In the preamble of the constitution (Interim Commission, 1944, p.41) the founding principles of the proposed permanent organisation were laid out:
The Nations accepting this Constitution, being determined to promote the common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purposes of
o raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples under their jurisdictions,
o securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products, o bettering the condition of rural populations,
o and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy,
hereby establish the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
ensuring markets for producers while promoting desirable adjustments in agricultural production”
(Interim Commission, 1944, p.24)
179
The Commission did not adequately address the tension between the two opposing standpoints: FAO as advisory body, as promoted by Britain and the US; or FAO as active regulatory body, as championed by Boyd Orr, McDougall and their fellow nutritionists. Staples (2006, p.78) argues that FAO’s constitution was watered down by the Commission from the ideals expressed in the Hot Springs Declaration and “instead of calling for freedom from hunger, it merely called on all signatories to better standards of living and nutrition in areas under their jurisdiction, improve systems of production and distribution of food, elevate rural standards of living and contribute to an expanding world economy.”
The core functions were set out in article 1, which stated: “the organisation shall collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture” and “shall promote and, where appropriate, shall recommend national and international action” in relation to six principle areas21 (Interim Commission, 1944, p.41). Although both agricultural credit and agricultural commodity arrangements were specifically mentioned FAO was only asked to adopt and not draw up policies related to them.
21 a) scientific, technological, social and economic research relating to nutrition, food and agriculture; b) the improvement of education and administration relating to nutrition, food and agriculture, and the spread of public knowledge of nutritional and agricultural science and practice; c) the conservation of natural resources and the adoption of improved methods of agricultural production; d) the improvement of the processing, marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products; e) the adoption of policies for the provision of adequate agricultural credit, national and international; f) the adoption of international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements (Interim Commission, 1944, p.41)
180
For those wanting to establish a regulatory organisation, with authority and funding to implement structural change, the Commission had proved incapable of delivering a strong FAO. Instead, it was to be an advisory organisation promoting research in the areas of natural sciences, technology, economic organisation of agriculture, social factors, and public measures of regulation and assistance, and establishing a reputation for its excellence in such work. It was also to coordinate the gathering of information from member countries and the dissemination of research through education and publications.
The conflict between a number of FAO’s powerful member states and the epistemic community was clearly evident as the Commission struggled to combine the different objectives of each set of actors, of nutrition versus trade, demonstrating the fault lines between state sovereignty, institution autonomy and interdependence within the international system, even at this early stage of its creation. By relegating freedom from hunger to the periphery and placing the emphasis on states’ responsibilities to their own populations the Commission had in a single stroke undermined the authority of the epistemic community, and the nutritional standard they advocated; enshrined the autonomy of states as main actors, with ultimate authority over the nascent FAO; and limited the scope of a truly interdependent post-war world, as envisaged by those at Hot Springs.
Although the remit of FAO was more limited than some would have hoped it still had a daunting task ahead, one in which it had to steer a course between taking
181
“vigorous action in the critical period just after the war when conditions [were]
fluid and before vested interests [had] become established,” following “a policy of careful development, involving the painstaking study of its complicated problems.” (Interim Commission, 1944, p.31) Notwithstanding the initial hope for FAO to carve out its own niche this would prove challenging as the powerful member states had already staked out their own interests.
Although cognitivists place significant emphasis on the role of the epistemic community and its role in the provision of information, this role is arguably only one element that is required. Even if the epistemic community is in agreement, as was demonstrated by the champions of nutrition, its ability to persuade states to create an authoritative organisation was limited as states sought to protect their own national interests.
Traditional realist theorist Kindleberger ([1973], 1986) argues that there is no substitute for a strong hegemon within the system. In the post-war world the hegemon was clearly the US. However, Krasner’s (1993) interpretation of the role played by regimes may be more appropriate as he argues that regimes are distributors of power and interests, through which the players and game rules are decided by those in power. Powerful states, most notably the US and to a lesser extent Britain, ensured FAO did not possess too much authority by limiting its remit at its moment of creation.
182