Deforestation is often an outcome of poorly linked intersectorial policies.

One of the common and dominant outcomes from an international study of slash-and-burn agriculture was that smallscale farmers cut down tropical forests because current national and international policies, market conditions, and institutional arrangements either provide them with incentives for doing so, or do not provide them with alternatives (Palm et al., 2005b; Chomitz et al., 2006). This trend will continue if tangible incentives that meet the needs of local people for more sustainable alternatives to slash-and-burn farming are not introduced. Some options linked to the delivery of international public goods and services, like carbon storage, may be very expensive (Palm et al., 2005a), while others like the participatory domestication of trees providing both environmental services and marketable, traditional foods and medicines (Tchoundjeu et al., 2006), that help farmers to help themselves may be a cheaper option (see 3.2.2.1.6).

Integrating forestry with other land uses has economic, environmental and social benefits.

Recently forest agencies have recognized that tree cover outside public forests and in farmland are important for national forest-related objectives (FAO, 2006b). In forest certification the links between civil society and market action have been a key driver in the social integration of intensive forest plantations (Forest Stewardship Council www.fsc. org and Pan-European Forest Certification www.pefc.org). Consequently, certification standards are improving the direction of both forest policy and forest KST at national and international levels (Bass et al., 2001; Gueneau and Bass, 2005). Forest certification is linking land use issues from the tree stand, to the landscape, and ultimately to global levels for the production of sustainable non-timber benefits and environmental services (Pagiola et al., 2002; Belcher, 2003). When KST and market conditions are right, the flow of financial benefits can make multipurpose forest systems economically superior to conventional timber-focused systems (Pagiola et al., 2002). Non-wood forest products produce a global value of at least $4.7 billion in 2005 (FAO, 2005b).

Public interest in food safety has increased and food standards have been developed to ensure that the necessary safety characteristics are achieved.

Public interest in the chemical residues in fresh produce (Bracket, 1999; Kitinoja and Gorny, 1999) has been heightened by the provision of quantitative data on chemical use in agriculture (OECD, 1997; Timothy et al., 2004), especially the use of banned pesticides in developing country agriculture. Of special concern is the permitted thresholds of heavy metals (Mansour, 2004), and their status as con-

taminants, especially as food administrators in developed countries have tended to set increasingly lower levels of tolerance. Traceability has become an important criterion of food quality (Bureau et al., 2001). Internationally recognized food safety standards include GAP, GMP like ISO 9000, EUREP GAP, HACCP. Similarly, various measures and standards have been developed for food quality including Diet Quality Index (Patterson et al., 1994), Analysis of Core Foods (Kristal et al., 1990), and Healthy Eating Index (Kennedy et al., 1995). Dietary Diversity Scores are also now increasingly used to measure food quality (Kant et al., 1993, 1995; Hatloy, et al., 1998; Marshall et al., 2001; Ali and Farooq, 2004), while total nutritive values are being used to prioritize food commodities (Ali and Tsou, 2000). Although consumers benefit from the better quality and greater safety attributes of food products, the enforcement of food quality standards also may increase food prices (Padilla, 1992). In addition, the cost of applying food safety standards can be a drain on public resources or may lead to disguised protection, as in the case of "voluntary certifications" which are increasingly a prerequisite for European retailers (Bureau and Matthews, 2005).

GMOs are experiencing adoption difficulties in Europe.

GM crops are only grown commercially in 3-4 European countries, (primarily Spain) (James, 2006) and very few GM crops and foods have been approved for commercialization. Rejection by consumers, food companies and supermarkets is responsible for poor adoption and can taken as an indication that consumer demand for GM products is almost nonexistent (Bernauer, 2003). However, it is unclear to what extent consumer demand has been the result of EU regulations or vice versa and debate continues about the level of appropriate regulations. Before the mid-1980s, there were no GMOs on the market in Europe, but since then the EU has adopted regulations on the approval of GM crops and foods. The strict labeling laws have resulted in very few GM foods sold on the European market. There is however more tolerance of non-food GM crops in Europe and recent reports indicate that some 75% of cotton imported into the EU today is from GM varieties, mainly from the USA and China. In other parts of the world the situation with GM foods is very different, Fifteen of 16 commercial crops in China have genetically engineered pest resistance (8/16 virus, 4/16 insect, 4/16 disease resistance) and herbicide resistance (2/16) (See 3.2.1.4).

Adoption of GMOs has had some serious negative economic impacts in Canada and USA.

After the adoption of GM varieties, Canadian farmers lost their market for $300 million of canola (oilseed rape) to GMO-free markets in Europe (Freese and Schubert, 2004; Shiva et al., 2004). Likewise, after leading US food allergists judged Bt-corn to be a potential health hazard (Freese, 2001), US$1 billion worth of product recalls followed the