by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

6

DispatchBulletinCampaign

by 10ki wa secretariat. . 15 reads.

GA "Repeal: "Preparing For Disasters"" Voting Overview

Overview

Proposal:
This proposal aims to repeal GA#105 for various loopholes, which allow nations to misuse the World Assembly Disaster Bureau (WADB) by draining its funds for unnecessary reasons or being forced to share possibly sensitive research.

Opinions:

For:

The free humans wrote:"Important legislation like this can't be repealed over a few details that can be abused. At least, not without a suitable replacement ready. But after reading through the legislation provided, we believe that the WA can do better. You have our support." -Mistress Amara

Bananaistan wrote:"BPR supports this. The General Pit is not a bottomless fund."

Nyxonia wrote:I do hope that the replacement proposal use generally accepted language for disaster preparedness, planning and response.

There are four phases of disaster management; Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery

The proposal (and replacement) should be addressing those actions and plans taken in the mitigative phase of disaster planning; These are things like hazard assessments, relative risk and impact evaluation and what things can be done to minimize an impact before a disaster happens (like building a levee around a city before there are reports of a storm that is two days away). These are procedures and policies that are put in-place to enable any government to have an understanding of what they should be planning for. This information should be free and open, with no encumbrances upon anyone, regardless of their WA status or even if they are a government (for example NGO's (non governmental organizations like the Red Cross or Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders).

So how to do assessments, how to measure risk and the basic concepts of mitigation should not be restricted.

Some preparedness information should be classified according to need or security sensitivity (where to pre-position responders or supplies, what parts of critical services would break in a way that would incapacitate a community or nation). Because bad actors can use that to make things worse or to take advantage. The same is true as some technologies (drones that can be used in SAR can also be used in war).

Against:

Sylh Alanor wrote:While I'm for the idea of fixing old resolutions where needed, I genuinely think this is reaching.

Osheiga wrote:To be honest, I don’t find the reasoning put forward here sufficient enough to repeal otherwise good legislation.

Reason 1 is a bit exaggerated because the whole “training inspectors” process is necessary for future inspections (and therefore I don’t think any nation can be ruled out as “not needing inspectors”, since they should be prepared for, for example, new development/growth or strain by an unexpected disaster), and will also be serving the purposes set forward by the resolution by improving infrastructure for potential disasters, so I think it’s fulfilling its purpose fine. The more benefits to nations the better.

Reason 2 I just flat-out disagree with, since all nations, not just those in the World Assembly, deserve to know the information about disasters and ways to prevent them. Withholding this information could be fatal to people in “malicious” nations that have no control over their government, which is completely unfair and unethical.

Reason 3 is mostly valid but a little extra office work than needed is not good enough reasoning for me to reject the existing legislation in its entirety.

10ki wa secretariat

Edited:

RawReport