DRAFT: "National Park Requirement"

[Inner Bailun]

The World Assembly,

Observing the lack of national parks in several member nations;

Concerned about the risks towards the population of these nations, such as pollution, deforestation, and a loss of biodiversity;

Believing that national parks are an effective way to combat these risks;

Noting that national parks are not entirely detrimental to the economy, for they can provide economic support through the means of tourism;

Hereby:

1. Defines a national park as:
   
   • An area of land under the protection of the government used for the enjoyment of the public or the preservation of undisturbed wildlife;
2. Defines wildlife as:
   
   • Undomesticated species of animal and vegetation;
3. Mandates the presence of at least one national park inside of all member nations, of non-trivial size, based on the size of the nation;
   
4. Requires individual nations to protect wildlife within said national parks from external factors, such as slaughter and agriculture;
   
5. Excludes the removal of invasive species, or the removal/culling of non-invasive livestock to maintain the population of either that species or of another species, when advised by experts, for clause 4, in compliance with General Assembly Resolution #267 "Sensible Limits On Hunting" and any other previous resolutions still in effect today;
   
6. Authorizes individual nations to construct areas of greenery and vegetation to accommodate the use of national parks, with support from the World Assembly General Fund;
   
7. Encourages nations to allow tourism inside national parks, so long as it does not interfere with the wildlife within;
   
8. Prohibits all construction within national parks, except where they are necessary for conservational processes;
   
9. Clarifies that the land area of national parks may fluctuate, without a breach of this resolution, so long as it stays as a national park; and
   
10. Urges the construction of further national parks in member nations.

[Inner Bailun]

New proposal maker here. Any advice would be appreciated!

[Tinhampton]

Recommends the requiem of an environmental safe space inside all nations [...]

Requires that these environmental safe spaces be present in the country

Pick one.

[Inner Bailun]

Pick one.

Completely overlooked that, thanks.

[Untecna]

...this reads as a really long suggestion with no substance. At the same time, other environmental resolutions exist. What is this one trying to do?

Opposed.

[Heidgaudr]

"While the Associated Communities is generally supportive of environmental legislation, we'll note that it is one of the largest categories of extant legislation. Furthermore, we'd like a definition of what an 'environmental safe space' is. Is it a green belt? Are they national parks/forests/etc.?"

[Outer Sparta]

What's your definition of an environmental safe space, and what is your aim for this legislation?

[Inner Bailun]

...this reads as a really long suggestion with no substance. At the same time, other environmental resolutions exist. What is this one trying to do?

This is trying to make a small attempt of adding some sort of area to the WA nations where wildlife and vegetation can be completely protected, while also preserving the environment of the area by restricting the ability of entities, such as corporations, to construct things like buildings in the area. This resolution isn't trying to destroy corporations or punish those with carbon emissions, rather, it is just trying to form an area where it can remain - at the very least, somewhat - unaffected by those factors.

"While the Associated Communities is generally supportive of environmental legislation, we'll note that it is one of the largest categories of extant legislation. Furthermore, we'd like a definition of what an 'environmental safe space' is. Is it a green belt? Are they national parks/forests/etc.?"

What's your definition of an environmental safe space, and what is your aim for this legislation?

Essentially, it would be a national park, meant to protect the natural environment inside the area. It could be used for relative tourism to boost the economy in place of the protected land. Once more, the aim of this resolution is simply to create an area to protect the environment, vegetation, and wildlife in an effort to boost the local environment of the member nations.

[Inner Bailun]

Edited some things in the draft for better clarification. Changed "environmental safe space" to "national park".

[Untecna]

...this reads as a really long suggestion with no substance. At the same time, other environmental resolutions exist. What is this one trying to do?

This is trying to make a small attempt of adding some sort of area to the WA nations where wildlife and vegetation can be completely protected, while also preserving the environment of the area by restricting the ability of entities, such as corporations, to construct things like buildings in the area. This resolution isn't trying to destroy corporations or punish those with carbon emissions, rather, it is just trying to form an area where it can remain - at the very least, somewhat - unaffected by those factors.

It is still only a recommendation, with no binding portions. As such is the case, no one actually has to do anything in regards to this legislation.

[Inner Bailun]

It is still only a recommendation, with no binding portions. As such is the case, no one actually has to do anything in regards to this legislation.

Fair point; I can likely change some things to make it more of a requiem rather than a recommendation. Thanks.

[Outer Sparta]

Also, what's your category and industries affected/strength?

[Inner Bailun]

Also, what's your category and industries affected/strength?

It's in the environmental category. Do you mind clarifying what you mean by "industries affected"? Do you mean what industries this resolution benefits and harms?

[Heidgaudr]

Also, what's your category and industries affected/strength?

It's in the environmental category. Do you mind clarifying what you mean by "industries affected"? Do you mean what industries this resolution benefits and harms?

When you submit your proposal, you have to select a category and a strength. Depending on what you choose, the statistical effect the proposal will have when it passes will change.

[Outer Sparta]

Also, what's your category and industries affected/strength?

It's in the environmental category. Do you mind clarifying what you mean by "industries affected"? Do you mean what industries this resolution benefits and harms?

Taken from the GA rules thread on environmental category:

Environmental - A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions can take two forms, either they can affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automotive, Mining, Logging, Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing,; or they can impact all business All Businesses. All businesses has two strengths mild, which might be good for pleasing those protesting hippies that keep showing up at your office; and strong, which might be good for pleasing those eco-terrorists that keep sneaking into your office. More seriously from a statistical impact perspective, mild is less impactful (although more broadly spread) in terms of decreasing industry and increasing environmental statistics than a resolution targeting a specific industry, where as strong is the most impacful of any environmental resolution.

Examples - All Business - Strong: GA#66 – Endangered Species Protection
All Business - mild: GA#435 – Asbestos Consumption, Disposal And Worker Protection
Automotive: GA#301 – Ban on Leaded Fuel
Mining: GA#263 – Uranium Mining Standards Act
Logging: GA#291 – Sustainable Forest Management
Manufacturing: GA#349 – To Prevent Dangerous Debris
Agriculture: GA#376 – Pesticide Regulations

Out of all of these, what would best fit your draft? That's what I'm trying to get at with "industries affected." Environmental legislation in the WA comes at an expense of industries. Alternatively, you can put all businesses and either go for mild regulation or strong regulation.

[Las Duendes]

Observing the lack of national parks in several WA nations,

YAK YAK YAK

Recommends the requiem of a national park inside all nations that

YAK YAK YAK

Hereby recommends the passage of "National Park Requiem".

Solemn chant wont solve this problem.

Maybe look up the word "requiem" before use it.

[Inner Bailun]

Out of all of these, what would best fit your draft? That's what I'm trying to get at with "industries affected." Environmental legislation in the WA comes at an expense of industries. Alternatively, you can put all businesses and either go for mild regulation or strong regulation.

It would affect all businesses in a mild setting. I'll alter the agricultural aspects of this article soon.

Observing the lack of national parks in several WA nations,

YAK YAK YAK

Recommends the requiem of a national park inside all nations that

YAK YAK YAK

Hereby recommends the passage of "National Park Requiem".

Solemn chant wont solve this problem.

Maybe look up the word "requiem" before use it.

I definitely should've. Thanks for catching that.

[Kenmoria]

Lewitt presents a purple pen, which he raises into the air. “Behold: I have presented some comments on the draft. I can, in theory, support a proposal that creates national parks. However, some form of concrete, specific mandate about national parks would be necessary for me to do so. Currently, there is little exactness in the draft, which makes it difficult to gauge its effect.”

The World Assembly,

Observing the lack of national parks in several WA nations,

Concerned about the apparent risks towards the population of these nations, such as pollution, Specifying that these are apparent risks implies a contrast with actual risks. Why not simply refer to risks, without specifying whether they are apparent?

Noting the importance of a strong economy in correlation with a thriving nation, while also “Correlation” is not the correct word to use here. Your delegation appears to be arguing that one should have a strong economy in order to have a thriving nation. In that case, I would use the following wording: “A strong economy as part of a thriving nation”. However, I am not sure what the economy has to do with anything.

Acknowledging the importance of a thriving environment in correlation with a thriving nation, The repetition of “thriving” here is jarring. Also, considering the similarity with the above clause and the fact that both form one argument: that both economic and environmental success are important to a well-developed nation, your delegation might want to combine these clauses.

For the purposes of clarity, I recommend putting the following, small line here: “Hereby,”. It simply ensures that voting nations know where the preamble ends and the active clauses begin.

Requires the presence of a national park inside all nations that All nations that what? This clause doesn’t look finished. Because of that, I cannot comment further on the conditionality of this clause. However, I will say that your delegation should define what a “national park” is first, within the text of the proposal. The first active clause should likely include that definition.

Protects all wildlife and vegetation inside said national park, while also The World Assembly cannot direct protect anything. Your delegation needs to direct nations to protect wildlife and vegetation instead. Also, protect in what way? This clause is too imprecise to have any practical effect. Consider making it more detailed.

Encouraging the possibility of increased tourism in the form of the national parks as tourist attractions to support the economic stability of the nation, This looks more like a preambulatory clause than an active clause. If it is an active clause, then I cannot determine what it is intending to mandate, so the effect should be made clearer.

Prevents all corporations, industries, and governments from constructing buildings and venues in this national park, only allowing exception when the lives of the nations' population are at risk, I am unsure of in what circumstance someone’s life could be in danger if a building is not built. Surely, in that instance, the national park would be somewhere else?

Allows the land area of this national park to fluctuate, but requires it to be present, as well as allowing nations to add certain species of wildlife and vegetation to said national park, and

Urges the members of the World Assembly to support this passage, for the sake of the member nations' populations. This clause should be removed. It does not add anything to the proposal. Furthermore, once this proposal is passed, becoming a resolution, it will look very strange to have this clause here.

Hereby recommends the passage of "National Park Requirement". The above comment also applies here.

[Inner Bailun]

Lewitt presents a purple pen, which he raises into the air. “Behold: I have presented some comments on the draft. I can, in theory, support a proposal that creates national parks. However, some form of concrete, specific mandate about national parks would be necessary for me to do so. Currently, there is little exactness in the draft, which makes it difficult to gauge its effect.”

"Thank you for the intricate response, Mr... Lewitt, correct?. This is some great advice, and I will utilize it for a revision of the draft. I'll get to work soon."

[Inner Bailun]

I edited the draft once more, but I do have a question. Should I include a defined minimum land area? If so, what should I set it as? (EX: 1/10th of a nations' land mass.)

[Kenmoria]

I edited the draft once more, but I do have a question. Should I include a defined minimum land area? If so, what should I set it as? (EX: 1/10th of a nations' land mass.)

(OOC: I would advise that you do not include any exact values for area of land. Generally speaking, numeric values for anything are a bad idea in the General Assembly. With that example, for example, I would see issues if a country had less than a tenth of its land unurbanised. It is not as though people can be forcibly evicted en masse to make way for a national park, in most nations.)

[Inner Bailun]

(OOC: I would advise that you do not include any exact values for area of land. Generally speaking, numeric values for anything are a bad idea in the General Assembly. With that example, for example, I would see issues if a country had less than a tenth of its land unurbanised. It is not as though people can be forcibly evicted en masse to make way for a national park, in most nations.)

That's a good point. Thanks.

[Bakivaland]

"You cannot be serious, some countries are so small that they don't even have space for national parks!"

[Inner Bailun]

"You cannot be serious, some countries are so small that they don't even have space for national parks!"

"You do bring up an interesting point. While the fluctuation of size does allow for the parks to be small enough to fit in certain small nations, there are certain nations that are so small that they wouldn't be able to support a national park anywhere in their nation. I could likely revise this draft to take this factor into account."

[Simone Republic]

Given it's a "national" park in the first place, won't anyone supporting natsov or RNT trample on this?

Edit: both are WA jargon that you can look up. RNT means "reasonable nation theory". In a nutshell I mean that there would be arguments that this is a matter purely for the nation and not the WA's business.