(DRAFT) Repeal: Pesticide Regulation

[Forensatha]

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that pesticides pose a threat to the environment and that its use is absolutely necessary as a best practices in eradicating pests that harm the integrity of agricultural endeavors of member states,

Deploring that the current resolution does not adequately address certain aspects of pesticides and that in some respects it infringes upon the capabilities of member states,

Noting that section 3 clause a which is superfluous and does not enforce an additional mandate on member-states as ingredients already illegal for use in pesticides would not be allowed,

Frustrated by section 4 which is vague and almost useless, as "buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Concerned that the requirement in clause four to prevent pesticide runoff with such things as buffer zones, selective application, and avoidance of irrigation is fundamentally flawed, as:

1. sapient lives are better saved and protected through the eradication of disease-bearing pests which serve as a vector for person-to-person transmission,
2. eradication campaigns of insects will necessarily require large-scale and large-area administration of pesticides or run the risk of leaving a reservoir population,
3. making it harder for poor nations to cheaply pursue eradication campaigns is principally unjust, since the people affected on the cost margins are the most disadvantaged and those which the world community has the foremost obligation to protect, and
4. these restrictions greatly increase the difficulty of pest eradication, thereby preventing nations from reducing the incidence of pest-borne diseases like malaria, costing lives, implicitly killing people, and violating the principles upon which this Assembly was founded, while
5. it massively increases the chance of disease-bearing pests developing resistance to common pesticides, allowing surviving generations to adapt to exposure, making future eradication campaigns ever more difficult and costly, costing yet more lives,

Observing that section 5 mentions accidents that happen on in regions bordering other nations, but the entire resolution includes no mention of accidents that occur entirely within member-states, thus allowing member-states to ignore any pesticide runoffs occurring purely within their borders,

Believing that a better replacement can be drafted that properly regulates pesticides, or leaves more room for member states to regulate pesticides as they please,

Hereby,

Repeals General Assembly Resolution Number 367 Pesticide Regulations.

Co-authored by Marxist Germany

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't have any major objections to the idea. You can borrow what you want from my discarded repeal of this resolution (I would not recommend including the portions on rational inevitability). But about the seeming inability to understand plain language:

"Apparently people are 'confused' easily these days. We are voting against as we are not convinced of the repeal arguments."

You can make better arguments than "this is vague". First, you could try impacting the vagueness in a non-ridiculous manner to concrete harms. And second, you could excise them and instead go on arguments that have actual concrete impacts. While I'm not entirely convinced it would break the Honest mistake rule, arguments that things described the following passage would happen would strike me as implausible given good faith compliance as required in GA 2.

"buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

[Forensatha]

I don't have any major objections to the idea. You can borrow what you want from my discarded repeal of this resolution (I would not recommend including the portions on rational inevitability). But about the seeming inability to understand plain language:

"Apparently people are 'confused' easily these days. We are voting against as we are not convinced of the repeal arguments."

You can make better arguments than "this is vague". First, you could try impacting the vagueness in a non-ridiculous manner to concrete harms. And second, you could excise them and instead go on arguments that have actual concrete impacts. While I'm not entirely convinced it would break the Honest mistake rule, arguments that things described the following passage would happen would strike me as implausible given good faith compliance as required in GA 2.

"buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Thank you very much. Is this permission for use of your draft enough to satisfy Moderation?

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘noting’ clause doesn’t quite make sense; I recommend removing the ‘which’. A comma is missing at the end of your ‘concerned’ clause, and ‘its’ should be ‘their’ in the first clause. However, this is a good starting point.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Thank you very much. Is this permission for use of your draft enough to satisfy Moderation?

OOC: Yes.

[Araraukar]

OOC post. As the writer of the text of the target, I figured I should comment here.

Recognizing that pesticides pose a threat to the environment and that its use is absolutely necessary as a best practice in eradicating pests that harm the integrity of agricultural endeavors of member states,

This seems a bit disjointed. First of all pesticide use is not "absolutely necessary" and hasn't been in a long time in RL (look it up, lots of choices already exist) at least, and "its use" (singular) is strange considering there are dozens if not hundreds of pesticides (very much plural). Also "integrity of agricultural endeavors" looks like just buzzwords strung together. I suggest using clearer language here.

Deploring that the current resolution does not adequately address certain aspects of pesticides and that in some respects it infringes upon the capabilities of member states,

What aspects? And if "capabilities" infringed upon are "poisoning the ground and groundwater", then that's the intended effect.

Noting that section 3 clause a which is superfluous and does not enforce an additional mandate on member-states as ingredients already illegal for use in pesticides would not be allowed,

It's meant to clarify that all the ingredients need to have been cleared for use in the member state, not just the active ingredient. It's to avoid predatory practices by pesticide producers, who might only get a permit for the active ingredient and leave it unmentioned that there were other three highly-poisonous-to-lifeforms chemicals in the product as well. The safe handling and use instructions are also pretty important, considering how many pesticides cause serious health issues to people spreading them, if adequate protection is denied from them.

Further noting the lack of a definition for false advertising, which therefore means the clause is heavily liable to loopholes and interpretation by member-states,

That's why the resolution uses wording "false advertising or unsubstantiated claims". Besides, when words are used in dictionary definition manner such as here, they don't need to be defined. Honestly speaking chemical pesticides shouldn't have needed defining either, but we wanted to be absolutely certain. Here that certainty was achieved by the addition of "unsubstantiated claims".

Frustrated by section 4 which is vague and almost useless, as "buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Again, if you don't know the basic terminology of agriculture the way the words are defined in dictionaries, you should perhaps go and search for them online. The info is freely available. Also, the resolution uses the wording "irrigation right after applying pesticides". If you don't know what "right after" means... then I really don't know what to tell you but to apply common sense.

Concerned by clause 4's mandate to prevent pesticide runoffs by selectively applying pesticides; which can have disastrous effects such as the pests developing immunity to the pesticides, thus resulting in crop failures or spreading of disease to individuals

Do you even know what selective application means in terms of pesticides? Based on your previous commentary, I'm starting to suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

Observing that section 5 mentions accidents that happen on in regions bordering other nations, but the entire resolution includes no mention of accidents that occur entirely within member-states, thus allowing member-states to ignore any pesticide runoffs occurring purely within their borders,

That's because the resolutions are international law, and near-the-border events have international effects, as is mentioned in the preamble. If you'd like to write a resolution that addresses pesticide accidents that are entirely within nations themselves, there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

Believing that a better replacement can be drafted that properly regulates pesticides,

You're free to try. I might even be interested in cooperating with such, though if I wrote it, it'd be more restrictive than the target, not less.

or leaves more room for member states to regulate pesticides as they please,

Given that you're spending much of the proposal to moan about how the resolution doesn't do enough to regulate the subject to death, this also sounds a little strange as a complete reversal of that.

[Forensatha]

OOC post. As the writer of the text of the target, I figured I should comment here.

Recognizing that pesticides pose a threat to the environment and that its use is absolutely necessary as a best practice in eradicating pests that harm the integrity of agricultural endeavors of member states,

This seems a bit disjointed. First of all pesticide use is not "absolutely necessary" and hasn't been in a long time in RL (look it up, lots of choices already exist) at least, and "its use" (singular) is strange considering there are dozens if not hundreds of pesticides (very much plural). Also "integrity of agricultural endeavors" looks like just buzzwords strung together. I suggest using clearer language here.

Deploring that the current resolution does not adequately address certain aspects of pesticides and that in some respects it infringes upon the capabilities of member states,

What aspects? And if "capabilities" infringed upon are "poisoning the ground and groundwater", then that's the intended effect.

Noting that section 3 clause a which is superfluous and does not enforce an additional mandate on member-states as ingredients already illegal for use in pesticides would not be allowed,

It's meant to clarify that all the ingredients need to have been cleared for use in the member state, not just the active ingredient. It's to avoid predatory practices by pesticide producers, who might only get a permit for the active ingredient and leave it unmentioned that there were other three highly-poisonous-to-lifeforms chemicals in the product as well. The safe handling and use instructions are also pretty important, considering how many pesticides cause serious health issues to people spreading them, if adequate protection is denied from them.

Further noting the lack of a definition for false advertising, which therefore means the clause is heavily liable to loopholes and interpretation by member-states,

That's why the resolution uses wording "false advertising or unsubstantiated claims". Besides, when words are used in dictionary definition manner such as here, they don't need to be defined. Honestly speaking chemical pesticides shouldn't have needed defining either, but we wanted to be absolutely certain. Here that certainty was achieved by the addition of "unsubstantiated claims".

Frustrated by section 4 which is vague and almost useless, as "buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Again, if you don't know the basic terminology of agriculture the way the words are defined in dictionaries, you should perhaps go and search for them online. The info is freely available. Also, the resolution uses the wording "irrigation right after applying pesticides". If you don't know what "right after" means... then I really don't know what to tell you but to apply common sense.

Concerned by clause 4's mandate to prevent pesticide runoffs by selectively applying pesticides; which can have disastrous effects such as the pests developing immunity to the pesticides, thus resulting in crop failures or spreading of disease to individuals

Do you even know what selective application means in terms of pesticides? Based on your previous commentary, I'm starting to suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

Observing that section 5 mentions accidents that happen on in regions bordering other nations, but the entire resolution includes no mention of accidents that occur entirely within member-states, thus allowing member-states to ignore any pesticide runoffs occurring purely within their borders,

That's because the resolutions are international law, and near-the-border events have international effects, as is mentioned in the preamble. If you'd like to write a resolution that addresses pesticide accidents that are entirely within nations themselves, there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

Believing that a better replacement can be drafted that properly regulates pesticides,

You're free to try. I might even be interested in cooperating with such, though if I wrote it, it'd be more restrictive than the target, not less.

or leaves more room for member states to regulate pesticides as they please,

Given that you're spending much of the proposal to moan about how the resolution doesn't do enough to regulate the subject to death, this also sounds a little strange as a complete reversal of that.

Your are free to state your opinion of the resolution as you like but your remarks do not need to be so rude. As one well known GA regular posted earlier giving me permission to use their draft, I do have plans to use it. As side from this, I haven't written a GA resolution in a considerable period of time and GA rules, standards and unfamiliarities are things which everyone has to address at some point in interaction with the GA, let alone many aspects of the game. I would also like to point out that this resolution was not solely authored by me. I co authored this resolution with another author who has had some form of success with the GA. The whole purpose of drafting threads is to receive input and constructive feedback is acceptable but not when it contains such rude, unprofessional remarks.

[Araraukar]

I would also like to point out that this resolution was not solely authored by me. I co authored this resolution with another author who has had some form of success with the GA.

OOC: Hence what you consider to be rudeness; MG knows better than that.

The whole purpose of drafting threads is to receive input and constructive feedback is acceptable but not when it contains such rude, unprofessional remarks.

Exactly what do you consider to be rude or unprofessional? Pointing out that dictionary definitions don't need re-defining, or suggesting that you should brush up on the vocabulary of the topic at hand, given that it's you who decided to try and tackle it? Also, if you're re-using IA's repeal attempt of this, be aware that it was declared illegal for rules violations.

[Yahaba]

Make me before I dip your Lightning McQueen McDonalds toy in a mixture of plum sauce and ketchup

[Marxist Germany]

Noting that section 3 clause a which is superfluous and does not enforce an additional mandate on member-states as ingredients already illegal for use in pesticides would not be allowed,

It's meant to clarify that all the ingredients need to have been cleared for use in the member state, not just the active ingredient. It's to avoid predatory practices by pesticide producers, who might only get a permit for the active ingredient and leave it unmentioned that there were other three highly-poisonous-to-lifeforms chemicals in the product as well. The safe handling and use instructions are also pretty important, considering how many pesticides cause serious health issues to people spreading them, if adequate protection is denied from them.

OOC: Member states arent dumb enough to ignore half of the ingredients.

Further noting the lack of a definition for false advertising, which therefore means the clause is heavily liable to loopholes and interpretation by member-states,

That's why the resolution uses wording "false advertising or unsubstantiated claims". Besides, when words are used in dictionary definition manner such as here, they don't need to be defined. Honestly speaking chemical pesticides shouldn't have needed defining either, but we wanted to be absolutely certain. Here that certainty was achieved by the addition of "unsubstantiated claims".

I concede this claim, you are right

Frustrated by section 4 which is vague and almost useless, as "buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Again, if you don't know the basic terminology of agriculture the way the words are defined in dictionaries, you should perhaps go and search for them online. The info is freely available. Also, the resolution uses the wording "irrigation right after applying pesticides". If you don't know what "right after" means... then I really don't know what to tell you but to apply common sense.

Right after means directly after something, but does that mean we can irrigate plants just 2 minutes after the application of pesticides? Or is it an hour, etc.

Concerned by clause 4's mandate to prevent pesticide runoffs by selectively applying pesticides; which can have disastrous effects such as the pests developing immunity to the pesticides, thus resulting in crop failures or spreading of disease to individuals

Do you even know what selective application means in terms of pesticides? Based on your previous commentary, I'm starting to suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.

That was my fault, I misunderstood the meaning of "selective application". The point shall be replaced.

Observing that section 5 mentions accidents that happen on in regions bordering other nations, but the entire resolution includes no mention of accidents that occur entirely within member-states, thus allowing member-states to ignore any pesticide runoffs occurring purely within their borders,

That's because the resolutions are international law, and near-the-border events have international effects, as is mentioned in the preamble. If you'd like to write a resolution that addresses pesticide accidents that are entirely within nations themselves, there's nothing stopping you from doing so.

You couldve added an extra line for accidents within member states and you wouldve avoided this, why have two resolutions when you can have one?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Member states aren't dumb enough to ignore half of the ingredients.

OOC: Seriously? Looking at recent decisions taken by some of their governments...

[Forensatha]

I would also like to point out that this resolution was not solely authored by me. I co authored this resolution with another author who has had some form of success with the GA.

OOC: Hence what you consider to be rudeness; MG knows better than that.

The whole purpose of drafting threads is to receive input and constructive feedback is acceptable but not when it contains such rude, unprofessional remarks.

Exactly what do you consider to be rude or unprofessional? Pointing out that dictionary definitions don't need re-defining, or suggesting that you should brush up on the vocabulary of the topic at hand, given that it's you who decided to try and tackle it? Also, if you're re-using IA's repeal attempt of this, be aware that it was declared illegal for rules violations.

I was already aware of the ruling. I will update the draft soon.

[Araraukar]

You couldve added an extra line for accidents within member states and you wouldve avoided this, why have two resolutions when you can have one?

OOC: Because there are resolutions in place that do that job already (or at least were at the time). Fairly sure they got pointed out in its drafting thread.

OOC: Member states aren't dumb enough to ignore half of the ingredients.

OOC: Seriously? Looking at recent decisions taken by some of their governments...

OOC: Also given the GenSec ruling on the discarded one...

[Forensatha]

Draft updated.

[Kenmoria]

“Your draft seems, to me, to lack a consistent logic. On the one hand you are decrying the lack of choice for member nations; on the other you mention how the target resolution gives too much room for interpretation to member states. You should reorder and change the clauses so that the text reads as one piece of legislation.”

[Marxist Germany]

“Your draft seems, to me, to lack a consistent logic. On the one hand you are decrying the lack of choice for member nations; on the other you mention how the target resolution gives too much room for interpretation to member states. You should reorder and change the clauses so that the text reads as one piece of legislation.”

"We are aiming to please both sides of the spectrum with these arguments, so we chose to criticise its vagueness in some parts, and its micromanagement in others."

[Kenmoria]

“Your draft seems, to me, to lack a consistent logic. On the one hand you are decrying the lack of choice for member nations; on the other you mention how the target resolution gives too much room for interpretation to member states. You should reorder and change the clauses so that the text reads as one piece of legislation.”

"We are aiming to please both sides of the spectrum with these arguments, so we chose to criticise its vagueness in some parts, and its micromanagement in others."

“I understand that, what I am suggesting would be to have a clear divide, rather than mixing all the different types of arguments together. For example, criticising the target resolution for being too restrictive, then pointing out how easy it is to loophole these altogether, rather than switching from one track to the other several times.”

[Marxist Germany]

"We are aiming to please both sides of the spectrum with these arguments, so we chose to criticise its vagueness in some parts, and its micromanagement in others."

“I understand that, what I am suggesting would be to have a clear divide, rather than mixing all the different types of arguments together. For example, criticising the target resolution for being too restrictive, then pointing out how easy it is to loophole these altogether, rather than switching from one track to the other several times.”

"Your suggestion has been noted ambassador, we will try to clean this up."

[Forensatha]

Any further comments on this proposal?

[Araraukar]

Any further comments on this proposal?

OOC: It hasn't been updated since Oct 20th. Usually you get new comments when you've applied the old comments and produced a new draft.

[Forensatha]

Any further comments on this proposal?

OOC: It hasn't been updated since Oct 20th. Usually you get new comments when you've applied the old comments and produced a new draft.

Ya but I want comments in addition to the ones given. There maybe a different viewpoint that I could use when updating the draft.

[Pig Pork]

I need evidence that "absolutely necessary" is true. Otherwise this is one of those self-righteous shove-my-values-down-other-people's-throats proposals.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that pesticides pose a threat to the environment and that its use is absolutely necessary as a best practices in eradicating pests that harm the integrity of agricultural endeavors of member states,

Deploring that the current resolution does not adequately address certain aspects of pesticides and that in some respects it infringes upon the capabilities of member states,

Noting that section 3 clause a which is superfluous and does not enforce an additional mandate on member-states as ingredients already illegal for use in pesticides would not be allowed,

Frustrated by section 4 which is vague and almost useless, as "buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Concerned that the requirement in clause four to prevent pesticide runoff with such things as buffer zones, selective application, and avoidance of irrigation is fundamentally flawed, as:

1. sapient lives are better saved and protected through the eradication of disease-bearing pests which serve as a vector for person-to-person transmission,
2. eradication campaigns of insects will necessarily require large-scale and large-area administration of pesticides or run the risk of leaving a reservoir population,
3. making it harder for poor nations to cheaply pursue eradication campaigns is principally unjust, since the people affected on the cost margins are the most disadvantaged and those which the world community has the foremost obligation to protect, and
4. these restrictions greatly increase the difficulty of pest eradication, thereby preventing nations from reducing the incidence of pest-borne diseases like malaria, costing lives, implicitly killing people, and violating the principles upon which this Assembly was founded, while
5. it massively increases the chance of disease-bearing pests developing resistance to common pesticides, allowing surviving generations to adapt to exposure, making future eradication campaigns ever more difficult and costly, costing yet more lives,

Observing that section 5 mentions accidents that happen on in regions bordering other nations, but the entire resolution includes no mention of accidents that occur entirely within member-states, thus allowing member-states to ignore any pesticide runoffs occurring purely within their borders,

Believing that a better replacement can be drafted that properly regulates pesticides, or leaves more room for member states to regulate pesticides as they please,

Hereby,

Repeals General Assembly Resolution Number 367 Pesticide Regulations.

Co-authored by Marxist Germany

[Bears Armed]

Frustrated by section 4 which is vague and almost useless, as "buffer zones" and "selective application" are not defined, leaving a large room for interpretation, such as creating tiny buffer zones, and "irrigation after applying pesticides", which could range from minutes to days,

Nations that interpret such terms in ways that are clearly not 'good faith' compliance would be subject to potential penalties set by the WA Compliance Commission...

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘noting’ clause should have the ‘which’ removed.”