[DRAFT] Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"

[East Coggins]

IC: *The East Coggan WA Ambassador, David Johnston Speaks* “Volcanoes are a natural structure and phenomena which have observed, timelessly over the centuries, millennia, and epochs the ever-changing and dynamic attitudes of our planet. Much like ourselves, each possesses complex personalities ranging from the simple and calm to the complex and aggressive. These totems of igneous rocks while stately and photogenic can abruptly alter their surrounding environments through forces consequently monumental. These forces can level cities under layers of pumice and ash, and drown idyllic meadows in rivers of lava. Volcanoes and their related geologic hazards pose an ever-present threat to the populations which surround them and live distances from their peaks. GAR#565 “Volcanic Activity Convection” aimed, with the best intentions, to provide a framework for management of such emergencies. However, GAR#565 fell short through errors in its misunderstanding of volcanoes and their associated activity. Also, the subsequent passage of GAR#570 “Disaster Precautions And Responses” has provided an ideal solution to the shortfalls of GAR#565 while at the same time providing an effective framework of emergency management for disaster both natural and civil in nature. For these reasons, the Delegation to the World Assembly of the Republic of East Coggins presents and proposes Repeal “Volcanic Activity Convection”. The attention afforded to our delegation is appreciated and feedback is welcomed. Thank you.”

Repeal "Volcanic Actvity Convention"

The World Assembly,

Admiring the goals of GAR#565 in limiting the loss of life associated with volcanic eruptions;

Cognizant of the unpredictable nature of volcanoes and their associated threats and hazards, Article 2(a) of GAR#565 describes volcanic activity as predictable. This descriptor is in contravention to the basics of volcanology, which recognizes that volcanic activity, in particular, the prediction of eruptions is unreliable and unfounded in scientific reality;

Article 2(d) of GAR#565 details the measures member nations are to undertake to ensure the efficient evacuation of the population. However, recognizing evacuation is the preferred means of protecting the population in close proximity to an active or eruption-imminent volcano, the wording of the resolution falls short of mentioning other protective actions for the population such as sheltering-in-place or taking cover in an appropriate protective location;

Acknowledging that, as with other natural and geological phenomena, each volcano is unique in that each presents different local threats to the population and environment and possess varied eruptive histories. GAR#565 fails to account for or recognize this unique nature of volcanoes which requires varied emergency management and scientific monitoring and analysis from volcano to volcano;

Aware of the timescale in which volcanic activity and eruptions occur, and dependent on the volcano, the predictability and scale of activity and eruptions, member stations should possess the independence in judgment of whether a particular volcano necessitates a constant of monitoring and informance of the population. The provisions of GAR#565, would constrain certain member nations to excerpt potentially inadequate or nonexistent funds to the monitoring of volcanoes which do not present overt threats of activity or eruption to the population of the member nations or neighboring nations. The timescale of future potential activity or eruptions may not be of consequence;

Alert to the passage of GAR#570 “Disaster Precautions And Responses”, which establishes and tasks the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (WADB) with the “creation, operation, and maintenance of systems designed to detect and predict disasters” and the fabrications for the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery to civil and natural disasters including but not limited to geologic and volcanic disaster. The passage and presence of GAR#570 constitutes the redundancy of GAR #565 and the codification of a more apt substitution;

Finding GAR#565 to be a deeply flawed and redundant resolution for which the only appropriate response is to repeal;

The General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#565 “Volcanic Activity Convention”.

Co-authored by Varanius.

EDIT Link to GAR #565: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Support."

~Spencer Hemming,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Minskiev]

Post so that Vara momentarily gets hope only to be disappointed with a lack of content

[Nunaqujjuk]

No, just no

[Hulldom]

Post so that Vara momentarily gets hope only to be disappointed with a lack of content

I mean, there's probably not a whole lot at issue here. Unless someone has reasons these arguments are all out of wack, it's just "okay, what can you do to strengthen it", "here are some nitpicks", "support/no support".

[Varanius]

OOC: bumping this?

[Kenmoria]

“This proposal is using the one-sentence format, where the entire text is one cohesive sentence. However, you have written one clause as a distinct set of sentences, and there are sentences occasionally embedded into some of the clauses. This creates a series of grammatical errors. Because of the complexity of your clauses, using a different format might be better. I would recommend the following.”

Lewitt hands the Varanian ambassador a piece of paper, with scribbled notes hastily made upon it.

The World Assembly,

Hereby acknowledges the following:

1. The goals of GA#365 are admirable. It aims to limit the loss of life associated with volcanic eruptions.

2. Volcanoes and their associated threats and hazards are of an unpredictable nature. However, Article 2(a) of GAR#565 describes volcanic activity as predictable. This descriptor is in contravention to the basics of volcanology, which recognizes that volcanic activity, in particular, the prediction of eruptions is unreliable and unfounded in scientific reality.

3. Article 2(d) of GAR#565 details the measures member nations are to undertake to ensure the efficient evacuation of the population. However, recognizing evacuation is the preferred means of protecting the population in close proximity to an active or eruption-imminent volcano, the wording of the resolution falls short of mentioning other protective actions for the population such as sheltering-in-place or taking cover in an appropriate protective location.

[…]

7. GA#565 is a deeply flawed and redundant resolution for which the only appropriate response is to repeal.

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#565 “Volcanic Activity Convention”.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: It is generally considered polite is to provide a link to the target in the first post of a repeal thread. For convenience: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Also, on the issue of predicted activity. Volcanic activity in many cases is very predictable on short term. Predictions also don't apply only before activity starts but also during eruptions. Collapse of ash column for example. Additionally nothing is said about an accuracy requirement for predictions.

And also the resolution says "Address all predicted, current, and recent past volcanic activity within national borders". Predicted activity is but one in a long list.

(I'm one of the authors, see my siggy.)

[East Coggins]

OOC: It is generally considered polite is to provide a link to the target in the first post of a repeal thread. For convenience: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

Also, on the issue of predicted activity. Volcanic activity in many cases is very predictable on short term. Predictions also don't apply only before activity starts but also during eruptions. Collapse of ash column for example. Additionally nothing is said about an accuracy requirement for predictions.

And also the resolution says "Address all predicted, current, and recent past volcanic activity within national borders". Predicted activity is but one in a long list.

(I'm one of the authors, see my siggy.)

OOC: Thank you for the response Araraukar. Apologies regarding the non-inclusion of a link to the resolution. It is my first time taking a shot at proposing and writing a resolution. I am certainly going into this partially blind. As such, the advice and critiques are well appreciated. Thank you.

The original post will be edited to include a link to the resolution.

That is true. In the short term, a well-monitored volcano will often provide insights toward and exhibit increased activity. This increased activity presents via increased earthquake activity, increased or altered gas emissions and chemical compositions of geothermal and hydrothermal vents, deformation of terrain, among others. In many cases this increased activity can forewarn an imminent eruption...however, on the same hand, the increased activity could come and go without any eruption. Worst case scenario, an eruption could occur without prior warning from increased activity or activity anomalies.

My matter of contention lies with using the term "predicted". We can connect the dots and agree that an eruption is possible. However, the prediction of an eruption is an unreliable and an inexact science. Use of the term can lead to persons thinking that like the weather forecast, volcanic eruptions and activity can be predicted from day to day. Is there a 50% of pyroclastic flows tomorrow? Can't tell you. How about, partly molten lava flow affecting your commute? Ask me during your commute.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I'll get back to you at greater length on this on Sunday, not at home tomorrow and not at computer today (and touchscreen typing is annoying), but I continue to point out that "predicted" is just one in a list of qualities, not the most important one. In the list in the resolution, it clearly stands in for "future". Past, present and those that have been predicted (with whatever accuracy or timing) but have not yet happened.

Also, volcanic activity is not synonymius with an eruption. The definition in the resolution is a tongue-in-cheek circular one on purpose exactly so that there need not be an exhaustive list of everything a volcano can do. That way it also applies to the wide variety of volcanoes there are in existence.

[East Coggins]

OOC: I'll get back to you at greater length on this on Sunday, not at home tomorrow and not at computer today (and touchscreen typing is annoying), but I continue to point out that "predicted" is just one in a list of qualities, not the most important one. In the list in the resolution, it clearly stands in for "future". Past, present and those that have been predicted (with whatever accuracy or timing) but have not yet happened.

Also, volcanic activity is not synonymius with an eruption. The definition in the resolution is a tongue-in-cheek circular one on purpose exactly so that there need not be an exhaustive list of everything a volcano can do. That way it also applies to the wide variety of volcanoes there are in existence.

OOC: No worries. I look forward to your full response.

Ah...I was not reading the resolution with the intention of using "predicted" to reference future activity and eruptions. Regardless, I'm of the opinion that "predicted" was in poor choice. Another synonym of "future" could have been used or "future" itself used.

I am aware that they are not synonymous. My use of "activity and eruption" was to be inclusive of all forms of geological hazards presented by volcanoes which pose a threat to life and property.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC post so I can use RL references.

Ah...I was not reading the resolution with the intention of using "predicted" to reference future activity and eruptions. Regardless, I'm of the opinion that "predicted" was in poor choice. Another synonym of "future" could have been used or "future" itself used.

We didn't choose "future" simply because it would have created even more problems. (That's also why it's not just "future, present and past" but rather "predicted, present and recent past".) Go far enough into the future and even areas that haven't seen volcanic acvitiy for the last one or two billion years and not likely to see any for the next billion years, might drift along with their continental plate onto a hotspot and develope volcanoes. Or an asteroid might fall and punch through the continental plate and end up creating a new zone for volcanic activity. But such things are either so far into the future as to be unpredictable, or are just generally random (the asteroid) and thus unpredictable, and so such nations shouldn't have to waste money and resources onto preparing for such chances.

So "predicted" was used instead. If you can't predict volcanic activity to be likely to happen in your nation's territory, then the resolution's requirements don't apply. Something like Eyafjallajökull volcano affecting all of Europe's airspace for air travel, was not something that most nations were prepared for, because it wasn't entirely predictable. But now, going forwards, most European nations have a set of guidelines what to do if it happens again, because Iceland is so volcanic and has glaciers, that it can be "predicted" to happen again some day, now that it's known to be possible. Even if predicting the precise time or chance of occurrence for any given year or volcano was impossible.

But that generally covers the first part of your proposal, so moving on...

Article 2(d) of GAR#565 details the measures member nations are to undertake to ensure the efficient evacuation of the population. However, recognizing evacuation is the preferred means of protecting the population in close proximity to an active or eruption-imminent volcano, the wording of the resolution falls short of mentioning other protective actions for the population such as sheltering-in-place or taking cover in an appropriate protective location;

2.d., with its preface reads "Mandates that member nations whose populations face the risks of volcanic activity (t)ake whichever evacuation measures ensure that" and then its subclauses. Can you point out to me where exactly it forbids sheltering in place? Especially with "when to evacuate" in 2.d.i.? If evacuation is not needed (such as with minor earthquakes), then people would shelter in place or just go around their daily lives, as people living near volcanoes tend to do, unless things get serious.

As for why evacuation is the preferred method in a serious situation, your argument about the unpredictability of eruptions (that you used against the word "predictable") is exactly why. Volcanic activity on the major scale (talking of eruptions) can on a very short notice become deadly, and then sheltering in place usually means you die, because you often can't outrun and certainly can't move large amounts of people fast enough to outrun the more dangerous aspects of an eruption.

Acknowledging that, as with other natural and geological phenomena, each volcano is unique in that each presents different local threats to the population and environment and possess varied eruptive histories. GAR#565 fails to account for or recognize this unique nature of volcanoes which requires varied emergency management and scientific monitoring and analysis from volcano to volcano;

I think you missed this in 2.c.: "Inform their populace with regularly updated, widely available, and locally specific information on the dangers of volcanic activity however they see fit".

Aware of the timescale in which volcanic activity and eruptions occur, and dependent on the volcano, the predictability and scale of activity and eruptions, member stations should possess the independence in judgment of whether a particular volcano necessitates a constant of monitoring and informance of the population. The provisions of GAR#565, would constrain certain member nations to excerpt potentially inadequate or nonexistent funds to the monitoring of volcanoes which do not present overt threats of activity or eruption to the population of the member nations or neighboring nations. The timescale of future potential activity or eruptions may not be of consequence;

False. See main clause 2, which has the text "member nations whose populations face the risks of volcanic activity". If there's no risk of volcanic activity within a nation's territory, then nothing in clause 2 applies. Though it's curious that you would use the word "overt", as in RL all volcanoes showing any signs of activity that are anywhere near where people live, are monitored, just in case they suddenly become more active than is healthy. If a volcano you thought to be no big deal suddenly turns out to be a big deal, and you're caught flatfooted, you bet the population is going to blame the authorities for not being prepared for disaster, afterwards. (I also think you meant to use the word "expend" instead of "excerpt".)

Oh and can you point out where monitoring the volcanoes is in any way required? Hint: it's not, because another resolution required it at the time of passing, and I think that resolution has been replaced with another one since then. The resolution you want to repeal here, focuses on keeping people and infrastructure (and to some degree, the environment in general) safe from volcanic activity, not the actual scientific side of volcanology. So doubly false.

Also I don't quite understand what the last sentence of that quoted bit means. "The timescale of future potential activity or eruptions may not be of consequence" - what?

Alert to the passage of GAR#570 “Disaster Precautions And Responses”, which establishes and tasks the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (WADB) with the “creation, operation, and maintenance of systems designed to detect and predict disasters” and the fabrications for the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery to civil and natural disasters including but not limited to geologic and volcanic disaster. The passage and presence of GAR#570 constitutes the redundancy of GAR #565 and the codification of a more apt substitution;

Ah, so you're aware of the other resolution that does what you previously claimed your target required nations to do. So... were you intentionally lying? Or just confused which resolution did what? (You might also want to link to that one as well, by the way, to give people an easy way to compare.)

As for the supposed overlap, can you point out where #570 says anything about evacuations or volcanic activity?

It doesn't. #570 only speaks of disasters, which it defines as "any unintentional disturbance of the social order, especially one resulting in widespread death or destruction of property" - nations that abide by the requirements of #565 would not experience disasters pertaining to volcanic activity, as defined by #570. Given the definition in #570 uses the fluffy term "social order", an evacuation that happened in an orderly manner, under the guidance of law enforcement and emergency services, would not constitute a disturbance of the social order. And 2.a.i. of #565 mandates relevant nations to "(prepare) for volcanic activity while working to minimize ... property damage potentially caused by volcanic activity", so "widespread ... destruction of property" should also have already been prevented or at least minimized.

Given the target resolution addresses not merely volcanic disasters but also lesser problems caused by volcanic activity, the more vague #570 does not adequately cover the target's topic, and certainly doesn't provide same level of attention on how to tackle the problems. What the two resolutions actually do is complement one another. They even use the same committee, but whereas #570 heavily leans on the committee, #565 (the target of this repeal) doesn't rely on unwieldy bureaucracy to work quickly enough but directly tasks nations to work with one another instead, to ensure quick passing on of information and aid. The WA is currently over 24 thousand nation strong, so expecting a committee to get back to them within hours (mere hours would actually be a miracle, but we probably have to assume the gnomes can do such miracles, when writing proposals), rather than informing the neighbouring nation's authorities now yourself, would be an unnecessarily dangerous delay, when you might have airplanes in the air about to fly into volcanic ash clouds that can kill their engines.