[CHALLENGE] Preventing Desertification

[Bananaistan]

Araraukar has lodged a challenge to this proposal which is currently in the queue and due to go to vote in 8 hours.

Further to the decision in Promoting Research on Life in Foetuses and Embryos where it was decided that a proposal must be submitted in the category or AoE which is the best fit rather than merely one of many "good fits", I feel we have no choice but to rule on this and assess whether the Agriculture AoE is the best fit in this case. I move that we hear the challenge.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

As this is now at vote we owe at least a cursory memo on the matter. Seconded and yea.

[Bananaistan]

So then, what are our thoughts? Is Agriculture the appropriate Area of Effect? The first clause is the meat and bones of the proposal and effects all industries which would have cause to remove vegetation, the second clause, a mere encouragement, is directed primarily at agriculture, the third clause, also a mere encouragement, effects all industries which use land, and the fourth clause contains two procedural provisions, a) and e), while one of the remaining three sub-clauses is explicitly related to agriculture and two effect all industries. Also, due to the sub-clause a) which states that WAEC must ensure that "efforts are ... approved by ... government", the entirety of these three sub-clauses are effectively mere encouragements.

That's about far as we can go without trying to extrapolate RL data on just which industries go about excessively removing vegetation to the fictional NS multiverse. I think we should overturn the PROLIFE precedent. Agriculture as an AoE is good enough based on the foregoing analysis of the clauses even if assigning a greater weight to the mandates clause would lead one to think that all industries would be a better fit. I can see no other way to precisely assess the best fit without going about RL fact checking. Also, there is modly precedent for modly precedent being overturned relatively quickly.

As to the second point of the challenge, that's a real hit and hope one I think. I'm unclear if these "desert wetlands" fall within the definition of wetlands in GAR#413, and even if they do, the remainder of the challenge seems spurious.

[Bears Armed]

I agree that Agriculture is a good enough AoE, and suspect that in most nations that would be the industry most extensively affected.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm agreed on the dubiousness of the #413 challenge (for starters, the target proposal doesn't actually outlaw intentional desertification!). But I also disagree that, given the actual text of the proposal, All Businesses is clearly a better fit. From the PROLIFE opinion:

...we are convinced that a proposal must be placed in a certain subcategory if it clearly fits into that subcategory more than any other subcategory. On the other hand, if a proposal does not clearly fit into one particular subcategory, the fit must be reasonable.

(emphasis in original)

Since the proposal's clauses 1, 2, and 4(c) explicitly mention agriculture (or agricultural activities) it's clear that the intended regulatory target is the agriculture industry. 4(d) mandates water conservation (which certainly affects agriculture). And the very first clause emphasizes removal of vegetation, which is really only an issue for two major industries: agriculture and logging - but we already have Sustainable Forest Management on the books, so theoretically the logging industry is already taking precautions with its plant removal schemes.

So while the aggregate effects of these regulations will affect other businesses, the main target is agriculture, and the regulations will affect agriculture more than any single other industry.

Also, the challenge argument relies entirely too much on arguments within the forum thread, and not enough on the actual text of the proposed law. I don't care if the author said he wants the agency to take every possible action to conserve water, the text doesn't give it that power. All its actions are restricted by the requirements of 4(a) as well as the "fair and orderly distribution" requirement of 4(d).

I believe the targeted proposal is legal, and legal within our own precedent to boot.

[Bananaistan]

100% agree that the arguments based on what the author said in the drafting thread are irrelevant.

Regarding Sustainable Forest Management, the presence of a resolution with similar aims in a particular AoE does not close off this resolution's effect on that industry. If we took the view that it does, then a resolution could be illegal today and legal tomorrow but not because of contradiction or duplication with a subsequently repealed resolution. I don't like that idea. This resolution's effects on logging are not null and void merely because another one has already mentioned it.

Having mentioned logging, you could argue the toss that this has a similar effect on both agriculture and logging. As well as its references to agriculture, logging is directly impacted by the mentions of reforestation. If it's the case that either of these would be a good fit, doesn't that make all businesses by default the clear best fit? Particularly when there is an undeniable but minor effect on other industries (EG mining involves removal of vegetation as well).

[Christian Democrats]

I believe the targeted proposal is legal, and legal within our own precedent to boot.

Based on the test that we elaborated in the Promoting Research decision, I entirely agree. Preventing Desertification "does not clearly fit into one particular subcategory," and its fit in Agriculture is "reasonable." Therefore, the proposal is legal.

[Christian Democrats]

I believe the targeted proposal is legal, and legal within our own precedent to boot.

Based on the test that we elaborated in the Promoting Research decision, I entirely agree. Preventing Desertification "does not clearly fit into one particular subcategory," and its fit in Agriculture is "reasonable." Therefore, the proposal is legal.

Also, we should cite our "most noticeable consequence" test, set forth in our Trade of Endangered Organisms decision.

viewtopic.php?p=31029747#p31029747

Preventing Desertification is compliant with the "most noticeable consequence" test and the "clear fit" test.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

That's four-zip for Legal, yes? I'm not able to write anything substantial tonight and maybe tomorrow, but we can and should let the community know that we'll not be Discarding this one. I'll have a draft later in the week unless someone is feeling inspired sooner.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Draft

(This feels woefully incomplete; I've left something out, I'm sure. If it strikes you what that might be, please post. Thanks!)

We are asked to declare the proposal "Preventing Desertification" illegal based on two criteria: 1) a Category/Area of Effect violation, and 2) Contradiction of GA Res. #413. We find neither allegation convincing, and the proposal is legal.

Much of the meat of the AoE challenge rests on forum commentary elicited during the drafting process. We disregard this. "The law does what the law says." Where the law is ambiguous, authorial commentary can be useful in interpreting the intent of a particular clause; but there is no such ambiguity in this proposal. Per past procedure, we examine 1) is the most noticeable consequence of the proposal in line with the category/AoE? and 2) does it clearly fit into the chosen AoE better than into any other, and if there is no clear best fit AoE, is the chosen AoE a reasonable fit? By both these criteria, the proposal fits Environmental/Agriculture.

What is the aggregate effect of this proposal? The mandated actions are the regulation of vegetation removal; "feasible" and non-"harmful" "efforts against desertification;" reforestation (emphasis added); regulation of grazing; water conservation; and recordkeeping.

It is true that other businesses besides agriculture use water and clear land for development or mineral extraction. But the land used for these other activities is miniscule compared to that needed for agriculture. While you can see certain mines from space, most of what can be seen is farmland or wilderness; and while many people are employed as miners or in developed areas, they don't use more than a fraction of the land used by farmers. GenSec is not the arbiter of RL scientific fact, but these intuitive tests are sufficiently supported by cursory research to leave it to voters even if we were in the business of determining RL facts. In any case, the citation of grazing in Clause 4(c) specifically targets agriculture in a way that no other clause therein targets any other business. The most noticeable consequences here are to agriculture. And while it is true that other businesses are affected, no industry is affected as much as agriculture; so this AoE is certainly a reasonable fit, and arguably the clear best fit.

The Contradiction challenge rests largely on an incorrect assumption: that the proposal actually forbids the creation of deserts. It does not do so; rather, the removal of vegetation must be regulated. Meanwhile efforts to relieve the advance of deserts are required not to be harmful. Together, these clauses make the proposal fully compatible with all of #413's wetland removal mitigation schemes, including the restoration of wetlands or the new creation of similar wetlands.

Therefore neither plank of the challenge is successful, and the proposal is legal.

[Christian Democrats]

Per past procedure, we examine 1) is the most noticeable consequence of the proposal in line with the category/AoE? and 2) does it clearly fit into the chosen AoE better than into any other, and if there is no clear best fit AoE, is the chosen AoE a reasonable fit?

I think this sentence should be revised. Maybe, it can say:

According to precedent, we examine, first, whether the most noticeable consequence of the proposal fits the category. If the proposal meets this test, we ask, second, whether the proposal clearly fits into one area of effect more than any other and, if not, whether the fit in the chosen area of effect is reasonable.

This is how I understand our precedent.

[Bananaistan]

I don't agree with either SL's or CD's paragraph. I do not see that the discussion about "most notable consequence" in the opinion on ToEO sets out a test nor how it's comparable to this challenge.

First, it's not set out as a test. There's a paragraph discussing what the moral decency category is in generalities and then the relevant paragraph in which "most notable consequence" is mentioned. This paragraph appears to be entirely specific to the challenged proposal. If we wish to set up a test, then we need to make it a generally applicable test. Perhaps even mentioning the word test would be a good idea. Neither seems to apply in this case.

The sentences in the opinion on ToEO are "Killing members of an endangered species may well be morally unacceptable, and a law against it thus enacted to restrict personal conduct for moralistic ends. But the most noticeable consequence of the way this proposal bans such killings isn't a reduction of the personal freedom of would-be poachers, it is the loss of profits to those caught trading in the products of those animals. Therefore, since ToEO acts primarily on economic rights for the benefit of the ecosystem, it properly belongs under Environmental and is thus illegal as submitted." I'm struggling to see how this can be extrapolated to all future challenges and CP rulings and to what particular effect of a proposal it should apply, even if we accept that there is now a "most notable consequence" test. The opinion mentions "the way this proposal bans such killings". I can't even see where the challenged version of ToEO banned any killings tbh.

In this case, do we look at the first clause and decide that we should assess the most notable consequence of how that clause, and therefore the proposal, regulates "excessive removal of vegetation"? Or perhaps the committee's work is most relevant? One could say that in this case it's clear that the first clause is the strongest clause but how would you assess a proposal with several mandates of equal strength? The "most notable consequence" of which particular effect of such a resolution would be relevant?

The precedent from PROLIFE is adequate here. None of the three AoEs which would have been reasonable are a "clearly fits" AoE. Leave it at that would be my recommendation. But if we are determined to bring in a "most notable consequence" test then it needs a awful lot of clarification on just how we will go about judging which consequence of a proposal with many would be judged to be the most notable. We require this ourselves for our ongoing CP rulings but more importantly we need to provide authors with clear precedent.

Regarding the paragraph detailing how RL land is used by evidence of satellite photographs, I note that forestation and the logging industry are not mentioned. The other AoEs in which the proposal could have fit were logging and all businesses. I'm not sure that a discussion on RL mining and building is at all relevant.

I'll join in respect of contradiction but not in respect of the category argument.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Lemme take another crack at it, then. I don't think we're as far apart as the length of your objections would seem to imply. Although a 2+2 to 0 (or 1) concurrence wouldn't be as bad here as it would have been in past instances. I'll have a revision tonight or tomorrow.

Mention of logging was one of the items I missed and couldn't think of, fwiw. Cheers.

[Christian Democrats]

The precedent from PROLIFE is adequate here. None of the three AoEs which would have been reasonable are a "clearly fits" AoE. Leave it at that would be my recommendation.

I would sign an opinion along these lines.

[Sciongrad]

The precedent from PROLIFE is adequate here. None of the three AoEs which would have been reasonable are a "clearly fits" AoE. Leave it at that would be my recommendation.

I would sign an opinion along these lines.

I'm in agreement here. I would also sign on to SL's paragraph about contradiction, as is.

Regarding the "most noticeable consequence" test: I think this is the wrong approach to take regarding categories. While I'm sure some will push back (particularly Issues Editors), I don't think GenSec should strike down a proposal because it is not in the optimal category. A superior test — and one that gets us out of having to make sometimes very technical category determinations — would be to determine whether the proposal reasonably fits into the chosen category.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

DRAFT

I'm not quite happy with this yet, but it's moving in the right direction. Happy to take wording suggestions.

We are asked to declare the proposal "Preventing Desertification" illegal based on two criteria: 1) a Category/Area of Effect violation, and 2) Contradiction of GA Res. #413. We find neither allegation convincing, and the proposal is legal.

Much of the meat of the AoE challenge rests on forum commentary elicited during the drafting process. We disregard this. "The law does what the law says." Where the law is ambiguous, authorial commentary can be useful in interpreting the intent of a particular clause; but there is no such ambiguity in this proposal. Per past procedure, we examine 1) does it clearly fit into the chosen AoE better than into any other, and 2) if there is no clear best fit AoE, is the chosen AoE a reasonable fit? By these criteria, the proposal fits Environmental/Agriculture.

What is the aggregate effect of this proposal? The mandated actions are the regulation of vegetation removal; "feasible" and non-"harmful" "efforts against desertification;" reforestation (emphasis added); regulation of grazing; water conservation; and recordkeeping.

It is true that other businesses besides agriculture use water and clear land for development or mineral extraction. But based on the eyeball test (more or less looking at early-paragraph Wikipedia statistics and satellite photographs) the land used for these other activities is miniscule compared to that needed for agriculture. GenSec does its level best not to be the arbiter of RL facts, and so unless the proposal is clearly directing its mandates at a category or AoE other than that in which it was submitted, we leave it to the voters to decide. By this measure neither Mining nor All Businesses makes a more suitable candidate than Agriculture.

What of Logging? The citation of grazing in Clause 4(c) specifically targets agriculture in a way that no other clause therein targets any other business, even logging. However, vegetation removal is loggers' basic job description, and the ecological objections to clearcutting for lumber vs. slash-and-burn farming are extremely similar. The mention of farmers in Clause 2 is merely rhetorical, then, so the lack of education suggested for loggers is irrelevant. The proposal could have been submitted under Logging with only a little alteration to its active clauses. But that doesn't make Logging a better fit; only an equivalent fit. So the chosen AoE is certainly a reasonable fit, even if not quite the clear single best fit. Therefore the Category/AoE challenge is insufficient to discard the proposal.

The Contradiction challenge rests largely on an incorrect assumption: that the proposal actually forbids the creation of deserts. It does not do so; rather, the removal of vegetation must be regulated. Meanwhile efforts to relieve the advance of deserts are required not to be harmful. Together, these clauses make the proposal fully compatible with all of #413's wetland removal mitigation schemes, including the restoration of wetlands or the new creation of similar wetlands.

Therefore neither plank of the challenge is successful, and the proposal is legal.

[Sciongrad]

I'll sign on to that, as far as its substance. Will see if I can make any changes later today.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll sign on to that, as far as its substance. Will see if I can make any changes later today.

I'll sign the opinion as well.

Back in March, this is exactly how I intended the Promoting Research decision to be interpreted and applied. If a proposal clearly fits into an AOE, it must be placed in that AOE. However, most proposals don't clearly fit somewhere, so their fit must be reasonable.

[Bananaistan]

I'd appreciate it if this could be added to the ruling post as a concurring opinion, please.

I agree with the majority that the challenged proposal could have reasonably fit in the logging AoE. However, due to the combination of the two “reasonable fit” AoEs, agriculture and logging, and the minor effects on other industries and AoEs, I would add "All Businesses" as a third reasonable fit. I agree with the majority opinion on all other points.

[Bears Armed]

I'd appreciate it if this could be added to the ruling post as a concurring opinion, please.

I agree with the majority that the challenged proposal could have reasonably fit in the logging AoE. However, due to the combination of the two “reasonable fit” AoEs, agriculture and logging, and the minor effects on other industries and AoEs, I would add "All Businesses" as a third reasonable fit. I agree with the majority opinion on all other points.

I'll sign on to this version.