BfR Consumer Conference Nanotechnology

Немецкий. Summary Part 1: Project management The work of the consumer group was decisive for the success of the process and its findings:the randomly composed group of consumers of differing age, professional background andgender were all interested in the subject nanotechnology and were curious about the procedure.The open discussion atmosphere, the discussions which were at all times fair and constructiveand the disciplined compliance with the narrow time window - this all confirmed thecommitment of each individual and reaffirmed the goal "of achieving an impact with this opinionas the expression of civil society, of raising awareness amongst consumers and callingon politicians, scientists and industry to adopt a responsible attitude towards nanotechnology(from the Preamble of the consumer vote). What further confirms the serious nature of thework and the common goal is the fact that all 16 participants stayed on board for the entireprocess and that not one of them dropped out.The results of the "Consumer Conference Nanotechnology" in the form of the consumer voteand the experiences in constructive group work during the three weekends all confirm onething: the possibility for the systematic and structured acquisition of knowledge, for the discussionand evaluation of information, for the weighing up of various imponderables and thecarrying over of this knowledge into consumer behaviour.Hence the initial idea of securing a qualified consumer opinion on questions of nanotechnologyin the areas food, textiles and cosmetics via a consumer conference proved to be successful.With this procedure it was possible to identify the consumer requirements to be metby sustainable nanotechnologies. Summary Part 2: Evaluation The need for participatory debate, particularly in the area of consumer politics, results fromthe fact that collective decisions increasingly have far-reaching temporal and spatial consequences,our knowledge about interdependencies is becoming increasingly complex andspecialised and, at the same time those affected by the decisions, want to have a say in theshaping of their world (Beck 1986; Fiorino 1989). Basing decisions solely on complex expertknowledge violates the fundamental right to a fair balancing of interests between variousparties; decisions taken only on the basis of the participation of stakeholders opens the doorto dilettantism and leads to action consequences which no-one can want. The rational, structuredinvolvement of the people concerned tries to do justice to both requirements. The actionconsequences as well as the side effects must be thought through and the related valuesand preferences must be treated fairly and appropriately.Although there is agreement that the participation of the people concerned should be an integralpart of integrated consumer protection, the question is highly controversial about whomay and should participate with what full powers and according to what procedure in decision-making. Firstly, it must be guaranteed that there is adequate representation of thoseconcerned (subject to the condition that not all those potentially affected can and want toparticipate). Secondly, it must be ensured that the participation of those concerned does notconstrain or negate the efficacy of expert knowledge as an essential element of decisionmaking (cf. Dahl 1989, p. 119ff). First problem: Who represents those affected? Self-appointed representatives of the peopleor interest groups can certainly speak for some of those concerned but definitely not for all. Aparticipation method based on the voluntary principle (everyone is invited) generally leads inpractice to distortions of true citizens opinions because only the activists take up these invitations(Reagan and Fedor-Thurmon 1987, p. 107; Cupps 1977). In the case of procedures inwhich interest groups are invited to a discussion round, non-organised citizens are normallyexcluded. A fair participation procedure should, by contrast, give every potentially affectedperson the right to take part in the resolution phase. The consumer conference does enableconsumers to represent themselves and not just their organisations. However the questionmust be asked whether the selection of 16 people is sufficient in order to reflect the diversityof consumer interests. For the purposes of legitimisation, it would certainly have been betterto set up several parallel consumer fora based on the model of the planning cells and then toclarify which common assessments had been prepared by these groups independently ofone another and where there were major differences. However, it must also be borne in mindthat a solution of this kind would have meant a far higher financial input. Second problem: How can expert knowledge and the participation of lay persons be reconciled?Case studies from the literature clearly show that many participation procedures fail atthis obstacle (Rosenbaum 1978, p. 48; Cupps 1977; Aron 1979). Often the necessary expertiseis not taken into account or only insufficiently. In some cases the participants bring withthem their own prejudices or anecdotal experiences into the deliberation process withoutbeing willing to take into account the expert knowledge on offer. The procedures are frequentlyinefficient and expensive without this investment leading to competent recommendations.Furthermore, participation can also achieve the opposite of what is intended: a sharpeningof conflicts, increase in protests and emotional hardening of positions which meansthat nothing functions any more (Jasanoff 1982). However, the literature also offers evidenceof the contrary: for instance citizens have helped - by drawing on specific experience fromtheir daily lives - to improve the quality of planning. They have introduced knowledge thatwas not even available to experts or have challenged the unjustified self-certainty of experts(Aron 1979, p. 480; Laksmanan 1990; Krimsky 1979; Dienel 1992).By linking the expert survey and background information, a high number of learning processescould be initiated in the case of the consumer conference evaluated here. Furthermore,the interviews with experts confirmed that the results of the consumer conference alsoin the opinion of experts were appropriate, substantial and balanced. There were concernsabout an overly sceptical stance, in the opinion of experts, about nanoparticles in food. Thiscriticism can, however, certainly be attributed less to inadequate knowledge amongst theconsumers interviewed and more to assessment differences. Third problem: The results of a participation procedure must be tenable and justifiable vis avis the participants themselves, decision-makers and the public at large. Aside from referenda,all formal procedures of citizen participation have the disadvantage that only somecitizens can actively take part in the procedure whereas the vast majority remains passiveand only participate as external observers (Renn and Webler 1996). No matter how efficient,fair and competent a participation procedure is, it will not develop any political efficacy if itdoes not succeed in familiarising political decision-makers and the interested general publicwith the process and the results of the participation and in instilling in decision-makers inpolitics, industry and society trust in the power of lay judgements. So far up to now therehaven't been enough practical instructions. In the eyes of the media the participation of citizensin the shaping of policies is not sensational enough for this message to be broadcastwidely. Politicians are very distrustful about the demand mentality of the population and it isvery difficult to convince them of the opposite. All too frequently the votes of participationmethods are accepted with thanks by the sponsors and then end up in the notorious bureaucrats'drawers without anyone taking on board the recommendations. In this case the publicinstitution explicitly formulated its own goals and accompanied the procedure in a very intensivemanner in order to gain insight into how to improve its own work. In this instance theresults are, therefore, input for BfR risk communication on the subject of nanotechnology. Forinstance the focus established by consumers on nanofood was taken over into the communicationwork of BfR.It is still too early to tell whether the recommendations of the Consumer Conference will alsohave an added "impact" in the political context. The announcement of the votes in a pressconference and the general press work indicate the wish of the executive organisers to scatterthe results amongst the public at large. The scale of the activities, however, leads todoubts whether after the high impact presentation there will be any political implementationof the recommendations.If there is no response from the executive organisers to a consumer vote then resourceshave been wasted which could have been put to other better use. Furthermore, this wouldlead to a gradual loss of the trust which had been established by involving lay people in theregulation of risks of daily products (Fisher et al. 1993). To counteract this, BfR organised areview meeting as an important part of the procedure. At that review meeting citizens wereinformed about the importance and effectiveness of their work. BfR, in turn, gained insightinto the importance which the participants attributed retrospectively to the overall procedure.What is required here is great sensitivity and honest self-examination. Not everything can beimplemented 1:1 - that would be contradictory to the principles of representative democracyand the legitimisation principle of the regulatory authority. Active, committed efforts must bevisible for everyone to constructively take up the essence of the recommendations in theirown actions. Fourth problem: Is this procedure worth it? Consumer participation procedures are both timeand cost-consuming. Frequently, the well-minded meetings between concerned or affectedcitizens are reduced to non-binding debating societies or self-righteous tribunals to condemnthe "evil" world. Conflicting goals are not seen and obvious limits through legal provisions orphysical factors are ignored. Participation procedures must also be efficient. The results ofparticipation must be appropriate to the effort involved. We purposefully included the criterionof efficiency in this evaluation. Many case studies from inside and outside Germany haveshown that these procedures can be conducted efficiently and in a targeted manner withoutimpairing fairness and mutual respect. Our analysis has shown that there were some deficitsin fairness which could have been overcome without having any negative knock-on effectson other important evaluation criteria. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the relatively low volumeof funding used for the overall procedure, this procedure can be deemed to be highly efficient.So what conclusions can be drawn? If the goal of a consumer conference is to explore someconcerns, worries and tips from concerned citizens, then the concept evaluated here can bedeemed to be very positive (on the prejudices and disadvantages of consensus conferencessee: Durant and Joss 1995, Andersen 1996). It largely provides competent, consistent andtransparent results. Furthermore, the procedure is cost-effective and can be implemented inshort periods of time. Because of the low number of consumers involved, the criteria of fairnessand legitimating are only met to a limited degree. Whether the votes of the consumersconcerned can really be deemed to be representative of consumer interests is questionable.If that is the goal then use must be made of other procedures (for instance several parallelcitizens' fora). These more comprehensive procedures will not supply representative resultsin the statistical sense of the term either (but this is of course not necessary) but they canextend the basis for the diversity of possible attitudes and establish a consensus in a morevalid manner.For BfR the conference offered considerable benefits in terms of information for its own work.In principle, it is absolutely essential for the executive organisers to see the participationmeasures not primarily as a PR task or as a means of increasing its legitimation but as abenefit for its own work. Only when institutions are willing to learn from the votes and deliberationsof the participating citizens does participation make sense. No evaluation can examinethis inner willingness. This is where the executive organisers are called on to examine thepurpose of the participation measures. If they want PR or more legitimation for their ownwork then there are better alternatives than staging participation procedures. If they reallywant to draw inspiration for their own work from the independent wishes, preferences andvalues of the people concerned, then participation procedures are the best form for achievingthat goal. Amongst the participation options the consumer conference used here is a particularlycost effective form. It does not achieve optimum results in terms of all criteria but procedureswhich promise that are far more complicated.We are convinced that investment in the judgement and competence of citizens will prove tobe a reliable and future-centric capital investment on the market of political opinion-forming.We only hope that public agencies and politicians will be capable of using this capital investmentin a wise and appreciative manner.