Las variables

The literature on the role of NGOs in the UK has focused on two main aspects: the role of NGOs in political and legal processes, and the role of NGOs in facilitating public participation. Given the fact that NGOs have played a critical role in shaping the policy on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) that possess a similar risk profile to GE,108

it is interesting that NGOs are not actively involved in GE discussion and policy-making.

In the UK, ENGOs have become highly professionalized organizations.109

They have varying levels of political access, financial resources, organizational size, and international connections.110

ENGOs have become increasingly active in political and legal processes. ENGOs work closely with the government and, therefore, have achieved success in raising relevant agendas with political actors. They have played the role of policy advisors to influence government policy.111

However, ENGOs do not seek ongoing partnerships with the government in implementing policy.112

In addition, they have served a functional role that extends the debate well beyond the confines of the mainstream political parties.113

In terms of legislative process, by acting as lobbyists and campaigners, they have had a 108 _{Patrycja Dąbrowska, ‘Civil Society Involvement in the EU Regulations on GMOs: From the Design of a} Participatory Garden to Growing Trees of European Public Debate’ (2007) 3 Journal of Civil Society 287. 109 _{Christopher Rootes, NGOs in Contemporary Britain: Non-state Actors in Society and Politics since 1945 (Nick} Crowson, Matthew Hilton and James Mckay eds, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2009); Matthew Hilton and others, The Politics of Expertise: How NGOs Shaped Modern Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013). 110 _{Nina Hall and Ros Taplin, ‘Solar Festivals and Climate Bills: Comparing NGO Climate Change Campaigns in the} UK and Australia’ (2007) 18 International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 317. 111 _{Hilton and others (n 109).} 112 _{Rootes, NGOs in Contemporary Britain: Non-state Actors in Society and Politics since 1945 (n 109).} 113 _{Hilton and others (n 109).}

profound impact on the legislative history of the UK Parliament.114

They also act as witnesses in court or as scientific advisors.115

Moreover, NGOs have also played a role in law enforcement in the UK.116

They also have a role in developing soft law, which relates to GE as soft law, such as guidelines, can provide a template and a starting point for further specific legislation. In the UK, soft law is influential and comprises Green Papers, White Papers and a wide range of ‘governmental guidelines, circulars, codes of conducts and administrative rule which produce indirect legal effects’.117

In terms of GE, soft law would be potentially effective in regulating research activities, which may be able to fill the gap owing to the lack of dedicated governance framework for GE research. NGOs, via GMOs, have a history of contributing to the enunciation of soft law regarding the environment.118

The case of GMOs may serve as a potential model for discussing NGO participation in developing soft law regarding GE.

ENGOs have been critical in facilitating the improvement of public participation in the UK. As the general public often trusts ENGOs more than the government, ENGOs have been successful in shaping public opinion and mobilizing members of the public.119

ENGOs also contribute to public debates, generate publicity for issues and coordinate or undertake research.120

In addition, they have been the means by which an increasingly assertive public has endorsed policy preferences within the wider political sphere. Some NGOs have 114 _Ibid. 115 _{Angus Nurse, ‘Privatising The Green Police: The Role Of NGOs In Wildlife Law Enforcement’ (2013) 59 Crime} Law Soc Change 305. 116 _Ibid. 117 _{Armeni and Redgwell, ‘Geoengineering Under National Law: A Case Study of the United Kingdom’ (n 27).} 118 _{Arif Ahmed and Md. Jahid Mustofa, ‘Role of Soft Law in Environmental Protection: An Overview’ (2016) 4} Global Journal of Politics and Law Research 1. 119 _{Hilton and others (n 109).} 120 _{Nurse (n 115).}

leveraged the media to ensure continued coverage of their social and political causes.121

In terms of GMOs, which have a similar risk profile to GE, ENGOs have been actively involved in the policy-making process in the EU to promote deliberative democracy. NGO participation aiming to shape the EU policy on GMOs can be considered in the two institutional contexts of the Commission and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).122

In terms of the Commission, the NGO involvement strategy on GMOs is three-fold: first, the establishment of permanent advisory bodies including certain NGOs;123

second, ‘written consultations resulting from statutory reporting obligations’;124

third, ad hoc initiatives ‘taking the form of open meetings or written consultations’.125

In terms of the EFSA, the strategy of NGO participation includes two methods: first, the EFSA has established a permanent Stakeholder Consultative Platform in which NGOs are involved for providing advice on general matters including issues related to GMOs; second, the EFSA has established ad hoc initiatives involving NGOs for consultations.126

NGO involvement in shaping EU policy on GMOs ‘contributes to democratic legitimacy, as least, in view of participatory democratic theory’.127

From the discussion above, one could argue that NGOs have been actively involved in shaping the policy on GMOs and their involvement has made significant contributions to improve public participation and ultimately achieve participatory democracy. Given the importance of NGO participation in GMOs, one could assume that NGOs might be expected to participate in GE, given its 121 _{Hilton and others (n 109).} 122 _{Dąbrowska (n 108).} 123 _{For example, ‘Competitiveness in Biotechnology Advisory Group’ and ‘Advisory Group on the Food Chain and} Animal and Plant Health’, see ibid. 124 _Ibid. 125 _Ibid. 126 _Ibid. 127 _Ibid.

similar risk profile.

However, when it comes to GE specifically, ENGOs in the UK have not been actively involved in promoting public participation. In fact, most of the relevant NGOs have not published any comments or views in relation to GE or GE research. Indeed, there are only a few NGOs, such as Greenpeace UK and Friends of the Earth UK, who have been involved in the academic discussion on research governance of GE by acting as partners with universities and research institutes. The lack of public participation, specifically NGO participation, in GE is puzzling, as NGOs in the UK have historically been involved in the governance of controversial technologies such as GM technology and xenotransplantation technology. Furthermore, participatory governance of controversial technologies has been widely discussed in relevant literature. One part of the literature focused on examining different forms of participation, while another part has discussed limitations of participation.128

Literature that is more recent has focused on case studies to analyse public participation events involving a specific controversial technology. There have been no studies exploring explanations for under-participation. Practically, the lack of public participation in GE is the only case that has been identified thus far. Exploring the reasons why there is a lack of public participation by NGOs will add to the public participation literature on controversial technologies.

Many studies have discussed the limits of participation in the legal and political processes

128 _{Edna Einsiedel, Mavis Jones and Meaghan Brierley, ‘Cultures, Contexts And Commitments In The Governance}

Of Controversial Technologies: US, UK And Canadian Publics And Xenotransplantation Policy Development’ (2011) 38 Science and Public Policy 619.

concerning NGOs. The causal factors can be summarised from two main perspectives. From an NGO perspective, there are barriers to tackling intractable social problems; they fail to define, articulate and explain the problem and convince the government to accept such a frame of reference. In addition, they may fail to present problems to the government because the proliferation of many hundreds of competing organisations and the focus of some of the larger ones on maintaining their own organisational growth.129

From a government perspective, the reasons why the role of NGOs is limited may lie not in their efforts to present their case, but in the refusal of governments to listen.130

The explanations for limited participation identified in the literature can offer some implications for GE. First, as pointed out in most literature on public participation in environmental law and policy, NGOs favoured by the authorities may edge less favoured NGOs out of the arena.131

This could potentially be similar for the GE arena. Expertise is the second limitation arising from the literature. NGOs in the UK face a dilemma as, on the one hand, they have to achieve professionalism in order to actively participate in the decision-making process. On the other hand, the more expertise they gain by employing professional people, the fewer social interests they are able to represent on behalf of the general public. Most NGOs do not have the expertise required to participate in GE. For the NGOs that do have the experience, it can be difficult to convey the sophisticated and technical aspects of GE to the public articulately. It is important to notice that NGOs have a representative role as well as a bridging role, which not just reflects, but also shapes

129 _{Hilton and others (n 109).} 130 _Ibid.

131 _{Jane Holder and Maria Lee, Environmental Protection, Law and Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press}

public opinion. Within their bridging role, representing the public is still their first and fundamental priority. Thus, the professionalism of NGOs, which may limit their participation, as well as the competition between them, is worthy of examining through empirical research. Lastly, NGOs might fear that talking about GE will validate what some regard as ‘mad science’ and thereby distract civil society, government and business communities from focusing on less risky measures, such as mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, talking about GE might risk legitimizing GE technology. Therefore, a central obstacle of the political dilemma facing NGOs is that, on the one hand, they do not want to endorse GE technology as they have severe reservations and are reluctant to encourage the public to focus on GE technology. However, on the other hand, they ought to have a role in identifying less risky technology and ensuring the development of an effective governance framework.

In addition, there is another general practical concern that may further limit the role of NGOs in participating in the policy-making process and, by extension, GE. ‘Participation overkill’ is the fear that NGOs may be heavily ‘swamped by the workload involved in keeping pace with a number of meetings’ with policymakers as they have limited financial or human resources. The strain on their resources will not allow them to invest too much time, energy, human capital or financial capital to engage with meetings with policymakers if they ‘feel that the dice are already loaded in favour of’ more powerful actors or stakeholders.132

Furthermore, there is a risk that policymakers would engage with NGOs just to provide ‘green window-dressing’ to improve the image of the policy-making

132 _{Karen Morrow and Holly Cullen, ‘International Civil Society In International Law: The Growth Of NGO}

process instead of providing NGOs with substantial influence over the outcome.