[PASSED] Volcanic Activity Convention

[Minskiev]

Hey! I have two questions/suggestions about a line of this proposal. The proposal says that member states should "Address any and all predicted, current, and recent past volcanic activity within national borders, to the best extent possible, when possible;" Just so you know, I'm just starting to get involved in these forums and discussions so I might be missing something.

My questions/suggestions are:
1. What qualifies as "addressing" the volcanic activity? You could say that giving a press conference about a volcanic eruption is "addressing" it so I think you might want to clarify a bit.
2. What counts as "predicted" volcanic activity? If someone randomly decides to say, "I think that an eruption is coming," it seems that would count as predicted volcanic activity that member states must address. Maybe it would help if you clarified who needs to predict the activity?

I believe I mentioned that the WADB would install equipment and monitor the data and whatnot to predict volcanic activity. Also, a press conference would be addressing it. And? Addressing works.

[Pland Adanna]

I believe I mentioned that the WADB would install equipment and monitor the data and whatnot to predict volcanic activity. Also, a press conference would be addressing it. And? Addressing works.

A press conference won't do much to protect people. If the idea is to promote safety, I'm not sure that a press conference will help.

Also, I see the WADB part but I still think you might want to elaborate on what qualifies as "predicted" volcanic activity. "Predicted" volcanic activity certainly includes predictions from the WABD but it seems to me that it would also include a civilian randomly saying "I think a volcano will erupt."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why is this an international issue? Are nations unable or unwilling en masse to combat these threats?

[Minskiev]

Why is this an international issue? Are nations unable or unwilling en masse to combat these threats?

Not all volcanoes are just small, local eruptions. Some have blotted out the sun for months around the world.

A press conference won't do much to protect people. If the idea is to promote safety, I'm not sure that a press conference will help.

Also, I see the WADB part but I still think you might want to elaborate on what qualifies as "predicted" volcanic activity. "Predicted" volcanic activity certainly includes predictions from the WABD but it seems to me that it would also include a civilian randomly saying "I think a volcano will erupt."

Alright, I see what you're saying. For the addressing bit, remember the 'to the best extent possible, when possible' bit at the end. However, I'll clarify that the predictions must come from the WADB.

[Minskiev]

Alright, let's see if I get anything out of this bump. If not, might submit.

[South St Maarten]

Why is this an international issue? Are nations unable or unwilling en masse to combat these threats?

This section specifically is the only part I would point to

Liaise with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any, predicted or unpredicted by the WADB, volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to expand upon current infrastructure and plans to better combat volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused;
Share all applicable information relevant to volcanic activity with the World Assembly Disaster Bureau;
Work with the WADB and all other relevant WA organizations to predict volcanic activity;

Also, a Eruption in say, Iceland, can have profound consequences on, say, the United Kingdom.

[Goobergunchia]

With the re-ordering of Clause 2, the World Assembly Disaster Bureau is now abbreviated upon first reference (2b) and fully named solely upon second reference (2c).

We also believe that "data of scientific models" in clause 2e should read "data from scientific models", and "send aforementioned" in the same clause should read "send the aforementioned". It is a little unclear to us why the models themselves should be left up to individual nations -- should perhaps the WADB be charged with developing them?

We also suggest the following alternative clause 5b: "Use discretion as to the hazards requiring education in safety procedures for their population."

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Minskiev]

With the re-ordering of Clause 2, the World Assembly Disaster Bureau is now abbreviated upon first reference (2b) and fully named solely upon second reference (2c).

Fixed! Thanks.

We also believe that "data of scientific models" in clause 2e should read "data from scientific models", and "send aforementioned" in the same clause should read "send the aforementioned". It is a little unclear to us why the models themselves should be left up to individual nations -- should perhaps the WADB be charged with developing them?

Makes more sense to me for a nation to create data about its own country rather than an international organization.

We also suggest the following alternative clause 5b: "Use discretion as to the hazards requiring education in safety procedures for their population."

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

Thanks. Knew that one needed a reword

[WayNeacTia]

Why is this an international issue? Are nations unable or unwilling en masse to combat these threats?

What exactly do you propose? We go out and yell at the ash cloud and tell it not to drift over our territory? How about he hold up a hand in front of the massive lahar and inform it "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"?

[Mancheseva City]

Hereby:

Defines a volcanic hazard as any environmental hazard to society and infrastructure caused by volcanic activity;

Mandates that member states:
Address any and all predicted, current, and recent past volcanic activity within national borders, to the best extent possible, when possible;
I don't think you ever did address the point Pland Adanna raised about the word "predicted" - this still could mean anyone just saying they think a volcano will erupt. Even just "scientifically predicted" would work better. However, this clause also looks kind of filler - it just says that the nation should somehow address it in the best way possible. If I'm Pep Guardiola, the leader of my nation, and I read this clause, what does it really make me do? I would have no idea how to comply with this, I think you should make the WADP issue recommendations and make the nations follow these - or something like that, because there should be more concrete action rather than the nations having no idea how to comply.
Liaise with nations likely to be significantly affected to prepare for any, predicted or unpredicted by the World Assembly Disaster Bureau, volcanic activity via communication and combined efforts to expand upon current infrastructure and plans to better combat volcanic activity or the damage it will or has caused;
Share all applicable information relevant to volcanic activity with the WADB;
Work with the WADB and all other relevant WA organizations to predict volcanic activity;
Create data from scientific models of volcanic activity scenarios to determine what sizes and types of eruptions and volcanic hazards could endanger the national population, and send the aforementioned data to the WADB;
Recommends that member states:
Educate their populations on safety procedures in the event of volcanic activity;
Expand upon current infrastructure to better combat volcanic activity;
Instructs the WADB to:
Research the recorded history of volcanic eruptions of volcanoes;
Install proper instrumentation on said volcanoes,
I don't think that nations that don't have volcanoes should pay the WADP to buy equipment for volcanic activity - and overall I think it's better to make nations install equipment and make the WADP just check if it's installed
Monitor and interpret the data coming from that equipment;
Estimate the frequency of these eruptions;
Compile collected data from clause 2e to better judge the threat different volcanoes pose;
Study and distribute information on volcanoes and their eruptions and hazards;
Acknowledges the right of member states to:
Operate their own national volcanic activity detection system;
Use discretion as to the hazards requiring education in safety procedures for their population;
I agree with Araukar (I think?) that the "Acknowledges" clause doesn't really do anything. I don't think there's any point of overclarifying what nations can and can't do



Overall I agree that this is probably suited for international legislation, and has been improved significantly - but these are issues that I think should be rectified

[Minskiev]

-shortened so that it doesn't clog up thread-

Thanks for your feedback. I agree that I might need to expand upon the predicting bits, and I'm also unsure of the Acknowledges clause. However, I think it makes more sense for the WADB to monitor data from its equipment rather than nations doing it and sending it to the WADB. Or maybe I'm crazy.

[Rock Sturanst]

Like many have said above, this is a very specific proposal. However, I'm in favor of it. Volcanoes scare me.

[Groot]

Category: International Security

"I am Groot," says Groot, scratching his head.

[Minskiev]

Category: International Security

"I am Groot," says Groot, scratching his head.

Appreciate the feedback. I believe that this goes under International Security instead of Environmental, as similar resolutions such as Prevention of Wildfires and Preparing for Disasters are also in this category.

Like many have said above, this is a very specific proposal. However, I'm in favor of it. Volcanoes scare me.

Thanks? I don't believe this to be too specific, actually.

[Groot]

"I am Groot," says Groot, scratching his head.

Appreciate the feedback. I believe that this goes under International Security instead of Environmental, as similar resolutions such as Prevention of Wildfires and Preparing for Disasters are also in this category.

Like many have said above, this is a very specific proposal. However, I'm in favor of it. Volcanoes scare me.

Thanks? I don't believe this to be too specific, actually.

OOC since repeating "I am Groot" is not very helpful.

The mandates in Prevention of Wildfires mainly force nations to pass and enforce arson laws, establish practical management plans, and notify the public of fires, while prohibiting "scorched earth" tactics in war. As a whole, that's definitely IS, as it would increase police and military budgets.

The mandates of Preparing for Disasters force nations to inspect potential sources of disasters, create response plans, provide training, and keep all information secure and confidential. As a whole, that's mostly IS, as it would increase police and military budgets.

The mandates of your proposal are largely educational and scientific. Addressing, liaising, sharing information, trying to predict volcanic activity, etc., are all scientific endeavors and involve little, if any, police or military response, beyond what's already required in existing legislation.

I'm not sure what category this belongs in, but I don't think it's IS.

[Minskiev]

Appreciate the feedback. I believe that this goes under International Security instead of Environmental, as similar resolutions such as Prevention of Wildfires and Preparing for Disasters are also in this category.



Thanks? I don't believe this to be too specific, actually.

OOC since repeating "I am Groot" is not very helpful.

The mandates in Prevention of Wildfires mainly force nations to pass and enforce arson laws, establish practical management plans, and notify the public of fires, while prohibiting "scorched earth" tactics in war. As a whole, that's definitely IS, as it would increase police and military budgets.

The mandates of Preparing for Disasters force nations to inspect potential sources of disasters, create response plans, provide training, and keep all information secure and confidential. As a whole, that's mostly IS, as it would increase police and military budgets.

The mandates of your proposal are largely educational and scientific. Addressing, liaising, sharing information, trying to predict volcanic activity, etc., are all scientific endeavors and involve little, if any, police or military response, beyond what's already required in existing legislation.

I'm not sure what category this belongs in, but I don't think it's IS.

While yes, it is pretty educational/scientific, it does however also mention creating response plans in the case of volcanic activity. I'd also argue that part of nations working together when there's a volcano predicted to erupt that's right on the border between two nations is increasing police budgets, because the two nations would need to evacuate locals and maybe put down obstacles to block anything coming down from getting to people's property.

This certainly doesn't belong in Educational, so if you have any ideas as to which category other than IS it best fits in, don't be afraid to let me know.

And thank you for elaborating

[Groot]

This certainly doesn't belong in Educational, so if you have any ideas as to which category other than IS it best fits in, don't be afraid to let me know.

OOC: I'm really not sure. I flagged a couple of GenSec members for an opinion on this, let's see what they say.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I agree that this is not International Security. None of the clauses increase military or police budgets.

3a is clearly educational. Possibly 2 fits safety.

You could consider adding a few fluff requirements to better fit any of the choices because it doesn't really fit any atm but my 1/6 gensec would be that I mark it legal under educational or safety and illegal under IS.

[Minskiev]

OOC: I agree that this is not International Security. None of the clauses increase military or police budgets.

3a is clearly educational. Possibly 2 fits safety.

You could consider adding a few fluff requirements to better fit any of the choices because it doesn't really fit any atm but my 1/6 gensec would be that I mark it legal under educational or safety and illegal under IS.

Very interesting. Alright, I'll try to fluff it up.

After re-reading the Categories bit of the GA rules thread, I think this could go in as Regulation: Safety.

[Araraukar]

OOC: From the sleepy land of the braindead...

Were you going to edit the preamble? Because it doesn't quite spell out why you think the existing disaster preparedness resolution doesn't do what you want to get done, as per this particular disaster type?

Defined term is used just once. "Volcanic activity" is used so many times that you might want to define that instead, if you felt the need to define something. Not sure if either needs to be defined (though I can totally see a nation deciding to classify all earthquakes as earthquakes, even if they were caused by a volcano's magma chamber filling prior to eruption, to avoid having to add anything this proposal wants into their earthquake preparedness menu). Come to think of it, you might want to define a volcano while you're looking for something that looks bleedingly obvious to define; what IS a volcano? Like, answer me in a reply, don't copy off of some text book but just tell me what you think a volcano is. I'll then give you a list of five things you didn't think are volcanoes...

2.a. What does "address" mean here?

2.b. Remove "predicted or unpredicted by the World Assembly Disaster Bureau" as it doesn't add anything to the subclause and instead spell out the committee name in 2.c. Also, again, what does "liaise" mean here? And how do you combat volcanic activity?

2.d. Drop this in the shredder and burn the remains. Don't mandate splurging on predictions when they're not the point. If you want this to be Safety instead of scientific advancement or whatever, then focus on how to make the general public more safe. Predictions are all very fine but spending money on them is money not spent on, say, warning systems, evacuation systems, portable shelters and so forth.

2.e. This is too complicated to be a simple subclause. Remove from under main clause 2, think if you really need it (see above about what you're supposed to be focusing on) and if you think so, then make it into its own main clause.

Clause 3 and the proposal in its entirety still needs the modifier "nations in which volcanic activity happens or is a reasonably credible future event" or something like that. I don't in RL need to know what happens in an earthquake either, because the ones around here are caused by the bedrock bouncing back after the last ice age, and are not usually big enough to be noticeable (especially away from the coasts). Nor do I need to know what to do if a volcano erupts, or a tsunami happens, unless I travel somewhere where those are a hazard. If you don't need to worry about hypothermic death for half the year - which is a real annual hazard around here - you don't need to know how to stop windchill, what to wear and what not to wear and what to do IMMEDIATELY if you at all get your clothes wet in certain kind of weather, etc. Hazards that are not applicable to your area are not something your nation should be spending tons of money to educate you about or spend even more money to prepare for. Snow-plows are unlikely to be needed in Hawaii anytime soon.

3.b. Again, what does "combat volcanic activity" mean?

Clause 4 in its entirety should be rewritten as something for nations to do, and you could move 2.c. into it, then, to use the committee as the distributor and compiler only. As it should be. Remember, committee actions are paid by all nations, including ones not getting anything usable out of the money spent. So make the nations with volcanoes do the costly stuff.

5.a. Is STILL unnecessary.

5.b. Should be moved to under main clause 3.

[Minskiev]

OOC: From the sleepy land of the braindead...

Welcome back!

Were you going to edit the preamble? Because it doesn't quite spell out why you think the existing disaster preparedness resolution doesn't do what you want to get done, as per this particular disaster type?

Hmm. Maybe I'll do some changes to it.

Defined term is used just once. "Volcanic activity" is used so many times that you might want to define that instead, if you felt the need to define something. Not sure if either needs to be defined (though I can totally see a nation deciding to classify all earthquakes as earthquakes, even if they were caused by a volcano's magma chamber filling prior to eruption, to avoid having to add anything this proposal wants into their earthquake preparedness menu). Come to think of it, you might want to define a volcano while you're looking for something that looks bleedingly obvious to define; what IS a volcano? Like, answer me in a reply, don't copy off of some text book but just tell me what you think a volcano is. I'll then give you a list of five things you didn't think are volcanoes...

Alright, I'll define both.

2.a. What does "address" mean here?

To clean up debris and fix infrastructure from past volcanoes, lay plans out for future volcanic activity, prevent loss of life and property damage during volcanic activity, etc. Although this is an often asked question, so maybe I'll need to clarify...hm.

2.b. Remove "predicted or unpredicted by the World Assembly Disaster Bureau" as it doesn't add anything to the subclause and instead spell out the committee name in 2.c. Also, again, what does "liaise" mean here? And how do you combat volcanic activity?

Sure for first suggestion, makes sense to me. Liaise means to work with other nations to cooperatively evacuate the surrounding area, etc. If you minimize the damage caused by volcanic activity, you better combat it.

2.d. Drop this in the shredder and burn the remains. Don't mandate splurging on predictions when they're not the point. If you want this to be Safety instead of scientific advancement or whatever, then focus on how to make the general public more safe. Predictions are all very fine but spending money on them is money not spent on, say, warning systems, evacuation systems, portable shelters and so forth.

I see what you're saying. Looking back on it, I think 4abc covers it anyway. Very good point.

2.e. This is too complicated to be a simple subclause. Remove from under main clause 2, think if you really need it (see above about what you're supposed to be focusing on) and if you think so, then make it into its own main clause.

Another good point. We could probably do without.

Clause 3 and the proposal in its entirety still needs the modifier "nations in which volcanic activity happens or is a reasonably credible future event" or something like that. I don't in RL need to know what happens in an earthquake either, because the ones around here are caused by the bedrock bouncing back after the last ice age, and are not usually big enough to be noticeable (especially away from the coasts). Nor do I need to know what to do if a volcano erupts, or a tsunami happens, unless I travel somewhere where those are a hazard. If you don't need to worry about hypothermic death for half the year - which is a real annual hazard around here - you don't need to know how to stop windchill, what to wear and what not to wear and what to do IMMEDIATELY if you at all get your clothes wet in certain kind of weather, etc. Hazards that are not applicable to your area are not something your nation should be spending tons of money to educate you about or spend even more money to prepare for. Snow-plows are unlikely to be needed in Hawaii anytime soon.

Alright, alright, I'll work on this.

3.b. Again, what does "combat volcanic activity" mean?

Answered previously.

Clause 4 in its entirety should be rewritten as something for nations to do, and you could move 2.c. into it, then, to use the committee as the distributor and compiler only. As it should be. Remember, committee actions are paid by all nations, including ones not getting anything usable out of the money spent. So make the nations with volcanoes do the costly stuff.

Fine.

5.a. Is STILL unnecessary.

Sure.

5.b. Should be moved to under main clause 3.

Alright.

[Boston Castle]

I am failing to see how clause 5 is not superfluous given the existence of clause 4. As in, you could combine 4(a) and 5(a) and tack something on about sharing that data to that clause or as a sub-clause of the newly revised 4(a) and cut clause 5 out entirely.

[Minskiev]

I am failing to see how clause 5 is not superfluous given the existence of clause 4. As in, you could combine 4(a) and 5(a) and tack something on about sharing that data to that clause or as a sub-clause of the newly revised 4(a) and cut clause 5 out entirely.

Well, I thought it'd make more sense to distinguish that the last two actions would be taken on by the WADB instead of member states with volcanoes. But, if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, yes, I could probably add i. and ii. under somewhere in Clause 4 and move Clause 5 there.

[Araraukar]

what IS a volcano? Like, answer me in a reply, don't copy off of some text book but just tell me what you think a volcano is. I'll then give you a list of five things you didn't think are volcanoes...

Alright, I'll define both.

OOC: Missed the underlined?

To clean up debris and fix infrastructure from past volcanoes

And I keep asking you how exactly you think this is possible, when it basically means "remove the planet's crust". Unless you mean "recent past volcanic eruptions". Which is not at all what you're saying there.

lay plans out for future volcanic activity

I get what you meant to say but this reads like you were planning volcanic eruptions ahead of time, like a wedding planner.

Liaise means to work with other nations to cooperatively evacuate the surrounding area, etc.

Just replace "liaise with" with "work with", if that's what you want to happen.

If you minimize the damage caused by volcanic activity, you better combat it.

But that's combatting damages, not volcanic activity. "Combatting a forest fire" means wanting the fire to die down/go away. You can't do that with volcanic activity because the planet's gonna go "Lol, no" at you if you tried. But I think this is largely a problem with language than intent and if you drop the "last call" stuff, the language can be looked at more closely to make it sound more sensible.

[Minskiev]

OOC: Missed the underlined?

A volcano is a vent in the earth's surface. Occasionally it erupts from stress in the earth.

And I keep asking you how exactly you think this is possible, when it basically means "remove the planet's crust". Unless you mean "recent past volcanic eruptions". Which is not at all what you're saying there.

If there's still rubble on the ground from a recent earthquake, that should be cleaned up. Also, the when possible bit at the end should make it obvious that I'm not calling for the earth's crust to be removed.

I get what you meant to say but this reads like you were planning volcanic eruptions ahead of time, like a wedding planner.

Just replace "liaise with" with "work with", if that's what you want to happen.

Still don't see the problem, to be honest.

But that's combatting damages, not volcanic activity. "Combatting a forest fire" means wanting the fire to die down/go away. You can't do that with volcanic activity because the planet's gonna go "Lol, no" at you if you tried. But I think this is largely a problem with language than intent and if you drop the "last call" stuff, the language can be looked at more closely to make it sound more sensible

Well, my proposal has been on last call for at least two weeks now, so it doesn't really mean much. However, maybe I'll reword that.