Options for Enabling Policies and Regulatory Environments | 473

Minisencourage the inclusion of other stakeholders, especially the private sector and producer groups. Biosafety and plant protection

With the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, many governments are in the process of developing or implementing national biosafety regulatory programs (GEF, 2006). With the rapid adoption and global trade of transgenic maize, soybean, cotton and canola the primary focus of these new programs is typically the regulation of transgenic crops. National, bilateral and international support for the establishment of biosafety regulatory programs has favored the creation of new regulatory entities under ministries other than agriculture. Given the shared nature of many of the regulatory functions of PPQ and biosafety programs (e.g., risk assessment, monitoring and inspection activities) and the inclusion of Living Modified Organisms in ISPM No. 11 (Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests, Including Analysis of Environmental Risks and Living Modified Organisms), there exists an opportunity to apply new resources available for biosafety regulatory capacity building to strengthen existing PPQ programs so that the objectives of both can be achieved without building redundant administrative services. This could be achieved under the umbrella of "plant biosecurity" to include plant health, plant biosafety and also invasive alien plant species. Inputs for programs related to plant biosafety or, more broadly, plant biosecurity should be actively sought from, if not led by, ministries of agriculture. Meeting the plant health needs of small-scale farmers

Control of plant pests that are important from a trade perspective may be of little or no significance to small-scale farmers who are not exporting their plant products. Instead, their priorities are likely to be management of local pests that will have a direct impact on their harvested or postharvest yield. Policy makers could ensure that the smallscale farmer, whose fields may be an inoculum source of a trade-prohibited pest, is provided with incentives to assist in the management of such pests so that export certification of the commodity in question can still be achieved. This could come in the form of support that links breeding or pest management programs designed to address the priorities of the small farmer with activities that will also assist in the management of the prohibited plant pest. Similarly, a government could strengthen the capacity of regulators to enforce compliance with internationally relevant phytosanitary standards but couple this with direct support for the primary producer where production practices may have to be modified so that pest exclusion goals can be attained.

      An alternative policy option is to realign public sector AKST funding to support research explicitly directed to improving small-scale, diversified farming practices that promote improved yields and enhanced food quality through sustainable pest management practices. These could variously include IPM, organic farming, and improved plant breeding programs, including the development of pest resistant varieties through marker assisted selection or recombinant DNA techniques. National prioritization of the needs of resource-poor farmers may be more important in the fu-


ture as scientific and agricultural technology spillovers from developed countries that are adapted by developing countries may be less available (Alston et al., 2006). The private sector and third party certification

The private sector has responded to enhanced consumer awareness and concern about food safety by developing their own phytosanitary (and sanitary) standards, enforced through third party certification (Hatanaka et al., 2005). This means that participating primary producers have to meet an array of requirements that go beyond those mandated in government regulations, such as implementing traceability programs or participating in accreditation programs that add expense and complexity to more traditional production systems. While there are examples of developing country farmers who have benefited from third party certification (Hatanaka et al., 2005), arguably these private sector standards discriminate against resource poor farmers who cannot afford the high costs of participation. In response, governments may decide to align their public sector investment to ensure that AKST is applied to assisting producers to meet only statutory phytosanitary standards, through agricultural research, extension and/or education systems. Individual farmers or commodity-specific producer associations would have to use their own resources to meet additional private-sector requirements. Alternatively, governments could strategically invest in AKST that will promote the participation of small-scale farmers in third party certification, through the provision of education programs and technical assistance. This may also provide a stimulus for the development of off-farm employment opportunities through the provision of services such as third-party accreditation of farms or production systems. Internationally, the private sector in developed countries, which is driving third party certification, should promote the harmonization of private sector standards and streamline accreditation, especially where these apply to plant products produced in developing countries (Jaffee, 2005). Climate change and plant health

A significant consideration for policy makers tasked with addressing plant health issues is the impact that climate change will have on plant production. Climate change can affect plant health by: modifying the encounter rate between host and pest by changing the ranges of the two species; introducing new hosts, vectors and/or pests; causing social changes such as shifts in agricultural labor; and shifting land use patterns that will alter the potential for populations of plants and pests to migrate to fragmented landscapes (Garrett et al., 2006). In response to this, policy makers will be challenged to decide if investments in development and deployment of AKST will be proactive (e.g., inclusion of climate prediction in forecasting models of plant disease) or reactive (e.g., deployment of resistant varieties after the emergence of a new plant disease). Action to mitigate the impacts of climate change on crop production will require integrated strategies developed and implemented in a participatory fashion that emphasizes the need to include non-traditional players in agricultural research. Coherent policies could be developed cooperatively through multidisciplinary partnerships within government (e.g., Minis-