R. Macfarlane
Ronald Macfarlane is the Head of the Consumer Information and Documentation Centre of the International Organization of Consumers Unions, Office for Asia and the Pacific, Penang, Malaysia.
Participation: A need and a right
Acceptable and appropriate solutions
Barriers to participation
Facilitating participation
Consumer organizations
Overcoming barriers
Conclusion
References
Amina and Alex were enjoying their lunch when something caught their attention: that man in white overalls was not the cook. He was holding a sprayer and dusting pesticides along the edge of the floor. They didn't want to have cockroaches as guests on the dinner table, but a dose of pesticides instead was no more appetizing.
"Hey, man, don't you know that you're not supposed to spray around food?""Just doing my job, miss. Nothing to worry about. "
The owner of the coffee shop was not much help either - "Public Health Department rules!"
"Typical incompetent government!" Amina said to Alex.
In this food safety situation, many people are involved. First, the safety of the consumer is a primary concern of the Public Health Department. To make sure that this is achieved, both the restaurant owner or manager and the pesticide applier must cooperate in assuring that health objectives are met. The safety of the consumer also depends on proper pest management methods. Those involved in training and the pest control company have a role here. The pesticide company is interested in having its products used safely as well. There is also the issue of whether or hot the pesticide should be used at all. The regulatory authorities, the pesticide company, research institutes and environmental and health advocates all have an interest in this question.
These people, sometimes called stakeholders or interested parties, are all affected in one manner or another by decisions made with regard to the safe use of pesticides. This is but one example of the complexity of issues arid number of people included in food safety.
Food is a basic need and all consumers want enough food of good quality. It is only natural that they want to make sure that governments and suppliers are working in their best interests. Even if government officials and industry experts in food control have consumer protection as their goal, the consumer wants to have a role.
Most people acknowledge the right of citizens to be consulted on matters that affect them. The United Nations' Universal declaration of human rights states in Article 21 that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his or her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives (Levin, 1981), Democracy is much more than periodic elections; it is active participation.
The United Nations' Guidelines for consumer protection reinforce the right to participate. In its general principles, the document states that consumer groups should be free to form. These groups should be given opportunities to present their views in the decision-making process (United Nations, 1986). The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) in its report Our common future concluded that sustainable development can only be achieved with a political system that allows effective participation in decision-making.
Before looking at structures that can facilitate participation in the context of food quality and safety, one should consider why participation is desirable and necessary. Most decisions regarding food safety need to balance costs with benefits, and this always involves value judgements. Take, for example, food additives or pesticide residues: how safe is safe? An amount that one person may consider to be acceptable may be thought much too risky by another. The perception of risk does not always fit the statistical evidence. For example, many consumers are more worried about pesticide residues in food than about microbes in food. Yet microbes in food, according to the scientific data available, actually cause more sickness and deaths than pesticides in food.
In the end, who decides what is an acceptable risk for society? All sectors of society must be involved in the decision-making process. This will help everyone to understand better the compromises that are needed. A person who has been actively involved in the decision-making and whose concerns have been addressed during the process will have a stake in the results and will support them. The final decision will be acceptable to a wider range of people, as it is more likely to match society's overall values.
Participation can foster more appropriate solutions. When all actors or stakeholders are involved, each can provide his or her own perspective, and solutions can be evaluated to see if they effectively address all concerns. The simplest solution that truly addresses the problem, rather than the perception of the problem by a small group of people, can then be adopted. A wide range of participation also allows for an interdisciplinary approach to a problem. If used well, this should result in a more comprehensive approach and prevent a situation in which a solution just creates another problem (Khor, 1981).
Once a person's world was limited to the land around the village that could be reached in a day's walk, h those times, the village meeting served as an effective forum for participation and consensus-building. Now that a person's world is the whole planet, with people and goods going almost everywhere within hours by plane and global communication being instantaneous, new structures need to be created to replace the village meeting as a forum for participation.
Many levels of participation, ranging from non-participation to full citizen control, have been described (Renouf, 1993); these are illustrated in the accompanying figure.
What prevents full citizen control? One constraint is that the structures to deal with food safety matters may be inadequate. If structures and processes do not take into consideration the differences between ordinary citizens and the resource-rich industry and professional associations, it is difficult for consumers or those representing their interests to take part in the process adequately. Consumers' and citizens' groups usually have few resources and often lack the necessary specialized knowledge to comment on specific details being debated. In many participatory processes it is assumed that consumers can be treated just the same as any other interest group such as an industry or professional association (Sylvan, 1993).
Arnstein's ladder of participation - Echelle de participation d'Arnstein - Escala de participación de Arnstein
Source: Renouf, 1993
Lack of resources and the costs of participating are barriers to consumer involvement. The simple acquisition of information may be prohibitively expensive to some groups. Many consumer groups are constrained by lack of staff and often they cannot afford to retain those with highly specialized skills. If participation requires travel, this is an additional cost which many cannot afford. Insofar as adequate resources can be used to overcome many other barriers, financial constraints can be seen as the major limitation of effective integration of the consumer interest.
To achieve participation, the public must perceive the matter to be relevant. Action will not be taken on an issue unless it is seen as important in one's life. A local issue directly affecting day-to-day life may mobilize a large portion of a community. However, other issues, even if important, will rarely get much response even when the opportunity to have a voice exists. Some reasons for this are that the consumer
· may not realize the implications of the issue;
· may feel powerless to change the situation;
· may not have the time to be involved;
· may have different priorities.
Tokenism can also be a problem. The quality of participation can vary greatly even when the structures are in place. Although public meetings are held and comments solicited, in the end the view of the consumer may not really affect the final outcome. Participation may take place, but be ineffective. The structures may be used only as a facade.
Lack of trust also inhibits participation in decisions about food safety. The suspicious attitude of consumer groups towards industry and government exists for various reasons. Industry is seen primarily as being motivated by profit. Violations of voluntary codes, continued non-compliance with legal requirements and bending the law to its limit, even if done by only a few, adversely affect the image of all industry. With the increased public attention about the environment and health there may be full exploitation of the consumer's concerns. A product may have "no added sugar" but lots of honey. A product may be "sweetened with honey" but with lots of sugar as well. Poor working conditions and environmental pollution also tar the image of companies.
Slack enforcement will always be the Achilles' heel of governments, but the closeness with which they deal with industry also gives rise to suspicion. Although governments often lack the resources and expertise of industry, reliance on the industrial sector for the evaluation of proposals inhibits the independence of the government sector in the eyes of consumers.
Useful dialogue can only exist if there is respect for the other's views. Differences of opinion often arise from different perspectives and assumptions, not scientific fact. Industry and government must be willing to accept the validity of views contrary to theirs. While most national consumer organizations believe in dialogue, there are some groups that will see any accommodation or compromise as a sell-out. Organizations that are willing to sit at the same table as government and industry are often shunned by others. In addition, there has recently been a proliferation of groups that present themselves as citizens' groups although they actually espouse the industry position. Since organizations do not always agree, their views are often discounted as not representative. In the end, the consumer faced with conflicting positions is only confounded and the consumer interest lost.
Conflicting messages by different groups create additional problems. Most societies today are not homogeneous. Even among groups that represent the citizen's interest, there are differences of opinion. Consumers are faced with contradictory messages from advertising, the media and industry, government or consumer representatives.
Low literacy skills within a population are another type of barrier to participation. It is unfortunate that many national schemes for consumer education or consumer participation in decision-making assume that the consumer is literate. Even if the consumer can read, the language used is often too specialized to be easily understood. Audiovisual technology, when available, and traditional tools of communication that have been used successfully to pass on knowledge for generations must be incorporated into structures.
Language differences can be another type of barrier. Many countries are multilingual, and the language of government and business may not be the usual language of a large number of people. Consumer information and scientific and technical documentation may not be available in the local language. This greatly limits the access to information and the effective participation of the people.
There are many structures for participation which have evolved from different historical and cultural contexts. They can be divided into two major classes: formal and informal. Formal procedures are often mandated by law or regulation. Informal ones are those that follow certain customs or unstated policies, or those that occur because of personal factors. Participation can of course take place at both the policy-making and implementation stages (Korten and Quizon, 1991).
Formal procedures
Formal structures are varied; they include public meetings, advisory bodies, official gazettes and appeal processes. Normally public meetings are called for review and comment on a proposal. The meeting is announced in the news media. Material describing the proposal is made available to those who request it. Comments are usually requested in writing, even if they are to be presented orally at the meeting.
Public meetings work well when the issue is a local concern or an emotionally charged, well-publicized matter. These meetings are unlikely to attract large numbers of people on very specific or technical proposals. They do allow for both sides to hear each other, and can encourage a consensus.
Another similar approach is the "public comment period". Usually, after an official publication or announcement of a proposal, interested parties can provide a response within a certain period of time. After the close of the comment period, the regulatory body will review the comments and incorporate changes to reflect them. It may also publish reasons for not acting on certain suggestions.
A comment period, if well publicized, is an effective means of getting response from a large number of people. However, it is not interactive. Since it is the role of the bureaucracy to make final judgements, an innovative solution may often be missed. A comment period can be useful in gauging the acceptability of a proposal, and if no consensus is found, an additional consultative process can be started.
Advisory bodies are another source for obtaining different views. An advisory body is usually made up of experts and representatives from different interest groups. It can be ad hoc, with members chosen for a specific issue, or it can be a standing body with a long-term mandate.
The main strength of an advisory body is that it facilitates an exchange of ideas and can generate innovative approaches. However, the make-up of such a group needs to be well balanced to ensure that it is truly representative and not biased. This approach is very useful when technical matters are being addressed. Since the body is only advisory in nature, its effectiveness will be hampered if the recommendations made are routinely ignored.
Stakeholder round tables are expected to draft actual proposals rather than just provide advice or recommendations. The aim is to achieve a consensus proposal which will be acceptable to all parties. Since this approach is time-consuming and costly for the sponsor of the round table, it is normally used for major policy matters only. If true participation of all stakeholders is assured and there is willingness to arrive at a compromise, this is an excellent way to develop a genuinely representative solution.
Another process is an appeal procedure by which a person or group who believes that his, her or their rights have been breached or that due process has not taken place can apply to the courts for a legal ruling. This approach is very expensive and can lead to long delays. Given its adversarial nature, it frequently does not result in creative solutions to the problem. This approach has often been taken in the United States, where industry and citizens' groups will often bring a government agency to court, with one claiming the rules are too strict, the other too lax. To overcome this, several United States agencies have moved towards negotiated rule-making. This is similar to the round-table approach described above.
A referendum allows the electorate to voice opinions on an issue or proposal. Citizens are given a choice of options. However, since they are not necessarily involved in the development of these options, it may happen that none of the proposals is optimal. A drawback of this approach is the difficulty of ensuring that all voters are well informed and truly understand the question posed. Another is that unless there is full participation, the results may not be truly representative.
Polls can be used to gauge the range of opinions and degree of support for different viewpoints on certain issues. Governments may use polls to guide their actions based on popularity, but these have the same weakness as referenda. This may be especially true if the issue of concern is not at the forefront of public debate at the time the poll is taken.
Informal procedures
Informal approaches include circulation of materials for comments and arranging meetings and one-to-one discussions. The main difference between formal and informal procedures is that the latter are not set out in policy or required by law. They are dependent on the initiative of individuals. Informal approaches work best where there is trust and a long-term association between the parties involved. They can be used to mediate disputes. Their biggest weakness is that they can be seen as favouring a select group unless a particular effort is made to approach all stakeholders.
To be successful, any scheme, whether formal or informal, must involve all the major stakeholders. The ideal approach will differ depending on the size of the country, cultural expectations and legal structures. Because of the greater transparency and accountability of formal procedures, these are usually preferred by consumer advocates as means to influence policy-making.
Examining a situation and identifying the stakeholders is relatively easy. Choosing the appropriate representative for the consumer can be challenging. Given the complexity of modern society and the specialization that has occurred, citizens' groups are an effective means of integrating the consumer interest into food control. They provide a nucleus of people with ties to the community who can develop the expertise for more effective participation. At the local and national levels, these groups can educate consumers, investigate problems, monitor compliance to standards and advocate change on behalf of the citizen. Regional and international organizations provide a forum for sharing experiences, permit multiplier effects and can mobilize international campaigns. When appropriate they can also advocate the consumer interest in the international arena.
There are often many groups that would be interested in participating. Which of these is the best or the most representative? An important criterion is the independence of the organization from special interests. In particular, funding sources should be determined as having no influence on the views and actions of the organization. Activities of the organization should promote and protect consumer rights, provide education and benefit consumers as a whole. Care should be taken to ensure that the organization is not an industry organization in disguise or a professional organization (e.g. an organization of nurses, doctors or lawyers). If it is not possible to accommodate all the groups into the process easily, then each group should be invited to choose a representative whom it feels can best represent the diverse interests.
The existence of structures is not sufficient. They must be used effectively. There must be a genuine effort to listen and to understand the position of the consumer and the consumer advocate. Consumer groups must be considered as partners even when they are critical of government and industry, as this is the very factor that makes them effective spokespersons for the citizen. The consumer interest will only be effectively represented if the independent sector1 is allowed to question and contribute to promote change.
1 The independent sector has been described as non-governmental, non-profit organizations that do not have ties with industry or labour.
A participatory process is usually more difficult to manage and often will take more time than making decisions independently. It is therefore tempting not to try, or only to go through the motions. But the gains made in terms of a more acceptable and equitable solution more than outweigh the disadvantages. It must be recognized that all stakeholders can contribute in the decision-making, and when they do so they can better assist in the implementation of the food control policy. Without this recognition there can be little effective participation.
The barriers described above must also be addressed. The first question is that of resources. One of the challenges faced by many groups is how to keep their independence while obtaining sufficient funds to do their work. If funds come from industry or government, will this influence the stance of the organization? Major consumer groups in the industrialized world have used testing of products and magazines as their income source. However, it may not always be possible for groups to generate sufficient income, especially if they are representing the poorer sections of society. In addition, participation in the political process often threatens their status as charities.
The issue of tokenism should not be a problem if the contribution of stakeholders is recognized. Similarly, if the stakeholders in a problem have been correctly identified, then the consumer should recognize the relevance of the issue if it is well presented.
Over time, trust can be built if all parties work together and truly listen and if the consumer's concerns are incorporated into solutions. As long as there are differing opinions, there will be potential for conflicting messages. Differences and debates are necessary and unavoidable. The concern is really for misleading and manipulative use of information.
In terms of language and literacy, a variety of modes of communication must be used, tailored to the community. Even in highly literate societies, there is a need to recognize that the language of the specialist is not easily understandable to a wide range of people. Availability of information in the language of the community and of minorities living in the community is important.
To include the consumer viewpoint in food control effectively, mechanisms must be developed for participation. The best approach will depend on the problem being addressed. The more widespread the implications of a decision, and the more varied people's views, the more extensive participation will need to be. The constraints under which consumers and their representatives work must be recognized and considered as mechanisms are developed. Over time, as long as policy-makers are aware of the difficulties and are willing to adapt to help increase effective participation, the best approach can be developed for each type of situation.
To go back to Amina and Alex, where are the opportunities for participation in this situation? First, Amina and Alex, as consumers, can bring the problem to the attention of the public health authorities. If this is a unique situation, only the people directly involved - the restaurant owner and the person applying the pesticide -may need to be contacted. Amina and Alex, of course, would want to be assured that their concerns had been addressed.
However, this could be a more widespread problem caused by one of many factors: inadequate on-the-job training, unavailability of sufficiently trained workers, over-demand on the pest control company, employees' reluctance to work outside regular business hours, inadequate regulation or enforcement. And the list could go on. Involving all the potential stakeholders, with a contribution of informal discussions followed by a more formal resolution of the problem, improves the chance of identifying the actual cause of the difficulties and proposing the most acceptable solution. Including consumers or their representative in the process will also help ensure that their concerns are addressed.
Khor, K.P. 1981. Consumer action: a Third World approach. Ceres, 14(3): 31-34.
Korten, D. & Quizon, A. 1991. In search of common ground. Lok Niti, June: 23-29.
Levin, L. 1981. Human rights, Paris, Unesco.
Renouf, C. 1993. Cracking the CODEX. The Consuming Interest, 56 (July): 20-21.
Sylvan, L. 1993. The right to be heard. The Consuming Interest, 56 (July): 3.
United Nations. 1986. Guidelines for consumer protection. New York.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future, Geneva.
