Hello Select Delegates of the World Assembly!
I am messaging you today to ask that you
withdraw your support from
Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands"
Unfortunately, many of the claims presented in the repeal are misleading and untrue.
Claim #1
"GAR #553 shows its complete disregard for the diversity among the members of this international assembly, and incompetence at adequately implementing reasonable and workable protection plans for a species that it claims is endangered, by effectively halting any and all development in nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere. Not only will this cause great economic disaster because of a lack of progress and development - especially in still developing member nations with widespread and prevalent prairies - but it will eventually bring about severe housing and food shortages, and dangerous overpopulation in those member states as a result."
There are some nations that have an abundance of tallgrass prairies, it is true, but the argument that this will inevitably lead to the slow death of nations is nonsensical. Areas that have already been developed are not subject to the provisions of this proposal, such as cities, farms, and roadways, so efforts to improve and maintain these structures are always available. Expansion is definitely permitted in the areas surrounding tallgrass prairies, so the idea that GA 553 prohibits all development is simply not true.
Additionally, the situation that is being described is, at best, a fringe case. You could make the same argument about a nation which is comprised entirely of endangered ecosystems, or other protected biomes, such as wetlands. The logical extension of this argument is that no ecosystem can be set aside for conservation, because any nation could have a great number of protected lands within their boarders. Allowing this level of role-play to interfere with the workings of the General Assembly would have disastrous consequences for future environmental regulations.
Claim #2
"Furthermore, the target resolution makes the grave error of presuming that prairie tall grasses are prevalent across all member nations. This is not only a show of ignorance regarding the diverse nature of the members of this international body, but also harbours an incredible danger to unique and delicate ecosystems, to which this particular species of tall grasses would be a destructive invasive species. GAR #553 therefore prevents member nations from destroying these prairie tall grasses as an invasive species in order to protect and preserve their own threatened ecosystems."
Tall grass prairies do not occur in every member state, that is not what what the proposal says. It makes generic assertions that these tallgrass prairies exist in more than just one nation, and it also makes generic references to the fact that tallgrass prairies are greatly diminished on an international scale and worthy of protection.
Regarding invasive species, the definition of land development only pertains to the alteration of its landscape from its naturally occurring form. If, in fact, restoration efforts are to be taken to remove invasive species and restore a landscape to its naturally occurring form prior to the encroachment of prairies, then this would not meet the definition of 'land development', and hence not be prohibited. The argument presented in this claim is intentionally misleading. The author of the repeal was notified numerous times that their claim is untrue, yet they proceeded to include it in the repeal. I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an
honest mistake.
Claim #3
"In addition, GAR #553 unnecessarily places onerous restrictions on member nations, when General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction" already charges member nations in Clause 2 "to develop and faithfully implement WAESC-approved conservation plans to protect all at-risk species within their own jurisdiction". Furthermore, GAR #465 approaches the subject of at-risk species protection in a detailed and reasonable manner, creating provisions that compensate those negatively impacted by the protection plans, while GAR #553 is a superfluous piece of inflexible bureaucracy in comparison, with destructive consequences to developing member nations in tow."
The problem with GA 465 is that it does not extend protections to species that are not currently endangered. It does provide protections for the species currently at risk of becoming extinct (ie, endangered), but it does not protect species and habitats that are at risk of becoming endangered (ie threatened, or at risk of becoming at risk of becoming extinct, which is definitely not protected under GA 465). Under GA 465, a nation could destroy an ecosystem to the brink of becoming endangered, then back off and let it recover for a bit, then continue to destroy the ecosystem. This prevents critical ecosystems from reaching the prevalence required to see the environmental and industrial benefits provided by these ecosystems on a large scale. The thing about GA 553 is that it continues to protect the tallgrass prairie habitat once species have recovered enough to no longer be endangered. This allows nations to realize the potential benefits afforded by tallgrass prairies on a large scale, such as effective runoff filtration, and establishment of habitat for large mammals, such as the RL examples of bison and grey wolves who are otherwise nonexistent in the currently remaining scattered parcels.
Claim #4
"Lastly, GAR #553 inexplicably singles out ecosystems with prairie tall grasses, while completely ignoring other equally unique and valuable biospheres. It sets the undesirable precedent for an individual resolution for every single rare ecosystem in existence, instead of either relying upon the protections that GAR #465 already provides for truly endangered species, or establishing one resolution that legislates on the subject of unique ecosystems efficiently."
It's typically easier to have an international law targeted at each specific ecosystem type, since it is easier to tailor management and protection techniques to those specific ecosystems. A proposal which protects all unique ecosystems would be laden with bureaucracy, as unique solutions for management would have to be discovered and tailored individually for each habitat. Separate proposals mitigate this by supplying management techniques already known to be effective.
In reality, most smaller, unique ecosystems do not afford the same ecological and economic benefits that the prevalence of tallgrass prairies do. There are really quite few ecosystems for which an individual proposal would be required, and some already are protected under previous legislation (wetlands, for example). Thus the claim that GA 553 sets the precedent for individual legislation for every single rare ecosystem on the planet is moot.
GA 553 does a lot of good work to protect and preserve critical tallgrass prairie habitat, which performs vital ecological and economic functions, such as runoff filtration, preventing soil erosion, and providing habitat for pollinator species who are beneficial to both agriculture and local flora.
The redaction of this resolution would have dire economic and environmental consequences for both individual nations and the world assembly as a whole. Once again, I must urge you to
withdraw your support from
Repeal: "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".
Thank you,
Big Boyz
