NationStates

Refuge Isle wrote:I'm interested in sending this in soon. Most of the critiques here have made adjustments by this third draft to accommodate them. With what remains, there might not be much to be done.

I'm more interested in Ransium's perspective that indigenous people can practice slash and burn sustainably more than I'm interested in finding a way to prevent Easter Island, politically backflipping how it's okay for the WA to be that into people's business. More importantly, I think placing restrictions on indigenous farming operations which don't meet the large scales intended could lead to a situation where they're forced to relocate to their more industrial counterparts to have enough food to live. I understand that there can be ecological damage created by those activities, but it's on a scale that's far lower than this resolution should be concerned with. This can be considered a flaw in the proposal, but any adjustment I can imagine would create much greater issues.

At this point, there are now four mandates, but I'm very happy with their wording and how easy they should be to follow in order to create some substantive preventative measures on this subject.

OOC: I will try to keep this short and sweet, because I'm quite busy IRL and I don't have much time to be typing out a lot of critique.

Basically, I share the sentiments as expressed by Ransium, Araraukar and IA. However, given that the issues raised are of minor nature in my opinion, and that this resolution is well-versed and more fluent in its definitions and mandates, I'm willing to vote for this resolution.

You know I’m not criticizing your proposal because I want to see it fail right? I’m trying to make it good enough to support. For four, the former is true, the latter would be true once the loopholes fixed.

The complaints that you've listed in your last post ("things that are fine"), aimed to make this resolution cover more territory are already handled in terms of logging and development in #291. This draft is aimed at agriculture and the effects of irresponsible agricultual practices. This proposal doesn't occur in a vacuum, but as a puzzle piece in an already pretty comprehensive body of law.

Refuge Isle wrote:This draft is aimed at agriculture and the effects of irresponsible agricultual practices.

OOC: Only a couple of them - it ignores water erosion completely, for instance - and in any case has nothing to do with desertification beyond a vague mention, so I suggest you remove that from the title.

This proposal doesn't occur in a vacuum, but as a puzzle piece in an already pretty comprehensive body of law.

But each proposal must be free-standing, so each proposal is looked at as if it did occur in a vacuum (aside from the contradiction/duplication issues).

You really need to number your main clauses. Out of seven, four are directly related to the committee (and one of them is New Age Bullshit Generator kind of stuff).

---

OOC: As somewhat related to this, something occurred to me, so I figured I'd ask this more generally: is the practice of grazing your cattle (at least if including goats and sheep) in a forest completely foreign to you all?

Or farming in a forest without cutting down the trees, for that matter?

Things aren't always black and white, and trying to ignore all the other colours will likely mean counter-campaigns and failure to pass and then ragequitting by the author, etc....

Araraukar wrote:and in any case has nothing to do with desertification beyond a vague mention, so I suggest you remove that from the title.

You must be joking. I'm not going to include a dissertation for supporting research in this proposal, but every mandate that's in the draft is aimed to tackle the top causes of desertification and, in fact, the preface is designed to outline them and explain what those are.

Araraukar wrote:But each proposal must be free-standing, so each proposal is looked at as if it did occur in a vacuum (aside from the contradiction/duplication issues).
...
Out of seven, four are directly related to the committee

Both of these sentences together are weird to me. Yes, I'm making use of the department that I'm creating. Not only so it has some reason to exist, but so I can have an organisation that can provide impartial information for when someone inevitably says "Well, who decides, that?" or "Who paid for that research?" and all of that can take place regardless of any other resolutions that are created or repealed in the future.

Araraukar wrote:You really need to number your main clauses.
...
(and one of them is New Age Bullshit Generator kind of stuff).

It is getting bulky at this point. I've added numbering and tweaked the wording of what I imagine you're complaining about so it sounds less self-righteous.

“Clause 3 should either have ‘a curriculum’ or ‘curricula’. Also, mandating that students understand the consequences of artificial desertification seems almost micromanaging.”

I've had several days to think about the criticisms on the issue of slash-and-burn, and I've decided to relent. Although I would be interested in seeing it, myself, it's reasonably outside of the scope of a desertification proposal, even with the concerns about its use for agriculture. Legislation on agricultural burning would also likely need its own resolution, because there's no way I can think of to efficiently specify exactly what should be limited and how indigenous people or someone burning a pine tree and planting a turnip in their yard could be adequately excluded. Finally, although it sucks, the rain forest burning down doesn't sufficiently tie to desertification in the manner that I've outlined it here. Logged rainforests are not at risk of becoming desert, at least not immediately.

What is at risk are already vulnerable areas that have their vegetation burned or removed, unable to lock in their moisture, eventually blowing away or becoming sterile. The now listed point six should cover the topic of irresponsible acts in that vein. Natural disasters should be adequately covered already in WA law. I'm not interested in creating a landmark omnibus environmental proposal, but for the topic at hand, this seems fine.

I also understand the concerns about anything related to education. But, although I don't have to, I would like to preserve some of the original ideology in #432 that people should be educated on this subject. Applying the issue to students who are already in school, with very easy to fill requirements to touch on the subject, should not overburden member states, and if there are no science courses in the member state, it does not compel them to make one or specify its designs. I will leave that for your own draft on the subject.

OOC: Logged and burned rainforests are in danger of water erosion more than wind.

But it is smart to remove something (slash and burn) from your proposal that would interfere with its focus.

I'll try to give you more comments tomorrow. Pain meds just kicked in and I need sleep.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Logged and burned rainforests are in danger of water erosion more than wind.

I understand, but does that result in a situation where the ground becomes sterile? That lack of vegetation which would otherwise hold water is where it's relevant to desertification.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Logged and burned rainforests are in danger of water erosion more than wind.

I understand, but does that result in a situation where the ground becomes sterile? That lack of vegetation which would otherwise hold water is where it's relevant to desertification.

OOC: Well, if the water washes away the fertile topsoil, it's not going to be very fertile, no, but nowhere is actually sterile, not even the Dry Valleys of Antarctica (some of the most hostile-to-life environments on Earth). Deserts are deserts because they evaporate more water than they gain from rainfall, not because they were not fertile. Heck, in RL dust from Sahara fertilizes Amazonian rainforest.

Araraukar wrote:Deserts are deserts because they evaporate more water than they gain from rainfall, not because they were not fertile.

I'm not saying that to imply that there are somehow no minerals in the soils. I'm saying that plants can't grow without water. Functionally, the middle of the sahara is sterile because the conditions are nearly impossible for plants to grow in. The semantics don't interest me, but I see what you mean.

How do you feel about me adding this to the draft?

If there aren't any additional issues with the draft, I'll be submitting it soon. We're pretty fleshed out at this point.

7 is a wordy mess that is hard to parse right now.

Ransium wrote:7 is a wordy mess that is hard to parse right now.

Improved. I would be concerned that reductions more than this might imply that a boot print on a hillside needs a microtrench installed around it.

OOC: On mobile device, so no detailed feedback right now, but if you submitted it, please withdraw it. It can be improved to make it more palatable to voters.

I have approved your proposal. Good luck!

“Unfortunately, no support from me. This is simply too restrictive and one-size-fits-all.”

OOC: Well I won't hinder it simply because of the category, but if it fails, I have some suggestions on how to improve it. Still a bit disappointed, because you could have done a lot better.

"The NAR is in full support of this bill."

I am against this proposal, due to just personal opinion, as this would waste money.

There's always next time, Ara <3

ZSeparatists wrote:I am against this proposal, due to just personal opinion, as this would waste money.

Of course, you're welcome to vote as you see fit. But, for the most part, the mandates only apply to the areas that need them.

If you have a farm in a region that's known to the ESWA to be vulnerable to a desertification, you should be protecting that space if you still want to take the risk and continue exploiting fragile land. Farms that aren't in that risk zone don't have to do anything.

If you clear-cut a forest and now there's no root systems holding the ground together, risking mudslides and soil situations that can't grow much of anything, you should be protecting that soil with some ground forms that collect and channel that water. If you didn't damage the land in such a severe way, or what you're doing doesn't make this risk, you don't have to do anything. And so on.

Even if you feel like adding a page or two in a secondary school science class is an undue burden on undeveloped nations that don't have science programs, great news: this resolution doesn't ask you to make one. Just add to it if it's there, and the WA can even provide ESWA reports and recommendations to build that lesson.

The goal of this resolution isn't to place a heavy burden on every WA nation and waste money, it's designed to target troublemakers, both for the good of their own citizenry and so there is some protection for nations that are nearby and can get hit with the consequences of someone else's bad decisions.

Refuge Isle wrote:There's always next time, Ara <3

OOC: Yeah, and if anyone would like to write a repeal, I'd be happy to help.

Refuge Isle wrote:The goal of this resolution isn't to place a heavy burden on every WA nation and waste money

It still does that with clause 2. The WA's money comes directly from the member nations. You're having the committee burn through helluva lot of it.

I vote in favour of the proposal, as I cannot identify any drawbacks with a proposal which consists of "do X if doing X is good". However, I just wanted to note that this proposal is a recipient of the strangest formatting convention.

Understanding, although desertification and erosion have taken place for eons beyond remembrance, where the activities of sapient beings exacerbate those processes or cause the expansion of drylands to take place where they otherwise would not, far reaching negative consequences can result. *Who is doing the understanding? This sentence doesn't have a subject.*

...

This General Assembly, in seeking to avoid such environmental repercussions, hereby:

1. Establishes *Is bolding really necessary? Why is it inconsistent with the last clause and the preamble?* the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly (ESWA) *Does this really need bolding?* as a research and advisory department within the World Assembly Scientific Programme, employing an appropriate number of scientists and support staff, and paid for by the WA general fund with no external sources for financial contribution permitted;

2. Instructs the ESWA to:

1. Conduct ground, water, and atmospheric surveys of member nations' territories, as well as accessible international areas in order to collect data on their environmental situations. *This is a sentence. However, within a list broken up over multiple lines, it is not necessary to capitalise.*
   
2. Keep and publish records of survey findings, develop estimations to the cause of any changes in a survey area over time, and create pdodgerblueictions of future trends. *This is not a sentence. There is no subject. Who is doing the keeping? And if it is a command, where is the command verb?*
   
3. Alert member nations to at-risk areas of environmental degradation caused by their sapient inhabitants and issue recommendations for appropriate countermeasures.
   
4. Identify areas in member nations’ territories as candidates for reforestation, land reclamation, and rehabilitation, where environmental degradation has been artificially made.
   
5. Allow volunteer scientists with relevant expertise to assist with ESWA research under supervision.

3. Instructs member nations to develop and implement curricula as a comprehensive component of existing education in geological sciences for their nation’s youth in order to understand the causes, consequences, and solutions for artificial desertification; *Why does this end with a semicolon when the last section's last clause ended with a full stop? Who is being instructed?*

4. Requires member nations to prohibit over-grazing and, instead, employ sustainable, targeted grazing practices, defined as the rotation of livestock between pastures with fallowing periods sufficient to allow plants to recover, unless the livestock is being used to maintain a controlled conservation area for the purposes of improving biodiversity, or unless the livestock is temporarily used to fertilise and prepare farmland;

5. Orders member nations to install or plant windbreaks around farm fields in areas designated by the ESWA to be “at-risk” of wind erosion, in sufficient intervals to be effective; *And what if there is no interval where it is effective? Or if effectiveness requires the rolling out of the farmers onto the dole?*

6. Requires member nations develop and implement legislation prohibiting the excessive removal or destruction of vegetation, defined *the word "if" would suffice, mutatis mutandis* as such removal or destruction resulting in exposed, *Comma unnecessary, confuses with parenthetical* unprotected soils creating a threat of artificial desertification or contributing to existing desertification in the local area;

7. Mandates that member nations implement water control measures on their landscapes made artificially vulnerable to ecologically damaging levels of water erosion, with such measures able *probably rephrased to "where such measures channel..."* to channel surface runoff into swales, *I did not know what this word meant, so I looked it up.* contour trenches, or other systems that preserve water, soil, and vegetation fertility; *Where is the "and" after the penult?*

8. Recommends that member nations work in harmony to develop and contribute to reforestation projects in areas identified by the ESWA to be targets for rehabilitation.[/quote]

*For ease, I'd keep the drafts and explanations in a separate post right under the first one.*

My clauses in italics do not have binding effects. In the first half of the proposal, they introduce the issue, in point 8, they form a non-binding recommendation. Clauses in bold are binding or otherwise substantively compel the GA to do something. That's a stylistic choice of mine, you're free to disagree with it.

Items inside point 2 follow "Instructs the ESWA to..." you can attach that to each lettered point within two, which you knew already. "The General Assembly ... instructs the ESWA to ... keep and publish records of survey findings..." and so on. In my secondary school, it was appropriate to capitalise after a colon, if that was incorrect or doesn't work in legal text...well, I'm not too bothered.

"This General Assembly ... Instructs member nations to develop" seems like it's pretty clear wording to me. Actually, the rest of your criticisms seem to be feign confusion to lodge a complaint about the grammar there as well. Which would have been a relevant suggestion during the two week period this issue was in drafting instead of right now, but I understand you had a couple of proposals to steamroll instead.

Ultimately, I maintain that, while the proposals submitted to the GA should be well developed and thought-out, precise writing techniques the likes of which you would find in an eight hundred page English law book should not be required to participate, nor a law degree or Latin as a second language required to vote on the issue. Were it the case, no one would participate at all. This proposal is aimed at replacing a one hundred and seventy eight word document which was vague and entirely optional. It ended up three times that length and far more comprehensive than I had planned. But no matter when I submitted it, whose special interests I added, or what socially popular formatting styles I used, it's not going to be for everyone. Let better not be the undoing of good.

The North Pacific has issued a recommendation of voting FOR to our WA nations. Good luck!