Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Harmonising the Governance of Farming Risks: agricultural biosecurity and biotechnology in Australia

2011; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 42; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00049182.2011.569983

1465-3311

Jacqui Dibden, Vaughan Higgins, Chris Cocklin,

Organic Food and Agriculture

Abstract International governmental bodies, such as the World Trade Organisation, are an increasingly prominent feature of global agri-food governance. They are instrumental not only in the dismantling of trade barriers but also in the promotion of a range of rules and standards. These rules are aimed broadly at harmonising national policies and practices so that differences are reduced and free trade is enhanced. Harmonisation is a crucial aspect of modern practices of governing, yet it has so far been given little critical attention in the agri-food and broader social science literature. Focusing on two contested policy fields with important consequences for Australian rural areas—quarantine regulations and the approval of genetically modified crops for commercial release—this paper examines how global forms of governing relating to risk assessment are constituted, rendered workable, debated and reconfigured at a national level as part of an 'assemblage' of trade liberalisation practices. We argue that the practice of harmonisation at a national scale is a complex process in which sovereignty is increasingly dispersed as national risk assessment processes are contested by corporations, trading partners and domestic political actors. The adoption of international rules may reinforce state sovereignty by legitimising desired policy changes, but it may also undermine domestic social, economic and environmental agendas. Keywords: AssemblageAustraliabiosecuritybiotechnologygovernanceharmonisationSPS AgreementWorld Trade Organisation Acknowledgements This paper was prepared under the auspices of a Discovery Project funded by the Australian Research Council on 'Regulation and Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology: GMOs in Australia and the United Kingdom' (DP0877792, 2008–10). We should like to acknowledge the helpful comments of the editor and two anonymous reviewers, and thank Dr Damian Maye for stimulating our interest in biosecurity during a visit to Monash University in March 2010. Notes 1. The SPS and TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) Agreements have been categorised by Kalderimis (2004, p. 305) as 'defensive harmonization agreements, which seek to further restrain non-trade values from interfering with free trade'. (See also Wright's (2008) study of the TBT Agreement in relation to agriculture.) 2. Sanitary measures relate to the health of animals and phyto-sanitary to plants. 3. The OIE was later renamed the World Organisation for Animal Health but retained its original acronym. 4. For Pechlaner and Otero (2008, p. 366), the 'neoliberal food regime' is 'centrally characterised by biotechnology and "life science" transnational corporations as key economic actors operating in a neoregulated international context'. 5. ABARE, for example, described itself as 'a professionally independent government economic research agency' (Nossal et al. 2008, p. ii; our emphasis). The federal government merged ABARE with the BRS on 1 July 2010. 6. This was the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC), the peak body for Australia's red-meat and livestock industry. It is made up of the Australian Lot Feeders' Association, Australian Livestock Exporters' Council, Australian Meat Industry Council, Cattle Council of Australia and Sheepmeat Council of Australia. 7. Interviews in 2009–10 revealed that some active GM opponents had been living in the UK at this time and linked their mistrust of GM foods to this experience. See also Hindmarsh (2008, pp. 187, 227). 8. The Tasmanian government issued a declaration on 26 July 2000 that 'any genetically modified plant or plant product would be a "pest" under the Plant Quarantine Act'. A 12-month moratorium was imposed on GM products in Tasmania; this was subsequently extended and is still current. 9. These include the Network of Concerned Farmers, Gene Ethics, Greenpeace and Madge (Mothers are Demystifying Genetic Engineering), as well as nutritionists and chefs, signatories of the 'Chefs' Charter'.