fied and healthy foods, at the local, national and global levels) as well as collaborations between governmental departments and private sectors and NGO actors;
•     Define the criteria for balancing between these different policies; and
•     Identify ways that ensure the articulation of these poli­cies at the local, regional and global levels.

For example formulating new policies to improve current policies in order to integrate the sustainability and multi­functional aspect of agriculture and facilitate the devel­opment of sustainable food and farming systems.  Such possibilities include:
•     Adoption of policies that facilitate rapid uptake of tech­nologies that maintain or increase productivity and have a smaller environmental footprint than current technologies;
•     Elaboration of policies that consider the holistic ap­proach to agriculture (Bryden, 2001). This would lead to more encompassing policy instruments for the achieve­ment of multiple objectives that are more efficient than separate policies for each of the multifunctional attri­butes of agriculture;
•     Development of new policies while keeping in mind the transaction costs (other than administrative costs) in­volved and determining if these costs could be reduced through policies aimed at selective targeting of farms subject to the programs, by using agricultural price and income support programs, etc. (Abler, 2004); and
•     Elaboration of policies to reduce the negative and pro­mote the positive externalities or public goods at the farm level (identification of the individual farmer's con­tribution to a specific externality) and the landscape level (INRA et al., 2004).

6.4.2 Developing AKST in response to international agreements
International cooperation in making development and sus­tainability goals is critical in order to facilitate the imple­mentation and development of international treaties and conventions. In many cases, successful implementation of international agreements will require changes in the use of agricultural technologies. Many agreements offer oppor­tunities for scientific, technological and policy innovation. Policy responses to international agreements can often be made practicable or facilitated by accompanying scientific and technological change (Kiss, 2003; Mitchell, 2003; Por­ter et al., 2006; Anton et al., 2007).
     The Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997 and the subject of continuing development since that time requires the re­duction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) in NAE and presents challenges in all sectors, including agriculture. As discussed elsewhere in this report, methane production de­riving from agriculture, the use of agricultural chemicals that contribute to the greenhouse effect, energy use in agriculture and deforestation for agricultural production are among the most important areas where innovations may help in meet­ing the goals of the agreement. Agricultural techniques that improve rates of carbon sequestration may prove important and the development of biofuels that meet other environ­mental and social criteria and result in net reduction of GHE may also make an important contribution.

     The fact that the United States is not signer of the Kyoto Protocol presents its own set of policy challenges and by implication, challenges for both policy and science among all nations. Adherence of the United States to the goals of Kyoto and/or the creation of new international agreements that adequately address global climate change and that en­list the commitment of all nations in NAE is of great im­portance. The development of existing and new agricultural technologies and policies or their novel application should be considered important tools not only in achieving com­pliance with existing agreements but also in removing ob­stacles to the design of effective new agreements (Tamara, 2006; Eyckmans and Finus, 2007).
     Similar issues arise with respect to the non-ratification by the United States of the Convention on Biological Diver­sity and the Law of the Sea Treaty. Both of these agreements have important implications for agricultural production and for the development of AKST. The fact that the United States remains one of the few nations in the world that have not ratified them presents challenges to further developments in AKST and related policies, with particular significance within NAE. Resolution of the problems standing in the way of ratification by all NAE countries could clear the way for more straightforward and coordinated responses to the efforts needed to meet the goals and provisions of the agree­ments at the global scale.
     The Montreal Protocol, first adopted in 1987, contin­ues to challenge agriculture and other sectors to achieve full compliance. For example, the full phase-out of methyl bro­mide as an agricultural fumigant has yet to be achieved and has led to the search for and/or development of substitute technologies and practices (for current regulatory status and actions, see http:www.epa.gov/ozone/mpr).
     Similarly, the 1998 Rotterdam Convention for the Ap­plication of Prior Informed Consent for Trade in Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides and the 2001 Stockholm Conven­tion on Persistent Organic Pollutants create the demand for technologies to substitute for those that may be used less widely or eliminated by implementation of these treaties. These treaties in some of their implications may create a potential imbalance between wealthier and poorer nations, as poorer nations may have a more difficult time finding substitutes for older and cheaper technologies disfavored by the treaties, which in many cases include tools or techniques with expired patents. The higher cost of newer substitutes with patent protection may make it difficult for many coun­tries to comply with the provision of the treaties. Research and innovation in NAE, possible compensatory schemes and the application of features of intellectual property rights may be critical in identifying viable alternatives that can be made practical and affordable to all (Nakada, 2006).
     International agreements are not always entirely consis­tent with one another, as appears to be the case with pro­visions of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Trade Organization's TRIPs (trade-related intellec­tual property rights) agreement. It will be important to forge agreements that create clear and consistent property rules, or that create ways in which inconsistencies among interna­tional agreements and among international agreements and national legal regimes, may be mediated (Chiarolla, 2006; Rosendal, 2006).