[GA - PASSED] Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands”
Category: Repeal | GA #553
Proposed by: Daarwyrth | Onsite Topic
Replacement: None​


General Assembly Resolution #553 “Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands” (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses - Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising the noble intentions of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" to protect and preserve these unique ecosystems, yet finding itself in disagreement with the manner in which it seeks to achieve its goals and intents, the General Assembly hereby finds the following:

  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.

And therefore, the General Assembly repeals GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
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!

[TR][TD]For[/TD][TD]Against[/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]11[/TD][TD]6[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR][TD][TD][/td][/td]
[TD][TD][/td][/td]

”Repeal: Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands” has passed 12,233 (89.0%) to 1,505 (11.0%).
 
Last edited:
IFV - For

Overview
This proposal aims to repeal GA 527 'Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands' for its limited scope and heavy-handed approach to international diversity.

Recommendation
The repeal accurately identifies several key flaws with the target resolution. Firstly, the target’s regulations are heavy-handed, preventing development in all grasslands, even in nations where they are a prevalent biome, or requiring disclosure of sensitive information in cases where nations have military encampments in said biome. Furthermore, the target resolution, whatever its pro-environmental intentions, has no regard for nations where grasslands potentially pose a threat to existing ecological balances. Finally, the protections, to the extent they are well-designed, are largely redundant with previous resolutions, such as GA 465. For these reasons, the

Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Repeal 'Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands'".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For (Non-WA)

Also, Big Boyz has sent a counter-campaign:
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
 
In light of Big Boyz's counter-campaign, I have sent the following WA TG campaign with counter-argumentation to his arguments:
Esteemed Delegate %NATION%,

It has come to my attention that the author of GAR #553 "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" has launched a counter-campaign against my repeal proposal "Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands”".

I have to admit, the author's commitment to see prairie tall grasses protected - not the environment in general however, it's only prairie tall grasses that seem to concern him - is impressive, yet his counter-argumentation is flawed and faulty regardless. To not prolong the length of this telegram, here is a full transcript of the counter-campaign sent by Big Boyz. I have spoilered each of my counter-arguments to Big Boyz's counter-campaign, and leave it up to you whether you want to read the entirety, or only parts of it.

I apologise for the length in advance, yet considering the nature of the counter-campaign, I felt it was only fair I had the chance to properly address it.

Regarding Claim #1
The author continues to wade in his misconception that the World Assembly is made up exactly the way he wants it to be. He ignores the fact that the World Assembly is made up by highly advanced nations, and nations that are still in the early stages of development regarding technology, economy and society, and everything in-between. Big Boyz appears to be saying that there is only one type of nation in the World Assembly: fully developed states that no longer need to develop any further. Does that go up for your nation? I know for a fact that Daarwyrth is by no means done with its economic, technological and societal development, even though I play it as a post-modern tech civilization. As you can see, the author willingly ignores the nature of the WA member nations.

The author also seems to be unaware of the fact how his own resolution functions. I refer you to Clause 3.d.iii of "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands":

"preventing human activities that have been found to be detrimental to the ecosystem, according to clause 3b, in the areas surrounding tall grass prairies;"

The author claims that development around tall grass prairies is permitted, yet his own resolution is contradicting him.

Big Boyz also claims that nation role-plays should not be taken into account, yet the World Assembly even refers in its resolutions to "sapients" or "natural persons" to accommodate the role-playing of nations where the population is made up of aliens instead of humans. Taking into account the various role-plays of nations and regions is exactly what the World Assembly has done for a long time in its resolutions, and there is no viable argument 'for' why Big Boyz's resolution should be exempt from that.

If a nation's biosphere consists almost exclusively of prairie tall grasses, then they won't be able to develop in those prairie tall grasses, or, according to Clause 3.d.iii, in the areas around them. This is an oversight that has to be taken into account by the World Assembly, as it will quite literally ruin that nation's economy and chances at continued development. The author can't simply dismiss those nations because they are inconvenient to him. The resolution is inflicting disproportional damage to nations (especially developing ones) where the prevalent or dominant biosphere is prairie tall grasses, and that has to be addressed and accommodated.

Regarding Claim #2
The author continues to operate on the misconception that the situation of prairie tall grasses in the real world can be transposed one-on-one to the multiverse of NationStates. He presumes to speak for nations and dictate that their prairie tall grasses are a threatened ecosystem, when a nation may be role-playing that the prairie tall grasses are doing perfectly fine. Yet the author doesn't want to admit that, the author apparently wants to dictate how prairie tall grasses need to be roleplayed in NationStates. That doesn't seem right to me at all.

Big Boyz also claims that, I quote, "I believe that the proposal will likely be declared illegal due to this, as it constitutes an honest mistake". This is simply untrue. The author has no way of knowing whether the challenge will be ruled in his favour, and as it happens, two of the GenSec members have already voted my repeal proposal and its argumentation to be legal.

The author also continues to misunderstand his own resolution. "Naturally occurring" means that something occurs in a nation by natural means, not by artificial interference. If a prairie tall grass naturally grows into a region where it would be an invasive species to that nation's ecosystem, it would be "naturally occurring". The author should have instead stated "originally occurring" or "natively occurring" if he wanted to mean what he says in his counter-argumentation. After all, the law does, as the law says, not how its author intended it to be. As such, altering the "naturally occurring form" in the event that prairie tall grasses grow into a nation naturally continue to be prohibited by the text of the resolution in question, even though the author ignores the wording of his resolution in his counter-arguments.

Furthermore, Clause 3.d.iii continues to be a part of the resolution that the author ignores. Preventing the spread of an invasive species is, if it's done by humans, a human activity. In addition, stopping a species from reproducing itself and thus from growing its numbers is in fact detrimental, as it would be considered detrimental for any species to be restricted as such. And stopping the spread of an invasive species doesn't merely mean eradicating itself, but it also means to take measures in the area around which it occurs. Yet alas, Clause 3.d.iii prevents any human activity surrounding prairie tall grasses. Apparently, the native environment of a nation is less important than prairie tall grasses, from the perspective of the resolution.

Regarding Claim #3
What nation would reasonably want to bring its environment to the brink of extinction, and then wait a number of years to have the environment restore itself to repeat the process again? It's absurd, and not a course of action any reasonable nation would willingly want to take.

GAR #465 offers excellent protections to endangered species, and allows for the creation of tailored protection plans that take into account the unique nature of every nation, and of every ecosystem. It is a much better resolution than GAR #553 is, as it is flexible, it works with nations and not against them, and already encompasses all species in existence, prairie tall grasses included.

And if the author wants to protect environments that are becoming at-risk of becoming endangered, then there is no reason why prairie tall grasses should be singled out. All unique environments deserve such protections, but it would be a bloated bureaucratic monster to have an individual resolution on every single rare environment in existence. Not efficient, not workable.

Regarding Claim #4
The author's fixation on prairie tall grasses is something remarkable at this point. Especially since he continues to dictate again what prairie tall grasses should mean to nations where this biome doesn't even occur. Why would prairie tall grasses be more significant to a nation that exists primarily out of mangroves, than those mangroves that may have cultural importance to that nation? To draw on the real world, prairie tall grasses only occur in the United States and parts of Canada. I can assure you that to a country like the Netherlands prairie tall grasses have absolutely no economic or cultural value, and I think the same goes for the rest of the world, as prairie tall grasses do not occur beyond parts of the United States and Canada.

And just imagine if there was an individual resolution on every single biome in existence (such as taiga, tundra, boreal forest, deciduous forest, baobab forest, tropical rainforest, temperate rainforest, chaparral, tropical shrubland, Alpine grassland, etc.), not to mention the fact that players may create self-made environments and biomes, or use fantasy biomes. Are we also going to have a resolution that protects Mushroom forests? It's unworkable.

What the author proposes is a bloated bureaucratic monster of inefficiency. A single resolution that deals with all unique environments, fantasy or not, player-made or not, is the workable way forward, and along with several members of my own region Forest, we are brainstorming on a resolution that would indeed offer universal protections for all rare environments in existence.

As my counter-counter-argumentation has hopefully proven, Big Boyz refuses to move away from his misconceptions that have already been pointed out to him early in the drafting process of his resolution by many regulars of the WA sub-forums. That is his right of course, but it is also the right of the World Assembly to see reason, and act reasonably.

Therefore, I hope to be able to count on your support, most esteemed Delegate %NATION%, and on your approval of "Repeal: “Protecting Native Prairies And Grasslands”".

Yours sincerely,
Daarwyrth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to the floor for a vote next Friday’s (May 28) Major Update.
 
Apologies if my post is seen as interruptive, but as the author of the repeal resolution in question, I was hoping to share a few thoughts with you:

I realise that there will be people who will feel as if this repeal proposal is anti-environmental, but I assure you that it's not. GAR #553 is lifting itself off on a message of environmentalism, but as many WA regulars are noting, it isn't. GAR #553 is environmental radicalism at best, yet I'd rather describe it as a deadly chokehold that cares only and exclusively about prairie tall grasses, no other environment. The text of "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" makes it so that a nation's native environment is second to prairie tall grasses, and allows for the situation to arise where the native ecosystem will choke and die, in the event prairie tall grasses would appear as an invasive species in that environment. Does that sound like an environmentally-friendly resolution? Where one biome is allowed to choke off the other, simply because the author of the resolution has a fixation on prairie tall grasses?

That is why I implore people not to be fooled by the false appearance of this resolution as environmental protections. I know it feels good and nice to support something that seems environmentally-friendly, yet that is exactly what GAR #553 is preying upon, namely the apparent rightness of supporting it. Yet the narrow focus on prairie tall grasses - which appear in the real world only in parts of the United States and Canada, nowhere else - is detrimental to the environment and ecosystems of member nations. And I haven't even spoken of the absolutely catastrophic restrictions GAR #553 is currently inflicting on member nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, if not dominant biosphere.

So please, take these thoughts into account when deciding what to vote on my repeal proposal of GAR #553. Don't be fooled by the environmentally-friendly facade of "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For. Never liked the original proposal. Though maybe this repeal isn't the best in terms of the way it is presented, the arguments are there and valid.
 
”Repeal: Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands” has passed 12,233 (89.0%) to 1,505 (11.0%).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top