[PASSED] Reducing Bycatch

[Fachumonn]

This has been submitted.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

a mysterious hooded figure floats into the chamber...

The one nitpicky thing I am seeing right now is that the resolution still appears to ban or heavily restrict import of fish from non-member states. While our delegation does not have a problem with this due to our strong concern for the environment and general disdain for the nations which believe in profit at any cost, other ambassadors were correct to surmise that some things in here may encounter resistance.

Welcome to the GA, this is a very nice piece of work.

the figure vanishes, leaving behind nothing but a note that reads "full support."

[Bears Armed]

a mysterious hooded figure floats into the chamber...

The one nitpicky thing I am seeing right now is that the resolution still appears to ban or heavily restrict import of fish from non-member states. While our delegation does not have a problem with this due to our strong concern for the environment and general disdain for the nations which believe in profit at any cost, other ambassadors were correct to surmise that some things in here may encounter resistance.

Welcome to the GA, this is a very nice piece of work.

the figure vanishes, leaving behind nothing but a note that reads "full support."

This resolution would ban the import of seafood from non-member states.

No, it wouldn't: Non-members who want to export seafood to member states are perfectly free to introduce equivalent laws governing their own fishing industries so that their products meet these standards.

[Fachumonn]

So this isn't being campaigned for?

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

a mysterious hooded figure floats into the chamber...

The one nitpicky thing I am seeing right now is that the resolution still appears to ban or heavily restrict import of fish from non-member states. While our delegation does not have a problem with this due to our strong concern for the environment and general disdain for the nations which believe in profit at any cost, other ambassadors were correct to surmise that some things in here may encounter resistance.

Welcome to the GA, this is a very nice piece of work.

the figure vanishes, leaving behind nothing but a note that reads "full support."

No, it wouldn't: Non-members who want to export seafood to member states are perfectly free to introduce equivalent laws governing their own fishing industries so that their products meet these standards.

maybe i misread, but the impact appears the same regardless. we don't particularly care about the economic impact of restricting fish supply in member nations, especially landlocked ones, but it does still have that effect.

[Bisofeyr]

"We appreciate the support this has received thus far; I should note that any trade restrictions on non-members are only necessary if those non-members create conditions which negatively impact members of this esteemed Assembly."

OOC: Ran into some issues with sending out a campaign via API, I ended up just paying a few bucks for stamps and shooting it out now.

[Waaaar]

I am very sorry but I simply can not support this. It has great intentions but will affect many economies that run on the fishing industry and cause a mass decline in the trade of fish. I'm sorry but I am going to appose this proposal.

[Bisofeyr]

I am very sorry but I simply can not support this. It has great intentions but will affect many economies that run on the fishing industry and cause a mass decline in the trade of fish. I'm sorry but I am going to appose this proposal.

"Your apposition is duly noted, though I am unsure how you bringing yourself in parallel with this proposal is particularly related to your lack of support. I should note that any fishing-oriented economy which has proper environmental safety precautions in place would likely have to do minimal pivoting to tailor itself toward the provisions laid out in this proposal."

[Waaaar]

Yes that is true, and I respect my opponents, so I will think about it.

[Waaaar]

Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

[Fachumonn]

Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

In the future I think it would be preferable if you put these two posts into one

[Bisofeyr]

Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

"The support from the esteemed nation of Waaaar is duly noted and appreciated."

[Fachumonn]

Ok you make a point, so I will support this law.

"The support from the esteemed nation of Waaaar is duly noted and appreciated."

Ambassador The People: "We chuckle at the above statement."

[Wallenburg]

Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch included in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

"We're...required to mix bycatch in with different products? What?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch included in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

"We're...required to mix bycatch in with different products? What?"

I think it's supposed to say that those things are to be disclosed.

[Wallenburg]

"We're...required to mix bycatch in with different products? What?"

I think it's supposed to say that those things are to be disclosed.

"Ah, thank you Ms. Wellesley, that's an interesting hypothesis, and were that written into the proposal it would make for a reasonable mandate. Regrettably, this section says nothing of the sort. 'Included in' does not mean 'reported in conjunction with the distribution of'."

[Bisofeyr]

I think it's supposed to say that those things are to be disclosed.

"Ah, thank you Ms. Wellesley, that's an interesting hypothesis, and were that written into the proposal it would make for a reasonable mandate. Regrettably, this section says nothing of the sort. 'Included in' does not mean 'reported in conjunction with the distribution of'."

"'included in' is not saying '[x] is included in the packaging' but rather saying 'the amount of bycatch that is in the product'; this may be grammatically ambiguous, admittedly, but I would make the assertion that good-faith compliance would dictate the interpretation of this clause would be consistent with the intention."

OOC: If we are to interpret it your way (and I'll admit freely that I worded it poorly), the clause would effectively do nothing as including the amount of byproduct present in the product would mean proudly adding the amount that is already there.

[Wallenburg]

"Ah, thank you Ms. Wellesley, that's an interesting hypothesis, and were that written into the proposal it would make for a reasonable mandate. Regrettably, this section says nothing of the sort. 'Included in' does not mean 'reported in conjunction with the distribution of'."

"'included in' is not saying '[x] is included in the packaging'

"It is, though. Removing descriptive qualifiers, it reads, 'Mandates that packages have bycatch included in the product.'"

but rather saying 'the amount of bycatch that is in the product'

"Such a substitution reduces the section's coherence even further:

Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch that is in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

What does it mean for packages to have bycatch except that the bycatch is in the package? Especially when this now presupposes that the bycatch is to be packaged with the rest of the product?"

this may be grammatically ambiguous, admittedly, but I would make the assertion that good-faith compliance would dictate the interpretation of this clause would be consistent with the intention."

"The 'ambiguity' extends far enough that the intended meaning is not a good-faith reading."

OOC: If we are to interpret it your way (and I'll admit freely that I worded it poorly), the clause would effectively do nothing as including the amount of byproduct present in the product would mean proudly adding the amount that is already there.

OOC: This is inaccurate. Bycatch is not inherently mixed in with final packaged product. There are many circumstances under which bycatch cannot be returned to its environment alive but can still be sorted out from the intended haul and then processed separately.

[Bisofeyr]

"'included in' is not saying '[x] is included in the packaging'

"It is, though. Removing descriptive qualifiers, it reads, 'Mandates that packages have bycatch included in the product.'"

but rather saying 'the amount of bycatch that is in the product'

"Such a substitution reduces the section's coherence even further:

Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the projected amount of bycatch that is in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;

What does it mean for packages to have bycatch except that the bycatch is in the package? Especially when this now presupposes that the bycatch is to be packaged with the rest of the product?"

this may be grammatically ambiguous, admittedly, but I would make the assertion that good-faith compliance would dictate the interpretation of this clause would be consistent with the intention."

"The 'ambiguity' extends far enough that the intended meaning is not a good-faith reading."

OOC: If we are to interpret it your way (and I'll admit freely that I worded it poorly), the clause would effectively do nothing as including the amount of byproduct present in the product would mean proudly adding the amount that is already there.

OOC: This is inaccurate. Bycatch is not inherently mixed in with final packaged product. There are many circumstances under which bycatch cannot be returned to its environment alive but can still be sorted out from the intended haul and then processed separately.

OOC:
'Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the [projected amount of bycatch included in the product] as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;'

vs.

'Mandates that packages of processed seafood within member nations have the [projected amount of bycatch] included in the product as a result of their specific fishing practices and the location in which they fish;'

The former is intended: the stuff in parentheses is the data that the packages must have. You're interpreting it as the latter, which would say that the projected amount of bycatch must be included in the product; except 'packages of processed seafood' is the thing being changed, not the product itself. Even under your interpretation, it would be the projected amount of bycatch included in the product as it is packaged, not the raw product.

I'm not denying the fact that replacing the word "have" with "must list" or "must include a label detailing" would have been preferable had this been pointed out sooner, but I do not believe that such a replacement is necessary for the clause to be coherent.

[Refuge Isle]

Now at vote

[WhaleCo Global LLC]

There's a reason our tuna tastes so good. It's the dolphin in it!

We are absolutely opposed to this communistic assault on the fishing industry. Furthermore, we are preparing litigation against the authors, their staffs, immediate families, childhood friends, and anyone else remotely involved in the writing and submitting of this odious legislation.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

[Anonymegg]

If quality control is sufficient, a can of tuna will contain 100% tuna and 0% dolphin. It is unnecessary to say what percentage of your catch was tuna and what percentage was dolphin because you will not be selling dolphin meat.

This resolution would ban the import of seafood from non-member states.

Slops is my brother and he uses my email, so only one of us can be a WA member

[The Overmind]

Furthermore, we are preparing litigation against the authors, their staffs, immediate families, childhood friends, and anyone else remotely involved in the writing and submitting of this odious legislation.

Well, you better hurry.

[Anonymegg]

There's a reason our tuna tastes so good. It's the dolphin in it!

We are absolutely opposed to this communistic assault on the fishing industry. Furthermore, we are preparing litigation against the authors, their staffs, immediate families, childhood friends, and anyone else remotely involved in the writing and submitting of this odious legislation.

J. Milford Fairlington III
Chief Legal Counsel
WhaleCo Global LLC

Don't put innocent dolphins in cans of tuna. Save that for the actual tuna fish.

[Chineva]

"Chineva shall not back this position as it might harm our fishing industry. If nations want regulations for fishing, better they do it nationally than through the WA."

-Brenlauden von Mollweiss-Hemsburg-Merinthia, Representative of Chineva-Meierburg in the WA