Nuclear Debate Ends in Mistrust: Lessons Learned from a Complex Democratic Exercise

What was the objective of the public debate on nuclear energy in France?

On the CNDP website, the objective is clear: "The relaunch of nuclear energy in France is a major democratic choice that engages society for decades to come. Everyone has the right to be fully informed and to participate in the elaboration of decisions on this subject, which the CNDP guarantees". Initially, the debate was supposed to evaluate four options: (i) not to build new nuclear reactors in France; (ii) to use a nuclear reactor technology alternative to the EPR2; (iii) to realize only one pair of EPRs; and (iv) to find another site than Penly. This debate was finally supposed to nourish the parliamentary debate on the Energy-Climate Programming Law expected in the second semester.

What means were put in place to allow this participation?

The debate team first made the choice of a significant investment in the communication aspect. On the CNDP website, there is a lot of information on both the methodology of the debate and the subject under discussion. Explanatory videos were designed by specialized media partners, newsletters were sent to Internet users, social media campaigns were invested in, all with the aim of reaching a large number of varied audiences.

On the purely participatory aspect, a series of meetings was proposed, accessible in person or online. It was also possible to participate on a digital platform for citizen participation, which offered a question-and-answer module on which 253 participants interacted, and a discussion forum on which 1,100 participants attended. Finally, a panel of 25 French citizens made proposals on the climate and geopolitical uncertainty related to the debate.

How did this debate ultimately go wrong?

The public debate on the construction of new EPRs has been suspended since early February: "its organizers felt short-circuited by the calendar of the Elysée and the government. Yet it was supposed to be a model of democratic exercise," according to France Info. In the "issues of the debate" section of its website, the CNDP clearly explained the conditions under which the debate would be useful: "Does the debate intervene before the decision is made? How to avoid the debate being reduced to a battle of experts? What can we expect from this public debate?" Unfortunately, none of these preliminary questions have truly received a satisfactory answer in recent months. The question of the priority of the debate over the decision is fundamental because it conditions the ability of the debate to influence political decision-making. "This seems obvious but it is not uncommon for this condition not to be respected within the framework of a public debate". In the case of the nuclear energy debate, the Senate intervened in the heart of the debate, by removing the objective of reducing the share of nuclear energy in electricity production to 50% by 2035. Because of this, the debate did not achieve its objective of nourishing the parliamentary debate on the Energy-Climate Programming Law expected in the second semester of 2023.

The question of the risk of the battle of experts also missed its target. Despite a significant amount of content and meetings broadcast on the site, one gets lost. To try to make up for its shortcomings on this complex subject, the average citizen must spend several hours of training on the subject and become aware of each issue through recordings of public meetings, each lasting more than two hours. The digital platform seems to be designed only to ensure the monitoring of these long meetings. Moreover, the level of knowledge of the participants is already very high. "Is there a thermocline favored by the discharge of warmer waters? What are the consequences for phytoplankton and zooplankton? Instead of dumping residual warm water into the sea, why not use it to heat greenhouses, buildings, swimming pools...?" etc.. In short, not only is the subject complex and technical, but the participation tools are intimidating and the "beginner's version" of the consultation path is non-existent.

Finally, on the question of what could be expected from this debate, if the objective of influencing parliamentary work has been stated, more concrete answers are expected for the coming months. Indeed, the methodology for processing and analyzing data, the transparency of the restitution, and its popularization among the media for a wider audience will be necessary to help the CNDP fulfill its mission of "enabling everyone to weigh in on political projects." At this stage, on the CNDP website, we can only read "The debate team now has two months to process all the contributions and publish its report. EDF and RTE will then have three months to publish their decision and their responses to the recommendations of the Commission in charge of the debate." This last step will be essential to justify the usefulness of the means invested and to demonstrate recognition to all participants, no matter how expert they may be.

What lessons can we learn from this?

The three questions raised by the CNDP on the usefulness of a public debate: (i) the priority of the debate over the decision, (ii) the need to avoid the battle of experts, and (iii) the expected impact of the debate, are particularly interesting and useful for any institution planning to launch a citizen participation device. Being able to clearly answer these questions before embarking on a process is not always easy. However, it is a necessary condition for the success of a citizen consultation.

Regarding the experience of participants, especially in digital citizen platforms, it is essential, when the subject is complex and/or sensitive, to promote a highly structured path, allowing anyone to participate according to their means, regardless of their level of knowledge, with the aim of reaching a large and diverse audience. Example: a public questionnaire to test participants' knowledge, a training path integrated into the platform to access more open levels of participation, etc...

Finally, whether it is a simple local citizen consultation or a complex national public debate, the sincerity of political will is probably the greatest factor in its success. Thus, in the absence of alignment of the various powers in place on the interest of a public debate, it will be difficult to allocate the necessary time for the proper conduct of exchanges and impossible to give it weight in political decision-making.

The question of the risk of the battle of experts also missed its target. Despite a significant amount of content and meetings broadcast on the site, one gets lost. To try to make up for its shortcomings on this complex subject, the average citizen must spend several hours of training on the subject and become aware of each issue through recordings of public meetings, each lasting more than two hours. The digital platform seems to be designed only to ensure the monitoring of these long meetings. Moreover, the level of knowledge of the participants is already very high. "Is there a thermocline favored by the discharge of warmer waters? What are the consequences for phytoplankton and zooplankton? Instead of dumping residual warm water into the sea, why not use it to heat greenhouses, buildings, swimming pools...?" etc.. In short, not only is the subject complex and technical, but the participation tools are intimidating and the "beginner's version" of the consultation path is non-existent.

Finally, on the question of what could be expected from this debate, if the objective of influencing parliamentary work has been stated, more concrete answers are expected for the coming months. Indeed, the methodology for processing and analyzing data, the transparency of the restitution, and its popularization among the media for a wider audience will be necessary to help the CNDP fulfill its mission of "enabling everyone to weigh in on political projects." At this stage, on the CNDP website, we can only read "The debate team now has two months to process all the contributions and publish its report. EDF and RTE will then have three months to publish their decision and their responses to the recommendations of the Commission in charge of the debate." This last step will be essential to justify the usefulness of the means invested and to demonstrate recognition to all participants, no matter how expert they may be.

What lessons can we learn from this?

The three questions raised by the CNDP on the usefulness of a public debate: (i) the priority of the debate over the decision, (ii) the need to avoid the battle of experts, and (iii) the expected impact of the debate, are particularly interesting and useful for any institution planning to launch a citizen participation device. Being able to clearly answer these questions before embarking on a process is not always easy. However, it is a necessary condition for the success of a citizen consultation.

Regarding the experience of participants, especially in digital citizen platforms, it is essential, when the subject is complex and/or sensitive, to promote a highly structured path, allowing anyone to participate according to their means, regardless of their level of knowledge, with the aim of reaching a large and diverse audience. Example: a public questionnaire to test participants' knowledge, a training path integrated into the platform to access more open levels of participation, etc...

Finally, whether it is a simple local citizen consultation or a complex national public debate, the sincerity of political will is probably the greatest factor in its success. Thus, in the absence of alignment of the various powers in place on the interest of a public debate, it will be difficult to allocate the necessary time for the proper conduct of exchanges and impossible to give it weight in political decision-making.