Making Deliberation Count in DecisionMaking: Lessons from the GM Debate

1
Making Deliberation Count in Decision-Making
Lessons from the GM Debate

• Professor Judith Petts

2
The Debate

• GM Nation public debate summer 2003
• Context impact of GM food controversy on
  consumer market difficulties with introduction
  of precautionary principle in regulation
  sustained direct action by activists field-scale
  evaluations of GM crops on biodiversity
  international tensions over regulation of GM UK
  government concern about loss of trust
  formation of AEBC
• SoS July 2002 govt. committed to a genuine,
  balanced discussion and also listening to what
  people say

3
Steering Board Aim

• To promote an innovative and effective programme
  of public debate on issues around GM in
  agriculture and the environment, in the context
  of the possible commercial growing of GM crops in
  the UK. The public will frame the issues for
  debate. Through the debate, provide meaningful
  information to Government about the nature and
  spectrum of the publics views, particularly at
  grass roots level

4
Process

• Foundation Discussion workshops identify how
  lay public talk about issue resulted in
  production of stimulus materials
• Three Tiers of discussion meetings small number
  of large relatively high-profile events to large
  number of local grass-roots events
• Focus Groups the Narrow but Deep process
• Questionnaire mainly related to the Tier
  meetings
• Open call by organisers to receive correspondence

5
Debate or Deliberation?

• Debate discussion or argument
• Deliberation careful consideration with a view
  to a decision communication through dialogue
  which induces reflection through preferences
• To achieve deliberation need interaction between
  people, talk, open access to information, time
  for reflection, testing the validity of claims,
  respect for the views of others

6
Objectives-Led Process?

• Problems
• no real decision to be made from the process
• no options to weigh up
• no consensus nor recommendations asked for
• no clear agenda or purpose integrated across the
  various elements
• output did not feed directly into the decision
• This is not uncommon to consultation exercises

7
Responsive Process?

• Deliberative processes need to
• - be responsive to the framings of the public
• - be responsive to the demands of those taking
  part
• - be open to amendment
• - allow for interaction between scientific
  analysis and public debate
• - allow for science and options to be developed
  during and from a process not merely brought as
  expert evidence
• - how the process has been used in
  decision-making needs to be clear

8
Influence and Independence?

• Where science and evidence is contested it is
  essential that claims and expertise are open to
  questioning and testing
• This means mainstream and alternative views
• Participants need to be able to explore the
  veracity and validity of different views
• The role of the facilitators is paramout

9
Conclusion

• Bold and sincere attempt
• But not a deliberative process as the term is
  understood more like a quarrelsome debate
• Has it had any influence on the decision?
• If deliberative processes are seen not to impact
  on decisions participation fatigue will be
  evident
• Good deliberative processes require creative
  cookery each decision is unique the process
  (which should always use multiple methods) should
  be designed to match this.