in a multilateral way through the conclusion of a "standard" material transfer agreement, but there are shortfalls in fund­ing. The PGRFA treaty also states that the responsibility for realizing farmers' rights (including, when appropriate, the protection of traditional knowledge, the sharing of benefits arising from the use of PGRFA, the right to participate in making decisions at national level on matters related to PGRFA) rests with national governments. Thus, a reflection is also going on since 2001 at the World Intellectual Prop­erty Organization on the relationship between intellectual property, genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
     Stakeholders are being increasingly challenged by this continuously evolving and complex legal framework (Vis-ser et al., 2000). There are several options to consider for AKST to contribute to the clarification of the regulatory framework in the context of more systemic governance ap­proaches linking global, national and local levels on the one hand and conservation, knowledge, utilization on the other. Among others:
•     Ensure a better coherence of national, community and private rights systems over genetic resources and tradi­tional knowledge relevant to agriculture, while encour­aging the implementation of effective dialogues between agricultural communities and governments; and
•     Encourage intellectual or other property rights that in­crease easy access to genetic variability and associated knowledge, while ensuring that the royalties associated to such rights will effectively permit the maintenance and regeneration of the genetic resources and their trustees.

6.4.4   Setting up new modes of governance

6.4.4.1   General governance issues in food and farming systems
New modes of governance can contribute to the sustainable development of food and farming systems. This calls for the development of innovative networks at the local level (both terrestrial and marine). It is advised that some of the re­search concentrate on:
•     Area required to ensure a good balance between diag­nostic and action as well as between action and needed resource mobilization: in most cases, the size of an en­vironmental space (e.g., a watershed) will not fit either the economic or policy space of action, suggesting com­promise as a tool to define the optimal boundaries;
•     Development of methods and processes to create in­novative networks at local levels to solve problems: mobilization of stakeholders to be part of the network, collective identification of potential conflicts among stakeholders to face and solve the problems, relevant collective organization and resource mobilization for action and follow-up; and
•     Development of common tools to facilitate local gov­ernance: local databases, easy to use integrated soft­ware packages to model complex systems and build up indicators to compare response strategies.

A systematic exploration and scientifically sound exami­nation of practical experience could facilitate in fulfilling these needs. Such research would be effective if it is trans-

disciplinary, i.e., also involving stakeholders using suitable participatory   approaches   (focus   groups,   expert   panels, etc.). Stakeholders are the farming sector, consumers, tax­payers, citizens with food safety, environment and animal welfare interests, the food industry as well as regional level decision-makers and administrators (World Bank, 2008). A challenging question is how to combine qualitative and quantitative research to effectively support the related deci­sion processes. The aim must be to effectively bridge differ­ent research paradigms and to embed the analyses within a process of stakeholder interactions.
Examples of such new modes of governance include:

(1) Food policy councils. A food policy council is a coali­tion of food system stakeholders who advise a city, county, or state government on policies related to agriculture and food. These councils focus on areas such as using agricul­ture and food systems as an economic development tool, protection for farmland and farming, prevention of hunger, fostering the processing and local marketing of food and ag­ricultural products, reducing producer risk, enhancing food safety and promoting nutrition education. They develop legislation, recommendations to departments of agriculture and other policymakers, support and promote state and regional food marketing programs and promote education about local food issues. One of the key functions and ben­efits of these councils is the increased coordination between state agencies. They also serve as a venue for communica­tion between food and agricultural businesses, consum­ers and policymakers. The work of Food Policy Councils across the United States of America has so far engaged a large number of stakeholders from food businesses, agri­culture, government, consumer groups, non-governmental advocates, nutritionists and institutions in a dialogue about how to promote food and farm businesses for the well-being of the current and future residents of their respective states (Lipstreu, 2007).
     Food policy councils could provide a crucial forum to encourage more creative and lasting solutions to food sys­tem issues. Based on their ability to bring together diverse organizations and interests to develop win-win solutions, food policy councils can have a significant influence, even with modest resources. They have proven to be a voice for the critical role of food issues in public policy, both at the municipal and state level. Food policy councils can help put healthy food on the radar screens of local and state govern­ments (Food Security Learning Center, 2007).

(2) European Water Framework Directive: Integrated river basin management for Europe. This is the most substantial piece of water legislation ever produced by the European Commission and will provide the major driver for achieving sustainable management of water in the Member States for many years to come. It requires that all inland and coastal waters within defined river basin districts must reach at least good status by 2015 and defines how this should be achieved through the establishment of environmental objec­tives and ecological targets for surface waters.
     Success will depend on close cooperation and coherent action at community, member state and local level as well as on information, consultation and involvement of the public.