Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 845

the well-rehearsed rhetoric of participation, inclusion, and citizen engagement and
ask: Whathasbeenthepractice,experience,andunderlyingpoliticsoftheIAASTD?
The next section looks at the particular interaction between diverse sources of expertise
andthewaythispoliticsofknowledgeconstructsnotionsofcitizenship.
Experts and Citizens
The assessment process witnessed the engagement of diverse forms of expertise beyond
the “usual suspects” of accredited scientists and government representatives, and they
includednongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs),farmers'groups,consumerorgani-
zations,andothers.Whathasthisrevealedabouttherelationshipsbetweenexpertsand
citizens,andhowhavediverseformsofcitizenshipbeenpracticedinsuchlocaltoglobal
engagements?
Ininternationalassessmentprocessesofthissortmuchofthehardworkcomesin
the review and editing process. Here the minutiae of textual differences are discussed
andaparticularwordingandpitchisrequired.A (perhaps)apocryphalstorysuggested
that the US government had employed a thousand people in the US Department of
AgricultureandUSAIDtogoovertheinaldocumentswithaine-toothcomb,pick-
ing up sections, paragraphs, and even words, which their negotiators would dispute
in the final sessions before approval was granted any text. To be effective, this required
hard work and the learning of new negotiation skills by NGO/CSO participants. As
onecomplained: “Ourworkisunrecognizableintheinalversion.heoddbithereand
there,butotennotthemeaning.”7 Another countered: “this is part of the re-shuling of
understanding that is the positive outcome of multi-stakeholder dialogues and efforts
to create something new together.”8 The internal dynamics of author groups was critical
along with the capacity for effective, inclusive facilitation.
But to what degree does this sort of slow, highly political negotiation process allow for
the “injecting” of alternative, grassroots perspectives from farmers themselves? How does
“the local” get represented in “the global”? And what kinds of knowledge politics emerge?
Indiscussionswithavarietyofparticipantsintheassessment,anumberofthemeswere
raised.9Everyonerecognizedthat,becauseofthewaytheIAASTDwasorganized,“real”
farmersandtheirorganizationsdidnotreallygetalookin—whetherattheearlyconsul-
tation stages in the regions or subsequently. Some regarded this as a fundamental design
lawofthewholeprocess,underminingthelegitimacyoftheefortasawhole;others
saw it as probably a necessary consequence of convening such a process, but one that
allowed space for representation by NGOs and other CSOs. For some this mediation role
was not a problem: These were people who worked on the ground in different locations
andsocouldrelecttheconcernsoffarmers.Otherssawtheprocessesofintermediation
and translation as problematic as well as the claims made by NGOs to “represent” others.
Some industry and government participants, for example, claimed that GM crops were a
concernto(Northern)NGOsbutnottofarmersfromtheGlobalSouth.10