Executive Summary: This proposal would establish the International Seed Preservation Initiative (ISPI) which would provide research and provide a storage location for member states to donate seeds for the purpose of ensuring future food stability and ecological diversity.

Opinion: Okay, a little tired cause I just got back from a LATE KK Slider concert last night. Impromptu show, but soooo good.

I totes have mixed feelings about this proposal. So, like, the author's intent was to create a new framework for a WA backed Seedbank similar to the repealed GAR#52 under the old General Assembly. I like the idea of a centralized location where member states can donate seeds for research and, potentially, sharing. However, the bank is mostly and ensuring folks have access to their own crops. Kind of. It references encouraging member states to work together on research, but doesn't really mandate the ISPI to do anything regarding research.

An interesting note: if a member state donates seeds of local flora to the ISPI, those seeds remain "...the sovereign property of the originating nation." Sure sure. Does that mean that it can be donated to a different member state who may be suffering from an ecological crisis? I think so. Article 7 indicates yes, but since Article 4 states the ISPI doesn't really own any of the seeds, I guess that means they'd have to get permission from the originating member state before sharing. Which makes some sense.

Hmm. Okay, I'm reading it again. Another thought. Here is Article 5 in its entirety:
Provides that contributed genetic material shall not be patented, claimed as exclusive intellectual property, or commercially exploited in any way without the originating nation's consent, and may be used solely for preservation, research, and humanitarian restoration purposes
The question I have on Article 5. Does this mean that a member state or an entity in a member state cannot hold a patent or commercially use a plant if that seed has been contributed to the ISPI? Let's do a hypothetical. OOOH! I love doing that. Let's say there are two member states - A and B. A and B both have similar climates and similar flora including a staple crop that we'll call Plant X. Oooh, mysterious. Okay, so member state B has Plant X in droves. It's a huge commercial farming crop and a huge hit. Concurrently, member state A also has Plant X, but their numbers are depleting or stable or for whatever reason it's not a staple in their nation. Let's say A donates genetic material of Plant X to the ISPI, does that now mean that current operations in member state B where Plant X was already a staple crop now need to get member state A's consent to continue? I know, I know, it's a lot to take in. But think about it for a moment. It's a weird hypothetical, but it can happen! I mean, peaches grow on Moduland and if Agnes had us donate peach seeds to the ISPI does that now mean that other member states that already had peaches can't do mass farming of peaches anymore without our consent? I think that's a bit excessive, but based on the plain language of Article 5, I think that's what happens. I can be possibly persuaded that I'm wrong about this one, but I think that's a big issue that needs to be hashed out first before this comes to pass. I would encourage a redrafting that added both a simple definition of contributed genetic material as well as some clause about existing operations prior to enactment. I think they'd help!

Anyway, so yea - as of right now, I'm probably voting AGAINST.