Agricultural Futures - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 852

hereandtrytorelectthesituation,butwecannotgooutandhavediscussionswith
farmers. We must look at the literature and ind our way.”28Indeed,itwasotentheprac-
tical difficulties of communicating and discussing under intensive deadlines that proved
to be the major constraint. One African author put it as follows: “The time is too tight.
hechapterdratcomes,wehavetoreviseit,andthenwemustgotothenextmeet-
ing. My email was down for weeks here at the university so we are very behind on our
chapter.”29
The elaborate governance structure and procedural arrangements for the prepara-
tion of the reports created a particular style of knowledge making. This was centered on
the principles of inclusion and deliberation but within severely circumscribed limits.
Again,suchformalityexcludedsome.A setofinstitutionalizedroutinesallowedforthe
involvement of different interest groups or “stakeholders”; each had particular repre-
sentation on the decision-making body of the Bureau and each was supposed to have
equivalent input into the expert-led report production and review process, garnering
a procedural accountability and so, it was hoped, trust and confidence in the author-
ity and legitimacy of the process. This structured form of representation thus aimed
at global coverage, covering all bases and creating a comprehensive, all-encompassing
approach to knowledge making on a global scale.
But these formal arrangements were of course also complemented by more informal inter-
actions and processes of alliance building and lobbying. As discussed in relation to the NGO/
civil society grouping (and no doubt replicated among governments and private-sector
“interestgroups”),muchmaneuveringtookplacetogainaccessandinluence.Peer-to-peer
relationships within the Africa writing group too allowed for more personal connections to
bemadeandforinformalnetworkstoarisethroughtheprocess,whichtranscendedoten
the“interestgroup”categorizationofthegovernancestructuretocreateformsofassociation
around the regional, African position vis à vis the “global” perspective.
This vision of multiple voices being heard in an open deliberative forum at the global
leveliscertainlytheidealtowhichmanyaspire.Inthissense,theIAASTDisseenasa
potentialfortherealizationofaglobaldeliberativedemocraticinstitution,thatnumer-
oustheoristsandcommentatorshavearguedfor(Dryzek2002).A keyargumentof
theIAASTDisthat,throughengagingmultiplestakeholdersinanopendebateabout
the future, an institutional form will develop, resulting in more robust frameworks for
policy decision making. This is an argument put forward by many involved in debates
about institutional transformation, particularly when dealing with scientific debate and
publiccontroversy(Miller2007).
heidealistocreatea“relexiveinstitution”thatisinclusiveanddeliberativeand
allows multiple, culturally embedded versions to be discussed and a collective vision
tobeproduced.Itallowscontrastingframingstobedebatedanddiferentpoliticaland
valuepositionstobeacknowledged.Italsodoesnotburyuncertainty,controversy,or
dissent; rather it makes these explicit in interrogating alternative options (Voss and
Kemp2006).hisisatoughcall,especiallyfordisciplinaryandprofessionalorienta-
tions built on particular forms of certainty and expertise and where ambiguity is threat-
ening and where it is unheard of to admit ignorance.