Typically, AKST development has rationalized production according to academic discipline, constraining the development of integrated production systems.

In the past, crop, livestock and forest sciences have typically been implemented separately. However, agroforestry integrates trees with food crops and/or livestock in a single system, improving the relationships between food crops, livestock and tree crops for timber or other products, but this level of integration is rarely visible in international institutions, national governments and markets. For example, the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (1999), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests do not focus on agricultural links. Likewise, the InterAcademy Council Report on African Agriculture (2004) paid scant attention to forestry, or even to agroforestry. However, this is changing and a few new forms of local organization and collective action are emerging, such as Landcare (www. landcare.org), Ecoagriculture (McNeely and Scherr, 2003); community forestry associations (Molnar et al., 2005), and biological corridor conservation projects. This change has just emerged at the policy level, with the European Union approving a measure entitled "First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land" (Article 44 of Regulation No 1698/2005 and Article 32 Regulation No 1974/2006, Annex II, point 5.3.2.2.2) in 2007 to provide funds for the establishment of two agroforestry systems in mainland Greece.

IPR policies are used to protect plant genetic resources that are important for food and agriculture.

Most developed countries have a system to register Plant Breeders Rights, often supported by Trade Marks and Patents. These schemes are genuinely fostering innovation and conferring benefits to innovators, while also protecting genetic resources. They are supported by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP, 1993) which aim to promote both the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use (FAO, 2001, 2002b). The treaty addresses the exchange of germplasm between countries and required all member countries of World Trade Organization to implement an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) system before 2000 (Tirole et al., 2003; Trommetter, 2005) "for the protection of plant varieties by patents or by an effective sui generis system" (Mortureux, 1999; Célarier and Marie- Vivien 2001; Feyt, 2001). Germplasm arising from international public-funded research is protected on behalf of humankind by the FAO (Frison et al., 1998; Jarvis et al., 2000; Sauvé and Watts, 2003). Agriculture is being integrated into the program and work of the CBD, including conservation of domesticated species, genetic diversity and goals for conservation of wild flora and agricultural landscapes.

Intellectual property rights regulatory frameworks currently do not protect the innovations or rights of communities or farmers in developing countries to their indigenous genetic resources.

The development of IPR frameworks at international and national scales through patents, trade marks, contracts, geographical indicators and varieties do not offer much protection for poor farmers and there are many unresolved issues. For example, in developing countries many farmers do not have the ability or income to protect their rights, and the identification of the innovator can be controversial. Consequently much international activity by NGOs and farmer organizations is focused on trying to develop effective protection mechanisms for farmers and local communities based on traceability and transparency (Bazile, 2006), as for example in the Solomon Islands (Sanderson and Sherman, 2004). This is important to prevent biopiracy and to promote legitimate biodiscovery that meets internationally approved standards.

To assess and manage potential risks from LMOs and GMOs, governments are developing National Biosafety Frameworks.

Countries need to have capacity and mechanisms to make informed decisions as they accept or reject products of modern biotechnology (Pinstrup-Andersen and Schioler, 2001). Currently many Governments, including eighty developing countries, have developed National Biosafety Frameworks (NBF) to support the application and use of modern biotechnology in accordance with national policies, laws and international obligations, in particular the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CBD, 2000). This is the first step towards the development of improved capacity for biosafety assessment and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol under the UNEP-GEF Biosafety Project (http://www.unep .ch/biosafety/news.htm). NBFs have had some success but they have not always been adopted by governments. Many African countries still lack biosafety policies and regulations and technical enforcement capacity.

3.2.4.3.4 International policy, treaties and conventions

The globalization process has been supported by international and regional trade policy frameworks, and by the policy recommendations (structural adjustment programs) of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

There are links between global trade and economic agreements and institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Regional Trade Agreements (e.g., NAFTA, EPA), IMF, bilateral agreements, and domestic and regional agricultural policies, technologies, R&D and natural resource use. AKST played a role in this process, particularly