Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 844

A number of unique attributes are highlighted by Robert Watson, the director,
including: an advisory structure that encompasses governmental representatives
as well as civil society; the “inclusion of hundreds of experts from all relevant stake-
holder groups”; an “intellectually consistent framework”; a global, multi-scale, and
long-termapproach,resultingin“plausiblescenarios”to2050;the“integrationoflocal
and institutional knowledge”; and a multi-thematic approach, encompassing nutrition,
livelihoods, and human health, linking science and technology issues to policies and
institutions.6 A multi-stakeholder process involving everyone from grassroots groups to
scientists and representatives of large corporations, with the final product being signed
bynationalgovernments,theIAASTDconstitutesa,todate,unparalleledapproach.
Assuch,theIAASTDprovidesfascinatinginsightsintoprocessesofparticipationand
global engagement and the implications that these developments have for the contesta-
tionofglobalknowledgeandtheconstructionofglobalcitizenship(LeachandScoones
2005).
heIAASTD,aswiththeotherglobalassessments,isseenbyitsproponentsasabrave
attempt at engaging a diverse group of stakeholders on a key topic with major global
ramiications.Inthisregarditmarksamajordeparturefrompreviousmodelsofglobal
expert decision making, where attempts at dialogue and debate were largely absent and
processes were open only to an exclusive expert elite.
Inthisway,theIAASTDisinharmonywithacentralthemeofthemoreoptimistic
strandsoftheliteratureonglobalizationandcivilsociety.hesesuggestthat,withthe
opening up of opportunities for engagement at the global level and the increasing con-
nections between local-level actors and issues and those in global arenas, the opportuni-
tiesforparticipationandinluenceincreasesthrougha“globalcivilsociety”(Archibugi
2008;EdwardsandGaventa2001;Keane2003).Withthisopeningup,processesbecome
morecomplexandrequireincreasinglysophisticatedformsofmobilizationbyactivists
andmovementsinordertoengage(Tarrow1994).Butthenetresultisapluralizationof
knowledge and claims and inputs into cosmopolitan global contexts, which, it is argued,
results ultimately in a more democratic and accountable system of governance and poli-
cymaking(HeldandMcGrew2002;Heater2002).
heIAASTDcouldbeseenasoneavenueforsuchnewstylesofengagement,knowl-
edge production, and claim making; and, indeed, the rhetoric associated with it suggests
that this is, in part, the wider aim. A vision of cosmopolitan diversity and democratic
decision making is portrayed, governed by rules and procedures allowing rational deci-
sions and objective science to prevail.
AcloserlookattheprocessesandpracticesoftheIAASTD,however,revealssome
majorlimitstosuchavision.Inparticular,ithighlights,followingFischer(2000),the
important contemporary tensions between professional expertise and democratic gov-
ernance,andthat,asJasanofandMartelloargue,withthereassertionoflocalknowl-
edge claims in global environmental processes, “the construction of both the local
and the global crucially depends on the production of knowledge and its interactions
with power” (2004, 5). Tracing these knowledge-power interactions is thus central
to any understanding of local-global engagements. The aim has been to go beyond