Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 Dear Prabhus, PAMHO. AGTSP. I have taken comments by various cow members and put them in an outline form simliar to the Standards. Remember that 1,2 etc of each section can be like a sub heading with points after it.The WHY, VISION have been agreed upon all ready and I believe also that environmental, social, and economic the main divisons or principles. Let's start with Environmental. Obviously the entered comments are not finer tuned nor are they my proposed thoughts and those who belong to them and others can work onthem. Looking forward to input. Dec 1st is our deadline. Your servant, Chayadevi VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHY/WHAT To reinvigorate ISKCON farm communities in accordance with the wishes of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture presents a Rural Development Plan to establish sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provides tenure security for the participants. VISION The Vision is to establish ISKCON farms that manage according to sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provide tenure security for the farmers. MISSION To present this plan to the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON (GBC) byDec 1st for their approval so that ISKCON Farms can become sustainable, viable, safe havens for the devotees as well as attract non devotees during the future unknown and threatening world events. VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SECTION I ENVIRONMENTAL I) Land use principles and practices of lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - outlined in Standards. 2) Land use must be at least to the standards of Low External Imputs Sustainable Agriculture.LEISA - Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture check out: http://www.ileia.org/ 3)increasing production and productivity in terms of > land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a sustainable > form that will in the long term increase fertility and > bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for > the short and longterm needs of the participants4) 4)The form of production must sustain that quality of life and be sustained by the landscape or it will fail. 5) SECTION II SOCIAL/TENURE 1) Tenants of ISKCON land who are primary participants in land use ie horticulture, agriculture etc.. cannot be removed from their household security without Ministry of Agriculture permission. 2)ISKCON land users cannot lose their land tenancy on the basis of sadhana or breach of three regulative principles (not including meat eating). 3)Back off zones are established to cushion the participants from intolerant management groups. 4) 5)secure the cows on the land and the farmer would have to surrender to having this encumbrance on his/her land in order to qualify as a protected cow farmer.For the farmers who are engaged on ISKCON land, there would be sufficient support of these farmers to gradually provide them title to some additional land acquired for their homestead and added production. SECTION III ECONOMIC 1) Temples are oblidged to buy produce from ISKCON land users depending on availability and need. 2) 3)Demand-side consumption - linking the consumer to the producer via a market mechanism, either CSA or straight purchase. ISKCON should look at Temple and Restaurant Supported Agriculture (TSA & RSA), as that was most definately in Prabhupada's instructions, and also in the Standards. In fact the latter could lead CSA as it provides an 'incentive and subsidy' base for the intial experiments to be made in setting up a yearly cropping system. 4)working as self sufficient, CSA or in a stand-alone enterprise. Key issues - productivity per worker, skills, knowledge, ability, training, workers rights, remuneration, land security, health insurance, pensions, etc. Partnerships between CSAs, charities, public or enterprises - linking with existing organic farmers to form joint ventures. 5) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 - "ISCOWP (Balabhadra Dasa & Chaya Dasi - USA)" <ISCOWP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Wednesday, October 10, 2001 7:28 AM Outline for VRDP > I have taken comments by various cow members and put them in an outline form similar to the Standards. Remember that 1,2 etc of each section can be like a sub heading with points after it. The WHY, VISION have been agreed upon all ready and I believe also that environmental, social, and economic the main divisions or principles. Let's start with Environmental. Obviously the entered comments are not finer tuned nor are they my proposed thoughts and those who belong to them and others can work on them. Looking forward to input. Dec 1st is our deadline. > VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN > WHY/WHAT > To reinvigorate ISKCON farm communities in accordance with the wishes of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture presents a Rural Development Plan to establish sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provides tenure security for the participants. > > VISION > The Vision is to establish ISKCON farms that manage according to sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provide tenure security for the farmers. > MISSION > To present this plan to the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON (GBC) by Dec 1st for their approval, so that ISKCON Farms can become sustainable, viable, safe havens for the devotees as well as attract non devotees during the future unknown and threatening world events. Comment: If we are unable to accomplish this properly by this date, we should not give up, but continue on so that we are in agreement for the following year. Haste makes waste. > VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN > SECTION I ENVIRONMENTAL >1) Land use principles and practices of lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - outlined in Standards. > >2) Land use must be at least to the standards of Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture. LEISA - Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture > check out: > http://www.ileia.org/ > >3) Increasing production and productivity in terms of land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a sustainable form that will in the long term increase fertility and bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for the short and long-term needs of the participants. Comment: Production (milk) must not take precedence over care of stock; some how we need to see that all animals presently on "ISKCON accredited farms" are engaged - earning their keep. To increase production of milk for the sake of sales will have to wait until devotees can be convinced to take up working oxen. >4) The form of production must sustain that quality of life and be sustained by the landscape or it will fail. Comment: This landscape must be able, with proper management, to provide our needs without recourse to outside resources to maintain it. If we are unable to produce sufficiently from the land to meet the quality of life we wish to live, then it is understood. a. Our quality of life goals are too extravagant. b. Or/and our land is too marginal. So, this means relocating or doing without some things. > SECTION II SOCIAL/TENURE >1) Tenants of ISKCON land who are primary participants in land use i.e. horticulture, agriculture etc., cannot be removed from their household security without Ministry of Agriculture permission. > >2) ISKCON land users cannot lose their land tenancy on the basis of sadhana or breach of three regulative principles (not including meat eating). > >3) Back off zones are established to cushion the participants from intolerant management groups. Comment: I have some question as to what is meant by a 'back off zone' this needs some clarification. This should be reworded to answer this. >4) Secure the cows on the land and the farmer would have to surrender to having this encumbrance on his/her land in order to qualify as a protected cow farmer. For the farmers who are engaged on ISKCON land, there would be sufficient support of these farmers to gradually provide them title to some additional land acquired for their homestead and added production. Comment: Difficult, wording leaves reader confused. > SECTION III ECONOMIC > >1) Temples are obliged to buy produce from ISKCON land users depending on availability and need. Comment: I understand the intent behind this (a guarantied source of income); it seems to go against the principle that the householders should support the temple. Should the temple take from its collections to cover this expense? Many temples are barely keeping afloat, I am sure many would be unable to function with this restriction. Just a tour of the conditions in most American temples is enough to convince anyone of this, for example; Atlanta, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Columbus, Seattle, St. Louis etc. >2) Demand-side consumption - linking the consumer to the producer via a market mechanism, either CSA or straight purchase. ISKCON should look at Temple and Restaurant Supported Agriculture (TSA & RSA), as that was most definitely in Prabhupada's instructions, and also in the Standards. In fact the latter could lead CSA as it provides an 'incentive and subsidy' base for the initial experiments to be made in setting up a yearly cropping system. Comment: Many temples have restaurants, these should not be temple businesses, but should belong to individual or a partnership of devotees. These businesses should make regular donations to their local temple and if on temple property should in addition also pay rent to the temple. The temple should encourage its congregation to purchase from devotee agriculturalists. Likewise the restaurants should purchase as much as they are able to from devotee farmers. Devotee farmers need to spend their time on the land not in the towns and cities trying to market them. Devotee farmers need to form coops to handle their merchandise, so that they do not become entangled in the selling, wasting much of their time in an activity that another could better manage. These coops then could hire some one (preferably a devotee) to market their produce. The coop needs to set some standards so that they develop a good reputation with the consumer market. > >3) working as self sufficient, CSA or in a stand-alone enterprise. Key issues - productivity per worker, skills, knowledge, ability, training, workers rights, remuneration, land security, health insurance, pensions, etc. Partnerships between CSAs, charities, public or enterprises - linking with existing organic farmers to form joint ventures. Comment: When writing out these points we need to take care to minimize the use of abbreviations and if they have to be used that they be defined immediately. No one takes kindly to needing to turn back a number of pages to look up an abbreviation so they can understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 I have incorporated comments to date: VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHY/WHAT To reinvigorate ISKCON farm communities in accordance with the wishes of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture presents a Rural Development Plan to establish sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provides tenure security for the participants. > VISION The Vision is to establish ISKCON farms that manage according to sustainable principles and practices of land use that encourage participation in lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture and provide tenure security for the farmers. > MISSION > To present this plan to the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON (GBC) by Dec 1st for their approval, so that ISKCON Farms can become sustainable, viable, safe havens for the devotees as well as attract non devotees during the future unknown and threatening world events. > > VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN > SECTION I ENVIRONMENTAL > 1) Land use principles and practices of lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture as outlined in the Minimum Cow Protection Standards (ISKCON Law 507). > > 2) Land use must be at least to the standards of Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture. LEISA - Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture. Please refer to http://www.ileia.org/ > > 3) to use land in a sustainable form that will in the long term increase fertility and bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for the short and long-term needs of the participants. > > 4) This landscape should be able, with proper management, to provide our needs without recourse to outside resources to maintain it. If we are unable to produce sufficiently from the land to meet the quality of life we wish to live, then it is understood. a. Our quality of life goals are too extravagant. b. Or/and our land is too marginal. Please refer to Holistic Resource Management (book title) > > > SECTION II SOCIAL/TENURE > > >1) Tenants of ISKCON land in good standing actively engaged in horticulture, agriculture etc.. cannot be removed from their household security without due process and Ministry of Agriculture permission. With allowances for illness and injury. > > 2) ISKCON land users cannot lose their land tenancy on the basis of sadhana > or breach of three regulative principles (not including meat eating). > > 3) Back off zones are established to cushion the participants from > intolerant management groups. > > Comment: > I have some question as to what is meant by a 'back off zone' this needs > some clarification. This should be reworded to answer this. > > >4) Secure the cows on the land and the farmer would have to surrender to > having this encumbrance on his/her land in order to qualify as a protected > cow farmer. For the farmers who are engaged on ISKCON land, there would be > sufficient support of these farmers to gradually provide them title to some > additional land acquired for their homestead and added production. > > Comment: > Difficult, wording leaves reader confused. > > > SECTION III ECONOMIC > > 1) Temples are encouraged to buy produce from ISKCON land users depending on availability and need, and obligated to accept payment in kind for monies due and payable. 2) Demand-side consumption a) CSA Community Supported Agriculture b) Temple and Restaurant Supported Agriculture ` > The temple should encourage its congregation to purchase from devotee > agriculturalists. Likewise the restaurants should purchase as much as they > are able to from devotee farmers. c). COOPS Devotee farmers need to form coops to handle > their merchandise, so that they do not become entangled in the selling, > wasting much of their time in an activity that another could better manage.These coops then could hire some one (preferably a devotee) to market their produce.The coop needs to set some standards so that they develop a good reputation with the consumer market. 3) working as self sufficient, CSA or in a stand-alone enterprise. Key > issues - productivity per worker, skills, knowledge, ability, training, > workers rights, remuneration, land security, health insurance, pensions, > etc. Partnerships between CSAs, charities, public or enterprises - linking > with existing organic farmers to form joint ventures. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 - "ISCOWP (Balabhadra Dasa & Chaya Dasi - USA)" <ISCOWP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "Rohita dasa" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com>; "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Friday, October 12, 2001 9:17 AM Re: Outline for VRDP > I have incorporated comments to date: > > VAISNAVA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN > WHY/WHAT > > > 4) This landscape should be able, with proper management, to provide our > needs without recourse to outside resources to maintain it. > If we are unable to produce sufficiently from the land to meet the quality > of life we wish to live, then it is understood. > a. Our quality of life goals are too extravagant. > b. Or/and our land is too marginal. Please refer to Holistic Resource > Management (book title) > > > > I read this text after send a prior message about making a summary the above is satisfactory to give indication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 Proposal - let's shot for Dec 1 2002 as finish date for these land use standards. It took at least that long for Cow Standards. The early rushed version trying to catch an impending GBC meeting, was very weak relative to the version that took another year to generate. Personally, between now and Christmas, I am too busy to really do a proper job of being involved, other than tossing in a sound bite now and then. I am just skimming over stuff. I am sure others are in the same boat. The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, and that any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through sales, leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture, and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use committee. Also, I think we shouldn't be worried about being completely correct either in principles, applications, or elements of style at this point. This is more a brainstorming time where ideas should be encouraged. Later making finer adjustments, correcting grammar and trimming words come more into play. Having a framework to organize ideas now is good, but having to wory too much about things actually being polished is counterproductive. With the cow standards we roughed it out, then polished it, then put it out for comments, and made futher adjustments based on those comments. In the end, it was a fairly decent product, but it took more than a a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 Dear Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! - "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com> > Proposal - let's shot for Dec 1 2002 as finish date for these land use > standards. It took at least that long for Cow Standards. The early rushed > version trying to catch an impending GBC meeting, was very weak relative to > the version that took another year to generate. Personally, between now > and Christmas, I am too busy to really do a proper job of being involved, > other than tossing in a sound bite now and then. I am just skimming over > stuff. I am sure others are in the same boat. I agree with Madhava Gosh prabhu. The Standards did take us about 1 1/2 to complete and it is beginning to appear that the cow standards were more simple to understand and put on paper. Lets make the deadline Dec 1 2002. Maybe we could make mini deadlines along the way. <Personally, between now and Christmas, I am too busy to really do a proper job of being involved, other than tossing in a sound bite now and then. I am just skimming over stuff. I am sure others are in the same boat.> Personally I am having trouble following everything too. Mainly because while I am reading the everyting In the back of my mind is everyting I have to do that is not getting done. If a even a few of us had noting else to do, maybe we could knock it out quickly but we all have lives and responsibilities and no one is getting any renumeration for their time. This was the same withthe standards. By everyone staying with it and taking some spare time when they can get it to participate we should get it done by Dec 1 2002. > > The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, and that > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through sales, > leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture, > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > committee. This is a good idea, however I am feeling the proposal this year should be for some budget for the Ministry. I am not expecting what we would like or really need but I am feeling it must be really pushed that if the service is to be done right there has to be some help. > > Also, I think we shouldn't be worried about being completely correct either > in principles, applications, or elements of style at this point. This is > more a brainstorming time where ideas should be encouraged. Later making > finer adjustments, correcting grammar and trimming words come more into > play. Having a framework to organize ideas now is good, but having to wory > too much about things actually being polished is counterproductive. I also agree. Right now Im a looking over the frameworks suggested by Mark, Rohita and Ananda Maya sent me the Weaver plan which I am also looking over. We do need to agree to a framework. Then I could put the commnets (brainstormng) in some framework to preserve them. Later we can finer tune, etc. Your servant, Chayadevi > > With the cow standards we roughed it out, then polished it, then put it > out for comments, and made futher adjustments based on those comments. In > the end, it was a fairly decent product, but it took more than a a year. Yes, that was the process. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 dear Prabhu's, I share the view that we may not everything ready by Mayapur 2002. I have a concern that in the mean time some ISKCON land may get re-allocated or sold or whatever. Perhaps one immeadiate time based proposal could be that until the Ministry of Cows and Agriculture submit a formal Land development proposal that all land sales or allocations are put on hold or at least have to be passed by the Minsitry. I am seeing ISKCON as a land holding institution which tenants out land according to particular circumstances. If over the next year some communities sell all their land holdings then in effect what we are proposing may lose relevance to them. I fully support Madhava Ghosh's proposal: >The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, and that > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through sales, > leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture, > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > committee. ys syam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Do you think that two proposals would be too much-one cancel out the other? One for a budget, one for the below. Actually we have to also pressure Mayapur to stop breeding so we should make another proposal for that. Advice? - "Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com>; "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Sunday, October 14, 2001 6:37 AM Re: Outline for VRDP > dear Prabhu's, > > I share the view that we may not everything ready by Mayapur 2002. > > I have a concern that in the mean time some ISKCON land may get re-allocated > or sold or whatever. Perhaps one immeadiate time based proposal could be > that until the Ministry of Cows and Agriculture submit a formal Land > development proposal that all land sales or allocations are put on hold or > at least have to be passed by the Minsitry. > > I am seeing ISKCON as a land holding institution which tenants out land > according to particular circumstances. If over the next year some > communities sell all their land holdings then in effect what we are > proposing may lose relevance to them. > > I fully support Madhava Ghosh's proposal: > > >The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, and > that > > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through sales, > > leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture, > > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > > committee. > > > ys syam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Personally, I think marginally unrelated proposals should be seperate. It is more manageable. Mark --- "ISCOWP (Balabhadra Dasa & Chaya Dasi - USA)" <ISCOWP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Do you think that two proposals would be too > much-one cancel out the other? > One for a budget, one for the below. Actually we > have to also pressure > Mayapur to stop breeding so we should make another > proposal for that. > Advice? > - > "Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - > UK)" > <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> > "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com>; > "Cow (Protection and > related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> > Sunday, October 14, 2001 6:37 AM > Re: Outline for VRDP > > > > dear Prabhu's, > > > > I share the view that we may not everything ready > by Mayapur 2002. > > > > I have a concern that in the mean time some ISKCON > land may get > re-allocated > > or sold or whatever. Perhaps one immeadiate time > based proposal could be > > that until the Ministry of Cows and Agriculture > submit a formal Land > > development proposal that all land sales or > allocations are put on hold or > > at least have to be passed by the Minsitry. > > > > I am seeing ISKCON as a land holding institution > which tenants out land > > according to particular circumstances. If over the > next year some > > communities sell all their land holdings then in > effect what we are > > proposing may lose relevance to them. > > > > I fully support Madhava Ghosh's proposal: > > > > >The Proposal that we could more realistically > submit this year would be > > > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal > is being worked on, and > > that > > > any land use decisions made about obligating > ISKCON land (through sales, > > > leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the > Ministry of > Agriculture, > > > and that such review would involve scrutiny by > the ad hoc Land Use > > > committee. > > > > > > ys syam > Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 I think we should cover Mayapur (major focus) and budget this year and continue working on VRDP for next year. ys, Rohita dasa - "ISCOWP (Balabhadra Dasa & Chaya Dasi - USA)" <ISCOWP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com> Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:45 AM Re: Outline for VRDP > Do you think that two proposals would be too much-one cancel out the other? > One for a budget, one for the below. Actually we have to also pressure > Mayapur to stop breeding so we should make another proposal for that. > Advice? > - > "Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" > <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> > "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com>; "Cow (Protection and > related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> > Sunday, October 14, 2001 6:37 AM > Re: Outline for VRDP > > > > dear Prabhu's, > > > > I share the view that we may not everything ready by Mayapur 2002. > > > > I have a concern that in the mean time some ISKCON land may get > re-allocated > > or sold or whatever. Perhaps one immeadiate time based proposal could be > > that until the Ministry of Cows and Agriculture submit a formal Land > > development proposal that all land sales or allocations are put on hold or > > at least have to be passed by the Minsitry. > > > > I am seeing ISKCON as a land holding institution which tenants out land > > according to particular circumstances. If over the next year some > > communities sell all their land holdings then in effect what we are > > proposing may lose relevance to them. > > > > I fully support Madhava Ghosh's proposal: > > > > >The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > > > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, and > > that > > > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through sales, > > > leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of > Agriculture, > > > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > > > committee. > > > > > > ys syam > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 - "Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com>; "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Sunday, October 14, 2001 5:37 AM Re: Outline for VRDP > dear Prabhu's, > > I share the view that we may not everything ready by Mayapur 2002. > > I have a concern that in the mean time some ISKCON land may get re-allocated > or sold or whatever. Perhaps one immeadiate time based proposal could be > that until the Ministry of Cows and Agriculture submit a formal Land > development proposal that all land sales or allocations are put on hold or > at least have to be passed by the Minsitry. > > I am seeing ISKCON as a land holding institution which tenants out land > according to particular circumstances. If over the next year some > communities sell all their land holdings then in effect what we are > proposing may lose relevance to them. > > I fully support Madhava Ghosh's proposal: > > >The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, and > that > > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through sales, > > leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture, > > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > > committee. > > > ys syam > Add my name to this. Rohita dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2001 Report Share Posted October 15, 2001 It seams then that there is a consensus from some of the main contributers that we should be looking at an immediate proposal to the GBC for: 1) Budget proposal for the Ministry 2) A freeze on land sales, give aways or what else until the Conference submits its land Use Proposal in Dec 2002 (discussed in Spring 2003). Any land issues should be discused with the Ministry until the Land Proposal runs through its course. ys syam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2001 Report Share Posted October 15, 2001 - "Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "Rohita dasa" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com>; "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Monday, October 15, 2001 1:48 AM Re: Outline for VRDP > It seams then that there is a consensus from some of the main contributers > that we should be looking at an immediate proposal to the GBC for: > > 1) Budget proposal for the Ministry > > 2) A freeze on land sales, give aways or what else until the Conference > submits its land Use Proposal in Dec 2002 (discussed in Spring 2003). Any > land issues should be discused with the Ministry until the Land Proposal > runs through its course. > > ys syam > > 1. Mayapur 2. Budget proposal 3. Freeze on land dispersal, or at least review by Ministry. Rohita dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2001 Report Share Posted October 15, 2001 > > I fully support Madhava Ghosh's proposal: > > > > >The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > > > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, > > > and > > that > > > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through > > > sales, leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of > Agriculture, > > > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > > > committee. > > > > > > ys syam > > > Add my name to this. > Rohita dasa Me too. YS Samba das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2001 Report Share Posted October 15, 2001 Madhava Ghosh's proposal: > > > > > > >The Proposal that we could more realistically submit this year would be > > > > advising that the GBC that a Land Use Proposal is being worked on, > > > > and > > > that > > > > any land use decisions made about obligating ISKCON land (through > > > > sales, leases, trusts, etc) should be reviewed by the Ministry of > > Agriculture, > > > > and that such review would involve scrutiny by the ad hoc Land Use > > > > committee. > > > Madhava Gosh's proposal has gotten a lot of support. We have something in the standards that refers to this. Refer to #6. This is already law. Do you thnk it covers it? Even more applicable is 1a of standard 13 not allowed " Selling lands for the sake of generating cash flow to deal with non-capital expenditures. This is strictly forbidden except in emergency situations and then only after approval by the Minister of Cow Protection and Agriculture and the approval of the GBC." Please read all of Standard 13. Do you think we have covered the issue? This already Law and somewhat got by without the GBC thoroughly understanding all the standards. If we know make a pint of this issue could it possibly be rejected? In actuality the Ministry is only an advisory body to the GBC. If we make a proposal like the above they could say that the final decison is the GBC's whereas we already have in law that land can not be sold without the Ministry permission. However, last year two farms were about to be sold at the gbGBC meetings. We found out by chance. Then we pumped the law already established. Neither farm got sold but I can't say it was because of the Ministry. What does everyone think? Your servant, Chayadevi VIII USE OF KRISHNA'S PROPERTY Recommended 1) Any property (land and cows) belonging to the Deity should be protected by environmentally sound conservation practices designed with the long term fertility and preservation of the soil in mind. 2) Construction of convenient watering places like ponds and tanks and easily accessible shade is appreciated by the cows. Permitted 1) Land may be burned only when dense growth needs to be removed to increase productivity. 2) Timber a) Conditions for Timbering Individual select cuttings of trees may be done for the erection of homes, road right-of-ways, construction of fence lines, crop land, or pasture. b) Use of Timber Cut Trees so cut must be utilized for construction purposes or firewood. c) Replacement When deemed necessary to forest health and supply, trees cut should be replaced by planting new ones in appropriate locations Not Allowed 1) Grazing animals who are destined for slaughter on ISKCON/devotee property. 2) Removing sod or yearly burning of crop or grazing land. 3) Clear cutting of trees. 4) Cutting of trees on steep land or land which may be prone to erosion or any other activity that may lead to erosion. 5) Performing activity that may lead to contamination of any bodies of water. 6) Selling or exchanging land used by cows except where the cows will directly benefit or such sales will increase the assets of the cows. XIII RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL COMMUNITY Recommended 1) Housing and use of ISKCON land contracted to devotees who are seriously committed to protecting cows and working the land. 2) Land Base Cow programs should be increasing the land base available to cow herding, not decreasing. a) Lands may be sold or exchanged only if there is an offsetting advantage and an increase to the overall program. b) New land acquired to be given, leased, sold at fair market value to those who seriously committed to protecting cows and working the land. Any income generated from such transferred land should be used to benefit the cow protection programs. c) The determination of land sales in regard to what is best for the cows should be made by the cows' primary cowherd. 3) Ox-power Produce Ox-power produce should be purchased from the goshalla at above standard market price by temple and devotees. Milk from protected cows should be sold at a premium, with the amount above the standard market value used to make capital contributions to a Cow Protection Trust Fund. 4) Cow Remains a) Local government and customs must be respected. b) When possible it is recommended to honor the dead body of the cow. c) After all reasonable efforts have been taken to maintain the soul in the body of the cow, when the soul has left the body of the cow, there is no bar to someone recycling the body unless illegal in that country and after consulting with the primary cowherd. (Recycling the dead body of the cow is in accordance with Srila Prabhupada's instruction in the Teachings of Queen Kunti and other sources.) 5) Goshalla Reporting Managers of goshalla should be accountable for quarterly presenting facts and figures that show the value of the cows, their services provided (i.e. plowing, transport, labor, publicity), their produce and their by-products. Permitted 1) Milk and Ox-power Produce a) When cows and cowherds are sufficiently supported by temple, milk and produce can be given to the temple. b) Milk and ox-power produce bought at market value by temple and devotees. 2) Land Base Lands may be put into private hands if there is a means easily monitored and managed by which the land will continue to be used for cow protection, i.e. retention of grazing rights, leasing agreements, or the establishment of a fund dedicated to obtaining new land. Not Allowed 1) Land Base a) Selling lands for the sake of generating cash flow to deal with non-capital expenditures. This is strictly forbidden except in emergency situations and then only after approval by the Minister of Cow Protection and Agriculture and the approval of the GBC. b) Selling land currently used by cows that decreases the over all land base available to the cows. c) Using ISKCON's land to graze animals destined for slaughter. (See Standard 8) 2) Taxing of Goshalla. 3) Milk and Ox-power Produce Consuming milk and produce without compensation to the goshalla. 4) Cow Remains a) Using the body of a dead cow by cow protectors for profit making activity to such a point that it encourages negligence that contributes to the cow's death. b) Neglecting to follow the government's laws and local customs in regards to disposal of the dead cow's body. 5) Goshalla Reporting Failure to present facts and figures that show the value of the cows, their services provided (i.e. plowing, transport, labor, publicity), their products and their by-products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 > > 2) A freeze on land sales, give aways or what else until the Conference > submits its land Use Proposal in Dec 2002 (discussed in Spring 2003). Any > land issues should be discused with the Ministry until the Land Proposal > runs through its course. > > ys syam > A freeze unless an exception is made by the Ministry in consultation with the Land Use Conference (or whatever this is). Some places may need to proceed, and would be good test cases to discuss in the process of formulating the policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.