[PASSED] Pesticide Regulations

[Araraukar]

ARI: Hmmm, yes, this has our support. A couple of extremely minor grammar quibbles, the UNDERSTANDING clause needs a comma after the word "that", and we'd make "the member nations" in numbered clause 1 simply "member nations". (Ari whispers.) Ah. Another suggestion, for the subclauses under numbered clause 3, we'd prefer the use of letters instead of numbers. In this way, when we refer to "numbered clause 3" it's clear which clause we are referring to.

Answering OOCly, because first of all making it clear to all involved that I asked for grammar and spelling help from a few people, and secondly to ask if there's a way to make the list code put in letters instead of numbers?

[Excidium Planetis]

secondly to ask if there's a way to make the list code put in letters instead of numbers?

1. yes
2. there
3. is.

Code: Select all

[list=a]
[*]yes
[*]there
[*]is.[/list]

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

ARI: Just thinking aloud here, but we're sure there are some here who'll claim this now contradicts GAR#372. Not us, of course, but....

(Ari points subtly, but not subtly enough, in the direction of Schultz.)

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

*snip*

Thanks, I'll change that for the next draft.

I'll then also make the grammar corrections posted here and sent in TG.

ARI: Just thinking aloud here, but we're sure there are some here who'll claim this now contradicts GAR#372. Not us, of course, but....

Well I wasn't going to have ND submit this anytime soon (he's got a move coming up), and I'm fairly sure that GAR#372 won't be around at that time. If it still is, we'll see what can be done, but I doubt it will.

[New Dukaine]

secondly to ask if there's a way to make the list code put in letters instead of numbers?

1. yes
2. there
3. is.

Code: Select all

[list=a]
[*]yes
[*]there
[*]is.[/list]

Changed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I still don't see it as an international issue. Someone please tell me why it is.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I still don't see it as an international issue. Someone please tell me why it is.

OOC: Because pesticides have serious environmental impacts that do not respect national borders or jurisdictions. Nations are not always willing to cede to a neighbor's insistence to stop a particular practice, feeling the political damage done doesn't surpass in value the benefit derived for themselves. Since a bilateral approach has many potential pitfalls in this case, unlike, say, border control issues, the logical body to regulate the issue is the World Assembly.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I still don't see it as an international issue. Someone please tell me why it is.

OOC: Because pesticides have serious environmental impacts that do not respect national borders or jurisdictions. Nations are not always willing to cede to a neighbor's insistence to stop a particular practice, feeling the political damage done doesn't surpass in value the benefit derived for themselves. Since a bilateral approach has many potential pitfalls in this case, unlike, say, border control issues, the logical body to regulate the issue is the World Assembly.

OOC: Acceptable.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Acceptable.

OOC: For what it's worth, that's the same argument one can apply to any environmental concern that is particularly migratory or persistent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Acceptable.

OOC: For what it's worth, that's the same argument one can apply to any environmental concern that is particularly migratory or persistent.

OOC: I also weighed it against the policies espoused in the proposal. It set off my sovereignty alarm, but it did not set off my economist alarm after beating the 'is it an international issue' test. Once you get both, that's the end of support. I'm mostly ambivalent on this one now. From a utilitarian point of view, if there are large harms and minimal costs to solving those harms, you ought do it.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Acceptable.

OOC: For what it's worth, that's the same argument one can apply to any environmental concern that is particularly migratory or persistent.

OOC: Well, yes. For example, it's basically the same argument that I used to justify WA action against leaded fuels...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Include something in here about the right to use pesticides. Unless you're going to submit it before repeal. Well, or, you could, and then you'd have me arguing that PAA doesn't do anything about pesticides in this thread... then turning around and arguing that it does in the other one... because every proposal should be interpreted to be legal.

[Araraukar]

Include something in here about the right to use pesticides. Unless you're going to submit it before repeal. Well, or, you could, and then you'd have me arguing that PAA doesn't do anything about pesticides in this thread... then turning around and arguing that it does in the other one... because every proposal should be interpreted to be legal.

OOC: I think we'll wait out to see if the animal abuse one gets repealed, before submitting this. If it does, it'll make things easier for us.

IC: To address your suggestion from the other debate, the right to ban pesticides could be inferred from 3.a. "All pesticide ingredients can only be ones that are permitted for the intended use by the nation where the product is used". So that if you don't want to allow any pest control chemicals to be used, simply don't permit any chemicals to be used for the purpose of pest control.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To address your suggestion from the other debate, the right to ban pesticides could be inferred from 3.a. "All pesticide ingredients can only be ones that are permitted for the intended use by the nation where the product is used". So that if you don't want to allow any pest control chemicals to be used, simply don't permit any chemicals to be used for the purpose of pest control.

That doesn't prevent the WA from banning their use.

[Araraukar]

That doesn't prevent the WA from banning their use.

OOC: We're not trying to ban their use...

If you mean "it doesn't act as a blocker", it's not meant to, either.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That doesn't prevent the WA from banning their use.

OOC: We're not trying to ban their use...

If you mean "it doesn't act as a blocker", it's not meant to, either.

Well, that's my major concern.

[Araraukar]

Well, that's my major concern.

Why?

[New Dukaine]

Well, that's my major concern.

Why?

Because it might block some other forms of plant protection. If we wrote this before Stopping Suicide Seeds, and this resolution was passed, the topic probably would contradict this is maybe one way (OOC)

Also, I am just saying, let's get back on topic on the pesticide regulations

[Araraukar]

Few changes, grammar fixes and updated FAQ. (And only what, four days after I promised to get it done?)

Pesticide Regulations

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Agriculture

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING previous efforts at enviromental protection,

RECOGNIZING that in many member nations farmers need to rely on chemical pesticides to keep their crops healthy,

CONCERNED of the effects that pesticides could have on the environment and the inhabitants of member nations, such as contamination of waterways, soil and groundwater, as well as unintended harm to non-target organisms,

UNDERSTANDING that, like all pollution, pesticide run-off does not respect national boundaries,

HEREBY

1. Extends the mandate of the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to monitor the use of pesticides in member nations, their unintentional environmental effects, as well as disseminate information on how to best avoid environmental contamination,

2. Defines "chemical pesticide" as a chemical designed to prevent or kill pathogens and non-sapient pests, and which is used to protect crops or other organisms,

3. Establishes these regulations on chemical pesticides used and produced in the member nations:

1. All pesticide ingredients must be ones that are permitted for the intended use by the nation where the product is used,
   
2. The ingredients must be listed on the label of the pesticide, which must also contain instructions for safe handling and use,
   
3. No false advertising or unsubstantiated claims are allowed on the label,
   
4. The producer of the pesticide must include its name and contact information on the label,

4. Requires that the users of chemical pesticides must act to prevent pesticide runoff with preventative measures, including but not limited to buffer zones, selective application and avoiding irrigation right after applying pesticides,

5. Also requires that should an accident involving pesticides happen at or near the border of another nation, the member nation must contact the neighbouring nation's relevant officials, and offer assistance with possible clean-up measures,

6. Encourages member nations to research and use more environmentally-friendly pesticides as well as non-chemical forms of pest control, if these are not already in use,

7. Reaffirms that the use of pesticides as chemical weapons does not fall under the domain of this resolution.

Co-Authored by Araraukar

What does all this mean?

Why involve WASP?

We didn't want to add yet another committee, but did want an impartial way of both recording and spreading information on the hazards of pesticide use as well as how to avoid said hazards.

"Crops or other organisms", isn't that unnecessarily complicated wording?

We had "farmed organisms", until someone pointed out that pesticides are also used to protect organisms (that word is used so that it encompasses plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms) that aren't farmed, such as destroying invasive species to protect native ecosystems.

What's with the micromanagement?

This is basically an attempt to close some loopholes, but also a way to add requirements similar to those of the real life world.

You mean we can't water the plants after applying pesticides?

You shouldn't water the plants right after applying the pesticides, as the water will - especially if it's overhead watering - wash away the pesticide. If you're using irrigation as a way of applying the pesticide, you won't need to water them right after anyway.

Why should we care what happens to some other nation, especially if it's not a WA nation?

Well if it's your fault that their soil, air or water is now polluted with pesticides, you definitely should be held responsible. There's also a loophole we're closing, where a nation might "accidentally" spread something right at the border just to cause trouble.

I can't think of a question other than "why have this clause at all?"

Again we're echoing what's happening in the real life world, where more environmentally friendly pesticides and non-chemical pest control - such as using natural predators of pest species, planting plants nearby that the pest species prefers over the crop plants, using predatory animal replicas to deter the smarter pests, and so on - are on the rise, since the more traditional chemical pesticides cause both environmental and health hazards. The bit about "if these are not already at use" means that if you're using those measures already, you won't have to waste money trying to research them.

Why the military exception?

There is an existing chemical weapons resolution, and many pesticides have, over the course of human history, been used in war as chemical weapons. Trying to legislate on that use would fall foul of the previous resolution, which would make this proposal illegal.

Why is this an international issue?

We couldn't think of a better answer than our environmental sciences specialised friend gave:

OOC: Because pesticides have serious environmental impacts that do not respect national borders or jurisdictions. Nations are not always willing to cede to a neighbor's insistence to stop a particular practice, feeling the political damage done doesn't surpass in value the benefit derived for themselves. Since a bilateral approach has many potential pitfalls in this case, unlike, say, border control issues, the logical body to regulate the issue is the World Assembly.

Doesn't this contradict the "Preventing Animal Abuse" resolution?

The keywords in that resolution are "cruelly or maliciously". A farmer spraying his crops to keep them from being destroyed by a pest animal is not doing so maliciously or to be cruel to the pests, he's doing it so they don't eat his crops. We're not sure if he would be allowed to do the mad scientist laughter while spreading the pesticide, or if that would go against GA #372.

If you have additional questions, we're happy to try and reply them!

[New Dukaine]

Thank you Aru. When I get Wi-Fi, I will paste this on. Also, I can take other questions too. Ask me anything you want and me and Aru can answer them.

[edit: I might as well get this off my mind and tell you guys why we co-authored. I had the original idea, and Aru has helped improve it. If you have any suggestions, please post here or TG both of us. ]

[Araraukar]

Thank you Aru.

OOC: Ara, not Aru.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Thank you Aru.

OOC: Ara, not Aru.

OOC: AHHHHH-ROOOOO! Heheheheheheheheh.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Ara, not Aru.

OOC: AHHHHH-ROOOOO! Heheheheheheheheh.

OOC: Actually all the A's in the nation's name are supposed to be pronounced the same as the A in "car" or "far", but shorter. English is a silly language.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: AHHHHH-ROOOOO! Heheheheheheheheh.

OOC: Actually all the A's in the nation's name are supposed to be pronounced the same as the A in "car" or "far", but shorter. English is a silly language.

So Ah-ah-au-kah? Or Ar-ar-au-kah?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Actually all the A's in the nation's name are supposed to be pronounced the same as the A in "car" or "far", but shorter. English is a silly language.

So Ah-ah-au-kah? Or Ar-ar-au-kah?

OOC: Not sure why we're talking about my nation's name now, but Ah-rah-rah-oo-kar (I'm about to upgrade English into a stupid language) sounds closest. And also pronounce each R as a hard R, like you were a cursing German.