Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 851

The NGO/civil society grouping is seen by the conveners of the assessment as a key
route through which voices of poorer farmers across the Global South can have a say,
thus bringing wider legitimacy to the process and its outcomes. But this is an awkward
intermediary, bridging position. Some NGO groups argue that, despite the fact that they
have no formal mandate to represent “poor farmers,” this is a legitimate role, one based
onsolidexperienceanddialoguewithpeopleintheield.Yetthispositionclearlycomes
withmuchbaggage.Itisfarfromneutral.Indeed,thereisaclearlineonmanyissues,
linked to some high-profile, strategic campaigning, something that critics see as more
relectiveofamiddle-class,let-leaning,European/NorthAmericanpositionthanthe
legitimatevoiceofthemasses.InthecontextoftheIAASTD,whetheronissuescon-
cerning GM crops or industrial agriculture, some NGO groupings have been voluble
andconsistentintheirpositions,somethingnotnecessarilyrelectingthediverseand
otenconlictingviewsofpoorerfarmersacrosstheworld.
Akeychallengefordemocratictheoryinaneraofglobalizationishowcollective
perspectives, values, and outcomes are negotiated across diverse cultural and institu-
tionalsettingsataninternationallevel.Globalassessments,suchastheIAASTD,claim
to do this through a process of expert assessment supported by stakeholder consulta-
tions. But how collective is the “collective vision” that is exemplified in the final report?
What have been the processes of exclusion, dissent, and controversy that lie behind an
expert-approved “consensus”? What are the unwritten codes and practices that shape
formalchoicesanddecisionsrelectedintheinalreport?Howhaveperspectivesfrom
particular places, including those drawing on more experiential knowledge, interacted
with global ones situated in particular centers of power?
As we have seen, the final global report, as well as the summary for decision mak-
ers,hasbeenatpainstoincludeadiversityofviews(IAASTD2009).Forsomethisis
a“lowestcommondenominatorconsensus—a24hourwonder”;27 for others it is the
result of effective inclusion, a process in which controversies have been dealt with and
compromise sought. Three styles of knowledge politics were ongoing simultaneously
intheIAASTD(Jasanof2005):“theviewfromnowhere,”dominatedby“objective,”
universalizedfactsandstatistics,competedwith“theviewfromsomewhere,”basedon
particular, located experiences and case studies, and this competition was mediated in
turn by “the view from everywhere” that tried to incorporate, combine, and generate
consensus through a complex representative stakeholder process defined by governance
structure and the writing and review procedures. Each of these styles of knowledge poli-
tics acts to include and exclude, creating winners and losers in the process. Those able
tomovebetweensuchapproaches—arguingtheircaseonthebasisofformalizeddata
atthesametimeasdrawinglegitimacyfromparticularsettingsandexperiences—were
those most able to make the case that theirs was the consensual “view from everywhere.”
The complexity and intensity of the process added to the processes of exclusion too.
Onlythosewiththetimeandresources—andendlesspatienceandattentiontodetail—
were able to engage effectively to the end. While opportunities arose for linking those
inexpertmediatingroleswithbroadercommunities,thiswasoteninpracticelimited.
As one African author explained: “There is no money to do consultations. We are based