Congress should approve funding to better understand the opportunities for cost-effective GHG reductions in the agricultural sector. Understanding the possible reductions in GHG emissions and increases in carbon sequestration from different agricultural management practices in different regions, and the development of reliable estimation procedures are necessary for agriculture to take advantage of the opportunities resulting from Kyoto.

The USDA should develop and implement a pilot GHG-trading program for agriculture. Even though there appears to be limited economic potential for carbon sequestration, significant opportunities lie with the other GHG's. The USDA, using small portion of the federal dollars allocated to farm supports, could develop the basis of a successful trading program addressing the questions of measurement, permanence, the baseline and additionality.

Farm income subsidies should be shifted to support that help farmers reduce environmental problems caused by agriculture. Tying environmental performance to the farm support program would ensure that the federal monies spent provided environmental and social benefits in addition to supporting the farm.

Nutrient trading programs should be vigorously encouraged by USEPA. Nutrient trading, especially nitrogen, can not only reduce the cost of meeting regulatory obligations for water quality, but can also provide significant co-benefits such as reductions in GHG's and soil erosion.

Agricultural soils should only be included in Kyoto's Article 3.4 if both soil carbon emissions and removals are accounted for and reasonable certainty in measurement protocols, permanence and additionality can be assured.

Develop an environmental strategy for agriculture and implement it. With agriculture facing so many environmental pressures, a comprehensive strategy dealing with the environment rather than the piece-meal approach currently taken will lead to more cost-effective solutions and policies.