At Vote: Sustainable Agriculture Center

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
The resolution quoted below is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.

The voting on the forum will close on Sun., Oct. 29, 2006 at 11:59pm GMT.

The Resolution At Vote
Sustainable Agriculture Center
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

-A- Affirming the importance of sustainable agriculture for our societies,

-B- Defining “Sustainable Agriculture” as a global agriculture achieving all of the three following goals: - Sufficient and healthy food for population’s need - Environmental stewardship - Good living conditions and prosperity for farmers and farms,

-C- Convinced that, in order to achieve these ambitious goals, the best of both traditional techniques and new technologies have to be used with a sensible, critical, secure and ethical approach:

-1- ESTABLISH the UNSARC « UN Sustainable Agriculture Resource Center » for the purpose of collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences in member nations, via UNSARC national branches in interested nations and free internet resources and forums;

-2- PROMOTES by its UNSARC agency the following:

-2.1- Water-saving management systems such as drip irrigation (drop by drop) or surge irrigation (intermittent application of water),

-2.2- Traditional rain-harvesting systems such as reservoirs, tanks, wells or johads (small earthen check dams build across a slope that capture and conserve rainwater), their shading to decrease evaporation and collective projects to build them,

-2.3- Crop rotation practices and polyculture to decrease pests (insects, weeds, pathogens …) and soil depletion,

-2.4- Scientific researches for more-biodegradable and less toxic pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, bactericides …) and ecological biological ones,

-2.5- The sensible use of pesticides for agriculture (as for road maintenance) along with small predators animals in order both to protect crops and avoid soil degradation,

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

-2.7- The suppression of animal carcass in livestock feeding; -2.8- The mitigation of new cultivated areas gained over forests

-3- CHARGES the UNSARC with studying the safety and effects of artificial hybrid crops (the result of interbreeding between two varieties) and GM crops (Genetically modified crops) and with giving recommendations on this matter following the principles below:

-3.1- The tractability of GM crops and the labelling of genetically modified food,

-3.2- The need of security testing for new hybrid and GM crops; in particular those with an insect resistance trait,

-3.3- The encouragement of scientific researches for new safe hybrid and GM crops with a disease, drought, floods, heat or cold resistance traits or with added vitamin

-3.4- The refusal of sterile GM crops (so called terminator technology) in the wild,

-3.5- The awareness that hybrid and GM crops with an herbicide resistance trait may induce damageable over-use of herbicides,

-3.6- The need for hybrid and GM crops with an insect resistance trait for “refuges” (a 20% belt of non-hybrid or non-GM crops inside any hybrid or GM crop parcel),

-3.7- The even greater importance of crop rotation practices and polyculture whith hybrid and GM crops.

Co-authored by CR Oscilloscopes
 
There is no way GMO's are sustainable, you have to buy new seeds every year. There is also no way that sustainable agriculture can feed the burgeoning population of the world. Use of pesticides at all is less than ideal since most are petroleum based and even when they are broken down to "harmless" compounds they are still not a natural part of the ecosystem, which contradicts the concept of environmental stewardship.

Against
 
There is no way GMO's are sustainable, you have to buy new seeds every year. There is also no way that sustainable agriculture can feed the burgeoning population of the world. Use of pesticides at all is less than ideal since most are petroleum based and even when they are broken down to "harmless" compounds they are still not a natural part of the ecosystem, which contradicts the concept of environmental stewardship.

Against
Hits the nail on head here


-2.4- Scientific researches for more-biodegradable and less toxic pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, bactericides …) and ecological biological ones

-3- CHARGES the UNSARC with studying the safety and effects of artificial hybrid crops (the result of interbreeding between two varieties) and GM crops (Genetically modified crops)

-3.2- The need of security testing for new hybrid and GM crops; in particular those with an insect resistance trait

Enough said here.
Natural Nature


Against.
 
There is no way GMO's are sustainable, you have to buy new seeds every year. There is also no way that sustainable agriculture can feed the burgeoning population of the world. Use of pesticides at all is less than ideal since most are petroleum based and even when they are broken down to "harmless" compounds they are still not a natural part of the ecosystem, which contradicts the concept of environmental stewardship.

Against
Hello,
I'm the author of the proposal at vote.
Your delegate, the Salty Dogs of Great Bights Mum invited to me nicely to participate on your regional great forum for this debate. So obviously my post me be biaised on this matter! But I wanted to give some answer to the following post. Thank you.

There is no way GMO's are sustainable, you have to buy new seeds every year.

You right that some GMO can be indeed sterile, because they are made as such. But by default, GMO are not sterile. We really oppose sterile GMO (which are often called terminator technology) and it's why we included in this proposal the following sentence:

-3.4- The refusal of sterile GM crops (so called terminator technology) in the wild,

More about terminator technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_technology

There is also no way that sustainable agriculture can feed the burgeoning population of the world.

It's up to you. We tried to define sustainable agriculture in our proposal with 3 goals and the aim i sto try tu use the best techniques and technologies to work towards these 3 goals together

-B- Defining “Sustainable Agriculture” as a global agriculture achieving all of the three following goals:
- Sufficient and healthy food for population’s need
- Environmental stewardship
- Good living conditions and prosperity for farmers and farms,

I will try to illustrate with some examples: the johads this proposal is mentionning is a great example:

An example may be the extensive and water-hungry monoculture of cotton in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan which had lead to the dramatic scenario of the Aral Sea, if "agriculture information" were allowed in this place at this time, maybe this ecological desaster may have been reduced.

Johads is a great example:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170810.htm

Also an interesting experience in Africa where trees have been planted:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10293

More crops for Africa as trees reclaim the desert

For once there is some good news from Africa. Farmers are reclaiming the desert, turning the barren wastelands of the Sahel region on the Sahara's southern edge into green, productive farmland.
Satellite images taken this year and 20 years ago show that the desert is in retreat thanks to a resurgence of trees. They are mainly ana trees (Faidherbia albida), a type of acacia. Wherever the trees grow, farming can resume.
Tree planting has led to the re-greening of as much as 3 million hectares of land in Niger, enabling some 250,000 hectares to be farmed again. The land became barren in the 1970s and early 1980s through poor management and felling of trees for firewood, but since the mid-1980s farmers in parts of Niger have been protecting them instead of chopping them down.
The results have been staggering, says Chris Reij of the Free University Amsterdam in the Netherlands, who presented the results at the From Desert to Oasis symposium in Niamey, Niger, last month. In areas where 20 years ago there was barely a tree, there are now between 50 and 100 per hectare. The change is particularly striking in the previously barren Zinder region to the south.
“Where 20 years ago there was barely a tree, there are now 50 to 100 per hectare. Production of cereals has soared”
Trees create a virtuous circle of benefits. Leaves and fruits provide food, fodder and organic matter to fortify the soil. More livestock means more manure, which further enriches the soil enabling crops to be grown, and spreads tree seeds so new trees grow. The trees also provide shelter for crops and help prevent soil erosion. In times of drought, firewood can be sold and food purchased to tide families over.
Coupled with simple measures such as ditches and holes to catch scarce rainwater and save it for irrigation, the programmes are helping communities in Niger re-establish control over their fate, simultaneously halting the march of the desert and helping to prevent famines like the one that hit Niger in July 2005.
"The spiral of degradation has been reversed," says Reij. "Since the middle of the 1980s, at least 250,000 hectares of strongly degraded land have been rehabilitated." Production of cereals such as millet and sorghum have soared by between 20 and 85 per cent since 1984 as a result, Reij says, and vegetable production has quadrupled.
Vegetation also creates climatic feedback loops which increase the amount of rainfall. Analysis of satellite images and rainfall in the Sahel between 1982 and 1999 show that 10 to 20 per cent more rain falls when land is green (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027065).
Given the benefits of encouraging tree growth, Reij and his colleagues hope to spread the practice to neighbouring countries, including Mali, Senegal and Burkina Faso. The programme will form part of the "Oasis" initiative to reclaim deserts, which was launched at the symposium by 11 African countries, with support from international research and government agencies.
Lauren Gelfand, an Oxfam spokeswoman based in Dakar, Senegal, welcomed the developments but cautioned that the recovery is fragile and can only be sustained through international aid and investment in transport infrastructure and education.
"The situation in Niger is much better than it was last year, but there are still pockets of insecurity," she says.


Use of pesticides at all is less than ideal since most are petroleum based and even when they are broken down to "harmless" compounds they are still not a natural part of the ecosystem, which contradicts the concept of environmental stewardship.

This is sad but on a large scale, we really think agriculture need pesticides. agriculture use them for ages as its purpose is to pretect crops from insects, weeds diseases, microbes ...
This proposal try to encourage a sensible use of them and is also encouraging scientific researche to find some new ones which may be more environment-friendly.
 
Daimiaena votes against......We do not need another inefficient white elephant telling us how to grow our crops....We find this proposal condescending and arrogant in what it has decided as the correct ethical choices....

Dai....
 
You right that some GMO can be indeed sterile, because they are made as such. But by default, GMO are not sterile. We really oppose sterile GMO (which are often called terminator technology) and it's why we included in this proposal the following sentence:

While it is true that Monsanto developed "terminator" technology where a set of gene switches were inserted to make a second generation of crop impossible, it is important to note that they never released it onto the market, ever. The company made a conscious decision to not release this in order to gain some public goodwill credit, as the company itself is less than popular in many circles. As for the issue of buying new seeds each year, that is true. Farmers who use GMO's are required to sign a contract to the effect that they will buy new seeds each year and that they will not attempt to fertilize and make their own seeds. They can do this because they own the patent on the DNA. It is their property, and any offspring would also be their property since it would share the same DNA. As a profitable company they charge the farmer for it. It has created some legal problems for farmers because windborn GMO seeds have fertilized other farmers crops. Monsanto also includes in their contract a reward system for snitching on other farmers who may be using their patented seeds without permission. Judges rule in favor of Monsanto in these cases because in the end it is their patented technology. And they charge yearly for it, because soon their patent will expire. I don't know exactly when GMO DNA was patented but I believe the patent is exclusively Monsanto's for 7 years after patenting.

It's up to you.

Well, not really. I have no control over the explosive population growth we've seen in the last 50 years. Right now a hectare feeds 4 people. In 20 years that same hectare will have to feed 7 if I remember right, and that is if population grows as predicted. Sustainable agriculture just doesn't yield as much crop as industrial agriculture. It is sad and I do want a sustainable way of doing things, but it requires policies on population as well, otherwise we'd be boned if we switched.

Johads is a great example

A heartwarming story, yet it involves a serious amount of labor to change the local environment. Truly sustainable agriculture uses the sun and the water from the sky, without the need for dams, which always have a negative impact on any area where they are built.

Also an interesting experience in Africa where trees have been planted

Chances are that they are reclaiming land they lost from farming irresponsibly. Saying that they are claiming land from a desert shows a lack of knowledge on what creates deserts. They will never be able to claim land from a desert for farming because it is too dry to grow there, no matter how many methods they develop to collect rainwater. You can't grow much in a land that receives around 2" of rainfall annually. They can enjoy the farms they have now, but once a drought hits and those trees die, they'll be back to square one.

I don't see how either of these farming practices are examples of sustainabilty. Both places will be in big trouble when a few years of drought occur.

This is sad but on a large scale, we really think agriculture need pesticides. agriculture use them for ages as its purpose is to pretect crops from insects, weeds diseases, microbes ...This proposal try to encourage a sensible use of them and is also encouraging scientific researche to find some new ones which may be more environment-friendly.

Sustainable agriculture does not use pesticides, one because they are petroleum based, and two because the use of pesticides over time reduce natural defenses plants have developed. All it takes is one new blight to decimate a crop thats natural development of immunities has been suppressed. Growing food naturally insures diversity and insures that at least some plants will survive through a developed natural resistance.

I'm glad you came by to talk about this.
 
They can do this because they own the patent on the DNA.

In NSUN nobody can patent GM crops:
#156UN Patent Law
5. STIPULATES that patents may not pertain to:
c. biological organisms;
#156UN Patent Law
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index....tions/start=155

and I would like to say that my nation Love and esterel had at an earlier time, before this patent proposal was voted, lobbyed in the UN forum in order that genome cannot be patented.

Jolt forum, repeal UCPL Debate, 30-11-2005, Love and esterel:

About the new draft, here are some LAE positions on this matter:
- it’s important to have an international patent and copyrights system, to protect innovation and creativity
- patents should be supervised closely in the medicine area, and that drugs companies should be informed that drug’s patent could be modified (or deleted) in order to stop world health crisis, when that happens [drugs companies will then be able if they want to subscribe private insurance, if they wish)
- no patents on human or other life genome, we think it’s humanity (universal) heritage
- no patents on software, because we think it’s an area where everything is highly interconnected and everything move very fast

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10...79&postcount=68

and also:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10299809&postcount=4

That said I recognize that our proposal would have been better if we had noticed in a preambulary clause that biological organisms patent was already probhibited by previous legislation.

Well, not really. I have no control over the explosive population growth we've seen in the last 50 years. Right now a hectare feeds 4 people. In 20 years that same hectare will have to feed 7 if I remember right, and that is if population grows as predicted. Sustainable agriculture just doesn't yield as much crop as industrial agriculture. It is sad and I do want a sustainable way of doing things, but it requires policies on population as well, otherwise we'd be boned if we switched.


A heartwarming story, yet it involves a serious amount of labor to change the local environment. Truly sustainable agriculture uses the sun and the water from the sky, without the need for dams, which always have a negative impact on any area where they are built.

Also an interesting experience in Africa where trees have been planted
Chances are that they are reclaiming land they lost from farming irresponsibly. Saying that they are claiming land from a desert shows a lack of knowledge on what creates deserts. They will never be able to claim land from a desert for farming because it is too dry to grow there, no matter how many methods they develop to collect rainwater. You can't grow much in a land that receives around 2" of rainfall annually. They can enjoy the farms they have now, but once a drought hits and those trees die, they'll be back to square one.

I don't see how either of these farming practices are examples of sustainabilty. Both places will be in big trouble when a few years of drought occur.
This is sad but on a large scale, we really think agriculture need pesticides. agriculture use them for ages as its purpose is to pretect crops from insects, weeds diseases, microbes ...This proposal try to encourage a sensible use of them and is also encouraging scientific researche to find some new ones which may be more environment-friendly.

Sustainable agriculture does not use pesticides, one because they are petroleum based, and two because the use of pesticides over time reduce natural defenses plants have developed. All it takes is one new blight to decimate a crop thats natural development of immunities has been suppressed. Growing food naturally insures diversity and insures that at least some plants will survive through a developed natural resistance.

Sustainable agriculture may have many definition, it's why we try to define it our way in this resolution. We clearly established 3 goals to achieve in the same time.

I took the definition of sustainable agriculture in wikipedia, you will able to see the similarity yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_agriculture
And you will also notice that, as for us it was really incomplete, we added an important goals and put it in first:
- Sufficient and healthy food for population’s need

It's why i think the sustainable agriculture we are promoting in our proposal is not really similar to the one you are dealing to, and I think it's changes everything.

I'm glad you came by to talk about this.

Thanks, i also like the quality of your answer.
 
With the vote at 4/5, I have voted against.

Thanks to Love and esterel for speaking on behalf of the resolution. Looking at the current vote count, it looks like it will pass. Congrats, L&E!
 
Back
Top