The North PacificBoard

The recommendation states that "the author does an excellent job of constructing the reasons for the need for such drastic actions outlined in the proposal. There is no room for ambiguity in the proposal and the mandate is clear in what it does to protect prairies", yet this is not so.

First of all, the resolution proposal halts any and all development for nations where prairie tall grasses are a prevalent, or even dominant biosphere. Take a nation that would almost exclusively have this type of tall grasses in their ecosystem, this resolution effectively prevents them from land development, expanding cities, or improving upon infrastructure. Why? Because any land development around prairie tall grasses is prohibited. This will literally condemn nations with a dominant biosphere of prairie tall grasses to economic disaster, food and housing shortages, as well as dangerous overpopulation because no development is possible. The resolution absolutely holds no regard for those nations.

Furthermore, the resolution deals with a very unique ecosystem that in reality appears only in two places, namely the Great Plains in the USA and some parts of Canada. Prairie tall grasses occur nowhere else in the world, and therefore it is a grave error to assume that prairie tall grasses are equally endangered in the multiverse of NationStates, which has always been its distinct and own universe. The GA has even rules preventing people from using real world references in proposals in most cases. Yet the author of the resolution presumes that prairie tall grasses occur in every single nation in the World Assembly, and assumes that they play an important role in every single state, when in reality only 2 nations have this species of tall grasses.

The resolution also prevents nations from destroying prairie tall grasses, should they be an invasive species to their native ecosystem. Prairie tall grasses are a very unique species, that may choke off grass species in nations that have never known prairie tall grasses to be a part of their ecosystem. The resolution has no regard for those nations, and therefore even poses a threat to the biospheres of those states. There should be clear provisions for such situations, yet the proposal lacks any.

Lastly, there are so many unique and rare ecosystems, that there is no logic why prairie tall grass biomes should be singled out. A single all-encompassing resolution on all unique environments would be the better approach to this subject, as it would handle legislation on that topic much more efficiently, and avoid the pitfalls that this resolution has thrown itself into. If every single ecosystem receives its own proposal, we'll end up with a terrible, bloated bureaucratic mess in the WA (which is already a bloated bureaucracy).

I wanted to share these counterpoints to the recommendation I had read, and I apologise if the post comes across as intrusive. That was not my intent. I simply believe that a better proposal should pass on this subject, one that legislates on all unique ecosystems, and one that approaches the subject from a workable and efficient manner, and doesn't enforce economic destruction on nations where prairie tall grasses are the dominant biosphere. There are already a number of great proposals that enforce protections on endangered species, species of prairie tall grasses included. General Assembly Resolution #465 "Preventing Species Extinction", for example.

Hopefully this little monologue of mine will move some 'for' voters to change their vote 'against', as "Protecting Native Prairies and Grasslands" is a resolution with many flaws. I realise that the resolution may seem environmentally friendly, and I know voting in favour of such a resolution feels good, but this proposal lifts itself off on a message of environmentalism, when in fact it imposes inefficient and damaging restrictions on member nations. A better proposal is possible, and I hope the author of the current resolution will recognise that, and redraft their current proposal.