[DRAFT #1b] Repeal GA#473 "Responsible Land Management"

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 3,013
Word count: 446

Susanna Bryant, eighth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: On further consideration, our delegation has reached a consensus that the resolution on desertification is unfit for purpose. And they had to ask me to write the blighted thing!
Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: There have been two known attempts to repeal Resolution Four-Hundred and Seventy-Three up to now: one of them read simply "I like this idea, and its cool. Its hardcore, its lawful, and its capitalista!" and the other "I like the environment I like trees I love the beautiful forest and trees!". We hope that you will receive Susanna's draft better than either of those proposals by the former ambassador from Aydensoft.
Jimmy McTiernan, an Understudy for Tinhampton's WA Delegation: Wind is not sapient... as far as I know, anyway.

OOC 1: Refuge on Article 3: "it's not going to cost two billion of your favourite currency to get a textbook author panel to write up two pages from ESWA data and ask a teacher to include three slides in a PowerPoint in 9th grade to present" the education required under that Article... and that was when it had a stronger requirement that members introduce "robust education programs with ESWA data for their nation’s youth to understand the causes, threats, and solutions for desertification and how students may ultimately aid this field"

OOC 2: Previous repeals have argued that replacement international legislation ought not to be passed and/or that member states or their subsidiaries have been more than able to discharge its main provisions without WA interference. See HR#87, HR#143, HR#145, HR#157, HR#162, HR#165, HR#173, HR#189, GA#137, GA#138, GA#154, GA#157 (the second best repeal in the history of the World Assembly), GA#188, GA#225, GA#245, GA#251, GA#269, possibly GA#274, GA#276, GA#293, GA#331, GA#368 (the best repeal in the history of the World Assembly), and GA#497.

Repeal "Responsible Land Management"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#473

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #473 “Responsible Land Management” (Category: Environmental; Area of Effect: Agriculture) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising that, while desertification is an important issue for some member states, the target resolution fails in its attempts to impose multiple one-size-fits-none solutions upon all members,

Concerned that Article 6 of GA#473 compels members to ban "excessive removal or destruction of vegetation... resulting in exposed, unprotected soils creating a threat of artificial desertification or contributing to existing desertification," doing so while:

1. failing to explicitly outline the minimum surface area that must be affected by the actions described in said Article for vegetation removal to be deemed "excessive" (see GA#471 "Repeal "Preventing Desertification""),
2. not defining "desertification" (see GA#471 again), thereby leaving players of ball games such as rugby and association football at inadvertent risk of being criminalised simply for degrading the grass pitch they are playing on, and
3. insisting that they outlaw the kinds of soil exposure described in Article 6 if it merely poses "a threat of artificial desertification" (regardless of whether desertification ever actually occurs as a result), requiring them to make subjective judgment calls on how much vegetation can be removed before it poses such a threat,

Unnerved that Article 5 requires members - rather than their political subdivisions or even individual farmers - "to install or plant windbreaks around farm fields in areas designated by the ESWA to be “at-risk” of wind erosion," whether or not such installation is viable for any involved party,

Observing that members are not required to co-operate with the ESWA regarding "reforestation, land reclamation, and rehabilitation" within their jurisdiction as outilned in Article 2d, thereby rendering GA#473 much less effective in ensuring that they actually reverse desertification rather than just prevent it,

Mildly baffled that "no external sources for financial contribution [are] permitted" by the ESWA even if such contributions are not intended to (or otherwise cannot) sway the outcome of any ESWA research, given that GA#322 "On Scientific Cooperation" allows its parent committee - the WA Scientific Program - to receive donations from non-WA entities for certain purposes, including for purposes relating to collaborative research,

Noting that the only effective alternative to resolutions such as GA#473 requiring member states to implement extremely vaguely-defined and barely effective measures against desertification would be to order them to impose unnecessarily specific countermeasures, thereby rendering such laws of little use in any event, and thus

Believing that those member states most acutely affected by desertification, working in collaboration with other governments and their own landowners, are best placed to develop solutions that are innovative and truly comprehensive (rather than vague and compromising) to the challenges that it poses...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#473 "Responsible Land Management."

[North Supreria]

General Assembly Resolution #473 “Responsible Land Management”

North Supreria would like to point out to the ambassador of Tinhampton that the reference of GAR#473 in the proposal refers to GAR#440. North Supreria will now read the proposal, but could not let this go unnoticed.

[Tinhampton]

Susanna Bryant: Thank you... attempts to look at name tag North Supreria? Some patriotism there... I will admit that our delegation's generic template was used with very little amendment. Of course, further developments can and will be expected.

[North Supreria]

North Supreria would first like to say that it understands many of the objections made by the Ambassador of Tinhampton. We still have some questions and comments about a number of observations.

Concerned that Article 6 of GA#473 compels members to ban "excessive removal or destruction of vegetation... resulting in exposed, unprotected soils creating a threat of artificial desertification or contributing to existing desertification," doing so while:

1. failing to explicitly outline the minimum surface area that must be affected by the actions described in said Article for vegetation removal to be deemed "excessive" (see GA#471 "Repeal "Preventing Desertification""),
2. not defining "desertification" (see GA#471 again), thereby leaving players of ball games such as rugby and association football at inadvertent risk of being criminalised simply for degrading the grass pitch they are playing on, and
3. insisting that they outlaw the kinds of soil exposure described in Article 6 if it merely poses "a threat of artificial desertification" (regardless of whether desertification ever actually occurs as a result), requiring them to make subjective judgment calls on how much vegetation can be removed before it poses such a threat,

It is extremely difficult to establish internationally how much surface vegetation may be removed, so that it is not excessive and not susceptible to wind erosion and leads to desertification. The ambassador of North Supreria is a graduated geographer and has to explain something. The degree of wind erosion is not the same in every member state. Differences in atmospheric pressure and wind motion create differences in wind erosion and how vulnerable an area is to wind erosion and desertification. For example, wind is more often stronger in drier areas than in humid areas. It will be difficult to set up good international guidelines. North Supreria understands that this must be drawn up nationally, because this is very specifically aimed at certain areas.

Disbelieving that the mandate in Article 3 for members to roll out "curricula as a comprehensive component of existing education in geological sciences" to enable those studying such courses "to understand the causes, consequences, and solutions for artificial desertification" will necessarily be of any utility for those students, especially given that it can easily be interpreted as allowing them to proclaim one-off slideshows and pithy data analyses about desertification to be "comprehensive,"

North Supreria would like to provide an additional angle on this feedback on GAR#473. Curricula are often drawn up by national governments, which take into account matters that are important to a country. These curricula are often short and to the point, covering only the most important things. Curricula then go to teachers, which they then work with. Teachers are often given a lot of freedom to make their own choices about the format of lessons and the content of lessons, as long as it suffices. It therefore seems undesirable for North Supreria to make strict international agreements on this subject only, but not to do this anywhere else. It also seems sensible to us from time to time to trust people who work for and in education to give proper substance to this important theme.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We encourage the delegation for Tinhampton to end their practice of picking low-impact nitpicks as the source material for their resolutions instead of high impact arguments supported by warrants. If they are to convince anyone else of their position on the target resolution, surely there are fewer and better arguments that are worth focusing on.

[Tinhampton]

Bryant: How and where are our arguments unimpactful, madam? The CONCERNED clause refers to at least two flaws with the target resolution that are identical to those raised by the Concrete Slabian ambassador during their repeal of the resolution on Preventing Desertification, as our most prominent example. I appreciate, however, that your delegation was sceptical about whether windbreaks could always be placed in "sufficient intervals to be effective" in the first instance.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: According to google:
Desertification is the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture.
Now where exactly does degrading grass pitches by stepping on them come here? What reasonable nation or being would connect the two? How high does a person have to be to say stepping on grass causes Desertification?

[Refuge Isle]

A very sleep deprived Ambassador from Refuge Isle wearily glances at text, written in crayon on a wet wipe. Work so late in the evening blurs the vision, and wax is not the best writing medium, but commentary out of due diligence would be prudent either way. "Looks to my eyes like everything in this draft showcases the system working as intended."

[*]not defining "desertification" (see GA#471 again), thereby leaving players of ball games such as rugby and association football at inadvertent risk of being criminalised simply for degrading the grass pitch they are playing on, and

"Desertification is defined as desertification, to quiet some illogical complaints." Darnel claps the dusts off her hands and moves to leave for home. "Wait, oh lord, no there's more isn't there..."

[*]insisting that they outlaw the kinds of soil exposure described in Article 6 if it merely poses "a threat of artificial desertification" (regardless of whether desertification ever actually occurs as a result), requiring them to make subjective judgment calls on how much vegetation can be removed before it poses such a threat,

"Certainly. The alternative is would be an arbitrary empirical declaration of what works and what doesn't work, which applies everywhere in the universe. The Refuge Administration cannot know of what laws of physics apply on other planets, such as the one from where the proposing delegation hails. So the policy is 'if X does bad thing, don't do X'. Sometimes subjective calls end up being the wrong ones, that's fine so long as there's a good faith effort to see them through. But a one-size-fits-all solution is absolutely unworkable for environmental issues. We're seeing that in the debate on Parries and Grassland."

Unnerved not only that Article 5 requires members - rather than their political subdivisions or even individual farm owners - "to install or plant windbreaks around farm fields in areas designated by the ESWA to be “at-risk” of wind erosion," but also that it is even present in the target resolution, given that GA#473 provides no clear means for the Environmental Survey of the World Assembly to declare a site "“at-risk” of wind erosion," as opposed to being "at-risk... of environmental degradation caused by their **sapient inhabitants**" under Article 2c,

"2(a) and 2(b) are adequate means to accomplish the objectives in clause 5. Your argument rests on text being absent, but alas it is there."

Observing that members are not required to co-operate with the ESWA regarding "reforestation, land reclamation, and rehabilitation" within their jurisdiction as outilned in Article 2d, thereby rendering GA#473 much less effective in ensuring that they actually reverse desertification rather than just prevent it,

"Yyyyes? The ESWA is here to provide data that nations may utilise to the fullest extent of their need. GAR#130: Elections and Assistance Act is in the same vein of making the utilities of the World Assembly available to those who need them. It would be a bridge too far, in my opinion, to take the implication of your complaint to mean that the WA should decide what members must do with any land if the WA thinks it would look better another way."

Disbelieving that the mandate in Article 3 for members to roll out "curricula as a comprehensive component of existing education in geological sciences" to enable those studying such courses "to understand the causes, consequences, and solutions for artificial desertification" will necessarily be of any utility for those students, especially given that it can easily be interpreted as allowing them to proclaim one-off slideshows and pithy data analyses about desertification to be "comprehensive,"

OOC: OOC discussions in a drafting thread are not valid material on which passed law can be challenged. The law says what is says regardless of my author intent, and there is no interpretation of the text that supports that your assessment that a one-off slide show accounts for a comprehensive understanding. I would challenge this repeal on HM grounds for this error.

Mildly baffled that "no external sources for financial contribution [are] permitted" by the ESWA, given that GA#322 "On Scientific Cooperation" allows its parent committee - the WA Scientific Program - to receive donations from non-WA entities for certain purposes (including for purposes relating to collaborative research), and

"I'm surprise to see that you're taking issue with text against inroads to lobbying on financial issues, but I should certainly hope, that we can be certain that no specific groups who are interested in seeing a certain test result may be able to unduly influence the World Assembly's neutral determination of facts about environmental data. If the delegation from Tinhampton is interested in providing more funding for the cause, consider applying resources to the general fund. I'm certain they can find where it is most needed."

[Tinhampton]

Draft 1 amended as appropriate.

Bryant: Having looked over the tape recordings again, if the Refugian ambassador really believes that Article 2d would give mandates for "what members must do with any land if the WA thinks it would look better another way" if it were written as mandatory, then its existence in Responsible Land Management as written amounts to the offering of suggestions for what the World Assembly "thinks... would look better" with certain desertified areas in member states.

[Refuge Isle]

Draft 1 amended as appropriate.

Bryant: Having looked over the tape recordings again, if the Refugian ambassador really believes that Article 2d would give mandates for "what members must do with any land if the WA thinks it would look better another way" if it were written as mandatory, then its existence in Responsible Land Management as written amounts to the offering of suggestions for what the World Assembly "thinks... would look better" with certain desertified areas in member states.

"The demonym for individuals from Refuge Isle is 'Refugi'."

"Your complaint is the opposite of both reality, as well as the opposite of what I said. 2(d) does not give a mandate. That was intentional. The ESWA is a survey organisation and its functions in clause 2 plus subsections instruct it to gather data and have that data be available for nations who wish to use and act on it. It would be very strange to have it be otherwise."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Playing a ball game does not create a risk of desertification. This is a pointy desk corners level of RL fact checking I'm willing to engage in. Words have meanings, even one that's rather ill-defined (according to wiki) like desertification.

That entire section is just a long "it's not defined" argument which does not actually advance any coherent argument as to why this is a problem.

Regarding the windbreaks, there's absolutely nothing in the target that states that member states cannot delegate their responsibilities to a local authority or the farmers involved.

The rest is also petty nitpicking that I cba trying to make sense of what sort of extreme argument you're trying to make by stretching and abusing words.