2,123 research outputs found

    Establishment of, and running, a comprehensive organic seed information database and communication network OF0195

    Get PDF
    The Scientific Objectives 1. To request and collate information from seed companies and organic sector certification bodies throughout the EU on the production of organic seed. Regular Organic Seed Working Group meetings were held throughout this period and information on EU regulations and techniques of organic seed production discussed and minuted on COSI. 2. To produce an up-to-date list of organic seed availability of varieties of field vegetable, cereals and potatoes within the EU. Where possible the list will provide an indication of seed quantity as well as variety availability. Contact was made with all seed companies and lists compiled of varieties available as organic seed. Over 1000 varieties were eventually added to the European OrganicXseeds database. 3. Establish an effective communication system linking the seed industry, organic growers, UKROFS and certification bodies. COSI web site was set up with the capability of exchanging information on organic topics and keeping abreast of legislation changes. 4. Where possible to provide an indication of the suitability of the varieties listed for UK growing and marketing. Where UK tests have not been carried out a comparison with known controls will be made. The COSI database lists comprehensive results for organic variety trial data carried out by NIAB, HDRA, Elm Farm and other centres. In addition, data for organic or conventional trial performance has been added for all varieties where information is available. The extent to which the objectives have been met. The COSI web site was created and launched in 2001 and the objectives have been fully met. Methods used Consultation with all interested representatives was carried out by post, telephone and twice-yearly meetings with each crop sector. Regular updates and progress reports were given at NIAB, HDRA and Soil Association open days and committee meetings. The web site was developed by Soil Association IT specialists. Results Several seed companies attempted organic seed production and most varieties produced were listed on the COSI/OrganicXseeds web sites. Some seed companies were discouraged by the extension of the derogation allowance of EU Regulation 2092/91 which meant that untreated conventional seed could still be used for vegetable crops. Access to lists of varieties available as organic seed through COSI and OrganicXseeds has been successful but seed companies were unwilling to list quantities of seed available. However a "red/green traffic light" system was set up to indicate whether seed is currently available and for vegetables the option of listing as "available in small packets only" is available. Every variety listed has been researched to enable organic and conventional performance data to be added. All known organic trial results have been added. Implications The web site has been successfully established and support is growing with time. Possible future work Maintain support for the site especially the time consuming addition of performance data for each variety. This project successfully set up a web site called COSI (Centre for Organic Seed Information) address: www.COSI.org.uk In addition, the site included the following areas: Latest news of interest to organic growers Information on organic standards An organic discussion forum Organic grower survey result

    Systemic Lying

    Full text link
    This Article offers the foundational account of systemic lying from a definitional and theoretical perspective. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of justice. It becomes a functioning mechanism within the legal system and changes the operation of the law as written. By identifying systemic lying, this Article challenges the assumption that all lying in the legal system is the same. It argues that systemic lying poses a particular threat to the legal system. This means that we should know how to identify it and then try to address it once we see it happening. Accordingly, this Article presents a guide to identifying a set of symptoms that are the hallmarks of systemic lying and posits a unitary cause, although not a one-size-fits-all solution. Through a series of case studies, it shows that systemic lying emerges as a saving mechanism that mediates between culture and law. Rather than allow the law to take its course and deliver what would be perceived as unjust outcomes, participants lie and preserve the façade of a system that delivers results consonant with popular moral intuitions. Systemic lying is both persistent and powerful because it achieves a type of licitness that individual lies or underground deception lack. At the same time, it poses a unique threat to the legitimacy of the system by signifying that truth is not paramount in the courtroom

    Trading efficiency in water quality markets

    Get PDF
    A crucial factor in the success of any water quality trading market is its ability to cost-effectively reallocate nutrient allowances from initial holders to those users who find them most valuable; the market's trading efficiency. We explore causes of and solutions to trading inefficiency by assessing the impact on participant transaction costs and the tradeoffs that occur as a result of policy design decisions. Differing impacts of baseline-credit and cap-and-trade markets, the impact of trading rules and monitoring regimes are discussed in this endeavour. Possible solutions of increased information flows and regulatory certainty are also discussed. We then apply this framework to three existing water quality trading schemes; two from the US, and one from New Zealand. We use this experience to extract general recommendations for policy makers looking to maximise trading efficiency when designing future water quality trading markets.Nutrient trading, trading efficiency, water quality markets, transaction costs, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Environmental Economics and Policy, Health Economics and Policy, International Relations/Trade,

    Unchaste and Incredible: The Use of Gendered Conceptions of Honor in Impeachment

    Get PDF

    Land use in rural New Zealand: spatial land use, land-use change, and model validation

    Get PDF
    Abstract Land is an important social and economic resource. Knowing the spatial distribution of land use and the expected location of future land-use change is important to inform decision makers. This paper documents and validates the baseline land-use maps and the algorithm for spatial land-use change incorporated in the Land Use in Rural New Zealand model (LURNZ). At the time of writing, LURNZ is the only national-level land-use model of New Zealand. While developed for New Zealand, the model provides an intuitive algorithm that would be straightforward to apply to different locations and at different spatial resolutions. LURNZ is based on a heuristic model of dynamic land-use optimisation with conversion costs. It allocates land-use changes to each pixel using a combination of pixel probabilities in a deterministic algorithm and calibration to national-level changes. We simulate out of sample and compare to observed data. As a result of the model construction, we underestimate the “churn” in land use. We demonstrate that the algorithm assigns changes in land use to pixels that are similar in quality to the pixels where land-use changes are observed to occur. We also show that there is a strong positive relationship between observed territorial-authority-level dairy changes and simulated changes in dairy area

    Law\u27s Credibility Problem

    Get PDF
    Credibility determinations often seal people’s fates. They can determine outcomes at trial; they condition the provision of benefits, like social security; and they play an increasingly dispositive role in immigration proceedings. Yet there is no stable definition of credibility in the law. Courts and agencies diverge at the most basic definitional level in their use of the category. Consider a real-world example. An immigration judge denies asylum despite the applicant’s plausible and unrefuted account of persecution in their country of origin. The applicant appeals, pointing to the fact that Congress enacted a “rebuttable presumption of credibility” for asylum-seekers “on appeal.” This presumption, the applicant argues, means that the Court of Appeals must credit his testimony and reverse the decision below. Should the applicant win? Clearly, the answer depends on what “credibility” (and its presumption) entails. But the Supreme Court, confronting this question in Garland v. Dai, declined to provide an answer. Instead, it showcased the analytic confusion that surrounds credibility writ large. At oral argument, the Justices canvassed four distinct ideas of credibility. In their unanimous opinion, they offered a “definition” of credibility that managed to replicate, rather than resolve, the ambiguity among the four. Meanwhile, the everyday work of adjudication continues. Every year, thousands of cases are resolved on credibility grounds— many with life-altering consequences—despite the confusion at the heart of the legal concept. The time has come for our legal system to clarify what it means by “credibility.” While the term can be an umbrella for different ideas, within any given adjudication—like an immigration proceeding—precision about how we are using it is a must. To that end, this Article explores different ideas of credibility, taking the Garland v. Dai argument and opinion as a source of (cautionary) inspiration. It explains why credibility is necessarily distinct from truth, and the malleable nature of the concept. Is credibility a synonym for persuasiveness? Does it refer to the likelihood that someone is telling the truth in this case? To the likelihood that they generally tend to tell the truth? To whether they seem like they’re telling the truth? Ultimately, there is no ideal definition of credibility; it depends on what work the concept is trying to do. What is far from ideal, however, is the current state of affairs, in which credibility means everything and nothing—notwithstanding its role in shaping people’s lives
    • …