[DRAFT 1b] Repeal GA#431 "Agricultural Invasive Species Act"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 1,843
Word count: 286

.
Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: I will not be writing a replacement for the target resolution, but may be supportive of one in principle.

Repeal "Agricultural Invasive Species Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#431

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #431 “Agricultural Invasive Species Act” (Category: Advancement of Industry; Area of Effect: Protective Tariffs) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Agreeing with GA#431 that the "harms of invasive species... on agriculture and those employed in agriculture" should be curbed,

Concerned, however, that its Article 2a requires member states to conduct "screenings... on all goods entering or exiting national jurisdiction" for "invasive species" (which Article 1 define as "non-native species of non-sapient life that, upon introduction into or nearby the agricultural ecosystems of a member state, significantly imperil the[ir] health or productivity"),

Outraged that Article 2a of GA#431 applies to "all goods entering or exiting" any member state's "national jurisdiction" in all situations, including:

1. within customs areas made up of WA members, which rely on eradicating superfluous barriers to trade within the area such as those required by Article 2a,
2. when goods are only transiting through a member state, even if:
   
   1. they are being delivered between two non-members and are not intended to be released into or around that member's agricultural areas, or if
   2. they are being transported by air, especially if the aircraft in question never actually lands on that member's territory, regardless of how impractical it would be for that member to actually conduct Article 2a screenings in such cases,
3. to humanitarian aid supplies, which help save lives impacted by war and disaster and must often arrive without unnecessary delays like those imposed by Article 2a, and
4. to goods which are quite evidently not invasive species, and

Hoping that, should member states individually or collectively act in future to guard themselves against invasive species, their action will seek to protect agriculture rather than to endanger free and frictionless trade...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#431 "Agricultural Invasive Species Act."

[Tinhampton]

Old drafts will be dumped here as and when necessary.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Given that “invasive species” are by definition not native to a given nation, doesn’t that mean the only species you have to screen for will actually be invasive? The word “native” tailors itself to the specific nation doing the inspecting.

Australia would not have to screen incoming goods for possums, as they are not “non-native” to Australia. However New Zealand would, as they are “non-native” to New Zealand.

You could argue that this is overly restrictive in the case of already established invasive species (e.g. cane toads in Queensland). However, in that case I’d argue that the species at that point no longer “significantly imperils” agricultural productivity. To use a metaphor, the 40th time Caesar was stabbed didn’t really matter.

[Merni]

You could argue that this is overly restrictive in the case of already established invasive species (e.g. cane toads in Queensland). However, in that case I’d argue that the species at that point no longer “significantly imperils” agricultural productivity. To use a metaphor, the 40th time Caesar was stabbed didn’t really matter.

So... are you saying invasive species don't "significantly imperil" agricultural productivity once they're established? If that were the case, why worry about them at all?

[Xanthorrhoea]

You could argue that this is overly restrictive in the case of already established invasive species (e.g. cane toads in Queensland). However, in that case I’d argue that the species at that point no longer “significantly imperils” agricultural productivity. To use a metaphor, the 40th time Caesar was stabbed didn’t really matter.

So... are you saying invasive species don't "significantly imperil" agricultural productivity once they're established? If that were the case, why worry about them at all?

Not at all. I’m saying if it ever got to the point where an invasive species was widespread and endemic, and it may have already destroyed part of an agricultural industry, then adding more of the same is no longer imperilling. If something is dead, you can’t place it in peril anymore.

Obviously, the point of quarantining and inspecting for such species is to prevent their entry and control their spread to limit such damage. But, once the damage is done to the point there’s no more damage to do, then there’s no more peril.

[Tinhampton]

Given that “invasive species” are by definition not native to a given nation, doesn’t that mean the only species you have to screen for will actually be invasive? The word “native” tailors itself to the specific nation doing the inspecting.

Australia would not have to screen incoming goods for possums, as they are not “non-native” to Australia. However New Zealand would, as they are “non-native” to New Zealand.

You could argue that this is overly restrictive in the case of already established invasive species (e.g. cane toads in Queensland). However, in that case I’d argue that the species at that point no longer “significantly imperils” agricultural productivity. To use a metaphor, the 40th time Caesar was stabbed didn’t really matter.

Article 1 defines invasive species in regards to their impact on "the agricultural ecosystems of a member state" - which I interpret as meaning any member state. Article 2a requires all member states to screen for "invasive species" as defined by Article 1, regardless of whether they are actually invasive to that member state.

I am happy to remove the claim that Article 2a requires screening for invasive species "whether or not those species are in fact invasive to the member state conducting the screening" if there is enough public concern or it is believed to be a Honest Mistake.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Article 1 defines invasive species in regards to their impact on "the agricultural ecosystems of a member state" - which I interpret as meaning any member state. Article 2a requires all member states to screen for "invasive species" as defined by Article 1, regardless of whether they are actually invasive to that member state.

I am happy to remove the claim that Article 2a requires screening for invasive species "whether or not those species are in fact invasive to the member state conducting the screening" if there is enough public concern or it is believed to be a Honest Mistake.

I don't see how this interpretation is tenable. The definition in question clearly reads:

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, [emphasis mine]

It explicitly refers only to "those agricultural systems" in that specific individual state. It does not ever refer to agricultural systems of any states but that singular one, or refer to states in a collective manner. It explicitly only applies to agricultural systems of a state, not any state. I just honestly don't see anything in the text to support this reading.

---

I also am not convinced by the arguments later in the proposal. None of these arguments are sufficcient to me to compromise the safeguarding of a nation's food supply. For example, delaying aid supplies is a humanitarian disaster that could kill hundreds, if not thousands. A worse humanitarian disaster is destroying the agricultural industry that feeds an entire country, which could kill hundreds of thousands.

[Tinhampton]

The assertation in CONCERNED regarding an overbroad definition of invasive species has been removed, and it has been merged with NOTING to that extent.

Article 2a applies to "member states," regardless of the size (or existence) of their agricultural industry. In any event, I'm not convinced that such extremely broad measures are desirable, never mind universally enforceable. (Curt because I have things to do IRL.)

[Bears Armed]

I have a partial draft for a proposal of wider scope by the title of 'Limiting Invasive Species'. I'll see whether I can get that into good enough condition to post -- in a separate thread of its own, of course -- in this forum.

[Tinhampton]

Bumperoo.

[Tinhampton]

This will likely be submitted in a couple of weeks.

[Kranostav]

I could get on board with this but would want a replacement that properly addresses the topic given its importance.

I may want to draft unless Bears Armed already has something.

[Tinhampton]

Thanks; what Lydia Anderson says in the OP accurately reflects the thoughts of me the player, too. I'd look forward to whatever either of you (or any other interested GAer) comes up with

[Bears Armed]

I could get on board with this but would want a replacement that properly addresses the topic given its importance.

I may want to draft unless Bears Armed already has something.

OOC: RL has slowed down my work on a draft, but as it's now more likely to be needed I'll try to get it finished within a week from now.

[Kranostav]

I could get on board with this but would want a replacement that properly addresses the topic given its importance.

I may want to draft unless Bears Armed already has something.

OOC: RL has slowed down my work on a draft, but as it's now more likely to be needed I'll try to get it finished within a week from now.

I would be more than happy to help draft! I started putting together a draft of my own but I imagine yours is farther developed.

[Wallenburg]

Outraged that Article 2a of GA#431 applies to "all goods entering or exiting" any member state's "national jurisdiction" in all situations, including:
a. within customs areas made up of WA members, which rely on eradicating superfluous barriers to trade within the area such as those required by Article 2a,

"Basic measures taken to prevent ecological and agricultural disaster are not superfluous barriers. Sub-national boundaries, across which trade usually moves unchecked, are often at times placed with measures to enforce checks for dangers like invasive species. If sub-national entities can achieve this without it causing undue harm, so can national entities in a shared economic zone.

b. when goods are only transiting through a member state, even if:

1. they are being delivered between two non-members and are not intended to be released into or around that member's agricultural areas, or if
2. they are being transported by air, especially if the aircraft in question never actually lands on that member's territory, regardless of how impractical it would be for that member to actually conduct Article 2a screenings in such cases,

"On the first matter, whether goods are intended to be released into agricultural areas is not a sufficient assessment of the danger they pose to those areas should they carry invasive species. Negligent contamination can do just as much harm as sabotage. On the second matter, you may actually have a point. Even so, air cargo must be handled and carried in such a way that invasive species cannot escape and successfully land in overflown territory.

c. to humanitarian aid supplies, which help save lives impacted by war and disaster and must often arrive without unnecessary delays like those imposed by Article 2a, and

"Once again, this is untrue. Inspection delays are necessary, regardless of whatever claim to urgency you make. The destruction of native ecosystems and industry by invasive species will not make a humanitarian disaster better, Ambassador.

d. to goods which are quite evidently not invasive species

"There exist no goods anywhere which can be known not to be contaminated with invasive species prior to any kind of inspection."

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: General support for the idea.

[Tinhampton]

Anderson: Once again, the requirements of the Agricultural Invasive Species Act apply to all goods crossing a member state border, as against the target of previous resolutions on the species themselves. They apply to goods crossing such borders by any means: Article 2c's safe storage requirement does not override Article 2a's requirement that goods be screened whenever goods enter or leave a member state. They apply at all times, not just "at times."
And the assumption that all unchecked goods harbour an invasive species is unwarranted, unnecessary, and welcome: while there may be times and places to use the precautionary principle, there is certainly no time to overuse it in every place. The World Assembly is effectively asking all member states to strip-search anyone crossing their borders, look inside their car boots, ground their planes for inspections and generally introduce massive border crossing delays for such purposes just in case they might be carrying any invasive species. Doing so whenever someone enters or leaves the country constitutes an unfortunate and economisible waste of resources, more so when the World Assembly is ordering the wasting.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Not to mention that someone may have a pathogen inside their body that may be communicable to livestock and constitute a serious risk to agriculture, while not necessarily causing a disease in the individual, like, say, RL example bird flu.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Anderson: Once again, the requirements of the Agricultural Invasive Species Act apply to all goods crossing a member state border, as against the target of previous resolutions on the species themselves. They apply to goods crossing such borders by any means: Article 2c's safe storage requirement does not override Article 2a's requirement that goods be screened whenever goods enter or leave a member state. They apply at all times, not just "at times."
And the assumption that all unchecked goods harbour an invasive species is unwarranted, unnecessary, and welcome: while there may be times and places to use the precautionary principle, there is certainly no time to overuse it in every place. The World Assembly is effectively asking all member states to strip-search anyone crossing their borders, look inside their car boots, ground their planes for inspections and generally introduce massive border crossing delays for such purposes just in case they might be carrying any invasive species. Doing so whenever someone enters or leaves the country constitutes an unfortunate and economisible waste of resources, more so when the World Assembly is ordering the wasting.

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%

It specifically and explicitly is NOT mandating that. It only requires testing has a power of at least 80%. A strip search for all this is not. If goods are less likely to contain invasive species, they will require less stringent search measures.

As others have said, you may have a point re: air transport of goods, but do not mischaracterise the target resolution by saying it does things it plainly does not.

[Wallenburg]

If you mean to interpret "goods" as "literally anything carried from one place to another", I'm sure you can manufacture all sorts of absurd consequences from the target.