Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 849

biotechnology industry over time, but the impasse that this created, with the industry
lobby unable to countenance a compromise framed by interests other than their own,
proved a big, and late, stumbling block, allowing certain governments to pull back from
the process and back their industry lobbies.
Althoughapprovedbyity-sevencountries,theinaldocumentremainedunsigned
by the United States, Canada, and Australia, with the United Kingdom, in the end,
signing up.20 Objections are contained in the annexes of the agreed documents. The
Canadian government resorted to a similar argument about “objectivity” in complain-
ing that “there remain a number of assertions and observations that require more
substantial, balanced and objective analysis.”21 Many in the NGO community believe
that the real reason for the reluctance of certain countries to sign up was because of
the pro-GM position of key governments and their unwillingness to back a document
that, if not explicitly anti-GM, is certainly not enthusiastically in favor.22 This is appar-
ent, for example, in the US objection noted in the Annex to the Global Summary for
DecisionMakers: “theUSAdoesnotbelievethatthereissuicientbalanceinrelecting
the use/range of new technologies, including modern biotechnology in Key Findings
10and11.”23
Despite the failure of some governments to sign up, the conclusion of the final ple-
nary session and the majority agreement of the final document by governments from
across the world gave rise to exuberant celebrations by the NGO grouping whose mem-
bershadworkedsohardtoinluencetheprocess.hepressreleaseshighlightingpar-
ticularpassagesoftheinaldocumentemphasizedhow“theoldparadigmofindustrial,
energy-intensive and toxic agriculture is a concept of the past. The key message of the
report is that small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods provide the way for-
w a r d .” 24Innumerouspressinterviews,YouTubeclips,andpodcasts,Watsonhimself
has argued that “business as usual is not an option.”25
But did this change of tune and the promotion of a integrative, holistic vision really
mean that local voices were finally being heard in the international arena? Was this the
genuine success of an inclusive, deliberative process? Or, rather, was this another type
ofselective,globalexpertisegettingtheupperhand—throughhardwork,diligentcam-
paigning,andthedeploymentofalternativeformsofeliteexpertise?Inthenextsection,
the way expertise is constructed and negotiated in a “global” context is discussed along
with the implications this process has for participation, accountability, and wider gover-
nance of international processes.
The Politics of Knowledge in
Global Assessments
SowhatdoestheIAASTDexperiencesuggestforwiderdebatesaboutdemocracyand
participation in global arenas?