From a ‘hard nuclear state’ towards a ‘soft nuclear repository state’ - Participation, Co-design, Learning, and Adaptation by the German ‘Repository Site Selection Act’?

After over 70 years of generating nuclear power, several countries worldwide are confronted with its legacy: no deep geological disposal is in operation anywhere in the world. The problem of how to deal with highly radioactive waste (HRW) is extremely complex and can be characterized as a wicked problem. In the past, German policy actors tried to deal with complexity by resorting to the so-called decide-announce-defend (DAD) strategy. Jungk (1977) coined the expression of a ‘hard nuclear state’ to subsume how the state enforced its will and decisions on the general population. This conduct caused conflicts, distrust in agencies, and blockage, especially around the proposed Gorleben site for a nuclear waste repository, and ended up increasing the problem’s complexity. After Germany’s decision in 2011 to phase out nuclear power by 2022, the German parliament shaped a new governance architecture: the ‘Repository Site Selection Act’ in 2013 which was amended in 2017 (RSS-Act) as well as several committees of enquiry and expert commissions to deal with HRW. The RSS-Act is highly ambitious: It states an ongoing participatory process of adaptation and learning in terms of keeping the siting process open and reversible, following scientific advances. Especially §5 is highly challenging, as it not only demands a fundamental dialogue between regulator, operator, and the public but also defines citizens as “co-designers” of the participation process. A shift becomes apparent in the search process for a nuclear waste repository, indicating a transition from the ‘hard nuclear state’ towards a ‘soft nuclear repository state’ that is distinguished by an integrative nuclear waste governance. In a first step, we draw on deliberative and participatory theories of democracy to characterize the ‘soft nuclear repository state’ and its role in a socially acceptable site selection process. We justify this selection by the objective formulated in §1 of the RSS-Act. In a second step, we position the ‘soft nuclear repository state’ by discussing three concepts, based on the notions of participation, co-design, learning, and adaptation: Partzsch’s ‘Power With/To/Over’ (2015), Fung’s ‘Democracy Cube’ (2006) and ‘The Established and the Outsiders’ by Elias and Scotson (1965). By combining elements from the aforementioned concepts we aim to provide a definition of the ‘soft nuclear repository state’, discuss its complexity, discrepancies with the RSS-Act, and policy implications for the ongoing participatory search process for a nuclear waste repository in Germany. The discussion of the ‘soft nuclear repository state’ will be complemented by an evaluation of empirical data from participatory observations of different public events in the context of the repository site selection process. Here the authors detected manifest discrepancies and several gaps regarding the RSS-Act, e.g. definition of what is “good” participation; definition of breakpoints; definition concerning who is expected to “learn” in this learning process and how; regarding citizens who have hardly margin for maneuver for co-designing the siting and HRW-management process. Filling those gaps can trigger a new governance architecture that includes other forms of decision-making processes and new democratic understandings to face complexity.