world population (Tribe, 1994), and rarely explicitly targeted the multiple needs of the rural population (World Bank, 2007a). This situation has changed over the last 10 years with the development of a livelihoods focus in rural development projects, but in many countries, national policies are still focused on high-input farming systems with a strong emphasis on intensive farming that differs from the smallscale, low-input, mixed cropping systems of small-scale farmers which may be hurt by untargeted policy reforms (OECD, 2005). A stronger livelihood approach is based on sustainability issues, diversification of benefits, better use of natural resources, ethical trade and a more people-centric focus. Diversified farming systems often mimic natural ecosystems as noted in best-bet alternatives to slash-andburn (Palm et al., 2005b). These typically provide radical improvements in farmer livelihoods (Vosti et al., 2005) and environmental benefits (Tomich et al., 2005).

Organizations that support and regulate the production of agricultural crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry are often poorly interconnected at the national and international level, and are also poorly connected with those responsible for the environment and conservation.

The creation of synergies between increased production and development and sustainability goals are often limited by the "disconnects" between agriculture and the environment. Thus the ideal of sustainable land use is often more a subject of political rhetoric than government policy. However, there are signs that some of the INRM initiatives-in agroforestry, organic agriculture, sustainable forestry certification, etc-are starting to influence environmental land use planning and agricultural authorities (Abbott et al., 1999; Dalal- Clayton and Bass, 2002; Dalal-Cayton et al., 2003), as they are also in fisheries (Sanchirico et al., 2006).

In the agricultural and food sectors, coordination of the development of international policies created by the WTO have strongly interacted with global AKST actors.

Changes during the period of structural adjustment had considerable impact on the ability of developing countries to define targets and find the means to implement their public research and policy interventions. The need for more "policy space" is now widely acknowledged (Rodrik, 2007), creating a wide gap between the demand for policy and the implementation of either new policy or public/ private stakeholder initiatives (Daviron et al., 2004). It is not clear whether the centralized and public AST policies of the last century can be replaced by modern decentralized public/private partnerships (such as private investment on R&D, standardization initiatives, third-party certification and farmer organization credit and saving programs) targeting the reduction of poverty and increased sustainability.

3.2.4.3.1 Sectoral policies

Many of the different sectors encompassed by agriculture have policies which specifically address a particular production system, target population, or natural resource. Likewise, specific agricultural policies concern food safety and health issues. This can create problems, as these different sectors of agriculture are often poorly integrated, or even disconnected. However, a few examples (e.g., agroforestry and forestry) are emerging which illustrate some convergence between sectors.

One of the consequences of structural adjustment policies has been the abandonment of the land by poor farmers, who can no longer afford farm inputs.

Rising input prices have resulted in high migration from the countryside to urban centers in search of jobs; often low paid manufacturing jobs. In India, for example, the numbers of landless rural farmers increased from 27.9 to over 50 million between 1951 and the 1990s, hampering economic growth. This illustrates that achieving higher aggregate economic growth is only one element of an effective strategy for poverty reduction (Datt and Ravallion, 2002) and that redressing existing inequalities in human resource development and between rural and urban areas are other important elements of success.

Although governments have expanded their role in water management, particularly in large scale irrigation schemes, sustainability requires effective institutional arrangements for the management of the resource and particularly public- private coordination.

Large dams, reservoirs and irrigation systems have usually been built by government agencies for economic development, including agriculture, urbanization and power generation. In most countries, agriculture has been by far the largest user of water and typically its allocation and management has been a public concern of government (de Sherbinin and Dompka, 1998). In the 1980s dissatisfaction with irrigation management and sustainability was common and the importance of empowering farmers, together with their traditional systems of water rights, was recognized as important. This led to the concept of participatory irrigation management in the 1990s. Nevertheless, communities of water users have faced numerous challenges in gaining sustainable and equitable access to water (Bruns and Meinzen- Dick, 2000; Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2002). Water User Associations (WUA) have emerged as an effective way of managing water delivery (Abernethy, 2003; Schlager, 2003). This approach, as well as the rise of the private sector, has led to the redefinition of the role of governments over the past 20 years. Governments are now viewed as facilitators of investments, regulators of this sector and responsible for sustainable management at the watershed scale (Hamann and O'Riordan, 2000; Perret, 2002; ComMod Group, 2004).