• Hans Jöhr, Corporate Head of Agriculture at Nestle Ltd, representing the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD
• Julian Edwards, Director General of Consumers International
• Noel Devisch, President of the European Confederation of Agriculture
• Gerard Doornbos, President of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers
• Ron Oswald, General Secretary of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD
• Jenny Heap, Conservation Policy Director of the World Wildlife Fund
• Jeffrey A. McNeely, Chief Scientist of IUCN – The World Conservation Union.

Thus the representatives of civil society represented agricultural industry, farmers, labour, consumers, and the environment. Each had about ten minutes to address the audience, consisting of senior representatives from ministries of agriculture of the OECD countries -- Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czeck Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, and the USA -- plus the European Commission, The Council of Europe, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Trade Organization. Three observer states, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, also attended.

Although none of the speakers from the civil society discussed their presentations with each other prior to the session, the similarity among the content was remarkable:

• All were strongly supportive of agriculture playing a multifunctional role that extends beyond simply providing the most food at the least cost.
• All recognized the importance of conserving agricultural biodiversity, using the minimum possible amounts of agricultural chemicals, and providing landscape amenities as part of a package that becomes sustainable agriculture.
• All recognized that the current market system had some imperfections, and that prices for agricultural commodities often were insufficient to compensate farmers for their investments in producing global public benefits; direct payments in these cases would be appropriate, but not to be used as a non-tariff barrier to free trade.
• All supported free trade, but only if markets are fair and transparent, and not as an excuse to destroy emerging economies.
• All recognized the critical importance of continuing agricultural research, and that the public investment in agricultural research must be maintained and strengthened.
• All also agreed on the value of improving links between organizations of farmers, agriculture and food workers, the private sector, organizations of consumers, and environment organizations.

As might be expected, some differences in emphasis arose. The speaker on behalf of the labour unions pointed out that waged agriculture workers are not mentioned in Agenda 21, and that their contribution to productive agriculture is seriously undervalued. They supported appropriate roles for transnational corporations in the food chain, and welcomed initiatives from the private sector to reduce the hazards of pesticide use. They also came out strongly against the increasing use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture until the potential risks have been better assessed, calling on the precautionary principle to be applied.

The private sector and farmers were more supportive of GMOs, while consumer organizations consider it premature to decide yet whether the benefits of GMOs to consumers outweigh the conjectured costs; and in any case, they want products to be fairly labeled so consumers can make informed choices.

In the IUCN contribution, the Chief Scientist began by pointing out that the membership of IUCN includes as state members most of the OECD countries. He mentioned that while most of our government agencies are in the environmental field, many also come from the agricultural side, and many of our more than 750 NGO members also have interest in various aspects of agriculture. He pointed out that IUCN values diversity, both cultural and biological, and values this diversity both for itself and for the benefits it provides to human welfare. IUCN recognizes that farmers have played an important role in shaping the landscapes that we see around the world today, and that the current levels of biological diversity are directly related to the past activities of farmers, pastoralists and hunters.

In many ways, we are today living in a golden age. Those of us living in cities in any part of the world have access to more consumable biodiversity than ever before, and this access to greater biodiversity extends to many towns and villages as well. Globalization, supported by cheap transport, has enabled agricultural products to be moved around the world at unprecedented speeds, so that a supermarket in Switzerland can have fresh produce from the tropics in the middle of winter. All of our lives have been enriched by having this expanded access to biodiversity that is directly useful to us.

So what is the problem? Why are organizations like IUCN concerned about agriculture and the loss of biodiversity? The problem relates directly to market imperfections: the consumers in cities have no indication of the impact their consumption has on the agricultural systems that sometimes are thousands of kilometers away. In marked contrast to farmers who can immediately see the impact of their management decisions, urban consumers are blissfully unaware of the impacts of enjoying a bowl of fresh strawberries in December, along with a cup of coffee grown where formerly there was a tropical rainforest in Costa Rica.

IUCN is alarmed at the current rate of loss of biodiversity, both agricultural and wild, and much of this loss has been due to unsustainable forms of agriculture. As the human population continues to increase, we will need to find ways of improving and enhancing the way that we produce food. Most of the easy gains have already been made, as the best agricultural land is already under production and irrigation systems already exist on most lands where irrigation is appropriate.

Further, if we identify the parts of the world that are richest in biodiversity, these often are inhabited by the poorest of the rural poor, who are struggling simply to survive. This contrast between rich biodiversity and poor people is a dangerous situation, requiring a comprehensive approach that provides appropriate levels and forms of support to the rural poor. In its current work with Future Harvest, a consortium of 16 international agricultural research institutions, IUCN has identified more than 40 field examples where improvements in agriculture have also led to improvements for wild biodiversity. The strategies followed by farmers in these demonstration areas included:

• reducing land conversion by increasing productivity on existing lands
• expanding protected areas around agricultural lands
• developing habitat networks in the non-farmed portions of agricultural lands
• minimizing agricultural pollution
• modifying resource management practices to make them more compatible with wild biodiversity
• integrating perennial plants into agricultural systems, thereby helping at least partly to mimic natural systems

Of course, none of this happens automatically, and continuing research and policy support are required. But the research needs to be targeted directly at the rural poor who may threaten the richest wild biodiversity if their legitimate demands for a better life are not met through improved agriculture. This calls for a public investment in agricultural research, because the benefits ultimately will accrue to the world as a whole. Private sector research quite understandably needs to be focused on the kinds of agriculture that will yield the greatest economic return, but investment in applying modern technology, including biotechnology, to the needs of the rural poor can provide substantial benefits to both people and biodiversity. In this context, it is important to focus on both goods and services, not simply the crops that are provided, but also the clean water that is produced, the nutrients that are cycled, the carbon that is sequestered, the scenic beauty that is provided, and so forth.

IUCN closed its statement by pointing out that we are dealing with rapidly changing conditions, including in economics, human demographics, climate, levels of biodiversity, national security, and many other uncertainties. Dealing with such dynamic conditions requires building the capacity to adapt to change. We need to mobilize better science to support appropriate policies so that both current and future generations are able to benefit from the most productive possible forms of agriculture. The kinds of policies being developed and discussed within the context of OECD are highly appropriate for addressing the challenges, but need to ensure that the multiple voices of civil society are heard as part of the policy-making process.

At the close of the special session, governments generally welcomed the constructive views of civil society and called for this type of consultation to continue and expand, as a demonstration of positive dialogue between governments and civil society. This kind of multi-stakeholder discussion is clearly moving in the right direction, and it was very useful for IUCN to be part of it.