There will be a need for nanoscale systems, microsys­tems technologies, sensors, etc.
•     To produce more meat, a major effort will have to be made to produce high quality, sufficient and sustain­able feed using biochemical tools and biological assays, molecular mechanisms to decipher the plant-pathogen interaction, the assessment of macro- and micronutrient characteristics, germplasm, etc. (ETP, 2005).
•     To produce bioplastics and biomaterials and use renew-ables, biotechnologies should be very useful.

5.4.2 Policies, trade and markets
Agricultural trade policies and subsidies in NAE tend to undermine the fulfillment of development goals in other parts of the world. There is uncertainty about whether the World Trade Organization will be effective in harmonizing approaches to internal subsidies, and additional uncertainty about whom is likely to benefit, how much and for how long if NAE subsidies are removed. Applying AKST could potentially help to balance the needs of vulnerable people in other regions of the world.

5.4.2.1 Ongoing trends

Agricultural policies
The following agricultural policy/trade developments will be paramount in determining the international competitive­ness of NAE agriculture/food industries and the sustainabil-ity of rural areas:
•     Reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy;
•     NAFTA, CAFTA and other similar trade policies;
•     Negotiations   under  the   World   Trade   Organization (WTO);
•     Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Interna­tional Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA);
•     Projected population growth, combined with the greater prosperity of some social groupings;
•     Relationships between economic growth and environ­mental degradation, and the compliance with interna­tional, regional and national environmental directives (Kyoto Protocol; EU policies, etc.).

There are three levels of policy framework: international (i.e., WTO, Kyoto agreement, CBD), regional (i.e., EU-CAP, NAFTA), and national/governmental. At all levels, a broad range of agricultural policies relate to different types of institutional support that farmers may be eligible for by complying with specific agreements. Aid, subsidies, tax re­ductions, special tariffs, etc. could be given to compensate farmers for loss of income opportunities or price gaps they suffer if they produce certain types of crops, tend to the landscape, rest certain areas and/or use new agricultural techniques or practices that authorities deem socially or en­vironmentally preferable. Agricultural policies also relate to natural resources conservation, rural development, agricul­tural credit, nutrition and international trade.
     For Europe, in the next 20 years, there could be a num­ber of trade policy developments, such as the reduction of border barriers to trade, both within the European Union and elsewhere, the enlargement of the European Union,

the liberalization of trade in agricultural and food prod­ucts within the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement framework, the liberalization of trade for agricultural and food products resulting from the EPAs (Economic Partner­ship Agreements) between the EU and the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries, etc.
     In the EU, the general scheme of the Common Agri­cultural Policy aid includes market supporting policies and structural policy aid. Examples of market policies include area-based    subsidies,    production/processing    subsidies, consumption subsidies, and agri-environmental aid. Some market policies are directly related to specific alternative agrosystems or their practices. Structural policy aid focuses on elements like modernizing/improving farms and facilitat­ing young people's access to farming. The Common Agri­cultural Policy (CAP) reform proposed by the Commission in 2002 introduced a major change in the income support regime: the decoupling of direct payments from production with potentially marked effects on land use. Other important reform measures have been the introduction of obligatory, modulated payments to generate funds for agri-environ­mental and rural development programs, and reduced price support for dairy (partly compensated by direct payments). The intention behind these reforms has been to increase the market orientation of EU agriculture (through decoupling). Concern for less favored agricultural regions, has led to a complex "policy cocktail" (Britz et al., 2006). Several stud­ies conclude that the effect of decoupling will most likely be a decline in cereal and silage maize acreage and in ruminant production in EU-15. A further change can be expected in the economic resources devoted by the EU to rural develop­ment, food safety and environmental protection.
     Although the IAASTD report does not include Mexico in the NAE assessment, Mexico's trade policies are closely tied to policies in the United States and Canada. All three countries have institutionalized income supports that pro­vide additional assistance to producers when commodity prices (or net farm revenues, in the case of Canada) decline. Additionally, Canada has crafted new approaches to food safety/quality, protection of the environment, the role of science in agriculture, and the overall reinvigoration of the agricultural sector. The United States is proceeding with a comprehensive buyout of tobacco quotas while expanding its efforts in conservation, placing greater emphasis on the continued use of land for production rather than land retire­ment. However, in all three countries, ample fiscal resources allow agricultural policy to proceed in a direction that is not altogether different from its previous course. However, fiscal constraints could affect the size and content of fu­ture agricultural policies in each country (Zahniser et al., 2005).
     Interactions between ministries or states often define the policy framework at the national level. At one extreme, reg­ulation is fragmented with little interaction between differ­ent ministries. One agency is responsible for health and food safety; another deals primarily with the environment. Other agencies focus on agriculture and transportation/distribu­tion. Interagency issues are often given low priority; conse­quently, each ministry has limited knowledge of the systemic needs of a regionally based agri-commodity value-chain. At the other extreme, different agencies synchronize public