[Abandoned] Protecting Pollinators

[The New Nordic Union]

"I don't see why an exception for chemical warfare needs to be made given the fact that chemical warfare is, by itself, a bad thing. Protecting it just seems unnecessary."

Ensuring that this can't be claimed to contradict GAR #272?

This is exactly the reason behind that clause.

[Kenmoria]

"I don't see why an exception for chemical warfare needs to be made given the fact that chemical warfare is, by itself, a bad thing. Protecting it just seems unnecessary."

Ensuring that this can't be claimed to contradict GAR #272?

(OOC: In that case, I would change the exception to only apply in defensive situations, that way the proposal does not allow for chemical warfare when it bans similar domestic use but does not contradict #272.)

[The New Nordic Union]

(OOC: In that case, I would change the exception to only apply in defensive situations, that way the proposal does not allow for chemical warfare when it bans similar domestic use but does not contradict #272.)

See, this proposal does not want to regulate chemical warfare at all, however, I has to be in accordance with Resolution #272. Also, offensive chemical warfare is already banned by Resolution #272, so reiterating that here would have no effect.

[Araraukar]

See, this proposal does not want to regulate chemical warfare at all

OOC: That is a good policy, stick to it.

[The New Nordic Union]

With this proposed, are preemptive changes necessary to this draft, especially with regard to the clause "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"?

I would argue that the wording 'selective pesticides and herbicides' would allow for this resolution to remain unchanged. I am, however, not sure about this and would welcome input on the topic.

[Araraukar]

With this proposed, are preemptive changes necessary to this draft

OOC: It is currently at vote, but until a proposal passes into a resolution, it holds no contradictory of duplicatory power over other proposals, so that's not something you currently need to worry about. The vote will end one way or another in two days, so I wouldn't make any changes to your draft before then.

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 3b, you seem to be forgetting some insect pollinators that are active mainly around the night, which would be more harmed by this than spreading them in the day."

[The New Nordic Union]

"In clause 3b, you seem to be forgetting some insect pollinators that are active mainly around the night, which would be more harmed by this than spreading them in the day."

I maybe was focused to much on bees and bumblebees. I'll change it.

[Kenmoria]

"I should change the comma at the end of clause 3a to a semicolon to keep it the same as clause 3b."

[The New Nordic Union]

I am considering submitting this shortly, or are there any other comments on the topic?

[Araraukar]

Recognising the importance of pollination for the agricultural industry with about 80% of crop species dependent upon pollinators;

OOC: In the entire (RL) world, maybe, but if a nation's most important crop plants were ones not needing insects (like, say, wheat or rice or similar), the above wouldn't hold true. I would perhaps replace the exact percentage as "majority of crop species".

Noting that the overwhelming majority of pollinators are insects;

I would maybe add something like "non-pest insects", because there are pests that also do some pollinating.

Acknowledging that insecticides are sometimes necessary for the control of pest insects;

"For controlling" reads better.

Alarmed by the effects that the unwise use of insecticides can have on insect pollinators;

I'd add "negative" before "effects".

Wishing to protect pollinators, both domesticated and wild, from these effects;

Since you specified insect pollinators earlier, add "insect" before "pollinators".

Hereby,

Extra empty lines not needed.

c. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any chemical insecticide that is harmful to pollinator insects;

This is still unacceptable, as it's basically every pesticide ever that has any effect on insects at all. I'd make it "that is especially harmful", but you're still going to have issues, since many butterfly/moth species caterpillars are pests, while the adults are pollinators. Same for many parasite wasps who lay their eggs during the flowering period into the parts of flowers that would develope into fruits. Anything targeting those is unfortunately also going to affect pollinators closely related to them.

2. Prohibits the preventive use of pollinator insecticides on pollination crops;

And exactly what use would it be to use insecticides after the damage has been done?

b. the pollinator insecticides are spread at a time when the main insect pollinator species of the pollination crop are inactive, to limit the exposure of insect pollinators to them;

Rather than completely ban it unless they're spread at a certain time, I'd instead make it something like "reasonable efforts are made to limit the exposure of insect pollinators to them".

4. Prohibits the use or authorisation of new pollinator insecticides intended to be used on pollination crops unless they are proven to be less harmful to insect pollinators than the pollinator insecticides currently in use;

This alone will likely be enough to sink this, since sometimes the pest species will become resistant to a certain chemical and you have no choice but switch, even if the new one was no less harmful. And this clause could stop a lower tech nation from developing insecticides in the first place.

5. Encourages research into insecticides that are less harmful to insect pollinators;

I would also add an encouragement clause for breeding insecticide-resistant pollinators.

[The New Nordic Union]

A lot of useful things, again

Thank you. I have changed the minor issues right away and will be tackling the bigger ones (definition of insecticides, and development of new insecticides) soon.

And exactly what use would it be to use insecticides after the damage has been done?

This, however, is not what I meant. 'Preventive' here is to mean before any pest is present on the crop. If the crop already is infested with the pest, the use would no longer be preventive and legal (at least under this section of the proposal).

[New Keam]

"This is an important issue. I cannot wait for you to have a final draft, because I look forward to approving it so it can go to a floor vote."

[Araraukar]

'Preventive' here is to mean before any pest is present on the crop. If the crop already is infested with the pest, the use would no longer be preventive and legal (at least under this section of the proposal).

OOC: Which is exactly my point. Once pests are already present, damage has already been done, especially in the case of gall wasps.

[The New Nordic Union]

'Preventive' here is to mean before any pest is present on the crop. If the crop already is infested with the pest, the use would no longer be preventive and legal (at least under this section of the proposal).

OOC: Which is exactly my point. Once pests are already present, damage has already been done, especially in the case of gall wasps.

That I am willing to accept, then. Mind you, this is only about pollinator insecticides, other insecticides are not prohibited. Once the definition is clearer, this problem here will also be affected.

[Araraukar]

Mind you, this is only about pollinator insecticides, other insecticides are not prohibited.

OOC: Which is why I pointed out the close relationships between useful and harmful insects being an issue. Anything that affects gall wasps, can almost be guaranteed to affect bees. Anything that affects the pest butterflies/moths, is going to affect the pollinator ones. There's really no foolproof way around the issue.

[The New Nordic Union]

Mind you, this is only about pollinator insecticides, other insecticides are not prohibited.

OOC: Which is why I pointed out the close relationships between useful and harmful insects being an issue. Anything that affects gall wasps, can almost be guaranteed to affect bees. Anything that affects the pest butterflies/moths, is going to affect the pollinator ones. There's really no foolproof way around the issue.

I get your point, but there are RL examples where it works that some insecticides are forbidden or restricted in use because they are especially harmful to pollinators. I think this resolution could be mirroring those examples.

[The New Nordic Union]

Actually, I think I will leave the section about the prohibition of new pollinator insecticides the way it is; maybe allowing new but equally harmful substances if they are proven to be more effective in pest management. This is the RL state of the law in the EU, and I am willing to give this more weight in the consideration.