[LAST CALL] Repeal "Pesticide Regulations"

[Cretox State]

Submission priority: high.

Repeal "Pesticide Regulations"

---

---

Category: Repeal | Target: GA 376 "Pesticide Regulations" | Replacement: None. The environmental effects of pesticide use are pretty well covered by other resolutions.

---

The World Assembly,

Believing that strong environmental protections are important, especially where freshwater and transboundary water resources are concerned,

Concerned by the potential of pesticides to harm those resources and those who depend on them,

Disappointed that GA 376 "Pesticide Regulations" represents a highly flawed and largely unnecessary attempt to regulate pesticides,

Noting that people tend to be organisms,

Also noting that the target resolution's definition of a "chemical pesticide" therefore includes:

1. antibiotics, including oral,
2. bug repellant, and
3. hand sanitizer,

Realizing, therefore, that people who use prescription antibiotics, bug spray, or hand sanitizer are required to "act to prevent pesticide runoff with preventative measures, including but not limited to buffer zones, selective application and avoiding irrigation right after applying pesticides" despite that being nonsensical,

Dismayed that the target's third clause therefore applies to said substances as well, meaning that regular people are forced to rigorously label their bug-killing spray bottles containing soap and vegetable oil,

Confused by the target's seemingly interchangeable use of "chemical pesticide," which it defines, and "pesticide," which it does not, which not only muddies the waters when it comes to actually implementing the target's mandates, but extends some of those mandates to pesticides that pose no risk to the surrounding environment,

Amused by the target's mandate that all "pesticide ingredients must be ones that are permitted for the intended use by the nation where the product is used," meaning that ingredients are legal in a member nation if the member makes them legal and illegal if the member makes them illegal,

Annoyed that the target's fifth clause does not limit the definition of "an accident involving pesticides," or even define the term at all, and requires members to "contact the neighbouring nation's relevant officials, and offer assistance with possible clean-up measures" in the event of any such accident happening "at or near the border of another nation," meaning that members could be forced to contact the officials of a neighboring nation and offer assistance in the event that a homeowner living near their border drops and spills a container of environmentally friendly pesticide that leaves no harmful residue, or spills a bottle of bug repellant on their living room floor,

Recognizing that GA 223 "Transboundary Water Use Act," GA 645 "Responsible Handling Of Toxic Materials," GA 441 "Convention on Freshwater Shortages," and GA 453 "Preventing Groundwater Contamination" protect freshwater, groundwater, and transboundary water resources from the harmful effects of pesticide runoff, and help reduce the risk of accidents involving pesticides occurring or causing actual environmental contamination in the first place, and

Convinced that GA 376's largely unnecessary nature and gaping flaws render it unwise to leave it in effect,

Hereby repeals GA 376 "Pesticide Regulations."

[Cretox State]

Reserved.

[Minskiev]

1) Repellent, not repellant
2) Bug repellent (or at the very least deet) is a pesticide, so maybe not the best thing to anchor some arguments on
3) The examples to show absurdity seem sloppily or verbosely written. Perhaps at the end, you can have a dedicated list of scenarios that would more cleanly show all the ways that GA#376 causes problems.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Support, the target is purely nonsensical and is no more than a local issue. One thing I will say is it is worth mentioning the fact that pesticides are purely a local issue, and that "near the border of another nation" could be interpreted to include accidents within a few miles of a border, and that these incredibly minor incidents require national attention under clause 6.

[Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands]

OOC: Support, the target is purely nonsensical and is no more than a local issue. One thing I will say is it is worth mentioning the fact that pesticides are purely a local issue, and that "near the border of another nation" could be interpreted to include accidents within a few miles of a border, and that these incredibly minor incidents require national attention under clause 6.

I don't follow this argument. Pesticide contamination that crosses boundaries is definitely an issue requiring cooperation between nations. Even if it's only areas close to the border of another country, it's still involving them and are certainly not 'minor'.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Support, the target is purely nonsensical and is no more than a local issue. One thing I will say is it is worth mentioning the fact that pesticides are purely a local issue, and that "near the border of another nation" could be interpreted to include accidents within a few miles of a border, and that these incredibly minor incidents require national attention under clause 6.

I don't follow this argument. Pesticide contamination that crosses boundaries is definitely an issue requiring cooperation between nations. Even if it's only areas close to the border of another country, it's still involving them and are certainly not 'minor'.

I think I worded it pretty poorly but when I said "these minor incidents" I didn't mean that to include all pesticide spills, only the truly minor ones. For example, should a national government agency need to reach out to the national government of a bordering nation due to a farmer dropping an opened pesticide container by mistake?

[Simone Republic]

OOC: Support, the target is purely nonsensical and is no more than a local issue. One thing I will say is it is worth mentioning the fact that pesticides are purely a local issue, and that "near the border of another nation" could be interpreted to include accidents within a few miles of a border, and that these incredibly minor incidents require national attention under clause 6.

I don't follow this argument. Pesticide contamination that crosses boundaries is definitely an issue requiring cooperation between nations. Even if it's only areas close to the border of another country, it's still involving them and are certainly not 'minor'.

I made the point on Discord that GAR#298 already covers "spills and leaks, when involving hazardous materials" and I believe you can make the assumption that pesticides are always hazardous (assuming that pesticides are used to rid pests, and therefore intentionally hazardous at least to that particular pest) and is therefore duplicating with GAR#298.

[Cretox State]

Bumping. This seems pretty straightforward, so I won't wait too long before submitting.

[Cretox State]

This seems straightforward enough that I'm planning to submit later this week unless there's some critical issue.

[The Ice States]

OOC: Support, the target is purely nonsensical and is no more than a local issue. One thing I will say is it is worth mentioning the fact that pesticides are purely a local issue, and that "near the border of another nation" could be interpreted to include accidents within a few miles of a border, and that these incredibly minor incidents require national attention under clause 6.

I don't follow this argument. Pesticide contamination that crosses boundaries is definitely an issue requiring cooperation between nations. Even if it's only areas close to the border of another country, it's still involving them and are certainly not 'minor'.

Ooc: Someone accidentally spilling a few drops of hand sanitiser near a border (thus "an accident involving pesticides") is absolutely minor. Nb Section 5 (which I imagine is what Jedinsto was referring to by "clause 6") applies "near the border of another nation", regardless of whether it actually contaminates to the other nation.

Ic: "General Assembly Resolution 298 was repealed. It may be better to refer instead to its passed replacement, 'Responsible Handling of Toxic Materials'."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Simone Republic]

Pursuant to the permission from Cretox I am moving to repeal GA 376 based on his draft.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543361