NationStates

Extinction Preparation Act

Category:Education and Creativity |Area of Effect:Educational |Proposed By :The Associated Peoples

Description:
REALIZING that a major catastrophe could threaten the existence of any number of species.

SEEKING to install safeguards for the recovery of any species that falls victim to an extinction event.

RECOGNIZING that many nations may have safeguards in place.

CONCERNED that such safeguards can be lost due to disasters both natural and manufactured.

BELIEVING that all nations can benefit from mutual preparation.

HEREBY:

I. AUTHORIZES the creation of the Extinction Preparation Research Facility (EPRF).
a.) The facility will be located in a neutral World Assembly controlled territory. Ideally, in an arctic region well above sea level, with little to no seismic activity, to minimize the danger of damage due to electrical failure, flooding or structural damage.
b.) The facility is to be staffed, constructed and maintained by the World Assembly Scientific Programme (WASP).
c.) Member nations may use this facility freely, while non-member nations may use it for a nominal fee, which will provide additional funding for upkeep.

II. EMPOWERS staff scientists to research advanced methods of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, cloning and efficient horticultural replenishment, as well as the study of keystone species and methods for rebuilding ecosystems.
a.) All discoveries shall be made available to any establishment showing legitimate interest.

III. URGES member nations to supply specimens of seeds, saplings and genetic animal materials (sperm, eggs and DNA).

IV. REQUIRES acceptable preservation methods to be observed.

Co-authored by The Coyote Coalition

This is my first attempt at writing a proposal so constructive criticism is most welcome.Do not hold back I have a thick skin and can take it.

Oops! Didn't get back to you about this, did I? Sorry!

As far as food plants are concerned, Resolution #52 (the Food Welfare Act) has already set up a seedbank. You'll need to alter your text so that you're clearly not trying to duplicate, contradict or amend the relevant section...

Bears Armed wrote:Oops! Didn't get back to you about this, did I? Sorry!

As far as food plants are concerned, Resolution #52 (the Food Welfare Act) has already set up a seedbank. You'll need to alter your text so that you're clearly not trying to duplicate, contradict or amend the relevant section...

As far as not getting back to me goes...no biggie people get busy I understand that.
I missed that when I went through the existing resolutions.This is not a food only seed bank so I think if I remove the word agricultural from this part...

II. EMPOWERS staff scientists to research advanced methods of artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, cloning and efficient horticultural/agricultural replenishment, as well as the study of keystone species and methods for rebuilding ecosystems.

...it should be out of any danger of duplication.It is a vague food reference but better safe then sorry.Thank you for your input.

Education AND CREATIVITY proposals don't have an area of effect.

Philimbesi wrote:Education AND CREATIVITY proposals don't have an area of effect.

Since when?

Nigel blushed... "I appologize I mispoke, excuse me for a moment..." Nigel then pulls out a trout and begins beating Max over the head...

Philimbesi wrote:Education AND CREATIVITY proposals don't have an area of effect.

When I looked at the proposal submission area that was a field that I had to fill out.I looked before I posted to make sure that the correct format was followed.The four Areas of Effect for the Education category are Artistic,Educational,Cultural Heritage,and Free Press.Arguably the Area of Effect would better be served by Cultural Heritage if one was to think of the ecosystem in terms of cultural identity.If anyone has a thought on this I would welcome the insight.

Philimbesi wrote:Nigel blushed... "I appologize I mispoke, excuse me for a moment..." Nigel then pulls out a trout and begins beating Max over the head...

It is quite alright.The proposal writing information is allot to remember.One can hardly be expected to have instant recall on the subject.

Category: Education, Area of Effect: Educational is fine but there is no need to cover on the Seedbank due to GA#52. Also,

IV. REQUIRES acceptable storage methods to be observed.
a.) Seeds are to be stored in four-ply, sealed envelopes and placed into plastic tote containers on metal shelving racks. The storage rooms are to be kept at −18°C (−0°F).
b.) Saplings are to be kept in nurseries.
c.) Genetic animal materials are to be stored through the process of cryopreservation, including the use of cryoprotectants at a temperature of 77 K or −196°C.

This block of text is a bit too narrow, as some member states may have better forms of preservation. Generally, we recommend that member states must make a good effort to securely store samples of specimens in an environment which does not cause it to disintegrate, or at least slows down the disintegration process. Something like that but no need to specify envelopes and temperatures, just reasonable measures.

-Ms. S. Harper.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Category: Education, Area of Effect: Educational is fine but there is no need to cover on the Seedbank due to GA#52.

After reading GA#52 as far as i can tell it is only concerned with food plants.

CONSTRUCTS the World Assembly Seedbank to store seeds as a source of planting where seeds are generally unavailable, due to natural disaster, disease outbreak, and war, as well as to protect the biodiversity of food crops; such seeds shall be collected as volunteered by nations; the IFWO shall manage the distribution of seeds when needed.

The seeds of food plants would be welcome in the EPRF but that is not the sole intention of the facility.This is for all manner of organic materials it just happens to be that most plants are best preserved in seed form.The aim here is being prepared to replace any organic species in the wake of an extinction event. not just the food producing variety

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:

IV. REQUIRES acceptable storage methods to be observed.
a.) Seeds are to be stored in four-ply, sealed envelopes and placed into plastic tote containers on metal shelving racks. The storage rooms are to be kept at −18°C (−0°F).
b.) Saplings are to be kept in nurseries.
c.) Genetic animal materials are to be stored through the process of cryopreservation, including the use of cryoprotectants at a temperature of 77 K or −196°C.

This block of text is a bit too narrow, as some member states may have better forms of preservation. Generally, we recommend that member states must make a good effort to securely store samples of specimens in an environment which does not cause it to disintegrate, or at least slows down the disintegration process. Something like that but no need to specify envelopes and temperatures, just reasonable measures.
-Ms. S. Harper.

Are you suggesting that I remove the methods and leave only...

IV. REQUIRES acceptable storage methods to be observed.

...or maybe I should change it to

IV. REQUIRES acceptable preservation methods to be observed.

and leave out the examples.That does seem better to me.I tried to write this keeping in mind that not everyone has humans and other earth creatures on it and forgot all about the different tech levels.Thank you for pointing that out to me.

This is interesting. Maybe it could develop into something we could support.

Yours in building the Noah's Arc,

Philimbesi wrote:Education AND CREATIVITY proposals don't have an area of effect.

I was a little slow on the uptake I just noticed that you all capped Creativity to point out that it was missing I assume.Thanks for the catch.Fixed

Clause III could reasonably, in my opinion, also urge the WA's member nations to supply those specimens for storage.

Why not make the management of the facility or facilities concerned, and of the scientists involved, an additional responsibility for already-existing 'WASP' (i.e. the 'WA Science Programme')?

How about including a clause about cooperation with "other relevant agencies", to cover the WA Environmental Council and any other international or national organisations that could also have legitimate interests in the matter?

Bears Armed wrote:Clause III could reasonably, in my opinion, also urge the WA's member nations to supply those specimens for storage.

I had this in the Perambulatory Clauses at one time but trimmed it as a redundancy.I thought that it really just duplicated Clause III.I could however after reading through it again change Clause III to read as...
III. Urges WA nations to supply specimens of seeds,saplings and genetic animal materials (sperm, eggs and DNA).

Bears Armed wrote:Why not make the management of the facility or facilities concerned, and of the scientists involved, an additional responsibility for already-existing 'WASP' (i.e. the 'WA Science Programme')?

I also thought of this but was afraid of the house of cards scenario.I have however noticed that there were a few other resolutions that cited this in there body somewhere.Would the WASP still stand if Resolution #92 was repealed?

Bears Armed wrote:How about including a clause about cooperation with "other relevant agencies", to cover the WA Environmental Council and any other international or national organisations that could also have legitimate interests in the matter?

I was actually just thinking about this a few minutes ago.The fact that someone else brought it up makes me more inclined to do so.I am going to work on the wording to make it as inclusive as possible.I like the idea of sharing information with educational facilities and other establishments that would have a legitimate interest.

Sionis Prioratus wrote:This is interesting. Maybe it could develop into something we could support.

Yours in building the Noah's Arc,

A belated thank you for your show of support.

The Associated Peoples wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Why not make the management of the facility or facilities concerned, and of the scientists involved, an additional responsibility for already-existing 'WASP' (i.e. the 'WA Science Programme')?

I also thought of this but was afraid of the house of cards scenario. I have however noticed that there were a few other resolutions that cited this in there body somewhere. Would the WASP still stand if Resolution #92 was repealed?

Bearing in mind that it was actually created by Resolution #87, and then re-used by #92, yes.
The rules say that you can assign new duties to an existing committee (as long as you don't actually mention the resolution that created it in your text, which would be illegal for 'house of cards'...) and then if the resolution that created it ever gets repealed it would continue in existence with only the added role[s].

Bears Armed wrote:The rules say that you can assign new duties to an existing committee (as long as you don't actually mention the resolution that created it in your text, which would be illegal for 'house of cards'...) and then if the resolution that created it ever gets repealed it would continue in existence with only the added role[s].

Appalled as we find ourselves by agreeing with what Tedd... erm, Bears Armed's representatives said, we can vouch for the information's correctness.

Yours in an hallucinogenic delusion,

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Appalled as we find ourselves by agreeing with what Tedd... erm, Bears Armed's representatives

"Hr'rmm..."

Bears Armed wrote:Bearing in mind that it was actually created by Resolution #87, and then re-used by #92, yes.

oops

Bears Armed wrote:The rules say that you can assign new duties to an existing committee (as long as you don't actually mention the resolution that created it in your text, which would be illegal for 'house of cards'...) and then if the resolution that created it ever gets repealed it would continue in existence with only the added role[s].

That's good to know.I suppose that when trying to avoid legal issues one should not overlook legal benefits.Thank you for the info.I have some more editing to do.

Edits have been made to the OP

Now that the holidays are winding down I thought it would be a good time to bring this proposal back up in front of my honored peers here in the WA.Barring any strong opposition towards this proposal I will be submitting it in the next couple of days.If anyone sees anything wrong or outrageous in this piece of legislation please make your objections known to me and I will see what I can do to alleviate you of the problem.

Thank you to those that took the time to advise me on this matter.This proposal is now submitted.

Educational? I thought it was more of Cultural Heritage in my opinion.

I almost went with that but the clause of sharing the information gathered through research made me lean towards the education side.

I'm sorry, but Ms. Harper isn't quite getting the hang on the category. One side looks environmental because it aims to rebuild ecosystems and the other looks educational as it tries to research. But something doesn't look quite right about the fact that it should be located in an Arctic region (and when I tried typing "arctic" it capitalised itself). Could it be coordinated between institutions instead?

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I'm sorry, but Ms. Harper isn't quite getting the hang on the category. One side looks environmental because it aims to rebuild ecosystems and the other looks educational as it tries to research. But something doesn't look quite right about the fact that it should be located in an Arctic region (and when I tried typing "arctic" it capitalised itself). Could it be coordinated between institutions instead?

Honored ambassador Harper, the reasoning behind the arctic area is to create a buffer zone in the instance that a power failure would occur.If this were to happen the extreme cold temperature would have a chance of slowing any sample degradation until the preservation units could be brought back on line minimizing the chance of loss.I pondered and discarded the idea of an environmental category because one this will not harm industry and two it is only to rebuild ecosystems in the case that one would cease to exist it does not provide any protection to keep it from happening only to rebuild in the event of extinction on a massive level.Any information or methods discovered would be shared with the scientific community at large in other words educating others on rebuilding methods.As far as coordinating goes that is what the sharing of information is for also not all nations can afford to bring their own such institutions into existence and it would be a shame to lose any ecosystem for it would effect everybody especially if a keystone species migrated between more than one nation which is the case most times.Another point I would like to mention is that this can also be considered as redundancy insurance.It is realized that any nation can of course have their own methods already established but it is also realized that nothing is certain in the area of these methods being compromised in some way.Say for example there is a large environmental catastrophe that destroyed a nations own facility that also caused large numbers of species to become extinct or in a huge danger of becoming so.If this were to happen the samples in storage in the facility I am proposing could offer a hope for repairing loss.


(ooc)My spell check has no problem with not making arctic a proper noun but it can be used in that way.