[PASSED] Agricultural Invasive Species Act (Mk2)

[Wallenburg]

I'm going for this again. I've removed the joke in clause 5 and fixed clause 2(c). Feel free to discuss, since I don't plan on drafting this very long.

Agricultural Invasive Species Act

---

---

Category: Advancement of Industry || Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing agriculture as the most fundamental industry of most member states,

Alarmed at the harms of invasive species of pathogens, weeds, and animals on agriculture and those employed in agriculture,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "invasive species" as non-native species of non-sapient life that, upon introduction into or nearby the agricultural ecosystems of a member state, significantly imperil the health or productivity of those agricultural ecosystems,
   
   
2. Establishes minimum standards that regulate trade in order to avoid transference of invasive species,
   
   
   1. Requires member states to employ nondestructive customs procedures or screenings in accordance with previous World Assembly legislation and otherwise of their choice on all goods entering or exiting national jurisdiction, to the extent that tests for invasive species on sampled goods guarantee a power of 80%,
      
      
   2. Mandates fines on goods that are found contaminated with species invasive to the area of the goods' destination and do not undergo effective decontamination procedures,
      
      
   3. Prohibits the transportation of live organisms of invasive species or goods contaminated with invasive species without sufficient measures to guarantee containment during transport, to or through areas where they pose a threat to agricultural ecosystems,
      
      
   4. Urges the imposition of tariffs on goods known to frequently harbor invasive species in response to nations that fail to adequately inspect outgoing shipping for such infestations,
   
   
3. Continues to prohibit the use of invasive species against agricultural resources as an economic or military weapon,
   
   
4. Urges member states to research the possibility of various species becoming invasive, especially toward agricultural ecosystems, and to communicate any knowledge of invasive species to other states and the World Assembly Science Program,
   
   
5. Establishes the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service, and charges it with assisting, upon member states' request, in the removal or destruction of invasive species,
   
   
   1. Provides for the use of selective pesticides and herbicides, and means to capture or kill invasive fauna, to eliminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law,
      
      
   2. Limits the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service to the use of methods that do not cause undue damage to the immediate or surrounding environment.

Previous drafting thread.

[Wallenburg]

Agricultural Invasive Species Act

---

Category: Advancement of Industry || Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing agriculture as the most fundamental industry of most member states,

Alarmed at the harms of invasive species of pathogens, weeds, and animals on agriculture and those employed in agriculture,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "invasive species" as non-native species of non-sapient life that, upon introduction into or nearby the agricultural ecosystems of a member state, significantly imperil the health or productivity of those agricultural ecosystems,
   
   
2. Establishes minimum standards that regulate trade in order to avoid transference of invasive species,
   
   
   1. Requires member states to employ nondestructive customs procedures or screenings in accordance with previous World Assembly legislation and otherwise of their choice on all goods entering or exiting national jurisdiction, to the extent that tests for invasive species on sampled goods guarantee a power of 99.780%,
      
      
   2. Mandates fines on goods that are found contaminated with species invasive to the area of the goods' destination and do not undergo effective decontamination procedures,
      
      
   3. Prohibits the transportation of live organisms of invasive species or goods contaminated with invasive species without sufficient measures to guarantee containment during transport, to or through areas where they pose a threat to agricultural ecosystems,
      
      
   4. Urges the imposition of tariffs on goods known to frequently harbor invasive species in response to nations that fail to adequately inspect outgoing shipping for such infestations,
   
   
3. Continues to prohibit the use of invasive species against agricultural resources as an economic or military weapon,
   
   
4. Urges member states to research the possibility of various species becoming invasive, especially toward agricultural ecosystems, and to communicate any knowledge of invasive species to other states and the World Assembly Science Program,
   
   
5. Establishes the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service, and charges it with assisting, upon member states' request, in the removal or destruction of invasive species,
   
   
   1. Provides for the use of selective pesticides and herbicides, and means to capture or kill invasive fauna, to eliminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law,
      
      
   2. Limits the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service to the use of methods that do not cause undue damage to the immediate or surrounding environment.

[Kenmoria]

"99.7% seems a rather arbitrary number, why not “beyond reasonable doubt” or something similar?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Insofar as the true probability distribution is unknown, how exactly do you intend to calculate power?

[Wallenburg]

Insofar as the true probability distribution is unknown, how exactly do you intend to calculate power?

Why would you assume the probability distribution to be unknown? Do member states not test their customs procedures or screening methods?

[Imperium Anglorum]

First, consulting Stock and Watson, the current relatively accepted value for power is somewhere around 0.8 as a cut off. For hypothesis testing, there can be higher t-value requirements (Cern’s five sigma comes to mind) in line with the figure you propose. Hypothesis testing, however, is not the same as power. Moreover, insofar as a population probability distribution is not known, you cannot calculate power.

Certainly, you could assume something like a normal distribution. That does not give you an exact figure. If third and fourth moments of the distribution are non-standard, it would wildly throw off estimates. Moreover, a post hoc analysis wherein the sample is assumed to reflect the population is fundamentally connected to the selection of the critical value. Insofar as the true probability distribution is not known (it being impossible to know in frequentist statistics and only something which can be guessed at in a Bayesian approach), you cannot make the kinds of exact assessments of power that your proposal seems to want to enforce upon members.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Insofar as the true probability distribution is unknown, how exactly do you intend to calculate power?

Why would you assume the probability distribution to be unknown? Do member states not test their customs procedures or screening methods?

To be blunt, we have no clue how many people try to violate the laws, only how many we actually catch doing so.

We certainly test our customs system, but we are also aware that our customs agents only inspect between 2 and 10 percent of imports physically and depend on risk management techniques to decide what they will inspect with their limited resources. The vast majority of goods enter our nation with nothing more than the customs declaration, bill of loading, and a simple x-ray. Similarly, agents in airports largely depend on self-declaration from passengers to be green or red channel. While green channel is subject to inspection, again, only a small percentage of the actual volume is randomly selected for scrutiny beyond basic airport equipment (which is largely designed to catch security risks). We, much like the Empire of the Angles, are not actually sure our procedures would be effective the the specified power as we do not and cannot collect sufficient data to compute it in a manner that is not wholly disruptive to the free flow of goods, services, and people.

[Kenmoria]

Why would you assume the probability distribution to be unknown? Do member states not test their customs procedures or screening methods?

To be blunt, we have no clue how many people try to violate the laws, only how many we actually catch doing so.

We certainly test our customs system, but we are also aware that our customs agents only inspect between 2 and 10 percent of imports physically and depend on risk management techniques to decide what they will inspect with their limited resources. The vast majority of goods enter our nation with nothing more than the customs declaration, bill of loading, and a simple x-ray. Similarly, agents in airports largely depend on self-declaration from passengers to be green or red channel. While green channel is subject to inspection, again, only a small percentage of the actual volume is randomly selected for scrutiny beyond basic airport equipment (which is largely designed to catch security risks). We, much like the Empire of the Angles, are not actually sure our procedures would be effective the the specified power as we do not and cannot collect sufficient data to compute it in a manner that is not wholly disruptive to the free flow of goods, services, and people.

This is exactly the problem, no airport would ever check so that there is a 99.7% guarantee of luggage complying with the proposal, that's ridiculous and would have massive costs involved. A much more flexible wording is needed with either a lower percentage or something that doesn't actually have any numbers but just says they have to search in sufficient amounts.

[Joushiki Nante Iranai]

"99.7% seems a rather arbitrary number, why not “beyond reasonable doubt” or something similar?"

I agree with this.

[Zone 71]

OOC: This sounds like a great proposal that I intend to support when it is submitted. However, I do have some reservations.

• Clause 3 may be a form of duplication because of GA#382, though I could be wrong. GA#382 declared the introduction of invasive species for malicious intent as "environmental warfare," and prohibited member nations from carrying out this form of ecoterrorism. But I could understand if it isn't duplication because you're simply reinforcing and calling back to this resolution, and not explicitly prohibiting the introduction of invasive species.
  
  
• Also, I believe GA#382 covers clause 5 in a sense because it tasks the WACBA with aiding "civilian populations who have been subjected to a environmental warfare attack in mitigating and reversing the effects of [the introduction of invasive species]." The WACBA is also responsible for making sure "nations remain up-to-date on the latest information regarding identification and prevention of invasive species." I'm not a fan of GA#382's decision of giving the responsibilities of addressing the introduction of invasive species to the World Assembly Committee of Biological Agents and I'd much rather have a committee like the one you've proposed to have this job, but I do think these tasks are already covered by WACBA.

I'm working on a repeal for the GA#382, so hopefully any complications between your proposal and GA#382 are gone before you submit your it. I hope this proposal succeeds. Good luck.

[Wallenburg]

First, consulting Stock and Watson, the current relatively accepted value for power is somewhere around 0.8 as a cut off. For hypothesis testing, there can be higher t-value requirements (Cern’s five sigma comes to mind) in line with the figure you propose. Hypothesis testing, however, is not the same as power. Moreover, insofar as a population probability distribution is not known, you cannot calculate power.

Introduction to Econometrics is, as most would guess by its name, not an authority on statistics, even if econometrics uses statistics. There is no "current relatively accepted value for power". However, 0.8 is fairly popular for most uses, so I can accept reducing power to 80%, given that this resolution already has mechanisms to help deal with such a major increase in false negatives.

This is exactly the problem, no airport would ever check so that there is a 99.7% guarantee of luggage complying with the proposal, that's ridiculous and would have massive costs involved. A much more flexible wording is needed with either a lower percentage or something that doesn't actually have any numbers but just says they have to search in sufficient amounts.

OOC: If your nation's airports are anything like airports in RL, ground security doesn't really have much more than a psychological effect. As it is, just saying that inspections have to be "sufficient" is going to leave countless member nations doing nothing to comply. As suggested, the power will be lowered.

"99.7% seems a rather arbitrary number, why not “beyond reasonable doubt” or something similar?"

I agree with this.

Language like "beyond a reasonable doubt" brings in legal connotations. And as it stands, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard for significance, not power. Such language would suggest that there may only be a 1 or 2 percent chance of falsely stopping imports/exports on suspicion of infestation. Unless member states want to invest enormous sums of money into inspections, this would lower power to an unacceptably low value, allowing many if not most contaminated shipments through national borders unchecked.
https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-pr ... ble-doubt/

OOC: This sounds like a great proposal that I intend to support when it is submitted. However, I do have some reservations.

Clause 3 may be a form of duplication because of GA#382, though I could be wrong. GA#382 declared the introduction of invasive species for malicious intent as "environmental warfare," and prohibited member nations from carrying out this form of ecoterrorism. But I could understand if it isn't duplication because you're simply reinforcing and calling back to this resolution, and not explicitly prohibiting the introduction of invasive species.

Indeed, we have already discussed this in a prior drafting thread. Minor duplication is perfectly legal, especially since clause 3 is not the focus of the proposal.

Also, I believe GA#382 covers clause 5 in a sense because it tasks the WACBA with aiding "civilian populations who have been subjected to a environmental warfare attack in mitigating and reversing the effects of [the introduction of invasive species]." The WACBA is also responsible for making sure "nations remain up-to-date on the latest information regarding identification and prevention of invasive species." I'm not a fan of GA#382's decision of giving the responsibilities of addressing the introduction of invasive species to the World Assembly Committee of Biological Agents and I'd much rather have a committee like the one you've proposed to have this job, but I do think these tasks are already covered by WACBA.

The aid given according to GA#382 is general assistance to all civilians, regardless of member states' consent, and with attention to all forms of environmental warfare, which generally acts on a far larger and more irreversible scale than the introduction of invasive species. Such warfare includes modification of the weather or climate, disturbing plate tectonics, shifting ocean currents, or dumping greenhouse gases. Solutions to these are all quite less direct than solutions to invasive populations. Clause 5 specifically handles invasive species, and acts as a sort of opt-in pest removal service far more than it acts as a wartime humanitarian relief organization.

[Wallenburg]

Edits made. Any further questions/comments?

[Efwajenzia]

a. Provides for the use of selective pesticides and herbicides, and means to capture or kill invasive fauna, to eliminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law,

b. Limits the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service to the use of methods that do not cause undue damage to the immediate or surrounding environment.

It simply means that the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service is going to use selective pesticides and herbicides to capture or kill invasive species and the act limits the service to use any method which cause damages on environment. These two clauses contradicts each other. Pesticides and herbicides are poisons to kill invasive species but at the same time they harm the agricultural products, soil structure and human health at all. Customs laboratories will definitely find pesticide or herbicide residues on product and not allow to export or import.

I propose more effective and ecofriendly method to struggle with invasive species in order to prevent damages on agricultural products, soil structure and human health.

a. Provides for the use of natural enemies of invasive fauna which complies with completely natural selection to eleminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law.

b. Limits the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service to the use of inaccurate methods that cause more harm on gricultural products, soil structure, human health and surrounding environment.

[Wallenburg]

a. Provides for the use of selective pesticides and herbicides, and means to capture or kill invasive fauna, to eliminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law,

b. Limits the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service to the use of methods that do not cause undue damage to the immediate or surrounding environment.

It simply means that the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service is going to use selective pesticides and herbicides to capture or kill invasive species and the act limits the service to use any method which cause damages on environment.

No, it does the opposite. Subclause b clearly limits the service to using methods that don't cause environmental damage, or at least cause very little, in comparison to the damage the invasive species would cause.

These two clauses contradicts each other. Pesticides and herbicides are poisons to kill invasive species but at the same time they harm the agricultural products, soil structure and human health at all.

There exist plenty of selective pesticides and herbicides, which affect only a handful or even just one species adversely.

Customs laboratories will definitely find pesticide or herbicide residues on product and not allow to export or import.

Why do you assume that? Not all member states have banned the import of products with trace quantities of herbicides or pesticides. I imagine most of them haven't, actually.

I propose more effective and ecofriendly method to struggle with invasive species in order to prevent damages on agricultural products, soil structure and human health.

a. Provides for the use of natural enemies of invasive fauna which complies with completely natural selection to eleminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law.

"Natural enemies" of invasive species are generally themselves invasive species. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline over it.

b. Limits the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service to the use of inaccurate methods that cause more harm on gricultural products, soil structure, human health and surrounding environment.

This does not make sense. Why would you want this service to specifically use inaccurate and universally harmful or toxic methods to control invasive species? Doesn't that go against everything you have said? I believe you are misinterpreting the phrase "limit to" as synonymous with "restricted from". They are very different.

[Efwajenzia]

Probably I made a mistake whilst I was writing the clauses. But in all conditions, I completely disagree with you about pesticides and herbicides. I cannot allow in my country to struggle with invasive species using poisons which will harm the soil and human health. There is no option for it like you said "selective pesticides and herbicides".

[Bears Armed]

a. Provides for the use of natural enemies of invasive fauna which complies with completely natural selection to eleminate populations of invasive species causing harm to agricultural ecosystems, within the limitations of already existing World Assembly law and national law.

"Natural enemies" of invasive species are generally themselves invasive species. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline over it.

OOC: Actually, there have been a number of cases in RL where [i]carefully-selected species have introduced successfully to control invasive ones without adverse effects on the native ecosystems, and the testing processes for this have been improved significantly in recent decades. Introduction of the moth Cactoblastis cactorum from southern South America into Australia to control the 'prickly pear' cactus, since 1925, for example... although admittedly introducing the same species into some of the West Indies for the same purpose resulted in it somehow spreading into the North America where it is an invasive pest...

I note that this proposal has not only been submitted but is close to quorum.
Ironically, if Wallenburg had held off on submission for just one more day, I had a proposal of my own on stopping invasive species that I was going to post in this forum...

[Wallenburg]

Probably I made a mistake whilst I was writing the clauses. But in all conditions, I completely disagree with you about pesticides and herbicides. I cannot allow in my country to struggle with invasive species using poisons which will harm the soil and human health. There is no option for it like you said "selective pesticides and herbicides".

Well, in that case, you are free to reject assistance from the Agricultural Invasive Species Removal Service.

"Natural enemies" of invasive species are generally themselves invasive species. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline over it.

OOC: Actually, there have been a number of cases in RL where carefully-selected species have introduced successfully to control invasive ones without adverse effects on the native ecosystems, and the testing processes for this have been improved significantly in recent decades. Introduction of the moth Cactoblastis cactorum from southern South America into Australia to control the 'prickly pear' cactus, since 1925, for example... although admittedly introducing the same species into some of the West Indies for the same purpose resulted in it somehow spreading into the North America where it is an invasive pest...

Certainly, I don't doubt that it is possible to introduce foreign species without them going invasive, and to use them as a weapon against invasive species, but it's not very common, and as you have pointed out is rather difficult to control.

I note that this proposal has not only been submitted but is close to quorum.
Ironically, if Wallenburg had held off on submission for just one more day, I had a proposal of my own on stopping invasive species that I was going to post in this forum...

Well, if this one fails again, feel free to post it for drafting. I'm beginning to tire of invasive species.

[Kranostav]

I have some concerns with the definition of 'Sapient' and the current definitions used by previous WA resolutions.

Specifically in passed legislation as

""Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to:

Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic;

Choose a sensible course of action or considered response;

Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of."

It appears such a definition could be abused. Perhaps you could shed some light on this issue?

[Wallenburg]

I have some concerns with the definition of 'Sapient' and the current definitions used by previous WA resolutions.

Specifically in passed legislation as

""Sapient Being" as any physical entity possessing the ability to:

Think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic;

Choose a sensible course of action or considered response;

Experience subjectively, feel, or recognize, discern, envision, understand, or attain awareness of."

It appears such a definition could be abused. Perhaps you could shed some light on this issue?

If you want to hold a discussion on "Rights of Sapient Species", you are free to start a thread on that, or to post a repeal draft to the forum. I personally can't see any problems with our current definition of sapience. As it is, this question is unrelated to the proposal in the queue.

[Kranostav]

Allow me to rephrase my question, does the possible definition of sapient life or rather 'non-sapient' life refer to such a hard to distinguish group of entities, that it may make this resolution easily exploitable or hard to enforce? I know what definition you want to refer to. However it could be abused to my current understanding of how it is used. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Wallenburg]

Allow me to rephrase my question, does the possible definition of sapient life or rather 'non-sapient' life refer to such a hard to distinguish group of entities, that it may make this resolution easily exploitable or hard to enforce? I know what definition you want to refer to. However it could be abused to my current understanding of how it is used. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I really cannot see how the word "non-sapient" could be abused here. Can you make your concerns more specific?

[Kranostav]

I really cannot see how the word "non-sapient" could be abused here. Can you make your concerns more specific?

Well the definition of sapient can mean multiple things spanning from something that most mammals share down to human exclusivity. It really depends on what definition you go for and it adds another layer of un-needed debate/complexity to this proposal

[Wallenburg]

I really cannot see how the word "non-sapient" could be abused here. Can you make your concerns more specific?

Well the definition of sapient can mean multiple things spanning from something that most mammals share down to human exclusivity.

It really can't, not least of all due to the effects of "Rights of Sapient Species". Most mammals do not even exhibit behavior remotely suggesting sapience.

It really depends on what definition you go for and it adds another layer of un-needed debate/complexity to this proposal

I'm going for the definition that this assembly has used for God knows how long.

[Wallenburg]

This resolution is at vote. I love you too, IA.

[Scherzinger]

Anzu Kadotani is interrupted by Miho Nishizumi whom pokes her gently. "Forgive me Herr Ambassador, but i think this is one of those proposals that we should actually care about?" Miho whispers to Anzu. Anzu nods. Upon reading a copy of the proposal with notes from Miho, she leans forward on her desk.

"This is an interesting proposal I suppose, and I am not one to praise a backwards government on its proposals to the assembly. I see some decent potential in this document. I do have a few questions of my own however, in which i hope that an Ambassador whom i care to hear from can help answer.

In Section I so to speak, it says 'Requires member states to employ nondestructive customs procedures or screenings in accordance with previous World Assembly legislation and otherwise of their choice on all goods entering or exiting national jurisdiction, to the extent that tests for invasive species on sampled goods guarantee a power of 80%' Does this mean that we are prohibited to use our own methods to exterminate whatever invasive species we are confronted with?

Section II says, 'Mandates fines on goods that are found contaminated with species invasive to the area of the goods' destination and do not undergo effective decontamination procedures' So whether the nation is an ally of ours or not, we have to pull extra funds from them for an issue that may not be their fault in the forst place? I smell capitalist filth here.

Section III says 'Prohibits the transportation of live organisms of invasive species or goods contaminated with invasive species without sufficient measures to guarantee containment during transport, to or through areas where they pose a threat to agricultural ecosystems.' This i agree with, as it would be awful if the invasive species is an animal and breaks out on the plane/train/ship etc, causing problems on the vessel.

Section IV says Urges the imposition of tariffs on goods known to frequently harbor invasive species in response to nations that fail to adequately inspect outgoing shipping for such infestations' Again, are you implying that I must be capitalist filth and force an ally to pay more to allow a good(s) that may be urgently needed to be entered into my own nation?

Well, to be quite honest, 1/4 is a pretty scary score for Scherzinger to agree/disagree to. We are hoping that further explanation will help us to further understand whether we are supporting this document or not."

With that, Anzu sits up and continues to perfect her Japanese scripts