Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
heIAASTDreports,aswehaveseen,likemanyothersofasimilarilk,representthe
bringing together of diverse types of knowledge as largely unproblematic. The empha-
sis is on neutrality and objectivity. For example, the guidelines state that “assessment
reports should be neutral with respect to policy, and deal objectively with scientific,
technical and socio-economic factors.”26 But these assumptions are difficult to uphold
under closer scrutiny. Further questions inevitably arise: Whose expertise counts? How
are cultural and institutional commitments brought into supposedly neutral expert
statements and review processes? What overt and tacit routines legitimate and validate
collectiveknowledge?Whathappenstootherformsofknowledgeandexpertise—with
different epistemological and ontological bases? These processes played out in different
ways in different parts of, and at different moments in, the assessment. Sometimes the
knowledgeencounterswereproductiveandfruitful,challengingparticipantstorelect
on assumptions and to include otherwise neglected perspectives. At other times, such
engagements were less productive, being dominated by particular perspectives and
interests.
While the explicit, formal design of the assessment was rather blind to the questions
of knowledge politics, in practice in the author groups, the review process, and the
widerdiscussionaroundtheassessmentintenserelectiononknowledge,itsvalidity,
and the nature of expertise took place. As in the case of GM crops, contests over knowl-
edge claims and the framing of issues have been very important. The end result allowed
a plural set of perspectives to emerge despite attempts by powerful interests to constrain
the debates. This shows, at one level, a sensitivity of the process to such issues. But this
was not explicitly part of the formal design, and a key lesson has been that such issues of
knowledge framing need to be more centrally and explicitly considered from the start.
A key feature of such assessments is that they are in some way “representative,” invest-
ingastheydoinlarge-scale—andveryexpensive—consultations.heIAASTDwebsite
makes great plays of the diversity of actors involved, and the Secretariat includes a num-
ber of Southern researchers, activists, and others. Clearly, simple forms of representa-
tion—directorindirect—areimpossibleatagloballevel.Buthowdoglobalprocessesof
this sort gain legitimacy for what they do and how are representatives and representa-
tionconstructedbytheorganizationitself,itssponsors,andtheactorsinvolved?
As discussed above, the formal process allows for representation by different groups
according to strict quotas, with nongovernment and government, NGO and business
all carefully balanced numerically on the Bureau, for example. As an intergovernmen-
talprocess,representationisalsoviastates,with110countriesinvolvedandthirty
government representatives from all regions on the Bureau. And in the public review
process,thewebcommentaryfacilityallowsanyonewithaccesstotheInternettohave
theirsay.hismeansrepresentation,andwaystoinluencetheprocess,canhappen
via multiple routes. The NGO/civil society grouping, for example, has been very active
inmobilizingparticipants,engagingindebate,andtrackingtheprocessthrougha
dedicated website. Equally, the US government invested substantial resources in the
review process, persistently trying to get its view across and objecting to alternative
framings.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search