[PASSED] Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands

[Big Boyz]

Ok, I'll withdraw the proposal.

Although it pains me to do so.

You're definitely better off by doing so. Drafting in the GA forums helps you get feedback and advice from others on how to make your proposal better.

Yes, I think you might be right. I just edited the preamble a bit, let me know what you think about it.

[Big Boyz]

*bump*

[Calamari Lands]

*bump*

"LAMENTING that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today, usually in areas which were previously inaccessible to agriculture,"

"OBSERVING that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural purposes has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, which in turn has led to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators,"

"CONCERNED that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies,"

"APPLAUDING the efforts of some nations to restore tall grass prairies by replanting native grasses in their historic range and periodically conducting controlled burns to prevent the encroachment of saplings into prairies, which would otherwise lead to the conversion of prairies into forests,"

Again, these paragraphs are RL references. These will make your proposal unappealing to most nations at best and illegal at worst. Proposed rewrite:

"OBSERVING that not protecting tall grass prairies can affect biodiversity very negatively and thus endanger the economy, the agricultural ecosystem and the enviornment as a whole,"

A lot shorter, a lot simpler, a lot more straight to the point, and no RL references. It can replace all the paragraphs I mentioned.

Nothing to say on the actually legislative part of the resolution for now. Maybe when I read it more closely I will have criticisms.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: There's an awful lot of bad advice in this thread about the RL references rule. Generic references are permitted.

[WayNeacTia]

"This has the potential to be an excellent proposal. I disagree with many of my colleagues here regarding the policy justification. While you could certainly go further, what you have argued is sufficient.

"I am concerned that member states are required to engage in controlled burns regardless of whether a deliberate and artificial burn is the best management tool available. While controlled burns are adequate in disturbed ecosystems with an extreme buildup of duff, the practice is not always indicated where such prairies either adapt to irregular burning or do not require artificial burning. Otherwise, this delegation lacks any particularly strong objection to the proposed policy.

"I am pleased and excited to see this concept develop, ambassador. Well done."

"I concur, with my esteem colleague. This is definitely an area of legislation worthy of international concern, and I don't say those words very often. I am also concerned as to the mandates about controlled burns. Controlled burns, especially those done when the environment is not conducive to burning, can rapidly become out of control burns, which have the ability to cause immense damage. Remove that particular mandate and I will happily vote for this."

Wayne

[Big Boyz]

"This has the potential to be an excellent proposal. I disagree with many of my colleagues here regarding the policy justification. While you could certainly go further, what you have argued is sufficient.

"I am concerned that member states are required to engage in controlled burns regardless of whether a deliberate and artificial burn is the best management tool available. While controlled burns are adequate in disturbed ecosystems with an extreme buildup of duff, the practice is not always indicated where such prairies either adapt to irregular burning or do not require artificial burning. Otherwise, this delegation lacks any particularly strong objection to the proposed policy.

"I am pleased and excited to see this concept develop, ambassador. Well done."

"I concur, with my esteem colleague. This is definitely an area of legislation worthy of international concern, and I don't say those words very often. I am also concerned as to the mandates about controlled burns. Controlled burns, especially those done when the environment is not conducive to burning, can rapidly become out of control burns, which have the ability to cause immense damage. Remove that particular mandate and I will happily vote for this."

Wayne

Ok, I'll change that in the next draft. It's still important to recognize the role of controlled burns in most cases, but I do agree that it might not be the best solution in every situation.

[Outer Sparta]

"I concur, with my esteem colleague. This is definitely an area of legislation worthy of international concern, and I don't say those words very often. I am also concerned as to the mandates about controlled burns. Controlled burns, especially those done when the environment is not conducive to burning, can rapidly become out of control burns, which have the ability to cause immense damage. Remove that particular mandate and I will happily vote for this."

Wayne

Ok, I'll change that in the next draft. It's still important to recognize the role of controlled burns in most cases, but I do agree that it might not be the best solution in every situation.

True, controlled burns are important but obviously not every country will be suited to conduct controlled burns. Maybe say "encourages member nations to conduct controlled burns if the circumstances permit" or something like that.

[Big Boyz]

*bump*

"LAMENTING that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today, usually in areas which were previously inaccessible to agriculture,"

"OBSERVING that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural purposes has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, which in turn has led to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators,"

"CONCERNED that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies,"

"APPLAUDING the efforts of some nations to restore tall grass prairies by replanting native grasses in their historic range and periodically conducting controlled burns to prevent the encroachment of saplings into prairies, which would otherwise lead to the conversion of prairies into forests,"

Again, these paragraphs are RL references. These will make your proposal unappealing to most nations at best and illegal at worst. Proposed rewrite:

"OBSERVING that not protecting tall grass prairies can affect biodiversity very negatively and thus endanger the economy, the agricultural ecosystem and the enviornment as a whole,"

A lot shorter, a lot simpler, a lot more straight to the point, and no RL references. It can replace all the paragraphs I mentioned.

Nothing to say on the actually legislative part of the resolution for now. Maybe when I read it more closely I will have criticisms.

It seems like Bananaistan and Separatist Peoples disagree with you on the problem of RL references, but you might have a point about being more succinct. I'll keep it in mind in my next rendition.

[Big Boyz]

Ok, I'll change that in the next draft. It's still important to recognize the role of controlled burns in most cases, but I do agree that it might not be the best solution in every situation.

True, controlled burns are important but obviously not every country will be suited to conduct controlled burns. Maybe say "encourages member nations to conduct controlled burns if the circumstances permit" or something like that.

Yes, I'll try to keep it more open-ended like that.

[Calamari Lands]

"LAMENTING that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today, usually in areas which were previously inaccessible to agriculture,"

"OBSERVING that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural purposes has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, which in turn has led to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators,"

"CONCERNED that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies,"

"APPLAUDING the efforts of some nations to restore tall grass prairies by replanting native grasses in their historic range and periodically conducting controlled burns to prevent the encroachment of saplings into prairies, which would otherwise lead to the conversion of prairies into forests,"

Again, these paragraphs are RL references. These will make your proposal unappealing to most nations at best and illegal at worst. Proposed rewrite:

"OBSERVING that not protecting tall grass prairies can affect biodiversity very negatively and thus endanger the economy, the agricultural ecosystem and the enviornment as a whole,"

A lot shorter, a lot simpler, a lot more straight to the point, and no RL references. It can replace all the paragraphs I mentioned.

Nothing to say on the actually legislative part of the resolution for now. Maybe when I read it more closely I will have criticisms.

It seems like Bananaistan and Separatist Peoples disagree with you on the problem of RL references, but you might have a point about being more succinct. I'll keep it in mind in my next rendition.

Fair enough, just trying to give the best advice I can. It does seem too in depth for the preamble either way to me personally.

[Imperium Anglorum]

True, controlled burns are important but obviously not every country will be suited to conduct controlled burns. Maybe say "encourages member nations to conduct controlled burns if the circumstances permit" or something like that.

Perhaps if there are circumstances where they are preferred, they ought to be done, rather than just where they are permitted.

"LAMENTING that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today, usually in areas which were previously inaccessible to agriculture,"

"OBSERVING that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural purposes has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, which in turn has led to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators,"

"CONCERNED that failing to protect native prairies will lead to the extinction of several currently endangered species, many of which rely heavily on tall grass prairies,"

"APPLAUDING the efforts of some nations to restore tall grass prairies by replanting native grasses in their historic range and periodically conducting controlled burns to prevent the encroachment of saplings into prairies, which would otherwise lead to the conversion of prairies into forests,"

Again, these paragraphs are RL references. These will make your proposal unappealing to most nations at best and illegal at worst.

These are not real life references.

[Big Boyz]

Ok, I'll change that in the next draft. It's still important to recognize the role of controlled burns in most cases, but I do agree that it might not be the best solution in every situation.

True, controlled burns are important but obviously not every country will be suited to conduct controlled burns. Maybe say "encourages member nations to conduct controlled burns if the circumstances permit" or something like that.

How does this sound?

Maintain current tall grass prairies by performing periodic controlled burns when it is ecologically in the best interest of the prairie and the surrounding area and unlikely to lead to the development of a wildfire,

[Outer Sparta]

True, controlled burns are important but obviously not every country will be suited to conduct controlled burns. Maybe say "encourages member nations to conduct controlled burns if the circumstances permit" or something like that.

How does this sound?

Maintain current tall grass prairies by performing periodic controlled burns when it is ecologically in the best interest of the prairie and the surrounding area and unlikely to lead to the development of a wildfire,

Yes, that looks good since it encourages the use of controlled burns but doesn't mandate them.

[Big Boyz]

How does this sound?

Maintain current tall grass prairies by performing periodic controlled burns when it is ecologically in the best interest of the prairie and the surrounding area and unlikely to lead to the development of a wildfire,

Yes, that looks good since it encourages the use of controlled burns but doesn't mandate them.

Ok, I've amended the proposal to create alternatives to performing controlled burns.

[South St Maarten]

IC: "For an ambassador new to the hallowed halls of the world assembly, this is excellent work. South St Maarten is pleased to announce its full support for the proposal at hand"

[Big Boyz]

IC: "For an ambassador new to the hallowed halls of the world assembly, this is excellent work. South St Maarten is pleased to announce its full support for the proposal at hand"

Thank you! I appreciate your support!

[Jedinsto]

Finally found the time/strength to read this and nitpick and make suggestions. To start, you're always better off doing the same thing with a proposal in few words than an essay. You should definitely cut back on the preamble a lot, it's way too long for you to expect many people to read all of that. I'll give suggestions on where to do so.

RECOGNIZING the importance of high-quality native habitats in the protection of local ecosystems

Why say "local" and "native" here? It works just as well if not better without those words.

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals, and several prominent keystone species,

NOTING that tall grass prairies are often desirable for conversion to agricultural purposes, due to high nutrient levels in the soil, moderate levels of rainfall, and a lack of trees, which would otherwise have to be cut down for land conversion,

You could cut this whole thing out and still convince just as many if not more people to vote for.

LAMENTING that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today, usually in areas which were previously inaccessible to agriculture,

Might as well cut everything after the comma.

OBSERVING that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural purposes has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, which in turn has led to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators,

TROUBLED that a lack of biodiversity among pollinators may be detrimental, not only to the ecosystem, but also to agriculture by creating, in many cases, an unstable 1 to 1 relationship between crop yield and a single pollinator species, which has the potential to collapse the agricultural industry of some nations, should said pollinator become extinct due to external factors,

Almost complete fluff. I recommend either a complete removal of these clauses or significant changes.

APPLAUDING the efforts of some nations to restore tall grass prairies by replanting native grasses in their historic range and periodically conducting controlled burns to prevent the encroachment of saplings into prairies, which would otherwise lead to the conversion of prairies into forests,

Complete fluff, doesn't really do anything to convince voters.

Next- the actual operatives

[Jedinsto]

Part two of the Jedin nitpick-

a. ‘tall grass prairie’ as a biome featuring the dominance of tall grass species, typically averaging from 1.5 - 2 meters in height, moderate levels of annual rainfall, usually between 700 - 900 millimeters each year, and the presence of periodic wildfires, which prevents the encroachment of saplings and invasive plant species,

Is the 1.5-2 meters grass a requirement? Is the 700-900 millimeter part a requirement to meet the definition? How about the wildfires? All of the stuff that isn't a requirement to meet the definition should be removed so there is no confusion. If the wildfire part is a requirement, how long is periodic? Be clear with what you are defining, we will let you know if it gets too micromanage-y.

c. ‘land development’ as any sapient activity which permanently alters the landscape from its naturally occurring form,

Which landscape are we talking about here? It would be better to use "a landscape" instead of "the landscape."

2. TASKS the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to conduct the following:

Perhaps it would read better to say "TASKS the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) with the following:" Right now it reads as such- "The World Assembly hereby TASKS the WASP to conduct the following: Research bla bla bla, determine x, Perform z, etc.

e. Communicate their findings with the WA and the environmental agencies of member nations,

How about "communicate their findings with all WA member nations?"

e. Record all native species found to exist within a tall grass prairie, and collect seed samples from all native prairie plants,

This issue may have come up before and I missed it but, there are plenty of non-animal species such as bacteria, not sure if the members should be required to find all these species.

Other than that, be sure to stay within the character limit with all of this. That is all.

[Big Boyz]

Part two of the Jedin nitpick-

a. ‘tall grass prairie’ as a biome featuring the dominance of tall grass species, typically averaging from 1.5 - 2 meters in height, moderate levels of annual rainfall, usually between 700 - 900 millimeters each year, and the presence of periodic wildfires, which prevents the encroachment of saplings and invasive plant species,

Is the 1.5-2 meters grass a requirement? Is the 700-900 millimeter part a requirement to meet the definition? How about the wildfires? All of the stuff that isn't a requirement to meet the definition should be removed so there is no confusion. If the wildfire part is a requirement, how long is periodic? Be clear with what you are defining, we will let you know if it gets too micromanage-y.

c. ‘land development’ as any sapient activity which permanently alters the landscape from its naturally occurring form,

Which landscape are we talking about here? It would be better to use "a landscape" instead of "the landscape."

2. TASKS the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) to conduct the following:

Perhaps it would read better to say "TASKS the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) with the following:" Right now it reads as such- "The World Assembly hereby TASKS the WASP to conduct the following: Research bla bla bla, determine x, Perform z, etc.

e. Communicate their findings with the WA and the environmental agencies of member nations,

How about "communicate their findings with all WA member nations?"

e. Record all native species found to exist within a tall grass prairie, and collect seed samples from all native prairie plants,

This issue may have come up before and I missed it but, there are plenty of non-animal species such as bacteria, not sure if the members should be required to find all these species.

Other than that, be sure to stay within the character limit with all of this. That is all.

Thanks for the advice! I'll try to implement these changes in my next draft.

[Barfleur]

NOTICING that tall grass prairies support a wide range of biodiversity, often including hundreds plant species, thousands insect species, several large mammals, and several prominent keystone species,

NOTING that tall grass prairies are often desirable for conversion to agricultural purposes, due to high nutrient levels in the soil, moderate levels of rainfall, and a lack of trees, which would otherwise have to be cut down for land conversion,

You could cut this whole thing out and still convince just as many if not more people to vote for.

OOC: On this, I disagree. The average user is probably not aware of the intricacies of tall grass prairies and why they are so important to local ecosystems and to the environment as a whole. The proposal author would benefit, in my mind, from informing the voters of why it is desirable to protect these biomes.

LAMENTING that only a tiny fraction of tall grass prairies remain today, usually in areas which were previously inaccessible to agriculture,

Might as well cut everything after the comma.

OOC: With you on that.

OBSERVING that, in many WA member nations, the conversion of large tracts of land for agricultural purposes has severely decreased the abundance of tall grass prairies, which in turn has led to a reduction in biodiversity among pollinators,

TROUBLED that a lack of biodiversity among pollinators may be detrimental, not only to the ecosystem, but also to agriculture by creating, in many cases, an unstable 1 to 1 relationship between crop yield and a single pollinator species, which has the potential to collapse the agricultural industry of some nations, should said pollinator become extinct due to external factors,

Almost complete fluff. I recommend either a complete removal of these clauses or significant changes.

OOC: I respectfully disagree. To be sure, these clauses certainly are cumbersome and would benefit from revision, but like I said above, the average user does not know the intricacies of the subject in question. It is just as important to demonstrate that these biomes are in danger as it is to show why they are needed in the fist place.

APPLAUDING the efforts of some nations to restore tall grass prairies by replanting native grasses in their historic range and periodically conducting controlled burns to prevent the encroachment of saplings into prairies, which would otherwise lead to the conversion of prairies into forests,

Complete fluff, doesn't really do anything to convince voters.

OOC: Agreed.

IC: "I find the proposal laudable, especially given the often overlooked nature (heh) of this specific topic. My one objection is that it is not particularly global or even multinational in scope--not every nation even has native prairies and grasslands, and many nations which do have probably given some thought to preservation. Nevertheless, because the intrusion into national affairs is so minor in this proposal, I do not think that the lack of an international objective is particularly worrisome."

---

Also, formatting.

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

1. ‘tall grass prairie’ as a biome featuring the dominance of tall grass species, typically averaging from 1.5 - 2 meters in height, moderate levels of annual rainfall, usually between 700 - 900 millimeters each year, and the presence of periodic wildfires, which prevents the encroachment of saplings and invasive plant species;
2. ‘pollinators’ as species that frequently spread pollen between the male and female components of a plant species, allowing said plants to fertilize the female ovules for reproduction; and
3. ‘land development’ as any sapient activity which permanently alters the landscape from its naturally occurring form;

2. TASKS the World Assembly Science Program (WASP) with:

1. researching the historical prevalence of tall grass prairies in all WA member nations;
2. determining the impact that agriculture and land development has had on the decline of tall grass prairies and the loss of pollinators in all WA member nations;
3. performing ecological surveys to assess the feasibility of restoring tall grass prairies in nations with significantly diminished tall grass prairie ranges;
4. researching methods and creating guidelines for maintaining tall grass prairies in areas where periodic controlled burns have the potential to be ecologically damaging;
5. communicating their findings with the WA and the environmental agencies of member nations; and
6. assisting member nations in conducting independent research into native tall grass prairies when adequate resources are lacking;

3. MANDATES all member nations:

1. determine areas where tall grass prairies currently exist within their borders;
2. conduct environmental impact studies to determine the effect of any land development proposal within 5 kilometers of areas recognized as containing tall grass prairies;
3. share raw data on all research pertaining to tall grass prairies with the WASP;
4. maintain current tall grass prairies by:
   
   1. performing periodic controlled burns when it is ecologically in the best interest of the prairie and the surrounding area and unlikely to lead to the development of a wildfire, or else following the guidance set forth by the WASP in clause 2d;
   2. preventing land development for any purpose in tall grass prairies; and
   3. preventing sapient activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies; and
5. record all native species found to exist within a tall grass prairie, and collect seed samples from all native prairie plants; and

4. STRONGLY RECOMMENDS that member nations:

1. work to restore and maintain tall grass prairies in all ecologically feasible areas, as determined by the findings of the WASP;
2. create economic incentives for private entities to restore and maintain tall grass prairies when direct government action is infeasible; and
3. research methods of reducing land use and pollution associated with agriculture.

[Frisbeeteria]

*snip*

OOC: Thanks for the feedback.

[Big Boyz]

Thanks everyone for the feedback! Draft 4 has been added.

[Tinhampton]

share raw data on all research pertaining to tall grass prairies with the World Assembly Science Program (WASP);

The above reworking of your Clause 3c (proposed alterations in blue) is all I have to say on this right now. You have already told us what the WASP is in Article 2; there is no need to do so again.

[Jedinsto]

snip

You may be right about that, I am fine with this draft as long as some cuts are made to the preamble.

Seems like some cuts have been made, but I think there should be some more. So, to the author, I suggest you look back through the preamble and cut whatever you think isn't really necessary, but this has my full support. Good luck!

[Big Boyz]

share raw data on all research pertaining to tall grass prairies with the World Assembly Science Program (WASP);

The above reworking of your Clause 3c (proposed alterations in blue) is all I have to say on this right now. You have already told us what the WASP is in Article 2; there is no need to do so again.

fair point