NationStates Jolt Archive

To Whom it May Concern,

Thank you in advance for your time. As an earnest WA member as well as a "progressive nationalist" (re: I celebrate the virtues of Ronenbau without ignoring its faults or advancing it as necessarily superior to every other country) I readily acknowledge the tension between the sovereignty of an individiual nation and the need for international law. We must tread carefully, it's true, lest WA abuse its singular capacity to override national law and trade agreements.

With that in mind, I humbly submit my Agricultural Autonomy Act (currently with 8 cosponsors) for your consideration. Today, there exists a very real specter of foreign entities jeopardizing any country's food supply. The forms of abuse are manifold, from monopolies to (this is really happening!) patenting of seeds. Perhaps most egregious is that some seeds are even being manufactured to self-destruct so that farmers can't collect from what they reap for the following season, as they have done since the DAWN OF TIME!

While Ronenbau and its citizens acknowledge the capacity of capitalism to do good in various areas of human existence, so insidiously tinkering with an institution as old as humankind itself should be absolutely avoided. Hence, I submitted a resolution that endeavors to safeguard WA member-nations against corporate/foreign state abuse in agricultural terms.

Again, I recognize how important it is to balance the interests of sovereign states with those of the international community. In that respect, I am proud to say that the resolution does not arm-twist and impose a uniform technical behometh upon small and large nations alike. Rather, much of the nature of individual regulation is left to individual nations while broader ends go (I believe) much of the distance to solving the grave issues presented by corporate consolidation of agricultural businesses.

As an example, the resolution stipulates that all countries develop guidelines to ensure the quality and safety of food produced within their countries, yet leave it to individual countries to determine how safe they want their food to be. In international terms, however, the document also requires nations EXPORTING food to meet the guidelines of the recepient nation, thus ensuring that tainted food (think China's exporting to the U.S. or South Korea's current moratorium on U.S. beef) is a matter of the past.

Obviously, trade is essential to every country's economy and will act as a mechanism for increasing standards everywhere. Tied with how a country treats its own people, moreover, internal outrage over "better meat" being sent to one country and the dregs being fed to themselves will also spark needed reform in this respect.

I urge you all to support this resolution, so that our food supplies need not be subject to the whims of corporations who too often put profit before the common good.

Best Regards,

Emperor Sumixam

P. S. please contact me or post with any questions!

You could have saved yourself some time by cutting the speech, and instead providing a copy of your proposal for reference. At the very least, you could have given a link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=agricultural).

I like a good behooving as much as anyone, but some comments on your proposal. Let's start with: (in my unofficial opinion) in no way is this a Human Rights proposal. There isn't a perfect category fit, but I'd say Social Justice would be the best fit, particularly on account of II a).

Your preamble reads too much like an R.S. Thomas poem. The words 'sacred...bond' are not really appropriate for a law; in the meantime, some of your operative sections lacks introductory justification, for example, the latter halves of I a) and II a) should be moved into the preamble.

I a) and b) apply to businesses, but not to individuals. Therefore, I don't see why Professor I.N. Ventor can't patent a seed and then sell the right to businesses (that aren't prohibited from holding patent rights). I would ask - really ask, I don't know anything about this topic - whether plant breeder's rights should be relevant?

There is no existing mechanism for the adjudication you mention in I c) so you need to explain how this will work. The last sentence also reads a little awkwardly. It should probably simply say that they cannot require higher standards for imports than they do for domestic produce.

II c) would prevent any more stringent anti-monopoly legislation and may as well be excluded as so much empty verbiage.

And maybe this is silly, but isn't 50 + 1 equal to 51?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Dear Ms. Benson,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful advice! With regard to omitting a copy of my proposal, or even a hyperlink for that matter, I would chalk that up to naivete on my part. Included in a following post is a copy of said proposal, which I invite others to comment upon as well. It's likely that I will retract the resolution for revision, so anyone please feel free to raise concerns/questions regarding any aspect of the document.

Regarding your first issue, namely that my proposal is mis-categorized. While I agree that there is no apparent grouping, I respectfully object to your alternative given its description as "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." Not to be fastidious here, but it says "and" not "or", thereby disqualifying my resolution, since it has nothing to do with reducing income inequality. Furthermore, I suggest you consider the implications of patenting seeds in terms of human rights. While admittedly unconventional, the upshot is that an individual could be denied the right of feeding her/himself by planting crops because he does not have enough funds to pay for licenses. Being able to sustain yourself through labor is undeniably, I think it's fair to say, a fundamental human right--particularly in relation to manipulating your environment to do so.

Regarding the occasionally ornate nature of my preamble, I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence as well as many state constitutions! As for my intermingling justification with operative sections, your advice is well heeded and I will do just as you recommended.

Part of the problem of not explaining everything (i.e. the WA court system) was the cap on text. I actually had a whole other section delineating the administrative nature and breadth of the resolution, but had to cut it to submit the resolution.

Other comments:

-the language SHOULD be broadened to include individuals, thank you for the insight
-regarding plant breeder rights, convention in the United States has held up until recently that organic matter cannot be patented. I would maintain that the rights of plant breeders are not unduly encroached upon, moreover, since genetic engineering outside of controlling the lifespan of a seed is not outlawed in the resolution.
-the limitations of II, (c) are well-noted and borne (at least in part) due to space requirements
-it is common practice to clarify a simple majority as (50+1%)

Thanks again, Ms. Benson!

Regards,

Sumixam

I would suggest to the esteemed delegate from Ronenbau that it is simply bad form to say that you left out functional parts of the resolution due to the character count but argue that the wordy non functional preamble should stay.

In other words if there were less fertilizer in the soil you might be able to grow more corn.


Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

A way to include individuals would be to use the word 'persons', given most nations recognise corporate personhood.

It's not a generic term: plant breeders' rights (http://www.upov.int/index_en.html) are specific IP protections for plant varieties.

And you're probably right that Social Justice isn't a perfect fit; but sustaining yourself through your own labour is most assuredly not something every nation acknowledges as a basic right. Furthermore, the Human Rights category is for civil, not social, rights.

OOC: The Declaration of Independence (http://www.assembly-kosova.org/?krye=news&newsid=1635&lang=en) has a perfectly formal preamble.

To the Honorable World Assembly Chief Ambassador
Nigel S. Youlkin,

Wordy preambles are what make governments great! I would argue that the tremendous influence of the United States Declaration of Independence on subsequent documents vindicates me here, since the 14th amendment borrowed heavily on the truths embodied in THAT declaration, NOT so much the actual Constitution.

That being said, I deeply regret not clarifying the nature of the court system. Honestly, one of the reasons I was willing to commit such an error was an assumption (granted, a huge one) that the WA already had some sort of International Court. Far from an excuse, I acknowledge that I must be thrifty enough in my diction to allow both all the substantive stuff as well as the "wordy" part.

Thank you for your input.

To the Esteemed Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Samantha Benson

I apologize for my error involving breeding rights. My limited knowledge of patent issues regarding organic matter suggest that breeders, too, would benefit from the resolution. I defer for the time being, however, to those with a more mature grasp of the possible ramifications/need for exceptions, etc.

Referencing the Kosovo Declaration of Independence, you keenly observe my hubris. As much as I endorse the Kosovar effort, I should mention, it is nevertheless prudent for me to clarify that I meant my own country's Declaration of Independence.

Ah, but you insist that "...sustaining yourself through your own labor is most assuredly not something every nation acknowledges as a basic right." You are right; there exist many nations within this game that repudiate notions of ownership altogether or otherwise adhere to ideologies that might reject any and all human rights.

Their existence only qualifies my statement, however (which was admittedly poorly phrased and arrogant in being drafted so hastily)--it doesn't undermine my case for it being a human rights issue. In this resolution, I affirm an individual's basic right to collect seeds from his/her environment WITHOUT going through a middleman, which I believe most countries recognize as fundamental. I would advance that interfering with this simple and fundamental act of utilizing the environment is oppressive. Obviously there are exceptions...you can't PLANT the seeds wherever you want or TAKE whatever seeds you want. Notwithstanding the exceptions, patenting organic matter interferes with an intimate relationship humanity has benefited from since before anyone can remember--a relationship most countries don't need to even mention because it is taken for granted.

You're right, by the way. It IS for civil rights. I noticed that, too, though I don't think that really is germane here. Do governments dictate what are fundamental rights, or merely codify them?

Good day to you both!

The Not-Quite-So-Esteemed Ronenbaunian Prince Diplomat, whose hat was just recently lost in an elevator

Sumixam

Wordy preambles are what make governments great!While that may or may not be true, with a character limit of about 3500 characters for proposals, wordy preambles get in the way of good legislation and personally I'd rather see good legislation over flowery prose in the preamble any day.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Wordy preambles are what make governments great! I would argue that the tremendous influence of the United States Declaration of Independence on subsequent documents vindicates me here, since the 14th amendment borrowed heavily on the truths embodied in THAT declaration, NOT so much the actual Constitution.

I would beg to differ with my esteemed colleague. I have never heard of the Declaration of Independence but I have a historian who informs me that there was a mythical document by that name and it contained... 1328 words. I'm further told this constitution that you speak of is said to contain roughly 4400 words, which while more than the limit in this body, this document is said to have contained ALL the basis of the laws of the land... not just one. Further my historian tells me of an influential speech at a mythical place of Gettysburg that inspired a nation to free slaves that only contained about 280 words.

Quite the contrary, I believe that wordy preambles are what makes governments snooty, and good people doing good work for the citizens of their nations are what makes governments great.

That being said I would welcome a less fertilizer filled version of this resolution, and may in the end be able to be persuaded to support such a measure.



Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to express it's mystification at some of the references used by the most honoured delegate for Ronenbau. are we to understand that you are refering to this so called REAL WORLD we hear tell of? if so we would appreciate it if you might point this out in the body of your statements.
we heartily applaud you for your efforts in this most important of fields.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench.

Fellow WA Delegates & Members,

Many thanks to those of you who already gave me advice on the AAA; if you feel like it, I certainly would be receptive to reading what you have to say about the revised resolution. Some of you will undoubtedly note that (sigh) the glorious introduction was truncated. More significantly, a section delineating the nature of the court system now exists as well.

If anyone knows how I should properly go about retracting the current version (i.e. submitting a petition to moderators, etc.) please let me know.

Regards,

Chancellor Sumixam

P. S. the prince Sumixam was shot beind a utility shed for madly ranting about the "real" universe or some rubbish like that.


Agricultural Autonomy Act

RECOGNIZING that the agricultural interests of nations often contradict those of profit-seeking organizations, entities increasingly divorced from any sense of community in functioning transnationally.
ASSERTING that the relationship between a farmer and her/his crop, an institution at least as old as the invention of time itself, is a sacred and immemorial bond that should be enshrined as inviolable.
MAINTAINING that tampering with this bond by imprudently insinuating the mechanism of profit threatens the security of every nation.
PROCEEDING FROM THESE CONTENTIONS, The World Assembly hereby asserts that said relationship will not be subject to the exploitative whims of corporations and other unduly enterprising persons by setting forth the following guidelines:

SECTION I § TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF AGRICULTURE AS AN INSTITUTION

a) Organizations and individuals are hereby banned from patenting organic matter, engineered or naturally occurring, including flora and fauna of all sorts terrestrial and alien.
b) Organizations and individuals are prohibited from engineering so-called "suicide" seeds, which beget plants that are only viable for a limited number of seasons. Any analogous genetic tampering with the intent of profiteering is also banned. Determination of such motivation or outcome will be the exclusive purview of the WA Agricultural Court (WAAC).
c) Member nations must establish binding guidelines to ensure the quality and safety of the food produced, with a view to the healthfulness of its citizens. Any food exported must meet the guidelines of the recipient country; disputes will be adjudicated through the recipient's court system, though appeals may be submitted to WAAC. Nations cannot require higher standards for imports than they do for domestic agricultural products.

SECTION II § TO ENSURE ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE

a) All public agricultural businesses must be majority-owned by domestic shareholders (minimum 51%)
b) Privately-owned agricultural businesses must make public any intention to sell public so that the relevant communities are given the opportunity to keep the business locally and/or domestically-owned. If a domestic community can match the offering of the highest international bidder, the seller must favor her/his compatriots. International private offerings are subject to (II) a.
c) Monopolies exceeding 60% of the market share in providing a particular agricultural product domestically or abroad (national markets in sum) are hereby prohibited.

SECTION III § ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE WA IN AGRICULTURAL MATTERS

a) The WA will establish at least one WAAC court to handle disputes between nations on agricultural matters. The purview of the court will be expressly limited to: resolving disputes over the quality of food imported/exported between WA nations, agricultural patent issues, and whether or not agricultural tariffs unduly hinder trade. Expanding its jurisdiction may only be achieved via additional resolution(s).
b) The court has original jurisdiction, ultimate authority, will hear appeals only upon granting a writ of certiari, and can award monetary damages in addition to compelling compliance.
c) An independent Committee of Governors will ensure that the Court is properly formed in all other respects and, upon an international judicial model emerging in subsequent resolutions, will reorder the WAAC as necessary

the government of the empror of urgench commends the respected delegate for Ronenbau for their hard work on this revised proposal. however we do have some minor concerns about the wording and some of the provisions;

the first statement is rather mendacious;

"RECOGNIZING that the agricultural interests of nations often contradict those of profit-seeking organizations, entities increasingly divorced from any sense of community in functioning transnationally."

might we humbly suggest that it might be reworded along the lines of-

RECOGNISING that the agricultural interests of nations and of profit seeking organisations can be divergent due to the demands of global competition.

or something like that, keeping it simple and uncontroversial might limit the scope for objection on the part of some of the w.a. s' more agressively monetarist nations. we also feel that though the following assertion is well written it is perhaps a little mystical and vague for a law. if it is supposed to enshrine a right then it should probably do so clearly and unambigously. the same is probably true of the maintainance and the preceedance too, which to many nations will sound a little like political interferance in their economies.


does clause A of section i constitute a ban on patenting organic matter synthezised for medical uses?
we also wonder whether or not it is the responsibility of the importer nation to ensure the quality of produce it imports?

clause C of section ii also concerns us, in some cases national markets do not provide enough producers or suppliers of a product, and companies are sometimes forced into a monopoly position as a result. if no monopoly is allowed in the w.a. then who will provide these products to these markets?

clauses A, B and C of section iii are extremely troubling to us, perhaps rather than having the ability to decide whether or not the governments of the w.a. have the right to set their own tariffs (which may be set to protect the farmers you eulogise so eloquently) it should have the power of binding arbitration in the matter of anti competative behaviour instead?
further the matter of ultimate authority is worrying since it has insufficient democratic oversight, perhaps you could flesh out how you see this board or council being constituted and by whom and what power it would have, i.e. consultative or or extrajudicial e.t.c. also who will apoint it's judges and how?

again we would like to commend you on your nations hard work, and we only humbly offer our opinion, for what little it is worth, for your consideration.



yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

This sub-clause c) Monopolies exceeding 60% of the market share in providing a particular agricultural product domestically or abroad (national markets in sum) are hereby prohibited. would effectively seem to ban 'state' control of agriculture within any WA member-nation: Was that actually amongst your intentions? (i ask only for the sake of clarificiation, not due to any belief that such control might be a good idea...)

Also, wouldn't this same sub-clause make agricultural innovation within WA member-nations rather more difficult, by preventing any single farm (or any single agricultural business) from introducing new products by themselves?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speake Afar,
St Edmund.

OOC: I just love how this forum hasn't allowed me to post this ALL DAY. Many thanks to Erastide, for getting rid of my redundant posts once they DID appear

Emperor Mongkha,
He Who is Called Khan of Khasgar,
Bringer of the Urgench Horde,
& Esteemed Friend of Ronenbau

Good tidings from the moon-drenched shores of Tacarth! Forgive the brevity of this message, but the original missive was intercepted by agents of the most nefarious sort--it seems there are but the briefest of windows where communication can take place here. Ah, but I will do my best to respond in turn to your glorious critique.

Let me begin by briefly by commending you, for it is at least as much from your efforts that the AAA may yet see success as it in the Drafting Committee's work. Undoubtedly, the dilemmas you discern are so dangerously elusive to those of us closer to the document--thus, on behalf of all those involved, from the honorable statesmen and women down to the very scriveners themselves, I thank you. We are deeply grateful for your meticulous deconstruction, and are continually humbled in our own accomplishments by your extraordinary modesty.

Following your example, let us undertake perhaps the greatest source of strife between our two interpretations of the resolution. That is, the nature and significance of the introductory declaration. With the utmost respect, we must heartily object to your charge of mendacity here. Mayhap other areas misrepresent, but certainly not this statement, for here the heart of the problem is expressed: namely, unfettered capitalism has historically been known to beget monopolies, and more recently, entities wholly unhinged from any sense of community, conventionally unaccountable beasts known as transnationals.

I will not pander to those who would find my remarks inflammatory, for the very same individuals are having their countries plundered by these organizations like the rest of us. "Global competition" is a euphemistic smoke-screen for a corporate free-for-all which I will not condone in the resolution. Some will undoubtedly be offended; the truth is, Ronenbau's agricultural sector (among various other arenas as is true elsewhere) is being undermined by a system we cannot regulate on our own. Thus, we turn to the World Assembly, which singularly possesses the authority to rein in a system run amok. Where have the farmers gone, indeed? "Agribusiness" has ruined them. Furthermore I ask you, how does patenting life, be it seed or animal, benefit anyone but the corporations themselves?

The answer is unequivocal. It benefits only their bottom line. Forgive me if I have offended, but I cannot dampen the language here.

Moving onward, for the sake of space I shall quote and respond to the remainder of your post:

"we also feel that though the following assertion is well written it is perhaps a little mystical and vague for a law. if it is supposed to enshrine a right then it should probably do so clearly and unambiguously. the same is probably true of the maintenance and the precedence too..."

Preambles, as I understand them, are not meant to be legally binding; hence the presence of what I would maintain are necessary vagaries. That notwithstanding, I sympathize with your desire to more clearly delineate the rights being protected. Unfortunately, every time I try to enumerate them, the document becomes both too long and too technical. Surely, the resolution seeks to foster various rights. Whether or not we can (or want to, for that matter) effectively describe them in the preamble remains to be seen.

"...which to many nations will sound a little like political interference in their economies."

Here I would suggest you consider the roots of the world "political." Inextricably tied to the word, however pejorative today, is a civic sense. Let there be no doubt, in any case, that it IS a political interference--a good one, at that. Regulation allows the market to sustainably flourish without destroying that which is meant to serve, namely humanity.

"does clause A of section i constitute a ban on patenting organic matter synthesized for medical uses?
we also wonder whether or not it is the responsibility of the importer nation to ensure the quality of produce it imports?"

On the first point, that is an important distinction indeed! Do you think specifying that only organic matter as it relates to agriculture cannot be patented would be sufficient?

On the second point, there can be no doubt that the responsibility for a nation's food supply ultimately rests with that nation's own government. That notwithstanding, I think we are dealing with the lesser of two evils here by insisting that exporting nations strive to meet their customers' standards. First of all, it is not coercive in the fact that they can choose who receives their goods. Moreover, consider what the alternative would be: legions of inspectors entering other countries to ensure the food they are receiving is up to snuff. What's worse, rampant abuses emerging from the invariable holes left by the inspectors, no matter how pervasive.

On the other hand, if the expectation is set, however burdensome, I think it's fair to say that food quality and safety standards will be more likely to be met. Again, you are right that the onus ultimately falls on the importing country to ensure the food is safe. Regardless, with the full authority and backing of the WA behind them, I doubt exporting countries will betray the trust inherent in such a trade (namely: we are aware of your standards and attest that our products meet those standards).

"clause C of section ii also concerns us, in some cases national markets do not provide enough producers or suppliers of a product, and companies are sometimes forced into a monopoly position as a result. if no monopoly is allowed in the w.a. then who will provide these products to these markets?" --Urgench

"...would effectively seem to ban 'state' control of agriculture within any WA member-nation: Was that actually amongst your intentions? (i ask only for the sake of clarification, not due to any belief that such control might be a good idea...)" --St. Edmund

I also have found this clause very problematic. I think it would best to simply be rid of it and try to develop something else. Obviously, the resolution doesn't seek to encroach on the rights of governments to own as much of their own agriculture as they please, nor does it desire to disservice any member of the WA. The point was: consolidated "agribusiness" is increasingly bankrupting local farmers, and (if possible) I hope the AAA can address this. If ANYONE has any suggestions on how we can combat this, for local farmers are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be attuned to the needs of the surrounding community, I believe, and possess various other advantages as well--if anyone thinks they have a solution, please post it here!

Regarding your objections with the third section, while I certainly share your concerns, I am at a bit of a loss as to how best to address them. Again, our biggest problem here is the character cap. My hope is to imbue the resolution with adapting language so that, once an international court is established, it will adhere to those deadlines. Really, the Committee of Governors was just meant as a stop-gap means of formulating the various nuances of the court (which, as we have seen with the recent demise of a particular resolution, is a very complicated matter indeed).

And yet the capacity for tyranny is the paramount issue here! How can we ensure that the court does not abuse its powers? Oh! Which reminds me...it's ironic that you suggested I might be neglecting the value of tariffs to farmers, as that is PRECISELY why I entrusted such authority with the court. During a time when I think many countries gleefully foam at the mouth at the very mention of "free trade," I envisioned the WAAC as finding eternally seeking a fair balance between healthy trade and protecting domestic agricultural industries.

You mention having it be extrajudicial or consultative, which I think are potentially good solutions. I don't feel equipped to flesh it out myself quiet yet, though--please, if anyone feels up to the task of formulating a good (and succinct!) court system to administer the needs of the AAA, step forward now!

One last matter, He Who Represents Urgench; I don't think we should get into who appoints the justices/judges. As far as I understand, committees in the World Assembly don't require such specifications...indeed, doing so could verily bring down the whole resolution.

I thank you again for all of your input, and hope I have not offended with my humble (albeit impassioned) responses to some of your suggestions.

Long live the Horde!

Sumixam, Chair of the AAA Drafting Committee
Quixotic Cat Farmer

If anyone knows how I should properly go about retracting the current version (i.e. submitting a petition to moderators, etc.) please let me know.
Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/67887/page=help) requests work nicely.

the government of the emperor of urgench is incomparably flattered by your nations kind words, we are proud that so wise a people as yours should think so highly of our very minor abilities. May your horde ride swift across the plain for all time.
his divine majesty the emeperor wishes us to convey his thanks to you for your felicitations and wishes his humble SERVANT (and distant cousin) the khan of kashgar to make himself of assitance to you.


our government heartily approves of the intent of your proposed resolution (agriculture being vital to our economy) and the politics of it concurs closely with our own. that is why we are anxious that it be passed in to law some day and not be voted down by those nations who's politics it is diometricaly in oposition to. but we are sure of your nations wisdom as to the politics of the preamble and can only hope that your nations passion for it will rub off on others.
as to defining the rights of the husbandman, we feel that it is vsry important that it be done in as comprehensable a fashion as possible, perhaps we might suggest something like;

"RECOGNISES the right of farmers to as good a living as their hard work may provide for them and to the fruits of their innovation in that work" ?

we think your solution to the matter of clause A of section i would be perfectly sufficient to protect other areas of natural science from undue interference.
we bow to your wisdom in the matter of regulation of agri-imports, your argument seems sound to us.

as to the matter of a putative AAA court being able to abuse it's powers, the answer could be to reduce it's power and make transparent it's workings, having it publish ajudications would help but that is unlikely to be possible, so clearly delineating it's terms of reference and it's powers might help ( as to it's power we feel it should be a court of arbitration rather than a court in the regular sense since we would be uneasy with having a panel of judges forcing us to adapt our policies without our consultation or agreement).
the need for oversight and democratic control of such an institution would in our eyes be paramount. also this leads to the thorny issue of defining anti competative behaviour ( though this resolution need not do that) on which there will doubtless be many and conflicting opinions.
we are unable we fear to offer much assistance in this field as we are as yet relatively new here and have little experience in the creation of supra-national courts. we apologise for our inabilities in this regard.

the government of the emperor of urgench again wishes to laud the work of the Ronenbau delegacys drafting committee and of it's chair,the noble and respected, Sumixam, who's sincerity and labour should act as a template for all who wish bring laws before this body.


yours in filial good will, Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench, may your herds be ever fertile and your fields ever fruitful.

Three years ago wheat stocks in Philimbesi where at an all time low, you see the environment for growing wheat wasn't optimal. We needed wheat that could stand up to the winds and rain that exist over a large portion of our nation. Two of our scientist we able to create a hybrid of the wheat that grew shorter, yet more hearty. They created that hybrid, our wheat crops tripled within the year. The costs of items made with it were cut in half. This wheat caused an agricultural revolution in Philimbesi, and as you can guess made those two scientists very rich men, while it fed hundreds of millions of Philimbesi

My question to my esteemed colleague from Ronenbau is this. Would this resolution make they work these scientist did illegal?

Ah! What trickery is this? I dispatch a message and it appears like a mirage, visible only to me and no one else! Since the honorable Philimbesi has also commented, let me begin with his question.

The answer is most assuredly no! All that the AAA would ban is (1) your scientists patenting their discovery and (2) your scientists making the seeds of the wheat self-destructing to protect their intellectual property--not the earnest research itself. Genetic engineering/breeding efforts, while posing their own issues, are not negatively addressed in this resolution. Yet a few questions and one comment emerge:

1) does anyone think the genetic engineering SHOULD be more comprehensively addressed?
2) particular to the question, do you think the scientists should *OWN* their discovery, which would surely benefit of all of humanity?
3) if their discovery was such a breakthrough, I suspect they would be rewarded by governmental grants and funds…even if that meant they weren't tremendously rich, I don't think most scientists enter the field to do so….!

We appreciate your inquiry Philimbesi!

On behalf of the people of Minyos and the region I represent, "Agricultural Autonomy" was endorsed yesterday.

We wholeheartedly believe that food is not a luxury, food is not something that pitiless large-scale agribusiness can use to subdue farmers and extort huge profits out of the population (especially less-well off people)...

We are also heartily sick of the notion that any one individual or corporation can "own" a strain of a particular plant; seed that is designed to be sterile if the plant sets seed.

The notion that poorer nations can be helped by the supposed productivity gains claimed for use of these types of seed is ludicrous. If it must be rebought over and over, or in the case where seed cannot be made to self-sterilise; pay royalties on future generations or face prosecution for theft , this is naught but corporate greed run rampant.

We applaud this proposal, if it is to be withdrawn and rewritten then we shall support it again and urge others to do so.

Well done Ronenbau!

Lars Inki.

OOC: You are already touching upon GM. "Suicide seed" as you call it is a result of GM.

Without re-reading the proposal again you may be broadening the scope too much if inclusion of GM is made - however GM does affect the autonomy of individual farmers, so would not be out of place in this proposal.

Definitely nobody should be able to own a plant variety - no scientist or person is able to create any new plant, merely make changes to plants that have and always have existed independent of humanity. Even "domesticated" strains have their origins in the wild, and have come about by selective breeding.

It's as daft as an corporation or individual claiming exclusive rights to say Doberman Pinschers...they are, ultimately, just dogs, and are quite able to interbreed with say dingos.

Like air, and water, or sunshine, plants belong in the "free" category. The entire notion that one could patent a particular type of water is laughable; yet water of varying qualities exists all over the world. It has differing tastes, mineral content etecetera, and can be changed by science. The patent to create machines that produce a more "desirable" water may hold, the packaging they are in as a product if sold this way may be copyright; but the actual water itself is, well...WATER.

Somehow, in the fight against PVR (Plant Variety Rights) in the '80s (which I was involved in marginally), the idea that we came from and are part of an ecosystem that was not of our making was thrown away. Corporations were allowed to "own" strains.

The abuse of this, the greed, is disgusting. One case where a specific edible bean that had quite amazing properties and was indigenous to an area in Central America (the locals had bred the plant to have all these properties, and was a strain) was stolen by an American duo. They listed its unique properties, faked the work done, were granted patent then...then...ATTEMPTED TO SUE THE VILLAGERS WHOSE SEED IT WAS ORIGINALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL PVR LAW!!!!! Of course, this was the first that the villagers even knew about it, and it made worldwide press...the bio-thieves were still trying to claim that it was their own work - however the fact that both lots of seeds were DNA-identical and the long history of this strain in that area was established cast them in very poor light.

I am not sure what happened in this case; I strongly suspect, no, memory serves me, they ended up losing and the patent was revoked.

However, this was a case of greed beyond recognition, the dastardly duo probably could have gotten away with their deception had they not attempted to sue the villagers.

It would be very easy, using GM, to modify certain aspects of the DNA and claim the work for oneself. Monsanto etcetera versus tribes?

With many unique plant species still to be discovered, the scope for exploitation by unscrupulous operators is immense.

Ronenbau, I am sure there will be at least one poster going on about how corporations should have rights to do this and that and make lots of money; but I make no excuses for being a staunch Leftist and very progressive. Stick to your guns - to those who may oppose, I shall point to the very grave state of the Earth, and ask "Look what personal and corporate greed has done, and I am the idiot for wanting to do away with greed?"

No ownership of plants as species or varieties. They are for all, humans and non-humans, and part of an ecosystem we DID NOT create. A tomato is a tomato is a tomato, no matter if smart-aleck Company X sticks a foreign gene in it. Where did 99.9% of the genetic coding come from? The wild - and in nearly every case even domesticated strains are still able to cross-breed with their ancestors.

Hubris, sheerest hubris and greed.

Time we took back what is ours, free, given to us by nature. Bowing to losers that just HAVE to have that second yacht (Nature is there to be raped, right?), is what is destroying the real-life world.

In NS, I don't see why rapacious wealthy nations should be allowed to prey on poorer nations, or nations with a different philosophy.

So, yes, include it and stand up for some basic facts.

Neo-conservatism masked as centrism is en vogue on the WA forums, I expect to be attacked for actually caring about the fate of the real world and its human and non-human inhabitants, and usually am. As I say they can have a look around themselves and see what their attitudes have wrought. It's a telling story.

To those nations who do attempt, both in RL and NS make a positive difference and argue for a more viable future, keep on keeping on, and obviously the above doesn't apply to you.

Ah! What trickery is this? I dispatch a message and it appears like a mirage, visible only to me and no one else!Jolt has a filter because of ad-bots. After 10 posts, it will vex you no more. Hang on for a couple more posts, or waste some time in the Spam forum.