Character count: 3,013
Word count: 446
Susanna Bryant, eighth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: On further consideration, our delegation has reached a consensus that the resolution on desertification is unfit for purpose. And they had to ask me to write the blighted thing!Word count: 446
Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador: There have been two known attempts to repeal Resolution Four-Hundred and Seventy-Three up to now: one of them read simply "I like this idea, and its cool. Its hardcore, its lawful, and its capitalista!" and the other "I like the environment I like trees I love the beautiful forest and trees!". We hope that you will receive Susanna's draft better than either of those proposals by the former ambassador from Aydensoft.
Jimmy McTiernan, an Understudy for Tinhampton's WA Delegation: Wind is not sapient... as far as I know, anyway.
OOC 2: Previous repeals have argued that replacement international legislation ought not to be passed and/or that member states or their subsidiaries have been more than able to discharge its main provisions without WA interference. See HR#87, HR#143, HR#145, HR#157, HR#162, HR#165, HR#173, HR#189, GA#137, GA#138, GA#154, GA#157 (the second best repeal in the history of the World Assembly), GA#188, GA#225, GA#245, GA#251, GA#269, possibly GA#274, GA#276, GA#293, GA#331, GA#368 (the best repeal in the history of the World Assembly), and GA#497.
Repeal "Responsible Land Management"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.Category: RepealTarget: GA#473Proposed by: Tinhampton
General Assembly Resolution #473 “Responsible Land Management” (Category: Environmental; Area of Effect: Agriculture) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Recognising that, while desertification is an important issue for some member states, the target resolution fails in its attempts to impose multiple one-size-fits-none solutions upon all members,
Concerned that Article 6 of GA#473 compels members to ban "excessive removal or destruction of vegetation... resulting in exposed, unprotected soils creating a threat of artificial desertification or contributing to existing desertification," doing so while:
- failing to explicitly outline the minimum surface area that must be affected by the actions described in said Article for vegetation removal to be deemed "excessive" (see GA#471 "Repeal "Preventing Desertification""),
- not defining "desertification" (see GA#471 again), thereby leaving players of ball games such as rugby and association football at inadvertent risk of being criminalised simply for degrading the grass pitch they are playing on, and
- insisting that they outlaw the kinds of soil exposure described in Article 6 if it merely poses "a threat of artificial desertification" (regardless of whether desertification ever actually occurs as a result), requiring them to make subjective judgment calls on how much vegetation can be removed before it poses such a threat,
Unnerved that Article 5 requires members - rather than their political subdivisions or even individual farmers - "to install or plant windbreaks around farm fields in areas designated by the ESWA to be “at-risk” of wind erosion," whether or not such installation is viable for any involved party,
Observing that members are not required to co-operate with the ESWA regarding "reforestation, land reclamation, and rehabilitation" within their jurisdiction as outilned in Article 2d, thereby rendering GA#473 much less effective in ensuring that they actually reverse desertification rather than just prevent it,
Mildly baffled that "no external sources for financial contribution [are] permitted" by the ESWA even if such contributions are not intended to (or otherwise cannot) sway the outcome of any ESWA research, given that GA#322 "On Scientific Cooperation" allows its parent committee - the WA Scientific Program - to receive donations from non-WA entities for certain purposes, including for purposes relating to collaborative research,
Noting that the only effective alternative to resolutions such as GA#473 requiring member states to implement extremely vaguely-defined and barely effective measures against desertification would be to order them to impose unnecessarily specific countermeasures, thereby rendering such laws of little use in any event, and thus
Believing that those member states most acutely affected by desertification, working in collaboration with other governments and their own landowners, are best placed to develop solutions that are innovative and truly comprehensive (rather than vague and compromising) to the challenges that it poses...
The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#473 "Responsible Land Management."