NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally thought my proposal was very good however two people very much believe that it should be reworded or else they do not wish to support it. If some of you could help me rewrite the proposal to make sure I don't undermind the individuals against my proposal that would be fantastic.

Resolution: Ban the use of cosmetic pesticides

By regulating the non-essential use of pesticides, we will help protect our physical environment and the health of the worlds residents. Environmental sustainability is one of the key focuses we must change to help with our strained relationship with the planet. This law is a victory for every child of the world who likes to roll on the grass or play ball with their friends, it's also a victory for family pets and for our drinking water.

We will undertake a public education program to inform residents and businesses about the bylaw and how to maintain healthy lawns and gardens without pesticides. It will focus on gaining property owner's co-operation, acceptance of new maintenance practices/standards of appearance, and motivation to "do the right thing".

This resolution does identify a list of low impact pest control products that can be used such as a soap, dormant or horticultural oil and corn gluten meal. The resolution also identifies a number of situations where pesticides can be used. These include: to disinfect swimming pools, to purify water, to control termites, to control a health hazard and on farms. Golf courses and lawn bowling greens are permitted to use pesticides only under the direction of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Accredited Agent and will be required to submit their records annually to the the countrie government for review.

Bylaw enforcement and fine options will be discussed and issues shortly after resolution approval.

The basic problem is that this reads like an essay, not like a law. And that's really bad for a law.

First, it's traditional to start off with a preamble that explains why the proposed resolution is a Good Thing, why it's appropriate for the UN to be legislating about it, the principles it builds on, and so on. This only needs to be short, and you can get away without one altogether if you want to avoid alienating potential supporters who don't share your principles. The first two sentences of your opening paragraph would do nicely, though they would work better in the other order. Avoid overblown rhetoric and slogans, as they are bound to piss off someone.

The bit that you absolutely need is the operative section. Very short paragraphs of short sentences that lay out exactly what the proposal does. Vagueness, generalities and things appearing out of thin air with no explanation will cause your proposal to be laughed at. If "we" will do something, it had better be clear who "we" is. If "the resolution does identify" something, then the resolution damn well better actually identify it. If the resolution refers to Accredited Agents which appear nowhere else and are not part of common life, it had better say who gets to accredit them (creating a new UN committee, usually).

I'd also suggest losing the bit at the end about enforcement and fines coming later. It's borderline illegal; UN resolutions come into force the moment they are passed, and cannot be amended. You should either state the general nature of punishments for breaking the law (fines, in this case), or just quietly assume that everyone will comply.

Essentially what you've written is almost entirely preamble, with the single operative clause of educating residents and businesses about the subject. It never, at any point, states what the "bylaw" it's educating them about is, though, so even that's a bit moot.

I'd recommend taking writing down what you what to happen as a series of one sentence bullet points, so that you know what's permitted and forbidden, who is responsible for what, and so on. I find the "VERBS" format of some recent resolutions useful for this, others prefer numbered clauses; just find a format that helps you break your resolution down into its component parts. Only then can you put it back together into a real resolution.

Bylaw enforcement and fine options will be discussed and issues shortly after resolution approval.

That's the main reason why it's not on the proposal list anymore. If the UN is going to vote on it, they're going to vote on ALL of it.

Proposals are laws, not wish lists. You define what happens before you submit, so we're not voting on a blank slate of what you might want. You can leave it vague enough on the enforcement side that nations can make their own choices, but that's not something you actually include in the law.

The other thing you need to do is let your draft get reviews and improvements BEFORE you submit it. Otherwise we mods will end up deleting illegal drafts and giving you warnings you could have avoided by clearing it beforehand. Leave it up several days, or even weeks. We work slow around here, but we're pretty thorough.

OOC:

You've gotten some good advice. Here's another suggestion.... Go up to the top of the UN Forum and check out the list of passed resolutions. Find a few that look interesting (so you don't die of boredom) and read them. See how they're structured and how they set about doing what they wanted to accomplish. Don't bother with the old ones. A lot of them were written when the standards were much lower than they are now. Look at ones down toward the bottom of the list. I think this will give you a better handle on what Gobbannium and Frisbeeteria were telling you.

And please... Make sure you read the Rules for UN Proposals before you start writing. No sense getting frustrated by ending up with a rule violation.

Oh great. You've submitted a new version, despite Fris' advice to post the draft here first for further comment. Joy unbounded.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Mefecawaran

Description: United Nations:

REALIZING the importance of regulating the non-essential use of pesticides

Cosmetic pesticides are:
Non-essential pesticides used to get rid of weeds or insects.

ESTABLISHES a public education program to inform residents and businesses about the bylaw and how to maintain healthy lawns and gardens without pesticides. These programs will focus on;

-Gaining property owner's co-operation
-Acceptance of new maintenance practices/standards of appearance
-Motivation to "do the right thing"
-Educating the public on the importance of banning the cosmetic use of pesticides
-Environmental Sustainability

IDENTIFIES a list of low impact pest control products that can be used such as a soap, dormant or horticultural oil and corn gluten meal.

RECOGNIZES a number of situations where pesticides can be used. These include: to disinfect swimming pools, to purify water, to control termites, to control a health hazard and on farms.

NOTING that Golf courses and lawn bowling greens are permitted to use pesticides only under the direction of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Accredited Agent and will be required to submit their records annually to the countries government for review.

ENFORCING pesticide laws by implementing fines that would be distributed in a manner similar to fines handed out when speeding. These fines would increase for repeat offenders.
This is much clearer, but it's still riddled with problems. It goes on about a 'bylaw' -- what bylaw? There is nothing referenced, the only thing that's even near to a mandate is the golf course and bowling green note. And that's just 'noted', for God's sake! The vague implication that one shouldn't use pesticides is just that; a vague implication. That's not even close to good enough.

The IPM Accredited Agents are still undefined, and their means of accreditation likewise.

The enforcement clause is now much better and more legally written, but it still doesn't have anything to enforce because the proposal still doesn't actually do anything other than educate people!

In short: much improved, but must do better.

Cosmetic pesticides are:
Non-essential pesticides used to get rid of weeds or insects.

That definition is very close to being a tautology. I'm also wondering about the use of the word 'cosmetic'. To me, that term denotes that something is used to make something more appealing. I note that the term is used only in the definition quoted above.

Might I suggest this alternative definition:


DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution pesticides as synthetic substances used to in horticulture, agriculture, forestry, or similar areas and industries, to reduce or avoid the effects of unwanted organisms such as weeds, pests, or pathogens.

FURTHER DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution non-essential pesticides as substances covered by the above definition upon which the mentioned industries and areas are not strongly dependent.