[GA - Passed] Preventing Desertification [Complete]

Stoskavanya1

Stoskavanya1

TNPer

ga.jpg

Preventing Desertification
Category: Enviromental | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Erithaca | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly,

Shocked at the process of desertification, which causes the loss of bodies of water as well as vegetation and wildlife,

Noting that these in turn cause famine and drought,

Understanding that a major cause of desertification is removal of vegetation,

Hereby,

1. Mandates member nations take reasonable precautions and enact reasonable regulations to reduce excessive removal of vegetation for purposes relating to agriculture and otherwise.

2. Encourages member nations to educate those involved, especially agricultural workers, on desertification.

3. Strongly encourages member nations to take part in reforestation and construction of shelter belts, woodlots and windbreaks.

4. Mandates that the WAEC shall oversee efforts against desertification and ensure that:

a) efforts are feasible, not harmful and approved by the local community and government,

b) reforestation is planned and maintained,

c) grazing is managed to prevent overgrazing,

d) water is conserved, collected and distributed in an orderly and fair manner in areas affected by desertification,

e) records are kept of areas at risk of or undergoing desertification, along with the status of any efforts against desertification.
Click to expand...
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Preventing Desertification is an attempt to address the damaging consequences of desertification with a call to action on member states to confront the phenomenon within their nation and a grant of authority to the WA Environmental Council to oversee such efforts. We find the measures urged by this proposal both weak and noncompulsory, and the duties granted to the WAEC insufficient to address the magnitude of the issue, thus leaving a proposal that is both fiscally unproductive and blocks stronger potential legislation on the subject. Therefore, the Ministry advises a vote against the proposal.
 
Against. This seems like powerless micromanaging of a problem that's a lot more multifaceted and complicated than can be reasonably expected for one government agency to consider and deal with all at once. I would say desertification requires an across-the-board delegation of powers to other government organizations to be effectively combatted. It's a noble cause and if there were stronger legislation to come out on it later on, I would consider getting behind it. This just seems like pointless bureaucracy.
 
Against. The resolution first urges action and then seems to suggest that the urged behavior is made mandatory by the WAEC. The message is confusing at best and overly and politically invasive at worst.
 
If we really want to save this earth, Why we can't just support this proposal? I mean.. this could be a great another step to guarantee that actually all the countries really take the environment into account. For a better future.
Thanks

Sincerely,


The Freeland of Bimantran
 
princebryan:
If we really want to save this earth, Why we can't just support this proposal? I mean.. this could be a great another step to guarantee that actually all the countries really take the environment into account. For a better future.
Thanks

Sincerely,


The Freeland of Bimantran
Click to expand...
I understand your concerns. However, there is more comprehensive and better executed ways of ensuring this. I would fully support a bill that would protect the desert ecosystems if the proposal called for studies and actual projects that could do so instead of "urging" that it not be done and then forcing some idea of compliance on the WA that is ill described.
 
princebryan:
If we really want to save this earth, Why we can't just support this proposal? I mean.. this could be a great another step to guarantee that actually all the countries really take the environment into account. For a better future.
Thanks

Sincerely,


The Freeland of Bimantran
Click to expand...
The logic behind the opposition, at least how I see it, is more so related to the structure of the proposal and less so its subject matter. There's a few additional aspects you have to consider when analyzing international law as oppose to national law. Namely for this proposal, how do you compel nations to follow your mandates?

I think it can be said that nations are self-motivated to preserve their own agricultural ecosystems, so one can logically deduce that these nations would already take steps to combat this problem, at least to the extent asked by the proposal, especially if there are calculable economic benefits in doing so. Therefore, we can say that there are two types of nations that this resolution targets. 1. Nations that lack the resources to address the problem themselves, and 2. Nations that refuse to address the problem on some other principle.

As written, the proposal has little impact on either group. There is no direct assistance given to struggling member nations in this regard, other than a committee whose job is only to oversee efforts and collect data, according to the author's admitted interpretation. As for the defiant nations, the proposal fails to compel them in any strong way. The first, and only non-optional clause, asks member states to enact reasonable regulations on the matter. Who interprets "reasonable" is ambiguous, but the sentence has a bigger problem of being far too weak a requirement. "Reasonable" measures do not have to be extensive, strong, or even ultimately successful measures.

There are many other flaws, such as questions on how this committee will "ensure" the duties asked of it, but to put things simple the proposal basically asks nations to address desertification without giving the nations any framework or assistance to do so. Separatist People 'Wetland Protection Protocol' had mitigation credits, Bear's Ozone proposal had enforced reduction deadlines, etc. This has nothing.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top