[Gnejs]

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

Votes For: 837

Votes Against: 312

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Mon Oct 30 2006

[Gnejs]

FOR

[Eisophca]

I'm leaning towards a FOR on this one.

[Grosseschnauzer]

I'm leaning "FOR" but I want to think through whether this would present problems in growing appropriate corps as part of a 100 percent or lower percentage blend fuel supply for motorized vehicles.

[Antrium]

I'm kind of leaning towards FOR.

While on one hand, it doesn't seem to do a whole lot, on the other, it does at least get some research done in this area, which is good. So, despite the word "promoting", I'm probably going to vote for it. It's a big step for me

[Federation of Disjunction]

OK, I'm for the concept but have to object and vote no based on the lesson I learned from Antirum about the strangth of the words in the resolution. "Supressing" the use of animal carcasses in feeding livestock is not the same thing as "eliminating" the use. Where's the teeth of this resolution? Also, why not eliminate GM crops instead of studying and testing and limiting them? With limitation comes management. Is this UNSARC going to enforce anything? If so, how? These issues are getting the human race into a lot of trouble. Is this resolution going far enough? I want to vote yes based on the spirit of this. Anyone care to convice me?

[Antrium]

Federation of DisjunctionOct 26 2006, 04:35 PM OK, I'm for the concept but have to object and vote no based on the lesson I learned from Antirum about the strangth of the words in the resolution. "Supressing" the use of animal carcasses in feeding livestock is not the same thing as "eliminating" the use. Where's the teeth of this resolution? Also, why not eliminate GM crops instead of studying and testing and limiting them? With limitation comes management. Is this UNSARC going to enforce anything? If so, how? These issues are getting the human race into a lot of trouble. Is this resolution going far enough? I want to vote yes based on the spirit of this. Anyone care to convice me? [/quote]
It does do something, even if it's remotely small.

It establishes the UNSARC, and creates research. But that's about it. And that's kind of why I'm still on the fence. It's better than nothing, but it could be a lot better with stronger language.

[Eisophca]

What's wrong with GM crops?

[Klouch]

for

[Gnejs]

Federation of DisjunctionOct 26 2006, 09:35 PM Anyone care to convice me? [/quote]
I agree with what you say, it has its problems. But, as Antrium said, it does something. I would also like it to take a stronger view on GM, but all in all I think its good start. Perhaps one could develop this new UNSARC in some way later on? Is this possible to do without repealing this resolution? (if it passes, of course)

[Federation of Disjunction]

Alright, I'll look at the philosophy of what this is trying to accomplish and vote yes.

Ceo: genetically modified crops are currently banned in some European countries and are also banned in Disjunction. The problems are largely speculative since GM foods have really only been grown and used for about 10-15 years. The main concerns are how genetically introduced modifications will affect those who eat the food and the environment in which they're grown. On the positive side, some of these crops are more resistent to disease or require less pesticide use so they do carry obvious immediate benefits. Personally I object to their development on the basis that humans tend to upset the balence of nature when they make modifications and the results are often catastrophic.

So study is a good course of action but I'm personally convinced that it is not the natural way of things and I must trust my gut when it tells me that GM foods are not good for us.

[Keeslandia]

The Empire supports. Sorry for the lack of activity lately. The last quarter of the year is always the most hectic for me in RL. On the road ALLLLLLLL the time.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Will vote FOR, but it makes me want to see a Biofuel development proposal

[Thalatash]

FOR.

[Gnejs]

Disjunction, it seems we share a common view of GM products.

GM products are, and will continue to be banned in the GPRG.

[Bears Armed]

If GM crops are as harmful as some of you think then the proposed agency's studies should show this... and that agency's role in spreading the news would mean that the tests would only have to be carried out once (or as many times as they are already underway) rather than separately in each nation...