Dear Sir,
Recently there has been considerable media attention to the report of
the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology
for Development (IAASTD). The media accounts often indicate the World
Bank initiated and funded the project and that it was supported by a
number of prestigious international organizations such as the UN, FAO
and UNESCO as well as the World Bank. Having carefully gone through
the posted documentation, I and many others have found the documents
to be troubling and likely over the long term to worsen the present
global food crisis. What I have not seen is any statement of support
or opposition from the World Bank or other organizations. From the
media coverage, one might rightly or wrongly, conclude that the
IAASTD's policy prescriptions will become the framework for future
actions of the listed organizations. Please tell me that I am wrong
(and I apologize in advance for even writing) that you have made your
views publicly known on these matters and that I have somehow failed
to find them. To many of us with experience in international
agriculture, the report would seem to be an embarrassment and silence
would not lessen the embarrassment for any organization that the
media identifies with the final report.
Even more troubling would be a failure to comment on the attack
paragraph against World Bank's World Development Report 2008:
Agriculture for Development that I found on IAASTD's website -
http://www.agassessment-watch.org http://www.agassessment-watch.org
http://www.agassessment-watch.org Not only is the IAASTD ungraciously biting the hand that fed them-
being a member of some of these groups requires totally lacking a
sense of shame - but they are trashing a superb and very useful piece
of work and the many outstanding individuals who contributed to it. I
can not imagine an organization such as yours breaking faith with
those who have so long labored in research and in the field to help
feed the less privileged and then contributed their experience to a
document that seeks to provide understanding for continuing the work
of increasing and improving world food production. Once again,
please, and I am pleading, tell me that I am wrong and that a defense
was made and it is my fault for not having seen it.
I am sure that you have seen the offending IAASTD paragraph but let
me copy it here:
The World Bank's World Development Report 2008 - Focus on agriculture"On October 19th the World Bank officially released the final version
of its "World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development"
with a focus on agriculture. In clear contrast to the present drafts
of the IAASTD this report promotes top-down approaches, increased
world trade in agricultural goods and "modernisiation" of agriculture
at the expense of small and subsistence farmers. The present draft
contains a highly ideological praise of genetic engineering (Chapter
7 Innovating through science and technology). At this point the World
Bank seems deeply concerned about a quite different view to be
presented in a report, which has higher credibility and is based upon
more inclusiveness and scientific evidence. The final text of the WDR
and some background is available on the http://tinyurl.com/2298md>http://tinyurl.com/2298md World Banks http://tinyurl.com/2298md>http://tinyurl.com/2298md website
Allow me to add my comments to the paragraph and the report:
-
They are right that the World Bank should be "deeply concerned"
about their report but for reasons different than those that they
assume. As a start, the World Bank needs to issue a repudiation of
the above statement with a defense of their fine document and of the
many authentic experts who contributed to it. Please note the
reference to "highly ideological praise of genetic engineering" and
to their own "higher credibility ... based upon more inclusiveness
and scientific evidence." This is insulting to say the least as if
the World Development Report 2008 was not based on scientific
evidence and somehow the real non-ideological experts (read the NGOs) were
somehow systematically excluded and that the report lacks scientific
merit. Should the Bank fail to respond to these allegations, in my
judgment the World Bank's credibility will be at stake as well as their failure to defend the World Development Report 2008's authors. Please tell me that I am wrong.
-
There needs to be more transparency by those who most vociferously
demand it of others. The WDR was based upon the work of agricultural
scientists of proven capability and international reputation for
their work. Who are for example the over 300 (or nearly 400 as often
stated) scientists who participated? What are their
credentials? How many of them have signed onto the draft that is now
being widely touted and how many have dropped out in disgust? I went
through the various lists of directors, participants etc. and I saw a
number of names of NGO activists who are known for their ideological
advocacy and not their agricultural expertise. I could name names and
advocacy groups but it is best at this time not to do so. From the
media reports, one might surmise that the only ones who withdrew or
dissented from the report were non-scientist representatives of
multinational biotech corporations who left in a childish snit
because they could not get their way. I have personally heard from
scientists who were participants but refused to sign the document.
Since the over 300 (or nearly 400 as often stated) scientists were
along with the organizations allegedly supporting it, were being used
to legitimize the resulting document, the public needs to know how
many scientists refused to sign and what is their expertise and
experience compared to those who signed. For example, does being an
NGO activist in Europe or North America qualify one as an "expert"?
The public needs to know who did not sign and why they failed to do so. If there was a difference of opinion, we need both or all sides and not just that of the proponents.
-
Many of us involved in international agriculture would certainly
be interested in learning what practical and policy actions the World
Bank and other institutions will be taking as a result of this
report. Are committees being established to assess and evaluate the
IAASTD report and its implication for World Bank and other
organizations policies. Is there to be reports issued by study groups
providing guidelines for implementing the policy recommendations of
IAASTD or for rejecting them? If such groups exist, is there a time
frame for their response? How will those who are involved in
international agriculture know how it will affect their work? After
all, the IAASTD boosters are proclaiming the revolutionary character
of their recommendations which essentially advocate the dismantling
of what they call "industrial agriculture" and undoing much of what
the World Bank has been doing over the last half century. Some of us
may consider the report more reactionary than revolutionary but it
does represent a substantial change in policy and programs. It is not
too much of a stretch to conclude that the IAASTD report essentially
holds the World Bank and others who have promoted "unsustainable
industrial agriculture" as being responsible for the current food
crisis. Since the IAASTD now claims sponsorship by a vast array of
international organizations, some of whom are very important in
agriculture, we need to know how involved they were in developing the
final report and have they made any commitments on implementing its
recommendations. Are the news accounts of implied endorsement by these organizations including the World Bank correct? If not, the media does need to be corrected.
I have many more questions but it is best that I stop here for now.
First and foremost, please let me know if I am mistaken in not seeing
an appropriate response by the World Bank. I will apologize publicly
and profusely. Should you or a member of your staff be able to
respond to my inquiry, please let me know if you wish your response
to be confidential. I will be posting the "open letter" and will post
any reply unless requested not to do so. In that case, I will post
that I received a confidential reply.
Sincerely yours
Thomas R. DeGregori
Professor of Economics
Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Houston
Department of Economics
204 McElhinney Hall
Houston, Texas 77204-5019
Ph. 001 - 1 - 713 743-3838
Fax 001 - 1 - 713 743-3798
Email trdegreg@uh.edu
Web homepage http://www.uh.edu/~trdegreg |
