[PASSED] Prevention of Wildfires

[Elke and Elba]

If wildfires aren't prevented then they could cut into the stocks of timber available for logging: Therefore preventing wildfires probably increases the amount of timber available to the logging companies, and thus increases -- rather than decreases -- their profits.
Clear enough?

Sure,but my point here is that day to day operations for logging would also increase by this resolution - plus the environment would be better,loggers can just easily move (especially in jungles)

Wildfire:one time cost for moving
prevention:extra day to day costs

Overall,I think this would increase costs

The "I think, therefore I am [right]" doesn't really help, especially if one cannot understand your argument. :/

Try rephrasing the argument? I really don't get it :S

[Blood Wine]

Sure,but my point here is that day to day operations for logging would also increase by this resolution - plus the environment would be better,loggers can just easily move (especially in jungles)

Wildfire:one time cost for moving
prevention:extra day to day costs

Overall,I think this would increase costs

The "I think, therefore I am [right]" doesn't really help, especially if one cannot understand your argument. :/

Try rephrasing the argument? I really don't get it :S

The "I think" part is because I'm not a logger myself,ergo I can't be certain


Extra regulations regarding forest fires would cost the logging industry more
Without those regulations,the loggers can move to another part of the forest or jungle and continue rather then save the forest

Ergo,I believe that this resolution will cost the logging industry,while benefiting the environment

[Separatist Peoples]

The "I think, therefore I am [right]" doesn't really help, especially if one cannot understand your argument. :/

Try rephrasing the argument? I really don't get it :S

The "I think" part is because I'm not a logger myself,ergo I can't be certain


Extra regulations regarding forest fires would cost the logging industry more
Without those regulations,the loggers can move to another part of the forest or jungle and continue rather then save the forest

Ergo,I believe that this resolution will cost the logging industry,while benefiting the environment

"Not really. Wildfire response expenses are absorbed by the state. The logging industry generally shoulders more then nominal clean-up costs, which are outweighed by the profit of not having burnt down timber."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Ruling of the Secretariat

It has always been the case that non-members can deccide to comply voluntarily with any WA/GA resolutions that they choose, because of course otherwise every substantive resolution that passed would actually affect all non-members by forcing them to do the opposite instead.
It has been established by precedent and associated Modly ruling that a proposal telling a WA agency to provide a service to member nations can legally allow the agency to offer that service to any non-members who want it (and who are prepared to pay whatever price would be involved) as well.
Okay, so: Would it be legal for a proposal explicitly to include voluntary compliance with its restrictions in the price to be paid by any non-members who want the associated benefits?

(This is potentially relevant for my currrently-drafting 'Prevention of Wildfires' proposal.)

Precedent has shown that while the WA cannot compel non-member states to comply with resolutions it is possible to allow non-member states to opt into complying with resolutions and utilizing agencies established by passed resolutions.

8. Offers the services of the IMO to nations that are not members of the WA too, if their governments are willing to pay negotiated contributions towards its expenses and to send it all relevant information that they possess, except if and when those nations are at war with any WA members;

As such it is reasonable that this optionality come with certain strings attached, since those nations are still completely able to choose not to follow the legislation.

In the light of recent events in the GA, I've thought it best to seek confirmation that the Mods won't regard my proposal on Prevention of Wildfires as mis-categorised and say that because of sub-clause '1.v.' -- and despite its sub-clauses that would increase police & military spending (i.e. '1.i' & '2.iii' respsectively) -- it should fall under 'Global Disarmament' rather than (as I'm currently classifying it) 'International Security' instead.
If anybody does try to argue for that interpretation then I'd counter-argue that '1.v' not only doesn't require nations to get rid of any weapons but only limits where they could be used and that as one of the likeliest reasons for burning down enemy nations' forests is because that's cheaper than training one's own troops for fighting in that environment the overall effect would probably be an increase in training costs that outweighed any associated reduction in armaments costs anyhows...

The International Security Category is appropriate for this resolution as it is currently written. The emphasis of the resolution is boosting the requisite budgets in order to combat the threat of wildfires, whereas the section requiring the outlawing of utilizing wildfires as a form of weaponry (in specific circumstances) is a minor section of the proposal that does not outweigh the generally IntSec nature of the text.

[Bears Armed]

"My thanks, and my national government's thanks, to the Secretariat for this answer to our concerns."

*(sends over an appropriate number of gift basket of this nation's produce, including a large jar of high-quality honey and a large bottle of high-quality maple syrup as well as assorted fruits and nuts... Oh, and some cheese as well...)*

[The Myre Isles]

If it is not to late to send in our regards, we as a nation believe this to be a favorable act. Our many forests are too often at risk, but we do take what precautions we can. We believe this act will be very great boon to our efforts. We offer our full support towards the success of this movement.

~Regards, the Nation of the Myre Isles

[The Dark Star Republic]

What is the force of "instructs"? Is it on a require/mandate/enjoin level, or is it more like recommend/suggest/urge?

Also not really sure what wilderness or semi-wilderness areas actually are. Might it be better to use a definition that instead concentrates on areas where, if a fire were started, that fire would then be likely to become uncontrollable? Using uncontrolled fire as a weapon of war probably wouldn't be problematic in a jungle wilderness environment, or a desert wilderness environment, because it still wouldn't lead to uncontrollable fire breaking out. But using it in certain non-wilderness areas that nonetheless had the potential for uncontrollable fires to develop, such as slum districts with a lot of flammable housing materials, would be dangerous. So for 1. (v), I'm suggesting something like:

"Refrain from the use of uncontrolled fire as a weapon or tool of war in areas from which the fires would be likely to develop into uncontrollable fires or to spread into other such areas."

You've also unnecessarily capitalised "fire" in 2. (i).

[Separatist Peoples]

What is the force of "instructs"? Is it on a require/mandate/enjoin level, or is it more like recommend/suggest/urge?

Also not really sure what wilderness or semi-wilderness areas actually are. Might it be better to use a definition that instead concentrates on areas where, if a fire were started, that fire would then be likely to become uncontrollable? Using uncontrolled fire as a weapon of war probably wouldn't be problematic in a jungle wilderness environment, or a desert wilderness environment, because it still wouldn't lead to uncontrollable fire breaking out. But using it in certain non-wilderness areas that nonetheless had the potential for uncontrollable fires to develop, such as slum districts with a lot of flammable housing materials, would be dangerous. So for 1. (v), I'm suggesting something like:

"Refrain from the use of uncontrolled fire as a weapon or tool of war in areas from which the fires would be likely to develop into uncontrollable fires or to spread into other such areas."

You've also unnecessarily capitalised "fire" in 2. (i).

"Jungle and desert environments are actually just as likely to suffer from uncontrolled wildfires as a traditional temperate forest. Not all deserts are full of sand dunes, and not all jungles are soaking wet. Unless there is literally no vegetation, there's a legitimate risk."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Jungle and desert environments are actually just as likely to suffer from uncontrolled wildfires as a traditional temperate forest. Not all deserts are full of sand dunes, and not all jungles are soaking wet. Unless there is literally no vegetation, there's a legitimate risk."

Not my point, at all. I am talking about areas with very low vegetation, like a salt flat. Using "wilderness area" is unnecessarily vague.

[Bears Armed]

What is the force of "instructs"? Is it on a require/mandate/enjoin level, or is it more like recommend/suggest/urge?

I was meaning it as "Tells them to" sense, i.e. at what you're calling "the 'require/mandate/enjoin level" (although I might ask a similar question about strength if I saw somebody else use "enjoin" in such a situation): Not obvious enough,really? I'll reconsider this choice..

Also not really sure what wilderness or semi-wilderness areas actually are.

By my intention, it means those areas that are neither urban nor farmland (except perhaps for significantly wide areas of "unimproved" grazing land). Again, seriously, not clear enough?

Might it be better to use a definition that instead concentrates on areas where, if a fire were started, that fire would then be likely to become uncontrollable? Using uncontrolled fire as a weapon of war probably wouldn't be problematic in a jungle wilderness environment, or a desert wilderness environment, because it still wouldn't lead to uncontrollable fire breaking out. But using it in certain non-wilderness areas that nonetheless had the potential for uncontrollable fires to develop, such as slum districts with a lot of flammable housing materials, would be dangerous. So for 1. (v), I'm suggesting something like:

"Refrain from the use of uncontrolled fire as a weapon or tool of war in areas from which the fires would be likely to develop into uncontrollable fires or to spread into other such areas."

Leaving aside the point that this proposal's main emphasis was originally supposed to be Fire specifically in wilder areas (such as, obviously, forests...), if I try to prohibit the use of incendiaries against targets in urban areas then I'd be seriously worried about the militaristic element that's apparently rather strong in the WA's current membership voting the whole proposal down because of that point...

But I will think further about the definition.

You've also unnecessarily capitalised "fire" in 2. (i).

In those cases I was talking about 'Fire' as the fundamental concept, rather than just as a potentially-underway process, and capitalising it there for that reason seemed arguably right: Doing so certainly follows 'Urso-English' standards, anyhows... but I'll probably change those "f"s to lower-case before submission.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I was meaning it as "Tells them to" sense, i.e. at what you're calling "the 'require/mandate/enjoin level" (although I might ask a similar question about strength if I saw somebody else use "enjoin" in such a situation): Not obvious enough,really?

No, I was genuinely curious. If you say it has the force, then it's fine.

Leaving aside the point that this proposal's main emphasis was originally supposed to be Fire specifically in wilder areas (such as, obviously, forests...), if I try to prohibit the use of incendiaries against targets in urban areas then I'd be seriously worried about the militaristic element that's apparently rather strong in the WA's current membership voting the whole proposal down because of that point...

That's fair.

[Bears Armed Mission]

You've also unnecessarily capitalised "fire" in 2. (i).

In those cases I was talking about 'Fire' as the fundamental concept, rather than just as a potentially-underway process, and capitalising it there for that reason seemed arguably right: Doing so certainly follows 'Urso-English' standards, anyhows... but I'll probably change those "f"s to lower-case before submission.

"Fire" replaced by "fires" in that sub-clause.

if the submissions list stays this quiet overnight then I'll probably submit the proposal tomorrow.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Submitted: Please approve.

[Westerhoff]

The Kingdom of Westerhoff approves this proposal.

Our support for this is due to the responsibility of neighboring nations to keep others well-informed in environmental changes and the provision that discusses the use of fire as a tactic or means to shape the battlefield while at war. Such strategy could needlessly harm innocent farmsteads and the lives of citizens that are not considered combatants.

[Starvation Is Fun]

Submitted: Please approve.

Not often I actually involve myself in the WA these days beyond voting for what my region's citizens ask me to, but I figured I might as well pop in and approve this one

[Bears Armed]

Submitted: Please approve.

Not often I actually involve myself in the WA these days beyond voting for what my region's citizens ask me to, but I figured I might as well pop in and approve this one

Thank you.

[Pennswald]

While Pennswald applauds the intent of this proposal, we cannot in good conscience support it as currently worded. It is our opinion that resolutions should be clear and concise. This proposal is neither.

For example:

Realising that although most nations probably have fairly adequate measures in place for controlling fires in urban areas some might not yet have extended those systems to cover their more rural areas effectively too, and that the best ways for managing fires in rural areas — especially in wilderness — may differ from those useful at more urban sites anyway,

might be more clearly expressed as:

Realizing that controlling fires in urban areas is a priority, therefore some nations may not yet have adequate measures in place for controlling fires in rural areas and wilderness.

Every clause in this proposal requires additional polishing--personally I'd begin with #80 sandpaper and work my way to the 0000 steel wool.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Wildfires are an incredibly destructive force and indiscriminate in their effects. In this way they are not unlike weapons of mass destruction. As the Kawaiian people are opposed to WMDs of any kind, even nontraditional ones such as maliciously-set wildfires or other forms of environmental destruction, we support this proposal and approve it for voting.

[Soled]

On behalf of the USSR, As the Socialist Republic of Soled, i Approve of this resolution.
Just so ya know, this is my first time getting involved in the WA since forever.

[The Nevadan Desert]

From, the President of the Nevadan Desert:
How would the World Assembly ensure that this resolution strike a balance between environmental protection and industry? This is a real concern of the people of my nation, and they demand an answer. Thank you, and God bless.
-Joko Quails, President and Chief Diplomat of the Nevadan Desert

[Bears Armed Mission]

From, the President of the Nevadan Desert:
How would the World Assembly ensure that this resolution strike a balance between environmental protection and industry? This is a real concern of the people of my nation, and they demand an answer. Thank you, and God bless.
-Joko Quails, President and Chief Diplomat of the Nevadan Desert

If you need to clear land for industrial purposes then using controlled fires -- with suitable personnel & equipment on paw in case of trouble -- would be acceptable...
And wouldn't uncontrolled fire be as much of a threat to any industry in the vicinity as it is to anything else there?

[Mousebumples]

*gets out super glue to sticky the topic now that it's At Vote*

[Wrapper]

"RRAWR"? Cute but very silly indeed. Still voted in favor.

[Cekan]

This sounds like a good thing, so ya I voted for.

[Bears Armed Mission]

"RRAWR"? Cute but very silly indeed.

"t's the Ursine word for "Fire": What's so silly about that?

"When a human says "Rrawr" in praise of something they are, we presume, borrowing the Ursine word for use as an alternative to the English "Hot!"...
"Hrright?"


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.