148 Garrett Graddy-Lovelace
Hoc Technical Expert Group according to the International Food Sovereignty
Planning Committee (iisd Reporting Services, 2019).
Though the highly anticipated focus of the meeting, DSI did not receive formal deliberation. Dawson kept discussions on DSI “informal for the first three
days and waited until Wednesday to establish a contact group” which was limited
to two Contracting Parties per region (Muzurakis, 2019). The 54- country continent of Africa had merely two representatives to engage with North America’s
two representatives. This allegedly equal system of representation ended up
operationalizing a vestigially colonialist false equivalence of continents. The
Commission on PGRFA established a new “work stream” on DSI in 2017, and
initiated an “exploratory fact-finding scoping study” on DSI in 2018. At the
November 2019 in-person session, under Dawson’s lead, the Commission called
for even further review (Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, n.d.): at the 2021 session, they would address “the innovation opportunities” and the “challenges related to capacity to access and make use” of DSI
(ibid.). Meanwhile, however, the actual development, use, and circulation of
the technology and sequencing of genetic data expand rapidly, even as the governance and collective deliberation of biocultural ethics and accountability of
such data all stall and stagnate at the international level. Civil society and scholars working with in situ initiatives came to troubling conclusions: “With the
ongoing omics developments, if not correctly addressed, the ‘DSI issue’ might
threaten the stability of the Seed Treaty and possibly the entire ABS framework”
(Aubry, 2019, p. 9).
As the introduction to this book contends, “BCPs could be an integral part of
the domestic ABS legislation”,
12 but the inspiring BCP-oriented initiatives in the
U.S. have not made their way to the U.S. involvement in ITPGRFA implementation. Conversely, official U.S. leadership and participation in the Treaty process
leave little room for biocultural rights, responsibilities, principles, and support –
or even acknowledgment. What accounts for the disconnect between grassroots
biocultural initiatives and official governance in international fora? In general
terms, the long durée of coloniality. More specifically, the postcolonial legacy of
the modern nation-state, and its inordinate power, even – especially – in (neo)
liberal internationalism.
Liberalism’s Limits: Multiple Critiques of Multilateralism
and Multiculturalism
The international liberal order has temporal, spatial, and theoretical limits
that manifest in the form of paradoxes. Temporally, international liberalism is
recent, beginning after World Wars, in the throes of anti-colonial struggles to
throw off the shackles of empire. In conjunction with the Bretton Woods international financial institutions, the United Nations (UN) began in 1945 “by 51
countries committed to maintaining peace and security, developing friendly
relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards
Hoc Technical Expert Group according to the International Food Sovereignty
Planning Committee (iisd Reporting Services, 2019).
Though the highly anticipated focus of the meeting, DSI did not receive formal deliberation. Dawson kept discussions on DSI “informal for the first three
days and waited until Wednesday to establish a contact group” which was limited
to two Contracting Parties per region (Muzurakis, 2019). The 54- country continent of Africa had merely two representatives to engage with North America’s
two representatives. This allegedly equal system of representation ended up
operationalizing a vestigially colonialist false equivalence of continents. The
Commission on PGRFA established a new “work stream” on DSI in 2017, and
initiated an “exploratory fact-finding scoping study” on DSI in 2018. At the
November 2019 in-person session, under Dawson’s lead, the Commission called
for even further review (Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, n.d.): at the 2021 session, they would address “the innovation opportunities” and the “challenges related to capacity to access and make use” of DSI
(ibid.). Meanwhile, however, the actual development, use, and circulation of
the technology and sequencing of genetic data expand rapidly, even as the governance and collective deliberation of biocultural ethics and accountability of
such data all stall and stagnate at the international level. Civil society and scholars working with in situ initiatives came to troubling conclusions: “With the
ongoing omics developments, if not correctly addressed, the ‘DSI issue’ might
threaten the stability of the Seed Treaty and possibly the entire ABS framework”
(Aubry, 2019, p. 9).
As the introduction to this book contends, “BCPs could be an integral part of
the domestic ABS legislation”,
12 but the inspiring BCP-oriented initiatives in the
U.S. have not made their way to the U.S. involvement in ITPGRFA implementation. Conversely, official U.S. leadership and participation in the Treaty process
leave little room for biocultural rights, responsibilities, principles, and support –
or even acknowledgment. What accounts for the disconnect between grassroots
biocultural initiatives and official governance in international fora? In general
terms, the long durée of coloniality. More specifically, the postcolonial legacy of
the modern nation-state, and its inordinate power, even – especially – in (neo)
liberal internationalism.
Liberalism’s Limits: Multiple Critiques of Multilateralism
and Multiculturalism
The international liberal order has temporal, spatial, and theoretical limits
that manifest in the form of paradoxes. Temporally, international liberalism is
recent, beginning after World Wars, in the throes of anti-colonial struggles to
throw off the shackles of empire. In conjunction with the Bretton Woods international financial institutions, the United Nations (UN) began in 1945 “by 51
countries committed to maintaining peace and security, developing friendly
relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards