At Vote: Prevention of Wildfires [Complete] [Complete]

---

Description: The World Assembly,

Rejoicing that many nations include not only urban areas and farmland but also wide expanses of natural or at least semi-natural habitats too,

Realising that although most nations probably have fairly adequate measures in place for controlling fires in urban areas some might not yet have extended those systems to cover their more rural areas effectively too, and that the best ways for managing fires in rural areas — especially in wilderness — may differ from those useful at more urban sites anyway,

Aware that wide areas of vegetation (especially those of woodland, such as may be called ‘forests’) are often likely to contain large amounts of combustible material, leading to serious risks that any fires started there might spread uncontrollably and cause significant damage,

Wise to the fact that natural fire can be an integral and even important factor in some ecosystems, and that even in ‘wild’ areas where that is not the case carrying out controlled burns of limited extent to reduce potential fuel levels for unplanned fires may be a better policy than simply trying to prevent all fires there altogether,

Regarding this as an ‘international’ enough topic for WA legislation because even when a fire itself does not cross international borders the smoke-clouds from it may do so, maybeso with seriously harmful results, as well as for the potential effects on global environments and endangered species;

Hereby,

1). Instructs all member nations to:
i/ Have and enforce, across all of their territory, laws against both reckless fire-starting and the deliberate starting of inadequately controllable fires;
ii/ Have suitable plans, with the necessary personnel and equipment for those, in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason;
iii/ Ensure that the relevant people in any other nations likely to be significantly affected are given reasonable notice of planned fires and, as far as is practical within reason, arrange those fires for mutually agreed dates;
iv/ Ensure that the relevant people in any other nations likely to be significantly affected are also notified of any unplanned fires that are identified;
v/ Refrain from the use of uncontrolled fire as a weapon or tool of war in wilderness and semi-wilderness areas, and in any other places from which the fires would be likely to spread into such areas.

2). Encourages member nations to:
i/ Include the safe handling of Fire at a basic level in their educational syllabuses;
ii/ Coordinate plans for controlling fire in border areas with relevant neighbours;
iii/ Cross-train suitable units and individual volunteers from their armed forces in fire-fighting, and position suitable equipment ready for their use, so that when not actually needed for more martial duties they can assist in this work; and deploy other units with relevant skills and equipment to assist in fire-management efforts as appropriate.

3). Instructs the WA Disaster Board to study and to distribute as appropriate information about fire hazards and fire-control methods; urges member nations to share all relevant data that they possess with the WADB; and offers this service to any non-WA nations that are interested (and are willing to pay reasonable fees, share their relevant date with the WADB, and meet clause #1’s terms to the same extent that would be necessary if they were WA members) too.

---

Please vote: For | Against | Abstain | Present

"Abstain" means that you wish for the Delegate to not vote on the resolution at all.
"Present" means that you effectively choose not to participate in this vote. "Present" has no effect on how the Delegate votes.

Posts which do not include an explicit vote are not counted in the tally.

Ok. So this particular resolution attempts to prevent forest fires. And it's a nation of bears who authored it. Apparently only you can prevent forest fires.

On a more serious note, while I have some problems with the language in the introductory clauses ("wise to"... really?), it's the operative clauses that cause the most problems. We talk all the time about repealing legislation for inadequately defined terms. The problem comes in adding in the language of course.

Section 1.i is our first stop:

i/ Have and enforce, across all of their territory, laws against both reckless fire-starting and the deliberate starting of inadequately controllable fires;

Click to expand...

Now one assumes the inclusion of the term "across all of their territory" is supposed to mean you can't just have a law against fires in one small section of the nation and consider that part fullfilled. Sadly, the phrasing there is vague enough(in that I can have a law across all my territory not to start fires in a small section of the nation), to fail in that task while still drawing attention to the fact that that was the intent. It's sloppy work to fix a problem that probably didn't need fixing in the first place.

Beyond that, "inadequately controllable" is a difficult phrase to really get behind. No fire is absolutely controllable, and I'd have sincerely preferred that it either refrain from mentioning such fires at all. Controlled burns are a method firefighters use to fight wildfires, and they do get out of hand on occasion. I don't see why I need to have laws governing that unless they're being reckless(in which case our own nations likely have a law against reckless endangerment/manslaughter or an ability to sue for property damage). The phrase is "inadequately controllable" is inadequately sufficient to deal with all of the nuance that controlled burns involve.

Section 1.ii is another charlie foxtrot.

ii/ Have suitable plans, with the necessary personnel and equipment for those, in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason;

Click to expand...

Comma misplacement aside, the phrase "to the best extent practical within reason" ought to be a crime itself.

1.iii and iv have some of the same problems as above. They repeat "practical within reason" and require nations to notify other nations when a planned or unplanned fire can affect them. Now I'm not a stickler for IntFed reasoning, but while you're on the topic shouldn't there be a bit in here about notifying people within your own borders as well? It seems that while you're there that would be a reasonable step.

1.v has a clause about not using fire as a weapon of war. Which strikes me as a bit of an overreach. The facts on the ground could be anything, and I'd much rather not tie the hands of my generals in the use of tactics. I'd discourage it, strongly even... but getting rid of it completely is too far.

Section 2 are encouraging clauses... so nothing in them has to be followed. We'll ignore them.

Section 3 on the other hand is a whole 'nother matter.

3). Instructs the WA Disaster Board to study and to distribute as appropriate information about fire hazards and fire-control methods; urges member nations to share all relevant data that they possess with the WADB; and offers this service to any non-WA nations that are interested (and are willing to pay reasonable fees, share their relevant date with the WADB, and meet clause #1’s terms to the same extent that would be necessary if they were WA members) too.

Click to expand...

There are two missing commas. It should read "to distribute, as appropriate, information about fire hazards". Without the comma that clause takes on a different meaning. Which is bad because the next line while still an "urges" clause, asks that nations "share all relevant data". I wouldn't mind the proposal not saying "all data relevant to fighting fires" (which, while better defined, is still a minefield due to state secrets), but the final line makes it a requirement on non-wa nation who wish to participate in the program. Assuming of course that you take the misspelling of "date" as "data".

All in all, this resolution is heavily flawed. Filled with typos and I think is unneeded. I recommend a vote against.

It seems unneeded, dont people know not to be a dummy and play with matches?

I am inclined to support this. I vote for.

Against. on recomendation of the Deputy WA Minister.

There are too many errors, as Treize has pointed out, to make this an effective piece of legislation. I vote AGAINST given its current form.

1-0-2 against, voted accordingly.

I vote aye! Better than nothing.

I had half of my house destroyed by a bushfire when I was a little tacker.

2-0-2, back to not voting.

Aye

3-0-2, changed to Aye.

Nay, TD makes very valid points.

3-0-3, withdrawn again.

Aye, as with Mcm, its better than nothing.

Aye, it's a good start

5-0-3, voting aye again.

Nay! Aye! Maybe!

(ahh take it as an Aye)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the arguments presented by Douria. I'll try and briefly explain why.

Now one assumes the inclusion of the term "across all of their territory" is supposed to mean you can't just have a law against fires in one small section of the nation and consider that part fullfilled. Sadly, the phrasing there is vague enough(in that I can have a law across all my territory not to start fires in a small section of the nation), to fail in that task while still drawing attention to the fact that that was the intent. It's sloppy work to fix a problem that probably didn't need fixing in the first place.

Click to expand...

Firstly, regarding the "vagueness" of the phrase "across all territories:" even if Douria's interpretation is correct, which I contest, reasonable nation theory dictates that no nation will be so unreasonable as to only prohibit recklessly starting fires in one specific area to circumvent the resolution. Wildfires are against the interest of all nations, therefore, no nation would interpret the resolution as Douria has suggested.

Beyond that, "inadequately controllable" is a difficult phrase to really get behind. No fire is absolutely controllable, and I'd have sincerely preferred that it either refrain from mentioning such fires at all. Controlled burns are a method firefighters use to fight wildfires, and they do get out of hand on occasion. I don't see why I need to have laws governing that unless they're being reckless(in which case our own nations likely have a law against reckless endangerment/manslaughter or an ability to sue for property damage). The phrase is "inadequately controllable" is inadequately sufficient to deal with all of the nuance that controlled burns involve.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that no fire is absolutely controllable, and by reading the text, I get the feeling that the author agrees based on the language they used. Inadequately controllable is flexible enough so as obviously allow trained professionals to handle controlled fires. To suggest that the term "inadequately" precludes all controlled fires simply because there is no 100% guarantee of control is ridiculous. The term inadequate is used to create a distinction between fires that cannot reasonably be contained and fires handled in such a way where procedure is followed and the expectation is that it will not get out of hand. Attacking qualifiers like "inadequately" is popular for some reason, but whatever those reasons might be, inadequately is not ineffective here.

Section 1.ii is another charlie foxtrot.

ii/ Have suitable plans, with the necessary personnel and equipment for those, in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason;

Click to expand...

Comma misplacement aside, the phrase "to the best extent practical within reason" ought to be a crime itself.

Click to expand...

The comma placement here is not incorrect. While the actual structure of the sentence is awkward, it's not wrong. Commas are used to separate dependent clauses from the sentence. For example, removing the clause in question (and the commas) would not impact the grammatical correctness of the sentence. "Have suitable plans in place for managing fires everywhere within their borders, to the best extent practical within reason," makes sense. The adding of a dependent clause within the sentence makes sense, but only if it's separated by commas, which it is. Unless you mean in the phrase "to the best extent practical within reason," where a comma should be added, but the meaning is not changed because of that.

1.iii and iv have some of the same problems as above. They repeat "practical within reason" and require nations to notify other nations when a planned or unplanned fire can affect them. Now I'm not a stickler for IntFed reasoning, but while you're on the topic shouldn't there be a bit in here about notifying people within your own borders as well? It seems that while you're there that would be a reasonable step.

Click to expand...

This is an unfair assessment, for several reasons. Firstly, you've already claimed that nations would be expected to have their own laws regarding starting fires recklessly because that's what a reasonable nation would do. Logically, it would follow that you also believe that they have laws about notifying those relevant parties in their nation of controlled fires. You can believe that nations are reasonable and will have reasonable laws about fire, or you can assume nations are unable to form policy except those espoused explicitly by the World Assembly, but you can't hold both opinions at the same time.

Even then, I don't think it's necessary for the WA to mandate member nations to do something that any reasonable nation would do anyways. We haven't written resolutions that ban murder and stealing because reasonable nations will already have laws on the topic. Similarly, no reasonable nation would burn the forest behind someone's house without telling them first. And I say this as an "IntFed." Writing basic domestic laws is not the WA's job.

1.v has a clause about not using fire as a weapon of war. Which strikes me as a bit of an overreach. The facts on the ground could be anything, and I'd much rather not tie the hands of my generals in the use of tactics. I'd discourage it, strongly even... but getting rid of it completely is too far.

Click to expand...

The WA has already taken a very firm stance against using weapons that can't be controlled. Just like we can't use biological weapons because they're self-propagating, nations shouldn't use fire because there's no way to prevent it from killing civilians and even uninvolved parties. Recklessly starting forest fires is definitely not a military tactic to which the WA should give its tacit approval.

There are two missing commas. It should read "to distribute, as appropriate, information about fire hazards". Without the comma that clause takes on a different meaning. Which is bad because the next line while still an "urges" clause, asks that nations "share all relevant data". I wouldn't mind the proposal not saying "all data relevant to fighting fires" (which, while better defined, is still a minefield due to state secrets), but the final line makes it a requirement on non-wa nation who wish to participate in the program. Assuming of course that you take the misspelling of "date" as "data".

Click to expand...

The commas are missing, I agree, however, the meaning of the clause isn't altered by it. Furthermore, I have no idea what important state secrets nations might divulge when sharing relevant fire fighting data, but I think it's safe to assume that firefighting espionage will not cause any serious problems.

All in all, despite some of the grammatical errors, I don't see any issues with the content and unofficially recommend a vote in favor.

6-0-3, continuing voting For.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.