Rules broken: Category rule (Area of Effect, more specifically), Contradiction (of GA #413)
Reasoning, Category rule: Desertification is a process that affects much more than just agricultural industry (this could easily have been written under Health category as well), and I believe it should have been put under All Businesses (which reminds me, the proposal rules thread lacks any mention of the strengths in that AoE) instead. Land is cleared of vegetation for building projects, soil/mineral extraction, which affects manufacturing - the preamble mentions "loss of bodies of water", which presumably would affect fishing industry - and many more, including ecosystem restoration (more of that below).
The author admits that they understand desertification isn't only an agricultural issue:
and in the discussion thread explain that they didn't intend to seriously hinder agriculture, and it frankly speaking appears as though they aren't certain of the negative effects either (emphasis mine):Erithaca wrote:Desertification causes droughts and famine, definitely bad for your commerce!
Erithaca wrote:Out of all the categories, it hinders agriculture the most. While it still will help agriculture greatly by preventing arable land turning into sand, it might have some negative impacts on agriculture. In 4c and possibly 4d, agriculture could be temporarily hindered. By controlling grazing, some farms working with grazing animals could have their business slowed.
Further, given that the committee in the proposal is, according to author, given unilateral rights to "take all possible/reasonable/allowed steps to ensure that" the things it is tasked to do in subclauses of clause 4 actually are done, the AoE should be All Businesses, Strong (again, I presume that's how the strength works, rather than Environmental: Strong, because the rules post doesn't say how it works now).
Reasoning, contradiction of GA #413, Wetland Protection Protocol: That resolution's clause 3.a., "Restore wetlands to their pre-construction quality and characteristics" is mentioned as one of three possibilities that nations are required to choose from. Given that desert wetlands are an actual thing that exists (some are occasionally occurring, when rains come, some are permanent, bordering a source of water, but they exist in desert climates and areas), not being allowed to intentionally cause desertification (removing the effects of "greening" an area) would prevent restoring the wetlands to their pristine stage - not just desert wetlands either; the requirement for "reforestation" would appear to ban clearing trees altogether, when you're not going to be replanting any.
In addition to which it looks like you also wouldn't be allowed to restore original desert areas back to their pristine state for purposes of endangered animal conservation and reintroduction to the wild, but since that's basically just inferred from GA #66, it's more a logical objection than a true contradiction.