NationStates

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.
Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: Agriculture
Proposed by: Erithaca
The General Assembly,

Shocked at the process of desertification, which causes the loss of bodies of water as well as vegetation and wildlife,

Noting that these in turn cause famine and drought,

Understanding that a major cause of desertification is removal of vegetation,

Hereby,

1. Mandates member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations to reduce excessive removal of vegetation for purposes relating to agriculture and otherwise.

2. Encourages member nations to educate those involved, especially agricultural workers, on desertification.

3. Strongly encourages member nations to take part in reforestation and construction of shelter belts, woodlots and windbreaks.

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,

b) reforestation is planned and maintained,

c) grazing is managed to prevent overgrazing,

d) water is conserved, collected and distributed in an orderly and fair manner in areas affected by desertification,

e) records are kept of areas at risk of or undergoing desertification, along with the status of any efforts against desertification.

If I remember correctly, "urges" is not enough tot actually create a meaningful piece of WA legislation and is against WA guidelines. It has to actually make the countries do something, perhaps using the word "mandate" would help.

Sougra wrote:If I remember correctly, "urges" is not enough tot actually create a meaningful piece of WA legislation and is against WA guidelines. It has to actually make the countries do something, perhaps using the word "mandate" would help.

You are probably correct. Do you have any idea as to what this proposal should do? Should I just strengthen the current urges?

Erithaca wrote:You are probably correct. Do you have any idea as to what this proposal should do?

Well, what's the primary reason for desertification? Add a part in there that would make it so that member nations have to minimize whatever causes desertification. There's a WA organization that deals with environmental concerns, so perhaps you could put them in charge of overseeing reforestation efforts, although I'm unsure if that's in their jurisdiction or not.

Sougra wrote:

Erithaca wrote:You are probably correct. Do you have any idea as to what this proposal should do?

Well, what's the primary reason for desertification? Add a part in there that would make it so that member nations have to minimize whatever causes desertification. There's a WA organization that deals with environmental concerns, so perhaps you could put them in charge of overseeing reforestation efforts, although I'm unsure if that's in their jurisdiction or not.

I have done so. What is the name of the organisation?

"Mandates that member nations take all possible steps to prevent removal of vegetation by tillage for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation in areas susceptible to desertification." – No. I'm fundamentally against mandates, insofar as you can deal with these issues by Pigouvian taxation.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:"Mandates that member nations take all possible steps to prevent removal of vegetation by tillage for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation in areas susceptible to desertification." – No. I'm fundamentally against mandates, insofar as you can deal with these issues by Pigouvian taxation.

All possible steps could include taxation.

Erithaca wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:"Mandates that member nations take all possible steps to prevent removal of vegetation by tillage for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation in areas susceptible to desertification." – No. I'm fundamentally against mandates, insofar as you can deal with these issues by Pigouvian taxation.

All possible steps could include taxation.

"All possible steps could include not engaging in agriculture. 'Possible' should be 'Reasonable.'"

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Erithaca wrote:All possible steps could include taxation.

"All possible steps could include not engaging in agriculture. 'Possible' should be 'Reasonable.'"

I will change it to reasonable, thanks for the input!

Erithaca wrote:Strength: Mild
Category: Environmental

The General Assembly,

Shocked at the process of desertification, which causes the loss of bodies of water as well as vegetation and wildlife,

Noting that these in turn cause famine and drought,

Understanding that a major cause of desertification is removal of vegetation,

Hereby,

1. Mandates that member nations take all reasonable steps to prevent removal of vegetation by tillage for agriculture, overgrazing and deforestation in areas susceptible to desertification.

You just banned farming, congrats.

2. Encourages member nations to educate those involved, especially agricultural workers, on overgrazing and soil management.

Agricultural workers are most likely the most knowledgeable people with regard to such topics.

3. Strongly encourages member nations to take part in reforestation and construction of shelter belts, woodlots and windbreaks.

Excellent idea.

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,

You might want to consult member states, too.

b) reforestation is planned and maintained,

c) grazing is managed to prevent overgrazing,

d) water is conserved, collected and distributed in an orderly and fair manner in areas affected by desertification,

e) records are kept of areas at risk of or undergoing desertification, along with the status of any efforts against desertification.

Reasonable enough.

In clause 1, it does say, "take all reasonable steps". Banning farming is unreasonable.

The UN runs programs of education for farmers on desertification. This is more the case in developing nations. I will change " overgrazing and soil management" to "desertification".

I will add member states to those consulted.

Thanks for the help Wallenburg!

Erithaca wrote:In clause 1, it does say, "take all reasonable steps". Banning farming is unreasonable.

The UN runs programs of education for farmers on desertification. This is more the case in developing nations. I will change " overgrazing and soil management" to "desertification".

I will add member states to those consulted.

Thanks for the help Wallenburg!

"By reasonable, one refers to plausible. I have to agree with Wallenburg that it would appear that Clause One bans farming, or at least regulates it into non-existence. We would propose an alternative wording for the clause:

Mandates member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations to reduce excessive removal of vegetation for purposes relating to agriculture and otherwise in areas prone to desertification,

More comments will be offered later today."

United Massachusetts wrote:

Erithaca wrote:In clause 1, it does say, "take all reasonable steps". Banning farming is unreasonable.

The UN runs programs of education for farmers on desertification. This is more the case in developing nations. I will change " overgrazing and soil management" to "desertification".

I will add member states to those consulted.

Thanks for the help Wallenburg!

"By reasonable, one refers to plausible. I have to agree with Wallenburg that it would appear that Clause One bans farming, or at least regulates it into non-existence. We would propose an alternative wording for the clause:

Mandates member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations to reduce excessive removal of vegetation for purposes relating to agriculture and otherwise,

More comments will be offered later today."

Thanks for the help! I was not trying to ban farming, just unsure about how to get my message across.

"We, here in The Grinning Business, directly oppose this. How is our commerce meant to operate with such a thing active?"

The Grinning Business wrote:"We, here in The Grinning Business, directly oppose this. How is our commerce meant to operate with such a thing active?"

The unnamed Mernian ambassador says, "Your commerce is meant to operate within the regulation, Ambassador."

The Grinning Business wrote:"We, here in The Grinning Business, directly oppose this. How is our commerce meant to operate with such a thing active?"

Desertification causes droughts and famine, definitely bad for your commerce!

United Massachusetts wrote:

Erithaca wrote:In clause 1, it does say, "take all reasonable steps". Banning farming is unreasonable.

The UN runs programs of education for farmers on desertification. This is more the case in developing nations. I will change " overgrazing and soil management" to "desertification".

I will add member states to those consulted.

Thanks for the help Wallenburg!

"By reasonable, one refers to plausible. I have to agree with Wallenburg that it would appear that Clause One bans farming, or at least regulates it into non-existence. We would propose an alternative wording for the clause:

"By reasonable, one refers to "within reason". Killing an entire industry, particularly one so crucial to society as we know it, is unreasonable.", Sofia Kerman chides.

Araraukar wrote:"Just one question. Would this ban restoring the natural state of land, when the natural state was desert or semi-desert?"

OOC: Like, say, in parts of RL California, removing things that were planted and watered (because they don't flourish in that climate without watering) by humans, to restore the natural desert flora?

No. It prevents certain areas becoming deserts.

Support. Always love to see reasonable proposed changes balancing environment & the agricultural industry. Maybe capitalize your points after A. B. C. etc

Snowman wrote:Support. Always love to see reasonable proposed changes balancing environment & the agricultural industry. Maybe capitalize your points after A. B. C. etc

I would rather not capitalise them, but thanks for the support! It currently has 57 approvals after 11 hours of voting.

Erithaca wrote:

Araraukar wrote:"Just one question. Would this ban restoring the natural state of land, when the natural state was desert or semi-desert?"

OOC: Like, say, in parts of RL California, removing things that were planted and watered (because they don't flourish in that climate without watering) by humans, to restore the natural desert flora?

No. It prevents certain areas becoming deserts.

That doesn’t answer the question. Ara asked whether désertification in general is banned, which you seem to answer affirmatively. But some areas have been artificially greened. Insofar as restoring those areas would increase the amount of desert, this proposal stops that.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Erithaca wrote:No. It prevents certain areas becoming deserts.

That doesn’t answer the question. Ara asked whether désertification in general is banned, which you seem to answer affirmatively. But some areas have been artificially greened. Insofar as restoring those areas would increase the amount of desert, this proposal stops that.

Would restoring be allowed under "reasonable measures"?

Erithaca wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:That doesn’t answer the question. Ara asked whether désertification in general is banned, which you seem to answer affirmatively. But some areas have been artificially greened. Insofar as restoring those areas would increase the amount of desert, this proposal stops that.

Would restoring be allowed under "reasonable measures"?

Shouldn't you, of all people, know? This is your proposal, after all.

The words 'reasonable measures' do not appear in the submission.