At the intersection of 21st and K street in Washington D.C. is a little known place, affectionately named the FAO or food and agriculture organization. Daniel Gustafson, director of the liaison office of North America greeted us in the conference room. He was pleasant enough - at least to say he seemed good at what he does. He made an effort to ask us our names, scripted or not. I don't know, I tend to be cynical. What kind of conversation can really take place in a 2 hour block between the director of an enormous NGO and a group of students? We hadn't built any repertoire with him, we're no group of Michael Moore's storming the IMF claiming citizen's arrest. We were a group of 10 students accepting invitation into their glass box world of policy and analysis. We would like to think that we can at least make an attempt to get to the bottom of things, but in the end we were left with many lingering questions and a series of vague explanations. I'm not making a direct criticism. I personally can't. I'm a 20 year old child attempting to understand the in's and out's of the world. I'm sitting in a conference room grasping to understand our current system.
Anyways, we asked the questions, we heard some "answers". In the end, it was all very textbook. Moral of the story is that development policy is shifting towards "cultural understanding" and integration of "local initiatives". FAO is essentially a credibility stamp (from my understanding). They receive analytical models from think global tanks and work with the principles of vision of the UN to foster equality and development. They understand that agriculture is an essential and often overlooked aspect of a nation's security. Who are we if we can't feed ourselves? Who are we if we can't responsibly utilize our natural resources? We are in a lot of trouble, that's what. This is a truth. Yet, how do you bridge the founded and under-represented ingenuity of the local community with the need of the nation-state?
Mr. Gustafon also introduced us to his colleague, Florence. She continued the Q&A when he was obligated to leave for another meeting. This is where our questions really began to form. It's not that I think that she didn't know the answers, I just think it's difficult to filter what she is able and not able to discuss with a group of strangers. During the discussion, one of us put it on the table - U.S. policy, good or bad? Her response, a vague five minute response of jargon. I guess it's a pretty general question, an opinion would have been nice though. Like, we were at the source! We just wanted a little insight into the current system. On paper though, I got the chance to visit the FAO - no complaints about that.
I don't know what else to say. I would be a master if I could fit a two hour conversation into a few paragraphs. We discussed how the organization operated, learned that each member country of the FAO is also a part of the United Nations and that they have to tools (and use them) to implement socially just development. Yet, nothing is ever perfect and development-policy keeps changing with the acceptance of new social theories. I guess it's just important to keep seeing, keep learning, keep challenging what you "know". I did walk away with an important piece of advice though. There is no "best practice", every change must be created and implemented within the context of the system/community. Grey is the new black and white.
No comments:
Post a Comment