Page - 187 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

why new concepts of governance (e.g. Grande 2012; Hoppe 2010) put emphasis on the process and institutional structure as well as design of decision-making. In nuclear waste governance, which is a complex social and technological problem (Hocke & Grunwald 2009), participation1 is needed to implement a robust decision-making process with the probable outcome of a decision which might reach acceptability2. The complexity of the problem rests upon technical and social issues that are strongly intertwined. Not only security and safety standards are important, but also fairness – distributive, procedural and outcome (Krütli et al. 2012). In this paper I will analyze how participation is currently understood in nuclear waste governance and what kind of challenges develop due to the implementation of more participatory elements in democratic decision-making. 2. Participation in Nuclear Waste Governance in Germany In the past, repository siting procedures in representative democracies often failed because decision-making processes were too focused on technical issues and decisions were made top- down without considering concerns of the interested public (Hocke & Kallenbach-Herbert 2015; Krütli et al. 2010; Mackerron & Berkhout 2011). In the long run, this led to conflict and consolidated contest from various citizens’ groups and the broader public against government activities regarding all issues of nuclear energy (Hocke & Kallenbach-Herbert 2015; Hocke & Renn 2011). After the severe Fukushima accident (in March 2011), protests against nuclear energy revitalized and forced government action which resulted in the German resolution to phase-out nuclear energy in June 2011. This led to a window of opportunity in nuclear waste governance (Brunnengräber et al. 2014) which culminated in the StandAG3 (2014 and revised version 2017) and the Commission for the Disposal of High-Level-Waste4 (2014-2016). The repository site selection procedure for a nuclear waste disposal is in so far an outstanding participation process in Germany as there has not been any such in the past which reached so far into the future and is so challenging regarding the socio-technical complexity and wickedness. Participation is then often understood as a tool to fulfill predetermined sectional objectives. In other words, the aim is already clear, for instance to build a specific infrastructure in one location, and participation is only a mean to reach this aim without openness for alternative proposals. Here, participation becomes an instrument of a new mode of decision- making. This instrumentalisation of participatory elements is often criticized by participation advocates (e.g. Dalton 2014; Di Nucci et al. 2017; Lehtonen 2010). They argue for the recognition of nationalistic opinions. 1 There is no common understanding of participation in the literature, therefore I base my argumentation on an understanding of participation as an active involvement of people concerned and those potentially concerned as well as the interested public. Their interests are included into decision-making processes through participatory formats (see also Schaal and Ritzi 2012; van Deth 2009). 2 Acceptability means that legitimate democratic decisions are being accepted, although not all preferences and interests are fulfilled or satisfied (Grunwald 2005). 3 StandAG (Standortauswahlgesetz – Gesetz zur Suche und Auswahl eines Standortes für ein Endlager für hochradioaktive Abfälle) is the German Site Selection Act for a High-Level-Waste repository. 4 The Commission for the Disposal of High-Level-Waste developed criteria and recommendations for the site selection process and reviewed the Site Selection Act. 187