Lobbying through Public Consultation (Animal Ask)
Governments often conduct public consultations in which stakeholders can submit their view on a proposed policy. This is especially common in Western democracies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and the European Union. Perhaps because of pressure for governments to be perceived as more participatory, their use has become more prevalent over time (Kerley and Starr 2000). Additionally, they are often practised by sub jurisdictions within countries, such as states, provinces or cities.
The exact terminology used to refer to this process varies by region, but we will refer to this as “consultations” for public consultations for those that are publicly accessible.
Many public consultations present an opportunity for the animal advocacy movement to influence policy, thereby benefiting the lives of animals. However, due to resource constraints, many impactful public consultations are missed by the movement.
This approach could involve establishing an organisation of just two or three people to a) build a database of jurisdictions around the world that regularly use public consultations, b) monitor upcoming consultations that could affect the lives of animals, c) write and make submissions to those consultations, and d) coordinate with animal advocates in particular jurisdictions to make similar submissions. This organisation could both prepare submissions itself and assist local organisations who may be unaware of the consultation or may not have the capacity to organise an independent response.
This is a form of government lobbying, but it is a unique one - the policy windows are open for a short but highly predictable time, it is very cheap and easy to make a submission, and governments are often required by law to consider the views expressed in submissions when developing the final policy. As such, our research on this approach builds on our previous report on the impact of lobbying - there we concluded that lobbying does influence policy at least some of the time (Springlea 2022).
Many obvious submissions do get attention from animal advocacy organisations. For example, large organisations like the RSPCA often coordinate responses to consultations involving farmed animal regulations, companion animal cruelty laws, wildlife management, and so on.
However, it is easy to miss opportunities in adjacent policy fields, even when the potential impacts on animals could be large. For example, there is often a profound effect on animals from biosecurity policies, non-welfare farming regulations, invasive species management, fisheries policy, many development/industry activities, and so on. It is particularly easy to miss consultations in smaller jurisdictions (e.g. states and districts), even if these consultations could affect the lives of thousands or millions of animals. Some past examples, which we chose arbitrarily from a quick online search, include:
- A new by-law permitting hens to be kept in residential backyards \"for personal use and household food supply\" in Halifax, Canada
- The use of agricultural technology in British Columbia, Canada
- The election of citizens to a new Recreational Fishing Advisory Council in South Australia
- Timber harvesting regulations in Victoria, Australia
Of course, the animal advocacy movement would not have been able to influence all of these policies - but the movement could have influenced many. Particularly if one considers the multitude of national, state, and local governments that are holding public consultations at any given time, this could represent a major opportunity for the animal advocacy movement to sway many policies, thereby improving the lives of animals.