The dynamics of decision making within international standard setting (ISS) bodies are not often revealed. This paper examines these dynamics, focusing on regulations for the control of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE; “mad cow disease”) in the context of the World Animal Health Organisation’s (WOAH) BSE standards review, 2018-2023. The proposed changes to standards had the potential for widespread disruption to the beef and rendering sectors in countries classified as having "negligible risk" status for BSE — those that had experienced classical or atypical BSE, including Australia.
Our research questions are:
• how did stakeholders from the Australian beef and rendering industry represent and advance their interests in standard-setting for atypical BSE within WOAH, during 2018-2023?
and, more broadly:
• what does this case study reveal about the dynamics and functioning of ISS bodies?
Three key fields of analysis inform our thinking when addressing the research questions: epistemic communities, strategic action and sources of authority and legitimacy for ISS bodies. These fields provide insight into norms that coordinate actor behaviour, boundary control over scientific and technical knowledge, power relations between actors and how a field unsettled by contention and disagreement may be resettled.
To understand how Australian stakeholders responded to this threat, this study draws on seven in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders. We take the methodological approach of tracing “science in action” and the development of international standard setting.
After a protracted decision-making process, the standards that were formalised reflected the interests of the beef and rendering sectors in Australia and other similarly affected negligible-risk countries. We found that the Australian stakeholders’ interests were realised through coalition building that allowed for access to and leverage of data and scientific expertise to support an alternative regulatory path. Unsettling the strategic action field by questioning whether the decision-making process had followed due process and threatening to withhold support created pressure for a resettling of the field and WOAH’s authority. The resolution demonstrates the importance of consensus-based decision-making and international solidarity to the authority of ISS bodies.
This study identifies the factors that pull ISS bodies toward consensus. This includes international solidarity, which serves as a key source of authority for ISS bodies, and technical and procedure-based decision-making, which acts as a technology to depoliticise decision making and neutralise conflicts.
