo IA as forum for debate & deliberation, creating new perspectives

• The attitude change discourseo ‘The effects of an IA procedure may well be that it will mainly benefit future

decisions, while having a more limited impact on the decisions which the impact assessment was meant to inform and influence’ (Nooteboom, 2007)

• The structuring discourseo IA helps to structure inherent as well as institutional complexity of current

societal challenges through its systematic approach.

6. IA: practice

• EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment)• SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment)• HIA (Health Impact Assessment)• RA (Risk Assessment)

• Sustainability Assessment (SA)

• But what’s in a name?

7. Sustainability assessment for energy policy

Institutional context

Adequate scope & proportionality

Continuous & iterative process Supporting decisions

Net benefits / avoid undesirable trade offs

Avoid irreversibility

Participation

TransparencySustainable process & procedure

SD risks facing the proposal

SD impacts of the proposal

Assess system; parts & linkagesHaving a holistic perspective

Participation

Precaution

Equity

Integration

Global responsibilityFostering SD objectives

Characteristics of an ideal SA approach in support of energy policy

7. Sustainability assessment for energy policy (cont’d)

• Generic framework, inspired by:

• Own research experience: o SEPIA project on energy future scenarios 2050o Sustainability Assessment Frameworks in Belgiumo Climate Change Adaptation & Mitigation Tools

• Literatureo Gibson, 2005o Bellagio Principles for Assessment, 1997o Pope, 2006o Belgian Federal Planning Bureau

8. Case: IA on nuclear waste management in Belgium

Case description

• NIRAS Agency commissioned a• participatory IA on nuclear waste management, realized through• NIRAS dialogues & inter-disciplinary conference and through a• Public Forum (cf. Consensus Conference, Danish Board of

Technology)• Which led to a Report informing NIRAS’ draft waste mgmt plan

Case selection

• Pre-SEA• Interpretational limits of SD and SA?

8. Case study appreciation on SA charachteristics

1Institutional context

1Adequate scope & proportionality

0-1Continuous & iterative process Supporting decisions

1Net benefits / avoid undesirable trade offs

2Avoid irreversibility

1Participation

1TransparencySustainable process & procedure

0-1SD risks facing the proposal

1SD impacts of the proposal

1Assess system; parts & linkagesHaving a holistic perspective

2Participation

1Precaution

1Equity

1Integration

1Global responsibilityFostering SD objectives

8. Case study: reflections

• Any SA is performed within a particular context

• Management of radio-active waste is part of the nuclear energy chain

• Can one call the exercise a SA in the light of the debate on the sustainability of nuclear energy?

• Transparency and critical stance are key

9. Nuclear energy & sustainability

• Good process design (cf. Bellagio principles for assessment) can tackle information structuring challenge and even influence challenge

• Interpretation challenge is far more ‘tricky’

• Pragmatism: Public Forum on nuclear waste management (Belgium): ‘100 years reversibility check’ as a pragmatic stance towards inter-generational equity

• Tangible principles leading to possible over-enthusiastic one-sided advocacy: avoided GHG emissions -> ‘nuclear energy supports and enables the world in its journey to a sustainable, safe and secure energy future’ (Duffey, 2005)?

9. Nuclear energy & sustainability (2)

• Trade offs (Adamantiades & Kessides, 2009): avoided GHG emissions yet quid safety? Disposal of waste? Proliferation?

• Nuclear energy is not sustainable (Verbruggen, 2008): next to safety and un-insurable risk, nuclear energy decision-making is technocratic and is not globally accessible

• Nuclear energy & renewables are opponents (Verbruggen, 2008)

• Long-term waste problem - major uncertainties

9. Nuclear energy & sustainability (3)

• Normativity pervades the interpretation of SD

• This does not necessarily lead to discard the conclusions of IA for SD on an aspect of the nuclear energy chain (as the (waste) challenges are here anyway and need to be dealt with)

• Yet it means that the ‘interpretation challenge’ -in this case the (un-)sustainability of nuclear energy- needs to be taken into account in any IA

• Answer is not straightforward as showed by the -Fukushima-influenced- intense societal debate

10. Conclusion (1)

• Impact assessment can turn sustainable development from a general concept into a decision-guiding strategy

• Sustainability assessment shows ideal-typical characteristics

• Sustainability assessment can help to respond to three challenges related to decision-support for sustainable energy policy

• Case study shows that the information-structuring challenge & the influence challenge are dealt with (although IA is a continuous learning process)

• The interpretational challenge -what is sustainability?- is tougher to answer

10. Conclusion (2)

• Yet the interpretational challenge should not be avoided and needs to be dealt with transparently..

• in order not to create a loss of credibility surrounding any attempt at improved decision-support for a sustainable energy future.

• IA is one of the processes that will contribute to the societal debate on nuclear energy..

• and it can take on the shape of both existing IA approaches (Risk Assessment, EIA and SEA w.r.t. plant siting) or ‘actual’ sustainability assessments.

11. References• Adamantiades, A. & Kessides, I. 2009. Nuclear power for sustainable development: current status and future prospects.

Energy Policy 37: 5119-5166.

• Duffey, R.B. 2005. Sustainable Futures Using Nuclear Energy. Progress in Nuclear Energy 47: 535-543.

• Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M. & Horner, M 2007. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 27: .

• Gibson, R.B. 2005. Sustainability Assessment – Criteria and Processes. Earthscan, United Kingdom.

• Hardi, P. & Zdan, T.. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. IISD, Canada.

• IEA 2008. World Energy Outlook 2009. International Energy Agency. www.worldenergyoutloook.org. Accessed August 3, 2010.

• Midilli, A., Dincer, I. & Ay, M. 2006. Green Energy Strategies for Sustainable Development. Energy Policy 34: 3623-3633.

• Nooteboom, S. 2007. Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: a complexity theory perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22: 3-16.

• Scrase, J.I. & Sheate, W.R. 2002. Integration and integrated approaches to environmental assessment: what do they mean for the environment? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 4: 275-294.

• Verbruggen, A. 1997. A Normative Structure for the European Energy Market. Energy Policy 25: 281-292.

• Verbruggen, A. 2008. Renewable and nuclear power: a common future? Energy Policy 36: 4036-4047.

12. Contact

Jean Hugé

Tom Waas

Prof. Gilbert Eggermont

Policy Research Centre for Sustainable Development

Vrije Universiteit Brussel

BELGIUM

Jean.Huge@vub.ac.be

Tom.Waas@vub.ac.be

www.vub.ac.be/APNA

www.steunpuntdo.be