Erithaca wrote:In the resolution, the word is "oversee". This suggests either advisory and regulatory, when appropriate.
Another important word is "ensure", which is even stronger.
If indeed the WAEC is playing a regulatory role, then its mandate and powers should be clearly defined and limited. This is not presently the case. At the moment the resolution suggests that the WAEC can freely regulate desertification efforts (a) and forestation (b), as well as aspects of agriculture (c) and water usage (d). I think this is far too much unchecked power for an international administrative agency.
Martin Russell Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
As I noted on our region's message board:
My reading of the proposal is narrower. In my opinion, subsection 4(a) limits all of section 4. In other words, there can be no "efforts" for the agency to oversee, unless those "efforts are [1] feasible, [2] not harmful and [3] approved by the local community and government."
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:52 pm
by A Bright Future
I agree with Christian Democrats' reading which is why I supported this earlier on.
Regarding area of effect, would the area of effect (ag) be illegal if the proposal mandates "member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations [...] relating to agriculture and otherwise"?
Or does the AoE limit the "and otherwise"?
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:05 pm
by Imperial States of Burgh
The Glorious Empire votes in favour of the resolution.
As for issues of legality, the law is whatever the God-Emperor says it is.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:24 pm
by Triangle And Square
"Against, because you never defined what 'desertification' is. Most resolutions will first define their topic either in the pre-amble or in the actionable clauses."
Since you already pointed out the mistakes in TNP's analysis on the resolution in this factbook, I'm not going to put that here now.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:04 pm
by Mihaiteren
"I like my nature walks as much as the next young prince. In fact, my country has a very lovely environment. Not world-class perhaps, but still very nice. Nevertheless, this bill is far too vague. Put some legislation on the table with better-defined terms and clearer objectives, and I may support it. As for now, however, I'm afraid I most vote against this bill."
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:56 pm
by Shaktirajya
We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, vote FOR this resolution as We see the Earth as a manifestation of the Goddess Herself and as such, We heartily defend any legislation to preserve and protect the Environment.
Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:14 am
by Imperium Anglorum
MADSONS: This action here would take one more step against allowing us to sterilise the environment and replacing it with a market system. Absolutely unacceptable.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:33 pm
by Cosmopolitan borovan
Against. We need limits and expectations how the nation's and the agency to prevent desertification.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 am
by Equalsun Empire
So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?
4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:
a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,
In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:37 am
by Imperial States of Burgh
Equalsun Empire wrote:So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?
4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:
a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,
In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".
OOC: I'm glad there's another supporter of the Oxford Comma. The use of it helps to make the meaning clear. I've never really understood the desire to get rid of the Oxford Comma. It helps avoid confusion and ambiguity.
Equalsun Empire wrote:So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?
4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:
a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,
In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".
(OOC: Whilst I am a firm supporter of the Oxford comma, I think the intended meaning here is fairly clear, and isn't a justified argument for voting against.)
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:11 am
by Erithaca
It is a well-written proposal. A single comma, or rather the lack of it, is not a reason to vote against when the meaning is abundantly clear.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:26 am
by Auralia
Christian Democrats wrote:As I noted on our region's message board:
My reading of the proposal is narrower. In my opinion, subsection 4(a) limits all of section 4. In other words, there can be no "efforts" for the agency to oversee, unless those "efforts are [1] feasible, [2] not harmful and [3] approved by the local community and government."
I think this might push things too far in the opposite direction, then. Is it really good policy to declare that all efforts against desertification -- which is a broad category of action -- must be approved by both the local community and government?
Equalsun Empire wrote:So, is now a bad time to bring up the Oxford Comma?
4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:
a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,
In a) the lack of a comma after the first "and" changes the meaning from getting approval from the local government to ensuring that the WAEC does not get approval from the local government. This is from the grouping of "harmful" with "approved by the local community and government".
Your suggested interpretation is incorrect, as it would render the sentence grammatically incorrect. You would still require an "and" to connect the clauses "feasible" and "not harmful and approved by the local community and government".
Martin Russell Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Christian Democrats wrote:As I noted on our region's message board:
My reading of the proposal is narrower. In my opinion, subsection 4(a) limits all of section 4. In other words, there can be no "efforts" for the agency to oversee, unless those "efforts are [1] feasible, [2] not harmful and [3] approved by the local community and government."
I think this might push things too far in the opposite direction, then. Is it really good policy to declare that all efforts against desertification -- which is a broad category of action -- must be approved by both the local community and government?
I agree this is a problem particularly given that some local communities may be very happy to veto anti-desertification measures for their local interest and at the expense of national efforts in this area. That being said national law may allow governments to mandate local communities consent to government measures. Maybe this mitigates the problem.
ABF Representative to the WA Vuk Jeremić
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:25 am
by ThePenguinLand
My Personal problem with the resolution is that it`s vague and over concerned. It`s worded in such a way that makes it seem like a paranoid prophecy of doom. These factors do make me see it as a rushed and unconvincing policy. It seems to offer the ability for it`s enforcement to be ignored by it`s vague wording, yet it also offers the ability to have far more oversight than is needed. Okay, admittedly after saying this I did vote for this resolution not because I believe it`s well thought out, yet because if this issue is addressed and handled by our government than it probably will be managed well. I agree the oversight clause is dubious and practically the only reason I actually voted for the resolution in it`s current state. Oh well, we`ll just see how this turns out. (P.S. The world Assembly seems to be focusing on regulating agriculture more than usual recently, thoughts as to why?).
Gary Marvell, ThePenguinland Ambassador to the Word Assembly.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:43 pm
by Bananaistan
Erithaca wrote:It is a well-written proposal. A single comma, or rather the lack of it, is not a reason to vote against when the meaning is abundantly clear.
OOC: It really isn't (a well written proposal). It has a single hard and fast mandate which is defanged by the word "excessive". Then you have nullified the committee's work by only allowing them to carry out their mandate with the permission of the local community and government.
Auralia wrote:I think this might push things too far in the opposite direction, then. Is it really good policy to declare that all efforts against desertification -- which is a broad category of action -- must be approved by both the local community and government?
I agree this is a problem particularly given that some local communities may be very happy to veto anti-desertification measures for their local interest and at the expense of national efforts in this area. That being said national law may allow governments to mandate local communities consent to government measures. Maybe this mitigates the problem.
ABF Representative to the WA Vuk Jeremić
In my view, this proposal leaves national governments in the driver's seat. They're the ones in charge of leading anti-desertification efforts. If a national government is slacking off and allowing a "dust bowl" situation to emerge, an international committee may step in and bypass the national government, but only if "the local community and government" consent to the intervention. Maybe, for some ambassadors, this solution is too mild. I think it strikes a logical balance among international, national, and local power.
Also, we should not forget Section 1 of this proposal.
A Bright Future wrote:I agree this is a problem particularly given that some local communities may be very happy to veto anti-desertification measures for their local interest and at the expense of national efforts in this area. That being said national law may allow governments to mandate local communities consent to government measures. Maybe this mitigates the problem.
ABF Representative to the WA Vuk Jeremić
In my view, this proposal leaves national governments in the driver's seat. They're the ones in charge of leading anti-desertification efforts. If a national government is slacking off and allowing a "dust bowl" situation to emerge, an international committee may step in and bypass the national government, but only if "the local community and government" consent to the intervention. Maybe, for some ambassadors, this solution is too mild. I think it strikes a logical balance among international, national, and local power.
Erithaca wrote:It is a well-written proposal. A single comma, or rather the lack of it, is not a reason to vote against when the meaning is abundantly clear.
OOC: It really isn't (a well written proposal). It has a single hard and fast mandate which is defanged by the word "excessive". Then you have nullified the committee's work by only allowing them to carry out their mandate with the permission of the local community and government.
When I said "well-written", I meant "in coherent English and not worthy of grammar nitpicking".
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:03 pm
by Auralia
Christian Democrats wrote:In my view, this proposal leaves national governments in the driver's seat. They're the ones in charge of leading anti-desertification efforts.
I don't think so. The proposal clearly states that "the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that...efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government."
There is no qualification, so I think it's likely that the WAEC must oversee all "efforts" against desertification. Since the WAEC is tasked with "ensur[ing]" that such efforts are "approved by the local community", that is tantamount to a veto for local communities for any "effort" against desertification.
This interpretation is consistent with section 1. It is not clear exactly how section 1 and section 5 interact with each other, but it does seem likely that if a member state wants to take action beyond what is strictly required by section 1, they could be barred from doing so by local governments.
Martin Russell Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:30 am
by Little Tralfamadore
Mandates member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations to reduce excessive removal of vegetation for purposes relating to agriculture and otherwise.
What is "reasonable" ? What is "excessive" ? Just a couple of vague statements with no meaning and no enforcement as nation would just say they felt their actions were reasonable and non-excessive
A bunch of encouragements (even "strongly") has no effect.
And then a committee (at what and whose expense) oversees efforts that approved by local governments. If the local governemnt approved it why is the committe needed to make sure efforts are approved by local governments
We vote no on this meaningless ineffictive proposal
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:27 pm
by Wallenburg
Preventing Desertification was passed 11,231 votes to 6,925.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:19 pm