[Abandoned] Protecting Pollinators

[The New Nordic Union]

Protecting Pollinators

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Agriculture

---

This World Assembly,

Recognising the importance of pollination for the agricultural industry with the majority of crop species dependent upon pollinators;

Noting that the overwhelming majority of pollinators are non-pest insects;

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

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

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

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. ‘insect pollinator’ as any insect that moves pollen from one flower to another flower of the same plant species;
2. ‘pollination crop’ as any agricultural crop that is dependent on pollination by insects;
3. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any chemical insecticide that is harmful to pollinator insects;

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

3. Prohibits the use of pollinator insecticides on blooming pollination crops, unless

1. a significant portion of the crop is in imminent danger of being lost; and
2. 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;

5. Encourages research into insecticides that are less harmful to insect pollinators, and breeding insecticide-resistant pollinators;

6. Clarifies that this resolution does not affect the use or development of insecticides for chemical warfare.

---

This august World Assembly,

Recognising the importance of pollination for the agricultural industry and thus, human nutrition, with about 80% of crop species dependent upon biotic pollination;

Noting that the overwhelming majority of biotic pollination is carried out by insect pollinators, especially when regarding agricultural crops;

Alerted by reports of decline in populations of insect pollinators, due to several factors such as parasites, insecticides, and climate change;

Wishing to protect biological diversity;

Willing to ensure the supply of important agricultural crops for future generations;

Hereby,

1. Defines

1. ‘insect pollinator’ as an insect that moves pollen from the male anther of a flower to the female stigma of a flower, including but not limited to bees, pollen wasps, ants, flies, lepidopterans, and beetles;
2. ‘domesticated insect pollinators’ as such Insect Pollinators as are bred and used by humans to intentionally pollinate crops;
3. ‘pollinator keeper’ as any person or entity that exercises control over individual Domesticated Insect Pollinators or colonies thereof, including but not limited to location, feed, and medical treatment;
4. ‘biotic pollination crop’ as any agricultural crop that is dependent on pollination for reproduction or development of fruits;
5. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any insecticide that is harmful to Insect Pollinators;

2. Establishes the Bureau for the Protection of Insect Pollinators (BPIP) to exercise the powers delegated to it by this and future resolutions;

3. Requires Member Nations to

1. Assess the situation of Insect Pollinators, Domesticated Insect Pollinators, Biotic Pollination Crops, and the use of Pollinator Insecticides in their territory every two years, and refer this Assessment to the BPIP;
2. Develop a National Action Plan to improve the situation of Insect Pollinators;
3. Discourage the establishment of monocultures, especially of Biotic Pollination Crops, to ensure year-round feed for Insect Pollinators;
4. Discourage the use of Pollinator Insecticides;
5. Ensure the protection and encourage the establishment of Insect Pollinator-friendly environments, such as meadows, lynchets, or gardens;
6. Ensure that the needs and requirements of Insect Pollinators are taken into consideration in planning, zoning, and construction; if the planning, zoning or construction is to happen in uninhabited or undeveloped areas, special consideration is to be given to the concern;
7. Ensure that Pollinator Keepers in the Nation report any significant loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators;
8. Report to the BPIP any nationally significant loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators, especially due to epidemics;

4. Prohibits Member Nations from using or authorising the use of new Pollinator Insecticides;

5. Encourages Member Nations to take further steps for the protection of Insect Pollinators;

6. Requires the BPIP to

1. Collect the Assessments of individual Member Nations referred to it pursuant to Section 3 (a) of this Resolution;
2. Merge and consolidate the data thus gained into a Global Assessment on the current status of Insect Pollinators, Domesticated Insect Pollinators, Biotic Pollination Crops, and the use of Pollinator Insecticides;
3. Support Member Nations in developing their National Action Plans pursuant to Section 3 (a) of this resolution, if they so wish;
4. Collect the Reports by Member Nations pursuant to Section 3 (h) of this Resolution and, if necessary, develop an Action Plan to counteract the loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators;

[/list]

7. Enables the BPIP to conduct further research and education on the topic of the Protection of Insect Pollinators;

8. Affirms that this Resolution does not touch upon the topic of pesticides being used in chemical warfare.

---
[Edited for typos - Four Times]
[Edit: Appearance - Thrice]
[Edit: AoE corrected]
[Edit: Layout, Wording and Added Section 8 to comply with GA Resolution #272 'Chemical Weapons Accord']
[Edit: Draft 2]
[Edit: Misnumbered]
[Edit: Wording Section 6]
[Edit: Clause 3b]
[Edit: Some additions]

[Kenmoria]

"Remove the bolding, it doesn't look good and is generally frowned upon. Secondly, though I haven't checked, this looks as though it could be over the character limit."

[Bears Armed]

OOC
It's over the old character limit, by a few hundred, but I'm fairly sure that the limit was raised from 3'500 to 5'000 recently. (It definitely was for the SC, and I think that [violet] treated the two chambers identically...)
I'll read through it later, and and check that it's okay with respect to 'Promotion of Bee-keeping'.

[Kenmoria]

"I would add a colon after the first lines of clauses A, C and F."

[Imperium Anglorum]

You touch on the topic of pesticides. It may be of some importance to review the resolution 'Pesticide Regulations'.

[The New Nordic Union]

You touch on the topic of pesticides. It may be of some importance to review the resolution 'Pesticide Regulations'.

I don't think that should be a problem; GA #376 'Pesticide Regulations' regulates the production and marketing of pesticides as well as danger prevention in using them. This proposal does not duplicate any of these provisions. Furthermore, 'Pesticide Regulations' does not assert the Member Nations' right to using pesticides, thus the prohibition of new Pollinator Pesticides is not in violation of the resolution.

[Kenmoria]

"I would put line breaks after every sub-clause, given the sheer number of them."

[The New Nordic Union]

"I would put line breaks after every sub-clause, given the sheer number of them."

Made some appearance changes. It will look better in proper proposal format, especially regarding spacing.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd use 1(a)(i) rather than (A)(I)(?).

[Araraukar]

OOC: Illegal for contradiction with the chemical weapons resolution, and the AoE doesn't exist unless fishing was added when I wasn't looking. Also, looks unnecessarily wordy. I'll get back to you later when I'm not on smartphone.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Illegal for contradiction with the chemical weapons resolution, and the AoE doesn't exist unless fishing was added when I wasn't looking. Also, looks unnecessarily wordy. I'll get back to you later when I'm not on smartphone.

Added a section for compliance with the Chemical Weapons Accord, also, made it slightly less wordy.

[The New Nordic Union]

I'd use 1(a)(i) rather than (A)(I)(?).

It would have been A. I. 1. a. aa., which is my preferred mode, but I changed it.

[Wrapper]

OOC
It's over the old character limit, by a few hundred, but I'm fairly sure that the limit was raised from 3'500 to 5'000 recently. (It definitely was for the SC, and I think that [violet] treated the two chambers identically...)
I'll read through it later, and and check that it's okay with respect to 'Promotion of Bee-keeping'.

OOC: Both GA and SC character limits were upped to 5000; be sure to count BBCode and spaces.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC
It's over the old character limit, by a few hundred, but I'm fairly sure that the limit was raised from 3'500 to 5'000 recently. (It definitely was for the SC, and I think that [violet] treated the two chambers identically...)
I'll read through it later, and and check that it's okay with respect to 'Promotion of Bee-keeping'.

OOC: Both GA and SC character limits were upped to 5000; be sure to count BBCode and spaces.

The new version has 3.896 characters, including all code, the limit is thus not exceeded.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, but Real Life happened.

Protection of Insect Pollinators

Titles are important, so for some alliteration fun, I'd suggest changing yours to "Pollinator Protection", or at the very least "Protecting Pollinators".

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Agriculture
Strength: Significant

Catergories like Environmental have Areas of Effect, not strengths.

This august World Assembly,

You can drop the "august" from it.

Recognising

When I and others are suggesting that you remove text effects from the proposal, it's not because we disliked italics or bolding that much. It's because there is at least one superdelegate who will very likely vote (and thus use all their endorsement votes as well) against the proposal, if they're otherwise undecided. So we're suggesting that you don't do it, to maximize your chances of passing this.

Recognising the importance of pollination for the agricultural industryand thus, human nutrition, with about 80% of crop species dependent upon biotic pollination pollinators;

There are people whose nations don't have all-human (or even any human) populations, so since the sentence loses nothing if that's struck out, I suggest striking it out. Also, be aware that preamble is often the only bit that people (who don't come to this forum and are the majority of the voters) read, you should make your argument as clear as possible. So I suggest the change to the wording to make it clearer, since "biotic" is not a word everyone will be familiar with.

Noting that the overwhelming majority of biotic pollination is carried out by pollinators are insects pollinators, especially when regarding agricultural crops;

Same as above, using simple but precise terms. Also, you already said the bit about agricultural crops, there's no need for repetition in the preamble.

Alerted by reports of decline in populations of insect pollinators, due to several factors such as parasites, insecticides, and climate change;

I would change this one in its entirety, perhaps to something like "Alarmed by the effect that the unwise use of insecticides to protect crops can have on insect pollinators". That narrows down your idea and explains why you're concentrating on insecticides instead of parasite control (which, funnily enough, is often done with insecticides) or stuff to try to slow down/stop/reverse the climate change. It also allows for the nations that would not have issues with any of the above. Remember that not all nations reside on the RL Earth, so they don't necessarily have all the same issues.

Wishing to protect biological diversity;

This is a bit weird of a sentence, given your focus on insect pollinators that are farmed pollinators (beekeeping). Farming any animal by definition makes biodiversity go down, since the farmed animals will have an unfair boost in inter-species (and even intra-species) competition. And also because insecticides are sometimes used to improve biodiversity by getting rid of invasive species. I would suggest either dropping it entirely or making it reflect the fact that biodiversity would be a "bonus benefit" from reducing the use of insecticides.

Willing to ensure the supply of important agricultural crops for future generations;

Which will likely require the use of insecticides to protect important agricultural crops from pest insects. So you're better off focusing on protecting the insect pollinators throughout. You've chosen a narrow focus, stick to it.

1. Defines

I would add the modifier "for the purposes of this resolution" after that word. That way you don't have to check each and every single previous resolution that even mildly has any effect on this, before writing any of the definitions.

a. ‘insect pollinator’ as an insect that moves pollen from the male anther of a flower to the female stigma of a flower, including but not limited to bees, pollen wasps, ants, flies, lepidopterans, and beetles;

This wordiness could be vastly reduced by rewording it as "..."pollinator insect" as an insect that moves pollen from one flower to another of the same plant species". You don't really need to list the different kinds of insects that get the job done, and in any case, why are you singling out butterflies with the Latin-ish name, not the others?

b. ‘domesticated insect pollinators’ as such Insect Pollinators as are bred, kept and used by humans to intentionally pollinate crops;

Drop the random capitalization, and I would strike out the reference to humans, for the reasons I already gave earlier. I would also add "keeping" as you don't just breed them and release them into the wild. Also you don't need the word "intentionally".

c. ‘pollinator keeper’ as any person or entity that exercises control over individual Domesticated Insect Pollinators or colonies thereof, including but not limited to location, feed, and medical treatment;

This makes adding "kept" even more important for the above, but it is unnecessarily wordy. You don't really need to describe everything that a (bee)keeper does, either. Also, you use this definition on a single subclause of clause 3, so I'm not entirely certain why it needs defining.

d. ‘biotic pollination crop’ as any agricultural crop that is dependent on pollinationfor reproduction or development of fruits by insects;

Again, "biotic" is not necessary, especially if you use the "for the purposes of this resolution" modifier. I'd used "pollinated crops" instead, leave out the struck-out words and add the underlined.

e. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any insecticide that is harmful to Insect Pollinators;

Drop the random capitalization. Also, I would make that read "...as any chemical insecticide..." so as to not target spiders non-chemical methods that might occasionally eat bees harm some insects that pollinate crops.

2. Establishes the Bureau for the Protection of Insect Pollinators (BPIP) to exercise the powers delegated to it by this and future resolutions;

No. You'll want to keep committee involvement to the minimum. Make the nations do as much as possible on their own, only use the committee if there's no other way.

3. Requires Member Nations to

Drop the random capitalization from "member nations" here and everything in the subclauses.

a. Assess the situation of Insect Pollinators, Domesticated Insect Pollinators, Biotic Pollination Crops, and the use of Pollinator Insecticides in their territory every two years, and refer this Assessment to the BPIP;

Why? Also, wouldn't assessing the effects of insecticides on pollinators be a more fruitful effort?

b. Develop a National Action Plan to improve the situation of Insect Pollinators;

Why? What's included in the plan? What should be done as improvements? I'd scrap this entirely.

c. Discourage the establishment of monocultures, especially of Biotic Pollination Crops, to ensure year-round feed for Insect Pollinators;

...what? Why? And what "year-round feed"? Have you ever heard of this thing called "winter"?

d. Discourage the use of Pollinator Insecticides;

"Requires to discourage" isn't what you should be writing, you should make this entirely its own clause, not a random subclause, and then have it fight clause four for supremacy.

e. Ensure the protection and encourage the establishment of Insect Pollinator-friendly environments, such as meadows, lynchets, or gardens;

What are lynchets and how do they help pollinating insects? For that matter, how do meadows help? Or are you talking about leaving fields fallow to allow weeds wild flowering plants to grow there? And gardens do not necessarily contain any plants that need insect pollination. If you want flowers, specify flowers.

Also, who should pay for the meadows and gardens and whatnot? The crop farmer? The pollinator keeper? The municipality/state?

f. Ensure that the needs and requirements of Insect Pollinators are taken into consideration in planning, zoning, and construction; if the planning, zoning or construction is to happen in uninhabited or undeveloped areas, special consideration is to be given to the concern;

Okay, you need to make this its own clause, so you can give it more attention. Also, if you're not completely focused on the insecticides, you should say something about it in your preamble.

g. Ensure that Pollinator Keepers in the Nation report any significant loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators;

Wouldn't this already be part of the situation assesment you're making nations do?

h. Report to the BPIP any nationally significant loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators, especially due to epidemics;

Why? And what epidemics? Epidemic control already has a resolution.

4. Prohibits Member Nations from using or authorising the use of new Pollinator Insecticides;

...even if they were less damaging to the pollinators than the existing ones? Isn't that completely backwards? Also that would stop nations from using new insecticides to get rid of invasive species, since your only modifier in the definition is "harmful". Smoke is harmful, yet it's used by beekeepers to make the bees less annoyed with the meddling with their nests.

5. Encourages Member Nations to take further steps for the protection of Insect Pollinators;

Such as? Aren't the million subclauses of clause 3 enough?

6. Requires the BPIP to

Remember what I said about only using the committee when you absolutely must? Create it in this clause, since you're now actually giving it stuff to do.

a. Collect the Assessments of individual Member Nations referred to it pursuant to Section 3 (a) of this Resolution;

Making my point there - if you make the committee gather the data, the nations don't need to actually send it, as the committee does that.

b. Merge and consolidate the data thus gained into a Global Assessment on the current status of Insect Pollinators, Domesticated Insect Pollinators, Biotic Pollination Crops, and the use of Pollinator Insecticides;

...you've already said that, haven't you? Also, what does "merge and consolidate" mean and what the use in doing so? What is the data used for anyway?

c. Support Member Nations in developing their National Action Plans pursuant to Section 3 (a) of this resolution, if they so wish;

If they so wish? And you still haven't explained what the plans are supposed to be about.

d. Collect the Reports by Member Nations pursuant to Section 3 (h) of this Resolution and, if necessary, develop an Action Plan to counteract the loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators;

Lose the random capitalization. And again, what plan? You're already mandating an awful lot of things for nations to do, what are they going to need extra plans for?

7. Enables the BPIP to conduct further research and education on the topic of the Protection of Insect Pollinators;

No! Bad proposal! No cookies for you! There's no reason you shouldn't make the nations do that. Though not entirely sure what education has to do with anything.

8. Affirms that this Resolution does not touch upon the topic of pesticides being used in chemical warfare.

Annnnd this clause and clause four are locked in eternal struggle over supremacy.

[The New Nordic Union]

A lot of helpful things

Thank you very much for your thorough assessment, it is very much appreciated. I shall create a new draft in the next days, incorporating your comments. I will narrow the focus and concentrate on the protection of pollinators from insecticides, dropping the other parts about gardens, zoning, monocultures, etc.

I will also make it clearer that I am not only focussing on domesticated insects - they play an important role, but so do wild insects, especially bumblebees.

Thank you again!

[The New Nordic Union]

New Draft

Quicker than I thought.

This World Assembly,

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

Noting that the overwhelming majority of pollinators are insects;

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

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

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


Hereby,


1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. ‘insect pollinator’ as any insect that moves pollen from one flower to another flower of the same plant species;
2. ‘pollination crop’ as any agricultural crop that is dependent on pollination by insects;
3. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any chemical insecticide that is harmful to pollinator insects;

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

3. Prohibits the use of pollinator insecticides on blooming pollination crops;

4. Allows for exceptions from section 3 when a significant portion of the crop is in imminent danger of being lost;

5. Requires that in the exceptional instances of section 4, pollinator insecticides be brought out in the evening or at night, to limit the exposure of insect pollinators to them;

6. 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;

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

8. Affirms that this resolution does not touch upon the topic of insecticides being used in chemical warfare.

[Araraukar]

New Draft

OOC: It's much clearer now, and being less wordy means it's more likely that voters will actually bother to read it before deciding which way to vote.

3. Prohibits the use of pollinator insecticides on blooming pollination crops;

4. Allows for exceptions from section 3 when a significant portion of the crop is in imminent danger of being lost;

5. Requires that in the exceptional instances of section 4, pollinator insecticides be brought out in the evening or at night, to limit the exposure of insect pollinators to them;

The way these are now worded, I'd make it something like...

3. Prohibits the use of pollinator insecticides on blooming pollination crops, unless

1. a significant portion of the potential harvest is in imminent danger of being lost, and
2. the pollinator insecticides are spread in the evening or at night, to limit the exposure of insect pollinators to them;

Someone wiser than me (when it comes to English grammar) can tell you if the "and" at the end of the first subclause is enough to make it so that both of the exceptions need to apply before the prohibition can be avoided. Also, "brought out" doesn't quite have the same meaning as "spread".

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: It's much clearer now, and being less wordy means it's more likely that voters will actually bother to read it before deciding which way to vote.

Thank you, I hope they will.

The way these are now worded, I'd make it something like...

3. Prohibits the use of pollinator insecticides on blooming pollination crops, unless

1. a significant portion of the potential harvest is in imminent danger of being lost, and
2. the pollinator insecticides are spread in the evening or at night, to limit the exposure of insect pollinators to them;

Someone wiser than me (when it comes to English grammar) can tell you if the "and" at the end of the first subclause is enough to make it so that both of the exceptions need to apply before the prohibition can be avoided. Also, "brought out" doesn't quite have the same meaning as "spread".

Done. I didn't like the wording either, but couldn't find a more elegant way. Thank you! Regarding 'brought out', that must have been a slip of the mother-tongue

[Imperium Anglorum]

6. Affirms that this resolution does not touch upon the topic of insecticides being used in chemical warfare.

I'd change this to something like 'Clarifies that nothing in this resolution affects the use or development of insecticides in chemical warfare.'

[The New Nordic Union]

6. Affirms that this resolution does not touch upon the topic of insecticides being used in chemical warfare.

I'd change this to something like 'Clarifies that nothing in this resolution affects the use or development of insecticides in chemical warfare.'

Done so.

[Burninati0n]

Pollinators are already protected by GA#66. If there is going to be a loophole as massive as "except in chemical warfare," then what is the point?

"Our nations' farmers are participating in the Defense Departments' wide-scale test of the effects of its chemical warfare agents on agriculture."

Resolution avoided.

Burnination agrees that pollinators should be protected, but this along with all other sentient species -- but not because they're useful to us, instead because they're thinking, feeling beings worthy of respect. An extra half-measure to protect certain species that happen to be beneficial to agriculture (and not others*) seems demeaning and ineffective.

* On this, pollinators are hardly the only necessary organisms for the continuance of agriculture; why protect pollinators and not the insects that aerate the soil or the microbes that break down nutrients for plant roots? Both are also necessary for agriculture to survive and seriously threatened by use of various insecticides, but this resolution seeks only to target pollinators specifically for protection -- and only protection from certain things -- which seems somewhat arbitrary.

[The Inland Emprie]

Protecting Pollinators

Category: Environmental
Area of Effect: Agriculture

---

This World Assembly,

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

Noting that the overwhelming majority of pollinators are insects;

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

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

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


Hereby,


1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

1. ‘insect pollinator’ as any insect that moves pollen from one flower to another flower of the same plant species;
2. ‘pollination crop’ as any agricultural crop that is dependent on pollination by insects;
3. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any chemical insecticide that is harmful to pollinator insects;

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

3. Prohibits the use of pollinator insecticides on blooming pollination crops, unless

1. a significant portion of the crop is in imminent danger of being lost, and
2. the pollinator insecticides are spread in the evening or at night, 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;

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

6. Clarifies that this resolution does not affect the use or development of insecticides for chemical warfare.

---

This august World Assembly,

Recognising the importance of pollination for the agricultural industry and thus, human nutrition, with about 80% of crop species dependent upon biotic pollination;

Noting that the overwhelming majority of biotic pollination is carried out by insect pollinators, especially when regarding agricultural crops;

Alerted by reports of decline in populations of insect pollinators, due to several factors such as parasites, insecticides, and climate change;

Wishing to protect biological diversity;

Willing to ensure the supply of important agricultural crops for future generations;

Hereby,

1. Defines

1. ‘insect pollinator’ as an insect that moves pollen from the male anther of a flower to the female stigma of a flower, including but not limited to bees, pollen wasps, ants, flies, lepidopterans, and beetles;
2. ‘domesticated insect pollinators’ as such Insect Pollinators as are bred and used by humans to intentionally pollinate crops;
3. ‘pollinator keeper’ as any person or entity that exercises control over individual Domesticated Insect Pollinators or colonies thereof, including but not limited to location, feed, and medical treatment;
4. ‘biotic pollination crop’ as any agricultural crop that is dependent on pollination for reproduction or development of fruits;
5. ‘pollinator insecticide’ as any insecticide that is harmful to Insect Pollinators;

2. Establishes the Bureau for the Protection of Insect Pollinators (BPIP) to exercise the powers delegated to it by this and future resolutions;

3. Requires Member Nations to

1. Assess the situation of Insect Pollinators, Domesticated Insect Pollinators, Biotic Pollination Crops, and the use of Pollinator Insecticides in their territory every two years, and refer this Assessment to the BPIP;
2. Develop a National Action Plan to improve the situation of Insect Pollinators;
3. Discourage the establishment of monocultures, especially of Biotic Pollination Crops, to ensure year-round feed for Insect Pollinators;
4. Discourage the use of Pollinator Insecticides;
5. Ensure the protection and encourage the establishment of Insect Pollinator-friendly environments, such as meadows, lynchets, or gardens;
6. Ensure that the needs and requirements of Insect Pollinators are taken into consideration in planning, zoning, and construction; if the planning, zoning or construction is to happen in uninhabited or undeveloped areas, special consideration is to be given to the concern;
7. Ensure that Pollinator Keepers in the Nation report any significant loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators;
8. Report to the BPIP any nationally significant loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators, especially due to epidemics;

4. Prohibits Member Nations from using or authorising the use of new Pollinator Insecticides;

5. Encourages Member Nations to take further steps for the protection of Insect Pollinators;

6. Requires the BPIP to

1. Collect the Assessments of individual Member Nations referred to it pursuant to Section 3 (a) of this Resolution;
2. Merge and consolidate the data thus gained into a Global Assessment on the current status of Insect Pollinators, Domesticated Insect Pollinators, Biotic Pollination Crops, and the use of Pollinator Insecticides;
3. Support Member Nations in developing their National Action Plans pursuant to Section 3 (a) of this resolution, if they so wish;
4. Collect the Reports by Member Nations pursuant to Section 3 (h) of this Resolution and, if necessary, develop an Action Plan to counteract the loss of Domesticated Insect Pollinators;

[/list]

7. Enables the BPIP to conduct further research and education on the topic of the Protection of Insect Pollinators;

8. Affirms that this Resolution does not touch upon the topic of pesticides being used in chemical warfare.

---
[Edited for typos - Thrice]
[Edit: Appearance - Thrice]
[Edit: AoE corrected]
[Edit: Layout, Wording and Added Section 8 to comply with GA Resolution #272 'Chemical Weapons Accord']
[Edit: Draft 2]
[Edit: Misnumbered]
[Edit: Wording Section 6]

I will not be supporting this, it is detrimental to agriculture on a massive size. I like the idea to save our pollinators, but not the heavy restrictions placed on ag. Unless you think up different wording, I will not support.

[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."

[Bears Armed]

"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?