The following is final assignment from a module on the policy making process.  It looks at the UK's policy for the management of higher hazard radioactive waste in England. Specifically it uses a couple of theoretical models to look at the implementation of the policy.  This was my first academic essay for about 25 years so please be gentle!

Policy implementation for the management of higher hazard radioactive waste in England

Management of radioactive waste is a challenging problem for many nations around the world and the disposal of higher hazard waste has proved an intractable issue, not least the UK.  Despite having one of the oldest nuclear industries in the world, the UK still doesn’t have a solution, with the amount of waste to be generated cleaning up legacy and operating nuclear facilities significant on a global scale. It is important to deal with this material in a way that the risks it presents is reduced to a level acceptable from legal and societal perspectives.

The policy “Implementing Geological Disposal – Working with Communities” (BEIS, 2018) captures the latest iteration of UK Government policy for the management of higher hazard radioactive waste in England. It defines the technical solution as disposal in a geological disposal facility (GDF). It also sets out the approach to securing a location for a GDF, seeking a community who will volunteer to host the facility. This particular aspect of the policy (the volunteerism process) is currently in the implementation phase. 

Of particular interest are the “Right of Withdrawal” for communities involved in the process and the “Test of Public Support”, which is a community referendum on the final decision on whether to host the facility. These two elements of the policy bring significant jeopardy to policy implementation, not least because the Test of Public Support will be taken after many millions of pounds of investment (current expenditure is £92M per year (NDA, 2022) and it will increase significantly once site investigations begin).

A community can exit the process at any time and success is dependent on the public voting in favour of a project that, based on previous UK experience will be controversial (e.g. protests against the East Northants Resource Management Facility for the very lowest levels of radioactive waste (BBC, 2011; Macalister, 2011)). Indeed, protests in areas that are participating in the process were established soon after interest was made public (Whitelam, 2022).

Analysis of the approach to policy implementation, by reference to well recognised models, is used here to investigate how the UK government intends to manage the inherent uncertainty associated with these elements of the policy.

Policy Implementation Structure

Two aspects of the current implementation activities are considered:

Part (A): the establishment of a framework for decision making (delivering: processes and systems; communications activities; programmes for delivery of the GDF; and business cases to secure funding).

Part (B): the use of the decision making framework by local community groups, at least one of which will need to volunteer to host the facility for the policy to be successful.

The extent to which the two aspects of implementation are complimentary or whether there are gaps and therefore risks to implementation will be assessed. Table 1 sets out the main actors involved in implementing the policy: 

Multi-level hybrid approach to implementation

It can be seen that the implementation actors are operating at multiple levels.  Central actors are responsible for establishing the framework for implementation (Part A) and for driving the process forward, whilst local actors are necessary for the “volunteerism” process to have effect (Part B). This is perhaps critical for a policy that is intended to deliver a piece of critical national infrastructure, whilst being inherently dependent on local decision making.

The implementation strategy follows similar lines, with “top down” and “bottom up” approaches (summarised in Sabatier, 1986) combined to form a hybrid model.  Part A is being delivered by NWS and NDA, working directly for Government. NWS has the sole mission of managing the UK’s radioactive waste, with implementation of this policy comprising over half of its expenditure (NDA, 2022[1]). Therefore, there is very strong alignment between the goals of NWS and this policy. Indeed, the policy defines NWS’s role making it a legal requirement, aligning with a key aspect of the top-down approach as described in Sabatier (1986, p23).

This contrasts with Part B, with implementation delivered at the local level and entirely dependent on a group of people within a community coming together of their own free will, to express an interest in participating in the process.  If this group decide to enter into the process they form a Community Partnership to represent a locality.  The Government has no direct control over this process, instead simply asking communities whether they are interested or not. Given the controversial nature of radioactive waste management, the goals of any given community could be in direct conflict with the intention of the policy, which aligns more with bottom-up approaches (see Sabatier, 1986, P32).  Whilst this may at first appear doomed to failure, many nuclear countries around the world have adopted this approach believing that it is the most likely route to local consent for a facility (IAEA, 2022).

The policy recognises the need for flexibility at the local level to achieve success, another aspect of bottom-up approaches.  This accommodates different administrative structures and local interests in communities that might express an interest (BEIS, 2018 Ch. 6). For example, areas with a history of nuclear industry activity may wish to maintain the industry in their areas, whilst other, non-nuclear,  communities may be interested in bringing a project to their area with a significant amount of investment and long term jobs.

Matland’s Conflict Ambiguity Model

Implementation aspects A and B also differ when considered under the lens of Matland’s Conflict Ambiguity Model (Matland, 1995).  Part A is firmly in the Administrative Implementation category: the goals of the policy are very clear (low ambiguity) and, as noted above, the mission of NWS is directly aligned to the goals of the policy (low conflict). Additionally, the UK Government is providing significant resources to support delivery of the policy.

For Part B, the goals of the policy are clear and the expectations on the partnerships are also clear (low ambiguity).  What differs is that the actors involved in implementing Part B, particularly the public, may have very different perspectives on the best outcome.  Central actors will be supportive and Community Partnerships are clearly open to the idea; however, the public will hold numerous perspectives on the benefits and disadvantages of hosting a GDF and consequently whether or not the development should go ahead. There is therefore the potential for high conflict, placing Part B in the Political Implementation category.

The public in an area of interest will have the opportunity to engage with the process through dialogue with the various central actors involved in the development of a GDF (mostly NWS and Regulators).  Dialogue is facilitated by the Community Partnership, who will be provided with suitable resources to enable these discussions and to undertake research to respond to questions from the public. However, the community holds significant power until late in the process, when the Test of Public Support will be undertaken, which presents a significant risk to policy implementation. A consideration of the Government's approach to managing this risk is provided below, by reference to Hudson et al’s (2019) concept of a Policy Support Programme.

Managing risk through policy support

In addition to the risk associated with the Test of Public Support, Community Partnerships retain a right to withdraw from the process until the Test of Public Support. A decision to exercise the right of withdrawal may be driven by any number of factors, including: public opinion; a lack of transparency; unclear benefits; or as a response to a nuclear incident elsewhere in the world.

NWS’s role has been described above as setting up the framework for decision-making, suggestive of a neutral and administrative position.  However, in practice, NWS has a critical role in managing the risk associated with the right of withdrawal and the Test of Public Support. NWS’s role can be considered against the key elements of a Hudson et al’s “policy support programme” concept, as shown in Table 2.

In “Community Guidance - How we will work with communities in England” (NWS, 2022a) NWS describe one aspect of their role as being “responsible for ensuring that communities receive information about the process to identify and select a site for a GDF”. In practice it is more active than this might suggest, indeed elsewhere they note that they will “will provide as much information as possible and aim to answer any questions” and, critically, that they are full participants in the Community Partnerships.

This emphasis on provision of information and responding to questions is intended to build support for a proposed location in the minds of the local community and make a positive case for the facility; emphasis on the economic benefits in information about the facility is high (NWS, 2022b).

This interplay of risks and benefits will only be managed through dialogue and trust.  What appears to be a technical infrastructure issue, is in fact a highly political societal issue; arguably, exactly what it should be given the nature of public debate on nuclear issues. It can be seen that the Government is putting significant and specifically targeted resources to increase the likelihood of success and as such, the implementation of the policy appears to be a good case study for Hudson et al’s Policy Support Programme model.

Conclusions

The UK Government is putting significant effort and resources into implementation of this critical policy. It is clear from the analysis that emphasis has been placed on relationship building rather than the building of the facility itself. This is intended to manage the risks of communities withdrawing from the process and is likely a response to learning from the failure of past efforts to develop a GDF.

We can also see from the analysis that implementation is being undertaken in a very structured way. The UK Government is deploying a hybrid strategy, ensuring that different aspects of implementation are being addressed at the appropriate level.  However, from Matland’s Conflict Ambiguity Model we can see that the central and local aspects of implementation are notably different.  This gap is bridged by NWS having a role in the Community Partnerships as well as their key central role. Additionally, NWS fulfils the role of a Policy Support Programme to further increase the likelihood of success. 

[1] NWS is the trading name of two organisations that have been brought together.  According to the NDA Business Plan the projected annual spend of the part of the organisation that manages lower hazard waste (LLWR Ltd) is £85M, compared to £92M for the management of higher activity waste and therefore implementation of this policy.

References

BBC (2011), Kings Cliffe radioactive site protesters lose challenge, BBC News, 3 November. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-15573178

Dept for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (2018), IMPLEMENTING GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL – WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES An updated framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-geological-disposal-working-with-communities-long-term-management-of-higher-activity-radioactive-waste

Dept for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), UK Government Investments (UKGI) and the Scottish Government, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Framework Document 2021. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/994092/20210526_FINAL_NDA_Framework_Document.pdf

Hudson, B., Hunter, D. and Peckham, S. (2019) 'Policy failure and the policy implementation gap: can policy support programs help?' Policy Design and Practice, 2(1): pp. 1–14.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2022), Communication and Stakeholder Involvement in Radioactive Waste Disposal, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NW-T-1.16, Vienna, IAEA. Available at: https://www.iaea.org/publications/13590/communication-and-stakeholder-involvement-in-radioactive-waste-disposal

Macalister T. (2011), Village loses high court challenge over radioactive waste, The Guardian, 3 November. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/03/kings-cliffe-high-court-radioactive-waste

Matland, R. E. (1995) ‘Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation’, in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2): pp. 145–174.

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) (2022), Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Business Plan 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025. Cumbria: NDA. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1062302/Business_Plan_2022-2025_220322.pdf

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) (2022a), Community Guidance - How we will work with communities in England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1069004/Community_Guidance_England.pdf?cv=1

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) (2022b) How a GDF can benefit a community – 2022. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xvnl3aYQWI (Accessed: Oct 2022)

Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, (2020), Radioactive Waste Management Business Plan 2020-23. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916521/RWM_Business_Plan_2020_23_Annex.pdf

Sabatier, P. (1986) ‘Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis’, in Journal of Public Policy, 6(1): pp. 21-48

Whitelam P. (2022), Lincolnshire nuclear waste dump campaigners refuse to join new consultation group, Lincolnshire Live, 1 July. Available at: https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/lincolnshire-nuclear-waste-dump-campaigners-7279505