The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development

AgBioForum, 15(1): 70-76. ©2012 AgBioForum. Food Fight: The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development Lucie Edwards The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Sci- Balsillie School of International Affairs, Ontario ence, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was created in 2002 to address global problems of agriculture and food security. More than 400 scientists contributed to the reports, while delegates participated in an ambitious array of regional, thematic, and global conclaves, all of which concluded in 2008. The panel was launched with strong political support and high expectations, but almost everything that could go wrong did. It became a lightning rod for debates on the role of agribusiness, globalization, biotechnology, and the merits of “science” over “traditional” knowledge. Key governments repudiated the final report. Debate on the merits of the IAASTD still rages in agricultural circles even though the IAASTD is defunct. This article explores the reasons for this failure. Were the issues too intractable? Were there structural problems that prevented an effective dialogue? Or did such ill-assorted delegates simply fail to negotiate effectively? The IAASTD is a cautionary tale on the limits of expert assessments in global governance when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes are high, and decisions urgent.” Key words: agriculture, assessment, food, AASTD, international, policy, science, technology. Intergovernmental Assessment Panels governmental Scientific Panel, a hybrid institution con- A key innovation in global governance over the past 40 sisting of both government delegates and scientists years has been the use of scientific assessment panels to meeting in the same forum to address the science of cli- guide the policy-making process on global issues. Until mate change (Table 1). The first full-scale intergovern- 1988, these scientific assessment panels were organized mental panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate by National Academies of Science; international non- Change, (IPCC), has been followed by the creation of governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Interna- two others: the International Assessment of Agricultural tional Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN); or as techni- (IAASTD)—which is the subject of this article—and cal panels reporting to the management of international the fledgling Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity organizations like United Nations Environment Pro- and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which was created by gramme (UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scien- a decision of the United Nations General Assembly in tific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the December 2010. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Their These panels not only bridge the divide between the objectives were to set the agenda in a specific issue scientific community and policymakers by packaging domain, compile the “scientific state of the art,” explain the latest scientific information into an accessible for- it to a target audience (either policy makers or the gen- mat for the latter’s use; they also bring state representa- eral public), and develop options for addressing the tives and scientists together in the same forum in order issue. For a number of reasons, however, the partici- to identify the issues, commission reports on particular pants in these panels were frustrated that their assess- topics, negotiate (line by line) synthesis reports, and ments were not reaching the target audiences in hammer out policy options, ultimately leading to new government effectively and were not having the neces- treaties, conventions, targets, and plans of action. sary impact in changing policy and practices. In 1988, There are a number of problematic issues associated the key players on the climate change agenda, embed- with the organization of these panels, raising key ques- ded in both scientific institutions and state agencies, tions about institutional legitimacy, in terms of access raised the stakes by advocating the creation of an Inter- and transparency. The generation of policy options for AgBioForum, 15(1), 2012 | 71 Table 1. Characteristics of an intergovernmental scientific particularly with the rise of environmentalism: problems assessment panel. where science (in the form of technology) may be part • Obtained its operating mandate through a resolution from of the problem as well as an essential tool of observa- an international organization with a universal membership. tion. In addition to the strong policy component of this • Reports to, and is governed by, an independent assembly new science, they contribute an additional, crucial open to all states as well as observer organizations. dimension inherent in the science itself, which they term • Executes its mandate under the quotidian direction of a “system uncertainty”; not only is the context complex, governing bureau, with balanced regional representation supported by a full-time Secretariat. but the tools currently available to scientists to address • Undertakes its assessment function in accordance with the environmental issues consist of “soft science”—statisti- established rules of international scientific enquiry: trans- cal correlation and computer modeling—rather than the parent scientific assessment, peer review, and open publi- tools of formal observation and experiment. Outcomes cation. are uncertain and non-linear, challenging the scientific premise of predictability. the future has proved laborious and controversial, not- The concepts of “Mode B” and “post-normal sci- withstanding their mantra that they seek to be “policy ence” are contentious in scientific circles. Dr. Gibbons relevant rather than policy prescriptive.” In addition, has commented wryly that this thesis secured more sup- they have become a cockpit for “North-South” conflict, port at first within policy and social science circles than with developing countries arguing that the South’s it did in the scientific community (Nowotny, Scott, & inability to bridge the scientific divide by fielding scien- Gibbons, 2003). Some physical scientists have reacted tists in the same numbers as Northern governments to “post-normal science” by reasserting the fundamental erodes the panels’ credibility. It is agreed, however, that norms of what Michael Polanyi called the “Republic of intergovernmental scientific panels are a key innovation Science” (Polanyi, 1962). Nonetheless, there is a broad in global governance. consensus that when science is deployed for policy pur- poses it is infused with contentious issues of ethics, val- Into the Agora ues, and system uncertainty and does not fit easily Michael Gibbons, a leading philosopher of science, within the classic scientific worldview. Steve Rayner argues in a classic text, The New Production of Knowl- has summed this up nicely as “wicked problems and edge (Gibbons et al., 1994), that the way scientists pro- clumsy solutions” (Rayner, 2006). duce knowledge is by undergoing a profound process of Gibbons and his colleagues have not only examined change. Rather than solve puzzles, identified in a disci- changes in the context and practice of science, but plinary context and addressed in terms of recognized changes to the social structures where science is precepts of sound science, contemporary scientists are debated. Rather than the monopoly and métier of a called upon to address complex problems, embedded trained scientific elite, Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons within broad social, economic, and environmental argue that science is now taking place within the agora, frameworks. These problems are generally found at the a site integrating the political arena, the marketplace, frontier of existing scientific knowledge. The approach and the academic courtyard (Nowotny et al., 2001). to problem solving is generally transdisciplinary, colle- Ravetz describes a similar process of discourse, which gial, and integrates significant normative and ethical he calls “extended peer communities”; he argues this challenges. Gibbons has called this “Mode 2” research open discourse is essential if post-normal science is to in order to acknowledge that this new type of science enjoy legitimacy (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 2003). coexists with traditional academic science. My initial hypothesis, as I begin my examination of His colleagues, Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, intergovernmental panels, is that intergovernmental sci- have evocatively termed it “post-normal science,” entific panels are a prototype for a new kind of “bound- emphasizing the difference between “normal” puzzle- ary” science, operating at the intersection of the avenues solving science and the application of science to public of science, public debate, and policy making. Scientist issues where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, advisors in these intergovernmental panels neither make stakes are high, and decisions urgent” (Funtowicz & the science, nor implement the policy, but serve as “mid- Ravetz, 1993, p. 749). wives,” transmitting essential scientific information Funtowicz and Ravetz agree with Gibbons et al. from the bench scientists to the policy implementers, (1994) that this new approach to science occurs at the wrapping it in accessible language, and defining a feasi- frontier of existing knowledge, which they associate ble array of policy options along the way. Therefore, Edwards

Load more