Abstract
Following a nuclear accident, a major dilemma for affected people is whether to stay or leave the affected area, or, for those who have been evacuated, whether or not to return to the decontaminated zones. Populations who have to make such decisions have to consider many parameters, one of which is the radiological situation. Feedback from Chernobyl and Fukushima has demonstrated that involvement and empowerment of the affected population is a way to provide them with the necessary elements to make informed decisions and, if they decide to return to decontaminated areas, to minimise exposure by contributing to the development of a prudent attitude and vigilance towards exposure. However, involving stakeholders in postaccident management raises the question of the role of experts and public authorities in supporting the inhabitants who have to make decisions about their future. Based on experiences in Chernobyl and Fukushima, this paper will discuss various principles that have to be taken into account by experts and public authorities about their role and position when dealing with stakeholders in a postaccident recovery process.
1. Introduction
Following the accident in Chernobyl, several initiatives, such as the ETHOS and CORE projects in Belarus (Lochard, 2007), were launched to learn lessons and to find ways to respond to the challenges of the long-term rehabilitation of living conditions in contaminated territories. Taking advantage of these experiences, the International Commission on Radiological Protection and the non-governmental organisation ‘Radiation Safety Forum Japan’ took the initiative to organise a series of dialogue meetings with all concerned parties in Fukushima Prefecture to identify the problems and challenges of the rehabilitation of living conditions in the long-term affected territories. Twelve dialogue seminars were organised in Japan between 2011 and 2015 (ICRP, 2011; Tanigawa et al., 2016), each of which focused on a specific topic such as foodstuff controls, the role of measurements, education of children, value of tradition and culture, etc.
Beyond supporting the dialogue initiative and testifying of their experience in Belarus, both the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety and the Centre d’Etude sur l’Evaluation de la Protection dans le Domaine du Nucléaire performed an analysis to identify lessons to be learnt, particularly with respect to the role of experts in a postaccident recovery situation. This work was undertaken in cooperation with Japanese stakeholders and experts involved in the dialogue seminars in Fukushima Prefecture. This paper presents the main conclusions of this analysis, which focused on four different aspects:
the human dimension of the postaccident situation; the engagement of stakeholders: population, experts, and authorities; the co-expertise process; and the development of a practical radiation protection culture.
2. The human dimension of a nuclear accident
The non-medical human consequences of the accident in Fukushima are quite similar to those observed in Chernobyl, namely:
a loss of confidence in the authorities and in experts from governmental organisations; strong concern about health, particularly children’s health; a feeling of helplessness and abandonment by authorities and, more generally, by the rest of the country; and a loss of control in daily life: the irruption of radioactivity is a rupture that deeply upsets the relation of man with himself, others, and the environment.
Furthermore, the technical answer to improve the radiological situation (decontamination, travel bans and other restrictions, foodstuff controls, etc.) has indirect effects that isolate affected people from their day-to-day environment. The accident has a tremendous emotional and social impact that challenges people’s lifestyles and their relationships with others (i.e. neighbours, family).
As a consequence of these drastic changes in the daily life of inhabitants, the main key issues can be summarised in two simple questions:
Should I continue to live in this contaminated territory or should I leave? If I am an evacuee, should I return to my home or not?
This human dimension has to be taken into account by experts as it is a key point to be able to build a bond with the affected population based on trust and mutual confidence.
3. The engagement of stakeholders: population, experts, and authorities
When comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima contexts relative to the engagement of stakeholders, the following differences were noticed.
In Belarus, the stakeholder involvement was mainly driven by experts from abroad. National and local authorities allowed the implementation of projects without the direct involvement of national experts, whereas local people asked for clear commitment from the experts from the perspective of improving the local situation. From this starting point, a network of ‘active villagers’ emerged to deal with ‘concrete’ issues, such as children’s health, safe production, education of children, measurements, etc. Subsequently, local professionals and experts from Belarus joined the network. In Fukushima, local citizens organised themselves to initiate ‘concrete’ actions (e.g. monitoring activities or foodstuff controls) and to ask for the support of local, national, and international experts. The experts who supported and continue to support the affected people have different backgrounds and committed themselves personally. They clearly took the position of being ‘at the service’ of local people, rather than ‘working for’ the population. Some lessons can be learnt from the experience of the Japanese experts who engaged themselves to face the situation and its complexity. First, affected people need reliable and accessible information very rapidly. A major difficulty was talking about the effects and risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation, given the uncertainties and limits of knowledge. Local people expect experts to be able to distinguish between science and judgements, and, above all, to respect the individual’s values and choices without trying to influence them in their choices. Consequently, it is important that experts do not easily conclude that the situation is safe, and that they promote dialogues rather than lectures. Japanese experts also highlighted the importance of cooperation with local professionals involved in the management of the situation in terms of education, health, and administration. Therefore, experts and scientists need to understand that, although radiation protection is necessary (ICRP, 2009), it cannot rule people's lives. It must be at the service of individuals and the community.
4. The co-expertise process
The process of co-expertise emerged following the accident in Chernobyl. Experiences in Belarus have shown the need to move from explanation of the situation (to affected people) to concrete and measurable actions aimed at improving the situation. In order to reach this objective, the following points have to be considered:
the need to establish places for dialogue, allowing experts to listen to the questions and concerns, but also the expectations, wishes, and desires of those affected; the need to perform assessments, such as environmental surveys, jointly by locals and experts; the need to implement projects rapidly to address the problems identified at individual and community levels, with the support of local professionals, experts, and authorities; and the evaluation and dissemination of results.
Following the Fukushima accident, a few communities gradually engaged themselves in the implementation of ‘concrete’ projects in a similar way to Belarus, but with a large difference due to new technologies regarding the means for measurement to characterise the radiological situation, and the role of social media to share the information. From their experience, Japanese experts highlighted some key points.
Measurement and dialogue are important to restore confidence. However, scientific explanations and demonstrations cannot, in themselves, restore trust between the affected people and the experts. Returning regularly to listen to and interact with people, and share experiences and feelings, is crucial. The use of a common language, the need for the long-term commitment of experts, and the implementation of action in the long term are absolute necessities.
Furthermore, lessons learned throughout the process must be shared to favour emulation among communities. Finally, financial support from local and national authorities is needed to generalise these types of actions and ensure their sustainability.
5. The development of A practical radiological protection culture
The process of co-expertise, as discussed above, leads to the promotion of a ‘practical radiological protection culture’ within the affected communities, as was observed first in Belarus and then in affected territories in Fukushima Prefecture. This protection culture can be defined as the knowledge and skills that enable affected populations to make choices and to behave wisely in situations involving exposure to ionising radiation. It emerges when people have good vision and understand when, where, and how they are exposed, and what they can do to protect themselves and their relatives. Obviously, in this process, the access to measurements by people with adapted devices is a crucial point. From a more general point of view, this culture gradually allows people to interpret the results of different types of measurements, such as ambient levels, external and internal doses, contamination of products, etc. For example, the development of personal dosimeters just after the Fukushima accident, which enabled the easy provision of exposure measurements on an hourly or daily basis, was a key point in the appropriation process of the practical radiological protection culture.
In terms of radiation protection, this culture allows people to interpret the results of different types of measurements, to orient themselves in relation to radioactivity in daily life, and to make their own decisions and take appropriate actions. From a more global point of view, the measurements are a tool that can be used to improve the quality of life of populations.
The appropriation process of the practical radiation culture in Fukushima was very similar to that in Belarus, but was implemented much faster.
6. Conclusion
The human dimensions in Chernobyl and Fukushima, as defined in the present paper, are quite similar. The main effects are the loss of control of the situation by inhabitants of the affected regions, and discrimination against them. Addressing this human dimension requires the autonomy and dignity of affected communities to be respected.
As far as stakeholder engagement is concerned, experiences in Fukushima and Chernobyl have shown that the role of experts and scientists in the postaccident recovery situation is delicate as radiation protection itself cannot rule people’s lives. Therefore, this role should be to serve people and communities, with the final aim being to help people to make their own decisions.
A consequence of stakeholder engagement is the emergence of the co-expertise process, which relies on: establishment of places for dialogue, measurements, and assessment of the situation conducted jointly by local actors and experts; implementation of projects to address the problems identified by the communities; and evaluation and dissemination of results by all means, including social networks.
Finally, experience in Fukushima has confirmed that the co-expertise process, as observed in Belarus, is very effective to develop a practical radioprotection culture among the affected people, progressively allowing them to interpret the results of measurements, build their own benchmarks against radioactivity in daily life, and make their own decisions and protect themselves. In this approach, access to individual measurements by affected people is a key point.