Memorandum submitted by the Soil Association
(A19)
SUMMARY
1. The Soil Association welcomes the opportunity
to comment on the adequacy of arrangements made to support the
GM Nation? public debate and in particular the role of Defra.
2. The Soil Association overall was very
pleased with the GM public debate and welcome this innovative
contribution to government policy decision making. We were very
impressed by the level of commitment shown from all those involved:
the Public Debate Steering Board (PDSB), the Central Office of
Information (COI), and indeed the general public who gave their
time to take part in the debate in many different ways.
3. The initial conclusion reached by many
that attended the eight regional meetings was that the public
debate was just a government PR exercise. However in our experience
this view did change over the course of the six weeks. Overall,
the feedback we have received from people who attended the locally
run meetings has been very encouraging. Although many people had
concerns about whether their views would be listen to by the Government
they still felt that the public debate was a very valuable exercise
that enabled them to come to more informed decisions about the
commercial planting of GM crops.
4. We would welcome the idea that well-resourced,
independently run public debates should form part of future government
policy decisions where complex issues are at stakes, and where
public views and concerns are not adequately reflected through
official bodies and official channels, and therefore think it
is important that we look at how things can be improved in the
future.
5. The Soil Association's areas of concern
include:
— The lack of clarification from the
UK Government about how they are to act on the outcomes of the
GM public debate.
— Defra's involvement in the GM debate,
in particular problems over timing, duration of the debate and
funding.
— The appointment of the Central Office
of Information.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Soil Association is the main national
certifer and promoter of organic food and farming in the UK. Organic
farming has some guiding principles that are based on national
processes and taking a holistic and sustainable approach to farming.
GMOs are prohibited as they contradict the organic movement's
principles for safe and sustainable agriculture. Organic farming
now accounts for c. 4.5% of UK farmland and purchases of some
organic food are made by about 80% of UK consumers.
2. The Soil Association is against the introduction
of GM crop in the UK as it is concerned about the potential negative
impacts that they could have on the environment, health, non-GM
production and consumer choice.
3. From the outset the Soil Association
fully supported the Government's decision to hold a GM public
debate and worked very hard to encourage as many people as possible
to take part by emailing over 9,000 supporters encouraging them
to take part; advertising the event on our website, and in our
in-house publications as well as advising enquirers about how
they could get involved. Throughout the duration of the debate,
the Soil Association took great care not to influence in anyway
people's decisions and would like to refute any unfounded and
indeed unhelpful claims that in some way we or others with concerns
about GM crops "hijacked" the public debate or indeed
criticised it.
4. As the Soil Association understood it
the initial eight regional meetings were designed to "kick
start" the debate so we felt it important to have one representative
present at these meetings so that we could be clear on how to
encourage people to continue to contribute to this valuable process.
5. We attended some 40 additional meetings
as speakers, only when invited and only as part of a panel of
experts to give a balanced view. The Soil Association felt very
privileged to be invited to these meetings.
The lack of clarification from the UK government
about how they are to act on the results of the GM public debate.
6. The general public has continuously expressed
scepticism in regards to how the Government would act on the results
of the GM public debate. Even though the Government and especially
the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
has been repeatedly ask to clarify this issue, they have not done
so in a way that has restored public confidence, nor even clarified
the Government's position. Even though many felt that the debate
was purely a public relations exercise the fact that as many people
participated as they did only highlights the importance in which
the general public regard the GM issue.
Defra's involvement in the GM debate, in particular
problems over funding, duration and timing.
Budget of the debate
7. The Soil Association believes that the
budget allocated by Defra for the debate was inadequate for such
an innovative approach to public consultation.
8. Right from the beginning there were petty
arguments from Defra over the budget and this did a lot to encourage
public scepticism over the Government's intentions. Although the
total budget for the debate did increase there was still no budget
available for promotion and advertising and as a result there
were no adverts placed in local papers or other publications.
The COI had to rely on the Internet as their main mode of promotion.
As a result the Soil Association feel that the lack of publicity
prevented many people from taking part. This was certainly one
of the main criticisms expressed to the Soil Association by the
people who did take part in the debate and many felt that if it
wasn't for the fact that organisations like the Soil Association
helped to publicise the event they would not have heard about
it. In addition due to the lack of publicity many thought that
the debate only comprised of the eight regional meetings.
9. There was also very little left in the
budget to help fund the cost of running local meetings with many
small organisations having to absorb this cost themselves.
Timing of the debate
10. The Soil Association believes that the
timing of the debate was inappropriate. Due to the initial arguments
from Defra about the budget, the timing of the debate was only
announced a month before it began. This meant there was very little
time for people to become informed about the debate, to make the
necessary arrangement to attend the eight regional meetings, or
to organise meetings of their own. This situation was not help
by the fact there was very little publicity.
11. In addition, the results of both the
economic and science strands of the debate were not available
at the time of the public debate. Although according to Defra
these two strands were supposed to feed into the GM public debate,
this did not happen.
12. Defra have always put a great emphasis
on how valuable the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs)
will be in helping the Government come to a decision on whether
to proceed with the commercial planting of GM crops. Therefore
it was only right that the results should have been published
to coincide with the debate so they could frame some of the discussions.
However in the end this did not happen.
13. The fact that the public was not given
sufficient access to the economic or science strands or the FSEs
results only made them question the commitment of Defra to an
open and fair debate.
14. Due to time constraints there was also
no opportunity to run any pilot meetings which would have helped
to inform COI of the best approach to take in regards to the organisation
of meetings and the usefulness of the "toolkit".
Duration of the debate
15. The Soil Association believes the six-week
period in which the debate was conducted was far too short for
many people, local councils and networks to have sufficient time
to organise meetings and get the feedback forms returned by the
closing date.
16. As a result the Soil Association continues
to get a steady flow of requests to put our view across at GM
debate style meetings with some already arranged well into next
year.
Appointment of the Central Office of Information
17. Although the Central Office of Information
did show a high level on commitment to the debate the Soil Association
have concerns over whether their appointment was appropriate.
18. Due to the constraints on time and budget
the PDSB was not given the opportunity to put the role of prime
contractor for the debate out to tender and therefore had to appoint
COI as requested by Defra which brings into question Defra's commitment
to keep the debate "at arms length" from the Government.
19. By their own admission the COI had never
had to organise anything like a public consultation event and
therefore lacked the experience needed to engage the public in
deliberate debate. This was very evident in the disorganised way
the first few regional meetings were run—which for example
gave very little time to actual debate. This left many people
feeling that it had been a waste of their time attending. However
in COI's defence, the meetings did improve but nevertheless their
appointment to the post of prime contractor is questionable.
Toolkit
20. In regards to the stimulus material
the Soil Association welcomed the opportunity to contribute to
the questions formulated from initial focus group meetings, that
formed the basis of the toolkit. However we were disappointed
to learn that a lot of our comments were either omitted altogether
or watered down. We were also disappointed to learn that the toolkit
was presented to the public as having our full endorsement when
in fact due to a wholly inadequate consultation period we were
unable to comment on the final draft.
CONCLUSION
21. Overall the Soil Association believes
that the GM public debate was successful in meeting it's objective
to engage the public in deliberate debate. This is despite our
concerns over: the lack of clarification from the UK Government
about how they are to act on the outcomes of the GM public debate;
Defra's involvement in the GM debate, in particular problems over
timing, duration of the debate and funding; and the appointment
of the Central Office of Information.
22. The Soil Association hopes that the
Government will act on our concerns and learn from the GM public
debate process so future public consultations are run more effectively
and gain more of the public's confidence and respect.
15 September 2003
| 
